Tiger Kills and Losses

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
That may be so but every time you claim a 5:1 kill ratio for Tigers I am going to ask you for the specific details and I will check British records. So far you have not provided any information that confirms it was the norm.
Well, I suppose this leads us to a epystemological problem: how certain can we be of a certain historical fact as real? This question appears again and again in judging important battles (Thermopylae, Gaugamela, Kosovoplje, etc).
All we have are books, and (rarely) access to various archives. And, especialy when the main sources appear to be unreliable or contradict themselves, we are left with a problem of belief: we believe what ever we have already decided that we want to believe...

Anyway, beyond the philosophical problem, I feel that our discussion has digressed to much towards a "which tank was better argument", that ain't gonna do no good. After all, in North Africa, Rommel accomplished much more using PZII and PZIII than in Normandy using Tigers and Panthers. That doesn't mean PZII was better than a Tiger.. Just that, given the leadership, terrain, and enemy strength, distribution and way of waging war, they proved effective tools to achieve a certain goal.

The most technological advanced tank in the world is useless unless wisely used by a very capable commander. The tactical situation is, also, crucial: the Tigers employed in defense proved devastating, whereas the attacks spearheaded by them had mixed results.

As I said before, I think the most complete and accurate loss/kills report is provided by Schneider. I never had the patience to add up the totals, but somebody obviously did so: http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml The median is 5.74:1, closer in fact to 6:1 than 5:1.

However, the average is debatable, in light of the reasons expressed earlier in our discussions. Also, it is an average of both eastern and western battles.

Wether or not we choose to read this book and accept it's conclusion, it is up to everyone of us. For my part, I think the Tiger tanks were formidable weapons, that could have been used much better with the proper air cover and in decent numbers. The kill ratios, especially for the SS divisions, were certainly very high.

Cheers,
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:As I said before, I think the most complete and accurate loss/kills report is provided by Schneider. I never had the patience to add up the totals, but somebody obviously did so: http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.shtml The median is 5.74:1, closer in fact to 6:1 than 5:1.
This a list of CLAIMS not kills. As the Germans reduced these claims by 50% in 1944 you would think Schneider (and eveyone else who compiles these 'list of kills') would allow for it but they never do. They continue to use the claims that are AT LEAST twice reality. Remember this is the Germans themselves lowering their own crew claims, nothing to do with anti-German propoganda.
.
alecsandros wrote:The kill ratios, especially for the SS divisions, were certainly very high.
There is no evidence to back that up. What is more the most 'succesful' (that is me accepting your case just to make a point) Abteilung was not SS!
Even more telling is that they gave more Tiger Abteilung to the Army than they did to the SS.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote:The kill ratios, especially for the SS divisions, were certainly very high.
There is no evidence to back that up. What is more the most 'succesful' (that is me accepting your case just to make a point) Abteilung was not SS!
Even more telling is that they gave more Tiger Abteilung to the Army than they did to the SS.
I'm reffering to Totenkopf and Das Reich.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
This a list of CLAIMS not kills. As the Germans reduced these claims by 50% in 1944 you would think Schneider (and eveyone else who compiles these 'list of kills') would allow for it but they never do. They continue to use the claims that are AT LEAST twice reality. Remember this is the Germans themselves lowering their own crew claims, nothing to do with anti-German propoganda.
As I said earlier, it's a matter of choice: if you choose to deny all sources that present the heavy tank batallions as tank-killers, you're free to do so. For my part, I'm reading books. And, hell, even the book that I've thanked you for has some monstrous kill ratios - for instance in North Africa, 150:3 (three) tanks lost to enemy fire. That's 50:1 for Tigers! Make that 50%? 25:1. Make that 50% again? 12,5:1.
The question is: When and why should we stop halfing the kills?

By refuting or mistifying statistics, you can prove absolutely everything, don't you agree?
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:
I'm reffering to Totenkopf and Das Reich.
Das Reich were not in Tigers for vey long compared the most of the other Units so how were they 'better' than the average?
alecsandros wrote: if you choose to deny all sources that present the heavy tank batallions as tank-killers, you're free to do so.
When I see a Tiger Unit claiming say 25 kills on one action and I check the British records and see only 5 were lost well then yes I 'chose' to ignore the claims.
I would disagree this is a 'choice'. It may be the path taken by those who chose to believe in the myths and have no intention of finding the truth.
Interestingly both claims posted here to show this great kill disparity are both easy to prove as wrong.
In the Wittmann case he is awarded 25 kills when he could only have gotten 11 and in Fey's case he did not get any of the 15 he claimed.
I am sorry to further add to your woes but Barkmann's claim is also inflated. He did not 'hold up' the US advance and he did not knock out 5-7-10-12 (pick your number) Shermans.

.
alecsandros wrote:The question is: When and why should we stop halfing the kills?
No. The question is why do those who KNOW the claims were halved continue to publish lists that do not have the 50% reduction applied?
Why do you think they keep doing it?
alecsandros wrote: - for instance in North Africa, 150:3 (three) tanks lost to enemy fire. That's 50:1 for Tigers! Make that 50%? 25:1. Make that 50% again? 12,5:1.
The question is: When and why should we stop halfing the kills?
You will find that the claimed Tiger kills in N.Afrika are greater that the actual Allied losses. What is more by giving all the kills to the Tigers the 95% of German tanks that were not Tigers, and all the A/T guns and mines got no kills at all!
That is how silly these claims are.
alecsandros wrote:By refuting or mistifying statistics, you can prove absolutely everything, don't you agree?
If you say so. I just wonder how you get around the fact that Normandy losses were circa 2000 v 4000. Where is the great panzer kill ratio in those figures?
Last edited by mkenny on Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:45 pm, edited 4 times in total.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote: if you choose to deny all sources that present the heavy tank batallions as tank-killers, you're free to do so.
When I see a Tiger Unit claiming say 25 kills on one action and I check the British records and see only 5 were lost well then yes I 'chose' to ignore the claims.
I would disagree this is a 'choice'. It may be the path taken by those who chose to believe in the myths and have no intention of finding the truth.

You will find that the claimed Tiger kills in N.Afrika are greater that the actual Allied losses. What is more by giving all the kills to the Tigers the 95% of German tanks that were not Tigers, and all the A/T guns and mines got no kills at all!
That is how silly these claims are.
And what makes the British records so bullet-proof? See, this goes both ways.. You can't dismiss only what you like as "fantasy". And where did you see that 95% of the kills were given to the Tigers? Exactly where?

Excerpt from "Swinging the Sledgehammer", pg 82:
"On 11 January 1944, the III Panzer Corps incorporated thirty-four Tigers of s.Pz.-
Abt. 503 with the 2d Battalion of Panzer Regiment 23 and several support units to form
Heavy Panzer Regiment Bake, named for its commander, Lieutenant Colonel Bake.17
This unit’s mission was to relieve pressure on the two German corps defending further
east, at Cherkassy, by attacking north into the encircling Soviet formations around
Medwin.18
This improvised battle group began its attack at 6:00 A.M. on 24 January 1944
towards Oratoff.19 Over the next five days of fluid fighting, this unit destroyed 267
enemy tanks while losing only one Tiger and three Panthers.20 Furthermore, the Tiger
was reportedly destroyed by a Panther and not from enemy fire.21"

pg 98-99:

"S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501 lost fifteen Tigers between 13 June and 8 July 1944, four of
which were destroyed during an air raid.97 From 8 July until 20 August 1944, the three
heavy tank battalions lost thirty-two Tigers in direct combat. S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 502 lost
another five Tigers to air attack but s.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501 lost none.
99
The worst day for losses from air attack was 18 July 1944 when the 3d Company
of s.Pz.-Abt. 503 was virtually wiped out from the massive bombing that preceded
Operation GOODWOOD.98 This battalion probably lost nine Tigers from air attacks
during this bombing.99 At least four other Tigers were destroyed in direct combat with
the British main attack by the 7th, 11th, and the Guards Armored Divisions during
Operation GOODWOOD.100"

"After more than a month of combat, the first Tiger was destroyed by its own crew
on 16 August 1944.101 During the withdrawal to the Seine River, s.Pz.-Abt. 503 lost
twenty-eight of its Tigers from either abandonment or destruction by their own crews.102
After 20 August 1944 during their retreat, the SS heavy tank battalions destroyed or
abandoned twenty-two of their Tigers.103 An additional two Tigers sank attempting to
cross the Seine River by ferry.104 Only four Tigers were lost to direct combat after 20
August 1944.105
These statistics lead to the conclusion that the heavy tank battalions had improved
in their vehicle recovery efforts, especially when employed along a fairly static front, but
were still extremely vulnerable when forced to retreat. A possible reason for the
relatively high number of Tigers destroyed in direct combat, compared to previous
encounters, was the fact that the Western Allies were fielding more weapons capable of
destroying a Tiger, especially in close range combat as was the norm in Normandy.
These three heavy tank battalions managed to destroy around 510 Allied tanks as
well as numerous other vehicles and pieces of equipment.106 Other than a few Tigers that
were shipped back to Germany for factory maintenance, every one of the three battalion’s
100
tanks were lost. Of these 132 Tigers that were lost while committed to or retreating from
Normandy, only around 48 were lost due to direct ground combat, although 10 Tigers
remain unaccounted for.107 The overall kill ratio for the loss of every Tiger was 3.9 to 1
while the kill ratio for direct combat was 10.6 to 1."

mkenny wrote: If you say so. I just wonder how you get around the fact that Normandy losses were circa 2000 v 4000. Where is the great panzer kill ratio in those figures?
This is becoming a circular argument: as I said earlier, the 2:1 ratio is bad enough as it is. And that's including Stug, PZIV and Panther kill ratio. However, I find it greatly flawed, by the fact that many German tanks were knocked out by the air, AT guns, blown off by their own crews or captured due to lack of fuel. On the other hand, many Allied tanks had been lost to mines and AT guns. Considering strictly the Tiger-vs-whatever-tank-you-like, the ratio is more about 5:1 or even 10:1, for the battles that we have at least a moderate approximation of combat losses.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

Sources quoted in the afore-mentioned book: Reynolds, Taylor, Jentz, Schneider, Restayn.

But they are all WRONG, aren't they ?...
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

[quote="alecsandros]
alecsandros wrote: And what makes the British records so bullet-proof? See, this goes both ways.. You can't dismiss only what you like as "fantasy".
It really is quite simple. If a British Unit lost 15 Shermans they they had to get 15 replacements. Tanks were not handed out as 'spares' or 'just in case you need one'. Therefore there is a paper trail where you can go and check the number of tanks written off and the number issued.
I have heard silly claims that the British 'hid' these losses by not owning up to the 'real' numbers. You can imagine the problems this fiction would cause if it were true.
Major Smith is told to send a Squadron to the right flank, A Squadron to the left and another to the rear to rest. He contacts his second in command and tries to work out how he can do this as he is 20 tanks short because he has 'hidden' his real losses.
There are actualy people who believe that happened and try and use it to rescue the claimed high kill rates said to be the norm for German uber-panzers.
So in short all tanks lost are recorded as such and the documents are still there if anyone would care to check them.
Oh and I am not saying German records are falsified becuase I use them. The German loss figures I gave you are taken from their own documents (hmm....I wonder it they hid some losses............no, better not start that.....) what I am saying is the German kill claims are hugely inflated. I know it because there are German documents that say so and that apply a 50% reduction to ALL their own claims. I use German documents for German Units and German losses and British documents for British claims and British losses.. Your problem is you are using German claims to work out British losses and I very much doubt you have ever seem a British document or tried to find any. I think you just use one sides claims and seem happy with that.
alecsandros wrote: And where did you see that 95% of the kills were given to the Tigers? Exactly where?
You. Here you claimed a 150 kills for Tigers in Africa. This is greater than the losess sustained by the Units in Tunisia that fought against these Tigers. You claimed it.
alecsandros wrote:This is becoming a circular argument: as I said earlier, the 2:1 ratio is bad enough as it is. And that's including Stug, PZIV and Panther kill ratio. However, I find it greatly flawed, by the fact that many German tanks were knocked out by the air, AT guns, blown off by their own crews or captured due to lack of fuel.
It is indeed circular. You keep claiming these high air losses but fail to provide a single scrap of evidence or a source that confirms it. You are using your beliefs to distort reality.
alecsandros wrote:On the other hand, many Allied tanks had been lost to mines and AT guns. Considering strictly the Tiger-vs-whatever-tank-you-like, the ratio is more about 5:1 or even 10:1, for the battles that we have at least a moderate approximation of combat losses.
Total fiction. Where are the incidents where we can see these 10:1 losses?
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:Sources quoted in the afore-mentioned book: Reynolds, Taylor, Jentz, Schneider, Restayn.

But they are all WRONG, aren't they ?...

If you give me a page number or a quote from any of the above books then I could be more specific. Just quoting authors adds nothing.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Tiger Kills and Losses4

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Sources quoted in the afore-mentioned book: Reynolds, Taylor, Jentz, Schneider, Restayn.

But they are all WRONG, aren't they ?...

If you give me a page number or a quote from any of the above books then I could be more specific. Just quoting authors adds nothing.
I already did. You have them in the previous post. Also, you have there a 10.6 kill ratio. And many other "stuff".

If only you'd bother reading them...
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:

It really is quite simple. If a British Unit lost 15 Shermans they they had to get 15 replacements. Tanks were not handed out as 'spares' or 'just in case you need one'. Therefore there is a paper trail where you can go and check the number of tanks written off and the number issued.
I have heard silly claims that the British 'hid' these losses by not owning up to the 'real' numbers. You can imagine the problems this fiction would cause if it were true.

You. Here you claimed a 150 kills for Tigers in Africa. This is greater than the losess sustained by the Units in Tunisia that fought against these Tigers. You claimed it.
Effectiveness of Tigers, pg 48.

"S.Pz.-Abt. 501 destroyed more than 150 Allied tanks in North Africa while losing
only eleven Tigers.25 The battalion turned over the remaining eleven Tigers to s.Pz.-Abt.
504.26 This gives the battalion a kill ratio of 13.6 enemy tanks destroyed for every Tiger
lost. Most sources do not differentiate the kills of the Panzer IIIs between those of the
Tigers, but the unit diary is filled with specific entries that indicate the kills of the day
were by the Tigers. There are no entries that specifically mention the Panzer IIIs
destroying an enemy tank.27 Regardless of vehicle type, the high kill ratio is a testament
to the unit’s effectiveness in spite of the inability, except for a few instances, to operate as
a consolidated battalion.

Another indication of the effectiveness of this unit is the fact that of the eleven
Tigers lost, only three were destroyed by enemy fire. Another was hit by an artillery
round causing a fuel leak that eventually caused it to burn completely. The remaining
seven Tigers were lost during Operation OX HEAD when they were immobilized by an
extensive minefield and could not be recovered.29 Strong counterattacks by the Allies
prevented the German infantry attacks from advancing far enough to recover the
damaged Tigers, and they all had to be blown up to prevent the enemy from towing them
away.30"


I am getting tired of you're self-denial and obvious mistification towards an English perspective. Throughout the discussion, you have intentionaly avoided giving any source for your claimed estimates, have constantly refered only to "the British", as if they were the only ones fighting Tigers (Poles? Canadians?) and have constantly referred to your access to primary British documents, despite the variety of situations.

However, due to the fact that we have narrowed the discussion down to Tiger effectiveness, let's do the following exercise: I'll make a statement, back it up, and than you can make a counter-statement, provided it's also backed up. Otherwise, I'm going to have to follow Karl's example.

Ready.. Steady.. Go!

1. Villers Bocage: 6 Tigers destroys 23-26 British tanks while losing 3-6 Tigers. Sources: a) Willbeck 2002, further quoting Reynolds (1997, pg 126), b) Schneider 1997, Tigers in combat vol 2, pg 206
Last edited by alecsandros on Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:Excerpt from "Swinging the Sledgehammer",
The book uses Schneiders TIC I/II as its main source so to all intents it is TIC I&II in paperback


alecsandros wrote: "S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501
There is one of the first failures from Wilbeck. He gets the name wrong. sSS Pz Abt 101 is the correct title.
It did not become sSS Pz Abt 501 until August. Small point but repeated for sSS Pz Abt 102 as well.
Sloppy research.


alecsandros wrote:S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501 lost fifteen Tigers between 13 June and 8 July 1944, four of
which were destroyed during an air raid.
This is of course TOTAL losses only. A far greater number were knocked, out recovered and repaired.
The puzzle for SS 101 is that they never have more than 20 tanks in service from 13 June(the date of Villers Bocage)
It would appear they have a further 10 Tigers are so badly damaged that they never get back in to action.

alecsandros wrote:S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501The worst day for losses from air attack was 18 July 1944 when the 3d Company of s.Pz.-Abt. 503 was virtually wiped out from the massive bombing that preceded
Operation GOODWOOD. This battalion probably lost nine Tigers from air attacks during this bombing.
Just the usual attempt to try and blame it on aircraft and inflate the Tiger reputation.
The number of Tigers lost to the bombing is well known and documented, 4 in total !
alecsandros wrote:S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501At least four other Tigers were destroyed in direct combat with
the British main attack by the 7th, 11th, and the Guards Armored Divisions during
Operation GOODWOOD.
Wrong. 13 losses with 4 due to bombers means 9 Tigers were destroyed in Combat with the British. Wilbeck fails again!

alecsandros wrote:S.SS.Pz.-Abt. 501Only four Tigers were lost to direct combat after 20
August 1944.
The figures show that on 11th August only 26 Tigers were in service. Given that 9 days later the bulk of these would be destroyed then 4 Tigers from the survivors seem quite a high number.
alecsandros wrote: The overall kill ratio for the loss of every Tiger was 3.9 to 1
while the kill ratio for direct combat was 10.6 to 1."
The above statistic is fataly flawed and bears no relation to reality.
Remember this is using German kill claims which they accepted were twice reality. Using this correction then we at least get a result that is in line with reality.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tiger Kills and Losses

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
The book uses Schneiders TIC I/II as its main source so to all intents it is TIC I&II in paperback
Actually, no: the bibliography is extensive, TIC is only among numerous others.

I'm waiting for your reply to my previous post.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by mkenny »

alecsandros wrote:

Effectiveness of Tigers, pg 48.

"S.Pz.-Abt. 501 destroyed more than 150 Allied tanks in North Africa .....................
As I already told you this is greater that the total Allied losses in Tunisia facing the Tigers. Unless you have information that shows a greater loss then this claim is bunk.


alecsandros wrote: I am getting tired of you're self-denial and obvious mistification towards an English perspective. Throughout the discussion, you have intentionaly avoided giving any source for your claimed estimates,
You mean like you completely failing to provide any source that agrees with your 30% claim for tank losses to aircraft?
If you ask me a specific question I will answer it. Go ahead and ask.


alecsandros wrote: have constantly refered only to "the British", as if they were the only ones fighting Tigers (Poles? Canadians?) and have constantly referred to your access to primary British documents, despite the variety of situations.
As Canadian and Polish tank replacements came through the British system then it follows that they are included in any 'British' totals I give.


alecsandros wrote:
1. Villers Bocage: 501st Tigers destroys 23-26 British tanks while losing 3-6 Tigers. Sources: a) Willbeck 2002, further quoting Reynolds (1997, pg 126), b) Schneider 1997, Tigers in combat vol 2, pg 206
It is sSS PzAbt 101. Get the name right at least.
Wilbeck and the others give the totals for all British tanks lost to all causes at Villers. You however were arguing that Wittmann got them all. You are confused and need to decide what point you wish to make. Are you saying that all the other Tigers and the PzIV's from Lehr did not destroy a single British tank at Villers?

Now do I get the source that backs you 30% air loss claim?

alecsandros wrote: Actually, no: the bibliography is extensive, TIC is only among numerous others.
I know both books very well and when an error made in TIC is repeated in Wilbeck then the case is proved.


alecsandros wrote:I'm waiting for your reply to my previous post.
It takes time to check your facts before posting. You should try it.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Military Historical Dates

Post by alecsandros »

mkenny wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
1. Villers Bocage: 501st Tigers destroys 23-26 British tanks while losing 3-6 Tigers. Sources: a) Willbeck 2002, further quoting Reynolds (1997, pg 126), b) Schneider 1997, Tigers in combat vol 2, pg 206
It is sSS PzAbt 101. Get the name right at least.
Wilbeck and the others give the totals for all British tanks lost to all causes at Villers. You however were arguing that Wittmann got them all. You are confused and need to decide what point you wish to make. Are you saying that all the other Tigers and the PzIV's from Lehr did not destroy a single British tank at Villers?
That's it. To the above mentioned faults in your writing, I'm adding the fact that you don't know who you're talking with, and seem to be certain that it was only me who you have been replying to. And if you don't know who you're talking, why should I ask you to know what you're saying?

Schneider, 1997, pg 206-207:

"12June 1944: During the night, the battalion completes arrival in its designated assembly
area, experiencing many mechanical problems and failures during the road march. The
1./schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (eight Tigers) assembles eight kilometers northeast of
Villers-Bocage on the N 175; the 2./schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (six Tigers) assembles
in a defile south of Montbrocq (two kilometers northeast ofVillers-Bocage).The battalion is
immediately ordered to cover the left flank of the I. SS-Panzer-Korps. Because of incessant
heavy naval shelling, the crews cannot rest.

13 June 1944: In the morning, the 2./schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (six Tigers;
Lotzsch's Tiger has track damage) is assembled at Point 213 northeast ofVillers-Bocage in
a defile south of the road Villers-Bocage-Caen.
A detachment of the British 22nd Armoured Brigade approaches Point 213 and stops
there. The British element is moving in column along the road and not deployed for combat.
This element was attempting to exploit a gap between the 352. Infanterie-Division and
the Panzer-Lehr-Division.
SS-Obersturmfiihrer Wittmann attacks the enemy-a Squadron of the 4th City of London
Yeomanry and parts of the 1st Battalion of the Rifle Brigade-ahead of his company,
which is not yet ready for action. He uses Tiger 222 of SS-Unterscharfiihrer Sowa. First, he
knocks out a Cromwell and a Firefly of A Squadron, which had already nearly reached
Point 213.
Afterwards, he advances parallel to the road towards Villers-Bocage. Passing within a
short distance of the enemy, he destroys the majority of the 1st Rifle Brigade: thirteen M-3
halftracks, three Stuart light tanks, two Sherman artillery observer tanks, the Daimler
Scout Car of the brigade's Intelligence Officer, the M-3 of the brigade surgeon, and more
than one dozen Bren and Lloyd carriers (some from the antitank-gun battery).
At the outskirts of the town, he knocks out three of the four Cromwells of the regimental
headquarters section of the City of London Yeomanry. Still alone, he enters VillersBocage,
pursued by the fourth Cromwell, which intends to hit the Tiger from the rear.
Inside the town, Wittmann's forward progress is stopped by tanks of B Squadron (including
one Sherman Firefly). He turns around and rushes back along his route of advance.
On his way back, he knocks out the Cromwell, whose two armor-piercing rounds fired at a
distance of only fifty meters fail to penetrate the Tiger. After several hundred meters, the
tank becomes immobilized from an antitank gun hit damaging the left front drive
sprocket. The crew bails out and leaves the tank. It sneaks through to the command post
of the Panzer-Lehr-Division at Orbois-Sermentot, which directs offensive action towards
Villers-Bocage with fifteen Panzer IVs.
The remaining tanks of the 2./schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 occupy position east
ofVillers-Bocage (south of the road) and knock out two more Cromwells (SS-Unterscharfiihrer
Sowa) and three Shermans (SS-Oberscharfiihrer Brandt). Approximately 230
British soldiers surrender and are taken prisoner. Eight Tigers of the 1./schwere SSPanzer-
Abteilung 101 (SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Mobius) attack at 0800 hours along the N
175 towards Villers-Bocage. Five Cromwells positioned farther north are damaged and
abandoned by the crews. Several Panzer IVs of the Panzer-Lehr-Division positioned at Parfouru-
sur-Odon join the attack. Two Tigers and one Panzer IV advance along the main
road (Rue Pasteur).
The rear tank-Tiger 112 of SS-Oberscharfiihrer Ernst-is knocked out by a Firefly of
B Squadron, which fires through two corner windows of a building. After changing positions,
a Panzer IV is knocked out by an antitank gun. The leading tank-Tiger 121 of SSObersturmfiihrer
Lukasius-is hit from the rear by a Firefly. These tanks are then set on
fire by the British.
Five more Tigers advance forward on roads farther south. One Tiger is knocked out
by an antitank gun in the Rue Emile Samson. Two more Tigers are immobilized by antitank-
gun fire. Tiger 132 of SS-Unterscharfiihrer Wendt remained at the outskirts of the village.
During the night, Tiger 132 is in position on Hill 213. Four Tigers of the 1./schwere
SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 are positioned south ofVillers-Bocage; the 2./schwere SS-PanzerAbteilung
101 assembles again in the defile parallel to the N 175.
The 3./schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 reaches Falaise. The casualties of the battalion
on this day amount to three tank commanders and seven other crew members. Three
Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 501) 207
Tigers of the 1./schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 are lost, whereas the British lose twentysix
tanks, fourteen M-3s, eight Bren Carriers, and eight Lloyd Carriers."

The "flaming troll" was a perfect label.
Good night.
Post Reply