Barkmann's Corner

[Magpie_Oz]

Just the one I posted. The recon did not show losses, nor did CCA.

So really we don't have anything concrete to the contrary ?

[Charlie Marlow]

According to the 3rd Armored Division history, Spearhead, on 28 July CCB was ordered to return to the area near Comprond to assist a regiment of the 1st Infantry Division in reducing a German strongpoint. In his book Breakout and Pursuit, Blumenson mentions that 15 American tanks were lost in this engagement which held up the advance of the 16th Infantry regiment. Seven of the tanks were mediums. The advance was held up for hours by the German defense, and according to Spearhead, CCB did not make contact with the 16th Infantry until around mid-night. Comprond is just west-southwest of Le Lorey. The date is wrong, but given the fog of war, maybe this is the actual site of Barkmann's amazing tale.

Magpie OZ's link says that Barkmann was back with his unit by the 28th. If that is the case, then it looks likely that Barkman shot up a Cav unit mis-IDed as a medium tank company.

In any event, the quote from Breakout and Pursuit suggests that it wasn't CCB's tanks that were lost on the 28th. The quote is

Although Combat Command B had found little to obstruct its advance, the 16th Infantry, attacking westward toward Monthuchon in a zone south of the St. Lô-Coutances highway, advanced only slightly before reaching a well-organized defensive line. "Any contact with the enemy?" a division staff officer asked on the telephone. "Three hundred and sixty degree contact," came the somewhat exaggerated reply.53 The regiment made no further progress during the afternoon, even though regimental attacks brought severe casualties and the loss of fifteen tanks, seven of them mediums. Tactical aircraft, which might have helped, were grounded because of cloudy weather.

Shortly before nightfall General Huebner told CCB to go to the aid of the 16th Infantry. Turning to the southeast and attacking, the combat command pinched the rear of the enemy position. Caught in a trap, the German defense disintegrated. Before midnight CCB and the 16th Infantry made contact.

It looks like CCB 3AD was coming to help out the 1ID. Where the 15 tanks came from isn't clear from this passage, but it doesn't sound like CCB. Were there any attached to 1ID? Edit - that would be the 745th Tank Battalion.

[womble]

A larger issue is how to figure out which scenarios are playable solo or not. I don't have time for head to head games so I play scenarios vs. AI only. It would nice if the scenario designer provided information on whether the scenario was balanced for H2H or vs. AI (and which side). I think this information should be mandatory, actually. Maybe this experience will prod me to finally try PBEM!

Most of the scenarios I've seen have had such advice. Maybe it's not until the mission briefing/designer's notes, but it's not too late to bail at that point from a scenario; 's not like you've spent ages picking your force

[rune]

Charlie, I find it easier that he got confused by the date in the middle of fighting then 15 m3s being destroyed and no one reporting it. The only action supposedly was with some m7s atatched to the recon unit that did some direct firing.

I would hope the entire episode was not made up, but it is the reason I made for another possibility. If no one has figured it out in 60 years, I doubt we are going to figure it out now.

Rune

[Charlie Marlow]

Not saying it was made up. Could have been, but who knows unless someone really digs into detailed unit AARs.

I only posted that if he was correct on the 27th, then it likely wasn't Shermans.

If it was the 28th, then it probably wasn't 3rd AD. More likely 745th Tank Battalion.

[Charlie Marlow]

The 745th unit history is on-line. The link to the relevant section is http://www.745tank.com/pages/p46.html

It was on July 28 that "A" Company, with the tank section, assault gun platoon and mortar platoon of Headquarters Company attached, met stiff enemy resistance west of Cambernon near La Chapelle as it was proceeding enroute to its objective of Monthuchon in support of the Third Battalion of the 16th Infantry. The enemy, consisting of elements the German 2nd Panzer Division, was strongly fortified on high ground, and had heavy artillery and mortar support with good observation.

According to the account, at least two tanks were lost to anti-tank guns, and another to an undisclosed source. The remainder of the 15 mentioned in Breakout and Pursuit are not discussed.

[Magpie_Oz]

Sure, even that account is unclear, they say they are fighting the 2nd Panzer, not 2nd SS Panzer

[Charlie Marlow]

Just noticed that on the 28th, Breakout and Pursuit says that the weather was too poor for close air support. The Barkmann account clearly states that he was attacked by Jabos.

[Charlie Marlow]

745th BN AAR is online. http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3477/rec/2

Losses on the 28th are 2 lt tanks adn 4 mediums (at least 2 to AT guns). Enemy tank forces listed as 3 Panthers and one STuGIV.

[JonS]

I would hope the entire episode was not made up, but it is the reason I made for another possibility. If no one has figured it out in 60 years, I doubt we are going to figure it out now.

There are still plenty of people who think Wittmann single-handedly destroyed 50 tanks at Villers Bocage, and that it was a Typhoon that killed him during TOTALISE. There are still plenty of people who think that Rudel single-handedly destroyed some 500 Soviet tanks and a Soviet battleship. And there are still plenty of people who think that Hans Severloh singlehandedly accounted for the majority of all US casualties on OMAHA.

That there are still plenty of people who (want to) believe those things, doesn't mean the rest of us are unable to figure it out.

This thread has a pretty good summation of what can reasonably be figured out about Barkmann's Corner.

[Charlie Marlow]

As a follow-up. This is found in Operation Cobra 1944 by Steve Zaloga and published by Osprey.

The morning of 27 July, CCB/3rd Armored Division sent three task forces, each consisting of a company of M4 tanks and a company of armored infantry in M3 half-tracks, down the Coutances road. One of the groups ran into an ambush by a Panther tank from 2nd SS Panzer Division commanded by Ernst Barkmann. Three M4 tanks were quickly knocked out, but Barkmann's Panther was damaged by tank fire and supporting air cover and withdrew. The incident was wildly exaggerated by German propaganda, and has acquired mythic status in recent accounts of the Normandy campaign ...

It would seem by this account (if accurate) that the scenario is OK in concept, and that the ID of the US force is at least narrowed to CCB/3rd AD. The above outcome seems a little more believable though.

[Magpie_Oz]

we will never know .......

[gunnergoz]

we will never know .......

...just how effective the Nazi propaganda machine was, unless we are willing to take it head on and question it.

[Magpie_Oz]

...just how effective the Nazi propaganda machine was, unless we are willing to take it head on and question it.

Oh that is easy, they LIED we told the truth 'cos we won ........

One side says they destroyed a company , the other says nothing happened the truth as always will be somewhere in between the two.

[Charlie Marlow]

we will never know .......

Apparently University of Illinois has the 33rd Armored Regiment's daily logs. If you want to go look them up, fine. Zaloga likely had access to them. If he says three Shermans KOed, I am more likely to believe that then the poorly documented Nazi propaganda version which reads like fiction anyway.

[Magpie_Oz]

Like I say we choose what we wish to believe.

A Daily log of 3 M4's KO may well mean 9 KO'ed and 6 repaired, it could also be a load of bollocks as "I have no idea" is not an acceptable report so often things are made up, I have seen that IRL.

As far as I am aware the tale of Barkmanns corner comes from Barkmann himself, sure he may have lied, may have exaggerated or may have told the truth as he saw it.

His account and the "official" record can both be equally flawed. Something happened, precisely what we will never know.

It is just as wrong to blindly believe the allied records as it is to believe the German account.

[gunnergoz]

So now the Allies are no better than the Germans. OK, at least I know where this is all going...the great Grey Morass of moral equivalency, where no one is better, no one is worse and nothing matters because it is all...relative. Whatever.

[Animal_Mother]

Almost certainly neither account is 100% accurate. However that being said I find it likely the U.S. version is closer to the truth.

[Magpie_Oz]

So now the Allies are no better than the Germans.

It is not about who is better or worse it is about people and the way they are likely to react. Despite the trappings of politics we are essentially all the same.

Is a German soldier more or less likely to lie, exaggerate or be mistaken than an Allied soldier? No of course not.

Almost certainly neither account is 100% accurate. However that being said I find it likely the U.S. version is closer to the truth.

Why ?

[Animal_Mother]

Because it's less far-fetched, as simple as that.

[JonS]

Why?

It doesn't rely on un-verifiable memory and fish tales. Sure; there's scope for mistakes or lying with regards to putting in a RouDem for some replacement kit, but it's vastly less likely or worthwhile than putting in an exaggerated PriDem for a Knight's Cross.

[Magpie_Oz]

We don't even know what unit history we should be looking at to see if there is verification so how can we say one account out weighs another ?

Surely Barkmanns account ended up in an official transcript much the same as the record of losses for a given day ended up on an official list, all of which would have come from battlefield accounts of the people involved and not a forensic battlefield audit.

There are plenty of other accounts of other actions that Barkmann was engaged in where he destroyed multiple enemy tanks, he is credited with 80+ in total and seemingly is a credible source.

Point is we cannot definitely say one way or the other.

[sburke]

True and if you were going to exaggerate, would an armor unit play down their losses and thereby their replacements? How would they explain that at roll call - umm those guys went for beer.....

It seems highly unlikely a unit would play down their losses by that much and therefore their replacements as opposed to several days later giving an account which though not intentionally made up could be chock full of fog of war issues.

Personally I am very skeptical of Barkmann's claims, but I don't know if it will ever be certifiably proven. As it stands other than his report there is as far as I know nothing to back up his claims. So you can choose to take his word or not. I choose not.

[JonS]

how can we say one account out weighs another?

Occam's Razor.

[Magpie_Oz]

So you can choose to take his word or not. I choose not.

Or you can choose to be unable to say one way or the other.

Occam's Razor

" The razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation."

This principle would seem to indicate that a detailed first hand account of 5 people could perhaps outweigh the dry austerity of a unit report that overviews a days activities.