Villers Bocage: don´t be fooled by the Firefly

[Byron Angel]

For a very good overall account of the Villers-Bocage engagement, I suggest "Steel Inferno: 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy" by Michael Reynolds. According to Reynolds, Wittman's initial attack did not occur in the town of Viller-Bocage. He re-constructs that portion of the engagement as follows.

The lead element of the British column was, in order:

A Sqdn / 4 CLY + 1 artillery FO tank
A Coy + 1 towed AT detachment / 1 RB (in halftracks and carriers)
Recce Troop / 4 CLY
HQ group / 4 CLY (four tanks) + 2 artillery FO tanks / 5 RHA
B Sqdn / 4 CLY
C Sqdn / 4 CLY

Behind this lead element came, again in order:

Hinde's 22 Bde tactical HQ group
an engineer troop
5 RHA SP Arty Bn (less one battery)
1 RB (less two companies)
1/7 Queen's (truck mounted infantry battalion)
5 RTR battle group + one company 1 RB
260 AT Battery / Norfolk Yeomanry

4 CLY passed through Villers-Bocage at 0800 hrs and continued onward several kilometers along the Villers-Bocage-Caen road to the high ground at Pt 213, where it halted to observe.

A company 1 RB and its anti-tank detachment halted in nose to tail fashion behind the tanks and the men dismounted to stretch their legs.

Wittman emerged from cover south of the road at this point and knocked out the rear tank of A sqdn 4 CLY. He then drove down the length of A coy 1 RB, destroying its vehicles in succession at ranges of 50-80 meters.

Wittman then drove into the eastern outskirts of Villers-Bocage where he destroyed three Stuart tanks of the 4 CLY Recce Troop, the two artillery FO tanks of 5 RHA and the four tanks of 4 CLY HQ group by 0830 hrs.

This left B sqdn 4 CLY in Villers-Bocage. At 1000 hrs, Hinde ordered 1/7 Queen's to enter Villers-Bocage in support of B sqdn 4 CLY. It was some part of this force which finally disabled Wittman's tank in the town proper.

The rest of the 22 Brigade column remained halted nearby at Tracy-Bocage, about 2 km west of Viller-Bocage.

A sqdn 4 CLY was meanwhile surrounded and wiped out at Pt 213 by the remaining 4 Tigers of Wittman's unit, assisted by four Mk IV's which had sortied from a nearby Panzer Lehr tank repair facility. A sqdn's radios went dead at 1035 hrs.

In practical terms, almost the entire leading 4 CLY battle group was lost: 20 Cromwells, 4 Fireflies, 3 Stuarts, 3 artillery FO tanks, 16 Bren Carriers, 14 half-tracks, and 2 6-lbr AT guns. 4 CLY suffered 4 killed and 5 wounded 1 RB reported 9 killed on 13 June. Apparently all the rest of the personnel were taken prisoner, as the two unit war diaries reported 76 and 94 men missing respectively.

How did Wittman's tank do individually in this first part of the action? By Reynold's analysis, the count was:

5 Cromwells
16 Bren Carriers
14 half-tracks
2 6-lbr AT guns
2 artillery FO tanks
3 Stuarts


I recommend the book highly.


Notes: CLY = County of London Yeomanry; RB = Rifle Brigade; RHA = Royal Horse Artillery; RTR = Royal Tank Regiment



Byron

[lwd]

...Also, as stated by others, the Sherman tank was not designed to fight other tanks. It was designed to fight infantry.

No. It was designed to support infantry and breakthrough operations.

-But the Allies had to make it work until something better could be developed.

When first fielded it was superior to it's opposition. Throughout the war it maintained at worse parity with it's most common opposition on a one for one basis and as part of a combined arms team that proved superior to its oppostion.

...The Sherman was an expedient design that had to rely on existing civilian engines and production facilities. ...

No the M3 medium was an expediant design. The M4 was a very well thought out design. It relied not on civilian engines but on aircraft engines thus stream lineing the production process. The facilities that built the Shermans were mostly new and purpose built although after the war they were converted to civilian uses at least for the most part.

[RF]

My impression is that the main advantage of the Shermans were that they were available in very large numbers......

[alecsandros]

No. It was designed to support infantry and breakthrough operations.
Throughout the war it maintained at worse parity with it's most common opposition on a one for one basis and as part of a combined arms team that proved superior to its oppostion.

You mean the Sherman was a spearhead tank? Or a fast unit that could easily outflank the enemy?

And during the war, the M4 was not at worse parity with it's most common opposition, mainly because of his gun (76mm penetrating 88-92mm of armor at 1000m) and armor (front 51-77mm), that scored well below the most common tanks by early 1944 onwards:
the Panther (front armor 60-120mm, gun 75mm-L70 penetrating 111-149mm of armor at 1000m)
and marginally even PzIV-H (front armor 80mm, 75mm-L48 gun penetrating 85-97mm from 1000m), .

Cheers

[mkenny]

There is more to the subject than frontal hits. Side and rear hits were far more numerous that frontal strikes. For the Sherman only 25% of all penetrating hits were on the front. The sides and rear took the brunt of the hits. As the side and rear of ALL tanks in 1944 were relatively weak then it follows that an impenetrable frontal arc would only defeat 25% of all incoming fire-75% of the hits would penetrate!
This effects the desirability of up-armouring the front of your tanks. In the Sherman's case if they increased the front plate to 25 inches they still would not save 75% of the casualties. It simply was not worth the effort.

There were surveys done on actual wrecks and thus they are a far better indicator than theoretical pentration tables.
On average , it took ...
... 1.2 hits and 1.2 pens to KO a Pz IV. It also took 1.5 hits and 1.5 pens to brew a Pz IV.
... 2.55 hits and 1.9 pens to KO a Pz V. It also took 4.0 hits and 3.24 pens to brew a Pz V.
... 4.2 hits and 2.6 pens to KO a Pz VI. It also took 5.25 hits and 3.25 pens to brew a Pz VI.
... 1.63 hits and 1.55 pens to KO a Sherman. It also took 1.97 hits and 1.89 pens to brew a Sherman.

In that table you can see that the PzIV was easier to penetrate AND set on fire than a Sherman-so much for the myths!


Interesting T-34 stats:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... e#p1340881

[lwd]

....
And during the war, the M4 was not at worse parity with it's most common opposition, mainly because of his gun (76mm penetrating 88-92mm of armor at 1000m) and armor (front 51-77mm), that scored well below the most common tanks by early 1944 onwards:
the Panther (front armor 60-120mm, gun 75mm-L70 penetrating 111-149mm of armor at 1000m)
and marginally even PzIV-H (front armor 80mm, 75mm-L48 gun penetrating 85-97mm from 1000m), . ..

Well let's see the most common tanks were
T-34 rough parity with Sherman
Sherman so obviously parity
MIV rough parity
So "Scored well below the most common tanks by early 1944 onwards" seems to be incorrect.

[RF]

I would concur with lwd on that verdict, but i don't think it scored that much above average either.

[alecsandros]

Well let's see the most common tanks were
T-34 rough parity with Sherman
Sherman so obviously parity
MIV rough parity
So "Scored well below the most common tanks by early 1944 onwards" seems to be incorrect.

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking about opposing tanks. Of course, overall the Sherman was at least at rough parity with 80-90% of the existing tanks.

Cheers

[lwd]

I would concur with lwd on that verdict, but i don't think it scored that much above average either.

Indeed I don't think anyone has claimed that the Sherman had a great AT gun. However it's also woth considering what the oppositon was. Most Shermans lost in battle were not lost to enemy tanks. Indeed there have been analysis presented of what killed Shermans and large caliber guns are below 50% and many of those would have been AT guns rather than tanks. Vs AT guns and infantry (which also got a respectable number) HE is more effective than AP and the 75mm armed Shermans had a pretty good HE round. Now overall the US would have probably been better to have replaced the 75mm and 76mm armed Shermans with a mix of 90mm and 105mm armed ones but only the latter saw action and not a great number of those.

[lwd]

No. It was designed to support infantry and breakthrough operations...

You mean the Sherman was a spearhead tank? Or a fast unit that could easily outflank the enemy?

It was designed to help breach an oponents front lines and exploit the breach.

[Krokus]

Wittmann's own account clearly says he was knocked out by 'pak' in the centre of Villers. There were no A/T guns in Villers at this time so he could not have been hit by one. He was engaged and hit by the Firefly but he does not mention it. It is as if he never noticed. The likely sequence is that he came under fire from the Firefly and assumed it was an A/T gun. This would explain why he had to leave his disabled tank in the town centre.
The theory that he was hit by the 6pdr on the road out of Villers is impossible because, as Wittmann himself said, he did not get back out of Villers and was knocked out in the middle of the town..

In the "Battlezone Normandy-Villers Bocage" book, Forty shows the picture of the 6-pounder gun after the battle, well forward of a knocked out Stuart, aimed toward the center of town that in "probability" hit Wittmann.

[mkenny]

In the "Battlezone Normandy-Villers Bocage" book, Forty shows the picture of the 6-pounder gun after the battle, well forward of a knocked out Stuart, aimed toward the center of town that in "probability" hit Wittmann.

Until Daniel Taylor wrote his 'Villers Bocage Through The Lens'' book in the 90's no one made any claims that this 6 pdr had achieved anything. Up till then it was all about Wittmann and his 3 Tigers and a PzIV (so called because the post battle photos showed 3 wrecked Tigers and a wrecked Pz IV) Daniel increased our understanding enormously but I think he erred when he made the claim that this 6 pdr lnocked out Wittmann. The account left by Wittmann (given to a war correspondent the same day as the battle) clearly states he was knocked out in the centre of the town-not on the road where the 6pdr is situated. Thus I think Wittmann made a mistake when he ASSUMED he had been hit by a 'heavy pak'. The only thing firing at him was the Firefly and it seems he did not notice it was a tank.