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

[aka_tom_w]

Ya-but.......

how did Wittmann die?

Poor taste and bad manners aside lets focus on the issue here.

I would like to be directed to references in scholarly journals that actually conclude that Rockets from Close Air Support knocked out Wittmann's Tiger. There seem to be more than a few references in this thread that indicate no CAS was flown within 40 miles of the place where the Tigers were KO'd on that Aug day in 1944.

-tom w

[P51D]

It was Colonel Mustard flying a winged Sherman Firefly Calliope hybrid at 2000ft above the Parlour & holding the lead pipe. He hit Wittman with one 17pounder APDS shot at 40000yds then blew the rest of him to pieces with all his 60lb rockets at a range of 2 feet.

Ed

[P51D]

Actually, joking & the flying sherman aside, that isn't so daft an idea.

Ekins hits & wipes out Wittman from the side. Impact high up towards the top of the hull where the later internal hull explosion obliterates the strike evidence.

Tyffies later spot the Tigers in the open & as there is no smoke & fire to indicate they out of action attack & hit with rockets that cause the explosion.

An APDS hit will not necessarliy cause fire & explosion. Interesting hypothesis.

Ed

[Tarquelne]

Paranthetical remarks:

(Yes, yes, I noticed that P-51 didn't offer proof of any sort - a total fraud could have written the same thing. (As could an honestly offended person who wrote in good faith.) No need to point this out to me.)

(P-51D: If you want to do me a favor, offer an answer to aka_tom_w's question. Ah... and _not_ like the one you just gave. c'mon, I don't regret asking for more tolerance/less haste - but don't make me regret that it was done in defense of you.)

Edit: (Another response: OK, well, better than the first one...)

[ May 30, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Brian]

I'm sorry, P51D but I see your comments as being quite a cop out. I don't necessarily believe that John has been particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool.

Your desire for anonymity notwithstanding but you have thrown your hat into the ring, making particular claims. Many would like to verify those claims as they do not necessarily gel with what is the accepted demise of Wittman.

Personally, I don't give a toss who killed him - he died as others have suggested, because his luck simply ran out and no matter how smart or good a tank commander he was, he didn't dodge the shell or rocket which killed him in his Tiger. In the long run, his antics weren't going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.

However, if you are the historian you claim to be, you'd realise that references are what historians live and die by, professionally. Refusal to provide them merely renders your comments personal opinion, nothing more.

Further, I somehow doubt our knowing your name and having a reference to a paper which was given at a public history conference is going to mark you or your "company" out for special attention by Al'Quada mad terrorists.

[ May 30, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

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

But of course. "I knew they were wrong because as professionals we know they are wrong. That is why my company is in existence. We cannot deal with facts that are incorrect because we would be unemployed."

Now, it is not my habit to complain about the "tone" of postings, so I leave it to people to make their own minds up about the "tone" of this little extract. However, the claim that he deals only in "correct facts" logically requires an infallible ability to tell truth from falsity. Not even the Pope now claims as much; and no academic worth the name would make such a fatuous boast.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

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

If you're going to start flinging accusations of "bullying" around, I think I'd like you to quote specific instances, please.

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

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.

</font>

[P51D]

Brian

Re-read my intial posts regarding the circumstances of the original paper. To repeat agian. It wasn't at a public presentation. And who mentioned Al-Quieda. But i don't care anyway.

And to repeat yet again. I don't care if it seems a cop out. I can't be bothered.

[jgdpzr]

Wow, quite a pi**ing match this devolved into. P51D, really, all we are asking for are the references to the sources that you claim make clear Wittman's demise. I know the tone of some of the posts may not have been friendly, but surely you can understand that most here are simply skeptical of claims we cannot substantiate. I don't think the perceived personal attacks were intentional. We simply want to know what you know, and surely, as an historian, you can understand that we're not inclined to simply take an anonymous person's opinion on some game board as gospel. Our skepticism is not personal, however.

We have documented interviews of people (both Allied and German) claiming to have witnessed Wittman's tank being knocked out by a 17 pounder from a firefly. These accounts exist, that much we KNOW. AFAIK (hence my plea for your sources), the Typhoon theory is based primarily on the examination of the vehicle in the field and the damage it sustained. As others have noted, what is lacking is corroborative evidence of CAS activity in the area. I, and most others here, really would just like to see what evidence supports the Typhoon attack, that is all. Since you say that it is now essentially a foregone conclusion in your circles, we amatuers don't want to be left behind. Please, enlighten us. That is a sincere request, not sarcastic in the least.

[Tarquelne]

his antics were going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.

(I'll assume there's a typo in there.)

I was suprised that the Nazi's didn't produce more war heroes, for propaganda purposes. Or did they, and I've just never heard of them because the fakes were quickly exposed and just not talked about after the war?

I don't find it at all strage that some are concerned about just how MW met his end. Some people find his story interesting, and want to know how it ended. No novelist would end the story "... or maybe a rocket from a Typhoon. Possibly."

particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool.

_Particularly_ nasty? Other piranha? I apologize if I gave the impression that any alledged "bullying" here is the worst I've ever seen. I guess I just had higher expectations.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool._Particularly_ nasty? Other piranha? I apologize if I gave the impression that any alledged "bullying" here is the worst I've ever seen. I guess I just had higher expectations.

Silly you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ugh; guys do we really need to indulge our new friend any longer? He's got nothing to offer us - continuing to respond just keeps him in the spotlight, which he apparently craves. If he "can't be bothered" why should we?

My two cents, anyway.

Good questions aka_Tom, but I guess it wasn't to be. Our new friend still hasn't demonstrated any deeper understanding of the subject at hand.

As for "shark tank" - I don't get that at all. I've seen a lot of heavily critical thinking by a lot of learned people on this board. I've also seen many of them slip into flame mode on occasion when tempers ran high, myself naturally included. But I've always walked away from discussions with

a) the knowledge that I have learned something

an understanding and reminded that no matter what you are talking about, there is always more than one viewpoint, and always someone else who knows something more/different than you about anything you care to name

I've also realized this board is no place for mewling self-important intellectual lightweights, and we have had our share of those, haven't we. They usually do us the favour of conglomerating their sentences into a single paragraph, though...

Many of the good contributors have been intimidated initially, but they usually find themselves fittnig right in. Doubtless many have been "scared off" as T has intimated, but the place isn't everyone's cup of tea, nor is it the only place to discuss historical issues.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

his antics were going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.

(I'll assume there's a typo in there.)

I was suprised that the Nazi's didn't produce more war heroes, for propaganda purposes. Or did they, and I've just never heard of them because the fakes were quickly exposed and just not talked about after the war?</font>

[Joe Shaw]

This guy really reminds me of our old friend Iron Chef Sakai ... right down to the attitude and lower case "i". Of course I have all my reference material at home and can't verify that ... oh wait, I am at home.

Joe

[ May 30, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Joe Shaw ]

[K_Tiger]

If some US or other ally`s hade such scores Tank/Air ect...we would have nothing to discuss here..i think.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

If some US or other ally`s hade such scores Tank/Air ect...we would have nothing to discuss here..i think.

I disagree with that - the Germans simply operated in a target rich environment. Their aces all served in Russia; as Wittman showed, the odds were a bit more even in the briefer campaigns in the west.

Oh, on further reflection, I wanted to add my definition of "intellectual" to my other post. Intellectualism isn't about what you know - it's about how you discuss (share) it with others that counts.

[Ace Pilot]

There’s a phrase in aviation circles used to describe phony logbook hours. It’s called P-51 time. I think the phrase dates back to the 1940s and comes from the instrument used to record these bogus entries – the Parker 51 pen.

Just thought I'd share.

Ace

[Enoch]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, on further reflection, I wanted to add my definition of "intellectual" to my other post. Intellectualism isn't about what you know - it's about how you discuss (share) it with others that counts.

I learned everything I needed to know about sharing in kindergarten. Perhaps some folks need to repeat that grade?

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Enoch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Oh, on further reflection, I wanted to add my definition of "intellectual" to my other post. Intellectualism isn't about what you know - it's about how you discuss (share) it with others that counts.

I learned everything I needed to know about sharing in kindergarten. Perhaps some folks need to repeat that grade?</font>

[Tarquelne]

"Doubtless many have been "scared off" as T has intimated"

Ok, in deference to this being MD's thread, which I've done more than my share in helping to pull OT, and because that's twice he's somehow supported something I've said , I'm editing this post into a reply to his message, rather than JS's.

Propaganda:

Perhaps you mean "legends" as opposed to mere "heroes"?

Yes.

I guess what I was getting at is that I'm suprised they didn't exploit them more than they did - even to the point of manufacturing extra legends.

I'd overlooked the problem of the SS vrs. the army, and the party vrs. the army. I think that goes a long way toward explaining any lack of exploitation.

[ May 30, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by P51D:

I am used to discussions on a professional basis with fellow professionals who understand how to rationally discuss/analyse theories or arguements.

This is welcome news.

Originally posted by P51D:

[snips]

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.

You are to be congratulated on the exemplary stringency of your security precautions. They appear to be very much more stringent than those in force with organisations such as QinetiQ, DSTL or RMCS.

Originally posted by P51D:

[snips]

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.

Not even so much as a squadron number? That can't compromise anyone's security, can it? That information doesn't carry a protective marking, does it?

Originally posted by P51D:

[snips]

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.

JDW had no protective marking last time I saw it, it was just bl**dy expensive.

I don't know what the status of the Swedish conference you allude to was, but if it carried a protective marking, you should -- with all your attention to security and all -- know better than to refer to it in a public forum.

Originally posted by P51D:

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.

"The use of Hannibal's tactics during the Gulf War"? Come on, you've got to give us a reference to that!

Originally posted by P51D:

I think a degree of misunderstanding exists about the role of a military historian.

Tell me, do you know Dave Rowlands?

All the best,

John.

[Dirtweasle]

The only thing to be afraid of is making statements that beg verification and validation, and then decline to provide...

It's one thing to post a note that posits position "X" as something to consider, and quite another to claim that in learned circles it is common knowledge but decide it is not worth the effort to provide the back up. To say that "all of us professionals" in some field know that the great unwashed are mistaken but cannot be troubled to explain why, with credible sources, is a form of intellectual elitism that is rather a bitter pill.

That is of course if you take P-51 at face value.... the other conclusion to be drawn (in my opinion) is that he is a phony.

[ May 30, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Dirtweasle ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

"The use of Hannibal's tactics during the Gulf War"? Come on, you've got to give us a reference to that!

I think that's just a fancy way to talk about Cannae...

FWIW, I dont' think that this forum is a "shark tank." The forum is, however, full of people who are easily capable of understanding and digesting scholarly military history. Several people here have scholarly publications of their own in the field of military history. I'm not a military historian, but I have worked as an editor of a (non-military) scholarly journal, and I have my own (non-military) publication in a scholarly journal. So I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand scholarly material, even if it's in a different field than mine. And I have much less knowledge of WWII military history than many people on this forum, most of whom, by the way, are also in their mid-30's.

Given the background of many people on this forum, it's no wonder that P-51D's posts came off as vaguely insulting, with its intimation that people here did not understand either military history or the concept of journals not in the public domain. I don't think that P-51D intended to be insulting, though; I think he wanted to be helpful. Unfortunately, though, his later postings (in response to particular questions)did across as somewhat insulting, particularly with his "argument from authority." But once again, I don't think that was his intent.

I will also point out that straight military history is not the only lens through which the Wittmann question can be viewed. I'm not a forensic pathologist (although I am CPR certified ), but I have worked professionally on more than 100 murders (murder cases, not the actual murders), and so I'm somewhat familiar with how the cause of death is determined. My first thought when reading about the condition of Wittmann's body was that the fact that it may have been burned by a Typhoon strike did not mean that the death was caused by a Typhoon strike.

So there may be some value in a straight forensic approach. (Although it can be hard to determine the cause of death after several weeks, in some cases, so 60 years may be too far out). It's also likely that no detailed forensic analysis was done - Wittmann wasn't murdered, and most people don't have a burning interest in knowing who killed him. Present company excepted, of course.

[Michael Dorosh]

I wish I was at home and not posting on the sly from work, this is getting to be quite good and I wish I had more time to digest all this. Quickly, though, excellent post Andrew (and others) - yes, there are many lenses through which military history topics can be viewed.

One of Canada's leading "military" authors is actually a labour historian, and not a soldier. It does show, sometimes, but at other times he is able to write quite brilliantly, perceptively and dispassionately from a unique perspective. It really does take all kinds.

[Måkjager]

Did some digging and found this on the After The Battle web site.

Issue No. 48

GERMANY SURRENDERS Surrender of Gruppe Elster; Unconditional Surrender; Caserta, Italy; Lüneburg, Germany; Innsbruck, Austria; Baldham, Germany; Wageningen, Netherlands; Reims, France; Berlin, Germany; The Channel Islands; Lorient, France; St Nazaire, France; Dunkirk, France. It Happened Here - Michael Wittmann's Last Battle.

£3.10  CODE A048

I have sent a email to the company asking about the possability of ordering the magazine .

Regards

Måkjager

ps...AFAIK this magazine was published sometime around 1984/85.

Below is i hope alink to the web site for anybody who wishes to try get hold of a copy of this magazine

web page

[ May 30, 2002, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Måkjager ]

[Kiltie Lad]

This has been a truely entertaining thread and has exhibited the very best of what this forum is all about. It started with a very interesting question, which I wanted to learn more about, and which I did learn more about by following links and reading the various postings of quite erudite gentlemen who had no problem providing evidence from various sources. Then P51 shows up and immediately made this historian's (MSc) teeth set on edge. While one likes to be kind and gracious, especially to new posters, one must expect the gentle requests for further clarification of source material to be met with a polite, "hold on and I'll get it for you when I'm able." Instead P51 raises his hackles and deliberately eludes these requests. My eyebrows raised too at this time. I've never heard of a research organization being so secretive, well, maybe the CIA, but I gather this organization isn't any CIA. I wanted to be kind, and never thought to call the guy a fake, but I expected with each click to see his source material laid out neatly, which would make his bold assertions about being so in-the-know plausible. Nada. Well, chippie, any learned professional such as yourself should certainly know that bold assertions as to the historic record require bold back up. And you didn't provide it. Say what you will about all the important organizations you serve, but to these ears it simply rings hollow. Not willing to provide your evidence, but only to impugne the integrity of those who politely at first, and then, understandably, a bit more zealously later, requested that you back up your claims, smacks of elitism. And elitism, dear sir, will earn you nothing on this board.

Warfare is a big, messy business. I believe that it is next to impossible to make sense out of individual incidents in the cacophany of battle. The fact that this one tank may have been struck by shells and rockets is completely plausible. Supporting what one thinks by recounting the information that led one to believe what one does believe exhibits the very best in communication skills.

Bravo to the Forum! Bravo to the members who have made this one of the most informative posts in a long time. Vivre la Difference! Debate is good. Providing supporting documentation for your debating point is even better.

Cheers All!

Shawn David McCaslin

Alexandria, Virginia

Seamus660@AOL (and I ain't afraid)