Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2018 01:25

Daglish continued:

Dag de.jpg
DAG E.jpg
Dag (3).jpg
Dag (4).jpg
Stephen Napier (Armored Campaign In Normandy June-August 1944) attempts to validate von Luck by saying the 'fact' that 2 Tigers were penetrated frontally north of Cagny means that there must have been 88s (I.E super-tanks can only be knocked out by super-guns ergo puny British weapons can be ruled out) but as this Tiger friendly fire claim is itself based on the changed story of von Rosen (who originally said/thought for 20 years: I broke off the move as I could not pinpoint the source of the fire and did not want to suffer any further total losses) and the reason von Rosen changed his story is because he heard von Luck's claim about there being a flak Unit in Cagny.
It is circular referencing writ large.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Gunbirddriver
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Apr 2018 04:20
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Gunbirddriver » 12 Apr 2018 01:33

Yep, I have read it. A rather confused account that exudes a thinly veiled contempt. Not quite scholarship, is it?

Daglish asserts that von Luck portrayed himself as single-handedly turning the course of the battle. This was not his account, as recorded in the Ministry of Defense film Operation Goodwood. Luck gives most of the credit to checking the advance to Major Becker. I have read Sweats account of the battle, and though in places it is helpful there are major errors present. And Rosen's patter? Basically, Daglish presents the German officers as arrogant and condescending, and not particularly truthful. Fine, but that is not scholarship. This reads as an editorial commentary rather than a dispassionate discussion of events.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2018 01:36

Gunbirddriver wrote:Yep, I have read it. A rather confused account that exudes a thinly veiled contempt. Not quite scholarship, is it?

Daglish asserts that von Luck portrayed himself as single-handedly turning the course of the battle. This was not his account, as recorded in the Ministry of Defense film Operation Goodwood. Luck gives most of the credit to checking the advance to Major Becker. I have read Sweats account of the battle, and though in places it is helpful there are major errors present. And Rosen's patter? Basically, Daglish presents the German officers as arrogant and condescending, and not particularly truthful. Fine, but that is not scholarship. This reads as an editorial commentary rather than a dispassionate discussion of events.
Obviously you put the unsourced and evidence-free claim of one single man against all contrary evidence. Your faith is touching

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2018 01:39

Gunbirddriver wrote:Yep, I have read it. A rather confused account that exudes a thinly veiled contempt. Not quite scholarship, is it?
Rather like claims you should be able to see people in air views or that it is standard German tactics to allow a whole regiment of tanks to pass without firing.


https://youtu.be/0_XxVUmKwAw?t=5m30s

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2018 01:47

Gunbirddriver wrote: And Rosen's patter? Basically, Daglish presents the German officers as arrogant and condescending, and not particularly truthful.
This is von Rosen who led a Tiger attack into the passing British tanks and as soon as 3 of his Tigers were hit turned tail and headed to the rear to lick his wounds. Then 20 years after his retreat he hears von Luck's claim and to excuse his timidity says it must have been the Flak guns that hit his Tigers.
Contrast that with the Regiments he was trying to engage who continued to advance despite taking 10 times his casualties.

Gunbirddriver
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Apr 2018 04:20
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Gunbirddriver » 12 Apr 2018 01:55

Daglish terms this as “Sweet’s dispassionate assessment": ‘Luck’s full story was that he … came over the ridge just in time to see the bombers attack and did not even have time to change his uniform before single-handedly stopping the British.’ How could Daglish think to characterize the statement as dispassionate? And Luck did not see the bombers attack, and did not claim to have.

Sweet is wrong on his particulars, and wrong on his assessment. Daglish exposes himself as an interested party by citing Sweet, who if he had looked at his work Daglish would know was not accurate on the particulars. Thus, though Daglish’s work is useful, we would clearly be wrong to ignore the bias present in it.

Now you are descending into a series of personal attacks which I have been tolerant of, but I think you have reached your limit. Standard ambush tactics in the German army was to allow the lead units to pass and fire on the second section. If you do not know that, fine, but what Luck told the Luftwaffe officer fits the general defensive scheme in use at the time. You apparently think the guns should have fired on the lead units, so no reason why they should not. This is your opinion. Your sole, and evidence free opinion. But here you are wrong. The ambush technique as referenced but not spelled out by Luck is the standard method they used.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2018 02:02

Gunbirddriver wrote: This is your opinion. Your sole, and evidence free opinion.
Like the sole, and evidence free opinion' of von Luck
Gunbirddriver wrote: But here you are wrong.
As is von Luck.

Gunbirddriver
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Apr 2018 04:20
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Gunbirddriver » 12 Apr 2018 02:02

Michael Kenny wrote:
Gunbirddriver wrote: And Rosen's patter? Basically, Daglish presents the German officers as arrogant and condescending, and not particularly truthful.
This is von Rosen who led a Tiger attack into the passing British tanks and as soon as 3 of his Tigers were hit turned tail and headed to the rear to lick his wounds...
Again, you are missing the point. Daglish refers to what Rosen has said as "patter". Now if I characterized your comments here as "patter" you would understand that I am dismissing your opinion. The point is that his word choice declares a bias in his writing, and places the objectivity of his statements in doubt. I can't spell it out any clearer for you.

Gunbirddriver
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Apr 2018 04:20
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Gunbirddriver » 12 Apr 2018 02:03

What is von Luck wrong about?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2018 02:11

Gunbirddriver wrote:Again, you are missing the point. Daglish refers to what Rosen has said as "patter". Now if I characterized your comments here as "patter" you would understand that I am dismissing your opinion. The point is that his word choice declares a bias in his writing, and places the objectivity of his statements in doubt. I can't spell it out any clearer for you.
I have not the slightest interest in your opinion of my opinions. You have presented your case and I have shown the evidence to the opposite. Readers can make their own decisions as to what they want to believe. I consider von Luck to be as unreliable as (for example) claims a buddy (of yours) crept up on a Tiger tank in fog and killed the crew by dropping a grenade through the commanders hatch.

Gunbirddriver wrote:What is von Luck wrong about?
See my previous posts.

I shall not bother replying to any more of your evidence free baiting.

Gunbirddriver
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Apr 2018 04:20
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Gunbirddriver » 12 Apr 2018 02:27

Look, if you would like to read an account of these battles that is well done, consider "Surrender Invites Death: Fighting the Waffen SS in Normandy" by John English.

Larso
Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 02:18
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Larso » 13 Apr 2018 13:33

The second page aside, I really enjoyed the opening posts on this thread. There are some interesting points made and some very thoughtful assessment. I am left none the wiser, though I always thought it was odd the 'Luftwaffe officer' remains unidentified. Perhaps he was killed? But all of his men as well? This episode aside, I don't recall von Luck's book having an overblown tone. This was a long time ago though (the 80s), before I got into memoirs seriously.
I was always fascinated about the meeting he described that took place between Rommel and Guderian.
Anyway, thanks again for putting the time into those earlier posts!

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Cult Icon » 13 Apr 2018 14:20

von Rosen's memoir is now available:

https://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Ace-Comma ... +von+rosen

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1868
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by Sheldrake » 13 Apr 2018 19:20

Michael Kenny wrote:
Gunbirddriver wrote: And Rosen's patter? Basically, Daglish presents the German officers as arrogant and condescending, and not particularly truthful.
This is von Rosen who led a Tiger attack into the passing British tanks and as soon as 3 of his Tigers were hit turned tail and headed to the rear to lick his wounds. Then 20 years after his retreat he hears von Luck's claim and to excuse his timidity says it must have been the Flak guns that hit his Tigers.
Contrast that with the Regiments he was trying to engage who continued to advance despite taking 10 times his casualties.
To be fair, I understand von Rosen's realisation took place on a British Army Staff College Bottlefield tour which had him, von Luck and Pip Roberts as veteran contributors.It may have been an AHA moment in which 2+2=5, By this time von Rosen was a senior Bundeswehr officer and didn't need to defend a wartime record. He did speak about the impact of the bombing and how this shattered nerves "one of my soldiers committed suicide rather than endure the bombardment") This wasnlt awilly waving session, but an attempt to understand what happened, why and what lessons applied to the problem of stopping Ivan from crossing the North German Plain. This was captured by SSKC for the Op Goodwood in house documentary.

I have a lot of time for the late Ian Daglish. Op Goodwood is one of the most intensively studies actions of WW2. Yet it illustrates the only historical facts we know: history is a matter of interpreting sources varying reliability and bias.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: Hans von Luck: reliable accounts?

Post by doogal » 15 Apr 2018 19:02

As per c, 16 p,194 Panzer Commander,
Here place your four guns in this apple orchard. The corn over there is so high that you will be well protected and just have a field of fire across it
did Cagny at its northern edge have such fields and orchards and would corn have been that high during the 18/19th July...... Did Beckers guns withdraw through the same orchard which von Luck describes??.....

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”