Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by mkenny » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:15 pm

Matrose71 wrote: On the german side was no single anti tank gun in action so all destroyed tanks go to the german tanks.
This is incorrect. Of the 25 British tanks claimed as 'kills' only 11 are known to be victims of AP shot.
I Stuart is known to have been hit by a mortar round.
That leaves 13 where the tanks were abandoned and left by the crews.
Several of these tanks are shown being driven by the Germans after the battle.
The Commander of Pz. Lehr is shown in a photo using one.
2 are shown being driven by SS 101 crews.
I of these Cromwells was used by the Germans and features in a later July intelligence report when it was retaken intact by the British.
The Officer in charge of the Cromwells at Pt. 213 asked for permision to destroy his tanks twice over the radio and both calls are logged. He was told to do so and this was the fate of the tanks in the so called 'orchard' at Pt. 213.
So you see self-destruction was the fate of over half the tanks.
alecsandros wrote:What was the tactical situation during the second attack? In terms of terrain, effective combat strength and unit placement ?
If you can tell me which Units from 2nd Pz. Division were involved then we might be able to figure it out.
As you know the situation was very serious for the Germans and they flung everything they had into the battle as it arrived. The lead formations were indeed in action (there is a photo of 7th Armoured Division soldiers with captured 2nd Pz.Division prisoners who are dressed as 'GJ' - as the mountain boots/cap insignias/ sleeve insignias confirm ) but it is impossible to know which unit fought where and when. This confusion is being used to undercount the German forces engaged.

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

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by mkenny » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:26 pm

PRO WO171/336,

War Diary of 30 Corps "G" for June 1944.

"Appendix 'B' to & AD Intsum 30
REPORT ON CROMWELL TANK WITH GERMAN MARKINGS.
Found 4 Jul 44 at 905657 Recovered by an Armd Div REME and inspected BRETTEVILLE L'ORGUEILLEUSE 923720 5 Jul 44.

1. Type Cromwell CS Mk IV (95mm gun)
2. Markings (a) German cross on front and side of turret
(b) British markings painted over with cam paint but the following clearly visible:
T187761
1 LCT
3. Condition Penetrated in eight places by what looks like 17 pdr but NOT set on fire. REME reports that NO KO'd Cromwells handled have been set on fire.
4. Modifications
(a) Cupola previously reported as German is definitely British.
(b) German wireless aparatus (thought to be an inter-comm aparatus only).
5. Amn Confirmed that some German amn for main armament was in the tank.
6. Documents Following found in tank:
Identification: 12 SS Pz Div
FPN : 59043 A
7. General Tank definitely did not belong to the Div that found it. No information available as to who knocked it out or when.
(Source: 8 Corps IS No. 11)
COMMENTS: This tank was lost at VILLERS BOCAGE on June 13."


Image
Image

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:29 pm

Matrose71 wrote:.... Why? There is the wiki from germany and the english wiki plus Paul Carell " Sie kommen"...
A valid question is are these independent sources? Certainly one shouldn't be very surprised if two wiki's contain pretty much the same info. In this case Carell's book may be a source for both. If that's the case then you only have a single reference.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Matrose71 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:06 am

A valid question is are these independent sources? Certainly one shouldn't be very surprised if two wiki's contain pretty much the same info. In this case Carell's book may be a source for both. If that's the case then you only have a single reference.
This can be correct for a few articles from Wiki. But the article from the english Wiki about the Battle of Villers-Bocage is very very good.
The Author had done a very good research with 230 Citations an over 40 References. It is realy a very good article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Villers-Bocage

So i think it is a very proper source!

It is a matter of fact, that the attack from the the 22nd Armoured Brigade group was very dangerous for the flank and the back of the Panzer Lehr and the mornimg attack from Wittman was the essential action to stop the attack of the 22nd Armoured Brigade group.
This was very important because the germans don't have any closed compat infantry unit in this area until 18 o'clock with the arrival of the first two infantry battalions of the 2nd tank division. So Wittmans action and morning attack was essential to win time. The two or three other attacks, first from the 15 Panzer IV tanks of Panzer Lehr and second the joined attack of Panzer Lehr with 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion was to my opinion a little bit blindfold.
It isn't a good idea to attack a town only with tanks without support from infantry units especially when the enemy have infantry and time to defend.
I think the german commanders where a bit optimistic after the attack from Wittman.
But the germams take the point because Villers-Bocage was evacuate from the 22nd Armoured Brigade group and the 2nd tank division had the time to reach the frontline and could attack the whole 22nd Armoured Brigade to close the hole in the frontline.

So i can't see any winning point for the brits. They had very good chances but the morning attack from Wittman took them to the essential derangement to win time and organize the counterattack!

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

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by mkenny » Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:46 am

Matrose71 wrote:This was very important because the germans don't have any closed compat infantry unit in this area until 18 o'clock with the arrival of the first two infantry battalions of the 2nd tank division.
Incorrect. Between 0905 and 0915 the 1st/7th Queens Infantry were advancing on foot from Amaye-sur-seulles (north-west of Villers) when D Company met and engaged lead elements of 2nd Pz.Division. They killed several and took 3 POW's
Only 2 Squadrons of 4th CLY fought in Villers, A and B. The third Squadron (C) never entered the town. It was not a fight against 22nd Armoured Brigade because the other 2 Tank Regiments were not engaged.
Nor were 8th Hussars the recce Regiment for 7th Armoured Division.
4th CLY and The Queens engaged elements of both Lehr and 2nd Pz D. as well as sSS PzAbt 101.
Matrose71 wrote:
So i can't see any winning point for the brits. They had very good chances but the morning attack from Wittman took them to the essential derangement to win time and organize the counterattack!
Throughout the Normandy Campaign Monty was able to draw the German reserves into piecemeal battles and thus the Panzer Divisions were unable to be concentrated for the counter-attacks needed to defeat the Allies.
This tactic worked and at no time were the Germans able to remove the panzers from the front and replace them with infantry Divisions as they planned.
I believe it is called something like 'attrition'?

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Matrose71 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:03 am

Lol m kenny,

what is your agenda?
met and engaged lead elements of 2nd Pz.Division.
And now? There were a few soldiers as "Vorrauscommando" and you will make a close compat unit of this?

And if you are reading correct then you have read "the 22nd Armoured Brigade group "!

What is your point?

Hell I have enough of your german phoebe. You are banned on the ww2 aircraft.net forum for this phoebe, because you can't take facts as facts and your arguments are all destructive. The Battle of Villers-Bocage was a german success not a british. This a matter of fact and approved from many historicans.

So what is your agenda?

So i wish you very good luck with your german phoebe for next Sunday! :D

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

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by mkenny » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:22 am

Matrose71 wrote: So i wish you very good luck with your german phoebe for next Sunday!
There you go again. Making assumptions and drawing the wrong conclusions. I am Irish not British.

Photos of 2nd Panzer Division POW's taken by 7th AD on 13/6/44. Gebirsjagers no less!
Image


Matrose71 wrote:There were a few soldiers as "Vorrauscommando" and you will make a close compat unit of this?
I simply explain to you that troops from 2nd PD arrived in the rear of 7th AD a full 9 hours before you claim they turned up. They were engaged and captured BEFORE Wittmann entered Villers Bocage

Matrose71 wrote:if you are reading correct then you have read "the 22nd Armoured Brigade group "!
I think I understand you perfectly. This is what you wrote earlier:

"This was one great chance and you will tell me the whole 22nd Armoured Brigade have not the ability to break through this little group of defender? With only the lost of 8 Tanks in the morning? To me it is new that the 7th tank division is so lame in fight!?"


You clearly say the whole Brigade was held up and then end by saying it was a whole Division.
Last edited by mkenny on Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Matrose71 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:47 am

Throughout the Normandy Campaign Monty was able to draw the German reserves into piecemeal battles and thus the Panzer Divisions were unable to be concentrated for the counter-attacks needed to defeat the Allies.
This tactic worked and at no time were the Germans able to remove the panzers from the front and replace them with infantry Divisions as they planned.
I believe it is called something like 'attrition'?
Correct! And this is the first time we agree!
But this were not the ambitions of the Allied high command. The ambitions were to break through the frontlines of the germans to drive in the flanks or back!

Monty was a specialist in an attrition war/battle, but not in an innovative mobile war! This attrition war/battle was his real strenght!
This method is effective but it cost a lot of time!
So this is one reason why Monty isn't the favorite commander, very effective but not spectacular and his tactic is not a time winner.
And you can only fight this tactic when you know your enemy commander is shorter on supply then you.
Photos of 2nd Panzer Division POW's taken by 7th AD on 13/6/44. Gebirsjagers no less!
Yes and now? The 2nd tank division was in hurry to arrive at Villers-Bocage to close the hole in the frontline.
But the first closed combat units were the two infantry batalions at 18'clock!
There you go again. Making assumptions and drawing the wrong conclusions. I am Irish not British.
Ok sorry for that!

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:00 am

The ambitions were to break through the frontlines of the germans to drive in the flanks or back!
:silenced:
So this is one reason why Monty isn't the favorite commander,
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2959&hilit=Monty&start=150
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Matrose71 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:10 am

You clearly say the whole Brigade was held up and then end by saying it was a whole Division.
Hell no!

If the break through in the flank and back of the panzer lehr would be effective the whole brigade had stormed through the hole!
Thats is what I mean!

And 22nd Brigade is one unit of the 7nd tank division and 7nd tank division isn't famous for lame fighting!
I have said this to make clear that Wittmans attack was very very effectiv.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Kyler » Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:31 pm

I am going out on a limb here in my use of an example. So if you want to blow it off, I completely understand

I frequently play "Red Orchestra" & it's modification "Darkest Hour" Both are WW2 infantry & tank online battle simulations. "Red Orchestra" being Soviets v Germans, and "Darkest Hour" British & Americans v Germans. Both games are not as accurate as say a “Jane’s” game, but are mostly accurate for the period.

I have been playing the game for over 5 years now, and time and time again a smart & knowledgeable player, knowing their positions, tactics, and vehicle have decimated an opposing team in online play single handily. My personal best is 29 tanks & 1 halftrack destroyed in a span of 10 minutes using a Tiger I vs. a mix of M10's and M4's. In my case, I used cover from high ground overlooking the allies approach into the map in addition to the Tiger's armor, superior fire power at long range, and superior optics to stop their attack in its tracks.

Wittman & his crew used their excellent tactical and command skills, with a superior tank, and knowledge of the area to surprise and repulse a superior force of vehicles and tanks. They were also very brave to pull off that kind of attack by themselves at first.
If Wittman was alive today, it would be enjoyable to have him play a game like “Darkest Hour.” He would probably mop the floor of the opposing force.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:10 pm

Kyler,

Interesting comment, indeed. The purpose of the thread, however, was not to start an argument and invite the hijacking of the topic, but just to show the videos that I found at youtube, that was all. However is very likely that your comment is correct.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by lwd » Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:40 pm

Time and again it has been proven that the man makes more difference than the machine unless there is a huge disparity in the latter or very little in the former.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:22 pm

Lee:
Time and again it has been proven that the man makes more difference than the machine unless there is a huge disparity in the latter or very little in the former.
I concur with this comment 100%. Both parts of the sentence are true: basically it is courage, will, skill and leadership what makes the difference. Also, there are instances in which the technological disparity is such that it is very difficult for the human factor to be decisive. Correct!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
JamesGDB
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Michael Wittman and Tiger tanks

Post by JamesGDB » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:20 pm

mkenny wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote: The total of tanks destroyed at Viller Bocage, being 9 or 12 or 25 only tells you that we have a confirmation on the 5 to 1 overall of Tigers vs. Allied tanks. .
25 British tanks lost and at least 6 Tigers (see Schneider) might give you 4:1 but that means you ignore the Pz IV's lost.
They knock it down to 2:1

How many Tanks did the Germans recover?

Post Reply