PDA

View Full Version : Michael Wittmann's Joy-Ride



ogukuo72
05-17-2006, 10:47 PM
The "example" of Michael Wittmann had been used so many times as an "illustration" of German combat abilities that it seemed that it had been used as a short-hand. But did anyone actually know what happened on 13 Jun 44?

Here are two accounts, with only minor differences in details:



At 0900 Wittmann's Tiger attacked. A few minutes later, in the direction of Caen, he destroyed three tanks; a Sherman Firefly and a Cromwell tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell_tank) on the right and another tank on the left, proceeding to Villers without pause and attacking the lightly armored vehicles of The Rifle Brigade. During this engagement, he destroyed nine half-track vehicles, four Carden Loyd Carriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carden_Loyd_Carrier&action=edit), two other carriers, and two 6-pounder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_6_pdr) anti-tank guns, then destroyed three Stuart light tanks and one half-track vehicle. Entering Villers-Bocage alone, he destroyed three of the four Cromwells in position at the top of the Lemonnier farm.
He followed Clémenceau Street where his tank destroyed two Sherman command tanks of the 5th Royal Horse Artillery before knocking out another scout car and half-track. As Wittmann arrived at the Jeanne d'Arc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc) square, he ended up opposite the Sherman Firefly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly) of Sergeant Lockwood of "B" Squadron. The Firefly, whose 17-pounder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pdr) was the only Allied main tank gun capable of defeating the frontal armour of a Tiger in most circumstances, fired four shells at Wittman. One hit the hull of the Tiger, which returned fire and knocked down a section of wall on the Sherman. Wittmann then made a half-turn, his tank lightly damaged, and returned down Clémenceau Street. The Cromwell tank of Captain Dyas that had not been destroyed, confronted him, firing two 75mm shells, failing to harm the Tiger. Wittmann put the Cromwell out of action with one shot.
As Wittmann proceeded on the road leaving Villers-Bocage, his left track was hit by a 6-pdr shell, forcing him to stop on the street in front of the Huet-Godefroy store. Wittman engaged targets in range. Thinking that the Tiger might be salvaged and repaired later, Wittmann and crew abandoned the tank without destroying it, leaving the area on foot but without weapons. (Wikipedia)



There have been many conflicting accounts published about SS-Obersturmfuehrer Michael Wittman’s (http://www.strategos.demon.co.uk/D-Day/Wittmann.htm) almost single-handed battle at Villers-Bocage which successfully stopped a British armoured advance by the 22nd Armoured Brigade, part of the 7th Armoured Division. The following is perhaps the most likely sequence of events, which emphasises German tactical superiority, whilst not elevating the role played by Wittman to ludicrous heights
Phase One began when the 22nd Armoured Brigade, with 4th County of London Yeomanry (Sharpshooters) in the lead, were ordered to capture the important road junction of Villers-Bocage and the high ground beyond (Point 213) on the morning of June 13th. Lt-Colonel Arthur, the Viscount Cranleigh, the commanding officer, had requested time to carry out a proper reconnaissance of the area as German armoured cars had been spotted observing the advance south from Tilly-sur-Seulles. Orders were, however, to push on regardless (which, apart from the immediate aim, accorded with the Allies’ overall strategy of keeping the German armour away from the American front). Leaving the regimental HQ tanks at the top of the main street in Villers, ‘A’ Squadron was ordered forward to secure Point 213 about two km north-east up N175. On reaching Point 213, ‘A’ Squadron halted and the commanders, Cranleigh included, decided upon a staff discussion and briefing. Some British troops even began to brew up, thinking the area was safe. Indeed, XXX Corps intelligence had no idea of the real opposition in the area.
In fact, all was not well, for the British had advanced out of Villers to Point 213, past a force of heavy Tiger tanks commanded by veteran tank killer Michael Wittman. He had six Tigers at his disposal, plus assorted other troops and vehicles, positioned some 200 metres to the south of the N175. The British were completely unaware of the Germans’ presence.
Wittman launched his attack catching the British completely off guard. The Tigers of his force engaged ‘A’ Squadron and the motorised ‘A’ infantry company. There was little they could do, and the Cromwells and Fireflies were soon in trouble.
Meanwhile, Wittman set off in a Tiger and cut in behind ‘A’ Squadron and began an assault in the British forces in Villers itself. He engaged infantry forces, light reconnaissance Stuart tanks, unarmed artillery observation tanks and eventually the regimental HQ Cromwells, under the temporary command of Major Carr. Carr attempted to engage Wittman’s tank but the 75mm shells bounced off and Carr’s tank was destroyed. The other Cromwells were also despatched, except for Captain Pat Dyas’s vehicle. He backed off the road and Wittman did not spot him as he drove past though the town. German infantry had also started to filter into the eastern end of the town in support of Witmman’s attack. Wittman continued his advance engaging the scattered remnants of the RHQ group. Dyas pursued him down the street, hoping to shoot the Tiger in the rear.
Retreating British elements informed ‘B’ Squadron of the situation and Wittman soon found himself in a duel with a Firefly commanded by Sergeant Lockwood at the western end of the town. Witmman then began to withdraw, engaging the luckless Dyas en route. Dyas also obtained a hit on the Tiger, but to no avail and Dyas’s Cromwell was soon knocked out. As Wittman moved back through the town his Tiger was immobilised by a 6-pdr anti-tank gun at very close range and Wittman and his crew escaped on foot.
Nevertheless, the situation was grim for the British. The RHQ had been neutralised and ‘A’ Squadron was under heavy attack on Point 213. Soon after the German attack had commenced, shortly after 0900, ‘A’ Squadron was left with nine tanks, two of which were Fireflies, and Cranleigh’s scout car. News had now filtered through to Cranleigh’s command group of the German attack on the east end Villers Bocage, which had effectively cut the regiment in two. It was reported that 1/7th Queens Battalion was going to attempt to fight through the town to relieve them. The Germans too around Point 213 were in a state of some confusion. They now only had four properly operating Tigers, and although infantry units were filtering through to aid them, Wittman was conspicuous by his absence. He was in fact reporting to his HQ to assess the situation.
At the western end of Villers, 1/7th Queens and ‘B’ Squadron prepared to act. Major Aird, now temporary CinC of the 4th CLY Sharpshooters, decided to infiltrate the town with infantry and then bring up ‘B’ Squadron. This is was hoped would provide the opportunity to rescue ‘A’ Squadron. However, ‘A’ Squadron’s situation deteriorated as the morning went on, and after mid-day further German tank activity was noted by Cranleigh and his troops. In fact, the Germans were concentrating some considerable force, particularly an ad hoc battle group from elements of Panzer Lehr. At 1235 Cranleigh requested smoke to cover a run for the town, but this failed and soon afterwards, Point 213 was recaptured by the Germans and Cranleigh and the survivors were taken prisoner.
By the early afternoon, tanks from ‘B’ Sqaudron (No.4 Troop, led by Sergeant Bill Cotton) had driven through the southern part of the town and having failed to cross the railway embankment, had positioned themselves in the main town square by the Mairie. 1/7th Queens were also positioned throughout Villers.
German forces began attempting to enter Villers, initially Panzer IVs of Panzer Lehr, but they lacked infantry support and the assault had stalled. However, Haupsturmfuhrer Ralf Mobius (1st Kompanie, 101 Heavy Tank Battalion and Wittman’s superior) led a force of Tigers into the town with limited infantry support. A group of four Tigers pressed down the main street but were ambushed by No.4 troop and a six pounder anti-tank gun from 1/7th Queens. Elsewhere, a force of three Tigers attempted to infiltrate the town from the east but were disabled by PIATs and 6-pdr a-t guns at very close range.
However, as the afternoon wore on more and more pressure was brought to bear by the Germans as they fed troops into Villers and 1/7th Queens were driven back Between 1700 and 2030 hours, the British withdrew from Villers-Bocage and set up a defensive ‘Brigade Box’ to the north-west of the town, but the position was deteriorating for the British in the sector and Operation Perch came to an end. Villers-Bocage was to suffer heavily as the own was pummelled by the RAF 2TAF (2nd Tactical Air Force). (strategy.demon.co.uk)

What precisely was supposed to be proven by Michael Wittmann's rampage through Villers-Bocage?

British Mistakes

Many historians seemed to have behaved as nothing more than bean counters, adding up the figures of losses on both sides and declaring the winner, without actually looking at other factors that would actually teach us some lessons about tactics and strategy.

In considering Michael Wittmann's "achievements" it must be remembered that the British made a number of errors to begin with.

First, they were moving across the enemy's front where he had heavy forces, without due regard to security and without a clear idea of the presence of the enemy. This was a highly dangerous position to be in.

Second, no proper recce was done, although to the A Squadron commander’s credit, he had made such a request but was denied.

Third, 22nd Armoured Brigade made a mistake by dividing its forces, dispersing its tank squadrons, AT troops and infantry companies. Whether for the attack or for the defence, this was unwise.

Fourth, A Squadron seemed completely oblivious to security, and stopping for a briefing and discussion in the middle of the battlefield was careless to say the least.

These could only be attributed to either complacency or inexperience on the part of the British - probably both.

Mitigating Factors

But there were mitigating factors.

First, while 22nd Armoured Brigade itself was a veteran unit, having fought in North Africa and Italy, but not all regiments within the Brigade itself was veteran. Some were very green indeed.

Second, the Allies had only been onshore for a week after D-Day. This not only meant that green units did not yet had the opportunity to learn the hard lessons of battle, there was also a certain degree of disorganisation.

Third, the urgency to expand the beachhead was perfectly understandable, and perhaps there was a certain need to throw cautions to the wind to seize as much terrain as possible.

Remember, historians have often criticised the British for not being bold and dashing enough to seize Caen on the go on 6 Jun 44. It seemed hardly fair to then turn around and criticise the British for behaving in the prescribed manner on 13 Jun.

Michael Wittmann’s Joy-Ride and the British’s Quick Reflex

Let's return to Michael Wittmann now. Blowing up so many tanks and stuff in and around Villers-Bocage was certainly quite impressive. But we've already seen that this could be attributed to the British lack of preparedness and carelessness. It hardly took skill to cut up a man caught without his sword and with his pants down.

Once British defences were properly set up, the Tiger tanks got nowhere. As we saw, larger forces of Tiger tanks achieved nothing for much of the afternoon of 13 Jun 44. Four Tigers managed to force their way into the village, but was stopped by British tanks and 6-pdr AT guns. Another group of three Tigers tried to infiltrate into the village, but was stopped by PIATs and 6-pdrs.

This hardly demonstrated the combat superiority of either the German soldiers or the Tiger tanks. Indeed, if the British defences had been as well organised in the morning, Michael Wittmann’s career might have ended right then and there instead of two months later at the hands of a British or Canadian tank.

What the episode did demonstrate was how quickly British forces learnt from their mistakes, and how swiftly they recovered from a disastrous morning and set up a skillful defence that stopped other – stronger – teams of Tigers. But this point was naturally ignored most of the time as they got in the way of a good story.

What was often ignored, too, was the fact that Michael Wittmann's rampage was brought to a rather inglorious halt by a little peepsqueak of a AT gun, and he and his crew had to bail out to escape on foot. Being knocked out by a 6-pdr was hardly something to boast about and was thus also conveniently left out of most accounts.

What was also often ignored was the fact that the German infantry with Michael Wittmann achieved little. They managed to infiltrate into the village but was soon thrown out by the British infantry. They could not exploit the carnage he was causing. This could be attributed to the fact that Michael Wittmann was off joy-riding instead of supporting the infantry in their attack. This was hardly behaviour expected of a skilled professional.

At that point in time, the Germans had the best opportunity to quickly seize the village. The battle could have ended right there and then with the village in German hands. Instead, as we've seen, this did not happen. Michael Wittmann's failure to support his infantry colleague meant that the British was allowed time to organise their defences.

The British remained very much in possession of the village after Michael Wittmann's "achievements". This forced the Germans to continue attacking it. Having now set up a proper defence, the British inflicted more losses on the Germans, including their supposedly "tough" Tiger tanks. After having inflicted a bloody nose on the Germans, the British then withdrew in an orderly fashion to more defensible terrain. All in all, the British did rather well after an embarrassing morning.

Conclusion

Michael Wittmann's legend was writ so large on everybody's mind that few seemed inclined to stop and think through what had happened on 13 Jun 44. Few saw that the British had reacted with great speed to a very dangerous situation and quickly formed a tough defence that inflicted casualties and losses on the Germans.

Even fewer seemed to have recognised that Michael Wittmann's joy-ride was actually an act of irresponsibility which resulted in higher German casualties and losses.

If this episode is a typical illustration of German combat abilities, it is clear that the Germans - even while more experienced and using better weapons - were uncoordinated in combat, that their expertens were prima donnas who disregarded their duty to support their fellow soldiers, and that the Germans took more casualties than necessary as a result.

If the morning had demonstrated British inexperience, the rest of the day demonstrated the incompetence of the Germans, the irresponsibility of Michael Wittmann's behaviour, and the underlying reason why the Germans' supposed tactical and combat superiority frequently failed to lead to battle victories.

KB
05-17-2006, 11:28 PM
The tactical details of Wittman's action may have been questionable on some points, but the point missed in this article is Wittman's action (and his Tiger company) almost singlehandedly derailed a major flanking movement that posed a significant threat to Panzer Lehr Division.

Va_Dinger
05-18-2006, 01:01 AM
The tactical details of Wittman's action may have been questionable on some points, but the point missed in this article is Wittman's action (and his Tiger company) almost singlehandedly derailed a major flanking movement that posed a significant threat to Panzer Lehr Division.

Exactly.

The point is that he took action on his own initiative against a significantly larger force, with full control of the air, and within range of the massed naval guns.

Wittman and a tiny group of Tigers stopped an entire armored division. No amount of Allied revisionist history or Monday morning quartbacking can take away from that.

Johnny_H02
05-18-2006, 02:21 AM
Michael Wittmann’s career might have ended right then and there instead of two months later at the hands of a British or Canadian tank.

I do remember reading it was a Canadian Tank, so I dont know where the "British or Canadian" comes into this.

towelie
05-18-2006, 02:22 AM
as the two posters above have said he did a hell of a job with the forces he had. The allies may have messed up but he exploited that weakness and did well with the forces he had.

Again whats up with these threads, what do you have against German military history. Is the military history of your country any better? Im willing to bet not.

Johnny_H02
05-18-2006, 02:33 AM
He seems to want to disprove anything that even resembles a german accomplishment.... just seems that way eh?

Buckeye67
05-18-2006, 02:41 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with these threads. On one hand, it's a good thing to take a second look at history and see if there's new lessons that can be gleaned - but these "analyses" go waaaay out of their way to make an exceedingly one-sided point.

oldsoak
05-18-2006, 03:37 AM
Villers - Bocage is a good example of our ****-up vs German warcraft . Guess which wins. The sort of mistake a most junior attendee at Sandhurst would not be allowed to make.

a_very_ex_STAB
05-18-2006, 04:09 AM
This particular battle highlighted a number of things which plagued the British Army throughout WW2.

The Germans generally had better tanks.
The Germans generally had a higher level of combat experience in Normandy in June 1944.
The terrain in Normandy vastly favoured the defender and somewhat nullified the benefits of air superiority/NGS.
It's also worth remembering that the bulk of the German armoured force in Normandy was directed against the British/Canadians rather than against the Americans.

Vandervahn
05-18-2006, 05:09 AM
I do remember reading it was a Canadian Tank, so I dont know where the "British or Canadian" comes into this.
There are conflicting reports about what exactly delivered the final blow. Along severe damages by Canadian tanks, there were also signs that the Wittmann Tiger had been heavily destroyed by a british Typhoon fighter-bomber. It wasnt clear wether these damages were inflicted "post-mortem" or whether the tank or Wittmann himself were still alive (and fighting) at that point.

Hence "British or Canadian" fire.



What the episode did demonstrate was how quickly British forces learnt from their mistakes, and how swiftly they recovered from a disastrous morning and set up a skillful defence that stopped other – stronger – teams of Tigers. But this point was naturally ignored most of the time as they got in the way of a good story.
Because it is absolutely irrelevant to speak about further attacks on the encampment and how exactly they were fought off since "we" (according to your own thread title) are evaluating the Wittmann assault here, and not subsequent attacks.

Apart from that, it might well have been the simple goal of the Germans only to stop this allied flank movement, not to obliterate them or retake the town.


What was often ignored, too, was the fact that Michael Wittmann's rampage was brought to a rather inglorious halt by a little peepsqueak of a AT gun, and he and his crew had to bail out to escape on foot. Being knocked out by a 6-pdr was hardly something to boast about and was thus also conveniently left out of most accounts.
How does that change anything in the evaluation of the Wittmann assault? It doesnt matter whether it was a 6-pdr., a PIAT or a hairpin, the fact is that this was a "golden shot" if there has ever been one. The Tiger had been fired upon dozens of times before during that engagement, to no effect. That it was stopped by a rather small AT gun is neither a sign of a possible screw-up of Wittmann nor a sign of british excellence in adapting quickly to the situation. It is just that: a LUCKY shot.

More interesting than how exactly it got stopped is: after the Tiger alone crippled the allied advance as much as it could, after it had destroyed its own tonnage multiple times, after Wittman (and his excellent crew, not to forget them) had killed or wounded literally hundreds of enemy soldiers, it nearly got away intact. In any case the vastly numerically superior allied were not able to kill or capture the lightly armed 5 men tank crew that wandered 15km through a battle field and got back to friendly lines.


What was also often ignored was the fact that the German infantry with Michael Wittmann achieved little. They managed to infiltrate into the village but was soon thrown out by the British infantry. They could not exploit the carnage he was causing. This could be attributed to the fact that Michael Wittmann was off joy-riding instead of supporting the infantry in their attack. This was hardly behaviour expected of a skilled professional.
The main reason why Wittmann did so well in that assault is that he was not bound by friendly forces, that he acted alone and was free to move on his own choosing. The whole german force that attacked this flank movement was an ad-hoc task group. I believe it is not possible to say whether his single tank could have improved the german infantry assault had he directly supported them. On the other hand I cannot think that there is a better way to support the infantry against a superior equipped enemy than binding the majority of the allied armored force in the theatre and thus giving the Infantry space to move.

That you decide to cancel off the Wittmann operation as "joy-ride" shows that you do not take into account his tactical and combat ability that has made the man a legend LONG before he encountered the western allies, made him the most "decorated-per-age" tanker of the german forces and also the most effective tank killer after the pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel. You dont get so far without knowing what is the right tactical decision in which situation.

I say it again:
Whether the german infantry assault could have been decisively boosted by Wittmann supporting them directly is quite hard to evaluate, just as it is hard to say whether they were intended to act together in the first place. Not to forget, a Tiger tank used to support the infantry is a waste of capability. What is undoubtable however is that the Wittmann assault alone accomplished the goal the whole german task force was sent out to: prevent the flanking movement.




Even fewer seemed to have recognised that Michael Wittmann's joy-ride was actually an act of irresponsibility which resulted in higher German casualties and losses.
I´d like to see your sources that show that Wittmann caused higher german losses.


If this episode is a typical illustration of German combat abilities, it is clear that the Germans - even while more experienced and using better weapons - were uncoordinated in combat, that their expertens were prima donnas who disregarded their duty to support their fellow soldiers, and that the Germans took more casualties than necessary as a result.
I said it before: you DO NOT become an ace by going on Rambo missions, you become an ace by being capable of exploiting an enemy failure as much as possible, and also the capability to prevent own losses. This has been shown time and again. Particularly the german "aces" were regularly part of highly successful units whose main accomplishment always was that they LOST very few people, which in turn enabled them to kill MORE enemies. Example: the greatest fighter pilot of all times, Erich Hartmann, never lost a SINGLE wingman. This care for the fellow soldiers also extends beyond the borders of one´s own unit or military branch, because every good soldier knows that all the units involved in a combat are necessary to defeat the enemy.

Wittmann in particular is known to have embarked on several support engagements to support friendly forces despite being heavily outnumbered. He is also known for a particular gallantry towards his enemies that made him well-respected despite him being an SS-Officer.

Consequently, your claim that the german "Experten" were negligient of their fellow soldiers (while there are certainly statistical examples where that DID happen) is not supported by facts.


If the morning had demonstrated British inexperience, the rest of the day demonstrated the incompetence of the Germans, the irresponsibility of Michael Wittmann's behaviour, and the underlying reason why the Germans' supposed tactical and combat superiority frequently failed to lead to battle victories.
So when the Brits/Allies fook up it is because of inexperience and thus negligible, while if the german dont achieve a complete victory opposed to the mission victory like in this case it is incompetence?

And again I question the relevance of this whole battle when we are discussing Michael Wittmann and his crews´ accomplishment in that single combat.

All in all you devote a lot of time of your post into explaining and apologizing for the utterly ill-prepared allied force while you criticize the Wittmann assault whereever it seems possible. Still, you cannot disprove one thing which is part of the "Wittmann legend" just like the real accomplishments of the man on paper: That as a general rule a german ace coupled with the competitive equipment cannot be matched by any single allied soldier; this has been shown to be true several times when badly supplied, lower numbered, less prepared german soldiers managed to defeat allied advances while decisive victories of the Allies usually involved vastly superior forces AND higher own casualties. There is a clear chain of proof to that from the invasion of France up to the Dunkirk retreat, the North Africa campaign, the advance into the East, and the defense against the Italian and Normandy Invasions. I cannot judge upon what exactly made the Germans so tough to beat.

I understand that this is hard to swallow for the Allies in general in the Brits (with their IMO overblown confidence into their own capability in the aftermath) in particular, but that is just the way it is - and the way it was accepted by the Allies whether openly said or at least anticipated in planning operations.

caleb
05-18-2006, 05:19 AM
I love you Vandervahn......wanna make out?


On a serious sidenote, I really appreciate that you take your time dismantling ogukuos' posts, he pushes his obvious agenda way too far.

What do you do for a living Vandervahn, If I may ask? Your historical knowledge on WW2 is extensive, at least. Are you some kind of Rollkragenpullover History teacher? p-)

ClydeFrog
05-18-2006, 06:11 AM
He seems to want to disprove anything that even resembles a german accomplishment.... just seems that way eh?

Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with these threads. On one hand, it's a good thing to take a second look at history and see if there's new lessons that can be gleaned - but these "analyses" go waaaay out of their way to make an exceedingly one-sided point.
That's what I've been telling you for a long time now. Even though he claims not to be on a crusade, his posts imply something different. You don't have to be a genius to read between the lines. Not to even mention that you could draw the same conclusions of outside factors like the opponents insufficient preperation on most allied victories as well. That's how battles are won: Exploit the enemies weaknesses, if everyone did everything right noone would achieve victory.

Buckeye67
05-18-2006, 06:16 AM
Stuff.

What's doubly interesting, is that aside from the very first of these threads of his - he hasn't bothered to reply to any of them (not that I've seen anyway).

Makes ya go "Hmmmmm...."

Vandervahn
05-18-2006, 07:01 AM
I love you Vandervahn......wanna make out?
Sure, if you´re clean shaven. I dont like the scratchy type, whereever they are scratchy to begin with ;)



On a serious sidenote, I really appreciate that you take your time dismantling ogukuos' posts, he pushes his obvious agenda way too far.
Thanks for the merits, I simply cant stand this sort of pseudo-intellectual debate that doesnt illuminate important aspects of a given problem - at least aspects that I consider to be of importance. After all this is only a match of conflicting opinions.

And while I appreciate the effort Oguoko puts into his posts, also because I tend to write extensively myself, this makes it all more fun for me to search for holes in the argumentation. In reality, this is what I do mostly: I look for flaws in other´s opinions without exposing myself by clearly representing an own opinion so I am less vulnerable to counter-attacks in a debate. Which sort of makes me a real forum low-life because many of my post exploit the mistakes of others ;)


What do you do for a living Vandervahn, If I may ask? Your historical knowledge on WW2 is extensive, at least. Are you some kind of Rollkragenpullover History teacher? p-)
Not a teacher or educated historian at all, lets just say I am a Freelancer with social sciences background which gives me the time and basics to pursue things I am interested in, as well as the freedom to waste time on the internet all day long when I wish to. Military theory and -history is only a hobby because the whole topic is so self-sufficient and you can come to a conclusion at the end of the debate, which is insanely more difficult when evaluating normal-life situations because these CANNOT be viewed singularly (unlike directly comparing the MG42 to the Bren/BAR like in the other thread).

I also have to admit that I abuse all these discussions to keep my English skills fresh p-)

oldsoak
05-18-2006, 08:00 AM
The Brits didnt have an overblown confidence in Normandy - quite the opposite. They often showed caution when they could have exploited the enemy quite a few times. They were reluctant to accept casualties the way the Germans were - which showed in the agressiveness of one versus the other. Bittrich summed it up - the British would be slow in attack and amazing in defence. I dont know if anyone has walked the Normandy battlefields, but narrow roads with high hegderows to channel the attack - holding out for just long enough to fall back into the next prepared position ? Theres loads of cover - Anyone fighting on the defensive couldnt ask for much better. Add to that the obvious qualities of well trained troops and the Allies turning up from the UK will be in for a suprise.

a_very_ex_STAB
05-18-2006, 08:03 AM
There is a clear chain of proof to that from the invasion of France up to the Dunkirk retreat, the North Africa campaign, the advance into the East, and the defense against the Italian and Normandy Invasions. I cannot judge upon what exactly made the Germans so tough to beat.


1. Their army was large and well prepared for mechanized warfare in Continental Europe prior to WW2.
2. The British army was small and mostly prepared for colonial policing prior to WW2 (and no excuses it took the British a long time to shake that mentality off)
3. The 88mm anti aircraft gun (the British had large numbers of a similarly capable gun but were too hidebound to use it in the way the Germans did against armour).

oldsoak
05-18-2006, 08:26 AM
Dont forget they were also very much more flexible thinkers and trained their troops to the standard of the rank above them. Even in 1944 we were still hidebound and not really getting to grips with the idea of Kampfgruppes etc.

KB
05-18-2006, 10:44 AM
Read Max Hasting's history of the Normandy campaign (Overlord).

IMHO it is the definitive work on the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing sides of the campaign.

foxtrot023
05-18-2006, 10:51 AM
The "example" of Michael Wittmann had been used so many times as an "illustration" of German combat abilities that it seemed that it had been used as a short-hand. But did anyone actually know what happened on 13 Jun 44?

Here are two accounts, with only minor differences in details:

(Wikipedia)

(strategy.demon.co.uk)

What precisely was supposed to be proven by Michael Wittmann's rampage through Villers-Bocage?

British Mistakes

Many historians seemed to have behaved as nothing more than bean counters, adding up the figures of losses on both sides and declaring the winner, without actually looking at other factors that would actually teach us some lessons about tactics and strategy.

In considering Michael Wittmann's "achievements" it must be remembered that the British made a number of errors to begin with.

First, they were moving across the enemy's front where he had heavy forces, without due regard to security and without a clear idea of the presence of the enemy. This was a highly dangerous position to be in.

Second, no proper recce was done, although to the A Squadron commander’s credit, he had made such a request but was denied.

Third, 22nd Armoured Brigade made a mistake by dividing its forces, dispersing its tank squadrons, AT troops and infantry companies. Whether for the attack or for the defence, this was unwise.

Fourth, A Squadron seemed completely oblivious to security, and stopping for a briefing and discussion in the middle of the battlefield was careless to say the least.

These could only be attributed to either complacency or inexperience on the part of the British - probably both.

Mitigating Factors

But there were mitigating factors.

First, while 22nd Armoured Brigade itself was a veteran unit, having fought in North Africa and Italy, but not all regiments within the Brigade itself was veteran. Some were very green indeed.

Second, the Allies had only been onshore for a week after D-Day. This not only meant that green units did not yet had the opportunity to learn the hard lessons of battle, there was also a certain degree of disorganisation.

Third, the urgency to expand the beachhead was perfectly understandable, and perhaps there was a certain need to throw cautions to the wind to seize as much terrain as possible.

Remember, historians have often criticised the British for not being bold and dashing enough to seize Caen on the go on 6 Jun 44. It seemed hardly fair to then turn around and criticise the British for behaving in the prescribed manner on 13 Jun.

Michael Wittmann’s Joy-Ride and the British’s Quick Reflex

Let's return to Michael Wittmann now. Blowing up so many tanks and stuff in and around Villers-Bocage was certainly quite impressive. But we've already seen that this could be attributed to the British lack of preparedness and carelessness. It hardly took skill to cut up a man caught without his sword and with his pants down.

Once British defences were properly set up, the Tiger tanks got nowhere. As we saw, larger forces of Tiger tanks achieved nothing for much of the afternoon of 13 Jun 44. Four Tigers managed to force their way into the village, but was stopped by British tanks and 6-pdr AT guns. Another group of three Tigers tried to infiltrate into the village, but was stopped by PIATs and 6-pdrs.

This hardly demonstrated the combat superiority of either the German soldiers or the Tiger tanks. Indeed, if the British defences had been as well organised in the morning, Michael Wittmann’s career might have ended right then and there instead of two months later at the hands of a British or Canadian tank.

What the episode did demonstrate was how quickly British forces learnt from their mistakes, and how swiftly they recovered from a disastrous morning and set up a skillful defence that stopped other – stronger – teams of Tigers. But this point was naturally ignored most of the time as they got in the way of a good story.

What was often ignored, too, was the fact that Michael Wittmann's rampage was brought to a rather inglorious halt by a little peepsqueak of a AT gun, and he and his crew had to bail out to escape on foot. Being knocked out by a 6-pdr was hardly something to boast about and was thus also conveniently left out of most accounts.

What was also often ignored was the fact that the German infantry with Michael Wittmann achieved little. They managed to infiltrate into the village but was soon thrown out by the British infantry. They could not exploit the carnage he was causing. This could be attributed to the fact that Michael Wittmann was off joy-riding instead of supporting the infantry in their attack. This was hardly behaviour expected of a skilled professional.

At that point in time, the Germans had the best opportunity to quickly seize the village. The battle could have ended right there and then with the village in German hands. Instead, as we've seen, this did not happen. Michael Wittmann's failure to support his infantry colleague meant that the British was allowed time to organise their defences.

The British remained very much in possession of the village after Michael Wittmann's "achievements". This forced the Germans to continue attacking it. Having now set up a proper defence, the British inflicted more losses on the Germans, including their supposedly "tough" Tiger tanks. After having inflicted a bloody nose on the Germans, the British then withdrew in an orderly fashion to more defensible terrain. All in all, the British did rather well after an embarrassing morning.

Conclusion

Michael Wittmann's legend was writ so large on everybody's mind that few seemed inclined to stop and think through what had happened on 13 Jun 44. Few saw that the British had reacted with great speed to a very dangerous situation and quickly formed a tough defence that inflicted casualties and losses on the Germans.

Even fewer seemed to have recognised that Michael Wittmann's joy-ride was actually an act of irresponsibility which resulted in higher German casualties and losses.

If this episode is a typical illustration of German combat abilities, it is clear that the Germans - even while more experienced and using better weapons - were uncoordinated in combat, that their expertens were prima donnas who disregarded their duty to support their fellow soldiers, and that the Germans took more casualties than necessary as a result.

If the morning had demonstrated British inexperience, the rest of the day demonstrated the incompetence of the Germans, the irresponsibility of Michael Wittmann's behaviour, and the underlying reason why the Germans' supposed tactical and combat superiority frequently failed to lead to battle victories.

Botton line was that a very promising and tactically rewarding british move to the back of Lehr Pz. Div was stopped by 1 german tank (other 4 played a role). The allied leadership was a disgrace, and several commanders were sacked. To tell you the truth Ogukuo, this sounds more like your are just bashing Germany than a objective opinion.

Pvt.Anderson
05-18-2006, 11:19 AM
Author u are an asshole
How can yoh denounce the actions this brave man did ? The way he fought for his fatherland , the way he suffered in war and finally died in combat ? Shame on you , u suck

So finally me and i bet many others ask you to please stop your ridiculous anti german campaign , fool

dacanadianbomb
05-18-2006, 11:49 AM
Author u are an asshole
How can yoh denounce the actions this brave man did ? The way he fought for his fatherland , the way he suffered in war and finally died in combat ? Shame on you , u suck

So finally me and i bet many others ask you to please stop your ridiculous anti german campaign , fool

But first please stop posting insulting Bvll-sh1t.Mr. Anderson.
You are flamebaiting a perfectly civilized discussion.

oldsoak
05-18-2006, 11:55 AM
- just a pity he was doing it as an occupier of France .

Pvt.Anderson
05-18-2006, 12:30 PM
I appreciate civil discussions in which self claimed experts make respectless and unreal threads just because of the obvious dislike of a nation / it's history , and no one tells those people that they're geeks , other than me



1. Their army was large and well prepared for mechanized warfare in Continental Europe prior to WW2.against armour

Sorry i might got it wrong but : You seem to claim that the german army was "large and well prepared for mechanized warfare in Continental Europe prior to WW2."
Well , sorry , but this is ridiculous since the army strength did have to be 100 000 ( Versailles )

Mastermind
05-18-2006, 12:43 PM
Although I am not in a position this morning to do research to back my statment, I am sure you guys, who are obviously well read on the subject of tank and mech cav warfare will not disagree...There have been well documented events by Russian, British, American and French and even Polish tank commanders that read almost verbatim (details different, scenario the same) and they are all awared the highest decorations for their elan, initiative and "salvation" of sister units and/or for thwarting enemy thrusts and operations. Here, we have the unfortuante circumstance that the commander happened to be a German. His drive, initiave, courage under fire in the face of obviously superior forces and the resulting damage to enemy plans and equipment is all for no recognition by the poster because the subject is a German warrior. As a fellow warrior, I find that attitude repugnant. I think the story of Wittmann's adventure serves to demonstrate honor among all who have been there. Surely, even his enemy victims on that day would begrudgingly admire his actions.

Even Adolph Galland admired British Spitfire's and their pilots, answering to his own irate commander Hermann Goreing when asked what he needed to get the job done, "A squadron of Spitfires."

As respectors of military behavior, especially behavior under fire, we should do all we can to be objective in our observations of bravery and honor in battle. We should be able to lift our sights above our own haze of national bias if we are going to be truthful to our endeavors here.

a_very_ex_STAB
05-19-2006, 02:51 AM
I appreciate civil discussions in which self claimed experts make respectless and unreal threads just because of the obvious dislike of a nation / it's history , and no one tells those people that they're geeks , other than me




Sorry i might got it wrong but : You seem to claim that the german army was "large and well prepared for mechanized warfare in Continental Europe prior to WW2."
Well , sorry , but this is ridiculous since the army strength did have to be 100 000 ( Versailles )

The German govt broke that agreement after 1933. You don't seriously think that Nazi Germany went to war in 1939 with only a 100,000 man army do you?

Germany was a continental power with a large army and a relatively small navy.

Britain was a maritime power with a small prewar army and a large navy. It's no surprise then that the performance of the British Army was relatively poor compared to the German army especially during the early years of the war.

Lokos
05-19-2006, 04:13 AM
Well , sorry , but this is ridiculous since the army strength did have to be 100 000 ( Versailles )


There was some expansion of the Wehrmacht during the period of 1933-1939, I think you'll find.

Lokos

Adam Wilhelm
05-19-2006, 04:28 AM
Even Adolph Galland admired British Spitfire's and their pilots, answering to his own irate commander Hermann Goreing when asked what he needed to get the job done, "A squadron of Spitfires."

Adolf Galland wrote in his book "The First And The Last".


"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an stall of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

Mastermind
05-19-2006, 09:46 AM
Thanks Adam...that's the passage I was referring to...but I was away from my reference material at the time. But, I was close enough...:)

Violence Of Action
05-21-2006, 10:56 PM
heh, how many of these has this guy written?

job? school? life?