False statements by Dr. Lazarus.
1. Makes no difference to my point. Wittmann was given a medal for destroying 20+ tanks when he got nowhere near that total. Massive overclaim or outright invention? You chose.
Proven False x2
2. Wittmann engaged at most 2 Stuarts from Recce Troop, 4 RHQ tanks and 2 OP tanks and possibly the rearmost A Squadron Firefly.
9 Tanks in total
Proven False.
The numbers claimed by Wittmann (20+ tanks) is demonstrably at least twice the number of tanks he even saw.
False.
Typical spin.
Innappropriate - unwelcome, and also false. Wittman (The AA.org user) had no intention to rewrite history, but rather remind us of the date/event at Villers Bocage.
The maximum number of kills he could claim was 9 yet he was awarded 21 kills. All the other tanks (A Squadron) were out of sight and over a hill.
How do you explain that?
Incredibly False, most of Wittmans kills were no where near Pt 213, but In villers Bocage… hence the term, “Battle of Villers Bocage”
Shall I continue?
As for the Citation, history books, and comments, they all seem roughly close - with something like 15 tanks being destroyed, and another 6 were debateable.
He left Russia with 117 kills Now he has 138. That is an increase of 21.
15 + 6 = 21. You might not want to face it but it is reality.
A fitting effigy of Dr. Lazarus’s argument.
Hollow… pointless… rusty… destroyed.
As for the Citation, history books, and comments, they all seem roughly close - with something like 15 tanks being destroyed, and another 6 were debateable.
He left Russia with 117 kills Now he has 138. That is an increase of 21.
15 + 6 = 21. You might not want to face it but it is reality.
Per my comments above Lazarus.
“The only point I can see you make Lazarus, is that Wittman destroyed 11 tanks himself, and up to another 10 vehicles. Instead of 21 “heavy” tanks.”
Shall I continue?
By all means keep digging.
So far your whole case consists of ‘I don’t believe you’
You have no facts no references just your blind faith in the myth.
The Wiki account
The Tiger emerged from cover onto Route Nationale 175 and engaged the rearmost tank of A Squadron 4CLY at Point 213—a Cromwell—destroying it(1).[70][97] A Sherman Firefly responded but was itself ‘knocked out’(2).[nb 10] Burning, the Firefly came to rest across the road, impeding any attempt to either reinforce the ridge or to withdraw from it.[98]
I said it was the best not perfect. The photo I gave you earlier clearly shows the rearmost tank of A Squardron. It is a Firefly. Note it is not
blocking the road and that there is no knocked out Cromwell near it. Try again.
Seeing as you are struggling badly here I will point out the account of the 2 tanks being hit in this position is based Wittmann’s own account given in a radio interview just after the battle. Wittmann got it wrong!
http://www.wehrmacht-lexikon.de/waffen-SS/konvolut/wittmann/audioarchiv/index.php
Shall I continue?
By all means keep digging.
So far your whole case consists of ‘I don’t believe you’
You have no facts no references just your blind faith in the myth.
I find this incredibly ironic.
You haven’t presented any facts. The photo you posted above obviously was taken several hours, if not days after the event (Everyone standing around); and most -if not- all of your statements have been disproven by your own source.
I’m very interested in the Wittman Audio, I’m going to get a friend of mine to translate it. Very cool site! Thank you for sharing.
.
Also the writer of the Wiki article is confusing Wittmann’s account of the 2 tanks he fired at on the RN 175-one of which could be the Firefly ‘Blondie’ shown below knocked out on the RN 175
and the Firefly ‘Allakeefek’ destroyed at Pt 213.
The photo you posted above obviously was taken several hours, if not days after the event .
It is from a film (one of two) taken a day or two later. All the wrecked tanks are still in the positions they were knocked out in (even the Tigers) and thus I can say with absolute certainty if there was a wrecked Cromwell near this Firefly it would still be there . It is not. If it was moved from a blocking position it still would be somewhere on the road. There is no Cromwell or any other tank near the Firefly ‘Blondie’. The next knocked out British tank in front of Blondie is over the hill at Pt 213.
The inescapable conclusion is the claim Wittmann made that he knocked out 2 tanks as he drove on to the RN 175 is wrong.
What Schneider means is Wittmann should have held his ground and reported back that a whole British Armoured Division was on the move with open flanks. By proper reporting the assembling Panzers could cut it off and wipe it out. Given the choice of either doing this or gaining a bit of personal glory Wittmann chose glory.
I read this too.
Wittmann jumped in a tank(had a faulty engine, so changed it for another) and headed towards the British through instinct, not any idea if self seeking glory.
All reports point to his being a humble man. He was doing his job.
He went alone, because he did not think he had time to mobilise his (under strength) company.
Now will you please leave this thread alone?
You have killed my enjoyment of it.
Think what you like. I like Wittmann. If he owes his fame to others’ lies, so be it.
@wittmann:
Wittmann jumped in a tank(had a faulty engine, so changed it for another) and headed towards the British through instinct, not any idea if self seeking glory.
All reports point to his being a humble man. He was doing his job.
He went alone, because he did not think he had time to mobilise his (under strength) company.
He did not have to attack. He could simply stay hidden and allow the whole of 7th Armoured Division to advance into a trap. He gave away the element of surprise and when the rest of SS 101 attacked they were met a a prepared enemy who knocked most of them out totally defeated the attempt to retake Villers Bocage.
@wittmann:
If he owes his fame to others’ lies, so be it.
Quite simply the most absurd statement you could ever make.
@wittmann:
Wittmann jumped in a tank(had a faulty engine, so changed it for another) and headed towards the British through instinct, not any idea if self seeking glory.
All reports point to his being a humble man. He was doing his job.
He went alone, because he did not think he had time to mobilise his (under strength) company.He did not have to attack. He could simply stay hidden and allow the whole of 7th Armoured Division to advance into a trap. He gave away the element of surprise and when the rest of SS 101 attacked they were met a a prepared enemy who knocked most of them out totally defeated the attempt to retake Villers Bocage.
@wittmann:
If he owes his fame to others’ lies, so be it.
Quite simply the most absurd statement you could ever make.
That’s what the French call - “Revisionist History”.
