Patton In Normandy

[mkenny]

Your numbers don't include three artillery Shermans and, instead, identify them as Cromwells.

Well as there was only 1 OP Sherman (the other 2 were Cromwells) I would be interested where you info comes from. I will admit that (for the sake of simplicity) I did lump it in with the Cromwells. I did not think it important enough to warrant the extra typing.
The thing is 4th CLY listed the whole days losses as 20 Cromwells and 3 Stuarts, We know that A Squadron had 11 Cromwells 4 more HQ Cromwells were hit and 2 OP Cromwells. 1 Cromwell appears to have been left behind in the West of Villers. 2 Stuarts were destroyed in Wittmann's area and another was hit by a mortar round in the south of Villers. That is 18 by my reckoning and 3 Stuarts. 2 have got lost somewhere. As you may have noticed from the above not everything was lost to Wittmann or SS 101 that day. Of the 18 listed above only 6 are known to have been hit by AP shot and there is the possibility one more was. Thats 7 Cromwells in total plus 2 Stuarts lost to tank/AP fire. Of the 4 Firefly tanks 2 were hit by enemy fire.

They also don't include three Stuarts.

Well I thought i did seems I missed them out.. Yes a Tiger was able to knock out 2 Stuarts and another was hit by a mortar round elsewhere

As to German losses, "unknown" suggests some flexibility in the scope of Panzer Lehr's activities.

SS 101 Tiger losses are known. Lehr was in action on several fronts that day so did not do us the favour of listing its losses for Villers. All we have are accounts where individual tanks are described as destroyed. There is as you say 'scope' in the numbers but in the German case this flexibility is upwards. The numbers I gave are the base and thus could be higher. I was putting a floor in.

Finally, you don't include the trucks, half-tracks, and infantry carriers shot up by Wittman.

Well I did not give anyones truck or carrier losses, German numbers are again unknown. I would again remind you that 3 Tigers were firing West into Villers and at least 1 firing East. The number of vehicles hit by Wittmann can not be singled out.

Having read so many others I find his the best.

How so? In what respect does Reynolds add to the earlier book by Taylor? Does Agte support Reynold and his conclusions? Are the 2 books by Heri Marie (Former Mayor of Villers Bocage) not the most detailed in their analysis?
Those 4 books are the only ones without serious errors of fact. Exactly which books did you use?

Reynolds' reconstructions of the operations around Caen as a portion of his studies of I and II S.S. Panzer Korps are the finest, generally, that I've read. As to your disparagement of him, why am I not surprised? You should specify your issues with his sourcing. That might be helpful as I find Reynolds' sourcing to be authoritative with modest and unused exception.

Reynolds quite clearly is smitten with the German performance in Normandy. Perhaps you may not have noticed this because it agrees with your own pre-conceptions. The 'antidote' would be to read works that lean the other way. Then you might be able to find a middle ground and get a balanced view. Clearly you have read very little about Villers.

I doubt that you'd agree as he's very unsparing of the management of British armor operations there and elsewhere.

Yes he is one of that group. However there are a number of others who take a differing view. Buckley (British Armour In The Normandy Campaign')and Terry Copp are just 2 of the people who would argue otherwise. If you confine your reasearch to German sources (or those based on German sources) you are bound to get a distorted view.
.

Germans thrown out. Doing fine and about to be reinforced to boot! Ah but..., you know- on second thought, let's let the Boche have it.

Yes they were given it. They tried to take it by direct assualt and were found wanting. They got beaten and were thrown back.

Given your purported Tiger kills and modest losses,

Purported? Well if you have information that contradicts then feel free to enlighten us as to the real numbers. It can't be found in Reynolds so I think you are out of luck on this one.

I'd think that British forces, largely intact and un-engaged would have further exploited. Especially in light of all those Mk. IV kills too- lest we forget. Such a "sunny" day and so unexploited. I hadn't thought, with my limited sources, things had gone so swimmingly for your troops there. Evidently failed again in my research.

Research..............???? oh yes you have a book by Reynolds.

Such a "sunny" day

Reynolds again? I think you will find there was a lot of rain that day as well as sunshine

Wittmann is knocked out and flees on foot. 5 Tigers lost in a idiotic attack into a defended town, Hey guys lets make Wittmann into a big hero and give him the credit for every sigle thing that happened. Boy isn't he a real super hero.
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.
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.
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 9th 1944, near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank.

[S2]

mkenny Reply

"The number of vehicles hit by Wittmann can not be singled out."

Nor is it central to British operations at Villers-Bocage. What is central is the impact upon those operations. Neither did the British continue to advance nor did they seize and hold the crossroads for later exploitation.

Equally, whether Wittman attacked with forethought and covering overwatch or not is immaterial. He attacked, accruing great shock and very tangible damage to the leading elements of Hinde's brigade. What ensued throughout the remainder of the day is reasonable given the fluidity of the front and paucity of German forces. Arriving elements of 2 Pz Div and those available from 12 S.S. Aufsklaraung Abteilung would have created the infiltration pressure to which Gordon referred at 1530 hrs. w/ Hinde. The Germans hardly were in position to do more. That the town remained contested all day seems clear.

You seem adamant that a British withdrawal in good order at approx. 1700 hrs. is salient to the overall outcome, constituting a tactical victory. I'll grant you that much, if maintaining the bulk of a brigade largely uncommitted and in good order matters. As such, they retreated back to the positions largely occupied by the brigade during the previous evening.

You suggest that the hasty attacks committed by 1./ 101 S.S. s Pz Abt. were poorly handled. They may have been but it appears that a certain "desperation" ruled the German view of that day's battlefield, especially in that particularly vulnerable gap. As such, their actions are more explainable than the inexplicable withdrawal from an objective critical to your mission, especially when suggesting that those engaged forces were in good condition and about to be reinforced.

It makes absolutely no good sense under the conditions you've described.

Hinde's mission was strategic and seizing Villers-Bocage only the first in a series of critical actions to XXX Corps success. Villers-Bocage could have been seized on the early evening of 12 June but wasn't, both Erskine and Hinde satisfied to laager west of the city rather than risk a night meeting engagement against unknown forces.

Again, why? On a mission of paramount urgency, Hinde's brigade lays up short of the ville on June 12 when capturing an unoccupied Villers-Bocage that evening would have obviated the next day's events.

Wittman's attack upon the tardy British had a profound and detrimental material effect upon their collective psyche. How Mobius' company may have added to their demoralization despite it's losses is difficult to determine aside from the decision to withdraw itself.

[clitifad]

Villers Bocage

S2 Just in reply to your TARDY British, you know its amazing that when you look at any battle there were mistakes made, some stupid and silly in some cases and others "could have done it better" but lets look at the Tardy comment, which to me is a slap in the face of those who faught and died, and I note in many comments by American veterans, that not once do they mention TARDY or anything near, they prefer to mention we didn't do it alone,
the battle was hard faught and so on. the wonderfull things is YOU WEREN'T THERE the British Army is a soldiering army, this may not be in the view of some Americans but it has been ackowledged by many around the world.

While we're at it I have seen American forces chucking equipment around everywhere, leaving it unattended for anyone to pick up, shirts open cigar in mouth chin strap hanging down and firing their 50 cals from the hip standing in the wide open where snipers could just take them out, field craft - WHAT'S THAT !!. I don't like to take the advice of some individuals seriously because I find it hypocritical that you banter on about Hinde at Villers Bocage, endlessly, lets look at General Mc Cauliffe at Bastoigne who was surrounded at same , did he do enough to put his troops in a better position to fend off the panzers ?? Was he TARDY, Patton did'nt think so when he moved a whole unit 200km's to rescue him, otherwise General McCauliffe would have been looking at a major defeat.
Another thing, we are supposed to be allies in that war, can never understand why some individuals have to come out with comments like TARDY, I spoke to a veteran from North Africa who was in the Royal Artillery and he told me about the first new Tiger Ausf e's that they were assaulted by and the only weapon they had to fight them off with was the venerable 25pounder which is not actually an anti tank piece at all, the last vehicle they knocked out was 100 yards from the muzzle of their guns. If you want to tell people we're TARDY go and tell it to the veterans, I'm sure they'll listen because American veterans from same conflict will not agree with you.
There I've had my binge !!

[mkenny]

I was hoping you were using the last few days to do a bit more reading about the action...seems not. Anyway you keep talking about the strategic effects (which I clearly said were detrimental) and I am talking just about the 2 battles in the streets of Villers. 4th CLY were caught in a vulnerable position by Wittmann. However they recovered bnd not only destroyed Wittmann's tank but they prepared for the follow-up attack and completely defeated it. Not content with disparaging this performance you pepper your posts with gratioutious national insults in an effort to provoke. I should point out that I am not British so your efforts are in vain. To hear some talk you wonder why they needed any Allies at all!

[clitifad]

Villers Bocage.

Mkenny - My appologies old friend, jib wasn't directed at you but at S-2, his TARDY comment got my goat up, flippin just not cricket !!
The points that you make however are correct, because I believe a 6 pounder took one track off the vehicle, as attempts by other Cromwell's and a Centaur (stand to be corrected) bounced off the obviously impervious armour . Reynold's also relates how this particular vehicle (Tiger) they should have ensured was completely destroyed as he states that a Tiger was recovered later, am I on about the same events ?

A South African friend of mine has done a beautiful little doirama of one of the Tigers rammed partly through a Villers Bocage house wall with telegraph wires hanging down over the vehicle from a photo at the scene.

Have enjoyed the first book (Reynold's) but would like to get the other 2 as well to follow.

Be good.;)

[mkenny]

And of course my reply was directed at S-2 rather than you!
Reynold's also relates how this particular vehicle (Tiger) they should have ensured was completely destroyed as he states that a Tiger was recovered later
There is a passage in one of Kurowski's books where there is a claim (with the usual Kurowski impossible-to-know-unless-you-were-there detail) the Tiger was recovered and this, when linked to Wittmann's account where he says he intended to recover it later, leads to the assumption it was recovered. Eye witness accounts from surviving villagers say it was towed away after the battle and used (with other wrecks) as 'bait' to lure unwary Allied aircraft into attacking a flak trap.

[S2]

Tardy

"...lets look at the Tardy comment, which to me is a slap in the face of those who faught and died"

Certainly those who fought and died deserved to be better led. They weren't and there lies the tragedy. You're welcome to point to the passage where I've questioned the skill, bravery, or battle acumen of the british soldier- but you won't find it.

"I note in many comments by American veterans, that not once do they mention TARDY or anything near..."

I've any number of quotes by British veterans who suggest EXACTLY that in the handling of their armor.

"Tardy" is a word chosen verbatim from Reynolds' comments. As you know, he's a retired British Brigadier. Deal with him.

Villers-Bocage represents a tactical and strategic defeat of the first order for the British Army. Having carefully reviewed Reynolds' account of the battle I find nothing that substantively contradicts your accounts of the battle.

You simply don't like his conclusions.

My comment stands.

[Triple C]

lets look at General Mc Cauliffe at Bastoigne who was surrounded at same , did he do enough to put his troops in a better position to fend off the panzers ?? Was he TARDY, Patton did'nt think so when he moved a whole unit 200km's to rescue him, otherwise General McCauliffe would have been looking at a major defeat.

Are you sure you know what are you talking about?

[mkenny]

[B"Tardy" is a word chosen verbatim from Reynolds' comments. As you know, he's a retired British Brigadier. Deal with him.

In my eyes when you post an authors conclusion then you should not hide behind him when challenged

Having carefully reviewed Reynolds' account of the battle I find nothing that substantively contradicts your accounts of the battle.

It must be great to have one 'definitive' account with nothing to confuse it's cosy conclusion. Reynolds, Reynolds, Reynolds.................
By the way what did you compare Reynolds With? You do have other accounts don't you?

You simply don't like his conclusions.

I care nothing about his conclusion because, like your conclusions, they are just opinions.

[Lunatock]

What a man Patton.

I always wanted to copy him.

The IA thought I was overreaching! :))

I, however, followed him in his concept ''let the enemy worry about his flanks'' and it sent cold shivers up the spine of my seniors. They breathed easy when the operation over and ensured I never got another! :))

Was that when you lead your men through a minefield during the Kargil war?

I had always assumed the Pakistani Army laid those mines...then left the position unguarded.

[S2]

mkenny Reply

"In my eyes when you post an authors conclusion then you should not hide behind him when challenged"

I affirm my concurrence w/ Reynolds' conclusions. Hinde's approach was tardy. There. Now it's my word too.

"By the way what did you compare Reynolds With?"

Yours.

"You do have other accounts don't you?"

I like his best. I've followed up Reynolds' footnotes to Chester Wilmot and Lt. Col. D'Estes. Reynolds uses nothing from these authors with which I disagree. Too, Reynolds account of the battle seems to mirror your sources very closely. Perhaps you could highlight the salient and CRITICAL differences that would better illuminate your unsubstantiated disdain?

Had Hinde pressed his advance on the evening of June 12, none of this would have occurred. What might have happened is unknown, but it certainly wouldn't have replicated the ensuing disaster.

That's the shame.

[mkenny]

How can you compare 'my' account (which concentrates on the tactical actions in detail) with Reynolds who quite clearly states:

"The Author has no intention of trying to rehearse the minitiae of the battle, but rather to describe the critical events and then discuss what went wrong and the repurcushions"

I like his best. I've followed up Reynolds' footnotes to Chester Wilmot and Lt. Col. D'Estes. Reynolds uses nothing from these authors with which I disagree. Too, Reynolds account of the battle seems to mirror your sources very closely. Perhaps you could highlight the salient and CRITICAL differences that would better illuminate your unsubstantiated disdain?

D'Este lists among his sources as Paul Carrel (1962)and Lucas and Cooper (1973) Have you read anything by Lucas And Cooper?
The whole section in quotes on page 180 of the Collins hardback bears no relation to the local geography or the sequence of events/vehicles involved.
It also repeats the false claim the tank crews were dismounted.
The version attributed to Sale on page 181 is also incorrect and the claim on the same page that 'a single Tiger had devastated Cranley's force' is also at odds with reality. The account on page 182 is riddled with errors and 4th CLY did not cease to 'exist'. On page 183 wittmann is credited with an action he never took part in..............I could go on but one thing is clear D'Este just gets it wrong. He knows the start and the end but the bits in the middle elududed him. I note that D'Este has more faith in Erskine's resolve than you (page 185)

4th CLY were caught strung out at Villers and one Squadron (15 tanks) were cut off. The motorised infantry element of 22nd AB as well as the Regimental HQ (4 Cromwells) were, to all intents, destroyed. The Regiment reacted swiftly to this punishing loss and made preparations for any follow up attack. When this attack came the Germans were thrown back from the town. A bad start but once aroused they made the Germans pay for their audacity.

[S2]

mkenny Reply

"How can you compare 'my' account (which concentrates on the tactical actions in detail)"

So far you've shown no more "detail", largely, than Reynolds. Meanwhile, unlike him, you've reached some very dubious conclusions about June 13, 1944.

"A bad start but once aroused they made the Germans pay for their audacity."

...evidently before needlessly retreating, if you're to be believed.

[mkenny]

[B]

So far you've shown no more "detail", largely, than Reynolds. Meanwhile, unlike him, you've reached some very dubious conclusions about June 13, 1944

If you say so.
Show me where Reynolds lists the number of tanks actualy penetrated rather than abandoned.............
Tell me where Reynolds has the information that one Stuart was hit by a mortar round.............
What page in Reynolds list the fate of Wittmann's Tiger................
Does Reynolds say A Squadron had 11 Cromwells in action.................

I would say 'my' detail is considerably more detailed than any Reynold's has but then as he said he was not going to go into this sort of detail that is not suprising.
What is suprising is your dogged determination to impose 'your' (taken from Reynold ) version of events without knowing of ANY other British sources.
D'Este may be considered the last word in 1983 but things have moved on since his day. Besides which D'Este has a very pronounced anti-British direction in 'Decision In Normandy'. I am amazed you never noticed!

...evidently before needlessly retreating, if you're to be believed

You are free to form your own conclusions. Limit your references to those that echo your prejudice and you will always find the answers you are looking for.
SS 101/Lehr thought it could finish off 4th CLY in the streets of Villers, they were wrong!

I said strategicaly the (British) attack was a failure and that once the initial (German) attack was over 4th CLY were more than able to deal with the German follow up attack.
Caught on the hop, losing a full Squadron and your HQ, then repulsing an attack led by Tigers? I think that is a real achievement.

[S2]

mkenny Reply

"Caught on the hop, losing a full Squadron and your HQ, then repulsing an attack led by Tigers? I think that is a real achievement."

Which is it-11 Cromwells from A Squadron "in action", or "losing a full squadron"?

Really? I think that two infantry battalions and the remainder of 4 CLY should be more than sufficient, particularly in an urban setting where the advantages lean decisively toward dismounted infantry and smaller armored vehicles. Where I'm from three battalions (1 RB, 4 CLY, and 1-7 Queens) would be a brigade-sized grouping by itself.

Nothing special here except the withdrawal, conducted in good order to no higher purpose.

Your preoccupation with minutae obviates valuable detail. Reynolds captures more than adequately all the pertinent elements of the battle. Nothing I see missing of consequence to it's outcome. How a vehicle was penetrated seems of paramount importance to you. So be it.

I'm very satisfied that the 7th Armored Division was thoroughly unbalanced by Wittman's attack and could never subsequently regain their focus and initiative- neither it's subordinate elements nor the division. Ultimately, the British surrendered all pretense of discombobulation by withdrawing from Villers-Bocage.

The Germans held the tactical field and, with it, all the downstream strategic consequences.