page_title: Battle of Villers-Bocage
section_title: Tactics
hierarchical_section_title: Battle of Villers-Bocage / Analysis / Tactics
caption_attribution_description: Information added by Wikimedia users.Pkz IV not a Tiger I/E [it was at Villers-Bocage with the Tigers]
context_page_description: The Battle of Villers-Bocage took place during the Second World War on 13 June 1944, one week after the Normandy Landings, which had begun the Western Allies' conquest of German-occupied France. The battle was the result of a British attempt to improve their position by exploiting a gap in the German defences west of the city of Caen. After one day of fighting in and around the small town of Villers-Bocage and a second day defending a position outside the town, the British force retreated.
  The Allies and the Germans regarded control of Caen as vital to the Normandy battle. In the days following the D-Day landings on 6 June, the Germans rapidly established strong defences in front of the city. On 9 June, a two-pronged British attempt to surround and capture Caen was defeated. On the right flank of the British Second Army, the 1st US Infantry Division had forced back the German 352nd Infantry Division and opened a gap in the German front line.
context_section_description: Beevor and Patrick Delaforce have written that the ambush would have been mitigated had it been detected sooner and blame "Erskine's failure to provide [a] reconnaissance screen" ahead of the British vanguard as it moved to Point 213. Marie wrote that the British vanguard out-paced the rest of the Brigade group, whose flanks were well protected and advanced with poor information and little intelligence gathering. Milner of the Rifle Brigade wrote that information was not gleaned from the town's inhabitants when it should have been and that had the battalion scout platoon been present, the result of the first engagement may have been different. Milner also wrote that the first attack could have been repulsed had the battalion officers and NCOs been with their men instead of with the O-group on the ridge. Buckley wrote that while Wittmann showed great audacity, the causes of the British defeat were broader and that the British were to blame for the failure at Villers-Bocage, not superior German tanks. Hastings wrote that although the Tiger was "incomparably" more deadly than the Cromwell, the "shambles" caused by the Tigers reflected poorly on the tactics of the British force and that the
  German achievement on 13/14 June had been that, while heavily outnumbered in the sector as a whole, they successfully kept the British everywhere feeling insecure and off-balance, while concentrating sufficient forces to dominate the decisive points. The British, in their turn, failed to bring sufficient forces to bear on these."
  Marie noted that Dempsey was disappointed in the lack of tactical flair shown by Brigadier Hinde throughout the battle and that the British should have known better than to attempt an armoured advance unsupported by infantry in the bocage. The British fought an uncoordinated infantry and tank battle during the morning and the Germans did much the same throughout the day.
  Schneider described the contribution of the 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion to the battle as "everything but awe-inspiring". The Tiger companies and the Panzer-Lehr Division averted a serious British breakthrough but there was no need for the German counter-attack to have been piecemeal. Möbius and the 1st Company was in command of the road to Caen so Wittmann had time to plan a coordinated attack. Schneider wrote that "a competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes". By putting the Tigers in a sunken lane overnight, with a vehicle with engine trouble at the head of the column, Wittmann risked blocking the company. Schneider called the advance by Wittmann into the town courageous but that it went "against all the rules". No intelligence was gathered beforehand and there was no "centre of gravity" or "concentration of forces" in the attack. "The bulk of the 2nd Company and Rolf Möbius' 1st Company, came up against an enemy who had gone onto the defensive".
  Wittmann's "carefree" advance into British-occupied positions, was "pure folly" and "such over hastiness was uncalled for". Had Wittmann properly prepared an assault involving the rest of his company and the 1st Company, far greater results could have been achieved. "[T]houghtlessness of this kind was to cost [Wittmann] his life [in] August ... near Gaumesnil, during an attack casually launched in open country with an exposed flank". Meyer wrote that the 2nd Company advance into the town without infantry support was "obviously inexpedient". Marie called this a serious tactical error by Möbius but that it was a justifiable risk under the circumstances. Infantry were unavailable and the British could have been expected to still be "under the devastating impression of seeing [their] vanguard totally destroyed in such a short time".
caption: A knocked out Panzer IV in Villers-Bocage
exif: {}