Michael Wittman's Demise - did we find the answer?

[aka_tom_w]

perhaps getting off topic now.....

Interesting Discussion of Operation Totalize and how bad it went for the ALLIES

from:

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/00-01.asp

First Cdn. Army was told that the Polish Armd. Div. would come under command in time

for Operation Totalize, set for Aug. 8, 1944. The Poles had just arrived in Normandy and so

there was little time to get acquainted. Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds met Maczek and

his staff officers for the first time on Aug. 4 and had one more brief discussion with them

before Totalize began. The Poles used British liaison officers to improve communications,

but Simonds quickly learned that the Poles could not be controlled in the same way a

British or Canadian division could be.

There was more than a language barrier at work. The Canadian historian and armoured

theorist Roman Jaramowcyz argues that Maczek was "a modern tank officer" who found

Simonds’ operational plans too restrictive. On the eve of Totalize, Maczek protested that

the frontage of less than a 1,000 yards allowed no room for manoeuvre and would give

German anti-tank guns concentrated fields of fire. Simonds refused to alter his plans,

insisting that the armour could only function in the open country south of Caen in a

set-piece battle with full air and artillery support.

Maczek’s fears were realized on the afternoon of Aug. 8 when his leading armoured

regiment lost 26 tanks in a few minutes. The Germans, firing from the small woods that

dotted the landscape, caught the Poles in a deadly crossfire. This bottled up elements of the

division that were supposed to maintain the momentum of the attack. The Polish Armd.

Div. was also hampered by the disastrous "short bombing" of the United States 8th Air

Force that caused scores of casualties and the loss of ammunition and equipment.

By nightfall, the Polish had made little progress and orders to continue could not be carried

out. The next morning the division launched an attack on a broader front and experienced

its first real success.

However, 12th SS battle groups quickly counterattacked and destroyed scores of the flimsy

Sherman tanks. Elements of the Polish Armd. Div. were less than a mile from Point 140

where the British Columbia and Algonquin regiments were being systematically destroyed.

However, the Poles could not advance further.

It is impossible to exaggerate the inadequacy of Allied armour in such situations. The great

strengths of the Sherman tank were its mechanical reliability and speed, the great

weaknesses were a high profile, armour plate so thin it could easily be penetrated by any

German anti-tank gun and a 75-mm main gun that was ineffective at ranges beyond 500

yards.

After Operation Totalize, the Poles, who had lost 66 tanks, hastened to copy the

experiments of the more experienced regiments that had begun to wire and weld additional

tank tracks to their hulls in the hope of deflecting hits and avoiding destruction.

Simonds was either unaware of the depth of this problem or determined to ignore it. As a

corps commander he could not allow his men to focus on reasons for failure. He had to

plan for success and employ the resources available to him. At a commanders conference

held just before launching his second armoured Blitzkrieg–Operation Tractable–Simonds

was highly critical of the performance of both armoured divisions. He accused them of

every known sin under the sun, including lack of drive. He was especially disappointed in

the Poles and for Tractable, the massive daylight attack of Aug. 14, he paired the veteran

2nd Cdn. Armd. Bde. with 4th Div. This left the Polish Armd. Div. to form "a firm base."

The decision gave the Poles time to recover from their first battle and from the ordeal of a

second short bombing–this time by the Royal Canadian Air Force–that inflicted more than

200 casualties.

When the order to cross the River Dives and advance toward Trun was received on

Aug.15, the Polish Armd. Div. was ideally situated to launch an end run around the main

enemy resistance.

Maczek embraced the new orders that were well suited to his ideas about employing an

armoured division. The Polish Armd. Div. was organized into battle groups and quickly

formed a bridgehead across the Dives.

The Polish and Canadian advance to Trun was slowed by battle groups of the 85th, 21st

and 12th SS divisions, which were busy holding the northern edge of the Falaise Pocket.

Simonds decided to leave Trun to 4th Armd. and ordered Maczek to take Chambois and

link up with the Americans in closing the gap.

The Poles, after two days of continuous combat, were to work their way across the grain of

some of the most rugged terrain in Normandy. The hills in this beautiful part of France rise

steeply from the river valleys and the only good roads run north-south.

Maczek decided to send one battle group to Chambois and then block the exits by seizing

the high ground at Mount Ormel-Coudehard, a hill the Poles would come to call the

Maczuga or mace after its appearance on the contour maps.

Unfortunately the commander of the regiment who was to lead the advance to Chambois

did not communicate his intentions clearly to the guide supplied by the French resistance.

The Koszutski battle group moved due east to a village called Les Champeaux astride the

main Trun-Vimoutiers highway, the German escape route to the River Seine. This small

force, one armoured regiment and an infantry battalion, had penetrated deep into the

German rear areas where it was repeatedly attacked by Royal Air Force Spitfires and

Typhoons whose pilots had been briefed to bomb and strafe all movement in an area

known to be occupied by the enemy. Despite casualties from friendly fire, the battle group

disrupted the German retreat and helped to stem the counterattack by 9th SS Panzer Div.

While Koszutski’s men fought their isolated battle, the rest of the division worked its way to

Chambois and the Maczuga.

[aka_tom_w]

Does anyone know if there is a CMBO scenario made for this action? the Armoured Advance on the Evening of Aug 7 with the Poles in there Sherms working with the Canadians on that evening in the dark?

Thanks

-tom w

"Historical Background

After the fall of Caen, France on July 9th, 1944, General Montgomery ordered the 2nd Canadian Corp to drive on Falaise in an operation code-named Totalize. With

Falaise taken, the entire German army in Normandy would be encircled. The Germans, already under threat from the American army in and around St. Lo, threw

together a Panzer Division to keep the gap at Falaise open.

This refight is representative of many battles fought by the Canadians in France during August 7th--16th, 1944. The present small-scale action hinges on a crossroads near St. Sylain on August 8th. The Canadians, racing for Falaise, get caught by the German counter-stroke. "

[Kingfish]

Tom,

AFAIK, the Poles weren't involved in the night attack on 08/07/44. The two divisions involved in the night attack were the Canadian 2nd infantry and 51st Highland divisions w/ attached armored units.

The Polish 1st armored didn't join the fray until the next day 08/08/44.

As for a scenario depicting the night attack, I can't think of any, but there are two really good ones that depict the actions on the following day, including Wittman's last hour. These scenarios are Franko's 'August bank holiday' and the Desert fox's 'Cintheaux-Totalize'.

Edit: Here is a map of Operation Totalize. Not the best in the world, but it gives you a good idea of who on the allied side was involved and where.

Operation Totalize

[ May 29, 2002, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[aka_tom_w]

to answer my own question this was the only CMBO scenario I found:

Operation Totalize on the morning of Aug 8 after the night assualt.

There is also a Scenario By Rune Somewhere which is his interpretaion of Wittmann's last battle.

Have not found that yet, but I have not looked very hard yet either.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Tom,

AFAIK, the Poles weren't involved in the night attack on 08/07/44. The two divisions involved in the night attack were the Canadian 2nd infantry and 51st Highland divisions w/ attached armored units.

The Polish 1st armored didn't join the fray until the next day 08/08/44.

As for a scenario depicting the night attack, I can't think of any, but there are two really good ones that depict the actions on the following day, including Wittman's last hour. These scenarios are Franko's 'August bank holiday' and the Desert fox's 'Cintheaux-Totalize'.

OK!!

thanks

Any idea what "PNP tagged Tiger" means?

thanks

-tom w

[WWB]

The polish side of this fighting has been done quite well. First, there is a wild bill battle on the CD regarding the actions at les Campeax. I am blanking on the name ATM.

For the fighting on the Mace, Wild Bill has also done a battle called A Rock in the Flood, which is quite interesting.

I also have an unfinished scenario dealing with the German attack on the eastern face of the Mace on August 21 1944. I have pretty much given up on it, but if anyone would like it I can send it out.

WWB

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Tom,

AFAIK, the Poles weren't involved in the night attack on 08/07/44. The two divisions involved in the night attack were the Canadian 2nd infantry and 51st Highland divisions w/ attached armored units.

The Polish 1st armored didn't join the fray until the next day 08/08/44.

As for a scenario depicting the night attack, I can't think of any, but there are two really good ones that depict the actions on the following day, including Wittman's last hour. These scenarios are Franko's 'August bank holiday' and the Desert fox's 'Cintheaux-Totalize'.

Edit: Here is a map of Operation Totalize. Not the best in the world, but it gives you a good idea of who on the allied side was involved and where.

Operation Totalize

Great Map

Thanks

Reposting it here because it "seems" appropriate:

Thanks

-tom w

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

The polish side of this fighting has been done quite well. First, there is a wild bill battle on the CD regarding the actions at les Campeax. I am blanking on the name ATM.

Chambois

[Andreas]

Chambois and The Mace are not actually part of TOTALIZE. They happened 10-12 days later, and another operation (TRACTABLE) happened in between. TOTALIZE was sinply the operation to finally break through the German defense in depth on the Caen TO Falaise road, after earlier attempts had ended in failure (e.g. GOODWOOD). TOTALIZE, although not the full success it was supposed to be, certainly was not a failure either. It managed to unhinge the German defense, and showed what would happen, once the armoured force of SS Panzerkorps that had opposed the Commonwealth until then was replaced by infantry divisions. Particular desasters on the Allied side were Worthington Force on Hill 140, and the short bombing that hit 1st Polish Armoured.

As always, no clues about actual happenings during the battles should be taken from Panzermeyer without corroborating evidence from elsewhere

BTW - the 34 Fireflies that Tout talks about (quoted earlier) must be the full compliment of his armoured Brigade. I think 'range' has a fairly loose meaning in his sentence, as in 'if Ekins had not gotten Wittmann, somebody else would have.'

BTW2 - just imagine how well Ekins would have done with superior German optics and the 88 wondergun...

[WWB]

Good points andreas. I knew somehow my dates were not jibing . . .

WWB

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andreas:

BTW2 - just imagine how well Ekins would have done with superior German optics and the 88 wondergun...

Are you mocking me ????

-tom w

[Andreas]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

BTW2 - just imagine how well Ekins would have done with superior German optics and the 88 wondergun...

Are you mocking me ????

-tom w</font>

[Claus B]

Originally posted by The_Desert_Fox:

Ah, one of my all time favorite topics *GGG*. Kilgore thanks for linking to the pics.[originally it was one pic, but here it is split in two halves]

I apologize, I wasn´t able to resist to reply to the bait. As you can imagine I collected some notes while doing my homework for Cintheaux-Totalize...here is some stuff you might be interested in.....lengthy post following.

-SNIP-

Great post Helge!

I'll save it and use it whenever some - ehhh.... - person starts babbling about Typhoons again

Claus B

[Gary T]

Michael,

In response to your original question I believe this is the thread you were looking for - http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421

Cheers,

Gary.

PS I'll get those GD wehrpass scans to you next week hopefully.

[offtaskagain]

From context, i think that PNP-tagged stuff is a PC work around for SS.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by P51D:

[qb]Unfair is being called a liar by someone whom i have never met or knows me.

I can find no posting anywhere in this thread where anyone calls you a liar. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gary T:

Michael,

In response to your original question I believe this is the thread you were looking for - http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421

Cheers,

Gary.

PS I'll get those GD wehrpass scans to you next week hopefully.

Thanks!!! I put up the first two on the site; let me know if you require any changes to be made. Many thanks again.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PawBroon:

You're right, of course...we'll never really know.

[Michael Dorosh]

And incidentally, aka_Tom - great digging and info, thanks! To the others as well who contributed in a positive manner to this thread.

I had feared I was going to the well one too many times. And here it is 4 pages later and no one even yelled at me to do a search. (sniff) You guys are the best.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And incidentally, aka_Tom - great digging and info, thanks! To the others as well who contributed in a positive manner to this thread.

I had feared I was going to the well one too many times. And here it is 4 pages later and no one even yelled at me to do a search. (sniff) You guys are the best.

Oh what the Hell ?

I was curious to see what the internet could yeild on this matter and I was PLEASANTLY surprised, to find those two could references and share them here. I was particularily interested to read about the suggestions that some German propaganda, was credited with the lame (fictious) claim that Wittmann was too "God Like" in his reputation to have possibly been KO'd by a Sherm FireFly.

I am now personally convinced the FireFly waiting in the woods at 800 meters nailed him as they were waiting in ambush and got off more than a few rounds before being spottted! (so says the AAR of both the Germans and the British, it would seem)

Glad you like those posts, I spend a few minutes at work today checking into it.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

more here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000993.html

Fionn posts his opinion above that is was Rockets from CAS

and there is even more here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421

PzKpfw 1

Member

Member # 2242

posted July 18, 2000 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Spook:

Interesting web site, Fivetide. From it is the following quote:

And have any squadron reports from RAF 2nd TAF been submitted to indicate that any of their

planes operated in or near that region at the time of Wittman's demise?

Vau was the source Culver & Fiest used in their Tiger book.

As for the Aircraft theory, from all I have read no TAF or TAC air were operating within 40 miles of the battlefeild, thats been 1

reason why later books om Wittmann Ie, Simpson's book etc, ruled out the aircraft theory.

Regards, John Waters

So... which is it?

I'm still "happier" with the Firefly 17lber shot to the flank explanation myself.

-tom w

[ May 29, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PawBroon:

He got killed because he was overconfident.

Same for the Red Baron....

This wasn't the case for the Red Baron, and I don't see evidence to support this for Wittman.

The Red Baron was worn out. He got careless. He got suckered in to a low-flying chase over enemy lines, and worst of all, he forgot to check behind him - the first rule of airfighting. His demise was sealed by Australian gunners on the ground, but the fact that he didn't break off once Brown was on the scene kind of indicates, to me, as far as the evidence I've read will take us, that the Baron was simply careless.

He had been fighting far too long, and he never recovered from his head wound.

Or, if you prefer, his luck simply ran out.

If Wittman was bagged at 800 metres by a Firefly, I am not sure how that leads one to the presumption he was overconfident. I would suspect that like Richtofen, he simply ran out of luck - the key ingredient an ace possesses, for if luck is against you, so is everything else.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

_Another_ characteristic of a good historian is being able to read between the lines.

Indeed; just as we can easily read between the lines of P-51D's stuff.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

It's possible P51D was just a friendly guy volunteering info to a game's BB in a very casual manner.

I don't know what you consider a "casual manner", but claiming to be a "professional" military historian, and an infallible one at that, doesn't match my idea of "casual".

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Maybe, for example, not realizing that any postings to this board would be subjected to an immediate and not especially polite peer review.

I wasn't aware of any great tradition among military historians of whining about "peer review". P-51D's treatment by the board was substantially more polite than a lot of academic reviews I've read. If he ostentatiously parades the fact that he has a published paper (although his apparent failure to understand the meaning of "publication" certainly looked odd) on the subject at hand, he has absolutely no grounds for complaint if he is asked to provide a reference to it.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

A couple of days of non-insinuation would have given him the chance to cough up some support without feeling like a hunted man.

Maybe, if he needed a couple of days to find his sources, he should have moderated the dogmatic tone of his continued postings, don't you think?

Still, I fail to see why he needed to refer to his references to be able to tell us his name or the name of his company.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

True, P51D was _probably_ a fake.

Indeed, there has to date been no shred of evidence presented against this position -- despite the extreme ease of doing so had it been available.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

[snips]

It'll also chase away _everyone_ who makes a strong claim but doesn't want to be treated like crap just because they aren't a board regular and have yet to post proof of identity, a resume, and a bibliography, and can't do so within 3 hours of thier first post.

It is not "treating someone like crap" to ask for a reference to a paper of theirs they have brought to your attention. Nor is it "treating someone like crap" to correct errors of fact they have posted. Nobody ever put any time limit on P-51D to post his references, and certainly not one of 3 hours, so that is a strawman argument. Indeed Mike Dorosh made it quite plain that he would welcome their posting at any future date, and I imagine that goes for the rest of us, too.

There's only one person who is responsible for P-51D not posting his claimed references, and that is P-51D himself. He has absolutely no reason to whine about his treatment in this thread; still less do you have any justification for whining on his behalf.

All the best,

John.

(Apologies in advance if something very similar to this pops up at a later date; I can't see the posting I made on the subject last night.)

[Tarquelne]

claiming to be a "professional" military historian, and an infallible one at that, doesn't match my idea of "casual".

I'm sorry, I missed the part where he claimed to be infallible. Could you point it out, please?

I wasn't aware of any great tradition among military historians of whining about "peer review".

And I'm saying that p-51D probably didn't expect to be met with such suspicion so quickly _here_, the forum for a game. New member, and I supose he believed people wouldn't assume he was a poser if he didn't supply ID and references the same day he posted.

From this new member's perspective, it looked like he was being bullied.

P-51D's treatment by the board was substantially more polite than a lot of academic reviews I've read.

That's not saying much.

If he ostentatiously parades

ostentatious = infallible?

he has absolutely no grounds for complaint if he is asked to provide a reference to it.

Very true - but then there's the _manner_ in which the question is asked. And the manner in which other posters replied to his claims.

Still, I fail to see why he needed to refer to his references to be able to tell us his name or the name of his company.

Did anyone ask before he thought the tone turned hostile? Does it matter, if the references are given? No, and no. And some people are still very uncomfortable about giving thier ID over the internet.

Indeed, there has to date been no shred of evidence presented against this position -- despite the extreme ease of doing so had it been available.

Yeah, he could of the second day. He left either because:

a) He's a fake.

or

He thinks the forum is a shark tank, dominated by an established clique hostile to newcomers, and has other things he'd rather do in his free time.

From the information we have, we can't be certain.

It is not "treating someone like crap" to ask for a reference to a paper of theirs they have brought to your attention. Nor is it "treating someone like crap" to correct errors of fact they have posted.

Unless you do so in a snide, hostile manner, correct.

Nobody ever put any time limit on P-51D to post his references, and certainly not one of 3 hours, so that is a strawman argument.

I think you missed my point. P-51 first posted at 8 am the first day. His last post on the that day was at 11. _After_ that three hour period the tone became much less friendly. So: It _seems_ that if someone doesn't prove his identity and professional standing in 3 hours, it's assumed he's a fake. Or at least, it's implied he is one. By more than one person, sometimes multiple times.

Indeed Mike Dorosh made it quite plain that he would welcome their posting at any future date, and I imagine that goes for the rest of us, too.

It was plain that people wanted the info, yes. Would welcome the info, yes. Would welcome P-51D... by that point I think it was quite reasonable for him to feel unwelcome.

Some people, not having your thick skin, will simply opt out of a discussion if it turns unpleasent. He was probably here as a matter of recreation. Not to, for example, defend himself from multiple attacks on his character.

Maybe, if he needed a couple of days to find his sources, he should have moderated the dogmatic tone of his continued postings, don't you think?

Nope. I don't think he was all that dogmatic. I thought he seemed certain. I can admit that he might have seemed dogmatic to some. I'm betting you can't admit that you (and others) might have seemed to have posted with unjustified hostility. (Unless, of course, you were to add a derogatory qualifier. Ex: "Feeble minded high school students might have found the environment too hostile.")

I didn't particularly like P-51D's tone either, but I didn't think it was so offensive that disparaging remarks were the proper response. Not after just 5 posts, all within a few hours of each other. Remember: My beef isn't that you (and others) "attacked" this guy, it's that you did it so quickly. I find that so offensive to my sense of fair play and desire to see people communicating well that I had to speak out.

This is, in many ways, a WWII history forum, and I understand that you truly care about what is said here. However, it's also a _forum_, and some people truly care about how things are said.

He has absolutely no reason to whine about his treatment in this thread; still less do you have any justification for whining on his behalf.

You _really_ don't see how the rections of yourself and others could have been interpreted as hostile? Really? Ok, I'll take your word for it. (See, where you might assume someone is lying to puff themself up, I'll just assume you - much like P-51D - are a poor communicator.)

But I consider the use of the word "whining" when describing my response as hostile, and uncalled for. I think you're merely trying to lable me as a "whiner." Probably the closest someone as polite and mannered as you can bring yourself to an ad hominem attack. My post was accusatory, sure. Presumptious, maybe. Possibly even "wrong." "Whining" - I really don't think so.

If you take nothing else away from this (which seems likely) take this: Next time, give a new probably-fake historian more rope to hang himself. Following some of the references others gave, there does seem to be some evidence for the rocket-attack theory. I would have liked to have seen more of what P-51D had to offer - either to completely discredit him, or learn something new.

Taking your marbles and going home in tears makes you no better than whoever insulted you.

I'll attempt to do the mature version of "taking my marbles and going home." by saying this: With my initial post on this subject and this response I've had my say. Any favorable effects that might have resulted from my posts (ie - giving the newbie a chance to get his references) will have been realized, and further words on the subject will certainly be wasted...

Except, maybe, for this summary: Please don't be so hasty.

[ May 30, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[P51D]

I would like to thank Tarqulene for his post above which in essence sums up my feelings regarding the way this thread had degenerated while i had been unable to post being at home & asleep.

Thank you Tarqulene.

I refuse to correspond with anyone who insinuates, accuses or alleges any misconduct on my behalf from a few lines of text & whom i have never met or know. I have ,as Tarqulene put it, 'better things to do with my time'. I am used to discussions on a professional basis with fellow professionals who understand how to rationally discuss/analyse theories or arguements.

I, nor any of my collegues, have ever claimed to be infallible on any aspect of history. My casual post, astutley recognised by Tarqulene as such, was made because i saw the topic whilst searching scenario info & recognised the fact that maybe some people weren't aware of the situation regarding the Wittman scenario. Without wanting to sound blase' it is an 'old' subject. As i said previously i was researching him 5+ years ago & a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

I post regularly on various boards (& am a moderator on 1) around the net, including games/sim boards, history boards & the comments made to a new member would not be tolerated om most of them.

I never, ever, use my real identity on the net. I will never provide a personal e-mail address or provide details of the company i run. Our Clients include government agencies & institutes who demand & are given complete anonymity when they request it. The protection of my identity & therefore the security of myself, family & staff is of paramount importance especially during the current global climate.

Tarqulene also stated:

He left either because:

a) He's a fake.

or

He thinks the forum is a shark tank, dominated by an established clique hostile to newcomers, and has other things he'd rather do in his free time.

B is correct. I have joined other forums b4, such as SimHQ & discovered the same so my attitude is 'why should i bother'. I have better things to do. Maybe this forum is different, i hope so as i thoroughly enjoy CMBO as a game.

I have never posted here with the intention of upsetting anyone & neither did i post anything of a vindictive nature aimed at anyone. I was merely attempting to help some people. Now i can't really be bothered.

I fail to understand how 'tone' can be interpreted from the typed word. I do not read anything & perceive a condescending tone as i am not listening to the tone of someones voice or witnessing their body language.

Now, we come to the alleged publication of my paper. I am in my late 30's & since i began in this profession i have published 48 papers, theses, diseratations, reports. Only 5 of them have been summated into the mainstream media.

The rest have appeared in complete or more commonly in abrdidged form in: Janes: Defence Weekly, Intel Review, NATO Defence Forum,

ISS Forum, Intel Digest & The Sandhurst Gazette.

None of which, to my knowledge, are published in the public domain.

They have covered topics ranging from the use of animals in the trenches during the Somme to the use of Hannibals tactics during the Gulf War.

A 'paper' can differ in size from 2 pages of typed A4 to 500 pages of professionally printed & hardback bound book. The paper i referred to contains 1 chapter specific to his demise whilst the other 5 chapters dealt with the SS Heavy Tank Battalions in Normandy.

It appeared in an abridged version in the NATO Forum in the late 90's. More specific than that i will not be.

I think a degree of misunderstanding exists about the role of a military historian. Our profession provides data to whoever requests it for numerous reasons but generally to understand & predict future conflicts & wars, not solely to pick over the bones of old battles. I would estimate that only 20% of my Client base is academic based for the 'what if' scenarios.

I have posted today to thank Tarqulene for understanding my feelings on this & to pick up on the points he picked out & quoted on.

This does not alter my attitude to the references requested. I don't particularly care.

I not interested in entering into another slanging match regarding Wittman & the candlestick in the parlour. At the end of the day what does it matter.

And finally we come to my maturity or lack thereof

that someone questioned. As i said i am inmy late 30's. My staff range in ages from 17 yr old secterial student to a retired Lt Col in his early 60's.

Our staff room has a snooker table, table football, TV, DVD & video. We will watch & laugh at: Simpsons, Frasier, ER, Manchild, The Clangers, The Wombles, Tom & Jerry (my fav!!) & we all love Bagpuss. We are practically closing the place down for the World Cup because we love football & we also have our own football team. No we are not a bunch of crusty old goats in smoking jackets & slippers. We are young(ish) guys & gals who enjoy some fun & lots of booze, regularly. But we all work hard & enjoy what we do.

Regards

Ed

Thats all folks!!