Barkmann's Corner

[ChrisND]

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.

I'll take a supply/commanding officers audit of available and needed equipment as record over a tankers/flyers account of enemy he damaged any time. One of them is much more prone to exaggeration/being mistaken/lying.

For a different hypothetical situation, who would you take more seriously: Rudel's account of a days/weeks worth of tank kills, or the Russian tank battalion commanders loss reports to the higher-ups/supply chain? Who knows the composition/status of the Russian tank battalion best here?

[Magpie_Oz]

I'll take a supply/commanding officers audit of available and needed equipment as record over a tankers/flyers account of enemy he damaged any time. One of them is much more prone to exaggeration/being mistaken/lying.

But what id the QM's account actually say? Effective strength 30 tanks?

For example did it take into account the 12 that they lost through the day and 9 they received as replacements? Did it say 3 tanks KO, 4 immobilised 5 repaired and returned to service?

I've not seen the report so I can't comment on it but we need to be careful what conclusions that can be drawn from it.

For a different hypothetical situation, who would you take more seriously: Rudel's account of a days/weeks worth of tank kills, or the Russian tank battalion commanders loss reports to the higher-ups/supply chain? Who knows the composition/status of the Russian tank battalion best here?

No I would suggest, again, that the truth lies somewhere between the 2.

[sburke]

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

I could, but I believe it is improbable and there does not seem to be any corroborating evidence therefore I find no reason to be equivocal about it. I could certainly be wrong and I think no one gives a rat's a** of my opinion on it, but heck that is all any of us are doing here.

I will however tip my hat to your insistence on keeping an open mind.

[JonS]

your insistence on keeping an open mind.

Unfortunately he seems to have kept it so open that his brains have fallen out

No I would suggest, again, that the truth lies somewhere between the 2.

[ChrisND]

Unfortunately he seems to have kept it so open that his brains have fallen out

I'm such a dork I actually know what that is in reference to.

[JonS]

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.

No. It doesn't.

On the one hand we have records of all relevant US units, none of which show Shermans in the area, and none of which show significant Sherman losses over a much larger area. On the other hand we have yet another own-side fish-tale story where claims are heroic and evidence is nil. Actually, less than nil, since the other side didn't record losses that come close to matching what is claimed. Examples that are exactly analogous of aerial combat are legion. His claim was nine Shermans, several other American vehicles, and that he halted an American armoured attack. Nine Shermans. That's the best part of half a company - even with the best will in the world half a company isn't going to be just swept under the carpet in US records.

Did Barkmann get involved in a firefight near le Lorey? Probably, yes

Did Barkmann destroy as many vehicles as he claimed Shermans? Maybe.

Did Barkmann fight this action single handedly? Not really.

Did Barkmann's action have any material effect on the course of the larger operation? No, it was barely even noticed.

[Pete Wenman]

This is an interesting read

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=156158

The guy seems to have done his research

P

[Magpie_Oz]

Did Barkmann get involved in a firefight near le Lorey? Probably, yes

Did Barkmann destroy as many vehicles as he claimed Shermans? Maybe.

Did Barkmann fight this action single handedly? Not really.

Did Barkmann's action have any material effect on the course of the larger operation? No, it was barely even noticed.

Hence the truth lies somewhere in between which is all I have ever said or are you too busy throwing insults to have read that?

[JonS]

'teach the controversy' is arrant nonsense when it relates to evolution.

It's also arrant nonsense when you try and apply it to two statements of wildly different veracity that nominally relate to the same event. The 'truth' lies 'somewhere in between' in the same way the true value of pi lies 'somewhere in between' 3.0000000000 and 3.1415926536. The 'truth' lies 'somewhere in between' is technically correct but wildly misleading.

[Magpie_Oz]

'teach the controversy' is arrant nonsense when it relates to evolution.

In your opinion. Others hold a different view.

It's also arrant nonsense when you try and apply it to two statements of wildly different veracity that nominally relate to the same event. The 'truth' lies 'somewhere in between' in the same way the true value of pi lies 'somewhere in between' 3.0000000000 and 3.1415926536. The 'truth' lies 'somewhere in between' is technically correct but wildly misleading.

A Mathematical value has an absolute value, records and recollections of events do not. The nonsense and misleading is when you suggest that the answer to the Barkmanns Corner is black and white.

Who is to say that the German records of Barkmanns action are totally wrong or that the records for that day for the US army are 100% correct they are as equal as each other, given that they have the same source, reports from those on the field.

There was only one person who truly knew the answer and he died in 2009

[Cymru]

Some idea of the inflation of reporting vs actual losses can be gleaned from the Battle of Britain. Britain claimed to have shot down 2698 German planes, though German records show just 1100 losses: reverse figures are 3058 vs 650. Granted there is more chance of inaccuracies in aerial combat, but I am sure a similar, though lesser, inflation takes place in all battles.

[womble]

A Mathematical value has an absolute value...

Surds, like Pi, have an absolute value that cannot be determined, as far as our maths is capable of divining. They literally go on, as far as we can tell, forever without recurring. And that's frankly irrelevant. You can say that 1 is between 0 and 100. It's true. Doesn't usually help a lot. The difference between accuracy and precision. A precise statement would be:

"The truth lies somewhere in between, but the remaining evidence appears to suggest it's quite a long way closer to the American account than Barkmann's."

...records and recollections of events do not. The nonsense and misleading is when you suggest that the answer to the Barkmanns Corner is black and white.

Who is to say that the German records of Barkmanns action are totally wrong or that the records for that day for the US army are 100% correct they are as equal as each other, given that they have the same source, reports from those on the field.

Only they're not equal. This is the point you are missing.

Barkman saw indistinct shapes through smoke and dust and tiny optics. He saw flashes and bangs and things burning. All while being high on adrenaline from being in combat. He applied his assumptions and preconceptions to this, in the afterglow of having survived what could certainly have been a mortally perilous situation. This is not lying. It is the way human perception works.

The people who submitted the US casualty/equipment reports went (at some stage of the process) down a line of vehicles, compared how many they had counted with how many they ought to have left and wrote that number down. That number is far more reliable. Even with Bilko-esque QMs (more likely to overstate losses so they can make the excess replacements disappear for profit), or vastly deceitful unit commanders who wanted to hide unacceptable losses from their superiors (not likely since they then wouldn't receive replacements), those figures are more reliable than on-the-spot accounts by those involved. It's just the nature of eyewitness accounts in times of stress.

No one is saying that Barkmann's recollection is totally wrong. Nor that American records are 100% right. They're saying that the balance of evidence is in favour of Barkmann having fought Stuarts and soft vehicles, not Shermans.

There was only one person who truly knew the answer and he died in 2009

Again. Barkmann probably sincerely believed he'd fought Shermans. Doesn't mean he did. For him to have been 100% accurate, there would have to have been a lost company of Shermans that no one knew was in the area at the time and which no one later missed off their TO. Since the glory of the achievement hangs on him having stopped an armoured advance, having merely stalled one scouting element is significantly less glorious.

[Magpie_Oz]

"The truth lies somewhere in between, but the remaining evidence appears to suggest it's quite a long way closer to the American account than Barkmann's."

Only they're not equal. This is the point you are missing.

I am not missing that at all.

Who wrote the US account and where is it ? What are it's bona fides? What does it actually say?

Are you suggesting that at the end of every day all vehicles were lined up an counted?

Getting an accurate fix on numbers at Battalion level is tricky, higher than that it is a black art particularly in combat.

We know who wrote the German account and were it was written.

The only question over the German account is whether Barkman was lying or mistaken or if the account was sexed up for propaganda.

For there to have been a lost company of Shermans we have to accept the US reports at face value, why not too accept the German report? Maybe the recon THOUGHT it was on the road that Barkmann was on but a nearby tank company was actually on it. Maybe because they were pretty much wiped out it took awhile before the report of the action came in and the dates were confused maybe maybe maybe the possibilities are endless.

That is the point, who is right who is wrong or more likely a mixture of the two. There is nothing to suggest the US information is any more or less valid than the German.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Surds, like Pi, have an absolute value that cannot be determined, as far as our maths is capable of divining. They literally go on, as far as we can tell, forever without recurring.

Completely off-topic, but Pi has a value that has been absolutely determined.

It is only the approximation by decimal (rational) numbers that is an infinite process. But that doesn't affect the absoluteness of its value and the way we can use it in mathematics and physics.

[womble]

I am not missing that at all.

Who wrote the US account and where is it ? What are it's bona fides?

I can't be bothered to reread this thread to find the references. They looked kosher enough to me when they were posted.

You want to believe one man's inevitably flawed account over the sober accounting of the machine, then that's your perogative.

Are you suggesting that at the end of every day all vehicles were lined up an counted?

Effectively, yes. Platoon commanders counted their platoon and passed it on to higher echelons. If a company of Shermans had gone MIA, that would have shown up in the records. At least, it's more likely by far to have shown up than not.

You postulate a lengthy series of coincidences to explain your assertion that Barkmann killed Shermans. While unlikely events do occur with monotonous regularity in combat, when one side claims something unlikely and the other side didn't even notice it happen, it's more likely that it didn't.

We know who wrote the German account and were it was written.

Which inherently makes it unreliable. It's one man's account

...or if the account was sexed up for propaganda...

Which adds a whole 'nother layer of "probably didn't happen the way it's wrote" that I was previously ignoring.

For there to have been a lost company of Shermans we have to accept the US reports at face value, why not too accept the German report?

Because the US reports have some self-checking in them, whereas combat casualties-inflicted reports by the casualty inflictor are notoriously unreliable.

Maybe the recon THOUGHT it was on the road that Barkmann was on but a nearby tank company was actually on it. Maybe because they were pretty much wiped out it took awhile before the report of the action came in and the dates were confused maybe maybe maybe the possibilities are endless.

You think a bunch of things happened that are pure speculation. Others think that eye witness statements of combat are generally found to be pretty unreliable.

That is the point, who is right who is wrong or more likely a mixture of the two. There is nothing to suggest the US information is any more or less valid than the German.

Having read this, I give up. Believe whatever delusion you will. There isn't any point trying to get through to you that single person accounts are less reliable than institutional records of hardware.

No, one last thing. Take the scenario. It requires an AI opponent (with a fairly simple-minded sounding attack plan) to make it anything other than a cakewalk for the Americans. Either CMBN is a crap simulator, or Barkmann wasn't facing a dozen Shermans.

[Magpie_Oz]

Believe whatever delusion you will. There isn't any point trying to get through to you that single person accounts are less reliable than institutional records of hardware.

I don't believe one way or the other, the German institutional record or the American one.

No, one last thing. Take the scenario. It requires an AI opponent (with a fairly simple-minded sounding attack plan) to make it anything other than a cakewalk for the Americans. Either CMBN is a crap simulator, or Barkmann wasn't facing a dozen Shermans.

Are you suggesting that if a given situation doesn't play out in CMBN then it couldn't have happened? Come on that is just silly, this entire forum is full to the brim of situations where sim departs from reality.

[Runyan99]

PBEM.

[Magpie_Oz]

See it must be true, in fact Barkmann must have understated the damage he caused

[sburke]

I am not missing that at all.

Who wrote the US account and where is it ? What are it's bona fides? What does it actually say?

Unfortunately part of the problem of trying to get corroboration is there is no real US account of the action as from the US side perspective there simply was no significant action on the scale Barkmann reports. That is where folks like myself have difficulty believing Barkmann. A fight like this losing a tank company would surely have shown up unless someone conspired to hide it. It just doesn't seem likely anyone would have cared enough to do that. It just shouldn't be a treasure hunt to find evidence of the US losing a Sherman company in broad daylight especially one that just doesn't appear to turn up any decayed remnants of a ship much less gold.

[JonS]

A Mathematical value has an absolute value, records and recollections of events do not. The nonsense and misleading is when you suggest that the answer to the Barkmanns Corner is black and white.

Ah, but you see that is the specific reason I picked pi. I could as well have picked root 2, but I was feeling peckish. I do likes me some good pie.

[Charlie Marlow]

Unfortunately part of the problem of trying to get corroboration is there is no real US account of the action as from the US side perspective there simply was no significant action on the scale Barkmann reports.

There is the action mention in Zaloga that I quoted. Not a major action, but it could fit. It was the same road as some folks (on other websites) suggest that Barkmann himself identified as the correct one.

And contrary to someone's suggestion, this account does generally identify the US unit. CCB of the 3rd Armored division usually included the 33rd Armored Regiment as its tank component. We know from other materials that CCA (including the 3rd AD's other Armored Regiment, the 32nd) was a fair distance Southeast of the identified site.

The 33rd's daily diary (if it was consulted) would likely have included a synopsis of actions as well as a general catalog of losses/available tanks.

The loss of 3 tanks instead of a company also makes sense from a logical point of view given what the Americans would most likely have done.

The 3rd Armored included 2 battalions of SP 105mm guns and 1 battalion of SP 155 mm guns. Battalions, not batteries. This is a crapload of artillery. The division would also have had access to higher level 155mm and 8 inch guns.

Picture the situation. A combined arms team including a company of tanks is moving up the road. First platoon gets fired up, and loses 3 tanks. What would the commander do? Charge the rest of his tanks? Probably not. Most likely he would have called in a lot of artillery and shot the crap out of the spot where the trouble was coming from. Also, we know from US sources that it was clear enough that day for air support. Barkmann's account confirms this. Many US breakthrough units during Cobra had attached air liaison personnel. SO in addition to arty, Barkmann got Jabos. This is the way that the US often operated. Using their strength - the best and most numerous artillery of the war.

So, what I believe happened (and is supported by what evidence I have seen so far) is that things are basically as Barkmann says, but that the number of kills is only 3, not 15 or whatever. He kills the 3, the US commander calls in fire support, Barkmann's tank is damaged, he withdraws, and the US unit is moving forward with scant delay. It is a minor action for the US, which does not materially impact offensive operations, so not reported in any significant way.

[sburke]

There is the action mention in Zaloga that I quoted. Not a major action, but it could fit. It was the same road as some folks (on other websites) suggest that Barkmann himself identified as the correct one.

Yeah I have read that but I think it only helps make the point. The documentation IF it is reporting the same action, does not fit Barkmann's version of events. If it isn't then there isn't anything even remotely close. So either the Allies way under reported a skirmish resulting in the mauling of a tank company, the action was simply over inflated in the fog of war or it was completely made up. It is even possible the propaganda ministry over inflated the event and told Barkmann to put his signature on it to help boost morale. I don't know Barkmann so I am not about to say he simply made it up. I do believe in mistakes made in the fog of war, I also believe it is possible the propaganda ministry inflated the whole story. I don't believe a tank company was mauled and it somehow disappeared in archives.

I am by no means a historian who has dug through all the records, walked the ground or talked to anyone who might have been there first hand. I probably have about as much info as I am ever gonna have and as much as we have talked this and many other subjects to death, you guys are the only ones I know who share my interest in talking it to death so thank you all. I'm glad somebody disagrees or we wouldn't get to banter the subject. Magpie gets to defend the possibility Barkmann was right and I get to keep bashing a Monty who probably doesn't deserve it. Don't you all just love having a place to argue over it?

[Magpie_Oz]

I'm glad somebody disagrees or we wouldn't get to banter the subject. Magpie gets to defend the possibility Barkmann was right and I get to keep bashing a Monty who probably doesn't deserve it. Don't you all just love having a place to argue over it?

Yep !

(other stuff)

[Magpie_Oz]

arrrgh, double post

[Cymru]

Just looked at the scenario for the first time. Out of curiosity I left all German units in place and hiding. Then I simply let them react with no input from me. Result: a 500:0 German victory.