Brécourt Manor Assault

[Strike For The South]

It was so AWESOME how 13 American paratroops outmanuvered and defeated 60 evil souless NAZIs

I don't see how ANYONE could disagree

:mellow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Richard Winters now dead and buried, I think we can feel free to have a go at the portrayal of events by himself and by others..

[Strike For The South]

Richard Winters now dead and buried, I think we can feel free to have a go at the portrayal of events by himself and by others..

And the green light from the moderator, this is going to be good

[Louis VI the Fat]

...and it would be even better with a link. :wink:

[Strike For The South]

...and it would be even better with a link. :wink:
Demandez et vous recevrez mon amour


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1062013/posts

[PanzerJaeger]

First of all, there is no official army history record of the event occurring at all in the way that it was portrayed. When Winters was interviewed shortly after by Army historian S. L. A. Marshall, his story was of a much more routine engagement. The Regimental Unit Study (http://www.history.army.mil/documents/WWII/506-Nor/506-nor.htm) says:


That part of Company D, 506th Regiment, which had bypassed the German battery at ST GERMAIN DE VARREVILLE some time around noon and made a dash for Exit No 2, arrived at its objective at 1330. The causeway leading through HOUDIENVILLE was brought under control practically without fighting. STRAYER'S main body caught up with the advance party about 1500 hours. The column had kept the German battery entertained until CAPT R. D. WINTERS of Company E made a trip to the Beach and returned with a group of tanks from the seaborne force. The tanks brought the battery under fire and destroyed it. By 1800, Second Battalion was well organized at Exit No 2, with about 300 men on hand, including the strays from other units.

But, as is the case with veteran's war stories, the tale grew ever more incredible as the years went on.

Winters maintained that he and 12 of his men attacked and defeated (in glorious fashion) an entire platoon of soldiers (50) from the 6th Fallschirmjäger Regiment who were defending the guns.

6th FJR was an elite German unit that fought well throughout Normandy. It was responsible for actual amazing feats such as the raid at St. Germain-sur-Seves where a small group of German paratroopers captured 11 officers and more than 200 men of the U.S. Army's 90th Infantry Division. It also fought the 101st to a standstill in Carentan, only evacuating when it ran out of ammunition. It would seem rather odd that the same unit that gave the 101st such fits at Carentan would fold so easily at Brecourt Manor.

Fallschirmjäger wore distinctive uniforms and Allied troops were very familiar with them from the Italian Campaign. It would have been virtually impossible to confuse them with any other German troops, especially with dead bodies to investigate and prisoners to interrogate. There is no mention of Fallschirmjäger present in the area in the Regimental Unit Study.

German propaganda newsreel of Fallschirmjäger operating in Normandy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Jcl0Wmlk0

It did make for a great story, though. America's elite paratroopers took on Germany's elite paratroopers and kicked their collective ass. It was such a good story that "historian" Stephen Ambrose, known for his accuracy and attention to detail (:laugh4:), adopted the story and used it in part to make himself, Winters, and HBO a lot of money.

You can read the account in Band of Brothers from page 92 to page 102, ending with:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/BRECOURT.png


Unfortunately, the 6th Fallschirmjäger did not even arrive in the area until after midnight, more than half a day after the event supposedly took place.

The guns actually belonged to the 191st Artillery Regiment, a unit of the static 709th Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_709th_Static_Infantry_Division), and were being used to support the 91st Infantry Division.

Those divisions were only notable for being made up of a large number of Ostlegionen.


The Division comprised a number of "Ostlegionen" - Eastern - units of various nationalities, mainly from the occupied countries such as eastern volunteers, conscripts and former Soviet prisoners-of-war who had chosen to fight in the German Army rather than suffer the harsh conditions as prisoners. Two battalions of the 739th Grenadier Regiment were Georgian Battalions and two other battalions were also designated as Ost units in the Divisional Order of Battle. These Battalions were led by German officers and NCOs.

The presence of non-German draftees seems to be supported by the Regimental Unit Study directly before the account of the guns being overcome with tanks.


After their first few losses, the enemy seemed to lose heart for the contest; the sound of a grenade blowing off outside was enough to make them stampede from one building to another. Having begun the action at 0900, EWELL had worked his way to the enemy CP in the center of the village by a few minutes past noon. That was enough for the German commander and he surrendered the town. EWELL had lost 6 killed and 12 wounded. The enemy losses were 15 killed, 10 wounded and 38 captured; most were non-Germans from the 1058 Grenadier Regiment (91 Division).


At the end of the day, what probably happened was very similar to the Regimental Unit Study, and what one would expect any rational commander to do. The guns were discovered, Winters retrieved tank support, and the position was overwhelmed.

Even if we assume the event played out as Winters maintained and the tanks came only after the guns were silenced, he was definitely not fighting elements of 6th FJR, and was probably not even fighting Germans. That certainly changes the story into a much less marketable event.

[drone]

It did make for a great story, though. America's elite paratroopers took on Germany's elite paratroopers and kicked their collective ass. It was such a good story that "historian" Stephen Ambrose, known for his accuracy and attention to detail (:laugh4:), adopted the story and used it in part to make himself, Winters, and HBO a lot of money.
Is there online access to old military personnel records and citations? Winters was given the DSC for Brecourt on July 2nd, 1944. I'd be curious what the citation reads, a DSC would not be awarded for calling in tanks, so I assume there is some documentation on the assault (along with the accompanying Silver and Bronze Stars for the other paratroopers). This would be long before Ambrose and Winters could cook up a story.

[al Roumi]

oh good, as long as it was only untermenschen.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is there online access to old military personnel records and citations? Winters was given the DSC for Brecourt on July 2nd, 1944. I'd be curious what the citation reads, a DSC would not be awarded for calling in tanks, so I assume there is some documentation on the assault (along with the accompanying Silver and Bronze Stars for the other paratroopers). This would be long before Ambrose and Winters could cook up a story.

Here you go:

http://www.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=22799


The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to First Lieutenant (Infantry) Richard D. Winters (ASN: 0-1286582), United States Army, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy while serving with Company E, 2d Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, in action against enemy forces on 6 June 1944, in France. First Lieutenant Winters with seven enlisted men, advanced through intense enemy automatic weapons fire, putting out of action two guns of the battery of four 88-mm. that were shelling the beachhead. Unswerving in his determination to complete his self-appointed and extremely hazardous task, First Lieutenant Winters and his group withdrew for reinforcements. He returned with tank support and the remaining two guns were put out of action, resulting in decreased opposition to our forces landing on the beachhead. First Lieutenant Winters' heroic and determined leadership exemplify the highest traditions of the military forces of the United States and reflect great credit upon himself, the 101st Airborne Division, and the United States Army.

The citation runs contrary to both the account in Band of Brothers and the Regimental Unit Study, claiming that two guns were taken out by infantry only and the remaining two were destroyed later by tanks. It is also factually wrong (the guns were 105mm Howitzers and not 88mm AT/FLaK which should have been easily determined as they were in Allied hands), which hints at the overall veracity of the citation.

Awards were often given based on unsubstantiated claims during the war.



oh good, as long as it was only untermenschen.

My point being that Winters was fighting troops of significantly less quality than he claimed, possibly even Soviet POWs, which completely changes the nature of the event.

[al Roumi]

My point being that Winters was fighting troops of significantly less quality than he claimed, possibly even Soviet POWs, which completely changes the nature of the event.

I know, sorry I was being facetious... it just seems so...convenient. Especially as you went to the trouble of digging out some autentik propaganda.

I have to say, if there's a difference between the immediate combat report and the myth, well... hmm. I have just finished re-watching BoB and I can definitley say that there were no tanks (or a beach) at all in that scene.

Wot next? Jesus didn't actually walk on water?

[PanzerJaeger]

I know, sorry I was being facetious... it just seems so...convenient. Especially as you went to the trouble of digging out some autentik propaganda.

I have to say, if there's a difference between the immediate combat report and the myth, well... hmm. I have just finished re-watching BoB and I can definitley say that there were no tanks (or a beach) at all in that scene.

Wot next? Jesus didn't actually walk on water?

The propaganda video was meant to illustrate the clear and discernable differences between the Fallschirmjäger and other German troops, rendering confusion a highly unlikely excuse for Winters.

In any event, such mythmaking is very common. Visit a veteran's hospital for an afternoon and you'll hear some amazing stories. As someone interested in armored warfare of the period, I have read countless German and Allied battle accounts that are either mistaken descriptions of real events, exaggerations of real events for personal notoriety, or apparent complete fabrications.

What bothers me about Winters' case is the hero worship he has received based on Band of Brothers. It netted him lots of press, commentary positions in several documentaries, and a book deal. There is even a movement to award him the Medal of Honor (http://www.majordickwinters.com/) based on this event, which he clearly altered in later retellings.

[Hooahguy]

It could be possible that Ambrose only went by the regimental history, which you say has mistakes in it.
After all, it is the story of a unit within the regiment.
:shrug:

[PanzerJaeger]

It could be possible that Ambrose only went by the regimental history, which you say has mistakes in it.
After all, it is the story of a unit within the regiment.
:shrug:

The regimental history is the farthest removed from Ambrose's account.

You can almost see the evolution of the story. In the interview given to Marshall directly after the battle, Winters silenced the guns with tanks and significantly more men. A month later, his Distinguished Service Cross was given for taking out two of the guns with seven men, withdrawing, and returning with tank support for the other two. By the time Ambrose tracked him down for an interview years later, the tanks had been completely scrubbed from the story and it turned into a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

[Fisherking]

Citations for valor and Official Army Historians are two different things entirely.

Citations have to be written by people who were there and not from word of mouth or higher reports. Someone participating has to feel that what the person did was worth taking the time to recognize what happened or what they think happened. These were young men taking part in their first combat operation, and after a stressful and confusing night behind enemy lines.

Official Historians interview the leader of an operation, take a few notes, and write a dry account of what they think happened. Often it bears no resemblance to what he was told. It is his official job to put something on paper and in an operation the size of the Normandy Invasion the small details are likely to get left out, no matter how daring that event may have been. Battalions and Regiments don’t have historians on staff. Sometimes Divisions do but usually they are even higher. They don’t have a real stake in what is recorded.

Eye witness accounts in stressful situations are noted for errors. What Joe Smith sees often does not resemble John Does account.

Winters was originally recommended for the Medal of Honor but as that had already been given to someone of higher rank higher headquarters decided to recommend the DSC. It is likely that the account most inline with this award was used in the citation.

There were 13 or 14 Medals awarded for valor in this engagement, possibly more. (I think Speirs received the Silver Star for this action and possible other men from Co. D also.)

So far as the valor of the individuals involved in the attack, it is immaterial as to what units of the German Army were involved.

13 men attacked prepared positions against approximately 60 enemy defenders with four machine gun positions to support them. They disabled three of four howitzers and follow-on forces destroyed the last. Enemy resistance was broken when two tanks arrived from the beach and opened fire.

Important documents were captured (map of artillery emplacement and covering machineguns). The value of that piece of intel. is hard to put a value on.

Why Winters thought he had fought the fallschimjäger I don’t know. Some could have arrived to act as the gun crews or he may have heard they were in the area later. It isn’t all that important to the assessment of the courage it took to perform the mission. The bullets were real enough. Four killed and two wounded.

If you have never been shot at I can assure you it is a very sobering experience. It brings your own mortality into clear focus, particularly if it is a machinegun.

These were brave men. So spare me the :daisy:.

[al Roumi]

The regimental history is the farthest removed from Ambrose's account.

You can almost see the evolution of the story. In the interview given to Marshall directly after the battle, Winters silenced the guns with tanks and significantly more men. A month later, his Distinguished Service Cross was given for taking out two of the guns with seven men, withdrawing, and returning with tank support for the other two. By the time Ambrose tracked him down for an interview years later, the tanks had been completely scrubbed from the story and it turned into a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

Is there any record of which tanks where involved? Surely they would also record their own ops. Would be interesting to triangulate the sources.

There are interesting parralels and key points where the stories seem to diverge and come back together in the BoB version, i.e. when Winters' attack falters, his unit gets low on ammo and the squad from D company reinforce them. I can see how these smaller elements might contain a nugget of truth but were amplified.

Another thing that strikes me is the reference both in BoB and what STFS posted above - that the assault on Brecourt Manor is "taught to this day" to Cadets at West point. What is the version that they teach I wonder? Does it involve taking out a whole battery or 2 guns with infantry alone or tank reinforcement?

Throughout his testimonies/interviews on BoB, Winters comes accross as highly respectful of the men he served with. I do think it would be surprising if he were to be inflating his own record at the expenses of comrades, particularily fallen ones.

[Veho Nex]

The regimental history is the farthest removed from Ambrose's account.

You can almost see the evolution of the story. In the interview given to Marshall directly after the battle, Winters silenced the guns with tanks and significantly more men. A month later, his Distinguished Service Cross was given for taking out two of the guns with seven men, withdrawing, and returning with tank support for the other two. By the time Ambrose tracked him down for an interview years later, the tanks had been completely scrubbed from the story and it turned into a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

You do realize that even taking 2 guns against an entrenched enemy with just 7 men is a feat in itself. Sure it doesn't make for an awe inspiring heroic tale of daring and mortal peril but it does keep one entertained.

Also, what scene from SPR?

[PanzerJaeger]

Citations for valor and Official Army Historians are two different things entirely.

Citations have to be written by people who were there and not from word of mouth or higher reports. Someone participating has to feel that what the person did was worth taking the time to recognize what happened or what they think happened. These were young men taking part in their first combat operation, and after a stressful and confusing night behind enemy lines.


Winters later account of the action and that in his own citation do not even match up. Which was it? Were there tanks involved in taking the guns or not?



Official Historians interview the leader of an operation, take a few notes, and write a dry account of what they think happened. Often it bears no resemblance to what he was told. It is his official job to put something on paper and in an operation the size of the Normandy Invasion the small details are likely to get left out, no matter how daring that event may have been. Battalions and Regiments don’t have historians on staff. Sometimes Divisions do but usually they are even higher. They don’t have a real stake in what is recorded.


The unit history I linked to is specifically for the 506th Regiment of the 101st. Each regiment of the 101st had their own unit history recorded.


Marshall interviewed Winters personally. After the interview, he noted that the battery was silenced by tanks. I could understand your argument if the unit history had completely left out the event and I was claiming that as proof that it did not happen, but it was specifically mentioned. If the author had access to Winters and the correct version, why would he purposely write something different?


Also, while some unit histories are very succinct, Marshall did not seem hesitant to add detail to this one.



COL SINK, landing in a small field which was a part of DROP ZONE D, thought at first that he was all alone. His harness was extremely tight and was cutting into his flesh. He kept wondering how quickly an enemy bullet would find him and he took his knife out and tried to hack his way out of the harness; the blade was much too dull. He realized then that he would have to stay quiet and work away patiently at his gear. As he got his nerve under control and began to free himself, he saw billowing silk in a far corner of the field. He headed for it when he at last broke clear from his harness.


If Marshall described a simple parachute landing with such detail, why would he gloss over such an amazing event as the Brecourt Manor Assault? He also described several engagements in great detail, but nothing about a few paratroopers taking down a platoon of Fallschirmjäger.



Winters was originally recommended for the Medal of Honor but as that had already been given to someone of higher rank higher headquarters decided to recommend the DSC. It is likely that the account most inline with this award was used in the citation.


Which is not the account Winters relayed in Ambrose's and his own book.



So far as the valor of the individuals involved in the attack, it is immaterial as to what units of the German Army were involved.


Then why would he lie about it? It is clear that they were not Fallschirmjäger and no other German units could be confused with Fallschirmjäger, especially with POWs taken.



13 men attacked prepared positions against approximately 60 enemy defenders with four machine gun positions to support them. They disabled three of four howitzers and follow-on forces destroyed the last. Enemy resistance was broken when two tanks arrived from the beach and opened fire.


If you choose to believe that version, that is your perogative. Just be aware that it is not the version that existed at the time.



Why Winters though he had fought the fallschimjäger I don’t know. Some could have arrived to act as the gun crews or he may have heard they were in the area later.


No, none 'could have arrived'. This is more mythmaking. It is well documented that the first elements of 6 FJR did not arrive until after midnight.


And again, the Unit History says nothing about 6FJR being present at the silencing of the guns, while it mentions them during the description of the St. Come du Mont engagements.



The chief opposition to the attack had cone from elements of the 6th German parachute Regiment. At just about the time the American troops were moving into ST COME DU MONT, FIELDMARSHAL ROMMEL was conferring with three of his principal subordinates in the area. They agreed that the main factor (in the COTENTIN Peninsula situation) is that the enemy attacking to the west of ISIGNY has not yet established contact with the CARENTAN bridgehead." The 6th Parachute Regiment, which the conferees agreed had been fighting far better than expected, was ordered "to defend CARENTAN to the last man."*


It does, however, mention troops of the 91st Division to which they were attached directly before the paragraph on the guns.



It isn’t all that important to the assessment of the courage it took to perform the mission. The bullets were real enough. Four killed and two wounded.


It is important to the assessment of the man telling the story, not to mention the historical record. :book:



These were brave men. So spare me the BS.


I said nothing about their bravery. It took an incredible amount of bravery to simply jump out of an airplane, much less to jump out of an airplane directly into enemy-held territory with no certainty as to the outcome of the operation you're supporting.


However, bravery does not give one license to fabricate events. Even if we completely ignore the Regimental Unit Study (for some odd reason), Winters' claims in Band of Brothers and Beyond Band of Brothers do not even match his citation description. The only BS in this thread emanates from the late Major Winters.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is there any record of which tanks where involved? Surely they would also record their own ops. Would be interesting to triangulate the sources.

Indeed it would. I am not aware of any identification of the tanks, though.


Another thing that strikes me is the reference both in BoB and what STFS posted above - that the assault on Brecourt Manor is "taught to this day" to Cadets at West point. What is the version that they teach I wonder? Does it involve taking out a whole battery or 2 guns with infantry alone or tank reinforcement?

I would like to know that as well. Maybe someone has been through West Point?


You do realize that even taking 2 guns against an entrenched enemy with just 7 men is a feat in itself. Sure it doesn't make for an awe inspiring heroic tale of daring and mortal peril but it does keep one entertained.

Yes, if that is what happened, then it would have been a great feat. Why Winters felt the need to exaggerate it further is beyond me. Although your last sentence probably hints at a motive.


Also, what scene from SPR?

I was referring to the movie's rather amazing depiction of American combat prowess.

[al Roumi]

The soldiers firing and defending guns in BoB are not Fallschirmjaegers - I saw not a single Fallschirmjaeger Stahlhelm, only the standard issue landsehr one and caps.

[PanzerJaeger]

The soldiers firing and defending guns in BoB are not Fallschirmjaegers - I saw not a single Fallschirmjaeger Stahlhelm, only the standard issue landsehr one and caps.

I was referring to the book, pages 92-102. You can view the text free on google books.

[al Roumi]

I was referring to the book, pages 92-102. You can view the text free on google books.

Fair enough, but it's surely a good idea to pick out what is -and isn't - fair as an accusation of expanding the truth.

[Fisherking]

PJ:

At the time of Winters interview he was in the presence of his superiors. It was an official interview and he may have felt the need to be brief, succinct, and downplay his role.

I have not seen a copy of that interview so I can not make a judgment on whether he said tanks knocked out the other two guns. What was written later may have come from conflicting accounts. They are not necessarily what Winters said.

I have been interviewed but army historians on several occasions and was hard pressed to see how the official view and what happened on the ground bore any resemblance.

The citation was written by someone else. Many things take place in combat and things do get jumbled up. Clearly the person writing the statement for the award thought the guns were 88s. These were green troops. Winters himself may not have known a German paratrooper from any other unit.

So far as I am aware none of the survivors who were in the action have accused Winters of making up the account or self aggrandizing his own role in the action.

It is a fact that Winters’ account and the citation disagree. It is also a fact that the record of the day’s action dose not match. But even so, I would be unwilling to say that anyone told deliberate mistruths.

The commander of the 6th Fj found that the guns were unmanned and ordered his people to take care of it. We don’t know that they did. Perhaps they didn’t. We know when the main body arrived and it was later. As I said it does not reflect on the bravery of the men assaulting the guns.

In assessing someone telling a story, let me say this, perspectives may change with time but men telling stories of battle where men lost their lives tend to stick to the strict truth of what they remember.

Exaggeration usually is the province of want-a-bes and none of these men fit that part.

Memory of traumatic events (and believe me getting shot at and shooting people is traumatic) are often blurred. Sometimes the picture comes clear at a later date, sometimes it may even change. It does not mean that either version is a lie. Particularly, as I have pointed out that the citation was written by someone else, who’s memory may also be confused.

I would tend to think that the later recollection may be closer to what happened, but that is merely based on personal experience, and you can choose to believe something else.

However, I would give more credence to the men taking part in an action than I would to any Official History.

Winters was not alone that day. None have come forward to say it was a fabrication.

Printed history is clean and neat with lots of facts. Living history is a lot fuzzier with ugly things happening to other people, if not your self. Sometimes the neat facts aren’t how it was.

Go and live some history before you tell anyone the books are always right.

[Fisherking]

I know I will be asked why I think the later memory may be the better on.

Without trying to teach a course in Psychology and the workings of the mind, let’s just say that the mind has some filters that kick in in times of extreme stress. Yesterday’s memories may seem distant and hazy. The here and now of survival may seem like all there is.

Different people behave differently, of course but when the stress is gone memories do come back into focus.

It is also worthwhile in noting that the US Army seemed to believe him. He spoke on combat leadership to them and was invited to speak at West Point. The Army of course had the citations for his awards and celebrity gained from a TV movie would not sway them to invite someone who’s veracity was in the slightest question, particularly when it deals with awards.

Officers, particularly at the service academies, are taught that truthfulness is first and foremost and lying reason for dismissal. I am sure he would have been thoroughly vetted.

[Hooahguy]

I know I will be asked why I think the later memory may be the better on.

Without trying to teach a course in Psychology and the workings of the mind, let’s just say that the mind has some filters that kick in in times of extreme stress. Yesterday’s memories may seem distant and hazy. The here and now of survival may seem like all there is.

I agree. I can remember things from 4th grade and forget what I had for dinner last night.

[Strike For The South]

https://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9527/26712620.png (https://img153.imageshack.us/i/26712620.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)

[Husar]

Well, it's true that memories can be off, and come back later etc.

But whether you actually walked back to get reinforcements or not is not a minor detail that you can easily forget due to stress.

With so many different accounts I'd just say that some of it must be true, some of it not so much but apparently someone decided he deserves a medal for it and I suppose they don't just hand them out easily to boost the morale a bit, right?

[Populus Romanus]

Maybe the portrayal of the assault is off in the movie not because of Winters but because the producers sought to make a "better" movie by embellishing a bit?

[PanzerJaeger]

Fair enough, but it's surely a good idea to pick out what is -and isn't - fair as an accusation of expanding the truth.


I actually do not mind the inaccuracies in the mini-series. That medium is designed for entertainment, thus alterations, dramatizations, and significant condensing of events is to be expected. I hold a higher standard for books that purport to be histories, like Band of Brothers.



At the time of Winters interview he was in the presence of his superiors. It was an official interview and he may have felt the need to be brief, succinct, and downplay his role.


It is one thing to downplay the importance of an event or one's own role in it. It is an entirely different matter to insert happenings that did not occur. If Winters and his men destroyed the guns without tank support, why would he instead report that tanks were involved? Even a modest recounting of the facts of the story would not involve tanks if they were not present.


But we know that somehow tanks did indeed make it into both the unit history and the citation, which were written by different departments and at different times. What motive would Marshall have to disregard his interview with Winters? Why would an otherwise very detailed unit history completely leave out such a momentous event? And how would tanks have remained in the story written in his citation if they were not part of the story at the time, and why didn't Winters ever seek to correct it?


Would Winters have had more motive to insert tanks into the story at the time or remove them from the story later... ?



The citation was written by someone else. Many things take place in combat and things do get jumbled up. Clearly the person writing the statement for the award thought the guns were 88s. These were green troops. Winters himself may not have known a German paratrooper from any other unit.


This is completely implausible. The 101st was extensively briefed on German troop types. Further, the Fallschirmjäger were especially well known among Allied troops due to their performance in Italy. Finally, Winters had access to both living POWs and dead enemies. There is no way that normal German troops (either Wehrmacht or SS) could be confused with Fallschirmjäger in such a situation.



So far as I am aware none of the survivors who were in the action have accused Winters of making up the account or self aggrandizing his own role in the action.


I am not saying he aggrandized his own role at the expense of his men. He has always been very complimentary towards them. I am saying that he aggrandized the entire event.


Interestingly, I searched for the citation records of the Silver Star winners listed for this engagement in the database I linked to earlier to cross reference them with that of Winters and found not one of them, although there were many other Silver Star winners from the war. Maybe it is incomplete?



It is a fact that Winters’ account and the citation disagree. It is also a fact that the record of the day’s action dose not match. But even so, I would be unwilling to say that anyone told deliberate mistruths.


Exaggerating military service is quite common.



The commander of the 6th Fj found that the guns were unmanned and ordered his people to take care of it. We don’t know that they did. Perhaps they didn’t. We know when the main body arrived and it was later.


That comes directly from Ambrose with no citation, which is all too common in his works. Needless to say, he was incorrect. Von der Heydte went to St. Come du Mont and not St. Marie du Mont. The church steeple described in the book was in St. Come. That information comes from Von der Heydte's own after action report, which is referenced in the US Army History on the action published after WWII. He sent the 1st FJ Battalion to St Marie, but he never saw it, much less Brecourt Manor.


Ambrose's claim that he ordered his men to "find some artillerymen" is laughable. Where is a Fallschirmjäger Lieutenant with no knowledge of the area or the units tasked with defending it going to be able to find artillerymen when a Lieutenant Colonel supposedly couldn't? Do they sell artillerymen at Walmart? This type of illogical recounting of events is rife in Ambrose's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose#Factual_errors_and_disputed_characterizations).


Winters claims the attack occurred between 0830 and 0900. However, the 1st and 2nd Battalions of 6 FJR did not even arrive at St. Come du Mont until almost 1900. Von der Heydte then sent the 2nd Battalion toward St. Mere Eglise to engage paratroopers and the 1st Battalion to St Marie du Mont to guard St. Come du Mont from the troops landing at Utah Beach. The battalions moved out at 1900, six to seven hours after the assault on Brecourt Manor and the 1st Battalion did not reach St. Marie du Mont until midnight. This challenges the timing at Brecourt by over fourteen hours. Any elements of the 1st Battalion arriving on the scene early would have had to have known their orders nine to ten hours before they were given!


On the other hand, there is ample evidence from the unit history and many other US and German records that both the 91st Division and the 709th Static Division were engaged in the Brecourt area.



As I said it does not reflect on the bravery of the men assaulting the guns.


Tell that to Winters. Why would he choose to portray a rather mundane infantry assault with tank support against what amounted to third rate conscripts as the wiping out of an elite German paratrooper platoon? I think the reason is obvious enough.



In assessing someone telling a story, let me say this, perspectives may change with time but men telling stories of battle where men lost their lives tend to stick to the strict truth of what they remember.


Exaggeration usually is the province of want-a-bes and none of these men fit that part.


Memory of traumatic events (and believe me getting shot at and shooting people is traumatic) are often blurred. Sometimes the picture comes clear at a later date, sometimes it may even change. It does not mean that either version is a lie. Particularly, as I have pointed out that the citation was written by someone else, who’s memory may also be confused.


I would tend to think that the later recollection may be closer to what happened, but that is merely based on personal experience, and you can choose to believe something else.


However, I would give more credence to the men taking part in an action than I would to any Official History.


You may, but credible historians do not. They attach far more weight to reports, documentation, and actual verifiable information (such as whether a particular unit was actually present in the area of an engagement). First hand accounts from veterans have been shown time and time again to be completely divorced from the reality of a given situation for a myriad of reasons.



Printed history is clean and neat with lots of facts. Living history is a lot fuzzier with ugly things happening to other people, if not your self. Sometimes the neat facts aren’t how it was.


But when a story and the facts don't match up, something has to give. Two versions of the same event can never be equally accurate.



Go and live some history before you tell anyone the books are always right.


Appealing to anecdote and emotion does not advance your premise.



I agree. I can remember things from 4th grade and forget what I had for dinner last night.


But do you remember things happening that did not? It would be very difficult to imagine Winters either remembering tanks when they did not exist or forgetting that they were there, especially considering the very detailed description of the event in Band of Brothers.


All facts taken into consideration, we have a rather standard combined arms assault on an artillery battery operated by a 3rd tier static division (that was gallant in its own right) that has been ginned up into a 13 man annihilation of an elite paratrooper platoon. It is just an unsubstantiated, farcical myth created for mass consumption.

[Fisherking]

PJ:

You say he changed his account. The only account I have seen from the man is what was written in BoB.

The citation was written by someone else. The history relates events sketchily, and does not mean that it is the account given to the writer by Winters. If there is an account from the interview then link it or show it.

Show us where Winters changed his story.

You seem quite ready to call the man a liar on scant evidence.

You seem to have declared your self an expert on the US Army and its working but so far as I am aware you have never served and are not a combat veteran.

You seem to believe that everyone exaggerates their military service.

Well there are some people insecure with themselves and what others think of them who fabricate events.

Many of us know the 35yo down the street who bought a set of tiger fatigues and says he spent 4 tours in Viet Nam but that is not the same as the men you speak of.

Another thing that may confuse you is that some veteran’s stories may seem beyond belief. Well, unbelievable things happen all the time. Particularly in a military setting the unbelievable is commonplace.
Fiction is bounded by believability, reality is not.

The DSC was more often awarded posthumously. It is the second highest award given by the Army. After being awarded it, it is very unlikely that its recipient would feel a need to aggrandize.
That cheapens the award and everyone who holds it.

I have served with men holding high awards from the Medal of Honor down, including a US Army recipient of the Navy Cross on my own tank crew. I have know many holder of high award form my father’s and grandfather’s generations, from Generals to Privets including some that were hopeless alcoholics, but there is not one of them I would accuse of exaggerating his exploits on the battlefield.

The fact that you seem to think it highly likely leads me to believe that these are convictions borne of youth and inexperience.

Furthermore, there are still several survivors of the battle still living, to include a retired Appellate Court Judge. Someone who you would think has spent most of his life in search of the truth, yet he has not come forward to question the accounts or to provide a different version of events.

Of course your objective may be that you don’t feel that Winters and Co. E 506th Airborne were capable of defeating elements of the 6th Fallschirmjäger.

I would agree that on June 6th in the attack on the gun battery it is highly unlikely that Winters faced them, and was mistaken in that regard. However, 506th did face them in combat after that time and Co. E did hold its positions blunting 6th Fallschirmjäger’s counter attack on June 13th at the Battle of Bloody Gulch.

Or do you hold that that battle is also a myth?

[Populus Romanus]

Right on! I also feel it is suspicious that so many are willing to claim that Winters exagerrated his account of the battle when it is doubtful any of them ever say any real combat themselves.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If you have never been shot at I can assure you it is a very sobering experience. It brings your own mortality into clear focus, particularly if it is a machinegun.


You seem to have declared your self an expert on the US Army and its working but so far as I am aware you have never served and are not a combat veteran.


I also feel it is suspicious that so many are willing to claim that Winters exagerrated his account of the battle when it is doubtful any of them ever say any real combat themselves.

I've been lurking this thread since it started, and in truth, I have no passion either way in the matter. I do, however, take issue with these kinds of statements when folks who have put in their tour of duty start looking down upon those who may not. I certainly don't mean to belittle service to ones country, and have the utmost admiration for those who have, especially if they have seen combat.

However...I don't see this as a license to criticize someone who may or may not have served, and it certainly is not a valid criteria, at least in my book, of one's ability to assess an event that happened during a military operation in any time period. If that was the case, then we can throw out the works of quite a few military historians.

I realize my comments are off-topic and so please accept my apologies for that. It's been an informative discussion for me in that I was never aware of this operation before. From what I've seen, PJ does his 'homework' quite well, and presents his case with careful thought and good references, something often lacking in discussions of military history on the internet, these days.

And for that, he has my respect, whether he's served or not...........

[Hooahguy]

But do you remember things happening that did not? It would be very difficult to imagine Winters either remembering tanks when they did not exist or forgetting that they were there, especially considering the very detailed description of the event in Band of Brothers.

Well yes, I remember me making out with a bunch of hot chicks.
:grin:

[PanzerJaeger]

You say he changed his account. The only account I have seen from the man is what was written in BoB.

The citation was written by someone else. The history relates events sketchily, and does not mean that it is the account given to the writer by Winters. If there is an account from the interview then link it or show it.

Show us where Winters changed his story.

You seem quite ready to call the man a liar on scant evidence.


Scant evidence?


There is conclusive evidence that 6th FJR was not at the battle. It is also implausible that a 1st Lieutenant in the 101st Airborne would misidentify Fallschirmjäger laying dead in front of him. There is also no evidence that he ever attempted to claim them as Fallschirmjäger at the time. Finally, we have Ambrose deliberately misplacing the German commander and attributing statements to him that make little sense to support the story without attribution.


Those facts leave little room for anything other than a deliberate fabrication, a fabrication that completely changes the nature of the story.


Winters did not 'confuse' the 709th Static Division with the 716th, he substituted a 2nd tier (4th class by German standards) division with the cream of the German military - a lie he continued to propagate long after it had been shown to be untrue.


Then we get to the tanks, which somehow made it into two primary sources but not Winters account in Band of Brothers. Those primary sources would have relied directly or indirectly on Winters' for their information. We know that Marshall personally interviewed him about the battle and in an otherwise dramatic and detailed unit history wrote only that the guns were taken with armored support and nothing else about the incident. We know that his citation states that two guns were taken without tanks and the remaining two were taken later with them. This is not a minimal detail, but a critical element to the story that would have certainly been corrected if not during Marshall's interview than during the background work for the citation.


It is very difficult to believe that modesty would lead a 1st Lieutenant to insert tanks into a engagement where they did not exist - it both misstates the basic facts to superiors (a punishable offense) and diminishes the actions of his men.


But you are very correct that I cannot conclusively disprove his story on this count - and I have never claimed that I could. What I can do is take an objective position and allow the facts to lead me in a logical direction. Is it more probable that two separate primary sources that did not rely on each other would somehow insert tanks into a battle where they did not exist or is it more likely that tanks were scrubbed from a story (where Fallschirmjäger had already been added) to enhance its marketability? :shrug:



You seem to have declared your self an expert on the US Army and its working but so far as I am aware you have never served and are not a combat veteran.


If the discussion has degenerated to such an extent that military service is demanded as a prerequisite to critical assessment of an engagement, then I think my point has been made.



You seem to believe that everyone exaggerates their military service.


I said that it was common, not all-encompassing.



Well there are some people insecure with themselves and what others think of them who fabricate events.


Actually, the most common cause of exaggeration seems to be personal gain, whether it be in respect, esteem, or in Winters case, monetary.


Winters was propelled into a national hero in the early '90s. He collected royalties for countless books written about him, fees for commentary in multiple documentaries, payment as a producer for both Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, and of course his own bestselling book.


I have researched extensively and found no evidence that the proceeds of any of this were donated to charity. He certainly had a financial motive to enhance the story, not to mention the benefits that come with national hero status.



Of course your objective may be that you don’t feel that Winters and Co. E 506th Airborne were capable of defeating elements of the 6th Fallschirmjäger.


The 101st was one of the best divisions the Allies fielded. There is no doubt that they were brave, well-trained, and proficient soldiers that were capable of taking on Fallschirmjäger on equal footing, as was shown during 1st Battalion, 6th FJR's fighting withdrawal towards Carentan against the 506th PIR (with tank support).


What I am suspicious of are tales of American super soldiers in Normandy, which are very rarely supported by any evidence.


For example, at Graignes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Graignes#Reprisal), it is claimed that:



Elements of the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division had conducted the final assault on Graignes. When the 17th attacked, it was with a regimental sized force of approximately 2,000. The odds were literally ten to one in the Germans’ favor. Despite those odds though, the 182 paratroopers defending Graignes inflicted an estimated five hundred killed and seven hundred wounded on the Germans during the course of the fighting on the 10th and 11th.


Yet the official records of the 17th SS Division list only a total 79 dead, 61 missing, and 316 wounded up to June 15th, making the causality figure estimate 10 times more than the reality.


These kinds of 'enhancements' are littered throughout both side's firsthand accounts of the battles during Normandy and beyond, yet whereas the German claims have been extensively studied and debunked where necessary, American sources are often used without corroboration in texts detailing the war. Such practices do nothing to advance the historical record.



I would agree that on June 6th in the attack on the gun battery it is highly unlikely that Winters faced them, and was mistaken in that regard. However, 506th did face them in combat after that time and Co. E did hold its positions blunting 6th Fallschirmjäger’s counter attack on June 13th at the Battle of Bloody Gulch.

Or do you hold that that battle is also a myth?


This is exactly the kind of enhancement I was referring to. 6th FJR along with elements 17.SS and a few assault guns attacked the 506th PIR and immediately broke one company (F) and then another (D), sending them into full retreat. E Company was last to be engaged and was close to suffering the same fate when sixty (60!) tanks of the 2nd Armored arrived on the scene and pushed the Germans back.


You see, when the whole story is told, it seems that victory was more of a function of who had the most armored support than the fortitude of the American soldier compared to the German.

[Fisherking]

I've been lurking this thread since it started, and in truth, I have no passion either way in the matter. I do, however, take issue with these kinds of statements when folks who have put in their tour of duty start looking down upon those who may not. I certainly don't mean to belittle service to ones country, and have the utmost admiration for those who have, especially if they have seen combat.

However...I don't see this as a license to criticize someone who may or may not have served, and it certainly is not a valid criteria, at least in my book, of one's ability to assess an event that happened during a military operation in any time period. If that was the case, then we can throw out the works of quite a few military historians.

I realize my comments are off-topic and so please accept my apologies for that. It's been an informative discussion for me in that I was never aware of this operation before. From what I've seen, PJ does his 'homework' quite well, and presents his case with careful thought and good references, something often lacking in discussions of military history on the internet, these days.

And for that, he has my respect, whether he's served or not...........

It is not license to criticize under general circumstances.

Discussing the general worth of equipment or unit capabilities based on records is one thing.

But when someone seems to think they know the inward workings of the mind and how men behave in combat it is fair and just.

There are thus far three statements from three sources; The history of 506th 6-15 June 1944. The citation from Winters' DSC, and The account from Band of Brothers attributed to Winters.

Panzer Jaeger assumes because the accounts differ that Winters lied.







Actually, the most common cause of exaggeration seems to be personal gain, whether it be in respect, esteem, or in Winters case, monetary.


Winters was propelled into a national hero in the early '90s. He collected royalties for countless books written about him, fees for commentary in multiple documentaries, payment as a producer for both Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, and of course his own bestselling book.


I have researched extensively and found no evidence that the proceeds of any of this were donated to charity. He certainly had a financial motive to enhance the story, not to mention the benefits that come with national hero status.



.


Pj:

That defamatory statement not only calls into to question Winters’ integrity but also that of anyone having knowledge of the events and conduct of that days action.

It is an extraordinary statement, and therefore demanding of extraordinary proof.

What you say is not nearly enough. It demands much, much more.

Provide it!

[Brenus]

“Yet the official records of the 17th SS Division list only a total 79 dead, 61 missing, and 316 wounded up to June 15th, making the causality figure estimate 10 times more than the reality.”
PJ, I think you put too much trust in the German Records and not enough in the Allies’ ones.
The German can lie as well...

But in general, I would agree that the events were at least exaggerated.
At some times for good reasons:
We do know that the US Air force claimed to have shoot down more than all the FW190 planes in one raid. This because they relied on the gunner report, so one FW going down with at least 7 gunners on a box of B17 shooting at him, all claiming one victory equalled 7 FW190 shot down.
Now, the exaggeration could come from the High Command in order to create heroes (see movie “Enemies at the Gates, when Krutshev asked what to do prevent Stalingrad to fall and after having shot dead all the officers in charge: give them heroes…).
In this case it was fiction (not even sure of this) but that is a good moral boost.

I think the man did the job but against normal Artillerymen in a static position. As much I know, the Osttruppen were keener in surrendering than fighting, so I doubt they would have sustained this kind of casualties.
Normandy was not mained by the best German troops, except one division resting from the eastern front.
The second observation is the Osttuppen had their insignia and uniform that couldn’t be mixed up with the regular German Army.
The same have to be said for the German Paratroopers that belong to the Air Force so have the Air Force insignia, very specific uniform and special weapons and are even more difficult to mix-up with the Regular German Army.

So, I think he took a german Artillery position with high skilled, agressive and motivated Infantery troopers. In this, nothing surprising he won as the Artillerymen were not trained to face this so didn't had the skill to counter the assault. That is good enough to receive a high decoration at the title of heroe...

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer Jaeger assumes because the accounts differ that Winters lied.

I assume he lied because a) the preponderance of evidence suggests it and b) he clearly lied about the 6 FJR being present that day.




Pj:

That defamatory statement not only calls into to question Winters’ integrity but also that of anyone having knowledge of the events and conduct of that days action.

It is an extraordinary statement, and therefore demanding of extraordinary proof.

What you say is not nearly enough. It demands much, much more.

Provide it!

Provide what exactly, verification that he had financial incentive to enhance the story?



PJ, I think you put too much trust in the German Records and not enough in the Allies’ ones.
The German can lie as well...

Indeed, but there was little incentive to lie in internal casualty reports that made their way through the chain of command to the OKW. In fact, when I have read about commanders misrepresenting these numbers, it was to overstate them in order to get higher priority for reinforcements.

Ostendorff's reports are detailed and reliable during this period and the casualties reported fit into the linear timeline of the rest of the division's after action reports. The division's entire series of reports would have to have been altered in order to delete the loss of over 1000 soldiers.

Further, such losses would have been catastrophic for the division, seriously impeding their combat capabilities. Yet no such loss is reflected in any documentation on the division and they were able to counterattack Carentan at near full strength the very next day.

[KrooK]

OMG haven't you even watch propaganda. Story is nice, evil Axis dies. Everything ok.
Why they were paratroopers - because for Americans every tank was a Tiger and every German soldier ninja.
And why Band of Brothers has this polished version of history? American reader has to read about American heroes.

I found other funny history. About 2nd french armoured division in Normandy.

[Fisherking]

Provide what exactly, verification that he had financial incentive to enhance the story?







No!

A lie is a deliberate miss telling of the truth.

1)Provide us with the corroborative evidence, via statements of others present at the event contesting his statements.

2)Irrefutable proof of a conspiracy by those who did not come forward to prove it a lie.

3)Clear proof that he expected financial gain when he made the statements to the author.

Without it this is only mud raking.

______________________________________________________________

It is interesting that you assume that the engagement was a fabrication rather than the mistaken memory of an 80 year old man. As the 6th Fj arrived that night and Winters faced them darning the following week, it isn’t a fantastic stretch of the imagination to think he could have had some confusion of memory regarding those events.

Yet, we still have the four Silver Stars and at least nine Bronze Stars of other men who participated in that action to contend with.

We have no knowledge of those citations and as to how they relate to other versions of events.

Of particular interest would be the citation of Lt. Speirs of D Co. who I believe received that decoration for destroying the fourth and final gun.

Your repeated statement shed doubt on those awards as well. You need to prove them as fabrications as well.

[Brenus]

"I found other funny history. About 2nd french armoured division in Normandy" Do tell us as as far as I know, the 2nd French Armoured Division was not in Normandy, For political reason, it was decided than no French troops would participate in the D Day, so only a handfull French (Commando Kieffer) did.
I can't wait the funny story.

[KrooK]

No problem - I meant Falaise (looks like its not Normandy - thanks for information). I have just read some memories of polish officers from 1st. polish armoured division.
They wrote that french division did not execute order of assault into Falaise pot (and close it from south). They expected too big loses when facing German 1st line divisions.
If its truth we can blame Frenchmen for running 40.000 experienced Germans troops from pot. Similar to liberation of Rome into 1944.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let's leave the slagging off of French troops for a seperate thread.

This thread is about slagging off the Americans.

[PanzerJaeger]

Without it this is only mud raking.

If you mean muckraking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker), then I will take that as a compliment.


It is interesting that you assume that the engagement was a fabrication rather than the mistaken memory of an 80 year old man. As the 6th Fj arrived that night and Winters faced them darning the following week, it isn’t a fantastic stretch of the imagination to think he could have had some confusion of memory regarding those events.

One only needs to look at the convoluted story that had to be created in order to place the 6th FJR at the scene to see that the story was manufactured, not misremembered.


https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Brecourt2.png


Ambrose began the Brecourt portion of Band of Brothers (p. 92) with Von der Heydte's account of climbing the steeple in St. Come, but it was changed to St. Marie. As far as I am aware, there are only two sources that could have been used for the account (we'll never know which Ambrose used because he wasn't fond of footnotes) - Von der Heydte's after action report and the US Army history on the event, which directly mimicked that report in English - both of which clearly state Von der Heydte was in St. Come and not St. Marie.

Further, there is nothing in the report or any other source that puts Von der Heydte riding around Brecourt Manor on his motorcycle (which would have been physically impossible as he was in St. Come) or ordering his men to hold it. I have already discussed how questionable the orders Ambrose ascribes to him are, and there are of course none recorded of him telling his paratroopers to find artillerymen. It doesn't even mention the battery at all.

However, Von der Heydte could not have been in St. Come for the story to work. It would mean that he never saw Brecourt Manor or was even close to it. It would also disagree with the timeline Ambrose needed to support Winters' story - so somehow, without any factual basis, Von der Heydte's steeple was changed to St. Marie.

This kind of convergence of lies does not happen by accident, especially when a professional historian with access to original sources is involved.



Yet, we still have the four Silver Stars and at least nine Bronze Stars of other men who participated in that action to contend with.

We have no knowledge of those citations and as to how they relate to other versions of events.

Of particular interest would be the citation of Lt. Speirs of D Co. who I believe received that decoration for destroying the fourth and final gun.

Your repeated statement shed doubt on those awards as well. You need to prove them as fabrications as well.

This is an interesting point. It is clear that the 6th FJR was not there, yet none of the surviving vets questioned the story in Band of Brothers. I think that throws into doubt their own veracity as well. Maybe they have more loyalty to their old commander than the truth?

[Brenus]

Let's leave the slagging off of French troops for a seperate thread.

This thread is about slagging off the Americans.

All right, all right... Can't say nothing in here... Grumble grumble...

[Fisherking]

Panzer Jaeger:

If you want to bandy about calling people liars at least provide some evidence for it. Thus far all I see is conjecture, assumption, and you behaving like a propaganda origin for the Third Reich.

Friedrich von der Heydte didn’t die until after the book came out. It is possible that he was interviewed.
It would be a bad idea for an author of history to put words in someone’s mouth they didn’t speak. Especially if they are still alive. More than that, the man was a politician and could stir up a peck of trouble if he thought he was slighted. I would guess that it is darn near certain that came from his own recollection.


I have been as curious as anyone as to why Winters still insisted that he attacked German Airborne forces.

I did a little more digging and found that the Gun Battery in question belonged to the 91st Luftlande-Infanterie , a Luftwaffe division designated as air landing in the spring of 44.


I had assumed that this would only mean they wore Luftwaffe insignia on their uniforms and not the distinctive helmets of the airborne troops. Which under combat conditions might have lead some to think it was a parachute infantry unit.

However, I did find one photo, attributed to the 22nd Luftlande-Infanterie that showed them wearing airborne helmets. So even that raises some doubts.

You have alleged lying, fraud, and conspiracy just for starters.

The burden of proof is on you and it grows ever heavier.

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer Jaeger:

If you want to bandy about calling people liars at least provide some evidence for it. Thus far all I see is conjecture, assumption, and you behaving like a propaganda origin for the Third Reich.


:dizzy2:



Friedrich von der Heydte didn’t die until after the book came out. It is possible that he was interviewed.
It would be a bad idea for an author of history to put words in someone’s mouth they didn’t speak. Especially if they are still alive. More than that, the man was a politician and could stir up a peck of trouble if he thought he was slighted. I would guess that it is darn near certain that came from his own recollection.


It took me forever to dig this up, but the US Military has actually published (http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_8.htm) the relevant text on Von der Heydte's report on the internet (I read it a couple of years ago at the library).



Heydte was able to reach General Marcks at LXXXIV Corps headquarters by a private line and get his orders, which were to attack with his regiment through Carentan and clean out the rear area of the 709th Division between Carentan and Ste. Mère-Eglise. Von der Heydte arrived in Carentan in the morning and found no Allied troops and very few Germans. He got in touch with his battalions and ordered them to assemble southwest of Carentan. He then climbed the church steeple in St. Côme and looked around. The picture before him was, he said, overwhelming. He could see the Channel and the armada of Allied ships, covering the water to the horizon. He could see hundreds of small landing craft plying to the shore unloading men and tanks and equipment. Yet, for all that, he got no impression of a great battle in progress. It was then about noon. The sun was shining. Except for a few rifle shots now and then it was singularly quiet. He could see no Allied troops. The whole scene reminded him of a summer's day on the Wannsee.51

It was apparently his impression that no seaborne U.S. troops had come inland in the direction of St. Côme. In accordance with that impression he made his dispositions. He ordered his battalions to come up to St. Côme; the 2d Battalion was then instructed to proceed to Ste. Mère-Eglise and attack and destroy any enemy encountered. The 1st Battalion was to move to the high ground near Ste. Marie-du-Mont and protect the regiment from any enemy thrusts inland from the sea. The 3d Battalion was to return to Carentan to provide the regiment with a defense in depth, and the attached 3d Battalion, 1058th Regiment, was to remain with von der Heydte in St. Côme-du-Mont. The 1st and 2d Battalions moved out at about 1900. By midnight the 1st Battalion had marched apparently without serious trouble through the territory occupied by the 101st Airborne Division and reached the vicinity of Ste. Marie-du-Mont. The 2d Battalion moved north and possibly reached the vicinity of Fauville. Both battalions sent a number of American prisoners back to the regimental headquarters.


Footnote 51 reads:



[51] This paragraph and the following two are from von der Heydte's report, MS # B-839. The Wannsee is a lake near Berlin, a favorite place for Berliners to spend a Sunday.


Note the similarity to the story I posted from Band of Brothers, only Heydte was in St. Come and not St. Marie, and thus could not have been in the vicinity of Brecourt. Also, there was no mention of any orders having to do with the Brecourt Manor battery.


Also note the timing.


That is what he said during the war.



I have been as curious as anyone as to why Winters still insisted that he attacked German Airborne forces.


I did a little more digging and found that the Gun Battery in question belonged to the 91st Luftlande-Infanterie , a Luftwaffe division designated as air landing in the spring of 44.


Actually the guns belonged to 191st Artillery Regiment of the 709th Static Division. The 1058th Grenadier Regiment of the 91st was also posted in the area.



I had assumed that this would only mean they wore Luftwaffe insignia on their uniforms and not the distinctive helmets of the airborne troops. Which under combat conditions might have lead some to think it was a parachute infantry unit.

However, I did find one photo, attributed to the 22nd Luftlande-Infanterie that showed them wearing airborne helmets. So even that raises some doubts.


You are incorrect. The 91st Luftelande was a Wehrmacht, not Luftwaffe, division and was outfitted in exactly the same apparel as other Wehrmacht divisions. They would have been indistinguishable from normal German troops. (Luftelande infantry were simply Wehrmacht soldiers equipped to be transported by air to occupy air fields directly after their capture by Fallschirmjäger units.)


I would be very interested in your photo and the source. I have never heard of any Luftelande divisions outfitted as Fallschirmjägers, and I know specifically that the 91st in Normandy was not.


The only reference a quick google image search yields is a picture of Fallschirmjägers in Russia in post #4 of a HOI2 Fan Fiction posting with a caption reading:



The soldiers of 7th Flieger and 22.Luftlande-Infanterie-Division had winter equipment and were accustomed to defend themselves even when encircled. These units were used in small "penny packets" during the defence of the Moscow salient during the winter. The legandary Fallschirmjägers were able to hold the lines but suffered heavy casualties during the difficult winter of 1941-1942.

https://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7126/fjiivr0.jpg

Is this what you're referring to, because those are Fallschirmjäger? (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?263106-The-Prisoners-of-Silence-NSDAP-1936-1991-(History-and-background)) :inquisitive:



You have alleged lying, fraud, and conspiracy just for starters.

The burden of proof is on you and it grows ever heavier.


I have shown two clear lies (the claim of the 6th FJR being present and the St. Come switch for St. Marie) and strong evidence for a third (tanks being present). If you choose to pursue every nonsensical, illogical path to exonerate him from what is clearly an exaggeration of the truth, there is little I can do but sit back and wonder why.

[Fisherking]

P J:

Uncovering error or inconsistencies does not prove deliberate intent to deceive.

You have made a few errors too.


From every account of the battle I have found:



Elements of 1058th Grenadier Regiment (91st Luftlandedivision) were defending throughout the vicinity, and the artillery was part of this division also. (that is Artillery Regiment 191)

Was this your deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts?

I would be much more forgiving of your actions, and say your over exuberance may have led to errors.

Simple explanations are usually better than vitriol.

Did the author speak with von der Heydte?

I don‘t think it can be proved or disproved and both are now dead.

But to prove a lie you must assume the burden of proof.

There is a confusion of reports and many conflicts.
There are reports that Winters‘ attack was the second attack on the positions of the guns and that D Co. was repulsed with losses earlier in the morning.
There are statements that the tanks arrived later and engaged the manor house.
The distance to Causeway 2 was between 8 to 10 km (5 or more miles). Not a leisurely walk to the beach and back with enemy in unknown locations, not to mention the possibility of friendly fire. I also understand that the approaches to the causeway were mined.
Reports from Utah Beach say the guns stopped early in the morning. The official history had the 506th moving through the area of the battle at around 2 PM.

There is a lot of confusion. That is not too surprising.

I don‘t believe Winters attacked von der Heydte‘s regiment. I am very skeptical of Ambrose‘s account of VDH‘s movements or knowledge that the gun crews abandoned their posts.

What seems to be established is that the guns fired on the beach and sometime in the morning they stopped.

Winters and his men attacked 105mm gun positions and silenced them sometime after 8:30 AM.

The Army gave them medals.

If all the accounts agreed I would be very surprised.

Personally I think that many accounts of D-Day have inflated claims, but that is a matter of excitement, chaos, and confusion. Most of the Americans had no combat experience. Even experienced troops can make mistakes in all that confusion.

The air drop of the 82nd and 101st was a cluster of the first order of magnitude.

That D-Day on Normandy worked at all I find nearly miraculous.

On the other hand, you accuse lies and conspiracy by those taking part in the battle.

So far as I know, Winters never used unit numbers to identify the emplacements he attacked. He did stubbornly repeat that they were airborne. Might that have been misidentifying air-landing with airborne? I can‘t speak to his frame of mind, but nether can you, with any certainty.

If you don‘t think you have made those accusations, then I suggest you reread what you have posted.

Your agenda would seem to be that no mere mortals could win against German Elite Units. I would say that cheer leading is best saved for sporting events.

Your summation of events from 13 June are not altogether accurate but flavored with your interpretation of what happened.

Isn‘t that what you are accusing Winters of?

No, you accuse him of making it up from whole cloth and getting other to go along with the lie.

That requires a much higher order of proof than anything presented so far.

Interviews/confessions from Judge Compton and William Guarnere might be the best place to start. Both men were on the flanks and might have had a better position to observe the fight. Then you can speak with the others.

Make sure you have witnesses.




______________________________

Short of that, you might prefer to use some lesser terms than lie.

For instance, you could say:

Ambrose shows signs of having embellished in areas of the book with unsubstantiated happenings.

Winters’ mistaken claim of facing elite airborne troops runs counter to the historical record of events.

The timed arrival on the scene of the tanks is crucial to determining which version of event is truer to the mark.


That may not be as dramatic as calling everyone liars but it certainly is easier to prove.

[PanzerJaeger]

From every account of the battle I have found:


Wikipedia is often not the best of sources (you'll note it mimics the Heydte story directly from Ambrose, which has already been shown to be false). The regiment was transferred to Schlieben to strengthen the Cotentin defenses as the 91st was not to be there permanently (Fighting in Normandy: The German Army from D-Day to Villers Bocage, David Isby).



He did stubbornly repeat that they were airborne. Might that have been misidentifying air-landing with airborne?


I may not have been entirely clear as to the Lufteland divisions. The only difference between those and normal Wehrmacht divisions was in the way they were equipped. All their heavy weaponry could be transported by air. Their uniforms were indistinguishable from other normal German divisions.



Your agenda would seem to be that no mere mortals could win against German Elite Units. I would say that cheer leading is best saved for sporting events.


It is odd, then, that I would mention an example of this very same unit defeating 1st Battalion, 6th FJR the very next day (albeit with tank support and not in 13 man super soldier fashion), don't you think?


My agenda is simply to correct the historical record that Ambrose and Winters maligned in Band of Brothers. It is rather annoying for someone who studies the German military to see these fairytales mimicked as fact. That certainly does not mean I entertain the myths of German invincibility either.


On the other hand, your agenda seems to be to discredit me personally. Without mounting any substantive challenge to the information I have shared, you've attempted to discount my points because I have not served in the military and have accused me of acting as an organ of the Third Reich. All the while, you've provided precious little in terms of factually based counterpoints, and instead have relied on anecdote, conjecture, and vague claims that 'reports and citations are inaccurate' without any relation to the case at hand (examples of inaccuracies in the Regimintal Unit Study, examples of WW2 citations stating differing events from what happened, etc).


Now your tactic appears to be to pick apart my posts looking for innacuracies and try to equate that to a professional soldier 'mistaking' the most distinct type of German unit for another and a professional historian 'mistaking' the location of an officer and an entire battalion that just happened to place them exactly where they needed to be to fit into the soldier's story.



Your summation of events from 13 June are not altogether accurate but flavored with your interpretation of what happened.


Do you mean June 6? You're welcome to correct any inaccuracies you find.


By the way, I've corrected several of yours in this thread and asked for follow up to help further the discussion but you seem content to drop those points and move on to new personal attacks. I'm not sure if that is the healthiest atmosphere in which to conduct a historical discussion.



Short of that, you might prefer to use some lesser terms than lie.


I wish that I could, but there are simply too many inaccuracies that were easily discovered, not to mention wholesale discrepancies with other primary sources, for me to be able to accept that the account was simply a mistake. Your abilities in suspending reality may be better than my own, however.

[Fisherking]

PJ:


Yes I did stop providing information once you made it plan that it was more about a claim Winters fought 6th FJR than any other point, therefore the whole issue was a lie.

You are not interested in the history other than stressing your point.


Sorry I couldn’t watch your propaganda video but it is not available in Germany.

You insist it was the 709th Static Division.

from your wiki link:The Static Division occupied a rigid defence position usually on a broad front …
Might that mean they manned the fixed defences such as the pill boxes on the beach?

And behind those defences you might expect to find other types of troops. Perhaps like
**91.LL.Div:
Responsible for the defence of the southern part of the west coast of the Cotentin Peninsula and act as a reserve in the event of an allied landing on the east coast. Under the command of the 7th Armee.
91.LL.Div was a category 25 division, raised in early 1944 from elements of the Replacement Armee. It consisted of 2 Grenadier Regiments, each with 3 Battalions, a Fusilier Kompanie used as a reconnaisance unit, an Artillery Regiment with a heavy Battalion of 12 x 155mm guns and 2 Battalions with 12 x 105mm guns.

The division received special training in anti-air landing operations and was the right unit in the right place on June 6th 1944, however co-ordination of this unit was in dis-array after its commander, Generalleutnant Wilhelm Falley, was ambushed in his staff car and killed during the night of June 6th, on his return from the Planspiel at Rennes in Brittany. The US Paratroopers that took part in this ambush had no idea that they had killed the commander of the division whose job it was to stop such an airdrop. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-9332.html

In your own examples it states that the 1058 Grenadier Regiment (91 Davison) go to the posts and look.



Awards were often given based on unsubstantiated claims during the war.
Gross assumption on your part.

Your statement on the Battle of Bloody Gulch (June 13th 1944)

My query was if you thought that was also a myth.

Reply:
This is exactly the kind of enhancement I was referring to. 6th FJR along with elements 17.SS and a few assault guns attacked the 506th PIR and immediately broke one company (F) and then another (D), sending them into full retreat. E Company was last to be engaged and was close to suffering the same fate when sixty (60!) tanks of the 2nd Armored arrived on the scene and pushed the Germans back.

This leads me to believe Co. E is ready to break and run but are saved in the nick of time by the US Cavalry in the guise of 2nd AD.

A some what more complete account: The remnants of the 6th Fallschirmjäger resupplied and were reinforced by assault guns and panzergrenadiers of the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division on the night of June 12–13. The combined force counterattacked northeast towards Carentan at dawn on June 13, just as the 506th and 501st PIR were attacking southwest to enlarge the American defensive perimeter around the town. The 506th took the brunt of the attack, and by 10:30 a.m., the outnumbered and outgunned paratroopers were pushed almost back to the outskirts of the city.
Under intense German fire, F Company of the 506th's left flank broke and fell back. This exposed D Company's right flank, who also fell back, leaving E Company all alone. The commanding officer of F Company was relieved on the spot by Colonel Strayer. When a German StuG assault gun attempted to penetrate the left flank, Lt. Harry Welsh and Pvt. John McGrath of E Company successfully destroyed it with a bazooka. This gave time for battalion headquarters to stop the retreat of D and F companies, pushing them forward 150 meters to cover the left flank. The 2nd Battalion of the 502nd PIR took up positions to the right of the 506th, but by 1:00 p.m. they too had suffered many casualties, and the German attack was on the edge of breaking through their defenses.
At this critical point, sixty tanks from Combat Command A of the 2nd Armored Division and accompanied by infantry of the 29th Division, counterattacked southwest from Carentan at 4:30 p.m.,# inflicting severe casualties on the Germans and forcing them to withdraw. The American victory led to the linkup of forces from Utah and Omaha beaches, creating a secure lodgement area for further American operations.

Perhaps you are unaware of it but you do seem to give the impression of supporting the German cause.
You vigorously pursue your point using assumptions and conjecture to convince others to support your point of view.
It would be better if you just presented the facts you are in position of and let others reach conclusions.

Using lie is too strong. That is your conclusion and is emotionally based.

You do not understand the confusion of war and combat on getting a clear picture of events.

You can not know all that is behind it unless you were there. Records and Histories have many gaps and inaccuracies. Without further comment from those who took part we can not know which version of events is the real story.

You can raise questions but you can not know without further firsthand information.

Calling people liars and accusing them of crimes will not further the correction of historical events.

This is not a political discussion where such charges would be expected. You can not charge what you can not prove and more than just appearances matter in that regard.

The study of history is rife with errors and conflicting accounts. They must be weighed rather than discarded.

It is not a contest or sporting event. You don‘t win a history match and this is not a backroom debate. Let the work speak for its self. Summations can be thought provoking but accusatory language does you no credit and detracts form the work.

What you charge will require a very high standard of proof and if you do be aware of the backlash.

Charges must be proved or withdrawn and for that the historian bears the total burden.

?

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ:


Yes I did stop providing information once you made it plan that it was more about a claim Winters fought 6th FJR than any other point, therefore the whole issue was a lie.

You are not interested in the history other than stressing your point.


Sorry I couldn’t watch your propaganda video but it is not available in Germany.

You insist it was the 709th Static Division.

from your wiki link:The Static Division occupied a rigid defence position usually on a broad front …
Might that mean they manned the fixed defences such as the pill boxes on the beach?

And behind those defences you might expect to find other types of troops. Perhaps like
**91.LL.Div:
Responsible for the defence of the southern part of the west coast of the Cotentin Peninsula and act as a reserve in the event of an allied landing on the east coast. Under the command of the 7th Armee.
91.LL.Div was a category 25 division, raised in early 1944 from elements of the Replacement Armee. It consisted of 2 Grenadier Regiments, each with 3 Battalions, a Fusilier Kompanie used as a reconnaisance unit, an Artillery Regiment with a heavy Battalion of 12 x 155mm guns and 2 Battalions with 12 x 105mm guns.

The division received special training in anti-air landing operations and was the right unit in the right place on June 6th 1944, however co-ordination of this unit was in dis-array after its commander, Generalleutnant Wilhelm Falley, was ambushed in his staff car and killed during the night of June 6th, on his return from the Planspiel at Rennes in Brittany. The US Paratroopers that took part in this ambush had no idea that they had killed the commander of the division whose job it was to stop such an airdrop. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-9332.html

In your own examples it states that the 1058 Grenadier Regiment (91 Davison) go to the posts and look.


You seem to be confused or deliberately obfuscating.


The guns belonged to the 191st Artillery regiment that was part of the 91st Division and was transfered to the 709th Static Division, as the rest of the division was not scheduled to stay on the Cotentin. There were (supposedly) also troops defending the guns. 1st Company, 1st Battalion, 919th Grenadier Regiment of the 709th Division, was posted at St. Marie about 500 yards south of Brecourt. The 1058th Grenadier Regiment was also in the area, one company defended Exit 1 about a mile from St. Marie to the east. If there were combat troops with the guns (and Winters didn't simply attack an undefended artillery regiment), their identity is uncertain. Neither of the two units could be confused as Fallschirmjäger, though.


You are aware that the link you posted directly supports my points, contradicts the account in Band of Brothers, and mentions nothing about the Brecourt incident, correct? (And for future reference, posting a forum post from militaryphotos.com with a dead original link, no attribution, and no sources is not exactly the best way to support a position in a historical discussion. I just happen to agree with the writeup. :grin:)



After finalising battle plans, Von der Heydte crossed the Carentan causeway at around midday on June 6th heading to the new command post at St.Come du Mont. The surrounding area had been secured, although US Paratroops were already dug in less than a Km to the east at La Barquette but unable to get close to the causeway or its bridges due to strong defensive fire from German positions on the road and St.Come du Mont.

The orders had been given out to the battalions of Regiment.6:

1st Battalion - To advance in the direction Ste.Marie du Mont-La Madaleine to relieve the pressure on strongpoint W5 (Resistance Nest.5, the hub of bunker defences at Utah Beach).
2nd Battalion - Advance in the direction of Turqueville, where 795th Georgian Battalion were located.
3rd Battalion - Remain behind to provide flank security.

As the 1st & 2nd Battalions moved on to their objectives, elements of the 3rd Battalion were still involved in mopping up operations against isolated groups of US Paratroops, south west of Carentan. Elements of the 3rd Battalion remained behind in Carentan, including the heavy company. The church tower was used as an artillery observation post and became a key position in the fighting that would happen further north.

Other US airborne forces in the south of the peninsula were being attacked from the north by Gren.Rgt 1058 & Sturm Battalion Messerschmidt. Gren.Rgt.1057 attacked from the west against airborne landings on the Merderet River further north.

The attack by 1st & 2nd Battalions went well at first. The 1st Battalion managed to reach to reach the outskirts of Ste.Marie du Mont, only 6km from W5, but found that it was in the hands of 101st Airborne Division, soon to be backed up by elements of the 4th Infantry Division who had landed at Utah Beach earlier that morning. A battalion from AR.191 had held the town before it was taken, they had withdrawn to positions further west. The 1st Battalion dug in amongst the fields and hedgerows outside of the town.

The second Battalion received strong fire into its left flank from St.Mere Eglise, where 507th PIR were holed up and constantly being strengthened. Major Rolf Mager was unaware that the Flak unit defending the town had abandoned their positions to the Americans. The Battalion swivelled, not toward the east but westward to outflank the town. Still the Battalion recieved strong flanking fire, they returned fire but their own ammunition was beggining to reach low levels. They were forced to withdrawal back south toward St.Come du Mont in the morning of June 7th, without having reached the Osttruppen further to the north east.

The 1st Battalion had managed to hold their positions around St.Come du Mont, but they were under increasing pressure from US forces heading inland from Utah beach and constantly strengthened airborne forces operating all over the base of the Peninsula. During the evening of June 6th approximately 150 US Gliders landed north east of Carentan in the rear of 1st Battalion. Later that night their positions between St.Marie du Mont and Vierville were shelled by Naval Artillery. In the early hours of June 7th, more US Paratroops landed in the area around Angoville and at around 7am another 150 American gliders landed in an area between Angoville-St.Marie du Mont-Hiesville. 1st Battalion was slowly being surrounded and escape routes were slowly being shut off.

Von der Heydte was unaware that the allies had landed on the beaches east of his HQ until he witnessed the armada at sea from the church tower in St.Come du Mont. As he lay witness tho this spectacle 11km to the east, the town was straddled with large calibre Naval artillery shells, which shook the church and surrounding houses. The Americans knew the value of a church tower to Artillery observers, men who could rain death upon advancing troops.

Infantry, artillery and Tanks were all heading inland to relieve the airborne forces who were holding on to their early morning objectives. Four of these objectives at the base of the Cotentin was the securing of the western ends of Exit 1 & 2 from Utah beach, the bridges over the Douve river just north of Carentan, the bridges over the Carentan Canal at Le Moulins and the lock gates at La Barquette. The lock gates at La Barquette had been easily secured by men of the 501st PIR early on D-Day. American advances on the causeway and bridges were beaten back by dug in positions on the causeway and in Pont du Douve backed by artillery fire from St.Come du Mont.

In the early hours of June 7th, the first American tanks to be seen by the 1st Battalion, appeared on the approaches to St.Marie du Mont. The 1st Battalion were not equipped for a long battle against armour, they had already expended large amounts of ammo during probing attacks into Ste.Marie du Mont. There were limited supplies of the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. There were also other pressing matters for the 1st Battalion to take care of. They were ordered by radio to dispatch a force to counterattack 2 bridges over the Carentan Canal south west of Ste.Marie du Mont. These bridges had been taken on D-Day and the americans were going to use them to bypass Carentan and link up with forces in the Omaha Bridgehead.

The 1st Battalion sent its last radio message back to Rgt HQ late in the morning on June 7th, "5 enemy tanks destroyed, battalion now surrounded". Hauptmann Priekschat now decided it was time to withdrawal, ammo was low and casualties were high. The order went out and the remnants of the 1st Battalion from St.Marie du Mont to Vierville began their fighting withdrawal to the south west, only to find that US tanks had already entered Vierville and were slowly pushing west.

Meanwhile in St.Come du Mont, Von der Heydte ordered a reconnaisance unit from the 2nd Battalion to try and break through to its beleaguered sister Battalion. They encountered enemy tanks in the area between Basse Addevile-Tamerville-Les Droueries but managed to destroy 2 of them in close combat. One Kompanie from the 3rd Battalion was also sent east from St.Come du Mont, between Belle Eneau-Tamerville. At around 10am on June 7th, they were engaged in bitter fighting with enemy troops. At 2200 on 7th June, another element of the 3rd Battalion came into contact with enemy tanks south of Angoville au Plain and managed to destroy 2 with a Panzerschreck. After fierce fighting in the hamlet of ********, just east of the N13/D913 road junction, German forces withdrew west to take up position in the fields and hedgerows south of St.Come du Mont at dead mans corner. The war was slowly being brought to Von der Heydte's front doorstep.

In the afternoon of June 7th, US Paratroops backed up by Grant medium tanks, approached the road junction on a probing attack into St.Come du Mont. The lead tank was brewed up by an AT round. Fierce fire erupted from the hedgerows and from positions in Pont du Douve further south. The american advance stalled and they withdrew back toward ******** to regroup.





Your statement on the Battle of Bloody Gulch (June 13th 1944)

My query was if you thought that was also a myth.

Reply:

This leads me to believe Co. E is ready to break and run but are saved in the nick of time by the US Cavalry in the guise of 2nd AD.



From the Wikipedia article you posted in your own response.



The 2nd Battalion of the 502nd PIR took up positions to the right of the 506th, but by 1:00 p.m. they too had suffered many casualties, and the German attack was on the edge of breaking through their defenses.
At this critical point, sixty tanks from Combat Command A of the 2nd Armored Division and accompanied by infantry of the 29th Division, counterattacked southwest from Carentan at 4:30 p.m.,# inflicting severe casualties on the Germans and forcing them to withdraw.


:inquisitive:


Your account, on the other hand...



I would agree that on June 6th in the attack on the gun battery it is highly unlikely that Winters faced them, and was mistaken in that regard. However, 506th did face them in combat after that time and Co. E did hold its positions blunting 6th Fallschirmjäger’s counter attack on June 13th at the Battle of Bloody Gulch.

Or do you hold that that battle is also a myth?


...completely leaves out the infantry from the 502nd PIR, the reinforcements from 29th Division, and the 60 tanks from the 2nd Armored.


I'm not sure how I misrepresented the battle, but it is pretty clear how you did. :book:


I'm not going to continue to respond to your personal attacks and speculation about my motives. Please see post #47.

[Fisherking]

I knew you would like that link.
But!
You just don’t get it do you.
I am not in a contest and not your opponent.
The attacks as you call them keep asking you to prove your allegations or stop accusing people of things you can’t prove.
I have pointed out some things about language and a few other points. I am sorry you see them as attacks.
The data doesn’t provide proof for your charges. The data will not provide proof for what you have charged.
If you found a battle log from a tank unit saying that two tanks engaged 105mm artillery pieces at the exact grid coordinates it would still need eyewitness accounts saying they acted in support of the 506th and who is to say that the tank commanders coordinates were not off by a grid square.
You are working on feeling.
Stick to what you can prove and stop taking things so personally.


edit: PJ
If you have felt attacked, stop for a moment and reflect on how the men and families of those men might feel.
Your assumptions and accusations will not make them more forthcoming. It will only cause ill feelings and not aid your endeavor.

[TinCow]

This is a very interesting thread, thank you PJ and Fisher. This is exactly the kind of problem that historians have to deal with in all areas of the subject, and it's very interesting to see it pop up in such a recent and well-documented event. Thanks again for the good debate. :bow:


Interestingly, I searched for the citation records of the Silver Star winners listed for this engagement in the database I linked to earlier to cross reference them with that of Winters and found not one of them, although there were many other Silver Star winners from the war. Maybe it is incomplete?

This question I can answer from professional knowledge. The database is indeed incomplete because it is unofficial. There is, unfortunately, no centralized database which records decorations or citations for any awards below the Medal of Honor. This is a serious oversight in military records keeping, but it has been like this for so long that the military is unwilling to devote the resources to tracking down and digitizing all of the available records. All serious work being done on these databases are being done by amateurs. In fact, the amateurs are currently so much more knowledgable about the historical awards/citations that the military contacts them when it needs the information and a brief internal search comes up empty.

Here's an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050903363.html) about the guy who assembled the Military Times database you linked to. That article says that (as of May 2010) the database has 200,000 entries, but that it only contains about 40% of all awards above Bronze Star. That's a LOT of missing information.

[Fisherking]

Resources and further reading:

William "Wild Bill" Guarnere, website and forum
http://www.wildbillguarnere.com/

Courtesy of World War II Magazine
This is an interview out of the Band of Brothers special edition of World War II Magazine with Richard D. Winters.
http://www.menofeasycompany.com/home/index.php?page_id=21

I tried the Magazine and could find no searchable archives but articles perhaps issue by issue.
Diligent searching may provide more information and perhaps on other individuals.

Band of Brothers special edition of World War II Magazine
Collector's edition of World War II Presents publications about Band of Brothers. 14 articles and 11 interviews related to this period of World War II history. 98 pages (2004?)

Stephen Ambrose‘s difficulties with the truth:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/04/26/100426ta_talk_rayner
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2010/04/stephen_ambrose_revisited.html

Ambrose‘s actions should not extend to the individuals covered in his books. This is a dangerous and unfair assumption.

[PanzerJaeger]

I knew you would like that link.
But!
You just don’t get it do you.
I am not in a contest and not your opponent.


Certainly not, but at the time I thought you were raising substantive points about the account that I dutifully attempted to address, scouring the internet for sources that could be linked to and searching my own books to insure that I had my facts correct down to company level in these units. What I didn't get was that, in actuality, you apparently had no interest in the facts surrounding the account and were only interested in casting aspersions. Had this been the Backroom, I would have simply ignored your posturing from the outset instead of embarking on the collosal waste of my time this exchange has been. A more perceptive person would have done so when you demanded military experience in order to question veteran's accounts.



Stick to what you can prove and stop taking things so personally.


Yes, maybe I'm taking things too personally.


Thus far all I see is conjecture, assumption, and you behaving like a propaganda origin for the Third Reich.



This question I can answer from professional knowledge. The database is indeed complete because it is unofficial. There is, unfortunately, no centralized database which records decorations or citations for any awards below the Medal of Honor. This is a serious oversight in military records keeping, but it has been like this for so long that the military is unwilling to devote the resources to tracking down and digitizing all of the available records. All serious work being done on these databases are being done by amateurs. In fact, the amateurs are currently so much more knowledgable about the historical awards/citations that the military contacts them when it needs the information and a brief internal search comes up empty.

Here's an article about the guy who assembled the Military Times database you linked to. That article says that (as of May 2010) the database has 200,000 entries, but that it only contains about 40% of all awards above Bronze Star. That's a LOT of missing information.

Thanks for the information. It is amazing, considering all the trivial things that they do document, that they wouldn't have a system in place for military citations.

I have joined wildbillguarnere.com in an effort to track down his unit citation (one of his family members runs the site I think), but it seems somewhat dead. I haven't even been approved to post by an admin in five days.

[TinCow]

I just realized my post said: "The database is indeed complete because it is unofficial." That should have read INCOMPLETE instead of complete.

[Fisherking]

PJ:

My early wording was too abrupt.

However, from what you were asserting I felt the points were valid.

In some studies deeper insight is necessary to place things in a proper context.

Simply reading off the data does not tell a complete story.

Remember that the data set we are dealing with comes from war and the particular events from combat.

Many things get mangled including the data. Individual combat may be the most stressful environment there is. Time may seem to stop, be compressed or even nonlinear. All that is is before you and you feel alone.

Having insight into highly stressful circumstances and being aware of the environment can be key factors.

That is why I said it is difficult to make conclusions based on the citation written by another party.

The link to Winters’ Interview shows when he believes the tanks arrived. We don’t know who wrote the citation or from what sources (individuals’ interviews) the historian compiled the time line of events.

From his tracings it is apparent he made quite a few judgment calls.

I know it sounds complex and it is.

Further, you made some statements where I was sure you were giving too or too little much weight to things I have dealt with directly.

Lacking expearance with the military can cause one to think they are dealing with absolute fact, when it could hardly be futher from the truth in some circimstances. Assuming all training knowledge is pertanent and accessable in combat is fancy.

I didn’t intend to sound bluff or rude and given time I would have phrased some things differently.

Shamefully, I was press for time in my early posts and rushed the statements without full forethought.

[Veho Nex]

You know what I just realized. I paid 30$ for my copy of Band of Brothers and now I find out that I could have gotten it for free off the interwebs? Frak my life.