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

[gunnersman]

Jerry Springer, EAT YOUR HEART OUT!

[Sir Uber General]

I concur with Kiltie, I keep clicking here waiting for P51D to lay out his evidence.

I find it remarkable that someone would claim to come from an organisation so secretive that you cant even mention their name... then claim to come from such an organistion in a public forum.

Can the board admins please post P51D's posting IP's - he might be doing this from work and we can crack his big secret. LOL!

[bboyle]

Originally posted by 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.

Anyone else think we are at the 'don't feed the troll' point yet??

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by bboyle:

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

Anyone else think we are at the 'don't feed the troll' point yet??</font>

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Nein, mein grognard! Too much fun

[Durbish]

You guys rock!

When I first came here I thought I was the master but now I am the student :cool:

directed at T I think the community was originally receptive to another possible well of knowledge, it wasn't until our esteemed historian had about 1/2 his shoe in his mouth did it start to get ugly IMO

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

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

Anyone else think we are at the 'don't feed the troll' point yet??</font>

[Brian]

Originally posted by 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.

P51D, you made the claim you had presented a paper on this topic at a "conference in Stockholm". You did not state whether it was a private or a public function. I assumed that it was a public function as I cannot believe too many closed functions would be that interested in a minor historical note from over 50 years ago. You later amended your original comment to "at a forum in Sweden some years ago attended by military personnel & historians." Again, I somehow doubt it would have been of such interest to serving personnel that they would have slapped a security rating on it, particularly as you then went onto claim that, "My paper was not unpublished. It was published in the journals that we use everyday to keep in touch with research projects around the world in much the same way that medical journals are produced to inform those in the medical profession of health related news." Which tends to indicate that I don't have to dust off my security clearance to see a copy of it, P51D.

As to the matter of Al'Quada, I admit I provided a name when you attempted to suggest, rather increduliously that this matter was so important as to be vital to, "The protection of my identity & therefore the security of myself, family & staff ...especially during the current global climate." I still believe that is merely a convenient smokescreen, P51D.

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

Then you must realise you have no credibility here and belong along with other denizens who live beneath bridges. I believe this web page is devoted to you.

[ May 31, 2002, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Tarquelne]

Ok, fine:

EDIT - I just reread the first three or four pages of this thread. At no point did I see P51 branded a liar, and at no point did I see anyone treat him with hostility, up until the point he declared he was being mistreated.

He wasn't "branded a liar"... but there were a number of posts containing statements implying that he was a liar and a fake - generally through the tone. (How many times does someone need to read "Suspicious minds might" or the equivilent before taking it as an accusation? Maybe all of you have had your irony bones removed - if so, it should be in the forum's FAQ.) Considering the timing, I consider that "hostile". At the very least, it's rude.

None of you find anything rude, hostile or accusatory in the early thread's tone toward P-51D? Well - so far the highest member #'s I've seen in this thread are mine and P-51Ds. (The next highest is Salt's... make what you will of that.) So maybe you'll accept this: To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.

If none of you meant to give the impression you thought he was a poser before P-51D's second day, from where I'm sitting you simply failed.

But this, for me, is the heart of the issue:

Doubtless many (good contributors) have been "scared off"

There's no need for that. Show some restraint. Not forever - how about 6 posts or 24 hours, whichever comes first?

Or, alternatively, if you don't like someone's tone don't be coy - go ahead and react with hostility! Employ sarcasm, veild accusations and strident demands to drive 'em off - just don't deny that your posts were nothing but sweetness and light afterword.

[Tarquelne]

I think the community was originally receptive to another possible well of knowledge, it wasn't until our esteemed historian had about 1/2 his shoe in his mouth did it start to get ugly IMO

I can agree with that statement. I'd just think people should wait for the shoe to be fully inserted.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

[Sitting Duck]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Ok, fine:

...To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.

If none of you meant to give the impression you thought he was a poser before P-51D's second day, from where I'm sitting you simply failed...

I agree, Tarqulene. As the thread began, I was really hoping to learn something concrete, something new. Then, I saw the loaded words slipping into the replies and I just knew that was it. Game Over...

Lots of sharp minds and wits on this board. Why not use that sharpness to cut a little slack at first?

Best,

Sitting Duck

[GenSplatton]

I'll admit that I don't post a bunch here, mostly because I'm not a grog and really do suck at CM so have little to add. But, if you look at the "I'm not coming back" comments followed by post after post by this fellow, and read the aloof responses about the company he doesn't work for and the paper he never published and still believe this guy is anything but a troll, I truly feel for your cognative abilities. This is about a classic case of trolling as you will ever find.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

[QB]He wasn't "branded a liar"... but there were a number of posts containing statements implying that he was a liar and a fake - generally through the tone. (How many times does someone need to read "Suspicious minds might" or the equivilent before taking it as an accusation?

In all honesty and being completely genuine, I saw it as a gentle reminder from one learned historian to another, pure and simple. I sincerely see no accusation in it, and I am truly of the opinion that only someone hypersensitive would see it that way in the absence of any other similar comments - or someone with something to hide. Either way, if you can't take the heat...

None of you find anything rude, hostile or accusatory in the early thread's tone toward P-51D? Well - so far the highest member #'s I've seen in this thread are mine and P-51Ds. (The next highest is Salt's... make what you will of that.) So maybe you'll accept this: To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.

Historical debate is all about challenge; someone presents a thesis and automatically someone else - if he is worth his "salt" (sorry) - will immediately react in the predictable manner; by asking him to back it up. Why this would be offensive is beyong me.

Even if P51D WAS branded a liar - so what? Pretty easy to resolve that one. Either present your case, or decide it is not worth your time and leave. The continued posting and bragging about the company snooker table defies common logic, or at least my perception of common logic.

I don't understand why you are making reference to member numbers, though, maybe you can explain?

Captain Wacky - hotmail sucks, but I guess you go with what you've got. Get a good zipping program, I think that will solve some of the hotmail issues associated with sending files via that particular medium.

[rune]

For those interested, a possibility of Wittman's Death is in Wittman's Last Hour. It is available at Scenario Depot or you can send me an email and I will respond. This was done on the pictures seen earlier and on some maps I have, and yes, the terrain WAS that bare. The road I have a picture of [from the grave site] did NOT have a hedgerow. I included the tanks in the account, as well as an aircraft. Just a possibility of how he died.

Rune

[Michael Dorosh]

rune - do you have any time for PBEM these days? Would love to take you on in Wittman's Last Hour if you want to send me a setup...

[JonS]

Originally posted by 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

I wonder if Måkjager ever got a reply to his email?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Last night I held a séance at my house and the spirit of Michael Wittman was called on. He appeared as a soft blue glow hovering over the dining room table. Over the course of the evening he floated around the room answering questions, stopping only briefly to snag a beer from the fridge.

He talked at great length about the Stug and Tiger, German tactics in general and his exploits at Villers-Bocage (talk about an AAR!). Finally, the question was raised about how he died on 8/8/44. For a while there was silence, then he took a long pull of beer, placed the empty bottle on the table and said ‘That &$%#@! Englishman in the orchard, Damn him to Hell!” followed by another long period of silence. We decided not to pursue it any further, and that’s where the matter ended.

He stuck around for a little while longer, and I even managed to persuade him to a hotseat game of, you guessed it, Villers-Bocage. He had a blast, yelling in German whenever his Tiger would score a kill (needless to say I was getting my ass handed to me. After all, he knows this scenario like that back of his hand). His only complaint was the need to plot all those waypoints just to move vehicles down the roads. I told him that a follow command is the most asked for feature of the game, and suggested that a nocturnal visit to Charles might help convince him to add it into CMBB. He said he’d check to see if he could fit it into his schedule.

Finally, he had to return to where old soldiers go when they pass on. Just before he left he gave me his e-mail address, and said he would send me a setup once his copy of CMBB shows up. Then, he snagged one last beer from the fridge, said farewell to all of us and with a bright flash of light he disappeared into the ceiling.

We plan on calling other souls in the weeks to come. I’ll post a schedule whenever I get around to it, but can tell you that Monty, Bradley and Guderian are on the list. We’ll even try to get Patton and Zhukov in the same room together. That ought to be fun.

Has there been some follow up on this for CMAK? It might yield some answers to the much debated "fur jackets - did they or didn't they" and "how fast can YOU run through 30 cm of snow" questions currently in vogue, though of course it is too late to make changes to CMBB.

[Måkjager]

JonS....well..this is an OLD thread indeed..thats why it caught my eye this morning.

As to your "Query" regarding contact with the company....yes..i was able to get in touch with , and at GREAT EXPENSE (£5) they sent me the magazine ii was looking for..the one with the article covering the demise of Michael Wittman.

I have just dug out the magazine article and guess what............

Trooper Joe Ekins was the culprit that day...........NO mention of Typhoons attacking the Tigers at that time.

Regards

Måkjager

[ September 19, 2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Måkjager ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Måkjager:

Trooper Joe Ekins was the culprit that day...........NO mention of Typhoons attacking the Tigers at that time.

Hah! Take that, Mr. Smartass P51D!

I love it!

Michael

[JonS]

Who said we don't have patience around here?

[ChrisPanther]

Theres one thing that puzzles me about this. If the tank was wracked by a catastrophic explosion which blew the turret off, surely there wouldnt be much left of MW and crew left to bury.

[Michael Emrys]

Most of the explosion when a tank brews is from burning propellant in the shells. That doesn't necessarily set the HE off. So you have low explosive rather than high explosive force being generated. Still enough to kill the crew and lift the turret off, but it doesn't pulverize their bodies to dust.

Michael

[ September 22, 2003, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[GRUMLIN]

If you want to feed the troll.....email the magazine to get the authors details for that article (explain you are doing research yourself) - magazines usually keep lists of who they pay for writings for a looonnngg time - then track him down via the usual googlefun and ask him whether he based it on any other papers...hey presto, possible link back to p51D. Although of course you might get shot from a grassy knoll for being so nosey.

Grum

[Breakthrough]

It was a Firefly commanded by a Sgt. Gordon of the Fyfe and Forfar Yeomanry.