Who killed the Black Baron

[57Chevy]

Brits, Canucks feud over mystery (What do you think?)
Read the story here:


http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Brits+Canucks+feud+over+mystery+killed+Black+Baron/3039511/story.html
 

 

[Kat Stevens]

It wasn't me, it was the one armed man!

 

[Old Sweat]

In the interest of full disclosure, I wrote No Holding Back and stand by my findings. Norm Christie's research strengthens my claims. On the other hand, the British have done nothing but repeat their original 1985 version of events without adding any new evidence. Even the statement by Mister Duff in the story supports the Canadian claim; he states that Wittmann was 800 metres from the British position. However examination of a vertical air photo taken on the next day, which clearly shows all five Tigers knocked out in the engagement, indicates that Wittmann's Tiger lies over 1100 metres away from the orchard where the British were deployed. There are, however, three destroyed Tigers all at about 800 metres from that place, and the British claimed three Tigers on that day.

It seems pretty clear to me.

 

[57Chevy]

Although Joe Ekin may have been in a better position for the kill, it doesn't automatically
mean that it was from his shot. That would be an assumption.







edit to correct name

 

[mariomike]

More on the life and death of the Black Baron here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann#Death

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

On checking some sources, I read that MAJ.(later BGEN) Radley-Walters was the leading allied tank ace with 18 kills.  All he mentioned when I quaffed a bew or two with him 25-30 years ago was how many times he was hit - something like 8.  It is a bit ironic that the top tankers should meet on the same battlefield where one dies.

 

[Old Sweat]

Joe Ekins was not in the best position. He was the gunner in the only British Sherman Firefly covering that approach. On the other hand there were 8-12 Canadian Shermans hidded behind a stonewall covering the same approach from the opposite side of it. Wittmann's Tiger drove in front of them from right to left at less than 200 metres range. What is also important to me is that the damage to his tank was on the left rear of the engine cover, an area which was masked to the British.

A brief summary of the engagement.

  Seven Tigers break from cover around the village of Cintheaux and proceed NNE roughly parallel to the Caen-Falaise Highway, which on the western edge of their axis. They are in two groups with four to the east roughly halfway across the gap between the woods and orchards on the east and the hamlet of Gaumesnil, just west of the highway. Three others, including Wittmann's are closer to the highway. Both are in line ahead formation. As the tanks proceed north, they are followed by a combination of assault guns, MK IV tanks and half-tracks. Wittmann is clearly leery of the woods and orchards and he may have been focussed on them.

  When Ekins fires and destroys his first Tiger, which is in the eastern group, Wittmann radios "Achtung, Achtung, PAK von richts" and may have engaged the muzzle flash from Ekins' tank. He may then have seen another Tiger in that group hit and explode, because he starts to order the tanks to withdraw, but his transmission is cut off. A crew commander in a Tiger following Wittmann looks over and notes that his tank is halted with the turret displaced. His tank is hit almost instantly and he and his crew bail out. In the meantime another Tiger on the east has been destroyed by Ekins after having been hit and partly disabled by the other British Shermans. A crew from the eastern crew makes its way towards the highway, carrying a mortally wounded member of his crew, when they saw flames fly from the turret hatch of Wittmann's tank and the turret fly off. (This description has been made solely from British and German accounts, but a later statement by then Major SV Radley-Walters, the squadron commander of A Squadron SFR, whose tanks were behind the wall, supports the sequence.)

  This is why I reached my conclusions.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Joe Ekins was not in the best position. He was the gunner in the only British Sherman Firefly covering that approach.

Note that the 17 pounder equipped Fireflies were the only Shermans that could reliably penetrate Tiger armour. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Note that the 17 pounder equipped Fireflies were the only Shermans that could reliably penetrate Tiger armour.

When talking about penetration of tank armour, you need to be specific about which armour and from what angle of attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

Armour

The Tiger I's armour reached up to 120 mm on the mantlet. This tank is assigned to the Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 operating in northern France in 1944.

The Tiger I had frontal hull armour 100 mm (3.9 in) thick and frontal turret armour of 120 mm (4.7 in), as opposed to the 80 mm (3.1 in) frontal hull and 50 mm (2 in) frontal turret armour of contemporary models of the Panzer IV.[4][6] It also had 60 mm (2.4 in) thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour on the side superstructure and rear, turret sides and rear was 80 mm. The top and bottom armour was 25 mm (1 in) thick; from March 1944 the turret roof was thickened to 40 mm (1.6 in).[3] Armour plates were mostly flat, with interlocking construction. The armour joints were of high quality, being stepped and welded rather than riveted.

The nominal armour thickness of the Tiger was reaching up to 200 mm at the mantlet.[7]

Armour penetration for the later variants of the 75 mm gun on regular Shermans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6

M3 & M6 - Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 76 mm

 

[Dog Walker]

Norm Christie’s show is on YouTube in five parts.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILtL4qeDjFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deXKmVed-SQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL0H5fnwevM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2GKAEup5I

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

When talking about penetration of tank armour, you need to be specific about which armour and from what angle of attack.

Absolutely, but the net effect of engaging any Tiger with a stubby gunned Sherman was often less than positive.  Get your geometry off a degree or two and there's one ticked off enemy with ringing ears looking for you.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Absolutely, but the net effect of engaging any Tiger with a stubby gunned Sherman was often less than positive.  Get your geometry off a degree or two and there's one ticked off enemy with ringing ears looking for you.

Which it appears the Canadian gunners well understood:

Joe Ekins was not in the best position. He was the gunner in the only British Sherman Firefly covering that approach. On the other hand there were 8-12 Canadian Shermans hidded behind a stonewall covering the same approach from the opposite side of it. Wittmann's Tiger drove in front of them from right to left at less than 200 metres range. What is also important to me is that the damage to his tank was on the left rear of the engine cover, an area which was masked to the British.

Which rather makes the assertion that "the 17 pounder equipped Fireflies were the only Shermans that could reliably penetrate Tiger armour" a throwaway comment, since both range and angle of attack on the tank were within the capabilities of the Canadian guns.

 

[57Chevy]

Excellent videos
Noted was the target size in the sights for the 3 other tanks from the British standpoint.
Wittmans tank was even farther away at 967 meters, which makes it an even smaller target
size.
No-one seemed to know of the whereabouts of the Cdn unit at only 143 meters.
It seems to make more sense, or lean greatly to, as a Cdn kill.
My opinion

 

[vonGarvin]

I was going to mention that in spite of US insistence that the Sherman could not take a bigger gun, the Brits put a 17 pounder in it with success, though the crew went from 5 to 4.  And there were only enough Fireflies (the Sherman with 17 pdr) for perhaps 1/troop.  The 75mm gun was pitiful compared to the guns that the Mk IV and others (eg Mk V and Mk VIE) that the Germans had.  But that 17 pdr was quite the nasty surprise for the Germans.

 

[Dog Walker]

And there were only enough Fireflies (the Sherman with 17 pdr) for perhaps 1/troop. 

Starting in Sept. 1944 the number of Fireflies was increased to two per troop in the Armoured regiments, and one per troop in the recce Regiment (South Alberta). At the end of December 1944 1st Canadian Army had 162 Fireflies in six Armoured Regiments and one recce Regt. 

Source Appendix C in CMHQ report 141
http://web.archive.org/web/20060215053000/www.forces.gc.ca/dhh/downloads/cmhq/cmhq141.pdf

 

[57Chevy]

I'm curious.
When speaking of the 17pdr ammo used in the firefly, and according to penetration tables noted in the thread, Would that be for the APDS round?
And if so, At what possible distance from the barrel would the sabot petals fall away?

 

[Old Sweat]

I am not sure, but I did not post it. However, the 17-pdr APDS did not begin to arrive in theatre until August 1944. It is unclear that either 1 NY or the SFR had APDS ammunition at this time.

 

[Michael OLeary]

It may not have helped the British argument in any case, there were reported accuracy problems with the early APDS rounds.

From http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons-technology-equipment/15810-17-pounder-apds-17-pdr-general.html

This taken from Mark Hayward's 'The Sherman Firefly'

Quote:

"The Firefly was not a universal remedy. The 17-pdr's HE performance was limited and at longer ranges its accuracy with the more effective sabot ammunition left a lot to be desired. Trials conducted in mid-1944 state that the useful range of APC ammunition was 900 yards (822 metres) while that of APDS was only 450 yards (411 metres). The files show that, while at 400 yards (365 metres) APC could be expected to hit a standard size target some 90.5 per cent of the time, APDS only achieved the same performance 56.6 per cent of the time. At 1,500 yards (1,371 metres), the comparative figures were 25.4 per cent and 7.1 per cent. It seems that ammunition quality improved over time, but the accuracy of the 75mm M3 gun was still admired and in demand up until the end of the war."

Those range comparisons in full..

400 yds APC hit 90.5% APDS hit 56.6%
600 yds APC hit 73.0% APDS hit 34.2%
800 yds APC hit 57.3% APDS hit 21.9%
1000 yds APC hit 45.3% APDS hit 14.9%
1500 yds APC hit 25.4% APDS hit 7.1%

And more from the same forum thread:

There is some more about accuracy in Mark Hayward's 'The Sherman Firefly' who is in turn quoting from two wartime documents, WO 291/1263 and WO 165/135 recorded on 22nd September 1944. Further to this he quotes from a conversation with Sgt. Jack Moat DCM (1st RTR, 7th Armd. Div. 1940-45) on 2nd November 2000 as published in 'Tank, the journal of the Royal Tank Regiment'.

Quote:

"These trials were conducted with two tanks - a IC (T263317) and a VC (T148506). The report does state that these figures might be sympathetic "... a maximum range of engagement at which every second round will hit appears under these conditions to be a generous one". It was noted (referring to targets such as hull down tanks) that using APDS "... there is no use in attempting to pin-point vital zones in targets at ranges over about 200-300 yards". This is not a range anyone would want to be in a Sherman against any late-war German tank. "APC shot does not possess sufficient accuracy for pin-point shooting at vital zones in targets at ranges over about 300 yards". The report did not consider the tests with APC as typical and that "... the accuracy of fire with APC can be better than that obtained in this and the preceding trial". "The first batch of 17-pdr appear not only to be innaccurate, but also have a dissapointing performance". Contrary to this and other reports, Sergeant Moat regarded the 17-pdr as very accurate and did not agree with the accuracy problems. He conceded that the HE round was not as good as the 75mm M3. The 17-pdr never let him down and always did what he asked of it. He thought the Firefly was the best tank he saw service in and the 17-pdr a reliable high performance weapon, especially compared to the inadequate tanks he put up with in earlier campaigns."

 

[Old Sweat]

Good info, Michael.

In the Who Killed Michael Wittmann? appendix to my book, I wrote, "However, there were serious accuracy problems with the 17-pounder gun and even a hit on a target as large as a tank was by no means a sure thing at ranges greater than 1,000 yards." The source I cited was NAC, RG 24 vol 10457, Report No. 14, 1 Canadian Field Research Section, First Canadian Army, 14 Jun 45. It should be noted that the inaccuracy had been noted much earlier.

 

[57Chevy]

The reason I asked about the APDS round was that if it was used, perhaps the sabot petals
could have been located at the Wittman tank, or in direct fire line. Taking into consideration
the velocity of 3950fps and the distance from the Firefly to the Wittman tank of 143m.
Finding such an artifact would have been conclusive evidence.
A shot in the dark
In the video showing the artifacts that were found from the site, I could not help trying
to locate a sabot. ;D