Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
So Kenny, do have any proof or links to dispute Wittman's claims?
Tank commanders, who was best?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
Juha
Soren is not incorrect in what he says, its just that the definition of the Kursk Battle which he is using (and which is supported by quite a few people) is not the same as the more general approach applied to Kursk by most of us.
"Kursk" in the western sense actually relates to a series of widely dispersed battles spreading over more than a month, and fought over many hundreds of kilometres of front. If you adopt that definition of the battle, then Soren is wrong, and you are right. However, the actual battle of Kursk (which incidentally did not even involve the full SS panzer Corps) then he is right, moreover, that one engaggement (prokorovkha) has had more BS written about it than just about any other WWII battle. It was not a resounding Soviet victory, it did not break the back of the Panzer waffe, it did not see hordes of tanks engaging at point blank range, and it was definately not the biggest tank enagement of the war. It did see heavy losses for one of the three Soviet tank Corps engaged (the 29th). But even then full write offs for the Soviets, excluding Light Tanks like the T-70s, amounted to just 94 tanks, (the accounts from german sources of hundreds of Russians tanks lost in one day are based on the immediate battle situation.....within weeks most of these so-called losses had been repaired and were back in battle)
However, if one adopts a wider view of the battle Of Kursk, beyond that then Sorens facts and figures are wrong, and you are closer to being correct. On the wider front there were many more than just three tigers, in addition there were 119 Panthers and I forget how many ferdinands .... and German tank losses overall actually exceeded those for the Russian heavy tanks, because nearly all of their break downs were lost to the enemy (ie the Soviets)
- Thread starter
- #43
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Was suspecting that....
No specifics in general but maybe his survival in three deployments to the Eastern front might be a clue to his abilities as a Panzerfuror. Coupled with his kill record and aggressiveness make him a candidate for best tank commander. Think about it.
I only dispute claims I know to be incorrect. Why they are incorrect is not my call.
Recently I took the trouble to read carefully through Agte's book on Wittmann and what was suprising was how the kill claims were ramping up towards the latter part of his career. It appears the higher his public profile the more claims were made. In 3 weeks in January 1944 his kill total doubled and his Villers score were more than twice his own claims. Clearly he was being used as a propoganda tool with little regard for reality. He himself did not claim he knocked out 21 tanks.
I have thought about it. I hear so much about how well he did that I am suprised that no one can give the examples where he did so well.
In fact I am of the opinion the majority of people claiming he did so well have not got the faintest idea what he did. They just parrot that which they believe to be true.
Think about it.
I have happened to read more then a few books on Wittman and look forward to reading any books disputing his abilities as a great tank commander. I am always ready to learn. He did well in Nogai, Crimea, during Zitadelle, and at Sherepki and many points in between.
- Thread starter
- #48
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Let's say that Wittmann knocked out those 21 was it, tanks. How long did the V-B fighting last, how fast would the gunner and loader have to work to accomplish this feat and Wittmann to pick out the right targets?
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
Fair enough, I still consider Wittmann to be one of the best.
Which ones?
I had thought we were talking about overclaiming. Why do you want to take the argument to absurdity?
Ah you did a quick Google to Panzerace.
panzerace.net | michael wittmann biography
Why didn't you use your books?
Moot because he never saw 21 tanks. If he never came withing range of more than 11 how can he knock out 21?
- Thread starter
- #52
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I wouldn't know mate...
I was just wondering if they ever took into consideration, how fast gunner/loader/commander would have to act for some of these claimes that I've seen here...
As soon as the first shot is fired, you're target (before that you're safe) and you'll have to pick your victims fast and carefully....
I was just wondering if they ever took into consideration, how fast gunner/loader/commander would have to act for some of these claimes that I've seen here...As soon as the first shot is fired, you're target (before that you're safe) and you'll have to pick your victims fast and carefully....
Ah, you decided to be a punk about it. Look at the OP title, Tank Commanders, who is the best? Not Michael Wittman overclaimed possibly ( and I know because I'm so smart). You have been asked to show the proof of your claims but you cannot, so don't grill me about what books I have read, besides if you search my other posts you might even see some photos of these books. You don't even deserve a reply until you can show some proof.
If you reply to my points you are talking to me. Title or no title
What do you want proof of?
It was a simple question. Why are you evasive when I ask for the source of your facts? If I knew the titles I would understand your argument better. I don't know of many books about Wittmann and your saying you have read 'more then a few ' leads me to believe I have missed some. Maybe you are refering to the many books that mention Wittmann rather than books on him?
You are not the only one who has an interest and knowledge on Tank warfare during WWII.
- Thread starter
- #56
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
"During this short engagement, Wittmann's company destroyed 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns."
For all this, they must have worked like crazy in the turrets, thinking of shells that missed etc..62 vehicles!
For all this, they must have worked like crazy in the turrets, thinking of shells that missed etc..62 vehicles!
Try this for starters:
This was posted earlier but you must have missed it. The author is Wolfgang Schneider and he can in no way be called biased or prejudiced against Tigers or Germany:
The Villers Bocage Mystery
Just about anyone interested in Tiger tank battles will know of many accounts concerning the action of the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" Obersturmfuhrer Wittmann. Unfortunately, most of
them do not know that almost all these accounts are completely untrue! .............................
............................ Overall, the British lost 26 tanks, 14 M3s, eight Bren Carriers and eight Lloyd Carriers. Meanwhile, the 3rd Company reached Falaise. The following day, the general commanding I SS- Panzerkorps, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Dietrich
nominated Wittmann fora Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oakleaves and Swords. This was awarded on June 22nd 1944, along with promotion to the rank of Hauptsturmfuhrer.Some of the terms of the nomination for this award are noteworthy:
- «the Wittmann company... was... near Hill 213...
ready for cornbat»
- «Wittmann could no longer issue orders to his men
who were some distance away...»
- (at Villers-Bocage, after having to evacuate, being
immobilized): «he further destroyed... all the vehicles
within range...»
- (after reaching Panzer-Lehr-Division headquarters):
«he set off again for Villers-Bocage... engaged (the
1./SS 101)».
- the number of tanks destroyed is noted as being
25.
Let us review what actually happened.
In examining these events, they should not be taken lightly! We have to think of the following:
Wittmann was well-liked by his subordinates and was appreciated by his superiors. In the Balkans campaign and particularly on the Eastern front, he had fought bravely and destroyed many enemy tanks with his Sturmgeschutz and later his panzer.
On the morning of June 12th 1944, the situation was not at all clear.
The decision to attack an enemy about to carry out a decisive breakout had to be taken.
Wittmann's own action was energetic and courageous.
However it raises a whole string of questions It is easy to judge the contents of the award nomination drafted by Sepp Dietrich. All the afore mentioned assertions are downright untrue. Wittmann's company was not ready for battle (see below); the panzers were not «some distance away";
there was enough time to issue orders; after being hit in the tracks, the crew ran away, it could not attack any other targets; during the attack by Mobius's company, Wittmann had not yet reached Panzer-Lehr Division headquarters; he took no part in the attack on Villers-Bocage. The reader can quite easily work out how many shots were on target: seven. And even if we take into account the artillery observation tank «armed» with a wooden gun and the light Stuart tanks, the number still does not come to 25. This leaves the reference to the fact that the threat of serious danger was removed by Wittmann's determined action. Normally speaking, the various grades of the Knight's Cross were awarded for individual feats that were «decisive for the battle», and not specially for a highscore. I will come back to this point later.
After the event, it is difficult to know whether there was enough time to wait until the company's other (three) panzers were in battleworthy condition. The fact that Sowa's panzer was able to follow quickly indicates that it would have taken just a few more minutes.
If the British had not put themselves in such a position as not to be ready for battle and had not been so lax, Wittmann could certainly hav destroyed several enemy vehicles, but obviously, he would have been stopped, at least by a shell in his tracks. The combat distances were fairly close, so that the Cromwell tanks, usually deprived of success, might well have hit the Tiger's flanks. This judgement presupposes that Wittmann could have fallen back int an observation position and waited for his panzers to join him, and then attacked with a much larger fighting force with the means of covering each other. Given that the British column was at a halt, obviously there was still some little time to issue orders (by radio, for example).
Even if several enemy tanks had advanced in the Caen direction from Hill 213, they would have passed the 1st Company by. The single-handed attack of an enemy-occupied town is not debatable. But that does not explain the point of it all to the reader.
Neither does the attack on Villers-Bocage which followed, by panzers, elements of Panzer-Lehr-Division and of 1./SS-101 almost at full strength, with no supporting infantry, follow the fundamental principle whereby tanks are supposed as far as possible to bypass any towns or face quick losses. In short, it can be established that the action by the two Tiger companies (partly with elements of the Panzer-Lehr-Division) averted the threat of a decisive British breakout. However, the critical remarks regarding the conduct of the operation still stand, as does the question of whether Wittmann's personal action was decisive in this operation.
In the days that followed, 101 took part in further battles for Cahagnes and with the 3rd Company, which arrived at Evrecy later on, before the British could first launch their attack towards the Odon River.
General Analysis
The action of the 1st and 2nd Companies of the schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 was everything but awe-inspiring. SS-Panzerkorps propaganda then gave a decisively misleading account of it. How can this be explained?
First, we have to remember that - unlike the Wehrmacht - the Waffen-SS did not have a experienced tank arm. Compared with the brilliant exploits of the «old» (Wehrmacht) panzer divisions, the Waffen-SS could not hope for similar successes. At a pinch, the II SS-Panzerkorps's action in Russia, in the southern sector, during Operation Zitadelle in July 1943, commands respect. So with Obersturmfuhrer Wittmann, Sepp Dietrich tried his utmost to manufacture a hero. On the Eastern front, the Knight's Cross was awarded for «kills», as were Oakleaves. This is all the more astonishing as, both in the Wehrmacht tank arm and among the tank destroyers, many soldiers had much higher scores
As we know, the legend of the "Second World War tank commander with the highest number of kills" has been kept up to this day. This judgement is completely wrong, in terms both of the actual score and the tactics employed! A competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes as Wittmann made.
1. The company commander knows exactly the technical status of all his panzers. He does not place a
vehicle which has engine trouble at the head of a stationary column; the risk of blocking all the other panzers is just too great.
2. A sunken lane can afford some protection, but it is not a suitable standby base when the enemy's position is unknown. The major concern is for the panzers to be disposed in such a way as not to hamper their freedom of movement.
3. In a concentration sector, all battleworthy panzers are placed in alert positions. These positions and the
roads leading to them have to be carefully reconnoitered. When placed on the alert or when the concentration sector is attacked, upon orders, the crews join them individually. But when the morning alert came,
none of the company's tank commanders knew what to do.
4. After the first intelligence of the enemy, the company should have been placed on the alert at once with orders to ready itself for battle as quickly as possible. Invaluable time would certainly have been saved
and it could have regrouped before engaging the enemy. Such action would have been more effective.
5. As the enemy's position was not clear, it was all the more necessary to work out a well-conceived counter-attack. On the basis of observation relying on an overall view of the situation, valuable intelligence could have been obtained before engaging. Such overhastiness was uncalled for, as the next company (1./SS-101) was in a favorable position further north-east, and it could have attacked the enemy forces when they advanced.
6. The hasty, single-handed attack on the large and powerful British force may seem brave, but it goes against all the rules (no centre of gravity, no concentration of forces, importance of the moment of surprise). The action that followed by the bulk of the 2nd Company and by Mobius 1st Company came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive.
7. The carefree advance of a single panzer into a town occupied by the enemy is pure folly.
Thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost the "tank commander with the highest number of kills" his life on August 8th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank.
Is this what you would call 'proof'?
I wouldn't think so. But interesting however.
And that is why I asked what books you had read. Once I know the titles I would understand how your opinions were formed. For example knowing you were using Kurowski would explain many things.
The tank kill claim dispute is really a no-contest. The Germans discounted 50% of their own crew claims and it is a fact that Wittmann could not have hit more than 11 British tanks at Villers. Strangely wittmann hit 11 and was awarded 21 roughly a 50% discount!
Perhaps you have a better account. Please share it.
Is it possible you could list the position 21 tanks Wittmann is credited with and how he was able to hit 10 of them that were over a hill and out of sight of him at all times that day?
