Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Nov 2023 18:33

Sean Oliver wrote:
11 Nov 2023 16:48
PS: The lack of visible German Flak emplacements from the air is hardly surprising, and is largely irrelevant.

In the photos I mentioned one man is clearly standing in a knee-depth trench and others sit on top of spoil-heaps in the background so if the photo is correctly captioned then there would be signs. Gun emplacement that have been there for a while develop visible pathways around the guns.
Other then von Luck there is no account of flak/pak guns being present in Cagny.

This shows the location of the claimed 88s (red) and the position of the lone 88 (yellow). The Welsh Guards were attacking Le Poirier so it is possible the 4 88s seen in a tree-line could be the trees north of Le Poirier



South is to the top.

ffardccc01.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 11 Nov 2023 20:17, edited 1 time in total.

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 18:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Sean Oliver » 11 Nov 2023 19:00

Another possible scenario of Luck's account causing confusion could be this:
Luck had in fact confronted a Pak Abt 1039 battery commander trying to flee Cagny, but after the war in his memoirs, said it was an 'unknown LW battery commander' to spare the identifiable and still living Pak 1039 commander the obvious personal embarrassment for having acted cowardly in battle. Perhaps this 88 commander had an important post-war career in the Bundeswehr as an officer or something, and so Luck told the white lie to spare the guy considerable embarrassment.
This would not be surprising at all!

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 18:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Sean Oliver » 11 Nov 2023 19:06

"Other than von Luck there is no account of pak/flak in Cagny"


??? 8O

What then destroyed the tanks of 2FFY?
The British survivors of 2 FFY for one clearly described AT fire from Cagny.
Are you suggesting the tanks just blew up by themselves?

Please watch the video link I provided a couple posts above

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 18:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Sean Oliver » 11 Nov 2023 19:42

Many British accounts of Goodwood describe German deployments as "defence in depth". This is not really accurate. It's better described as 'exhausted half-strength divisions scattered widely behind the front'. The only proper German defence 'lines' were to the north, close to the British forward line and occupied by 16 LWFD, and this line was thin and brittle..
South of that line, the German companies and batteries of 21.Pz were definitely not deployed in a system of 'defensive in depth' with fields of fire, minefields, obstacles, and all of the other preparations which a genuine positional defence in depth consists of.
This is because they lacked the infantry for this, and especially because such positions are instantly recognized from the air and shelled/bombed. Instead the few German troops there were which fought on July 18 amounted to about 200 infantry and scattered AFVs and guns, which were billeted and concealed in the cover of villages where they dug into in foxholes for protection against air and artillery, but lacked the coordinated interlocking fields of fire needed for defending against an assault on the ground. This was why the bombing before Goodwood targeted villages; there simply weren't any other places where German positions were visible. The open terrain was empty.
After the bombing, for at least an hour, there were very few Germans defending the area north of Bourguebus Ridge in any coordinated sense. The 4 Btlns of 16.LWFD surrendered almost w/o a fight, and behind that was about half of the already decimated 21.PzD, the remainder south of Bourguebus Ridge.
The scattered German units encountered by 11 Armd were not a defence in depth - they were disorganized bits and pieces, fragmented by the bombing, like ants scattered by kicking an anthill, and when the 11 Amd appeared around Cagny, there were no prepared German defensive positions there, just a few units which happened to be nearby at that moment, moving from place to place, trying to coordinate themselves and wondering what to do.
That's why you wont find any German defensive positions visible from the air.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Nov 2023 20:11

Sean Oliver wrote:
11 Nov 2023 16:48
PS: The lack of visible German Flak emplacements from the air is hardly surprising, and is largely irrelevant.
I do not believe any flak 88s were in the front line as Pickert always refused to do that with his guns. They would be in the rear and Bourguebus would be the ideal location for them to do both air-defence and ground bombardment over the Cagny area . It is there where I looked for signs of emplacements/tracks.
This is a very specific claim by von Luck and his story hinges on the clash of command between the Army and The Luftwaffe. Army flak Units have no bearing on the matter as von Luck could simply order them and they would obey. If von Luck had omitted the gun-waving version then he could be said to be slightly confused. Making it a Luftwaffe Unit it raised serious credibility problems

Edit:
Should have checked before I wrote because Daglish show an air-view dated July 18 1944 with a field marked as having a Flak Unit just east of Bourguebus . A box with 4 emplacements at the corners and a central emplacement
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 12 Nov 2023 08:21, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 11 Nov 2023 21:20

Sean Oliver wrote:
11 Nov 2023 16:38

Here's a fascinating presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za8VGtbppHA
I think you have 'accidentally outed' the author of this blog

https://rafoverlord.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... cagny.html

Note how von Luck's story is used to mitigate 'defeat' of von Rosen's Tiger attack:

https://youtu.be/Za8VGtbppHA?si=34dZPcYobaDOzD-6&t=2142

by claiming the damage was done by the Luftwaffe flak guns.
In his original contemporary account von Rosen believed he was facing some new 'super-gun' and he immediately retreated after 3 Tigers were knocked out. He seems to believe no Allied gun was capable of a frontal penetration of a Tiger. He should have asked SS 101 crews and they could have informed him they lost their first (3 times) frontally penetrated Tiger on 14/6/44.
SS 101 Tiger 104 Quesnay (2v)-horz.jpg
Also note that an attempt is made to confirm von Luck's Flak gun story by using von Rosen's 'friendly fire' claim for his Tiger losses-which is based on von Luck's Flak gun story- circular referencing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Nov 2023 17:43

The 'Luftwaffe' guns east of Bourguebus from Daglish 'Over The Battlefield, Operation GOODWOOD' page 159
P 2089 bbbbb.jpg
Which must be the Flak Unit marked by Becker-he is slightly off.

Scbbgreenshot_61.jpg
Clipfboard01.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 18:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Sean Oliver » 12 Nov 2023 20:50

Again, I don't understand what it is you are trying to demonstrate with all of this. It doesn't shed any light on anything we don't already know. It's not even all that interesting.
What is so wrong about Rosen's accounts? He first thought it was a HV British gun. After the war found out no British guns were within range or direction to penetrate those Tigers at the moment they were hit - confirmation he got from 2FFY accounts, not from Luck.
Unless 2FFY are in on concealing "The Whole Truth" as well?
Your insinuations are rather conspiratorial.

And strangest of all...
I've "outed" the author of the blog?
WTF?
Mr. Kenney what on earth are you talking about?

Since German units made careful attempts to stay hidden from the air, the 'flak position' from Dagleish's book is equally meaningless - it's almost certainly a dummy position, or one left unoccupied for weeks.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Nov 2023 21:43

Calm down.
The blog has no clue as to the identity of the poster.
The content of the YouTube link you posted is exactly the same as the blog.
The YouTube film has a named presenter so now we can guess his name.

Simples really.

Note that the Youtube film at 17:05

https://youtu.be/Za8VGtbppHA?si=4gTqvLgVAp-rojiM&t=1025


shows this

Screenshot_498.jpg
which shows the good Doctor visits AHF because it a copy of my photo I used when I found this gun on a 1946 air view.

viewtopic.php?p=2133776#p2133776



Unfortunately he did not read all my posts as he still believes that the gun of the left is the same as the one on the right, it is not.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Nov 2023 21:59

Sean Oliver wrote:
12 Nov 2023 20:50
Again, I don't understand what it is you are trying to demonstrate with all of this. It doesn't shed any light on anything we don't already know. It's not even all that interesting
Then stop reading it.
Sean Oliver wrote:
12 Nov 2023 20:50

What is so wrong about Rosen's accounts? He first thought it was a HV British gun. After the war found out no British guns were within range or direction to penetrate those Tigers at the moment they were hit - confirmation he got from 2FFY accounts, not from Luck.
Unless 2FFY are in on concealing "The Whole Truth" as well?
Your insinuations are rather conspiratorial.
Incorrect framing.

von Rosen led an attack by 6 Tigers into the centre of the tanks advancing past Cagny.
He was immediately taken under fire and 3 of his Tigers were knocked out. He turned tail and took no further part in the battle.
In his 1944 version of events he said thought a new high-performance gun was used against his Tigers.
He was not advancing down south towards Cagny but moving west.
20 years later he heard the final version of von Lucks claim and without any evidence asserted it must have been the 88s that knocked out his Tigers.
He was just latching on an convenient excuse for his failed attack. There were plenty of British guns within range on von Rosen's Tigers.


Sean Oliver wrote:
12 Nov 2023 20:50
Since German units made careful attempts to stay hidden from the air, the 'flak position' from Dagleish's book is equally meaningless - it's almost certainly a dummy position, or one left unoccupied for weeks.

No flak battery correctly positioned for an optimum arc for AA and ground bombardment could be concealed.

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 18:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Sean Oliver » 14 Nov 2023 02:46

Then stop reading it.
Michael, I'm interested in what your trying to say, but I don't understand where you are going with all of his material.
It seems you have difficulties accepting the presence of 88s in Cagny, but I'll be damned if I can understand why

He (Rosen) was just latching on an convenient excuse for his failed attack. There were plenty of British guns within range on von Rosen's Tigers.
HaHaHa!
The truth at last!
I actually took you seriously for a moment.

But you’ve got your Goodwood time line of events mixed up.

The six available Tigers of Rosen's 3./503 left Maneville between 1100-1200 and headed toward Cagny. By that time, 3RTR and 2FFY had passed through the Cagny area at least an hour or two earlier.
Rosen's Tigers were travelling (+ facing) S/SW, and when they reached a point 1200m N/NE of Cagny, 2 Tigers were suddenly hit and penetrated by shots from the south, i.e. Cagny. Rosen could not determine what had fired on them, and so alarmed, withdrew back towards Maneville.

British accounts and WDs obviously indicate no British weapons were positioned to accomplish such a hit and penetration at that time, since 3 RTR and the remains of 2FFY were too far to the SW over the Caen-Paris road and trying to climb up Bourguebus Ridge by then to see or hit the Tigers. Gds Amd was still to the N, in the opposite direction. At that point, Rosen had not engaged or even spotted any British troops/tanks when those two Tigers were hit.

So, Rosen's 4 Tigers returned to Maneville and after some discussion at 503 HQ, (around 1400-1500) Rosen's 3./503 and the Tiger II’s of 1./503 launched an attack from Maneville to the W/NW and here engaged Gds Armd Div tanks - to the N/NW of Cagny.
It was here that Rosen readily admits 503 lost several tanks to British fire, including a tank ramming incident etc.

Your description seems to mistakenly conflate two different episodes separated by at least two hours, and involving different British units.
Far from making excuses, Rosen and other 503 (and British) veterans simply described what they saw happening.

No flak battery correctly positioned for an optimum arc for AA and ground bombardment could be concealed.

Exactly my point. German Flak were willing to sacrifice a certain amount of ‘correct positioning for an optimum arc of fire’ by concealing themselves in woods to avoid detection and obliteration from the air, yet retain the ability to shoot at enemy aircraft. Obviously.

Keep coping, Michael!

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Nov 2023 07:41

Sean Oliver wrote:
14 Nov 2023 02:46

But you’ve got your Goodwood time line of events mixed up......................
..................So, Rosen's 4 Tigers returned to Maneville and after some discussion at 503 HQ, (around 1400-1500) Rosen's 3./503 and the Tiger II’s of 1./503 launched an attack from Maneville to the W/NW and here engaged Gds Armd Div tanks - to the N/NW of Cagny.
It was here that Rosen readily admits 503 lost several tanks to British fire, including a tank ramming incident etc.

Your description seems to mistakenly conflate two different episodes separated by at least two hours, and involving different British units.

It appears you are the confused/conflated one.
Von Rosen took no further part in the fighting after he fled the battlefield when 3 of his 6 Tigers were knocked out. He went back to Manneville and then went to Rupiere 7 km to the east. From there he got 3 days leave in Paris.
1/503 did try and advance towards Sannerville with Pz IV support from 21 Pz Div and NOT von Rosen. No British accounts mention any attack by Tigers on Sannerville and it appears to have achieved nothing. This is the attack that shows up as tank-tracks in a wheat-field north of Manneville in the Daglish book (page 166-167)
16-0727 (3177) Mannevileb.jpg
The only evidence I found of any such attack is a Pz IV wreck still in Sannerville in 1946.
Screenshot_49j9.jpg
The TII ramming incident is some 2.5km to the south. I have never seen any quote or account by von Rosen that mentions the ramming incident.
Screenshot_2y03.jpg

Sean Oliver wrote:
14 Nov 2023 02:46

Far from making excuses, Rosen and other 503 (and British) veterans simply described what they saw happening.
I checked who said what and when. Turns out I might have been too harsh on von Rosen.
If you read his 'Panzer Ace ' book he makes no claim (page 250) it was the 88s that knocked out his Tigers.
If you read the 503 History book by JJF you might be fooled into thinking he does say it was 88s that knocked out his Tigers but check the account by von Rosen on page 242 and he makes no mention at all of his attack.
On an earlier page (241) there is an account that might appear to be von Rosen that does claim a friendly fire incident but...it is not an account by von Rosen!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 14 Nov 2023 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 14 Nov 2023 12:16

There is an entry in 11 Armoured Divisions summary of events for 18 July 1944 which reads:

Time: 1530
From: Inns of Court
Subject: 3 Tigers and 2 Mk IV moving NW from CAGNY.

Edit

Also worth checking page 74 of 23 Hussars regimental history which describes an engagement in what seems to be mid-morning with German tanks "to the east" and includes a claim of at least one Tiger knocked out and the silencing of the opposition...

Does that align with these map references: 114658 and 122663?

Regards

Tom

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Nov 2023 21:54

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
14 Nov 2023 12:16
There is an entry in 11 Armoured Divisions summary of events for 18 July 1944 which reads:

Time: 1530
From: Inns of Court
Subject: 3 Tigers and 2 Mk IV moving NW from CAGNY.

Edit

Also worth checking page 74 of 23 Hussars regimental history which describes an engagement in what seems to be mid-morning with German tanks "to the east" and includes a claim of at least one Tiger knocked out and the silencing of the opposition...

Does that align with these map references: 114658 and 122663?

3 RTR, 23H and 2 F&F all report engagements with tanks in that area. Guards Arm Div do the same. It was a busy area on the 18th.

These are the map squares and the red arrow is where Rosen's Tigers attacked and blue arrow the TII attack. Rupieres is also marked which was the base for sPz Abt 503 and where von Rosen relocated himself.
Screenshot_261b.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 14 Nov 2023 22:06

Sean Oliver wrote:
14 Nov 2023 02:46
Rosen and other 503 (and British) veterans simply described what they saw happening.

This book is one of the latest on sPz Abt 503.

https://www.axe-et-allies.fr/max-stein- ... z-abt-503/

It is a very glowing account of their actions and thus in no way sets out to disparage.
However the author writes this:



La perte des Tiger I « 333 » et « 334 »
devant Cagny
Les destructions du Tiger « 333 » du Feldwebel Müller et du
Tiger « 334 » du Feldwebel Schönrock ont été des coups parti-
culiérement durs pour les tankistes de la schwere Panzer-Ab-
teilung 503 comme nous le verrons par la suite dans cette étude.
Cependant il faut revenir sur une question importante : qui a dé-
truit ces deux Tiger I ?
Dans ses mémoires (10) et dans ses entretiens avec l'auteur
Frénouville / Cagny au début des années 90, Hans von Luck,
ancien Oberst et Regimentskommandeur du Pz.Gren.Rgt.125
(21 .Pz.Division), a relaté I'exploit d'avoir fait déplacer de quel-
ques centaines de måtres quatre piéces de 8,8cm Flak 18 du
Flak-Sturm-Regiment 2 (Ill.Flak-Korps), au nord de Cagny, en
menacant le chef de l'unité avec un pistolet. Cette batterie
d'aprés von Luck était responsable de la destruction de nom-
breux Sherman devant Cagny le 18 juillet, mais aussi des Tiger I
« 333 » et « 334 » du Leutnant Rambow... Cette affirmation, re-
layée depuis par de nombreux historiens, est devenue un fait in-
contestable. Mais depuis quelques années et grace de nou-
veaux clichés de I'lGN, la réalité photographique ne donne pas
raison å la version de von Luck. Von Luck aurait menti concer-
nant le déplacement des quatre piåces de 88 au nord de
Cagny... Aprås-guerre, alors que Richard von Rosen s'est en-
tretenu avec Iui, sur la perte des Tiger « 333 » et « 334 », Hans
von Luck lui indiqua qu'il avait fait déplacer quatre piåces de
Flak au nord de Cagny. Par conséquence pour von Luck, elles
étaient responsables de la destruction des deux Tiger. Von
Rosen resta sceptique jusqu'å sa mort en 2015
.



In short von Luck is called a 'liar' and von Rosen never believed the story.
The author thinks it was Becker's guns that did in the Tigers!

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”