Tank commanders, who was best?

[Lucky13]

Phew! Good read MK! Remember as a "kid" reading about Wittmann and take it in as a gospel and all that....
Always good to learn about new discoveries etc..

 

[Amsel]

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!

Fine, but it doesn't take away from Wittman at all as the best.

Not just Kurowski but Patrick Agte as well as other forgotten authors.

 

[Amsel]

Phew! Good read MK! Remember as a "kid" reading about Wittmann and take it in as a gospel and all that....
Always good to learn about new discoveries etc..

Yes it is, history is as how it is written. One must be careful in believing everything that is told to him.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Again there was overclaiming on all sides.

I still do not understand why you keep referring to one instance that you claim (excuse me that your sources claim) shows that Whitmann is such a terrible commander.

Please explain how one instance makes him so terrible.

Was it because he was German? Would your opinion be better if he had been an allied tank commander?

Was it because he was using the Tiger that you so claim to be over rated?

Was it because he made a bad decision in your opinion?

I just do not understand your logic. You keep referring to over claiming. No one is disputing that! How does that change the fact that he is a good tank commander? Even with over claiming he was still one hell of a tank commander! True or False?

Get off the over claiming! It was never an issue!

Either prove that he was a terrible commander or move on...

 

[Amsel]

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?

Most accounts I have heard are from the British survivors of the battle.

 

[Lucky13]

Put it like this gents....

How fast can you load, aim, fire, reload, aim again and fire the next shot in a Tiger? Must become a real mess in the turret with all the empty shells, gunsmoke, making room to move and reload? I don't think that anyone would sit in the same spot to knock out, in this case "21" vehicles/tanks. He'd be moving around, which wouldn't help either with empty and still hot shells bouncing around. I don't think that you'd have time to throw them out of the turret either, you'd keep all hatches closed, right?

 

[pbfoot]

has anyone seen Battlefield Mysteries they did a pretty neat show with lots of CGI and use of modern technologies like GPS co-ordinated with aerial recce photos and physical evidence to track Wittmans last battle they came to a different conclusion to the stories about an Typhoon rocket or a Brit tank as they were to far away for their weapons to be effective but they gave to a Canadian company that was the closest unit to where Wittman was finished

 

[Lucky13]

Didn't they get knocked out by a shell that had hit them from behind and from above? Someone mentioned this to me.....

 

[Amsel]

Put it like this gents....

How fast can you load, aim, fire, reload, aim again and fire the next shot in a Tiger? Must become a real mess in the turret with all the empty shells, gunsmoke, making room to move and reload? I don't think that anyone would sit in the same spot to knock out, in this case "21" vehicles/tanks. He'd be moving around, which wouldn't help either with empty and still hot shells bouncing around. I don't think that you'd have time to throw them out of the turret either, you'd keep all hatches closed, right?

It is entirely possible. Try reading some of the accounts from the British point of view if you want a non-German account. His actual tally consisted of 5 Cromwell tanks, 1 Sherman Firefly, 2 M5 Honeys, 1 Sherman OP tank, 1 Cromwell OP tank, 2 anti-tank guns, and just over a dozen transport vehicles. Not bad!

 

[Lucky13]

Not bad on anyones account Amsel! Firefly's had a pretty nasty bite as well....

 

[m kenny]

Not just Kurowski but Patrick Agte as well as other forgotten authors.

Kurowski is useless as a serious historian and Agte makes a saint of both Peiper and Wittmann, hardly a balaced biographer.

Yes it is, history is as how it is written. One must be careful in believing everything that is told to him.

Except when it is by Kurowski or Agte?

Again there was overclaiming on all sides

Forgive me but if you know that then why do you accept the kill claim lists that are inflated?.

I still do not understand why you keep referring to one instance that you claim (excuse me that your sources claim) shows that Whitmann is such a terrible commander.

You are taking the argument to extremes. This always happens when you question German claims. No one said he was terrible-simply that he was not the great tactician he is claimed to be. You can not shout 'prove it' and then dismiss the example that has cast-iron proof that his kill claim was inflated and he lacked proper sommand ability. If you disputre any of the facts I post then now is your chance to show where they are wrong.

Please explain how one instance makes him so terrible.

More exageration. He was certainly lacking in judgement-see his disaster at Cintheaux.

Was it because he was German? Would your opinion be better if he had been an allied tank commander?

Silly argument. If you don't like the message shoot (or discredit) the messenger.

Was it because he was using the Tiger that you so claim to be over rated?

I simply wonder why it is still believed a man supported directly by 2 other Tigers and assisted by several others is touted as holding up an entire Division single handed when in reality he attacked 3 Artillery OP tanks, 2 Stuarts I Firefly and 5 Cromwells.

Was it because he made a bad decision in your opinion?

He was just an ordinary soldier. His misfortune was to be hyped out of all reality.

I just do not understand your logic. You keep referring to over claiming. No one is disputing that! How does that change the fact that he is a good tank commander? Even with over claiming he was still one hell of a tank commander! True or False?

I confine my thoughts to those things I have some understanding off. In Normandy he came a cropper. I leave Russian tactics to those who know the territory.
Schneider expalins how his thirst for glory at Villers lost them the chance to cut off an entire Armoured Regiment . Because of his gung-ho charge the follow up attack by the 1st kpTigers was defeated. Perhaps you believe attack by a single tank into the center of an enemy held town is a good idea?

It is entirely possible. Try reading some of the accounts from the British point of view if you want a non-German account. His actual tally consisted of 5 Cromwell tanks, 1 Sherman Firefly, 2 M5 Honeys, 1 Sherman OP tank, 1 Cromwell OP tank, 2 anti-tank guns, and just over a dozen transport vehicles. Not bad!

Wittmann was supported by 2 Tigers firing down the road he used. It is not known which vehicles/tanks were hit by these Tigers and so it is entirely likely Wittmann did not destroy 11 tanks (glad to see you now acept he did only get 11 at most) One of the supporting Tigers was knocked out-as was Wittmann's

 

[Amsel]

Kurowski is useless as a serious historian and Agte makes a saint of both Peiper and Wittmann, hardly a balaced biographer.




Except when it is by Kurowski or Agte?
In your opinion. Who else is there?



Forgive me but if you know that then why do you accept the kill claim lists that are inflated?.



You are taking the argument to extremes. This always happens when you question German claims. No one said he was terrible-simply that he was not the great tactician he is claimed to be. You can not shout 'prove it' and then dismiss the example that has cast-iron proof that his kill claim was inflated and he lacked proper sommand ability. If you disputre any of the facts I post then now is your chance to show where they are wrong.


More exageration. He was certainly lacking in judgement-see his disaster at Cintheaux.


Silly argument. If you don't like the message shoot (or discredit) the messenger.



I simply wonder why it is still believed a man supported directly by 2 other Tigers and assisted by several others is touted as holding up an entire Division single handed when in reality he attacked 3 Artillery OP tanks, 2 Stuarts I Firefly and 5 Cromwells.


He was just an ordinary soldier. His misfortune was to be hyped out of all reality.

If he was ordinary he would have been dead long before those battles. Wittman was extrordinary.


I confine my thoughts to those things I have some understanding off. In Normandy he came a cropper. I leave Russian tactics to those who know the territory.
Schneider expalins how his thirst for glory at Villers lost them the chance to cut off an entire Armoured Regiment . Because of his gung-ho charge the follow up attack by the 1st kpTigers was defeated. Perhaps you believe attack by a single tank into the center of an enemy held town is a good idea?

Noone knows Schneiders motives. But he may have been right. Only those that are involved in war for years on end on the losing side with no rest can explain his tactics and reasoning for his attack.



Wittmann was supported by 2 Tigers firing down the road he used. It is not known which vehicles/tanks were hit by these Tigers and so it is entirely likely Wittmann did not destroy 11 tanks (glad to see you now acept he did only get 11 at most) One of the supporting Tigers was knocked out-as was Wittmann's

When and where did I dispute this?

 

[pbfoot]

avideo clip done in CGI from the show Battlefield Mysteries on Wittman

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGrnQSb8JsA

 

[Lucky13]

Deffo gonna watch that program!

Don't remember if Otto Carius had the same at Malinava something, Haven't read much about that action, difficult to do that now as all my books here, are where I store my furniture....including Tigers In The Mud.
But as someone mentioned here earlier that the SS was eager to make a panzer star of one of their boys to compete with the army tank commanders.
Is it the same hype there as with Wittmanns V-B?

 

[parsifal]

My vote would be for Franz Bake. Bake was one of the outstanding tank commanders of the war. An Infantry Corporal in WWI (decorated as a teenager with the iron cross 2nd class), he qualified as a dentist before joining the reserves in 1937. Her was called to the colours in 1939, serving initially in a recon unit, before being given his first command just before the BOF. He was assigned the command of an AT Platoon. He became a tank commander (again in charge of a platoon), before the invasion, rising steadily through the ranks. At Kursk he temporarily was given command of Panzer Regiment 11, before being formally assigned as a regimental commander in November

Early in 1944, Bake was given command Schwere PG Bake, a special group incorporating the remnants of 503rd Hy tank Bn and the 11 Pz Regt. This special unit included 123 Panthers and 34 Tigers, so it was a powerful unit. It also had a number of Hummel SPG from 1st Bn 88 Artillery Div. Its Infantry was light but included combat engineers. It was put together specifically to work as a fire brigade, where the germans would encourage the Russians to penetrate at a certain point. The salient would then be shut by Infantry, and the PRB used to work the enmy flanks and rear, and annihilate the pocket. Bake was devastatingly successful at this tactic, and developed it to near perfection. This is, incidentally beyond reproach, his abilities have been so well documented (included a few Soviet sources, apparently, and because the Germans were nearly walways left in control of the battlefield, able to be accurately verified by the germans (rather than just have them guess which is usually what they were redeuced to when they were forced to retreat prematurely)



Early in 1944, at the Balabonowka pocket, Pz Rgt Bake (PRB) engaged the III Tank Corps, in a gruelling five day battle. Bake deployed his Tigers in the centre, while the faster more agile Panthers formed two wedges on either flank. By the end of the battle, 267 tanks (nearly all of them Hy types) and 156 SPGs had been destroyed or captured (and the Germans left in temporary control of the battlefield (which is conveneient, because that allowed the Germans to count the numbers of destroyed AFVs in detail). German loses were just 1 Tiger, and 4 Panthers

This was not his only engagement, however I believe it was his most successful. Certainly the german High command thought so, they awarded him the swords for the oak leaves he already held. He was also awarded four I"Individual Tank destruction Badges", each given for the single handed destruction of 5 tanks. But this last honour is hard to verify, so i am not going there

An impressive feat, by any measure, and one that Bake came close to repeating many times subsequently. He was, in my opinion, the best tank commander of the war

 

[Lucky13]

Great info there Parsifal, thanks!

 

[Soren]

Well m_kenny, since you think you have overwhelming proof to support your case then how come no'one here believes you ? Think about that for a moment.

 

[Soren]

Also before we get ahead of ourselves and start believing m_kenny who is accusing Wittmann of being a liar as-well as all Germans to be dumbkopfs filled with nothing but their own pride, lets remember that Wittmann himself claimed 11 to 15 tanks knocked out at Villers Bocage that day.

m_kenny is a very well known character from amongst other forums such as Axis History Forum, and he has always been very biased towards the Allies and a true hater of the Tiger tank. He has alawys tried his best to discredit the true achievements of German tankers their tanks. He has never been seen as an objective researcher, and rightly so.

If I were you guys I'd try asking him wether he could provide proof of the German high command ALWAYS cutting claims in half. If he can't provide the original document stating this, then either he's lying or he is basing his knowledge on someone elses writing research which we know nothing of.

And as for my figures for the Battle of Kursk, they are derived from both the original German Soviet loss records.

 

[m kenny]

If I were you guys I'd try asking him wether he could provide proof of the German high command ALWAYS cutting claims in half. If he can't provide the original document stating this, then either he's lying or he is basing his knowledge on someone elses writing research which we know nothing of.

Start here:

Re armour kill claims vs. actual enemy losses, on the Eastern Front at least the German General Staff by 1943 had come to accept that the actual armour kills were ca. 50% of the claims due to double claiming and repairable armour left behind. Cf. the document below from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 2" by Fritz Hahn.

from:
Axis History Forum • View topic - Will Fey and the 14 Shermans he claims for 7/8/44

And here:

"During 1943 the Red Army lost (total write-offs) 23,500 tanks and
assault guns.51 Between 1 January and 30 June 1943, 5,747 tanks and
assault guns were completely lost to the Red Army. "This would indicate
a total loss of 17,753 tanks and assault guns during the second half of 1943.
Over the same period the German combat units reported the destruction
of 30,668 tanks and assault guns. "The German high command did reduce
this by 50 per cent to compensate for double counting and repairable
vehicles and accordingly settled for a total of 15,334 tanks and assault guns
destroyed".

Page 126 of the book 'Kursk 1943, A Statistical Analysis' (see below)

And as for my figures for the Battle of Kursk, they are derived from both the original German Soviet loss records.

You should inform Zetterling. He seems to have gotten it completely wrong.


"For the Central Front one author states that the tank losses between 5
and 15 July amounted to 651 vehicles lost irretrievably.64 If to this is added
the numbers given above for the Voronezh Front the Red Army would
have lost 1,905 tanks completely destroyed or captured by the enemy.
However, Krivosheyev's book states that the total losses of the defensive
phase at Kursk were 16l4 tanks and assault guns (see Table 8.13)."

Page 127 of the following:

Amazon.com: Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis (Cass Series on the Soviet (Russian) Study of War): Anders Frankson: Books

 

[Soren]

lol that doesn't prove overclaiming at all m_kenny! You're just speculating and cherry picking as usual!

The German high command just seems to have taken into account that a very great deal of the enemy material knocked out could be salvaged because it was infact the Russians who were moving forward and thus were able to retrieve their material.