Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 15 Nov 2023 20:05

Michael Kenny wrote:
14 Nov 2023 22:06
The author thinks it was Becker's guns that did in the Tigers!
And no doubt the RAF say that some Typhoons did it!

Is there any photograph evidence for the losses of von Rosen's Tiger's - anything to show where they were hit (rear, side, front)?

Regards

Tom

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8234
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Nov 2023 20:17

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
15 Nov 2023 20:05


Is there any photograph evidence for the losses of von Rosen's Tiger's - anything to show where they were hit (rear, side, front)?

None at all. However given they managed to tow out over 20 disabled Tigers it is most likely they were recovered. Given the position it is highly unlikely all the photographers would miss them
I am of the opinion that a lot of 'missing' Tiger wrecks are not actually unrecorded but exist if the form of 'unknown' wrecks. That is we have them but just don't know we have them. Just yesterday I was shown a previously unknown (to me) SS 102 wreck and that shows there is still much to be discovered.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 15 Nov 2023 21:09

Michael Kenny wrote:
15 Nov 2023 20:17
None at all. However given they managed to tow out over 20 disabled Tigers it is most likely they were recovered. Given the position it is highly unlikely all the photographers would miss them
I am of the opinion that a lot of 'missing' Tiger wrecks are not actually unrecorded but exist if the form of 'unknown' wrecks. That is we have them but just don't know we have them. Just yesterday I was shown a previously unknown (to me) SS 102 wreck and that shows there is still much to be discovered.
Thanks, I did note from the tables in Tigers in Normandy that 503 Bn suffered heavy permanent losses after Goodwood and then seems to have lugged around plenty of unserviceable Tigers without actually restoring many to serviceability.

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Westphalia1812
Member
Posts: 564
Joined: 03 Jul 2019 20:01
Location: Germany

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Westphalia1812 » 16 Nov 2023 21:33

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
15 Nov 2023 21:09
Michael Kenny wrote:
15 Nov 2023 20:17
None at all. However given they managed to tow out over 20 disabled Tigers it is most likely they were recovered. Given the position it is highly unlikely all the photographers would miss them
I am of the opinion that a lot of 'missing' Tiger wrecks are not actually unrecorded but exist if the form of 'unknown' wrecks. That is we have them but just don't know we have them. Just yesterday I was shown a previously unknown (to me) SS 102 wreck and that shows there is still much to be discovered.
Thanks, I did note from the tables in Tigers in Normandy that 503 Bn suffered heavy permanent losses after Goodwood and then seems to have lugged around plenty of unserviceable Tigers without actually restoring many to serviceability.

Regards

Tom
'Long term repair' :wink:
I love myself way more than I love you

And I think about killing myself

So, best believe, I thought about killing you today

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 17 Nov 2023 20:25

Michael Kenny wrote:
15 Nov 2023 20:17
and that shows there is still much to be discovered.
Michael,

I expect these pictures have been seen before but on the off chance that they are new I thought I'd post here. They are from the ORB annex of 35 Wing RAF - I copied the September 1944 section but it was 10 years ago so not sure if this page was from that date or earlier.
AIR26-54 - 35 Wing RAF - photo.png
Sorry about the quality, I was very new to photographing in the archives.

Regards

Tom
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8234
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Nov 2023 21:34

Some appear to be Rouen but I have never seen that source before. Difficult to say for sure but I don't think the photos have been published. The two top corner photos look very interesting

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3169
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 18 Nov 2023 12:21

Michael Kenny wrote:
17 Nov 2023 21:34
Difficult to say for sure but I don't think the photos have been published. The two top corner photos look very interesting
Hi Michael,

No problem, next time I go to Kew I'll order that file up again and see if I can get better copies.

Regards

Tom

valentine III
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 16 May 2012 12:14

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by valentine III » 18 Dec 2023 17:36

About the koncking out of Von Rosen's Tiger II's, We tend to consider 2FF or 3RTR the only "British" culprits available, but I gess some anti tank units could have been around the area working in the rear of the 29th brigade advance, with 8th RB, maybe corps AT unit? Does an M-10 17 pdr. or just a 17 pdr. AT gun could be acussed of the missded ??

User avatar
maxdenormandie
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 12 May 2012 18:48
Location: FRANCE

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by maxdenormandie » 04 Jan 2024 13:25

Sean Oliver wrote:
12 Nov 2023 20:50
Tom from Cornwall wrote:
14 Nov 2023 12:16
valentine III wrote:
18 Dec 2023 17:36
Hello Gentlemen
please pay attention to old books and old sources, veterans, whether English, German, American, French, do not always tell the truth. neither do the vanquished or the losers.
It's an old account that I have here, I don't follow it very often and thanks to Michael for sometimes bringing up old posts, even if we don't always agree.
Von Rosen, Von Luck, I had the chance to work with them, being in Normandy. Von Luck occupied the property in 1944 and returned there until the mid-1990s. Von Rosen I was in contact with him a few days before his death.
Whether it was the historical book of spz.Abt.503 made by veterans or Von Rosen's book, there were many errors. No doubt memory, stress, lack of perspective and also ego.
With all the sympathy for the elders I have sometimes learned to be wary of their stories. Living on site here in Normandy in Emieville, I was able to interact with veterans of the s.pz.Abt.503, lesser known soldiers, and also from the 21pzDivision and the French. which brought another angle and another vision.
For Von Rosen in his writings an example of the ego: "on July 11, 1944, the English prisoner tankers saluted me out of respect for having carried out a high-style attack!"
This is totally post-war arogance.

-Concerning the Tiger IIs and the false Cagny stele inaugurated in 1997, the Tiger II blocked by Gorman is not the first Tiger II lost by the unit.
In the day of 18 july the 1.s.pz.Abt.503 lost 4 Tiger II ! not one ! Tiger II 100/101/111/122
Gorman, with the choc of the Tiger II on the road, will create a sort of novel, not yet completely clarified, around this feat of arms which is increasingly false. There is a part of truth, a sherman meets the ass of the Tiger II (101) and not 122 as so many times written by mistake, but the destruction and the internal explosion of the Tiger II ultimately comes from another very truth. freshly discovered and unpublished.
To sow even more trouble, the Germans renumbered certain Tigers, the Tiger II 114 would have been rebadged as Tiger II 100 for example, like the Tiger I 314 as the new 213 for exemple.

-Concerning the Tiger I of 3.s.pz.abt.503 in reality
4 Tiger I lost in Manneville Tiger I 311/312/313/322 HS.
1 Tiger I lost in Manneville strange lost Tiger I 213 HS.
1 Tiger I lost in Fight, Tiger I 300 Walter Scherf HS.
After for Von Rosen,
3 Tiger I for attack on the Cagny - Prieuré with Tiger I 314,321 and 323, fail attack, return in Manneville and Rupierre.
Fail by german canon :
2 Tiger I 333 and 334.
Von Luck's 8.8cm of flak did not hit these 2 tigers because they were not in the firing line, however there were 7.5 and 10.5cm self-propelled guns from the Stug200 in Cagny in my last research that I was not able to delve into in the book, there were 2 howitzers from the 15cmFH13 Lorraine, and I finally recovered an important testimony that I will publish later.
it also confirms the horrified testimonies of the other tankers of the 503 who took out the wounded from Tiger I 333 and 334, who had time to say that the 2 tigers were hit frontally by particularly big and large shell fire. (The 15cmFH13 can fire armor-piercing and explosive shells and knock out a Tiger)
When I indicated this information to Von Rosen 2 days before his death in 2015, he positively believed this explanation of the German fire coming from the stug 200 or the rgt155 that the strange 8.8cm Flak cannons from Von Luck (which are also controversial) the cannons were there before his intervention.
Finally, the destruction scores romanticized in several books on the Tigers of s.pz.Abt.503 reporting the destruction of 30 or 50 Shermans are also completely false. Over the entire Normandy campaign, the s.pz.Abt.503 destroyed fewer than 40 Allied tanks. The PZ Iv of the Pz Rgt 22 and the machines of the stug.200 achieve better destruction scores
Best regards

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8234
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Jan 2024 14:01

maxdenormandie wrote:
04 Jan 2024 13:25
but the destruction and the internal explosion of the Tiger II ultimately comes from another very truth. freshly discovered and unpublished.
What destroyed (as in rendered it completely unusable) the rammed TII is obvious from the frontal view.


TII Rammed Cagny .............b45 (1).jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 18:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by Sean Oliver » 14 Feb 2024 10:00

Michael Kenny wrote:
11 Nov 2023 20:11

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
No one is saying that 88s were in the German front line.

Instead, the 88s were in Cagny, 8-10 KM behind (south) of the German front line on the morning of July 18, which is almost exactly where you correctly say the 88s should have been anyway. So does Pickert.

Cagny is also only a few hundred (open) meters from Bourgebus ridge, which suggests an 88 battery almost certainly would've been placed there and the other nearby villages before first light on July 18, using them for cover and concealment rather than in the open.

MechFO
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 00:32

Re: Flak Units during GOODWOOD

Post by MechFO » 19 Feb 2024 01:48

https://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/de/ ... ect/zoom/7

It seems the KTB of I./192 can add some relevant detail to this part of the battle.

I only translated the passages that seem relevant to the thread.

....

Around 0900 the bombers leave and the Artillery fire dies down. Due to the smoke and dust from the bombardment no sight. No sound of fighting from the Orne, but increased Artillery fire in the rear of the Battalion, in direction Cagny. Assumption: enemy attack from the bridgehead East of the Orne.

Assumption is confirmed around 1100 by the sound of fighting from the direction of Soliers. An Observer from 6. Battery reports an attack on Soliers. First Wave of about 60 tanks, and a second wave of tanks and a battalion of armoured halftracks follows around 1230.

Due to this breakthrough the Battalion orders the 4. Kp to build a position facing East, East of the Battalion HQ (my comment: probably in the eastern part of Cormelles) and defend against an attack on the rear of the Battalion with its two 4.7cm, single 7.5cm PAK, three 5cm PAK (subordinated Stabskp Pz Gren Rgt 125), two subordinated 8.8cm and the three reaction squads of the Grenadier Kp's.

Around 1330 enemy attack waves appear from a hollow north of Soliers. First wave tanks, followed by waves of infantry mounted on armoured halftracks, SP artillery and AT. The sFH of 4. Kp as well as the 6. Bttr/155 open fire targeting the mounted infantry.

1425 observers report that enemy tanks are stuck on the reverse slope at Huber Folie, 4 of 9 are burning.

......

1530 radio contact reestablished with Rgt HQ, prior to this relay via II./192 necessary. At 1558 from Rgt HQ: counterattack against Four ongoing, Soliers in own hand.

.....

1730 by this time attack on Hubert Folie was repulsed, using smoke the enemy retreats about 1km, significant observed losses of vehicles and men by fire from sFH platoon and 6./155. One sFH from 4. Kp immobilized by Artillery fire. 1 confirmed burning tank by hit from 4. Kp sFH.

Around 1915 retreating tanks are observed in the hollow 600m north of Soliers. Around 1950 renewed push in direction of Hubert Folie.
....

In short, Battalion came through the initial bombardment without any or only very few losses. The tanks down south don't seem to bother them too much, the position is dislocated by the infantry push through Caen and the later push from Giberville-Mondeville. The combination encircled the Grenadier companies along the Orne. The Pakfront was repositioned against the attack from Giberville but a hollow prevented effective fire. At 0415 the next morning LAH informes them of the new line Ifs-Bras and the Battalion pulls back into the boundary II./IR 980 and LAH.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”