Case #1 - Who Strafed Rommel's Car?

Thanks Niels and Pat. I am afraid Pat the only locations I have are those I specified in my previous post. I don't know where the two divisional headquarters were and I am loath to guess so perhaps you could just pinpoint the locations I have mentioned. And yes IGN extract is fine. Thank you. If anyone has any more info and can help on that score please contribute.

In the meantime I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the car occupants etc.

Regards

Ian

 

Presumably this is what the account in ATB was taken from. Is it worth trying to obtain a copy of the original? We have German speakers here who might help translate.

With regards the seating, I'm tempted to agree with Irving (not a phrase I say often...).

Cheers,

Sean

 

Sean I'm not sure if Irving was referring to a contemporary report of Lang's or a subsequent statement he may have made to Irving when he was researching his book. However I agree that it would be a good idea to try and locate it along with Dietrich's 1950 affidavit on the subject. I recently emailed the Institute on another matter but they have not yet responded. I was going to ask them then. If I don't get a response maybe another forum member could drop them a line in German.

In the meantime I have something which I think is probably the definitive German account of the incident. As I have mentioned previously Lang must have had a lot to do with it. Whether or not it relied solely on him I don't know but I would have thought that there was probably input from Neuhaus, possibly Holke and maybe Rommel himself. The most important thing about it is that it was issued by O.U. (presumably Field HQ in this context) and is dated 21st August which is just five weeks after the event.

Much of the content has been quoted previously (via Lang) but since he didn’t appear to speak publicly about it until more than two decades later his comments may not have been seen as set in stone.
However since this report is contemporary and for internal purposes I think we can safely assume that the content is a fair reflection of what actually happened.

It is not smoking gun evidence, as I have said, but it might be very helpful in compiling a more detailed and accurate account . This is why I am being very careful in not deviating from the text of the report (which, by the way, is unsigned).

The report states that ‘ At about 1800 hours, the Field Marshal’s vehicle reached the region of Livarot’. (So it had reached the ‘region’ of Livarot i.e. presumably the outskirts, and incidentally there is no mention of an escort or any other vehicle –IS). Here recently shot up vehicles were piling up. It seemed that squadrons of enemy aircraft were intensifying their work in the area. For this reason we turned off before Livarot onto a concealed side road, in order to re-join the main road 4 km before Vimoutiers. When we arrived there we saw about 8 enemy fighter bombers patrolling over Livarot which, as it later transpired , had been shooting and paralysing traffic on the roads leading in to Livarot for the previous four hours ( so from 1400 to 1600 –IS). Suddenly the air lookout, Corporal Holke, announced that two aircraft had turned and were heading for the road’.

Before I continue I would like to highlight a few aspects which we can now look on as being fairly accurate. Firstly the aircraft reference is not to fighters but to fighter-bombers (Jagdbomber). OK I understand the implications of this but I think it is an issue worth mentioning.

Was Holke an experienced air observer or just the air lookout? Or was Lang the one who spotted them? In any event nobody, including Rommel, demurred from that description. There were apparently 8 aircraft over Livarot so how accurate would that count have been? But now I am confident we know for certain that two aircraft peeled off from that formation having spotted Rommel’s car.

So the car was proceeding south and the aircraft were to the north over Livarot when the car was spotted. The report definitively states that Holke spotted them. So this would tend to confirm Irving’s version. Holke must have been behind the driving compartment facing north in order to do that.

Would anybody like to make any comments on the story so far?

Regards

Ian

 

Hi Pat

Well the location of the attack is something that needs double checking and I think you guys are particularly good at that sort of thing. Tomorrow I will post more details on distances etc which will give you a better idea.

Yes I fully agree with you on the 8 aircraft. Could easily have been more if they were out of their line of vision but probably not less. However what was their view of Livarot when they were spotted.

I'm also not battling for any particular squadron Pat. If there was a one hour time difference I would have said 602 could be in the frame but there wasn't and they were down at 1650. If it was 602 then can we assume the attack would have taken place no later than 1630 or 1640. The German report states they left Dietrich's Command Post at 1600. They then had to travel 20 odd miles in difficult conditions. They arrived in the Livarot 'region' around 1800 and they still had a way to go before the attack which is why, for the moment I have added another 15 minutes. So, in my book we are looking at somewhere between an hour and a half to almost a two hour disparity for 602. What we do know is that the attacking aircraft were over Livarot when just two of them broke off to attack.

This is an official report and personally I think any times quoted would be reasonably accurate. I imagine that a number of people would have had the opportunity to correct any major errors and Rommel himself made no subsequent corrections. I wonder if Dietrich's 1950 affidavit might throw any light on it although, of course, he didn't make it until 6 years later.

Regards

Ian

 

Hello Ian

I don't think the reference to fighter-bombers is of any importance - after all once they had dropped their ordnance they were back to pure fighters again. Sometimes part of the flight carried bombs and others operated as their escort without bombs - but drop the bombs and all the formation are fighters.

I am still rooting for 602, but it is a great pity that we do not know the type. If it were Typhoons that would bring 193 squadron in to the equation. However, after reading http://www.amnesta.net/other/ - but "146 Wing's Senior Intelligence Officer, F/L H. "Tommy" Neville Thomas wrote, immediately post-war, "At 15.15 hours, on 17th July 1944 Wing Commander Baldwin led No. 193 Squadron to attack an H.Q. and Strong Point near Dozule and hits were seen on and among the buildings.,, On the road, S.W. out of Caen he saw a small convoy consisting of 2D/R's, 2 Armoured Car and the Staff Car were left stopped and burning... Field Marshal Rommel had been travelling in the convoy and it was believed that injuries inflicted then, later led to his death." it does not fit the known time and vehicle(s) around Rommel.

See also: http://www.amnesta.net/other/rommel.html Eye witness from 21st Panzer Divn., which refers to Typhoons.

regards

Allan

 

Hi Allan

Of course you are probably right but I thought I would mention it because as you say, a fighter bomber without ordnance becomes a fighter again. It just occurred to me that they might have noticed that the 8 aircraft were all carrying ordnance which would distinguish them from a formation of pure fighters. However they may have just made an assumption but I thought I would flag it up for discussion.

So it is possible that the attack was carried out by Typhoons. I note that ‘Tommy’ Thomas has incorporated Lt.Hein’s account but personally I am convinced that his account is spurious and cannot be relied on. There is an attribution to one of Rommel’s officers having identified the aircraft as Spitfires and I have seen somewhere that Manfred Rommel stated that his father had identified them as American P-47s but the official German report is silent on this topic. The other point I should make is that Thomas indicates that 193 spotted Rommel’s ‘convoy’ SW of Caen whereas in fact it was actually travelling SE of Caen. The squadron apparently went up at 1515. There is no mention of when it went down but, for me, the timings, locations and descriptions are inconsistent with this account being accepted as a mission which ultimately was responsible for the Rommel incident.

Moving on now from yesterday I will continue with the official German report which hopefully will help with more accurately pinpointing the attack location.

So Corporal Holke had announced that two aircraft had turned and were heading for the road. Daniel, the driver, was ordered to drive at full speed in order to reach ‘a forest track’ bending off to the right about 300 metres away, and to seek cover there. However,before we reached the track, the report continues, the enemy aircraft, flying at great speed, had come to within 500 metres of us, flying a few metres above the road and then the first aircraft opened fire. At this moment Field Marshal Rommel was looking backwards (In which case I think it is reasonable to assume that he was looking in the direction of Livarot and that the aircraft was approaching the car from that direction – IS) The aircraft’s cone of high explosive fire hit mostly the left half of the vehicle. Sergeant Daniel was hit in the left shoulder and left arm. Field Marshal Rommel was wounded by glass splinters in the face and sustained a hit to the left temple and cheekbone. Acharge exploded on the pistol holster Major Neuhus was wearing on his back, resulting in a broken cheekbone. ( On this basis it seems to indicate that Rommel was sitting next to Daniel . If that is correct Irving was right.- IS)

On account of his serious injury Daniel lost control of the vehicle. It first richocheted off a tree stump on the right side of the road, then veered sharply over to the left side and into a ditch. FM Rommel, who, at the beginning of the attack was holding the door handle in his right hand was propelled out of the car by this movement and lay unconscious 20 metres behind the car on the right of the road. Captain Lang and Corporal Holke jumped out of the car and took cover on the right hand side of the road.

At this moment a second aircraft flew off over the site of the incident, peepering those lying on the ground with bullets.

I am not very good with maps but I’m hoping that with this info and your 1944 maps we might be able to more accurately depict the various stages of the attack.

So there we are. I hope we have a lot of comments, questions and perspectives coming. As I mentioned previously the various accounts of the incident have often referred to some of this material but now I think we can accept that this information is the most accurate that has so far been provided.

Anyway over to you guys.

Regards

Ian

 

I agree with Allan that the reference to "Jagdbomber" should not carry too much weight. The term 'Jabo' was basically synonym for any light (combat) planes, regardless if it was officially a fighter or fighter-bomber. Considering the circumstances in Normandy, all of those types were extensively used again ground targets. Most Germans would simply call all of them 'Jabo'.

 

That's fine Neils. It was only a minor point. However I'm very interested in what members think of the other information.

Regards

Ian

 

Hi Pat

Well that's a very good point because I have seen the same thing on several occasions myself. Absolutely no reference at all to any bombs so I think we can rule out anyone who claims to have bombed the car.

Perhaps , when people have had time to digest this info we can go through the various claimants and see how they stand up. The German report is pretty emphatic about the attack being by tgwo aircraft following them directly down the road from Livarot so any claims from aircraft claiming west to east or vice versa attacks can, I think, be safely excluded as can anyone claiming to have made a frontal attack.

The suggestion is that Allied aircraft had been harassing traffic in and out of Livarot for some hours so I wonder which squadrons were the closest to covering that area.

Regards

Ian

 

Hello there,

Is there anything significantly different in the account you have from the one posted on the first page of this thread? Aside from small changes in translation?
After the Battle give it as Lang's (from memory and what I first posted- I'd have to dig out the issue to confirm). To save anyone keep hjaving to refer to page 1 again, here it is:

I think it would be advantageous if we can ghet the original German version. There may be nuances in the original text missed by the translator(s).

Finally, how does this feel for a possible route?



I've stopped on the road to Vimoutiers but not in a specifically relevant place. Continue as far as you see fit.


Cheers

Sean

 

Thanks Sean

Has anyone ever considered it from another angle with reference to timings - what time was Rommel admitted to the French religious hospital, and what do their records show about events that day from their perspective.

I am sure that it cannot be that hard to find the hospital that provided the initial treatment to Rommel, and they would have an admission time on their records, which, if they still exist, must be stored somewhere?

regards

Allan

 

Hello Sean

Well I think the answer to your question is pretty much covered in one of my earlier posts

This is what I said:

In the meantime I have something which I think is probably the definitive German account of the incident. As I have mentioned previously Lang must have had a lot to do with it. Whether or not it relied solely on him I don't know but I would have thought that there was probably input from Neuhaus, possibly Holke and maybe Rommel himself. The most important thing about it is that it was issued by O.U. (presumably Field HQ in this context) and is dated 21st August which is just five weeks after the event.

Much of the content has been quoted previously (via Lang) but since he didn’t appear to speak publicly about it until more than two decades later his comments may not have been seen as set in stone.
However since this report is contemporary and for internal purposes I think we can safely assume that the content is a fair reflection of what actually happened.

It is not smoking gun evidence, as I have said, but it might be very helpful in compiling a more detailed and accurate account. This is why I am being very careful in not deviating from the text of the report (which, by the way, is unsigned).

Now to attempt to answer your question

As far as I can see the previous accounts have all been based on memory and have been treated as such by those interested in the story. However, as far as I can see any official Allied reports (ORBs etc.) have more or less been treated as accurate (which is reasonable). As I said this German report is an official report (compiled just days after the event by those who were in the vehicle itself) read and approved by Rommel and I personally believe should be considered as a reasonable statement of the facts from the German perspective. Possibly there might have been some minor errors and the timings might be a few minutes out perhaps but, apart from that, I think it reflects the incident accurately from the German viewpoint.

As I have already said ‘much of the content has been quoted previously’. So what’s new and how does the report change anything?

1) Full details of the journey and confirmation of some timings are now known.

2) Confirmation that Rommel left Dietrich’s Command Post at 1600. This isn’t new but it is now authoritative.

3) Confirmation that they reached the Livarot ‘region’ at around 1800. This also is not new but it is now. I believe, authoritative. I have seen other accounts which suggest that it arrived there earlier like Lt Heins. There have been discussions concerning what the air observer believed to be the time of arrival etc. However this confirmation does enable us to eliminate claimants whose own records indicate that they were not in the air or vicinity at the critical time which I would suggest was probably around 1815. On this basis I believe we have to eliminate (regrettably) any 602 pilot.

4) The report confirms that the vehicle re-joined the main road 4 kilometres (2.48 miles). This has already been mentioned but again apparently based on memory.

5) By reconstructing the position of the occupants in the car, based partly on this report, we can determine that the attack was made at low level, along the road from Livarot to Vimoutiers. This helps us to eliminate any claimants who might suggest having attacked the car from the southern, western or eastern aspects.

6) There is no mention of any escort vehicles or outriders and I believe that had there been any they would have been mentioned even peripherally. Heins, of course, claims that there were two cars and that Rommel’s adjutants were in the second vehicle. Indeed he claims to have walked up to the car with the adjutants. He also claims the attack was made one mile from Livarot. Clearly he wasn’t there and I believe the content of the report proves this to be the case. Consequently his timings and other aspects of the incident must be considered as unreliable and untrue.

7) Eight ‘fighter bombers’ have previously been mentioned as have the two aircraft which broke away from the formation but now I believe that the report establishes that this was what the occupants of the car saw. In addition the report claims that Allied air activity over Livarot had been extensive and conducted over a period of four hours (i.e. 1400 to 1800). Lang’s account has obviously been published on previous occasions but lacked proof. Similarly Clostermann’s account has been discussed and, other than to accept that he is not always reliable, and, at least part of his account based on hearsay, it is apparent that his story also lacks any concrete evidence.

8) Mention is made of Daniel being ordered to drive at full speed in order to reach ‘a forest track, bending off to the right about 300 metres (328 yards) away’. Lang refers to this as a little side road to the right. Small point yes but’ forest track’ and ‘bending off to the right’ might be useful pointers at some stage. So the actual point of attack was 300 metres and closing from the forest track.

9) The report states that the car ricocheted off a tree stump on the RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD, then veered sharply over to the LEFT SIDE and into a ditch. After the Battle attributes Lang as saying that the car ‘struck the stump of a tree OVER TO THE LEFT OF THE ROAD and then turned over IN A DITCH TO THE RIGHT. Well that’s new!!

10) The report states that Lang and Holke jumped out of the car and TOOK COVER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE ROAD. I believe this comment lends credibility to the car ending up in a ditch on the right hand side of the road. At that moment, a second aircraft flew over the site of the incident peppering those lying on the ground with bullets. ATB quote Lang as saying that a second aircraft flew over and ‘tried to drop bombs on those who were lying on the ground’. I’m not sure how you ‘try to drop bombs’ but clearly, according to the report, there were bullets but no bombs. Consequently I believe that any claimant who may have suggested that any bombing took place can also be eliminated.

11) The report states that it took Lang 45 minutes to commandeer a car to take Rommel to Livarot. If Lt Heins was actually there (he claimed that Rommel was taken ‘straight back to Livarot’) you might wonder why they didn’t use his vehicle or the one allegedly containing the adjutants which was following Rommel’s car! The 45 minute wait also serves to confirm, I believe, that there were no escort vehicles.

Well hopefully I’ve thrown up some discussion points and answered your question Sean.

Regarding your suggestion of establishing timings relating to the French Hospital Allan I have just had a quick look at that and I think we need to review the evidence as to where he was taken immediately after the accident. That also appears to be a controversial issue. Perhaps we can come back to that after there has been an evaluation of my response to Sean’s point.

Regards

Ian

 

There is always the chance I typed it out wrong.... I'll dig out the issue if I can find it and verify.
Could you type out or copy in full the version you have please, Ian?
Is it from a published source?
Still would like to see the German original...

Cheers for now,

Sean

 

Hi Sean

You didn't type it out incorrectly. I have that copy of ATB and quoted it from there.

This is the extract which relates to Item 9. 'er prallte zunachst gegen einen Baumstump auf der rechten Strassenseite und fuhr dann in scharfem Winkel auf die linke Strassenseite in der Graben.'

The extract comes from an official German report on the incident and, as I have mentioned previously, it was probably compiled by Lang perhaps with input from the other surviving occupants of the vehicle.

I would prefer not to exhibit a copy of the report at the moment Sean because it will then have been published and, as far as I am aware, it has not been published previously although I imagine there are other copies about. It seems to me that Lang had a copy and referred to it from time to time but subsequently he appears to have deviated from it.

I am rather confused over the ATB article.

They quote Lang as saying ' Daniel was told to put on speed and turn off on to a little side road to the right about 300 yards ahead of us which would give us some shelter'. Further on ATB state ' There we walked along the road, still the same width as 1944, to where the attack started. Then we passed the turning on the left, which in 1944 was covered with trees and to which Daniel was racing for cover. Attacked before they could reach the lane, the car swerved down the hill crashing into a tree (since removed) on the left hand side of the road by a bridge over a tributary of the River Vie’. There is a photo of Alan Roudeix standing at the site of the tree on the left hand side of the road.
On the aerial photo ATB depict several important locations. Unfortunately there is no scale indication so it is difficult to work out distances. However it illustrates the point at which the attack allegedly commenced. This appears to be just before the junction with the road to Lisores. Opposite the junction ATB state 'Driver Daniel races to reach the safety of the road to Lisores covered by trees in 1944'. Clearly all this is at variance with the existing accounts of the incident. ATB appear to explain part of this by stating that two long-time residents of the area (Gerard Roger and Alan Roudeix) could not reconcile Lang’s suggested route with the roads in the area. Roudeix is also credited with witnessing the attack. In 1970 Lang made a return visit to Normandy. At this time accompanied by Roger and Roudeix ATB explain that Lang ‘realised he had given an incorrect route in his report on the incident’.

I’m not sure if I’ve got this right but…..

1) The ‘forest track, bending off to the right about 300 metres away’ now apparently becomes the tree lined road to Lisores which (according to the 1975 aerial photo) is a straightforward left hand fork off the Livarot – Vimoutiers road which doesn’t seem to be bending anywhere!

2) If the locations on the 1975 aerial photo are anywhere close to accurate I can’t see why Daniel didn’t take the left fork which is appears to be very close to where the attack started.

3) However it seems that Daniel wasn’t able to take the turning and lost control after he had passed it. The German report however states that the attack started before they reached the turning. Daniel must have lost control immediately. Despite not knowing the scale of the aerial photo it seems that having lost control of the car it miraculously managed to travel, in a straight line, a very, very long way including going over a bridge and down a hill! Or have I got that wrong?

4) The official report is quite clear that the car ricocheted off a tree stump on the RIGHT hand side of the road. Interestingly in 1970 Lang doesn’t mention on which side of the road the stump was on but he does say the car skidded over to the left of the road and then turned over in a ditch on the right. If the tree stump was on the right what is Roudeix doing being photographed where the car crashed into the tree (apparently removed!) on the LEFT hand side of the road. Incidentally, given the detail in the German report one might have thought that mention would have been made of the bridge they went over AND the hill they went down!

5) In Lang’s 1970 account he indicates that the car turned over in a ditch on the RIGHT. In 1944 the official report quite clearly states that the car veered sharply over to the LEFT side and into a ditch.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted some of these things and, if I have, I would welcome any contributions which clarify the situation.

Regards

Ian

 

I find it interesting that the German report indicates Explosive Shells,
"The aircraft’s cone of high explosive fire hit mostly the left half of the vehicle. Sergeant Daniel was hit in the left shoulder and left arm. Field Marshal Rommel was wounded by glass splinters in the face and sustained a hit to the left temple and cheekbone. Acharge exploded on the pistol holster Major Neuhus was wearing on his back, resulting in a broken cheekbone. "

P-47s do not use cannons and .50 cal bullets do not explode. Therefore it is most likely a Typhoon with 20mm cannon. Another source to consider would be if the vehicle or passengers were hit by bullets. If it is .303 cal then they are British Aircraft, .50 cal then US aircraft.

As far as diving into a ditch I would go to the ditch opposite of the vehicle wreck as the aircraft would target the vehicle not individuals even if it means crossing the road.

 

Hi Dale

Thanks for that. You have made a very important point which might also help to eliminate any claimants flying P-47s. I haven’t studied the claimants in detail yet. I thought it would be best to carry out this evaluation first before moving on to a more comprehensive analysis of them.

Incidentally what armament were the Spitfires equipped with?

There is no mention of anybody being wounded by anything other than explosive shells. As far as I can establish neither Holke nor Lang were injured. The only mention of bullets relates to the second aircraft who apparently ‘peppered those lying on the ground with bullets’.

Looking back at my point 10 I see that I made a mistake. I said ‘The report states that Lang and Holke jumped out of the car and TOOK COVER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE ROAD. I believe this comment lends credibility to the car ending up in a ditch on the right hand side of the road.’ In fact I meant to say that the comment lends credibility to the car ending up in a ditch on the LEFT hand side of the road. My reasoning was the same as that put forward by you Dale.

I noticed that previously Pat had displayed signs of uneasiness over the accepted location of the incident.

When Roger and Roudeix had difficulty in reconciling the route given by Lang in 1970 it seems that they gave him a bit of ‘a leg up’ by Roudeix helpfully identifying the location and, as he had allegedly been a witness, pointing out important features. ATB’s description of what Roudeix witnessed seems a little ‘wooly’ to me and , having done some more work on the part Roudeix claimed to have played in finding medical assistance for Rommel, I am also a little reticent in accepting him as a reliable witness. However more on that later.

In the meantime is it possible, as Pat has mentioned previously, that the incident happened somewhere else?

I am beginning to come to that conclusion.