Wittman Diorama (1 Viewer)

bzr116 said:
Thanks for all the responses. I really like K&C's Wittmann Tiger. Although I am aware that this was not the Tiger used by Wittmann in the Battle of Villers-Bocage, I was leaning towards a village diorama. What do you think? In addition, I had some question as to what figures to include around the tank. I like some of the new additions to the King & Country line from the 2nd SS Panzer "Das Reich" who I thought participated in some degree in the Battle of Villers-Bocage, however I remain unsure.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Without having any refernce books in front of me i believe it was the 1st SS division that was involved...Leibenstarte Adolf Hitler Division...

Joe
 
jager7080 said:
Without having any refernce books in front of me i believe it was the 1st SS division that was involved...Leibenstarte Adolf Hitler Division...

Joe
Click to expand...

I know the 1st SS division was involved, but I thought I had read that they were supported by the 2nd and elements of the 12th. I could be wrong.
 
bzr116 said:
I know the 1st SS division was involved, but I thought I had read that they were supported by the 2nd and elements of the 12th. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

ok...here it is...

I SS Panzer Corps - General (SS-Oberstgruppenführer) Josef Dietrich
Panzer-Lehr-Division - Major-General (Generalleutnant) Fritz Bayerlein
Panzer Lehr Regiment 130 (Panzer IV)
SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101 (Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101) (SS-Obersturmbannführer von Westerhagen)
1st Company (Tiger I)
2nd Company (Tiger I)
4th Escort Company
XLVII Panzer Corps - Lieutenant-General (General der Panzer Truppen) Hans Freiherr von Funck
2nd Panzer Division (elements) - Major-General Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz

Joe
 
I liked this thread! It made me watch the Battelfield Mysteries program (its all in 5 parts in youtube), which I never knew existed before, and in the end, I find myself totally shaken {eek3} in what was a "written in stone" truth for me untill now: Ekins finished Wittman... I`m going to have a lot of fun this weekend digging through all info I can set my eyes on regarding this issue. Certainly won`t get anywhere near a conclusion, but I`ll find myself happy in the process... :)
 
bzr116 said:
Long time follower, but first time posting...

I am looking for some advice on creating a diorama for Wittmann's Last Tiger. This is the first diorama I am working on. Currently I am leaning towards picking up the King & Country SP047 set. Any suggestions?

Thanks so much
Click to expand...

Well now that you have some Input. Can't wait till you post some Pic's :salute::
 
Compelling stuff. When you take into account the evidence and, the after action reports and canadian tankers testimony its hard to see any other explanation. If its wrong!! what armoured unit did they engage and, who were they that roamed across that field at the same time on the same day as Wittmann and, his colleagues??

I hear the keys of a computer banging out a new book and acount of this action
Mitch

OzDigger said:
I can only see One conclusion, "Wittman was killed by the Canadians".
Click to expand...
 
OzDigger said:
I can only see One conclusion, "Wittman was killed by the Canadians".
Click to expand...

I said before , don't believe everything they show on the "History Channel" In Part 1 about Wittmann I spotted already one big mistake . Wittmann did not retreat with his tank (222) from the village of Villers Bocage . His tank was knocked out in the Rue Pasteur by an AT gun. He abandonned his tank and left the village on foot !!!!!
guy:)
 
Guy...

Have you watched the bit with the information where the canadians were based and their location yet??? This is proven by the canadian military reports from the time. Thats not really the errors of the history channel or, them making this up. There is a huge difference in putting a T-34 burning when talking about the battle of France (shambolic though it is) and changing something like this.
Mitch


Guy said:
I said before , don't believe everything they show on the "History Channel" In Part 1 about Wittmann I spotted already one big mistake . Wittmann did not retreat with his tank (222) from the village of Villers Bocage . His tank was knocked out in the Rue Pasteur by an AT gun. He abandonned his tank and left the village on foot !!!!!
guy:)
Click to expand...
 
One of the questions that stands out to me is that if Ekins claims 3 Tigers at roughly 800 yards which he says in the interview, then who got the 4th Tiger at 150 yards? The hole in Wittmann's Tiger was at the left rear of the tank directly in the line of fire from the Canadians. Eakins was 1000 metres away to the right of Wittmann's tank and slightly ahead of it, an impossible position to hit the left rear of Wittmann's Tiger. Ekins doesn't mention a 4th Tiger. I have to wonder if he even saw it over the crown of the field from a gunners limited view and 300 metres past the tanks he was frantically engaging.

Terry
 
Terry...

These are exactly the points that make the Ekins shot look unlikely. The way the shot would have to have travelled would liken it to the Kennedy bullet but, perhaps, Ekins got Kennedy???

Seriously, though these are some of the questions which for several years have been asked but, were poo pooed because the establishment made it clear it was Ekins.
Mitch

Phantom Warrior said:
One of the questions that stands out to me is that if Ekins claims 3 Tigers at roughly 800 yards which he says in the interview, then who got the 4th Tiger at 150 yards? The hole in Wittmann's Tiger was at the left rear of the tank directly in the line of fire from the Canadians. Eakins was 1000 metres away to the right of Wittmann's tank and slightly ahead of it, an impossible position to hit the left rear of Wittmann's Tiger. Ekins doesn't mention a 4th Tiger. I have to wonder if he even saw it over the crown of the field from a gunners limited view and 300 metres past the tanks he was frantically engaging.

Terry
Click to expand...
 
As for historical errors, not even the Imperial War Museum or Bovington is immune from making them. One mistake or two does not mean all the historical research is wrong.

It seems likely the Canadians got him, but who got him doesn't change my life or my collecting one bit as long as someone got him. No one is going to get a reward or a medal for it. There is nothing at stake.

Ekins summed it up well - Wittmann was not a hero to him.

Terry
 
Ekins did make a great point and, as I said I am just glad he was stopped but, thank goodness he was not given the VC they may have wanted to take it away from him because he was mistaken!!!
Mitch

Phantom Warrior said:
As for historical errors, not even the Imperial War Museum or Bovington is immune from making them. One mistake or two does not mean all the historical research is wrong.

It seems likely the Canadians got him, but who got him doesn't change my life or my collecting one bit as long as someone got him. No one is going to get a reward or a medal for it. There is nothing at stake.

Ekins summed it up well - Wittmann was not a hero to him.

Terry
Click to expand...
 
This discussion is great. It has all the earmarks of a similar argument that is close to my heart; Who killed the Red Baron? All sorts of things in play in regards to Wittmann. Sounds to me like the Canadians got him, but, as with von Richthofen, the exact answer may never be known despite all the reports, eye-witness accounts, angles, positions, etc. The only thing known for sure is that both men were killed in action, doing their duty for their country, by men doing their duty for their country. The end results are the same, regardless of who gets credit. -- Al
 
Al...

As you say another very interesting controversy over who got him. Was it not nailed on that it was ground fire or, was that discounted?
Mitch

lancer said:
This discussion is great. It has all the earmarks of a similar argument that is close to my heart; Who killed the Red Baron? All sorts of things in play in regards to Wittmann. Sounds to me like the Canadians got him, but, as with von Richthofen, the exact answer may never be known despite all the reports, eye-witness accounts, angles, positions, etc. The only thing known for sure is that both men were killed in action, doing their duty for their country, by men doing their duty for their country. The end results are the same, regardless of who gets credit. -- Al
Click to expand...
 
Mitch said:
Al...

As you say another very interesting controversy over who got him. Was it not nailed on that it was ground fire or, was that discounted?
Mitch
Click to expand...
Mitch, it has been pretty well established that Richthofen was killed by ground fire. Roy Brown, who was given official credit for the air-to-air kill, was never in position to fire the killing shot. Australian ground fire got him, and depending on which author you choose to give the nod to, there are at least 3 Aussie machine gunner's who get credit. But given that hundreds of Diggers would have been shooting also, there is at least an even chance that the Baron was hit by one of these anonymous soldiers. An interesting incident to investigate and argue about, but the result is the same. -- Al
 
One last thing before I start putting this diorama together this weekend...where did Wittmann take possesion of his "last tiger"? I know he reluctantly took this commander model, but from where? Thanks again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top