Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There are actually three British studies conducted by British Army survey teams on Panther losses. Two done during Normandy and one in the Ardennes.

Over the thre surveys they found 63 Panthers with AP as cause of loss, while destroyed or abandoned by crew accounted for 103. Aircraft rockets accounted for 11 (with aircraft cannons getting 3) and hollow charge projectiles only 8, less than HE which was ascertained to have knocked-out 11. Finally 24 Panthers were listed as destroyed by unknown cause.

They are some awful statistics, just goes to show that a spooked tank crew is more dangerous and unpredictable than many people realise.

Well standerd response of any WW2 tank crew when hit, is generally to bail out first, then see if its damaged.

Not sit in it hoping it aint. Unless youre in a Tiger I. They are pretty much impervious.

Its part of the reason that despite large losses of tanks, the loss of Allied crews was not strictly comparable. Most bailed out and eventually went and got a new tank... Certainly during Goodwood, one British officer had three Shermans shot out from under him.

The funny thing about Normandy is that the Germans suffered utter panic about Allied air attacks and abandoned tanks at the sound of them.

However aircraft had virtually no chance of hitting a target on the ground that was tank sized. In tests on a stationary target, 30ft square, the British found that a Typhoon firing all its rockets in a single salvo at the target had a 3% chance of registering a hit. On a moving target chances were almost nil. Losses of ground attack planes were enourmous as they tried to make up for the poor accuracy of their weapons. Over 3000 ground attack aircraft were lost by the Allies in Normandy to German flak.

US 2nd TACAIR lost 829 and US 9th Air lost 897 on their own over Normandy.

During the Mortain counter-attack, the US claimed 112 and the British 140 tanks destroyed by aircraft... After action survey teams found that only 46 had been lost in total and of those, only nine had been hit by air weapons.

Of couse against columns of vehicles and trains, rockets could prove effective, but the safest place to be in Normandy during an attack by a ground attack plane, was in a tank.

Of the 40 Tiger Is in Normandy, only one was hit by an air weapon and that was a heavy bomb.

I've read some 1st hand witness accounts by the Canadian Sherbrooke Armoured unit around Caen, alot of them talk about taking multiple hits from Panthers and didn't talk about bailing, and some of the stories had them driving around French villages with new ventilation and view ports punched in their sides.

And?

I can point you too a myriad of accounts that say the opposite. Try Dr John Buckleys' 'British Armour in Normandy' for starters, as its also a great one for showing the true reason for Sherman fires, and its nothing to do with the petrol engines but the ammo stowage.


With a Sherman, you got out first, then if it wasnt on fire, went back and checked if it was still a runner. If it was, you got back in. If it wasnt, you went back to get another...

Common sense would indicate that you GTFO when a new light source has been added to your previously well armoured vehicle.

Will do, having a look in Ian Allen for that book tomorrow, thanks for the reference.

mwnciboo wrote:Will do, having a look in Ian Allen for that book tomorrow, thanks for the reference.

Let me know if you need help locating a copy... It was pretty pricey.

(I bought it,but only cos I got a name check in the Forward... I used to work with John lecturing on Normandy).

Whats the ISBN? If you've got it to hand. I'm getting alot of hits for British Armour in Normandy, but not by the Author you put forward. I'm sure it's there but the ISBN would help me zone in on it, especially if it's out of print.

First hit on Google...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Armour-Normandy-Campaign-Buckley/dp/0714653233

Big P wrote:With a Sherman, you got out first, then if it wasnt on fire, went back and checked if it was still a runner. If it was, you got back in. If it wasnt, you went back to get another...

Are you really saying that tank crews routinely abandoned their tanks under enemy fire just because something bounced off the armour? I take your point about the number of crews that were issued replacement tanks during offensives like Goodwood. But remember the statistics for the probability of a penetrating hit and the probability of subsequently brewing up. Unfortunately, if a Sherman took a hit at all, the chances were it that it would penetrate the tank (after all, it was going to be at least a 75mm AP shell and quite possibly something worse). And Sherman crews bailed if their tank took a penetrating hit because the odds were that it was going to brew up - and was usually in the process of doing so when the crew were exiting. There was also a good chance that at least one of the crew was already dead (on average one crewman was killed with every Sherman knocked out).

The original point concerned the reason for Panther losses. The evidence seems to suggest that most were abandoned due to breakdowns or lack of fuel (that was certainly the case in the Ardennes). Which indicates how formidable they were - and how they overtaxed the Germans' ability to keep them in combat.

Yes, if the crew felt a hit from a high calibre AP or HE round they would abandoned it dependant on the type of vehicle of course, but the last place you want to be is in a burning tank. With late-war German tanks, especially Panthers non-pentarting hits could do as much damage as the low grade steel used in the armour production often caused spalling inside the tank.

Panthers and Panzer IVs were as likely to burn from a pentrating hit as a Sherman.

The problem is, in those few milliseconds after a hit, you dont know whether it has penetrated or indeed if anything has happened... and its those seconds that you waste wondering that can save your life.

US Sherman crews played on this by firing smoke and Willie Pete rounds at German tanks, especially Panthers, with the reultant bang on the armour and big plume of smoke making the German crew bail out thinking they had been hit and were on fire.

Crews would get out, if the situation required it and assess the damage. The more experienced the crew, often the quicker they could make these decisions, and the quicker you get out of a tank in WW2, often the better your chance of surviving a hit. So, especially with Allied tank crews, discretion was most certainly the order of the day, as was living to fight again.

Small Arms fire would also make tanks beat a retreat as evidenced by the actions at Calais in 1940 when Bren Gun fire drove off several attacks by Panzer IIs. This same tactic is repeated in NWE during 1944 and US troops often engaged German armour with MG fire in order to close it down and force it to retire, as tank crews realised that heavy small arms fire indicated infantry in close proximity and likely pinning of their own supporting infantry.

On Panther losses, the British reports do not indicate either of your suppositions. No evidence can prove that they were abandoned due to this as it is unknown, we can only surmise that some broke down or ran out of fuel, we cannot state that it was the case in the majority, only offer it as a possibility. Indeed many were simply lost due to a lack of getting them over the Seine and other rivers. Some were also lost through stupidity, such as Ernst Barkmann when he tried to tow another Panther with his own, despite it being against orders, and promptly overstrained his own Panther that burst into flames and sprad to the other tank, eventually destroying both.

I was searching for British Armour in Normandy not British Armour in the Normandy Campaign. I even used amazon, bizarre. Anyway thanks, and yes that is expensive not quite as expensive as a few of my Staff College pieces but the wrong side of expensive. Yikes.

"Some were also lost through stupidity, such as Ernst Barkmann when he tried to tow another Panther with his own, despite it being against orders, and promptly overstrained his own Panther that burst into flames and sprad to the other tank, eventually destroying both."

That's interesting. What source do you have for this? W. Fey (in Armour Battles of the Waffen SS) records this as two Panthers in tow, (Barkmann's already damaged by Sherman fire). Pak fire killed one of the tows, the second had to be blown up, and Barkmann's' brewed up through an ammunition fire, with the crews walking through American lines and wading across the Gulf of Avranches, which is explained in his Knight's Cross citation.

Ah yes... But Willi Fey also talks about 'Barkmann's Corner' and the battle that was... How shall we say... Embellished?

Dont get me started on the Waffen-SS 'Tank Ace' propaganda machine, started by Goebbels and still perpetuated today by historians who cant be arsed to do some proper checking.

Haven't read that far into the book to be honest lol. I just recognised the reference.

I imagine most reports are written in the most favorable light by whichever side writes them. (Nobody wants to write "Was engaged by small boy with fireworks, panicked and bailed out of my fully operational MBT.") but the tale is that a Knights Cross was awarded for this action. Post-war propaganda notwithstanding, I would have expected that the "Knights Cross" people would have expected some decent corroborating evidence before they just handed out a medal? How suspect then is the citation itself? Or any medal citation awarded by Germany? 'Evil Empire' they may be, but it seems unlikely that the whole nation was just making things up to sound cooler all the time.

Oh dont believe they were above it.

Several aviation historians I know believe they upped Hans Ulrich Rudels tally by giving him all the kills from his entire squadron.

These men were the 'Beckhams' of the war, they drove civilian morale and were superstars. After Villers-Bocage, Wittmann was pulled out of the line to go on a tour of German factories to urge the workers on. Its a credit to the little Nazi that he quickly put the kybosh on it and was back in the line very quickly, only to get stuck one from a Firefly while being too cocky.

Wittmans account of Villers-Bocage, written at Panzer Lehr HQ that afternoon, is very different from the version later released and much of the latter version is utter balls, such as him returning to Villers-Bocage, Panzerfaust in hand, dealing death after losing his tank.

Wittmann wasnt stupid. Once his tank was immobile he legged it to report back. The tanks that returned later in the afternoon were from 1st Kompanie, not 2nd as Wittmanns.

Now many great and valourous deeds were certainly committed for the Third Reich, and most awards were well deserved, but they were not above embellishing the facts to make it even more astounding and to feed the civilian desire for heroes...

Nazi propaganda was a truly awesome piece of work, so well done that many historians still swallow it up now. Take a read of Gordon Williamson's account of Villers-Bocage in his book 'Aces of the Reich' and then compare it to Dan Taylor's forensic examination of the battle in 'Villers-Bocage through the Lense' or Patrick Agte's account using German sources in 'Wittmann and the Tiger Commanders of the LAH'.

Just adding in my two pennies worth, having written more than my fair share of AAR you'd be surprised how often a more Senior Officer red pens something sends it back and says amend this. Often for political or media reasons, I remember getting one report back because it was too positive and the implication was that it made the rest of the units on the deployment sound as if they were at best lazy or at worst ineffective.

Equally, I've seen acts of bravery that should have resulted in accolades and awards only to be written up as "Contact was made with enemy by unit x , the enemy was taken under effective fire and quit the field".

There are also some stock phrases you see after a while in British Reports that are quite amusing. The British lines of understatement run through many reports and once you get a feel for it, it becomes very funny. A dangerous situation would often be described as "A bit sporty", heavy fire would be described as "lively" and significant engagements would be described as "Parties". The irreverence has often struck me as part of the British way of life, and it's always present on the Battlefield when Brits are about. The Royal Engineer Sgt who goes forward to diffuse an IED, and while the lads are shouting cut the red wire, he shouts back "You bastards, I'm colour blind." Everyone looks at each other and retreats a further 100 metres. So you wonder who has the better banter.

"Jav' it" army/marine speak from their invented verb "to Jave" e.g shoot a Javelin AT missile into a position.

Politics and the Military go hand in hand at all levels. Glad I've left that circus of madness.

Its still a bit of a jump to "heroic escape" from "screwing up several tanks at once through sheer stupidity" though, even for a propaganda machine. That's a bit more than "embellishing facts". I've read allied reports with vastly inflated kill-rates and ludicrously over-exaggerated "Tiger Counts" , which is much more an "embellishment". I can't recall many that turn a complete screw up into a victory (unless one counts Dunkirk perhaps..)

So, based on the fact that a citation does exist, why does Barkmanns "stupid towing stunt" merit being worked into a premium award, as opposed to any other case of disobeying orders and ignoring instructions? Is there not a potential problem that by handing out dubious awards, one might encourage other soldiers to actively disobey instructions and bugger up expensive equipment? ("Of course Panthers will float Hans. We might even get a medal for crossing this river! Barkmann got one, and he broke his tank towing another one!" Yes I know it SAYS do not immerse in water...*splash* glubglubglub." ) .

I did read an interesting comment in a write-up about Wittmann that where a British commander might stick his neck out, screw up and get killed, he would be lambasted as a fool and a poor soldier..but a German commander in the same situation is "dying a heroes death" and such like, regardless of whether its a contemporary report, or some BF fluff 70 years later.

(I'm not particularly questioning your sources BTW, I'm just looking at them from multiple angles as an exercise in source-analysis.)

(Ninja'd by Mwinc..If anything British reports do tend to massively underplay their "heroics" in a typically understated British way, and try for an "everyone doing their bit" feel, commensurate with their not having "aces")

If you want pure fantasy, then look at the 'kill' tallies claimed by ground attack pilots in Normandy.

Utter rubbish. All sides were very loose when it came to varifiable claims. Its why the British developed battlefield survey teams who would examine the battlefield after the fighting. I remember one anecdotal comment told to me by a US tanker. He remembered a knocked-out Panther in a hedgerow just round a bend in a road. He was leading a column and had pulled off the road to watch the terrain ahead. Every tank that came round the corner, halted and opened fire on the Panther wreck. He was in no doubt that every tank crew had claimed the kill.

Barkmann suffers from issues more to do with 'Barkmann's Corner' than anything else. The towing Panther stunt is a side issue, and the truth is somewhere in between I suspect.

This action, as described by him, fails to tally with the American primary sources... and even some German ones. In the area where he suppossedly knocks out a column of Shermans, none were reported lost on the day he cites.

There is more to it than just that, but recent research seems to point to a little embellishment.

There is an interesting thread on it here;

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1360781

The "tank" unit that Barkmann "delayed" was Troop A, 4th Cavalry Squadron (Mecz), reinforced by one platoon of E Troop (two M8 HMC) and one platoon of F Company (five M5 Light Tanks), reinforced by Battery B, 391st Field Artillery (correction: that should have been six M7 GMC). The troop was screening the flank of the southward advance by the 1st ID and CCB, 3rd AD on Marigny and southwest to Coutances and wasn't very interested in advancing due west. There was no record of air support being available and none was called for so if Barkmann was attacked by aircraft it was by accident.

1st Platoon lost four "vehicles" including two tanks and 3rd Platoon lost all its 1/4-ton GP. So Barkmann's score was actually two M5 Light Tanks, two M8 AC or GP, and six GP; ten vehicles in total. At least he got the numbers close to correct.

By that evening Marigny had fallen and the advance by the 1st ID and CCB continued west along the Coutances-Marigny Road with little interference, well south of La Lorey, turning north in the afternoon and seizing Comprond, well behind Barkmann. I'm not sure I could characterize his actions as a delay, let alone as significant, since A Troop accomplished its mission successfully.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its still a bit of a jump to "heroic escape" from "screwing up several tanks at once through sheer stupidity" though, even for a propaganda machine. That's a bit more than "embellishing facts". I've read allied reports with vastly inflated kill-rates and ludicrously over-exaggerated "Tiger Counts" , which is much more an "embellishment". I can't recall many that turn a complete screw up into a victory (unless one counts Dunkirk perhaps..)

So, based on the fact that a citation does exist, why does Barkmanns "stupid towing stunt" merit being worked into a premium award, as opposed to any other case of disobeying orders and ignoring instructions? Is there not a potential problem that by handing out dubious awards, one might encourage other soldiers to actively disobey instructions and bugger up expensive equipment? ("Of course Panthers will float Hans. We might even get a medal for crossing this river! Barkmann got one, and he broke his tank towing another one!" Yes I know it SAYS do not immerse in water...*splash* glubglubglub." ) .

I did read an interesting comment in a write-up about Wittmann that where a British commander might stick his neck out, screw up and get killed, he would be lambasted as a fool and a poor soldier..but a German commander in the same situation is "dying a heroes death" and such like, regardless of whether its a contemporary report, or some BF fluff 70 years later.

(I'm not particularly questioning your sources BTW, I'm just looking at them from multiple angles as an exercise in source-analysis.)

(Ninja'd by Mwinc..If anything British reports do tend to massively underplay their "heroics" in a typically understated British way, and try for an "everyone doing their bit" feel, commensurate with their not having "aces"

Your applying common sense to the Nazi Party and lets face it common sense was in pretty short supply in 1944 Berlin

Alot of AAR do not tally, we cannot even be sure who shot Wittmann. Once the ordnance starts flying people tend to stop taking accurate records, equally what you see in your slice of the pie and your lack of Situational awareness means you often get the wrong end of the stick when watching things unfold in front of you. Equally I think a combination of Adrenaline and Stress leads to timelines getting warped too.

On the subject of fighter jocks, specifically mud movers they will always been overly positive. They have no idea if they hit the target or knocked it out when they dive in at 400mph and zip off. The same with Tankers. The A10 is afghanistan is good, but its more of an area effect weapon and you call it in, and it levels an entire village but misses the bloody compound you wanted annexed. Maybe I am to blame too, I have often been in a position to correct a subordinate's assertions about what happened but have been too tired, or didn't want to burst a morale bubble that I let it lie.

Big P wrote:If you want pure fantasy, then look at the 'kill' tallies claimed by ground attack pilots in Normandy.

Utter rubbish. All sides were very loose when it came to varifiable claims. Its why the British developed battlefield survey teams who would examine the battlefield after the fighting. I remember one anecdotal comment told to me by a US tanker. He remembered a knocked-out Panther in a hedgerow just round a bend in a road. He was leading a column and had pulled off the road to watch the terrain ahead. Every tank that came round the corner, halted and opened fire on the Panther wreck. He was in no doubt that every tank crew had claimed the kill.

Barkmann suffers from issues more to do with 'Barkmann's Corner' than anything else. The towing Panther stunt is a side issue, and the truth is somewhere in between I suspect.

This action, as described by him, fails to tally with the American primary sources... and even some German ones. In the area where he suppossedly knocks out a column of Shermans, none were reported lost on the day he cites.

There is more to it than just that, but recent research seems to point to a little embellishment.

There is an interesting thread on it here;

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1360781

The "tank" unit that Barkmann "delayed" was Troop A, 4th Cavalry Squadron (Mecz), reinforced by one platoon of E Troop (two M8 HMC) and one platoon of F Company (five M5 Light Tanks), reinforced by Battery B, 391st Field Artillery (correction: that should have been six M7 GMC). The troop was screening the flank of the southward advance by the 1st ID and CCB, 3rd AD on Marigny and southwest to Coutances and wasn't very interested in advancing due west. There was no record of air support being available and none was called for so if Barkmann was attacked by aircraft it was by accident.

1st Platoon lost four "vehicles" including two tanks and 3rd Platoon lost all its 1/4-ton GP. So Barkmann's score was actually two M5 Light Tanks, two M8 AC or GP, and six GP; ten vehicles in total. At least he got the numbers close to correct.

By that evening Marigny had fallen and the advance by the 1st ID and CCB continued west along the Coutances-Marigny Road with little interference, well south of La Lorey, turning north in the afternoon and seizing Comprond, well behind Barkmann. I'm not sure I could characterize his actions as a delay, let alone as significant, since A Troop accomplished its mission successfully.

I'm sure I found reference to that same multiple-killed Panther in either the Waffen SS book, or Meyers 12th SS History (but I forget exactly which.). I've certainly heard that tale before in one form or another, and not from the same source, obviously.

On Barkmann's "score", I assume then that Barkmann's crew must have had to either collude or be brow-beaten into agreeing with whatever tally was cited?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aldramelech wrote: Your applying common sense to the Nazi Party and lets face it common sense was in pretty short supply in 1944 Berlin

No, I'm applying bureaucracy and bloody-mindedness to the Nazi Party/Wermacht, and there was a surplus of that.

I can see the fact that Berlin and the propaganda machine would like to turn failure into success, and success into medals, and tankers into aces. Its an understandable move. I'm also aware of the "devaluation" of things like the Iron Cross 2nd Class, as they were increasingly awarded to party officials for shuffling paper and so forth. What I am looking at is the balance between Nazi Propaganda as media spin ("GI's like to read about dead officers. Make it a General..") and those responsible for determining from a report and recommendation whether a high-status award was earned. For example, Williamson records that the Vorschlag had to travel through nearly the whole chain of command before it got an "approved!" from AH himself. (Divisional, korps, OKW, you name it.) Thus a story that appeared to be bunkum would surely run into some skepticism somewhere along that route? Perhaps the relative rarity of Knights Cross awards is a sign of that? And plenty of the people reviewing the case would no doubt be well aware of the risk (or even dishonor?) of devaluing an award by using it as a propaganda tool.

(It strikes me that if towing ONE Panther with another was liable to strain the tank, then towing two definitely would. )

The thing is why would anyone who was part of the system of the Nazi war machine in late 1944 question anything?

You are dealing with a state, where the media was a fundamental key to its control and policy making. It was not media as we know it, but a means of population assimilation and control.

If the embellishments in turn help to propagate the correct view and raise civilian morale, what is the harm for those in power?

You have to remember the entire system is based on the cult of the personality, from its leader to its foot soldiers.

By showing off these 'Warrior Knights' the Nazi propaganda machine was able to show exactly what it wanted to... You will also notice that those accounts that vary from reality seem to be mainly confined to Waffen-SS personnel. I have often wondered if in that lies the key, that Goebbels had more control of what was issued regarding Waffen-SS fighters.

Of course many deserved their awards and a little embelishment here and there, should not distract from the bravery shown by many, albeit in the service of a despicable regime.

But that is by no means to say they are the only ones. Hans von Luck made himself a fortune with his memoirs and was never one to let truth get in the way of a good story.

"By showing off these 'Warrior Knights' the Nazi propaganda machine was able to show exactly what it wanted to... You will also notice that those accounts that vary from reality seem to be mainly confined to Waffen-SS personnel. I have often wondered if in that lies the key, that Goebbels had more control of what was issued regarding Waffen-SS fighters."

I think you hit the nail there on the head. The propaganda machine was the Nazis and the Nazis were the propaganda machine. By extension, the SS was the Nazis and vice versa. Therefore, any propaganda that puffed up the SS inflated the Nazis as a whole. It was all self fullfilling.

Big P wrote:The thing is why would anyone who was part of the system of the Nazi war machine in late 1944 question anything?

You are dealing with a state, where the media was a fundamental key to its control and policy making. It was not media as we know it, but a means of population assimilation and control.

If the embellishments in turn help to propagate the correct view and raise civilian morale, what is the harm for those in power?

You have to remember the entire system is based on the cult of the personality, from its leader to its foot soldiers.

By showing off these 'Warrior Knights' the Nazi propaganda machine was able to show exactly what it wanted to... You will also notice that those accounts that vary from reality seem to be mainly confined to Waffen-SS personnel. I have often wondered if in that lies the key, that Goebbels had more control of what was issued regarding Waffen-SS fighters.

Of course many deserved their awards and a little embelishment here and there, should not distract from the bravery shown by many, albeit in the service of a despicable regime.

But that is by no means to say they are the only ones. Hans von Luck made himself a fortune with his memoirs and was never one to let truth get in the way of a good story.

What I'm pondering here is the damage to morale and discipline in a unit where foolishness and stupidly disobeying orders would merit the nations highest accolade, or where the wrong sort of actions are actively encouraged by reward. Surely even in the SS there must have been officers who were more concerned with that than whether they could make the idiot who ruined three panthers in an afternoon look good? The civilians reading the newspaper might not see this aspect, but the rest of an individuals unit certainly would. So in the ase of say.. Wittman, we have a tanker who did indeed kill several enemy armored units, and achieve a military success. The story gets knobs on it, shiny brass ones, but essentially its a successful military task that should have received a medal citation. Barkmann ruins three tanks in short order by disobeying tow instructions, and somehow his superiors translate this into "Iron Cross material."?

You do have a point about the hierarchy in the two groups though. The Heer is "old school", the SS is a Nazi toy. Thus its likely that the more "sensible" Heer would not forward men guilty of stupid actions for medals..they would discipline them.

Look at any book on German tank aces... and see if it actually has the top scoring ace in it.

Gordon Williamson's book 'Aces of the Reich' lists Wittmann as the top tank ace.

Which is bollocks.

At best he was third behind two Heer Tiger aces. Otto Carius is generally accepted to be second, but the highest scoring ace - Kurt Knispel - is rarely mentioned.

Why?

Simply put he was a Heer soldier, who didnt like the limelight, shunned attempts at fame and left it to the SS glory boys to hog the limelight.

Not only that be he had a record of being againsyt the regime, he is even reputed to have beaten up an Einsatzgruppen Officer who he saw mistreating POWs. He also threw conformity in the face of the Nazis... He wore his hair longer than allowed and grew a goatee beard.

It is said only his combat record stopped him being in a military prison. His lowest estimated kill count is 168, but some sources place it as high as 195.



He died in his Tiger II fighting the Russians in 1945.

For me, he is the true tank ace and the one that books should focus on instead of jumped up little Nazi fanboys like Wittmann.

He is the original 'Oddball'

Is that beard actually "anti-Nazi" or just anti-authority though? If i recall correctly beards have always been a bit of a no-no in the German Army, since well before the Nazis.

Anti-establishment is the phrase you want.

On facial hair, its the same in the British Armed forces (sometimes relaxed on Campaign). The only British Army unit allowed Beards are the Pioneers, Royal Navy are allowed beards but not mustaches and the Army is allowed Mustaches and not Beards. RAF are too young to grow anything. All terribly archaic, until you goto the Dutch or Belgian Armed forces and it's a but much goatee's ear rings etc it's like being in 18th century pirate band.