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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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

Demandez et vous recevrez mon amour


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../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 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 (), 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:




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, 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 (), 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/citatio...ipientid=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 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.

[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.

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 .

[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.

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]

Uploaded with 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.


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.