Talk:Michael Wittmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Military work group.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military biography task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	German military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

Germany Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

Wasn't Wittmann's last unit schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 rather than Leibstandarte? LV 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1 Wittmann was not the top scoring German tank ace
2 Death
3 POV ?
4 WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit] Wittmann was not the top scoring German tank ace

Am afraid people that all the WW2 propaganda is not true, Kurt Knispel nailed over 160 tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Ummmm, sorry to point out but the implication is that his tank was hit with a rocket in the rear hull not the rear turret like the caption says for the picture. And this Canadian guy who has a vested interest(or at least bias) in a tank to tank kill figured out that it was a firefly and that there were absolutely no air attacks in the area? Give me a break. The guy who took the picture said there was an unexploded rocket right beside the tank. I will have to get that book to see how that is explained away.

I have seen a lot of pictures and read a lot of books and it is rare to see a Tiger with its turret blown off like that. A destroyed tiger usually means a tiger that caught fire. A large rocket penetrating the weakest armor(top rear deck) and setting off all the ammo in the rack is a likely scenario. I also would think that someone in the unit would sort of noticed the massive explosion of their target.

Reminds me of the Iraqi farmer who 'shot down' an AH-64, but the rotors were shredded all to high heck from cannon fire. Possible, but the physical evidence is not consistent.

There are references. Then there is simple common sense.

Jvman 2 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.6.120 (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have finished editing the section covering Wittmann's death, it no contains links to all referances used. Referances include via other sources (i.e. No Holding Back): British Radio chatter during the fighting, British, Canadian and German eye wittnesses statements Research done by several historians 2nd Tactical Airforce records 83 Group records 84 Group records

All point to the fact there was no fighter bombers over the area when the fighting took place, no fighter bombers engaged let along destroyed any of the Tigers fighting in the battle, that all Tiger tanks destroyed on the field of battle during this fight was from Allied tanks.

Air records place no fighter bombers or other planes at the scene during the fight, British, Canadian and German eye wittness accounts vouch for the destruction of the Tigers by Allied tanks and German eye wittness who watched Wittmanns tank explode who noted the lack of planes.

The only claim that a plane did destroy the tank was made by German progaganda and latter by a civillian who took a photo several months to a year after the fight took place.

Who is more reliable, a French civillian or people who were near and records proving planes were not there.

The Tiger tank was not impossible to kill and the high veloclity gun which could penetrate the frontal armour is not going to have problems with the weaker side armour or the deck armour.

The matter has not been in disbute by any serious historians, bar which units actually killed Wittmann and his crew for decades. The myth contuines to stay here because of the internet and un informed people.

Any attempt to alter the article to state that Wittmanns tank was destroyed because of rocket fired from a plane or any other reason - i.e. one of the units outside of the zone of operations (e.g. 1st Polish armoured division) will be delelted.

All in all either British or Canadian tanks killed off Germants most famous tank commander, face facts. --EnigmaMcmxc 22:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Brian Reid (author of No Holding Back and the "Canadian guy" who says there were no planes flying) is a retired lieutenant colonel and a solid researcher. The flight logs of all units in operation over Normandy that day fail to reveal a tank kill claim or even suggest that any Typhoons were in the area on that day. The rocket may be incorrectly identified by the civilian who saw it, or may have been deposited there in the days before or after the Wittman engagement.68.144.31.71 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. In France during WWII, with good weather there was absolutely no use of air cover/no tanks killed in the area(which is it?). Do you guys have any idea of the kind of air supremacy the allies had and how many attacks and air support missions were flown by thunderbolts and typhoons? What a load. The victors write the history. That is why I stopped my minor is history. I am happy it is mentioned though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see if your attempting to be positive or negative here about this, your too confusing.

On one hand your saying its a load of BS that with air supremacy they couldnt destroy one tank yet in the next breath your saying your glad its mentioned but history is written by the victors?

If that was the case the Typhoon myth would still presist since no one would have done anything to debunk it or highlight the massive ammount of information available to conrdict said myth. One would also note that the history of the war is not as bais as you make out, if your not going to make an effort to dig a little to find the truth i can see why you dropped history.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What?? I was not implying they MUST have destroyed the tank because they had air supremacy(see below). I am glad the typhoon possibility is mentioned even if NPOV is nowhere to be found. Huh? Typhoon 'myth' is maligned by most because of the bias and indoctrination from all the history books and education, due to the victors writing the history. As long as we are disparaging others and whipping out dicks for comparison, MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS. I didn't 'drop' history, I have a minor in it(I meant to say stopped the degree, which I only need 3 credits for by the way) and a degree in Biology, Chemistry and am getting my pH.D in Molecular Biology(also including computational Chemistry and Biophysics work) this December and have published 4 peer reviewed articles in my field in highly respected journals. Perhaps you should take a reading comprehension class? I intimated that I find it hard to believe one can completely eliminate the possibility of an air attack on the tank from reports of air action in a specific area. I feel this way because I looked at the sources and found no specific criteria(as in actual area size) for the 'area', plus it would be hard for pilots of the time to know exactly where they are within a few kilometers because it is not like they had GPS so the size of the area is rather important; if the area is so big it doesn't matter then why was there no air cover? It is well known that on the western front at this time there was massive air strikes and air supremacy, so much so that German forces could not even move unless at night in many cases. I also have doubts about the record keeping because it si a war and because a pilot could have attacked th tank and been shot down and killed for instance and no one would ever know. The chief reason that I bring up these caveats is because the EYE WITNESS(even if he is a civilian) saw a rocket laying beside the tank and because the turret was blown clean off. I have a problem with physical evidence and eyewitness accounts being discounted because MR.BIGMAN with a fancy title says that it is impossible that there was an air attack due to records of air activity in the area. I also have a problem with the tank to tank kill because it would imply that both sides left the area, because the witness found the tank pretty much untouched. You would expect the Germans to recover the bodies, strip the tank for parts or try and repair it. The allies would have probably taken it as well. It is possible for there to have been a meeting engagement but it is more likely that he was just driving around alone(as he did sometimes) and got popped by a typhoon. The witness also stated that the rear deck had a penetration, which would make sense with a rocket from the air and blowing the magazine taking the turret off. I guess my point is that that none of the possibilities can be discounted outright and that the air attack has physical evidence to support it. Simple. The truth is not subject to democracy or who can find the guy with the biggest title to support their claim, the article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should reflect truth, facts and not hypothesis. You show great ignorance to what happened that day as well. You are also suggesting that all credible historians who have researched the matter are simply wrong because they have ruled out an event because there is no evidence to support it?

One would expect the Germans to recover the bodies and tank if possible? They were driven from the battlefield how would they be able to recover it? At any rate the remains from the inside of the tank were recovered and buried. One should note that the Allies didn’t collect every tank they knocked out on top of that this one was burned out and had its turret blown off.

"It is possible for there to have been a meeting engagement but it is more likely that he was just driving around alone(as he did sometimes) and got popped by a typhoon."

But that would be ignoring all the evidence. He was taking part in a counterattack, a view supported by men from his unit and Meyer the man who ordered the counterattack, to retake the Cramesnil area from Anglo-Canadians. The Tigers were caught in a crossfire, as supported by allied and German accounts which resulted in the destruction of several Tigers (not to mention all the other tanks and the Panzergrenadier losses). USAAF were conducting bombing runs to the south with fighter support, with no evidence to suggest these Mustangs were armed with any ATG weapons and the RAF and CRAF were also conducting missions to the south of the area. None of whom recorded any tank kills in the Cramesnil area.

If you want to consider a theory that the tank was and the plane was then shot down – why did no one of the ground report so and why didn’t the wingman report so, why didn’t the pilot before being shot down report so? With absolute no evidence to suggest he was killed from the air other then the opinion of one man who looked at the tank months/up to a year later cannot overrule all of the above. To do so is bad history.

"It is well known that on the western front at this time there was massive air strikes and air supremacy"

And it accounts for little unless you have evidence to support they made the kill, you also have to factor in the well known over exaggeration of kill claims and the surveys conducted post battle which show that most tanks were knocked out subject to tank to tank or anti tank to tank kills.

"plus it would be hard for pilots of the time to know exactly where they are within a few kilometers because it is not like they had GPS so the size of the area is rather important;" They were apparently able to fly all over Europe and slap there bombs within the general area of there objective without GPS.

"even if NPOV is nowhere to be found" All areas are covered in an equal manner, with the evidence shown which disproves each claim in some cases from several sources, the controversy is shown to who actually killed Wittmann - the Brits or Canadians. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise to all this, stating there is bias within the article in regards to his death because of the “bias and indoctrination from all the history books and education, due to the victors writing the history” is groundless.

For a student of history as you claim to be (and I doubt from your attitude) I find you extremely ignorant, if the victors write the history we wouldn’t have the wealth of information from all sides available. I think you would have learned to dig around or have noticed the tiers of historians since the war have generally become more accurate and less bias (for a simple example, Tout updating his opinion on what happened as the years have gone on and more information became available). I think you would have also been made aware of the tremendous amounts of information available from the official documents, which have been kept and survived the war. Just to top that off, not ever the best source of information, but there is also memoirs and dairies available from both sides to also gain insight to what happened.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That was an above average song and dance there bud, and let me tell you I see a lot of them. Let me make it simple for you so you can understand: you can't discount the EYEWITNESS account and pictures. I just looked you up, I see you are a retrograde allied(UK) cheerleader and have quite the slant to your edits and articles. YOU are who I am talking about! I'm done talking with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.87.149 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other then the fact if think your just trolling, one should note i havent discounted the eyewitness accounts in this article - there all there - German, Canadian and British. They all support that there was no air attacks and the entire event was down to a tank on tank fight. Call me what you want but it doesnt matter if my main intrest lays in the British and CW forces fight agaisnt the Germans and Italians - i look for the truth and facts of what happened, i don't post myths.

[edit] POV ?

"Together with Johannes Bölter, Otto Carius and Kurt Knispel (the top scoring German panzer ace of the war with 168 confirmed tank kills) he is considered to be one of the greatest tank commanders in history. " Considered by whom? Who says these three are the greatest, and what would it mean to say "greatest" anyway? DMorpheus (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactlly is the problem and what is the issue with the point of view? Other people who wrote the articles on the other tank commanders used that phrasing and it seems approiate to carry it on in this article.

These four men, in order ranking:
Kurt Knispel: 168 confirmed victories, may be as high as 190+
Otto Carius: In the 150 area
Johannes Bolter: 139 confirmed victories, may be as high as the 140s
Michael Wittmann: 138 confirmed victories (although one questions if that is excluding the 27 tanks the propaganda states he destroyed at Villers-Bocage

Are the top scoring tankers from all sides during World War Two and there socres have since been rivled, in all likelyhood they will never be. So what makes them the "greatest" i would assume achieving that type of score in the worlds worst conflict.

I honestly dont see the problem here, when other writers stated simlar in there articles for the other tankers no one brought up any issues and i think this is nitpicking tbh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this sentence expresses a judgment without citing a source. We don't know, from the information given, who considers these guys to be the greatest tank commanders ever or what it means to be the "greatest". It is easy to envision many possible criteria. Without some published source cited here this is mere opinion/original research. I can post that Corporal Joe Tentpeg was the greatest tank commander of all time and it would be no less weak a statement. The fact that similar text appears in other articles is all the more reason to fix it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Corporal Joe Tentpeg ever achieve as many tank kills as these guys though? Joe Ekins destroyed between 2-3 Tigers in 15 minutes, Spit Harris knocked out a bunch of Panthers in one action, a Challenger 2 made the longest ever tank to tank kill during the Iraq war, all great achievements but pale somewhat when theres a guy with nearly 200 tank kills to his name --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are interesting opinions - but that is all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Find a published source that provides a ranking of tank commanders and we're all set. Without that all you have is OR. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I find that very intresting coming from you .... a person so bias and litters articles with no referances what so ever.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)