Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[Karl Heidenreich]

mkenny:

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Did Monty fullfilled the allied expectatives when he drag his way for Caen? Nope

Yes he did. The plan was that on D+90 (4thSeptember)The Seine would be reached. They got there by August 24th. The were ahead of schedule

mkenny:

I can live with that. Monty failed. He did not achieve his objective. He was not always right.
Happy now? Unlike you I accept that no one is perfect and I am quite comfotable living with the 'shame' of Montgomery losing a battle.
You can now return to insulting everyone who does not share this reasoned and balanced view of Mongomery.

See? No one is perfect. Not even you.

[mkenny]

. Or are we going all the way to Monty and Caen again?

This Montgomery?






That is the real reason you do not like him. He humbled the Army you worship.

at least, I´m not posting the same photo twice in order to make believe things that are far from true.

How is it 'far from true'? It is 18 knocked out Tigers. 18 Tigers that you say could not be knocked out by Shermans, Churchills, Cromwells......err exactly how did they end up as rusting hulks?

[mkenny]

No one is perfect. Not even you.

That really is a gross distortion.
You use my answer (that Monty failed) to this statement of yours about Arhem
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2959&p=31274#p31274

Granted. But there was one oportunity open for the allies in early September 1944: Monty´s Market Garden in the North or Patton´s Sarre advance at the South. Monty was awarded the supplies, he made his attack, he failed.

and try and say it was an answer to your Caen question.
I would never stoop that low.

[alecsandros]

Hello, all,
I understand this is a thread about revisionism and it's limitations. But right now I feel the discussion has shifted to the old "Tiger kill ratios" argument, which, unfortunately, I don't think we can get a real grasp of.
It is without question that the Tiger was a very powerfull anti-tank unit, and that, in some engagements, their "scores" were high or very high.

But in order to ascertain the true overall ratios of Tiger/enemy tanks destroyed, we must know:

- how many Tigers were actualy destroyed (instead of damaged and repaired afterwards)
- how many Tigers were lost to direct enemy tank fire
- how many lost to air attack (destroyed, not damaged) [I'm currently trying to put together various sources in order to make a picture about the air losses; I'll let you know as soon as I have something ready]
- how many abandoned and blown up by their crews, etc
AND, on the other side
- how many of the total numbers of armor claimed to have been destroyed by Tigers were actualy destroyed by AT guns in the vicinity? (Ex: counter-attack by 503rd schwere abt. during Goodwood, which, according to Schneider pg 133, destroyed 40 tanks, whereas, according to Danglish, only 3 tanks were destroyed by them, the rest coming from PAKs)

So, aside from the very well documented battles, with sources both German and British/US/soviet/whatever they were fighting with, I don't think we can get to a settlement in this domain. Or, as Byron said a few months ago, "the question can not be intelligently answered"

Cheers,

[Karl Heidenreich]

alecsandros,

A general figure (that did not answer all your questions) was already posted.

The Tiger I is claimed to have a ratio of 5.74 kills to each loss, with 9,850 tank kills for a loss of 1,715 Tigers. It is important to note that the number of Tiger Is lost is higher than those produced (1,347), as the Wehrmacht included tanks that had undergone heavy repair in the total

Tiger Aces alanhamby.com

Which already contained the issue of those destroyed is higher than those built. Something like Luftwaffe pilots that bailed out and were flying the next day (i.e. Hartmann). Nevertheless the basic information contained, from several sources, is that the German tank had a kill ratio in it´s favour, a kill ratio that went to more than twice it´s own loses which, by itself, is already evidence of it´s field superiority.

Because in these questions, specially since mkenny has intervened in them with his rethoric and sick passion (not against Germany but of trying to be the expert to which everybody needs to bow), there is double standard that goes:

1. Standard 1: In the case to evaluate allied virtues or their victory things are subjective. They won: period, no argument. For proof what you can get is a photo of Monty having an ice cream

2. Standard 2: In case to evaluate axis virtues things HAVE to be oddly OBJECTIVE (¿?). Every point HAS to be disputed and contradicted, even if several authors or researchs point in one direction the contrary MUST be the explanation. IN case you fail to ABIDE this then the Ambrose Syndrome´s high priest begans to pound you with insults whilst accusing you of everything.

But in a free society we must endure this.

Warmest regards,

[Karl Heidenreich]

mkenny:

That is the real reason you do not like him. He humbled the Army you worship.

You are right with the " ... Army you worship". Because I admire the damn German Army. It´s an easy thing to do. Other portion of your sentence is also true:
"... you do not like him". Which is also an easy thing to do.

The other part is not true: "That´s is the real reason..."

Monty was an average commander with tendencies to be over cautious and slow. The American´s didn´t like him neither as Ike showed several times and once, as the President of the USA, clearly said so. Monty´s fame was made up by the public media in order to fight off the fame of Rommel (which by no means was the great commander everybody seems to think he was). Monty´s victories were always a product of the allied numerical and logistical superiority, as in El Alamein, which I do believe was his only outright victory. All other operations were product of the heavy inertaction of all allied units on the field. Market Garden is evidence that, when Monty was operating on his own, his "shinning genious" (not a quote) simply dissapeared as General Sosabowsky told everybody when accused by Monty when trying to find a scapegoat for having lost the operation, his men, all the neccesary allied resources to win the war in 1944 and the oportunity itself.

It is obvious that your aim, in all these discussion is twofold:

1. Proving yourself the ONE and ONLY expert, which you could be with the degree of knowledge you display (no body is denying your expenditure in books and the leisure time to read them for decades).

2. Proving that the basic tactical balance that all History books have recorded are basically distorted by some nazi propaganda force that has the strange aim once the war was lost to proof they (the Germans) were better.

One other thing, before signing off for today because need to go the project site for a working session all this sunny Sunday: I commit a mistake yesterday night when mistaken a quote which you have used as a reason to discredit all the posts. But any inteligent person, with the right or wrong quote citation, can extract from it (and the rest of them you cannot contend because are correct quotes) that the information contained is, at least, right, which is why you have not contested it ASAP. Maybe another historian or researcher can come forward and demostrate that the kill ratio in favor of the Tiger was not 5 to 1 but 6 to 1 or 4 to 1 or whatever. So what? It is still more than twice the number of allied tanks destroyed (including the T34 which was by far a better thank than Sherman or Cromwell) than Tigers. If Wittman at Viller Bocage destroyed 11 tanks instead of 16 or 12 or 14 or 9 it is still an outstanding feat because his ratio was huge. I can grant someone comming forward and make a case in order for all of us know for sure what happened and why it happened. The problem is the arrogance and outright filthtiness of your writing, which is why, when maybe a lot of persons, even including me, can be convinced that some of your point are right, will inmediately contest them, not because what you write but HOW you write it.

Now, having said that, without any insult, must go and drive 40 miles and start a working day. And that is what is really sad.

[Byron Angel]

Sorry, this is the first chance I've had to compose even a short response to mkenny's comments questioning Wittman's early career.

Wittman served as commander of an armored car in a reconnaissance battalion during the invasion of the low countries and France. He commanded an early model Sturmgeschutz from the invasion of the Balkans and Greece through the first year of the invasion of the Soviet Union. He went directly from the Sturmgeschutz to command of a Tiger I in mid-1942. Wittman never commanded any other type of tank other than a Tiger I, but he most certainly scored an unknown number of tank victories (6 in one well recorded engagement) and was decorated three times during his assault gun career.

As for the Villers-Bocage fight, it is true that those additional 13 tank victories attributed personally to Wittman by some accounts were in fact achieved by the other Tigers of his platoon with the aid of two or three (IIRC) Mk IV's hurriedly despatched from a nearby field repair depot. That having been said, no matter how one cares to parse the facts of the case, the engagement was a brilliant German tactical success in which a handful of unsupported tanks wiped out a squadron of armored infantry, destroyed a squadron of tanks and an armored command group, and brought the advance of an entire reinforced brigade to an unceremonious halt. Had Wittman been an Allied soldier, he would without question have earned a Victoria Cross or a Medal of Honor for such an achievment. Efforts to deprecate his performance on that day really do ring terribly hollow.


Byron

[alecsandros]

Hello Karl!

I am pretty convinced that the effectiveness of German armor was very good, overall, in the war. The kill ratios of Tiger batallions were also, very, very good, in my opinion. What I was trying to explain was that a definitive number (statistic) about the kill ratios is very hard, if not impossible to come up with. There are, however, specific battles, on which the records don't contradict themselves, and from wich we can draw some answers (but not conclusions).

I.e: elements of 503rd sch. abt. counter-attacked early on the 11th of July against the 153rd Brigade (of 51st Highland Division, British) that was trying to seize the metal works of Colombelles, across the Orne river (near Caen). 13 Tigers attacked the British force, destroying 12 Shermans, capturing 2 more, for no loss on their own (despite very numerous hits on the Tigers).
The counter-attack is presented both in Schneider's "Tigers in combat" as in Daglish's "Operation Goodwood"

The 5.74:1 kill ratio comes from Schneider's "Tigers in combat", a very informed work, written in 2 volumes in the late 90s. I do not doubt the authors best intentions or his methods - he used primary documents, and worked for several years at the book. However, primary documents about battles such as Prochorowka, Goodwood, or Winter Storm are hazy - and even the officers/staff wich produced them admit that.
"The fighting throughout the day was extremely confused and it is not easy to give a coherent account of it" - that's a part from the records of British Guards Armoured Division, on 18th of July, during Goodwood.

The actual kill-ratio could in fact be higher, especialy considering the 1942-1943 "free-reign" of the Tigers over the eastern battlefield. However, I don't think a definitive number can be set.

All the best

[mkenny]

Sorry, this is the first chance I've had to compose even a short response to mkenny's comments questioning Wittman's early career.

Do you have a theory as to why there is not a single tank kill credited to Wittmann for the period before he got a Tiger.
Why did they not use any of these 'kills' if he was an ace whilst in a Stug and Pz III?
The whole of the hype applies only to the short period he was serving in A Tiger.

Wittman never commanded any other type of tank other than a Tiger I, but he most certainly scored an unknown number of tank victories (6 in one well recorded engagement) and was decorated three times during his assault gun career.

But they decided not to use these early 'kills' when they re-invented him as a Tiger ace.............not very logical is it.

As for the Villers-Bocage fight, it is true that those additional 13 tank victories attributed personally to Wittman by some accounts were in fact achieved by the other Tigers of his platoon with the aid of two or three (IIRC) Mk IV's hurriedly despatched from a nearby field repair depot. That having been said,.....

That is confirmation that you accept his score was inflated and that the system for confirming such 'kills' was totaly bogus.

no matter how one cares to parse the facts of the case, the engagement was a brilliant German tactical success in which a handful of unsupported tanks wiped out a squadron of armored infantry, destroyed a squadron of tanks and an armored command group, and brought the advance of an entire reinforced brigade to an unceremonious halt....

Followed by an impulsive attack into the face of a prepared Infantry Battalion and waiting tank Regiment.
SS 101 and Lehr lost a number of tanks (compared to no British losses)and were booted back to their start lines.
Later that day the British decided to abandon Villers (note they were never ejected) and they withdrew in good order and virtualy unmolested. Seems like a defeat in the first attack and a win in the face of the second attack.

Had Wittman been an Allied soldier, he would without question have earned a Victoria Cross or a Medal of Honor for such an achievment. Efforts to deprecate his performance on that day really do ring terribly hollow.

I care nothing about his medal. My point, which you admit is correct, is that he was awarded a KC for knocking out 20+ plus tanks when he did no such thing. This proves that the German kill confirmation process is totaly bogus. They awarded KC's for phantom tanks.

[Byron Angel]

Do you have a theory as to why there is not a single tank kill credited to Wittmann for the period before he got a Tiger. Why did they not use any of these 'kills' if he was an ace whilst in a Stug and Pz III? The whole of the hype applies only to the short period he was serving in A Tiger.

But they decided not to use these early 'kills' when they re-invented him as a Tiger ace.............not very logical is it.

..... Do you have a theory as to why you reflexively ignore the written record? Wittman most certainly did score tank victories while commanding a sturmgeschutz. Look it up yourself in your abundantly stocked library. As to why these early victories were not included in his score as a Tiger tank commander, perhaps it was because they were focusing upon his success with the new Tiger tank and not with earlier equipment.

That is confirmation that you accept his score was inflated and that the system for confirming such 'kills' was totaly bogus.

..... Hardly. It is nothing more or less than a statement that certain accounts of his efforts that day were either intentionally or mistakenly inflated. Until and unless you can present some factual evidence to confirm your repeated but so far unsupported personal assertions that Wittman's Villers-Bocage score was knowingly inflated for propaganda purposes, the jury remains out on that particular question.

Followed by an impulsive attack into the face of a prepared Infantry Battalion and waiting tank Regiment.
SS 101 and Lehr lost a number of tanks (compared to no British losses)and were booted back to their start lines.
Later that day the British decided to abandon Villers (note they were never ejected) and they withdrew in good order and virtualy unmolested. Seems like a defeat in the first attack and a win in the face of the second attack.

..... Sorry, but what on God's green earth has that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to argue that a failed attack or the death of a soldier in battle negates everything he has achieved beforehand? Would you argue that the death of John Basilone on Iwo Jima negated his worth as a soldier who won the Medal of Honor on Guadalcanal? If so, then I regret to say that you and I have irreconcilably different views of the world.

I care nothing about his medal. My point, which you admit is correct, is that he was awarded a KC for knocking out 20+ plus tanks when he did no such thing. This proves that the German kill confirmation process is totaly bogus. They awarded KC's for phantom tanks.

..... I admit no such thing - very far from it in fact. You are still waving around an award citation document that you cannot demonstrate was written with any intent to deceive. Perhaps they counted the half-tracks. Until you can actually PROVE some premeditation to deceive, your argument and the leapfrog conclusion you draw from it are utterly without merit. Once again, your irrational bias is showing.


Byron

[VeenenbergR]

Hello guys,

Mckenny his intentions are clear: he only wants to prove that German kill stats are inflated and there is no myth at all about the Tigers or German tank and Luftwaffe aces.

I can be short now: sorry mckenny: the Tigers and german Panzerwaffe were elite and first class AND very powerfull and able too.
All books are quite clear about that and the high German kill scores have nothing to do with Nazi propaganda. Even the Soviets nowadays can admit it and express their admiration and commonm fear for the German tanks.

German stats maybe inlated (like in every war record by an involved party). It can simply explained bij teh fact that in tank engagements multiple tanks are engaged and there will be an overlap of the individual scores (1) and not each KO enemy tank can be counted as destroyed forever (2). If a KO tank is repaired it can be brought back in action and the KO have only a temporary effect on a battle.

Still it is evident that on each operation where Tigers did take part they were quite able to KO 1-3 enemy tanks and possibly destroy 1 of them for good.
Mostly however they were quite able to inflict (far) more casulaties than that.
Since most Tigers lived on for next engagements these scores could very well have accumulated to 10 KO and 6 destroyed for an average German Tiger or even 15 KO and 7 or 8 destroyed during the whole war.
Those 2000 Tigers may have KO 20-30.000 enemy armor with 10.000 kills.
Imagine that certainly not all Tigers got the chance to reach the battlefield abd that many of them were disabled multiple times and were repaired multiple times.
That SOME Tigers even KO 100 or more enemy tanks is possible if looking to avarage stats and the standard chance/possiblity curve: 10 Tigers may have reached these exceptional scores based on statistics alone.

To Villers Bocage: I don't doubt that the action of Wittmann saved the day (the front), but his actions also are quite impulsive and the victory is not so outstanding as it seems at first glance. His driving down the mainstreet without any infantry support was not wise and therefore a couple of Tigers and Mark IV's were needlessly lost IN Villers Bocage. The Tigers DID shot up a lot of Brittish armour (which fed the already famous Tiger scare) but the Brittish remained on the battlefield, so the German armour was lost forever, while the Brittish could repair their shot up bunch.
Important since the final kills are an important factor in deciding who was winning the battle for Normandy.
Most of the firing in Villers Bocage was at close (to very close) range......not the best circumstances to fight for the long ranging guns of the Tigers.

[mkenny]

Do you have a theory as to why you reflexively ignore the written record?

Point me to 'the written record' you think I am ignoring.

Wittman most certainly did score tank victories while commanding a sturmgeschutz.

So for some reason they started his tally only from July 1943. They ignored all his previous claims because.................

perhaps it was because they were focusing upon his success with the new Tiger tank and not with earlier equipment.

Interesting claim. Totaly illogical though. Did the Germans start an ace's score from the last tank they served in?
If this were true then obviously we must greatly update all the Tiger Ace list-think of the hundreds and hundreds of extra kills that must be added to the 1,000's already claimed!
Think it through. Because of the changeover from Tiger I to Tiger II any ace could only count kills from when he got a Tiger II...............
You are struggling and are making it up on the hoof. There is no logical reason for it.

It { my claim the kill confirmation system is bogus}is nothing more or less than a statement that certain accounts of his efforts that day were either intentionally or mistakenly inflated. Until and unless you can present some factual evidence to confirm your repeated but so far unsupported personal assertions that Wittman's Villers-Bocage score was knowingly inflated for propaganda purposes, the jury remains out on that particular question.

So you say they included 10 tanks from a location more than mile from Wittmann. Tanks off the road and in an orchard, hidden from view, over a hill and not even in sight of Wittmann never mind in range of his gun, tanks also claimed by various other members of his Unit and thus added to their kill tally as well as Wittmann's, tanks Wittmann did not even know were there?....all by accident?
Fact 1. Wittmann did not destroy or engage more that 11 tanks
Fact 2. His citation mentions 21 tanks.
Fact 3. 21 tanks were added to his previous total of 117 tanks. (117+21=138)
Fact 4. From the award citation-"With todays action Wittmann has destroyed 138 enemy tanks"

The award citation is incorrect and known to be so at the time it was fabricated.

Conclusions:
The confirmation system for kill claims is totally bogus.
Wittmann's kill total of 138 inflated.

Are you attempting to argue that a failed attack or the death of a soldier in battle negates everything he has achieved beforehand?

What I did was look into this claim for Wittmann. I found that it is incorrect. Not only incorrect but demostrably so.
This seems to have gotten up the nose of a number of true believers. They advance all sorts of beliefs and excuses as to why it 'might' just be a mistake, error, ect. Anything than face the truth. These ace kill claims have nothing to do with reality. Consult my Barkmann and Will Fey facts before claiming it is but one example and not the norm.
I care nothing about his reputaion or claims made on his behalf. There are enough starry eyed people promoting him-see others in this thread.

If so, then I regret to say that you and I have irreconcilably different views of the world.

If that means finding out what actualy happened rather than relying on propagand claims then I agree with you. We have different views.

I admit no such thing - very far from it in fact. You are still waving around an award citation document that you cannot demonstrate was written with any intent to deceive.

Your have faith in the honesty of the SS in the propaganda department?


The award citation was written by Deitrich on the night of 13/6/44. It was written after he spoke to Wittmann. It is contemporaneous and directly from the horses mouth. Either Wittmann lied to Deitrich or Deitrich lied when he wrote it. The blame stays with those two.
Care to mount a defense of Deitrich and his basic honesty?

Perhaps they counted the half-tracks. Until you can actually PROVE some premeditation to deceive, your argument and the leapfrog conclusion you draw from it are utterly without merit. Once again, your irrational bias is showing.

The award citation specificaly mentions tanks. Half tracks now count as tank kills?


Michael Wittmann is credited with 138 kills up to his death in August 1944. In Agte's book on Wittmann you read that he left Russia for Normandy with 114 or 117 kills to his name. Over half this total seems to have been racked up in the period 7th January to 29th January. It is said his kill total was:
56 on 7/1/44 (page 213)
66 on 9/1/44 (page 181)
88 on 13/1/44 (page 213)
114-117 29/1/44 (page 185)
On page 241 Agte recounts:
"He (Wittmann) did not return to the 13th Company in Russia after recieving the Oak Leaves from Hitler in the Wolfsschanze Fuhrer Headquarters on 2nd Febuary 1944"
Thus we can say his total was 117 kills before his arrival in Normandy.
Wittmanns award citation for Villers Bocage is dated 13/6/44. This is the date of the Villers battle and can only include the kill claims from Villers itself.
On page 328 you can read where the award citation states:
"With todays action Wittmann has destroyed 138 enemy tanks"

The Villers action is very well documented and thus we have a very good record of the number of tanks Wittmann could have knocked out.
In his own words Wittmann says:
"I first knocked out two tanks from the right of the column, then one from the left, then turned about to the left and and attacked the armoured troop carrier Battalion in the middle of the Regiment. I drove toward the rear half of the column on the same road, knocking out every tank that came toward me"

So then that is 3 tanks initialy and then the rest were behind the halftracks and carriers on the road into Villers. Fortunately we know with absolute precision the number of these tanks and their positions. In fact we have photographs of all but one of them. They total 8 tanks. Comprising:
4 RHQ Cromwells.
2 Staurt Recce tanks.
I Sherman OP tank
I Cromwell OP tank
If we add this to Wittmann's account about the 3 tanks he says he engaged at the head of the carriers this gives a total of 11 tanks. That is to say the maximum number of kills he could possible claim is 11 tanks. As he was supported by the fire of 2 other Tigers it is not even certain he destroyed every one of these 11 tanks.
So if he left Russia with 117 kills and the Villers award says he now had 138 kills then it is clear he was awarded 21 kills for Villers.
This 21 kills must be the following:

"He succeded in knocking out 15 heavy enemy tanks in a very short time. An additional six tanks were hit and their crews forced to bail out"

This (from the award citation) is a total of 21 tanks.

What we can say is his kill total was inflated to twice reality. It seems that even when the German were left in possesion of the battlefield they still could not get the totals right.

I can understand the refusal for some to accept the cold hard facts. If they admit that the number one poster boy for the Uber-panzer myth is grossly overhyped is there for all the others?

[mkenny]

I can be short now: sorry mckenny: the Tigers and german Panzerwaffe were elite and first class AND very powerfull and able too.

I am going to struggle countering such a balanced and well referenced conclusion!

Still it is evident that on each operation where Tigers did take part they were quite able to KO 1-3 enemy tanks and possibly destroy 1 of them for good.

Not so and can be shown to be so by the 2 following examples.

How many British tanks did 1st kp. SS 101 knock out in the afternoon foray into Villers Bocage?
Photos show 3 knocked out Tigers and 2 PzIV's. Are you saying that there are 9 knocked out British tanks around them that the German photographer missed?

How many tanks did Wittmann and his group destroy on 8.8.44? Are there 18+ plus British/Canadian tanks lying around them?

Since most Tigers could very well .......may have ......... Imagine ...... is possible ......may have....................

If, but, maybe, might have. I am more comfortable with facts. Do you have some concrete example for Normandy?

To Villers Bocage.............but his actions also are quite impulsive and the victory is not so outstanding as it seems at first glance. His driving down the mainstreet without any infantry support was not wise and therefore a couple of Tigers and Mark IV's were needlessly lost IN Villers Bocage.

Oh that others reach your level of understanding!

[Byron Angel]

Point me to 'the written record' you think I am ignoring.

..... Are you telling me that you have not read Kurowski or Agte or read anything about the operations of LAH around Rovno in the latter half of 1941?

So for some reason they started his tally only from July 1943. They ignored all his previous claims because.................

perhaps it was because they were focusing upon his success with the new Tiger tank and not with earlier equipment.

Interesting claim. Totaly illogical though.

..... Illogical only to you, on which basis you wave it about as evidence of some deep propaganda conspiracy again without a shred of any real proof. For the record, Kursk was the first really large-scale tank fighting Wittman had participated in. Prior to that time he had commanded an early short-barrelled A-series Stug followed by a 50mm MkIII escort tank in the LAH heavy tank company - neither of which would have afforded him either a tactical or a technical opportunity to rack up noteworthy scores. It's also perfectly reasonable that Wittman's latent tank-fighting skills were developed and honed by his early service in those vehicles and only really bloomed with notable success when he was provided with a much more effective combat vehicle like the Tiger I. Did the German government fete its military heroes and high achievers? Sure they did - exactly like every other nation at war in the history of mankind. Did the German government fabricate Wittman's achievements (or those of so many others) as you continue to so aggressively allege? You have so far offered exactly zero proof in support beyond your own personal disbelief. Sorry, but that doesn't cut much cheese at the end of the day.

Did the Germans start an ace's score from the last tank they served in?
If this were true then obviously we must greatly update all the Tiger Ace list-think of the hundreds and hundreds of extra kills that must be added to the 1,000's already claimed!
Think it through. Because of the changeover from Tiger I to Tiger II any ace could only count kills from when he got a Tiger II...............
You are struggling and are making it up on the hoof. There is no logical reason for it.

..... Buffoonish rhetoric and a waste of everyone's time to even read.

So you say they included 10 tanks from a location more than mile from Wittmann. Tanks off the road and in an orchard, hidden from view, over a hill and not even in sight of Wittmann never mind in range of his gun, tanks also claimed by various other members of his Unit and thus added to their kill tally as well as Wittmann's, tanks Wittmann did not even know were there?....all by accident?
Fact 1. Wittmann did not destroy or engage more that 11 tanks
Fact 2. His citation mentions 21 tanks.
Fact 3. 21 tanks were added to his previous total of 117 tanks. (117+21=138)
Fact 4. From the award citation-"With todays action Wittmann has destroyed 138 enemy tanks"

..... You are once again arguing a point that is not in dispute (the erroneous count of tanks personally knocked out of action by Wittman in the Villers-Bocage award citation) and triumphantly declaring some strange sort of victory.

The award citation is incorrect and known to be so at the time it was fabricated.

Conclusions:
The confirmation system for kill claims is totally bogus.
Wittmann's kill total of 138 inflated.

..... THIS is the point upon which our disagreement pivots - fabrications and bogus counts. I do not discount the possibility, even likelihood, that such counts may be inaccurate against some true historical count that we will probably never be able to satisfactorily ascertain. But to make the leap from that to a judgement that German victory counts and confirmation process were somehow 'bogus' on a wholesale basis is utterly without foundation. You continue to offer nothing beyond your own loudly proclaimed personal opinion.

What I did was look into this claim for Wittmann. I found that it is incorrect. Not only incorrect but demonstrably so. This seems to have gotten up the nose of a number of true believers. They advance all sorts of beliefs and excuses as to why it 'might' just be a mistake, error, ect. Anything than face the truth. These ace kill claims have nothing to do with reality. Consult my Barkmann and Will Fey facts before claiming it is but one example and not the norm.
I care nothing about his reputaion or claims made on his behalf. There are enough starry eyed people promoting him-see others in this thread.

..... I agree with the first two sentences of this paragraph. The balance of the paragraph suggests that you are as far off the deep end in the opposite direction as those you so vehemently berate.

The award citation was written by Deitrich on the night of 13/6/44. It was written after he spoke to Wittmann. It is contemporaneous and directly from the horses mouth. Either Wittmann lied to Deitrich or Deitrich lied when he wrote it. The blame stays with those two.
Care to mount a defense of Deitrich and his basic honesty?

..... More conspiracy theorizing that ignores the possibility of a simple misunderstanding on Dietrich's part of a hurried report by an exhausted Wittman. There was no inflation of the true number of knocked out tanks, only a failure of some so far unidentifiable sort to award them to the proper crews. It does in fact remain a possibility that Dietrich or Wittman himself MAY have conspired to pad Wittmans's number, but you have so far been able to provide absolutely no proof of that. Nor does Viller-Bocage represent any example of any sort of institutional conspiracy on the part of the German army to inflate tank kills.

Michael Wittmann is credited with 138 kills up to his death in August 1944. In Agte's book on Wittmann you read that he left Russia for Normandy with 114 or 117 kills to his name. Over half this total seems to have been racked up in the period 7th January to 29th January. It is said his kill total was:
56 on 7/1/44 (page 213)
66 on 9/1/44 (page 181)
88 on 13/1/44 (page 213)
114-117 29/1/44 (page 185)
On page 241 Agte recounts:
"He (Wittmann) did not return to the 13th Company in Russia after recieving the Oak Leaves from Hitler in the Wolfsschanze Fuhrer Headquarters on 2nd Febuary 1944"
Thus we can say his total was 117 kills before his arrival in Normandy.
Wittmanns award citation for Villers Bocage is dated 13/6/44. This is the date of the Villers battle and can only include the kill claims from Villers itself.
On page 328 you can read where the award citation states:
"With todays action Wittmann has destroyed 138 enemy tanks"

The Villers action is very well documented and thus we have a very good record of the number of tanks Wittmann could have knocked out.
In his own words Wittmann says:
"I first knocked out two tanks from the right of the column, then one from the left, then turned about to the left and and attacked the armoured troop carrier Battalion in the middle of the Regiment. I drove toward the rear half of the column on the same road, knocking out every tank that came toward me"

So then that is 3 tanks initialy and then the rest were behind the halftracks and carriers on the road into Villers. Fortunately we know with absolute precision the number of these tanks and their positions. In fact we have photographs of all but one of them. They total 8 tanks. Comprising:
4 RHQ Cromwells.
2 Staurt Recce tanks.
I Sherman OP tank
I Cromwell OP tank
If we add this to Wittmann's account about the 3 tanks he says he engaged at the head of the carriers this gives a total of 11 tanks. That is to say the maximum number of kills he could possible claim is 11 tanks. As he was supported by the fire of 2 other Tigers it is not even certain he destroyed every one of these 11 tanks.
So if he left Russia with 117 kills and the Villers award says he now had 138 kills then it is clear he was awarded 21 kills for Villers.
This 21 kills must be the following:

"He succeded in knocking out 15 heavy enemy tanks in a very short time. An additional six tanks were hit and their crews forced to bail out"

This (from the award citation) is a total of 21 tanks.

What we can say is his kill total was inflated to twice reality. It seems that even when the German were left in possesion of the battlefield they still could not get the totals right.

I can understand the refusal for some to accept the cold hard facts. If they admit that the number one poster boy for the Uber-panzer myth is grossly overhyped is there for all the others?

..... We went through all the Viller-Bocage numbers in excruciating detail a few months ago. Basically you are working yourself up into an indignant frenzy over the the fact that inside of an hour or so at Villers-Bocage Wittman only knocked out 11 tanks (with halftracks, prime movers, and other vehicles not worthy of mention in your calculus) instead of the count of 21 that somehow found its way into wartime documentation. On that basis, you are then attempting to cast Wittman as a fraud and to impugn the entire BDA bureaucracy of the German army. Sorry, but your case remains patently unconvincing.


Byron

[Bgile]

Sorry, but your case remains patently unconvincing.

He has convinced me that in this one case Wittman's total was exaggerated. That doesn't mean the rest were, but it does mean it was possible. I suspect that some were and some weren't.