Barkmann's Corner

[Michael Kenny]

I feel there are problems with some of the more recent posts.

A disjointed listing of unattributed posts serves no purpose, and does nothing to advance the discussion. It obscures the recent discussion for no apparent reason.

It is a compilation of all the serious efforts to get to the bottom of the problem. It shows the style and substance of the debate so far. One post is clearly marked at the start as to the source and even the page numbers.

The same goes for posting maps to which someone has added the word's Barkmann's Corner, as if it were absolute fact.

It is a scan from his book 'Panzers In Normandy Then and Now'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panzers-Normand ... 0900913290

It seems inappropriate, even foolish, to go to the effort of searching for sources from American records that might shed additional light on the issue at hand, while quoting Barkmann, as reported in a secondary source. Is there a primary source such as Barkmann's memoirs or documented interviews?

No first hand accounts I know about. I have been party to many 'debates' about this incident in the last 10 years and I am sure if there was a first hand account around it would have been mentioned.

[Cannonade]

The publication of "old posts saved on your hard drive many years ago," seems entirely unnecessary. One would think an interested person would read the thread through, and arrive with the rest of us at a mutually current understanding of the discussion.

No first hand accounts I know about. I have been party to many 'debates' about this incident in the last 10 years and I am sure if there was a first hand account around it would have been mentioned.

No original (aka primary) source/s for Barkmann's claims? If I understand you correctly we should be questioning LeFevre's scholarship regarding his account of Barkmann's escapades. In other words, where did LeFevre get his information?

Cannonade

[Michael Kenny]

The publication of "old posts saved on your hard drive many years ago," seems entirely unnecessary. One would think an interested person would read the thread through, and arrive with the rest of us at a mutually current understanding of the discussion.

Seems a bit presumptuous. Is this thread to be considered the final word on the subject?

No original (aka primary) source/s for Barkmann's claims? If I understand you correctly we should be questioning LeFevre's scholarship regarding his account of Barkmann's escapades. In other words, where did LeFevre get his information?

No original detailed account issuing from the mouth of Barkmann and quoted as such.
Several passing mentions in books where Barkmann is given as the source for a few sentences.
LeFevre wrote the book over 25 years ago and like much of the period it has not dated well.
Perhaps the fact 'we' (or at least me) are using it still will give some indication as to the availability of primary German sources for this event?

[Cannonade]

Seems a bit presumptuous. Is this thread to be considered the final word on the subject?

According to your many comments here http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=88250, a 17 page thread discussing Barkmann's Corner, you are the one who believes this thread is the final word on the subject. Your first post on that thread gives a link to this one, and one does not have to read far to see you treat this thread as the final word on the subject. In this regard, the presumption is yours.

No original detailed account issuing from the mouth of Barkmann and quoted as such.
Several passing mentions in books where Barkmann is given as the source for a few sentences.
LeFevre wrote the book over 25 years ago and like much of the period it has not dated well.
Perhaps the fact 'we' (or at least me) are using it still will give some indication as to the availability of primary German sources for this event?

According to your above statement we have been chasing our tails over an alleged incident that remains unsupported by primary sources. As I said early on I am much more interested in the research process and methodology than proving or disproving Barkmann's (LeFevre's really) claims, but now it seems the basis for all this entire discussion rests on the soft sand of a secondary source/s.

It is illogical to go round and round attempting to prove or disprove Barkmann/LeFevre's claims without first identifying the original source or sources on which they stand. Failing to do that, one must relegate the alleged incident at Barkmann's Corner to the dust bin of historical mythology until such time that primary sources might come to light. Then, and only then, does it make sense to pursue the subject any further.

Cannonade

[Michael Kenny]

According to your many comments here http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=88250, a 17 page thread discussing Barkmann's Corner, you are the one who believes this thread is the final word on the subject.

Experience has taught me there is no such thing as 'the final word' on any subject.
Barkmann is not an area where I can do any research and thus I depend on the work of others.
I can only remark that research into other 'lone uber-panzers holding up an advance' examples has shown me that the truth rarely matched the claims. I was always a sceptic about this Barkmann incident and when it is brought up then I point others to the state of current thinking. Much like I added in the 'current thinking' from another older thread.
I am here for the duration and will probably still be looking in 20 years time.
Recently I found a passing reference to IR equiped Tiger tanks in a highly regarded book. I posted the claim without comment. I hoped for a reply from those who had some insight in that area and it was succesful. I like to run the counter argument first so I am better prepared for the attacks that always follow when you challenge any Uber-Panzer claim. The thread you linked is a perfect example. In it you find 2 posters who used new screen names to mask their real identity, posting history and intentions.
Look back to the start of this thread and you will note that I 'challenged' Rich on his sources. Not because I thought they were wanting but I knew others would.
I can not be bothered to run a Google search on you.

According to your above statement we have been chasing our tails over an alleged incident that remains unsupported by primary sources. As I said early on I am much more interested in the research process and methodology than proving or disproving Barkmann's (LeFevre's really) claims, but now it seems the basis for all this entire discussion rests on the soft sand of a secondary source/s.

I think closing off any alternate scenarios will help us arrive at a reasonably well informed conclusion. Excluding 3 possibilities out of say 6 is not a tail chasing exercise

It is illogical to go round and round attempting to prove or disprove Barkmann/LeFevre's claims without first identifying the original source or sources on which they stand. Failing to do that, one must relegate the alleged incident at Barkmann's Corner to the dust bin of historical mythology until such time that primary sources might come to light. Then, and only then, does it make sense to pursue the subject any further.

Far too much effort has been wasted on this little spat.
I withdraw and leave the field to you.

[Cannonade]

Experience has taught me there is no such thing as 'the final word' on any subject.

But you use this thread on the other website as if it is the final word on this subject. There is a gross inconsistency in this, but it is yours to deal with.

Barkmann is not an area where I can do any research and thus I depend on the work of others.
I can only remark that research into other 'lone uber-panzers holding up an advance' examples has shown me that the truth rarely matched the claims. I was always a sceptic about this Barkmann incident and when it is brought up then I point others to the state of current thinking. Much like I added in the 'current thinking' from another older thread.
I am here for the duration and will probably still be looking in 20 years time.
Recently I found a passing reference to IR equiped Tiger tanks in a highly regarded book. I posted the claim without comment. I hoped for a reply from those who had some insight in that area and it was succesful. I like to run the counter argument first so I am better prepared for the attacks that always follow when you challenge any Uber-Panzer claim. The thread you linked is a perfect example. In it you find 2 posters who used new screen names to mask their real identity, posting history and intentions.

Thank you for sharing something of your personal philosophy and experiences. It seems you are on a quest of some sort, which accounts for your absolute certitude about the accuracy of this thread in your comments on the other website. We all have our petty conceits, so I wish you well in your own special version of windmill tilting.

Look back to the start of this thread and you will note that I 'challenged' Rich on his sources. Not because I thought they were wanting but I knew others would. I can not be bothered to run a Google search on you.

It is my firm impression that Rich is a well-read, articulate, and intelligent person who requires no special assistance in making his points, and has no need for the collaboration of others here to support his arguments. He is more than qualified to do these things for himself.

I think closing off any alternate scenarios will help us arrive at a reasonably well informed conclusion. Excluding 3 possibilities out of say 6 is not a tail chasing exercise.

How can you arrive at a "reasonably well informed conclusion" about an alleged event that appears to have no foundation in primary sources? The answer is simple,... you cannot. For example, there appears in this thread a near absolute conviction as to the date of the alleged event. So much so, that there is a tendecy to dismiss any other dates of immediate interest. However, this date is based on secondary reporting, and not a primary source. Again, how can you be so certain that the alleged date is the right one without a foundation in primary sources? For that matter, how can you be so sure that the seconday reporting has the right location of Barkmann's alleged Corner? Again, you can not.

Far too much effort has been wasted on this little spat.
I withdraw and leave the field to you.

The amount of effort that has been "wasted" on this aspect of the discussion, pales in comparison to that expended by you and others, here (including me) and elsewhere, in debating an alleged event that is entirely without the support of a primary source.

Cannonade

[Larso]

I know that Hastings wrote of Barkmann's exploit in 'Overlord' - I'd thought it was based on an interview he conducted himself?

[Michael Kenny]

Air view of the area claimed to be 'Barkmann's Corner taken 3 years later.

[Larso]

There is an article in the current Military Illustrated magazine that touches on this action. It is by Anthony Tucker-Jones who gives no sources but interestingly he doesn't take the 'uber-panzer' angle. He writes that it was US 3rd Armoured and that Barkmann destroyed 'up to nine Sherman tanks'. The action was a bit more disjointed than I recall it in Hastings version. There were a group of intitial Shermans and other vehicles which he engaged and later two attempts each by two Shermans to outflank him, all of which were 'dealt with'. There was time in the middle of all this for fighter-bombers to be called in which damaged his running wheels - again something I don't recall from Hastings. I'm intrigued by the new details, to me, but the absence of sources is annoying.

[Michael Kenny]

Tucker-Jones relies entirely on secondary sources. He is quite a poor author and I would not rely on him for anything.
Most likely he simply checked online before he wrote it!

[Larso]

Yes he's not the best. The article bounces around a fair bit, covering the bloody march of 2nd SS and up to Falaise but nothing in sufficient detail. There were some interesting stats re equipment strenths but again they were more of a tease than real meaty material. I'm marking year 10 essays today and I wrily noted that some of them had a better structure than he did!

[krupoff]

During the fighting at he invasion fron,SS-Unterscharführer Ernst Barkmann with his Panther was left behind to cover two of our down immobilized Panzers.Due to withdrawal movement by his Division,he was separated from our own forces.Barkmann blew up one of the Panzers and took the other one under tow.He was repatedly crossed American troop movements and knocked out fourteen enemy tanks.During the nights he joined US columns and managed to read his own lines two day later.

[Michael Kenny]

During the fighting at he invasion fron,SS-Unterscharführer Ernst Barkmann with his Panther was left behind to cover two of our down immobilized Panzers.Due to withdrawal movement by his Division,he was separated from our own forces.Barkmann blew up one of the Panzers and took the other one under tow.He was repatedly crossed American troop movements and knocked out fourteen enemy tanks.During the nights he joined US columns and managed to read his own lines two day later.

The above is a straight cut-and-paste that appears to be a Google translate of the original award citation for Barkmann.

It was comprehensively refuted by this
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1360781

You joined just to post that?

[Flakman]

HI
This is a very interesting post and I think with combined knowledge of members we can solve this once and for all, provided there is a will...

From my research the most likely candidate is 3 AD CCB. This was divided into 3 taskforces which went westwards to Coutances along or parallel to the road. Taskforce 1 was in the lead along the road with Taskforce 2 to its right crosscountry with Taskforce 3 following along the road.
The AAR for CCB for the day (27th) mentions meeting isolated resistance which was thrust aside with aid of P47s overhead (Barkmann?). Unfortunately AAR gives only numbers KIA, not vehicle losses.
I have AAR for Task force 2 (Lovelady) which had no losses that day in vehicles.

745 TBn did have losses that day but AAR says they were attacking high ground just East of Campernon in support of 16th CT.
Barkmann's account is very specific in terms of places, ignoring citation.

Anyone have info on3AD CCB daily losses or even better Taskforce 1 for that period?
I am checking 3 AD archives for 33rd armored regiment so will post anything I find.

Cheers

[luftschiff]

In general, how well do the records of one army match up with the claims made by the enemy? Do German army records back up the claims Audie Murphy made after his famous stand, for example? Has anyone ever looked into it?