Also don't forget that 2cm canon were quite standard on German fighters. This could always lead to the assumption all enemy fighters must be armed with canon too. Just the same as enemy calibers being translated to your own (3,7cm gets identifed as 40mm, etc). On the other hand airplaine descriptions are not safe either, even if the witness thinks he's sure. I've read someone describe in great detail why he knew for a fact he faced a Tiger.... and it was a Pz.IV. Without it I would have guessed 'Panther'.... The only airplane description/identification I usually trust are that of Lightnings. The rest is a big mess.
Thanks John. Good point. Rommel was thrown out of the car by that movement and ended up 20 metres behind the car on the right of the road. I take your point regarding specific aircraft identification. However, I am inclined to think that the report is purely factual and shows no signs of embellishment. Whereas many of us may not have been involved in similar circumstances I don’t think we should forget that these were trained professional soldiers in an active combat zone so when the report states that Neuhaus’s injury was caused by a Sprenggranate (high explosive shell or high explosive fragmentation shell) personally I think it would have been just that. I’m still very interested to hear anybody’s view on my previous comments regarding the locations, distance etc. And thanks also for your contribution on aircraft armament Niels Regards Ian
Thanks Ian, that's reassuring Fair enough. Yep. The 'road to Lisores' thing has been a puzzle. Whilst I never met the bloke, and have no wish to speak ill of the dead, I know people who knew Roudeiux and mentuion of his name was/is usually accompanied by a wry smile or a shake of the head... He did claim to be a witness to a lot of stuff. I'm sure he was but.... More re your posts in a bit..... Cheers for now, Sean
Thanks Sean Looking forward to seeing your further comments. Would anybody else like to comment on the story so far? Regards Ian
Hello Ian Interesting research, thanks for sharing so much with us - but an unsigned document - anyway, now to Spitfires, and their armament: "If it is .303 cal then they are British Aircraft, .50 cal then US aircraft." - sorry, it is not that simple as the Spitfire also operated with the .50 cal, and US supplied at that. For an explanation, photos and diagrams, see: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html In case you are not aware a Spitfire XVI (16) is basically a Spitfire IX (9) fitted with a Packard Merlin 266 engine, and produced on an adjacent production line at Castle Bromwich for example. regards Allan
Thanks Allan Very useful information. Happy to share Allan although it would be very helpful if there was a little more participation from other members. I can make various points but it is discussion which will help to either validate or dismiss them. There was a great deal of evaluation before I arrived but perhaps the story has now run its course. Yes the document is unsigned but it is accompanied by other material which establishes its provenance beyond doubt. I am wondering if there are any other 1944 PR photos of the locale which might assist in establishing whether or not we have the correct location.
Hello Ian Can you clarify something, please? Could you relate that full sentence in German please? It's a bit problematic getting snippets here and there. The ATB account is obviously taken from the same source so if you have the full version from which it was taken, it might be beneficial to see it to aid with context and any translation issues, as I mentioned previously. If you're worried about publication of the 'full document', there is always the 'Green Room'. I don't think anyone here will distribute it beyond where you wish it to be seen. We're quite an honest bunch... Cheers Sean
Hi Sean Here it is as requested ‘Aus diesem Grunde bogen wir vor Livaroth auf eine gedockte Nebenstrasse ab, um 4 km vor Vimoutiers die Hauptstrasse wieder zu erreichen’ It is obvious to me that Lang compiled the report I have on his own or with others. If he was quoting from the report I have there are obviously many errors as I have pointed out and these may well have been exacerbated by other people referring to them subsequently. When I joined the forum I actually explained to John that I did not wish to post a copy of the report. I appreciate what you are saying about your honesty but, believe me, I have no doubts whatsoever about the integrity of the members with whom I share the Green Room. If I post it I am publishing it and, to be honest there is no need to do this for the purpose of evaluating the information it contains. I also advised John that I would share the content of the report and that is exactly what I have been doing. The translation I have is a professional translation and I am confident that I have not cited anything which is not accurate. I am fully aware of the translation issues you mention and I understand that some words have different meanings etc and may vary according to context but I can assure you that I have been very careful in ensuring that the information I have provided is accurate. You may have noticed that if I mention anything which appears to be unsubstantiated I say so. I have not been providing ‘snippets’. I have been posting the full story, only pausing, to wait for any discussion over the various issues I have raised. As I have said previously I would welcome any comments on the points I have raised. Perhaps I have misinterpreted some aspects. If that is the case I would be very happy for somebody to point it out but am ideally looking for a discussion or suggestions relating to some of the points I have made. At the moment I am wondering, like Pat did earlier, whether the incident took place on another stretch of road. The ATB account isn’t stacking up for me so far. Best Ian
Hello Ian Happy to help - as always - pleased that you have established provenance, and it would be nice if it could be solved after all this time. Personally I think that Pat would be the best to advise if any PR photos exist of the locale, although, as you have probably already noted, we do have other experts on PR photos. regards Allan
Thanks Allan. I'm looking forward to any more views, comments , discussions or suggestions. Regards Ian
Hi All, Apologies for my absence here of late; every time I go to post some other admin job arrives in my inbox NCAP_ACIU_4_0439_4132 is the only cover in the NCAP archive for the bridge/gate lodge area which was flown on the 17th July. As far as I can recall, the only other cover they hold is from a sortie flown much later in July. I'll embed the search result pdf here tonight so you can all see the other frames, though of course they will be low resolution. Regards, Pat
Hi All, Here is the NCAP search results which we had done back in 2013: <iframe seamless="seamless" src="https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://www.normandy.whitebeamimages.ie/ncap/search_results/34799_vimoutiers.pdf" width="100%" height="600px"></iframe> Below is the location which I am wondering if it might better match the description in the report - its almost bang on 4 Kms from Vimoutiers; note the village of Sainte Foy de Montgommery at lower right: What if the car turned right at the red arrow onto the main Livarot/Vimoutiers road and came under attack somewhere between junction 1 and 3? The 'Maire' at junction 1 bears a remarkable resemblance to the gate lodge at the entrance to the Usine Laniel where Hauptmann Lang focused the ATB article in 1970. Did he mix up the two locations? Now there is an obvious problem with my three junctions... ...all three are on the left side of the road as viewed from the car traveling south-eastwards towards Vimoutiers - but what if the report was composed while viewing a map on a desk? Then the three side roads would be on the right! Just some thoughts guys. Regards, Pat
Hi Pat Many thanks for the images. It is indeed a puzzle. You make a fair point about reading the map but personally I very much doubt that was the case. I think too many people would have had a hand in it one way or another, including all the surviving occupants of the car. Obviously its a possibility but I think a very unlikely one although it would make the re-evaluation much simpler. Regards Ian Anyone else care to comment?
Hi Ian, You may be right; its just a thought that occurred to me, but its good to think outside the box on these quests Researcher Michel le Querrec's French site here appears to be a fair and balanced attempt at putting forward a varied number of witness accounts. I am especially interested in the French civilian witness statements which are quoted therein but Google Translate is providing me with 'chopped suey' results. Can anyone give us a definitive translation for the statements at Section II, entries 2 - 7 please? Thanks, Pat
Actually I think the Google Translate version isn't that bad. Although admittedly it helps to understand some French to figure out what it actually means to say. An issue with most of the accounts is that it is not just about what the witnesses, err, witnessed. They already include things they had learned/figured out about it later. Hearsay. BTW, there is no need to translate entry 6: http://www.amnesta.net/other/rommel.html Since the French version is a translation of the English, which is probably based on information in German...... well, you get the idea. Note that website has a natural bias towards a certain squadron. To me it is about the phrasing of the original German statement (and its exact source within the U.K. National Archives). I'll have to examine it closer, but it seems only Mme Duhamel was an actual witness of the event. She heard the shooting and saw the vehicle crash. Other witnesses describe seeing planes (attack) or even less. Entry 2 mentions Rommel, but I'm not even convinced it is directly related at all.
Hi Pat Yes I've looked at Michel le Querrec's site and I agree that he has tried to give a fair and balanced account of what has already been sated about the incident. As John says most of the witness statements also incorporate large chunks of hearsay etc. I also think Mme Duhamel's comment has considerable authority if that press article she appears in is contemporary and not printed many years later. As far as Heins statement is concerned my personal opinion is that it is totally unreliable for many reasons. First of all I don't believe there were two vehicles and , more importantly, Rommel's adjutants were occupants of Rommel's car and Heins was adamant that the two officers in the alleged second car were Rommel's ADC's and indeed he says that he arrived at the scene with them. The drive, he says, managed to stop the car. Well that definitively conflicts with the known facts. If Heins was really there why didn't they use his Kubelwagen to take Rommel to hospital? Many years ago in the 1970s and 1980s I interviewed a substantial number of WW2 veterans about various incidents that they had actually been involved in. In some cases I would conduct an interview whilst I was in possession of a contemporary official statement which had been taken during a subsequent investigation. Some of these incidents were actually covered in the contemporary media and, on occasions, the person I was interviewing featured in one of the articles. The press being the press had sometimes written a highly exaggerated account of what the person had actually done. Mostly this was beneficial to the individual. When I came to conduct my own interview many years later individuals who had appeared in these press stories tended to stick with the press account of their actions rather than what they had said in the (quite often less interesting or heroic) official report. So when somebody comes along to write up their exploits again many years later you often find additional embellishments. And repeated accounts can make it worse! Incidentally I am not saying that the aircraft were not Typhoons but …….. hopefully we may find out. Regards Ian
Hi Niels and Ian, Niels, Is my Google Translate correct - was Mme Duhamel on the avenue leading to the Usine Laniel when she witnessed the attack? Ian, I agree and then if you add in a good chunk of favouritism for a particular pilot/squadron, the temptation to make the few know facts fit is an ever present danger. I don't suppose anyone has the Index Plot for Sortie 4/0439? When we did the search back in 2013 (see post #14), we had concentrated on the ATB location. It might be no harm to see if there are other frames from this sortie covering the road junctions above Sainte Foy de Montgommery. I also note that we did not attempt to obtain a time for NCAP_ACIU_4_0439_4132. The shadows are not very pronounced, but Don might just be able to run his routine and get us an approximate time of day. Regards, Pat
Sounds like it, although it appears she was about to go through the gate, to the main road. The text sais "sortait", which comes from 'sortir', which means something like leaving/going. I'm assuming she is pointing to where she was standing when she witnessed the events.
Hi All, I have asked Don to run his sun angle routine on the shadows visible in NCAP_ACIU_4_0439_4132 in an attempt to obtain a time for the sortie. This is his reply: No 4 Squadron had four PR Spitfires in the area with the first 'UP' at 17:30 and the first three returning to base at 19:45 So, if the Spitfire from No 4 Squadron photographed the area at 1645 GMT, that would be 1845 Double BST - am I correct? If this is the case, can we say that the attack was over by the time Sortie 4/0439 took the photographs? Regards, Pat