rcleo

WWII ETOArmor; interesting read at this site: http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool.lafayette.htm

Including a Comparison of Lafayette Pool and Germany's Michael Wittmann

By Stephen 'Cookie' Sewell
Museum Ordnance Magazine
September 1993

Sitting at a table on behalf of The Ordnance Museum Foundation, Inc., here at Aberdeen Proving Ground on Armed Forces Day 1993, I noticed that a great number of people are believers in myths that surround the German Army of World War II. Many of the people who stopped by had a number of negative comments about the perceived "lack of interest" by the museum in their favorite German tanks and the reasons they were so significant. (It must be noted that the charter of the ordnance Museum is to preserve the history of the development of American ordnance and armored vehicles, and to include significant foreign developments where possible.)

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who is credited with the quote. "It is easy to defeat a lie with the truth; it is much harder to kill a myth." Of the many comments that were made to us about the mythology surrounding the German armored vehicles, I would like to address certain issues from other points of view in this short article.

Myth #1
The Greatest Tank of the Second
World War was the Tiger I.

Oh? Why? Maybe the best KNOWN overall, and the most notorious, but far from the greatest. This tank was designed as a 30-ton tank (later upgraded to 45 tons) but still came in between 56
and 62 tons; it was underpowered and poorly suited for any kind of mobility battle. Tanks are weapons of the offensive; this tank was not equipped for that type of warfare (remember Blitzkrieg?), nor was it well suited for "cornfield meets" at 500 meters or less.

The Russians were very respectful of the Tiger, but they were also under no illusions as to its combat potential. Their tactics - charge until you are inside the 500-meter range where the T-34's 76mm gun could penetrate the sides or rear of the Tiger - were born out of the desperation of having many more tanks than the enemy but with a less powerful cannon (until 1943) that forced them to adapt. Once the T-34/85 and the IS series of tanks appeared, the Tiger was treated as the dinosaur that it was.

Tanks like the Tiger were designed to combat tanks like the Soviet KV series. Were it not for the KV, it is doubtful the Tiger, as we know it, would have ever developed.

Myth #2
The Panther was the Best All Around
Tank of the Second World War.

Strike Two. The Panther only came about because the German leadership suffered a bout of "NIH" syndrome (Not Invented Here) and ignored the pleas of commanders like Guderian to simply reverse-engineer and adapt the T-34 for German production. As a result, it had a higher silhouette than any Soviet tank, a gasoline engine, and a very weak running gear system that plagued the tank during its combat career.

To give the Panther its due, it carried the hardest hitting 75mm gun of the Second World War; this weapon contributed heavily to French thinking after the war and was the basic weapon chosen to be developed into the 75mm autoloader cannon in the EBR 75 and AMX 13. Its armor was thicker than the T-34 and the Sherman, but it was not well designed; D and A models had a marvelous shot-trap beneath the mantlet that was used to ricochet AP shells down into the thin roof where they would kill the driver and bow gunner.

Reliability was poor - the vehicle was not noted for its ability to conduct long road marches, and the Soviets enjoyed the fact that they could not get captured models to make a simple 200-kilometer road march without breakdown. This was partially due to the poor suspension design (interleaved road wheels) and partially to the conditions under which the tank was used. This tank was also over its targeted weight limit and to the Soviets was a joke - a medium tank that weighed only one ton less than their heavy tanks and did not have the mobility, reliability, or overall useful firepower of the IS-2.

Tanks excel based on balance: the Panther had superior firepower, good armor protection, and poor mobility. That's not balance.

Myth #3
The Tiger II was the Most Influential
Tank of the Second World War.

On what and by who? The Tiger II was a desperate design of overkill that combined the design of the Panther with the concept of the Tiger and wound up with a 68-ton tank that had the worst deployability of any tank of the war (one has to keep things like bridges and roads in mind when designing tanks!!).

If the Tiger II was so influential, then what was its legacy? Surely no tanks were designed to copy its features. It used the classic German balanced layout of transmission front-engine rear which all other countries ditched for either cross drive or "guitar" transverse engine and transmission layouts. It used massive weight of armor for protection which only added to its troubles; being "Sherman-proof" from the front does you no good if you can't catch the little devils.

The Tiger II was also a victim of the late war German economy. It had no real reliability due to the fact that its rubber-hubbed wheels tended to flex under load and, placing uneven strain on the tracks, tended to snap links at the hinges. Like the Tiger I before it, this is a desperation defensive weapon that did not give them advantages.

Finally, even the Soviets had no fear of this tank. The first one they encountered in combat during 1944 was immediately knocked out by a T-34/85; the Soviets made capital over the fact that one of Porsche's sons was the commander of the vehicle and was killed instantly by the shell. (They felt at the time he was most responsible for the Tiger series; it was only after the war when the captured the Nibelungenwerke that they found out Edward Anders of Henschel had more to do with heavy tanks design than Ferdinand Porsche.)

A far more influential tank of the war was the Soviet IS-3; this inspired much more Cold War mythos of its own and was directly responsible for a number of US and foreign designs, as well as the US Ml03 and British Conqueror programs to defeat it on postulated European battlefields.

Myth #4
Michael Wittmann was the Greatest Tank
Commander of the Second World War.

This is a subject of even more speculation. Wittmann was no doubt brave and skillful, and he is given credit for a great deal of prowess on the battlefield. His score is listed as 138 tanks and 132 anti-tank guns destroyed in a career stretching from June 1941 to August 1944. While awarded every major German combat award up to the Swords for the Knight's Cross (Germany's second highest combat decoration), it should be pointed out that he was an unrepentant Nazi who had joined the Party in 1937 and was posted to SS units.

Lacking good Information on Soviet tanks aces (which do not appear to be many due to a very short life in many units), my personal counterclaim to the title of greatest tanker of the war would be an American staff sergeant named Lafayette G. Pool who, while operating a 76mm Sherman, managed to destroy 258 enemy vehicles between 27 June 1944 and 15 September 1944. This is a far greater achievement than Wittmann's, and given the relative merits of each man's case puts him in a better position to be the supreme "over-achiever" of the war.

To compare them, they have many things in common and many things that differentiate them. Both chose armor as a branch. Wittmann joining the SS Llebstandarte Adolph Hitler Division in 1939 and Pool the 40th Armored Regiment in 1941. Both men had taken punishment and it showed - Wittmann, a shell explosion that sliced up his face and body, and Pool, a few "souvenirs" as a Golden Gloves champ in Texas. Both were skilled in tactics and use of their respective tanks, and both were excellent at small unit leadership.

Wittmann is best associated as a company commander from the 2nd Company of SS Panzer Abteilung 501. Pool was only associated in combat with the 3rd Platoon, "I" Company, 3rd Battalion, 32nd Armored Regiment, 3rd US Armored Division. Wittmann is best known in his Tiger I number 805 from the 501st. Pool's tank (he went through three in his short career) was always named IN THE MOOD; it was a 76mm M4A1 WSS Sherman. Both men had a personal hold on their crew members and remained close where possible. Wittmann kept the same gunner, SS Oberscharfuehrer Balthasar Woll, through the war. Pool also kept the same crew: CPL Wilbert "Red" Richards, driver; PFC Bert Close, assistant driver/bow gunner; CPL Willis Oiler, gunner; and T/5 Del Boggs, loader.

Both men fought their tanks to their best advantage. For Wittmann, this was using either ambush or a slow advance with the heavy firepower of the Tiger's 88mm gun and its massive frontal armor limiting enemy responses. Pool, on the other hand, was noted for moving right into the enemy and mixing it up. When one considers that his favorite foe appears to have been the Panther - never a good choice to take on with any Sherman at any range - the fact that he only lost three tanks in combat, while racking up the score that he did, seems all the more remarkable.

However, the two men ended their combat careers in different ways. Wittmann with a whimper and Pool with a bang. Wittmann appears to have been killed in a series of Allied air raids called Operation Totalize; he never had a chance to fight back, and his company and his tank were destroyed in the bombing. Pool found out the hard way that "three's the charm" and, while functioning as the "spearhead" of the Spearhead Division south of Aachen, Germany, tried to shoot it out with more Panthers. This time Pool lost and the Sherman backed into a ditch and rolled over after two 75mm shells hit the tank. The four crew members survived with minor wounds, but Pool was blown out of the turret and wounded badly enough to require being medivaced; he was sent home to convalesce and survived the war.

Wittmann was undoubtedly the best that the Germans had, but his time in combat (as a tank commander) was something in excess of 25 months. Pool was only in combat for 80 days (21 engagements). Based on time, equipment, and accomplishment, Lafayette Pool is a better call for the best tanker of the war.

<hr noshade="noshade" align="LEFT" />

Bibliography:

McLemore, Dwight C.; The Career of SS-Obersturmfuehrer Michel Wittmann. AFV-G2 Vol. 2, No. 5, January 1972.

Spearhead in the West: The 3rd Armored Division 1941-45. Reprinted by Battery Press, 1980.

Popov, N.S. (Editor); Konstruktor Boevykh Mashin (Combat Vehicle Designer). Lenizdat, 1988.

Ibragimov, D.S.; Protivoborstvo (The Opposition). DOSAAF Publishing, 1989.

von Senger und Etterlin, F.M.; German Tanks of World War II. Stackpole Books, 1969.

Zaloga, Steven J. and Grandsen, James; Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. Arms and Armour Press, 1984.

tomhugill

I'm sorry but the is-3 was a poorly designed/poorly engineered piece of garbage. It was all the soviets could do to keep them going for the Berlin parade.  

rcleo

I didn't miss a thing, the content is from people writing for the The Ordnance Museum Foundation, Inc., Aberdeen Proving Ground (that big rusting tank farm) and is their knowledge and opinions.

Explore the 3rd Armor Division WWII part of the site and you will find the 3rd Armor Divisions pretty unfriendly thoughts and attitudes spelled out concerning Hitler's political Wafften SS soldiers.

Look for a WWII Stars and Stripes article on the Wafften SS soldier on this site. Let's you see what the USA dogface was reading in the winter of 1944.

And take up your compliants about the Soviet IS-3 with the Aberdeen Proving Ground folk, write them a letter, I am sure they would love to hear from you.



For more good WWIIETO reading: Visit: http://www.3ad.com/

Enjoy, John

Oracus

No need for name calling.

rcleo

The Ordnance Museum Foundation, Inc. is not affiliated with the USArmy and is making a big difference by preserving these historic vehicles: http://www.ordmusfound.org/

But rust is rust, so just empirical evidence, not name calling.

Oracus

Just joking around! I lived on APG for 2 years just across from the museum.

mustclime

Quote:

However, the two men ended their combat careers in different ways. Wittmann with a whimper and Pool with a bang. Wittmann appears to have been killed in a series of Allied air raids called Operation Totalize; he never had a chance to fight back, and his company and his tank were destroyed in the bombing.

Have you sen this?.....might be worth your time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiF2XXVyO90

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFlzvtYfczQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epnoe2r10iY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj97_pTIT1E

highrack

Great Article, thanks for posting.  Great to see the WAR Room used for WAR content.
I never heard of Lafayette G. Pool  but will certainly look up additional info on him.

thanks so much,

John D. Russo

rivetcounter

Pocom http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool...rmor.myths.htm it’s poorly researched and you copy and pasted it all including the crap at the end.
Myth #1 it’s a well-known fact that the Tiger was in development before the war and also before the Germans had encountered either the T34 or KV1
Myth #2 one reason the Germans didn’t want to build a tank that looked like the T34 was very obvious their own troops would have great difficulty recognising who the tank belonged to, a very good example was the US troops wearing camouflage in Normandy with the vast amount of blue on blue incidents the uniforms had to be withdrawn.
Myth #3 your right the Tiger series didn’t have any influence on post war designs, by the way what is the weight of an Abrams, no one used thick armour and no one has ever used a gun as lethal as the 88L71, Tiger II was not developed to be any kind of sports car so wouldn’t bother chasing a Sherman for that they would just use the gun to destroy the Sherman then move onto the next target, I also don’t recall a commander of a Tiger by the name of Porsche.
IS3 was so unreliable they made Elefant look reliable, fact IS3 is the most common gate guard of Russian armour all brand new.
Load of bollocks #3 in this literal crap it states “Wittmann appears to have been killed in a series of Allied air raids called Operation Totalize; he never had a chance to fight back, and his company and his tank were destroyed in the bombing.� Absolute Bollocks, Wittmann was killed either by Canadians or British Firefly not Bombers, this is also a well-known fact.
Pool, I read this a few years back and took it for what it was pure propaganda Hollywood crap http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool...troduction.htm
Wittmann and other German commanders are very often accused of running up huge cricket runs in Russia over a 2-3 year period in this case Wittmann managed 138 kills in various tanks not just the Tiger, Otto Carious managed over 150 mostly in a Tiger but these men have been accused of exaggeration or they were in a Tiger fighting weaker tanks.
Pool, landed in Normandy in June and was knocked out 3 months latter fighting in several Shermans all of which were shot from under him, Pool has been credited with over 258 kill he managed during his 83 days in Europe in which he had a total of 21 engagement’s in which he averaged 12.28 kills, killed 47.6 people and took 11.9 POW’s per engagement to say this is a truly remarkable achievement is an understatement quite how he knew how many he had killed is amazing as even the Germans didn’t record this but what is interesting is the total number killed combined with the POW’s is equivalent to 258 kills so this means that either all perished or were captured truly amazing and all from 1 man, yet more propaganda it’s claimed that he liked to stalk Panthers most of which were in the British sector so he must have single headedly destroyed all in the US sector, the final part that made me laugh at this fairy-tale was Pool lead from the front in all his engagement’s this in itself was suicide in a Sherman as any gun the Germans possessed would easily destroy a Sherman from over 1000 meters, yet on his last engagement he was on the flank when he was knocked out.
83 days in Europe, 21 engagements’, over 258 kills, killed over 1000 and taken over 250 POW’s
Pure fantasy Pool destroyed no more than 12 German Panzers far short of the Hollywood script claimed, the Allied top ace was a Canadian Capitan with 25 or there about kills.

All of the stuff on this site reminds me of “Cold War� Communist propaganda I see where the writers ended up

herrmill

Grab some popcorn boys! This sleepy part of the forum is interesting once again.

tomhugill

I had a feeling about most of it being hogwash but I don't have rivets knowledge to back it all up!

mustclime

I wanted to say about the same on pool.....but have been told that I am a little corse inthe way I present things........well put.

Snaps

And if you read the Bovington Tank museums assessment on their live and running Tiger it explodes the myth that they were slow and lumbering

Tanque

In the back of my mind I questioned the quoted authors' authoritative and comprehensive knowledge to be able to make the statements they did.
That the German machines had weaknesses is widely accepted; that they've not influenced tank development since is questionable at best. The later
German machines by themselves were not the most influential aspect of the German armored weapon. The German approach to crew responsibilities, crew layout
communication and tactics while using largely technically superior ( albeit overly complex ) weapon systems made their opponents pay attention. If myths
came of it they probably earned them.

Did the authors base their statements on exhaustive first hand accounts from veterans from the major combatant nations? Field reports from maintenance
and recovery organizations ( they see the armored combat carnage better than anyone) Or were they making assessments based the relics at Aberdeen?
Mr Sewell is ex-Military( CW2 ) and a respected specialist and modeler but I don't know how much of his comments were based on conjecture and anecdotal
information or from interviews of people who were there. I saw the list of cited works at the bottom of the article and while I'm unfamiliar with them
except for having a copy of von Senger und Etterlin's book the works cited appear somewhat slanted.

I don't consider myself a great 'fan' of Micheal Wittmann, for one I don't care for the hype but certainly he was a skillful fighter.

If you want to read a very engaging account of armored warfare particularly during the second world war I highly recommend

"Tank Men - The Human Story of Tanks at War" by Robert Kershaw ISBN 978 1 444 71483 8

The author cites many veteran's first hand accounts, perceptions and fears of those who were there as well as their reactions to the significant machines
when they encountered them in battle. Reading the book solidified my long held belief that any tank in combat is the last place I'd want to be. Fascinating modeling subject
but little else.

Jerry

herrmill

I'll second Jerry's recommendation on Robert Kershaw's book Tank Men - The Human Story of Tanks at War. It's a fantastic read & will disprove a lot of the misconceptions & heroics we tend to think about tanks. The first hand accounts of the British tankers facing the Germans in their early encounters as well as the Soviet & German accounts of Kursk will open your eyes to the horror of armored warfare.

http://www.robertjkershaw.com/tank_men.html

Belton Coopers' Death Traps: Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II is also a good take from the prospective of a recovery unit & the weaknesses of the M4 Sherman.

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Su...ews/0891418148

rcleo

Hi rivetrivetrivet,

WOW, someone cares about this WWII history stuff, so buckle up jokers, here is some anti-ETO kraut explanations, humorous opinions and why!

Golly, you and tomhugill both have certainly gained a superior, university PHD level of WWII ETO history knowledge by building AFV hobby toys; well done boys.

And thanks for revising WWIIETO history for us all. FYI, fantastic writing style too, especially Tom, using English as a second language!

Just didn't know, before reading this thread that Germany won World War II,

Are you 2 guys related to Paul Joseph Goebbels?

On the other hand the writings from some of the guys who actually laid waste to WWII Nat-Zee tank forces in the ETO, such as the 32nd Armored Regiment, 3rd Armored Division are perhaps as well versed in the matter as you two lay Military Historians, but could 3rd Armor's first hand opinions be as significant as your own, you think?

3rd Armored Division statements are their statements, their facts and opinions and their WWII history are no doubt based on their winning and losing WWII ETO tank combat experiences.

Gee, how unfair, 3rd Armored was there and you two guys were not.

So suck it up rivet buttercup and enjoy reading the other sides point of view.

To that point you AVOID this fact in your writing, basically 3rd Armor says Wittmann as a soldier held values not to be respected in any decade or any war, and that point (3rd Armor's) is impossible to argue with (and win) and no doubt overwhelming carpet bombing air power turned that clever kraut SS tank commander into dust.

Yes, I read:

MICHAEL WITTMANN AND THE WAFFEN SS TIGER COMMANDERS OF THE LEIBSTANDARTE IN WWII, Vol. 1 &2 (Stackpole Military History) [Paperbacks]

The books are an interesting read, have a disturbing and evil WWII German Military point of view. The accounts of various actions are well told, plus the action that killed Wittmann is cleanly described (but is it true?).

Though, the book's account is not conclusive, because even the guys in Wittmann's unit did not actually witness the fight and thought anti-tank guns might have played a roll in his death and or a Sherman Firefly defeated Wittmann.

Or did Wittmann's death actually happen earlier, under Allied carpet bombing and was covered up to maintain Wittmann's status as a WWII German people's hero.

Who knows?

The important point is 3rd Armor does not rate Wittmann highly, because of his Nat-Zee SS values (really now, who would?).

And why would 3rd Armor respect him, they were WWII mortal enemies. They were the good Americans sent to destroy the very evil, naughty and bad krauts .

Happy New Years, John

PS The Canadian tankers were brilliant in the ETO, agreed...

tomhugill

Ive been around enough to know when not to feed a fairly poor troll.....

rcleo

Troll, someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-<wbr></wbr>topic, don't see any of that here, except within your posts (ie):
" I had a feeling about most of it being hogwash but I don't have rivets knowledge to back it all up!"

I also recognize your diffficuly in understanding other points of view, mainly the view that a majority just do not respect WWII SS armor troops, back then or now.

To read the WWII 3rd Armor voices from 1944 is interesting history and this section of the forum is the place to explore it, Happy New Year.

tomhugill

I like the bit where you edited out calling me a some sort of nazi sympathiser. But you did keep in the bit compareing us toGoebbels[/i]...classy. Just because I fairly strongly disagree with what you have posted is not reason to get personal. Im not not sure whats given you the impression english is my second language but ho hum.

"I also recognize your diffficuly in understanding other points of view, mainly the view that a majority just do not respect WWII SS armor troops, back then or now."

Not quite sure where this came from. I disagreed with your opinion on some matters, I belive in an open forum I can do this. What I was refering to as hogwash where some of your "facts" contained in the post which are very differernt to what Ive read and what seems to be the broadly agreed history.

Anyway happy new year to all...