![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
These links need to be updated. They have apparently been moved. I would have done it my self but I don't know how. :( -- Brian 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I know of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion and the Canadian Forestry Corps at the battle of the Ardennes, why is Canada not listed with Britain and the USA? Wouldn't seem fair... if you can recognize the British at Vimy Ridge with 1 brigade out of 11, you can recognize Canada at the battle of the Ardennes. We don't want to have a double standard at wikipedia do we?
guess the person who wrote this doesn't believe in Canadians
==Source for the Wereth 11?==The assertion regarding the Wereth 11 needs a source. It sounds made up. AaronCBurke 18:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I am "messing" with the US Army casualty figures. The figures I am providing are from an official US Army source, and are consistent with those reported in other official US Army sources including the Army's Official Report on Casualties in WWII.
Don't trust internet sources. They are often wrong.
Best Regards, Philippsbour
Do you think any historian would agree on that number?
1310 Hours 28 March, 2006
Professional military historians work from primary sources as much as possible. In the case of casualty figures, the primary sources are official sources. After all, who counted the dead, wounded, missing, and captured? The U.S. Army. Yes, there are no absolute, hard casualty figures for any battle, but the best we have are those recorded by the U.S. Army, and even they vary somewhat. But they vary only by a relatively small amount, not by tens of thousands, as you would suggest. So the answer to your question is that any professional military historian who has half a brain will have to accept these figures. How else can they arrive at a number? Magic?
Best Regards, Philippsbourg
How long has these numbers been around, since what, a week after the battle? And also you must not think so high about military historians because many would dismiss that number.
1330 Hours, 28 March, 2006
One of the common problems, other than my own in adding the numbers incorrectly, is the tendency for the total casualties for both the Ardennes-Alsace campaigns to be added together. Sometimes this is compounded by using figures for the entire theater, rather than the individual campaigns themselves. Yet another is the confusion of double counting casualty figures for units that passed from one command to another. And yet another is the double counting of MIAs who were also POWs, who were also WIA or KIA. All of these things serve to complicate the task of getting to the "more correct" numbers.
I prefer to stick with the official figures for a variety of reasons, including the fact that this reflects the US Army's ability to tally its casualties very quickly using Morning Reports.
Doubling the number of the official numbers without some serious research on which to base them seems to be a poor way to write history.
I forgot to add that the "Medical Service in the ETO" history that I cited was published in 1992.
Best Regards, Philippsbourg
Is the german casulties "official figures"? I ave read 3 books today that says 81,000 casulties for the allies in the battle of the bulge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.112.74 ( talk)
The numbers in the battlebox are pulled from Parker's book listed in the bibliography. I can find the page if anyone is that curious, but basically pull any legitimate history of the battle and you get figures of oh 70-120 K on either side. Revisionst history certainly has a place, but not in a mainstream article. To contend that the casualty figures are roughly half of accepted figures would deserve its own article and also to be at all consistent would need to encompass standard casualty counting methods throughout the war. Tangerinebunny 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have checked several books now and nothing comes close to your number that there were 30,000 US casulties, absolutley nothing. The lowest number i found was about 75,000. I find it very very hard to belive that it would be just 30,000 US casulties when everything ellse says that its not so. To present this at Wikipedia would lower their credablility.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but I was reading the Battle of the Bulge article on Encarta 2006 and this was written: “Managing to avoid being cut off by an Allied pincer movement, the Germans withdrew to their own lines in January, but heavy losses, including some 220,000 casualties, contributed to their final collapse in the following spring.” I'm just curious why their casualty number is so much higher than the one here.
That the Germans would have lost nearly 50% of their force seems far fetched...
An anonymous editor has added statements about the operation being called Herbstnebel. The most recent being: Some sources indicate that shortly before the fighting began the OKW named it "Herbstnebel" (Autumn Fog).. Now I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but we have found several sources saying that Herbstnebel was the name of one of the initial plans from the planning stage of this. Please make sure you've read Operation Herbstnebel, and then if you can tell us which sources it is that say this (and they are relatively reliable) then we can add the statement back. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the stuff about the arguments between the generals really belong here? It's not about the Battle; wouldn't it be better on the pages of the generals concerned? DJ Clayworth 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This article states: "The Red Ball Express stopped delivering supplies and started moving troops. Within a week, 250,000 troops had been sent." But Red Ball Express page says, that convoy action finished on 16 November 1944. Is there anyone to clarify that?
The RBE was one of only many express operations of the Communications Zone Services of Supply, US Army. Technically the supply operations of the ETO were conducted by the Services of Supply operated variously under the direction of the Communications Zone (ComZ) and the Southern Line of Communications (SOLOC).
US Army supply operations increased during the Battle of the Bulge, they did not decrease.
Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg ( talk • contribs) .
By 15 January, VI Corps was fighting for its very life on three sides in the Alsace. Immediately prior to this sentence, and immediately following, the text returns to a description of "U.S. Seventh Army". VI Corps is not otherwise introduced in this major section. MaxEnt 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official US account lists 80,987 American casualties, while estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000.
In the pink overview sidebar it says 41,200 Allied casualties with a reference to a different source. MaxEnt 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
no its true.... it took the best tanks out too-- 24.225.156.40 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The original poster probably was confused about the term "cream", which in this case means the prime or best. 63.131.9.22 ( talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Our vandalism reverts and the ongoing argument about casualties have allowed errors to creep into the article. I just fixed the battle box stating that it took place in Devon. Could folks please review the entire article for similar errors. We also need to fix the casualty numbers per the discussion above. -- Habap 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made some fairly substantial edits to the article tonight. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but some SS hero worship has creeped in, as well as repetitive sentences and a fairly conversational tone. I've injected some economy in the wording - some concepts were spelled out in long run on sentences when really, a wikilink to an article will suffice to inform the reader. I also wonder if the Patton-Montgomery bunfight really needs three paragraphs here - it seems to me to be almost completely irrelevant to the battle, as interesting as it is to an examination of high command in the Second World War. Kudos to the original editors for giving this article a good start. What is needed now are significant numbers of citations for this article, to give it credibility. Michael Dorosh 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it really true that their response time was slow? Danny S. Parker frequently said it was a "timely Allied reaction". The Wiki itself says, "before the first day was finished, Eisenhower...had ordered vast reinforcements to the area", this was quite contrary to Hitler's belief that it would take 2 or 3 days for an Allied response to commence (and somewhat contradictory to the top quote). Just because it was quicker than Hitler expected I'd want to call it a timely response.
I'll leave it to someone else to change it as I don't know much about this kind of stuff.
Schnozzinkobenstein 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Two claims in this statement seem almost ludicrously false . . .
First, by what possible standard could the Allied response be considered "slow?" While I don't have the exact figures to hand, consider that the allied forces on the western front were terribly understrength for the front they were covering, they were operating in horrible winter weather, and were overcommitted to winter offensives due to unrealistic estimates of their attacking power relative to their opposition. In spite of this, the 7th and 10th Armored divisions and the 82nd and 101st infantry divisions were in action or committed to the battlefield within forty-eight hours of the opening of the offensive. By the fourth day of the battle, the British 30th Corps was in a blocking position west of the Meuse, effectively negating any potential German strategy victory. Meanwhile, the two most powerful allied armies on the western front, the American 1st and 3rd, had been pulled out of frontline positions and were already containing and counterattacking the flanks of the German offensive. Could any other army in the history of warfare, even the elite German Panzer Armies of 1941-1943, have managed such a manuever under those conditions?
Second, was it not physically impossible for the offensive to have set the the allied offensive timetable back by "months?" The final allied assault into Germany began on February 8, 1945, well before the end of winter and only seven weeks after the beginning of the German counteroffensive. From that day to the German surrender on May 8, 1945, only three months passed. How much faster could the allies have possibly advanced against an army of the quality they faced and under such difficult conditions of weather and terrain?
The consensus among the authors of the many books and articles I've read on this topic over the last thirty years is that Watch on the Rhine shortened the war in Europe by many weeks, rather than lengthening it.
Which spelling convention should be used in this article? At the moment it is a mixture of both, which looks odd to me. -- Guinnog 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it intentional that the only two German divisions mentionned in the article are SS (1st and 12th)? I probably have the material to add either all forces involved (probably just those relevant to the sections) or add a few more samples to remove the idea that all german troops were SS (or that the SS were some kind of elite).-- Caranorn 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've started adding the original US Army report on this battle to Wikisource. The first six chapters plus the images therein have already been added, and more will be added in time. I've added a link in the Wikipedia article.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the two small scale maps of the Bulge area with one of much larger scale that pinpoints the local terraign. It is much easier to read, and comes from the official battle report. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that this sentence fragment neds to be changed. If you check the battles that the US engaged in during World War I, you will find that they were larger than any of the battles of World War Two by virtue of the number of troops participating therein. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that there should be some consideration made to the French and Belgians who fought and died in the Battle of the Bulge. As long as the British are being honored for their contibutions then why shouldn't the French and Belgians be too?
There is a contradiction between what is stated in this article:
"Even Ultra (the allies reading of secret German radio messages) revealed nothing about the up-coming buildup and offensive."
and what is found in the article on Ultra:
"Likewise, Ultra traffic suggested an attack in the Ardennes in 1944, but the Battle of the Bulge was a surprise to the Allies because the information was disregarded."
Eric Le Bigot 08:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The official name of the country during WWII was Deutschland (Germany), or Deutsches Reich (German Reich), or in speeches Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) or Drittes Reich (Third Reich). Germany was governed by the Nazi party; the Soviet Union was run by the Communist party, yet that country is not labeled in Wikipedia as the Communist Soviet Union.-- Gamahler 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"When General Anthony McAuliffe was awakened by a German invitation to surrender, he gave a reply of annoyance that has been variously reported and was probably unprintable."
Where did this come from? There are accounts by persons present in the headquarters that flatly contradict it. These accounts have McAuliffe awake and busy running the battle at the time the German surrender demand arrived, and saying "Aw, nuts!" when told of the demand. He was apparently inclined to ignore it as he had other things to worry about. A staff member suggested that a reply was necessary, and another staff member suggested that his original comment "Nuts!" was hard to beat. See, for example, Charles MacDonald's account of the battle, A Time for Trumpets.
If there is some basis for this alternate description of what happened, then a cite is needed.
To have this summarised simply as "Allied victory" in the battlebox, I think is a gross oversimplification. In fact, most of the information in the "Aftermath" section point to it being one of the last major German victories:
I think the summary would be more accurate if it read "Stalemate" .
Grant | Talk 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the overall strategic situation is irrelevant to the outcome of the battle itself, as is 20/20 hindsight; let's stick to the battle itself. Grant | Talk 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else but that does not say "clear Allied victory" to me, whatever the consequences three or four months later. Grant | Talk 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
... I'd like to add to this discussion: I don't think this can be called an 'Allied Victory' either. As far as I know, a victory takes a winner and a loser, like in a football-match. When it's Chelsea 1 - Arsenal 0 this is a victory for Chelsea. The Battle of the Bulge: Chelsea trying to score a goal against Arsenal, failing to do so, result 0 - 0. You can say 'its a victory for Arsenal because they were able to keep Chelsea from scoring', but this is false. It will take the next match (Invasion of Germany) to score the 1 - 0 that makes Arsenal the winner. I hope that with this example I have proved it cannot be called an Allied victory, because nothing was decided yet (even though Chelsea was demoralized etc. etc.). I think Stalemate is the appropriate judgement, with as someone said before Tactical victory to the Germans, but because they spent their last resources for a realistic counterattack in the West a Strategic defeat (for the Germans, meaning Allied Strategic Victory). It would be unfair to judge this as a German defeat looking at what they accomplished fighting vast Allied air formations. So I'll change to Stalemate for now, try to beat my example ;-).
Wiki1609 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:Your example is just plain wrong. A war (usually) consists of many battles. By your logic, "because nothing was decided yet", all of them but the last one is a stalemate. This is simply not the case. The Germans lost the battle for all of the reasons I have mentioned above, none of which you have responded to. Raul654 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a sticky mess. Here and elsewhere, there are debates over the words "victory", "defeat", "stalemate", "decisive", strategic", ad nauseaum. Do we mean the same thing with the same words? Is the outcome in terms of the battle, the theatre, the war? As a community, we need to get a consensus on these descriptions, IMO. FWIW, I'd regard this as a "German failure", as they failed to achieve their objectives, not as a defeat or victory, given the circumstances. Nothing is clearcut. Folks at 137 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
@ User:Raul654 First of all, my logic does not imply what you think at all, you simply dont want to admit my example is exactly what is going on here. When I claimed nothing was decided yet I was right, because this battle a) did not decide the Western Allies won the war in the West any more than they already had the advantage after landing in Normandy b) did not decide for the Germans they were defeated as the 'real' fight was in the East, their plan to roll the Western Allies back simply failed. I already responded to your arguments about spilt reserves etc., but that the Germans were demoralized and everything does not matter for the dry outcome of this battle (and as such, my example is right). German reserves were inevitably running out before the Battle of the Bulge. Fact is that the Germans scored many tactical victories, only their strategic objectives (which you must not forget were most likely best-case accomplishments, hardly attainable for the German army in their late 1944 state) were failed to attain. What they were able to achieve on the tactical level was still a hard job, just looking at numbers (only 2½ to 1 advantage in ground forces for the initial moments, with inferior air support) showing for some of the last times the German skill in fighting. But the Allies did not win anything from this failure, they actually lost territory and, for a while, the initiative. The outcome was simply a bled-out counteroffensive with a forceful retreat to more stable German defensive lines. Neither an Allied Victory or German defeat as in for example the Soviet Victory at Stalingrad.
And I agree, it does depend on your definition of 'victory', especially in complicated modern warfare with all its levels of operation.
And by the way, this situation can be compared with the German Schlieffen plan of WW1. Here German strategical objectives were failed to accomplish as well, but this is never counted as an Entente victory. The failure of this plan resulted in a stalemate for the next three years on the Western Front. And since this is classified as a stalemate, the Battle of the Bulge should be as well.
Wiki1609 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Schlieffen plan had a similar outcome, it does not matter for the designation if the stalemate lasted for 3 years or 3 days. After the Schlieffen plan failed numerous offensives were launched but the stalemate remained, so just having an offensive doesnt mean theres no stalemate. You cant say 60 years later that because the Battle of the Bulge was followed by a succesful Allied offensive that the whole Battle of the Bulge was an Allied victory, for that no longer was the Battle of the Bulge. Wiki1609 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was a German offensive, and it failed because its goal was to get Antwerp. So obviously the Germans didn't win, but it cost the allies a month of time, men, and supplies, which infers that the Germans suceeded in a secondary goal, to slow the allied advance. I'm not saying it should be stalemate because it can be argued both ways, but I think that a good page would be to be about the arguements over who won, or is there a page in existance? -- LtWinters 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And it is "incomprehensible" to me that some editors think this article is about the overall strategic situation in Europe during early 1945, as though there is not enough to discuss in the Battle of the Bulge itself!
Anyway, those are great references and are what I've been requesting. I accept that it was an Allied victory, albeit not a "decisive" one. Grant | Talk 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Added Fall Martin and Operation Herbstenebel. For some reason these operational plans dont appear in the sections dealing with German planning. Did they get removed since being a featured article? This statement: "Several plans for major Western offensives were put forward, but the German High Command quickly concentrated on two" appears to allude to the planning conducted by Jodl.
Hitler asked for a combination of Operation Holland and Operation Liège-Aachen on 9 October. This was delivered as a full plan by Jodl on 19 October. On 22 October Model and Rundstedt got involved. Article doesnt mention this but continues with mention of "the plan". Can someone include mention of operational plans Herbstnebel & Martin outside of the footnote where I put them (I didnt want to begin an edit war)? Ideally they belong in a main article titled "Wacht am Rhein" which details German planning and operations. Fluffy999 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Before the first paragraph at the top it says poopy poopy poopy, someone take it out for the sake of humanity!!! Slack565 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Harrison 4-5-07
Already did.-- LWF 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, got the chance to look at the sources. There seems to be some confusion about these two names and Model's and Rundstedt's hand in them.
Sources: The Battle of the Bulge: The German View, ed Danny Parker, 1999, pp.95-100; Panzers in Winter: Hitler's Army and the Battle of the Bulge, Samuel Mitcham, 2006, p.38; Hitler's Commander, Steven Newton, 2006, pp.329-334. -- Hongooi 11:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Under "Planning" it reads:
"The U.S. units deployed in the Ardennes thus were a mixture of inexperienced troops (such as the rookie U.S. 99th and 106th Divisions), and battle-hardened troops sent to that sector to recuperate (the 2nd Infantry Division)."
Several paragraphs later:
"The attacks by the Sixth SS Panzer Army's infantry units in the north fared badly due to unexpectedly fierce resistance by the experienced U.S. 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions at the Elsenborn Ridge,"
was the 99th now a rookie division or an experienced one (I don't know, so I can't correct one of the statements myself
Thanks -- Albert Cuandero 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"...the attack still achieved surprise. The degree of surprise achieved was compounded by the Allies' overconfidence..." It should be mentioned that though the Allies did underrate the strength of the German Army, the Ardennes offensive was a pretty reckless move on the German side - some sources have suggested that many of Hitler's closest generals disputed over it, insisting that Hitler put more forces on the Eastern front. The degree of surprised achieved was not only because of the Allies' overconfidence, but more of its recklessness. Comments? Aran| heru| nar 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
How could the americans have 89,987 casualties if the allied forces where about 83.000 ?
81.232.67.249 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) bk
In fact this picture shows indeed Belgian civilian killed but the explanation below is wrong. This picture has been taken Malmedy after one of the three mistaken bombing of the USAF. On 23, 24 and 25 december was bombed by the USAF while the US troops were holding the town. At least 200 Blegian civilians were killed and a still unknown number of US soldiers. I intend to change the text below the picture soon. -- Lebob-BE 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Robert Shaw was a German Commander ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.63.2 ( talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
About Wacht am Rein: is the translation correct? "Wacht" can also be translated as "(to) guard". (To) Guard the Rhine? -- Soetermans ( talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Sir Brandenberg's Seventh Army pushed towards Luxembourg in their efforts to secure the flank from Allied attacks"
Should this not be Brandenberger? America's Wang ( talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How come they don't add up? It should be 84,323. The German numbers add up correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 ( talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The very first paragraph of this article says "but it is known to the general public simply as the Battle of the Bulge, named after the local sawmill."
What the -- ?
Every other source I've ever seen (and even the rest of this article) states that the "bulge" is the bulge backward in the Allied line, i.e., the German salient. I suppose it's remotely possible that Bulge was originally a local place name that was misunderstood by newsmen early on to refer to the salient for which it was such a natural fit . . . but is there any reason to believe this? There's no citation here, and I'm wondering if it isn't actually a joke that should be excised.
66.241.73.241 ( talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember the guys name, but there was an airborne general who was asked to surrender and he replied "nuts!" Shouldn't he be under commanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Having looked through this article multiple times, I wouldn't even place it at GA status. Entire sections are without footnotes, and there is a popular culture section without any references or citations. It also needs a very good copyedit. I will have some spare time to work through it in a few weeks, but I'd definitely like to get this downgraded if possible. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone got the books listed in the refs or can we just wipe them or move them to a "Further reading" section. We really need to start on the citing campaign for the article, though I don't have any books on the subject. Woody ( talk) 11:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the following sentence in the 'drafting the offensive' section. "There is no evidence that Hitler realized, or any of his military staff pointed out, that of all the major combatants, the United States was the least damaged and had the greatest restorative powers.". This seems to be trying to imply that this fact was significant and Hitler should have realised it. In fact it is perfectly possible that Hitler assumed a) US armies would not fight as effectivly as British ones and b) it would be casualties and morale effects that caused the US to pull out of the war, even if they were relatively undamaged. I would recommend removing the sentence. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"open ground beyond the Meuse offered the prospect of a successful dash to the coast" I don't have sources for it, but I've seen a TV doc that suggests the inadequate road network N-S (as v E-W) was a factor, as much as "open ground". True? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The references supplied for casualties were a self published source helium.com and the otherwise excellent The Ardennes:Battle of the Bulge] which doesn't give casualty figures like those in the infobox. I have removed them.
Numbers I can get are:
“ | Some thirty-two U.S. divisions fought in the Ardennes, where the daily battle strength of U.S. Army forces averaged twenty-six divisions and 610,000 men. Alsace added eleven more divisions to the honors list, with an average battle strength of 230,000. Additionally, separate divisional elements as well as divisions arriving in sector at the end of the campaign granted participation credit to three more divisions. But the cost of victory was staggering. The final tally for the Ardennes alone totaled 41,315 casualties in December to bring the offensive to a halt and an additional 39,672 casualties in January to retake lost ground. The SHAEF casualty estimate presented to Eisenhower in February 1945 listed casualties for the First Army at 39,957; for the Third Army at 35,525; and for the British 30 Corps, which helped at the end at 1,408. Defeating Hitler's final offensive in the Alsace was also costly; the Seventh Army recorded its January battle losses at 11,609. Sickness and cold weather also ravaged the fighting lines, with the First, Third, and Seventh Armies having cold injury hospital admissions of more than 17,000 during the entire campaign. No official German losses for the Ardennes have been computed but they have been estimated at between 81,000 and 103,000. A recently published German scholarly source gave the following German casualty totals: Ardennes—67,200; Alsace (not including Colmar Pocket)—22,932. Most of the figures cited do not differentiate between permanent losses (killed and missing), wounded, and non-battle casualties. | ” |
“ | Among 600,000 Americans eventually involved in the fighting... 29 divisions, 6 mechanized cavalry groups, and the equivalent of 3 separate regiments - casualties totalled 81,000 of which 15,000 were captured and 19,000 killed. Among 55,000 British - 2 divisions and 3 brigades casualties totalled 1,400, of which just over 200 were killed. The Germans, employing close to 500,000 men - including 28 divisions and 3 brigades - lost at least 100,000 killed, wounded and captured.
Both sides lost heavily in weapons and equipment, probably as many as 800 tanks on each side and the Germans a thousand planes |
” |
The second reference suggests more tanks were lost per side than is currently given by our article as having been present. Does anyone else have useful references for this? Hohum ( talk) 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
“ | In late December German propagandists claimed that the object of the Ardennes offensive had been to cripple the attack capabilities of the Allied armies and chew up their divisions east of the Meuse. There also is considerable evidence that Model, and perhaps Rundstedt, accepted this as a reasonable tactical objective in the operations from Christmas onward. The attainment of this goal, to chew up Allied divisions and dull the cutting edge of the American armies, was achieved in only limited fashion. The attack of twenty-nine German divisions and brigades destroyed one American infantry division as a unit, badly crippled two infantry divisions, and cut one armored combat command to pieces. The total of American battle casualties reported for the period 16 December through 2 January (although these probably were incomplete returns) numbered 41,315 officers and men, of which 4,138 were known to be killed in action, 20,231 were wounded in action, and 16,946 were reported missing. During the same period the American formations in the Ardennes received 31,505 replacements, or "reinforcements" as these individual soldiers now were named. The matériel losses inflicted by German action represented only a temporary diminution in the fighting strength of a few of the American divisions and normally were replaced within a fortnight. | ” |
(outdent) Thanks for the help! I was looking for final figures, primarily for the infobox, but numbers to 2nd January might find a place in a relevant part of the main article. Hohum ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Robert G. Snyder my dad fought at the battle of the Bulge. Today I received the blanket he had while he was at the Battle of the Bulge. A relative had it. Dad was wounded in France and received a Purple Heart. He was a DAV, he passed away Oct 18th 2004. He had won a second purple heart but never received it. He three brothers that fought in WWII, Lawrence Snyder, John Snyder and William Snyder. Dad was a Sgt E-5. He really never talked about WWII. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.144.135 ( talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency in the " Germans strike back" section. The article indicates that Seventh Army's VI Corps suffered a total of 14,716 casualties in Unternehmen Nordwind in January 1945, yet only 11,609 casualties are claimed for all of Seventh Army for January. Do the two figures reflect different time periods, or is there an actual mistake there? Thanks, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The casualty figures should be for the U.S. Army since British forces were only slightly involved. The actual casualty figures for the U.S. Army are much, much lower than were in the box. My source is: Cosmas and Cowdrey, Medical Service in the European Theater of Operations. Official U.S. Army History; Medical Dept.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit 1430 Hours, 25 March 2006
The German offensive in the Ardennes was not the last major German offensive on the Western Front. That dubious honor belongs to Operation Nordwind. Operation Nordwind was not a subordinate operation of the German offensive in the Ardennes. I removed it from the list of subordinate operations. Nordwind was a completely independent operation.
For proof, please see the official US Army History of the Seventh US Army: Smith and Clarke, "Riviera To The Rhine." Dr. Clarke is the Chief Historian of the US Army.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit: 1600 Hours, 25 March 2006
The official name assigned to the Battle of the Bulge by the U.S. Army is the Battle of the Ardennes. After the war it was coupled with the Battle of the Alsace, and official campaign credits are for the Battle of the Ardennes - Alsace, despite the fact they were separate and distinct battles fought over 100 km apart almost entirely by different American units.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit: 1735 Hours, 25 March 2006
The official U.S. Army dates for the campaign, Ardennes-Alsace is 16 December, 1944 - 25 January, 1945, not 28 January!
Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg ( talk • contribs) .
If so erase all tanks planes ships and material casualties from all battleboxes in wikipedia.(addind the original info)
2005 Hours, 11 April, 2006
Again, tanks, planes, ships, and material are not repeat not casualties. The term "casualties" refers to human beings. Please consult a dictionary.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is incosistent, and ridicolous not to include the materiel lost into a battlebox even though their are not casualties.
This article could really use a concise introductory paragraph. You know, something like "The Battle of the Bulge was a major battle in World War II in which the Allied Forces....etc."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.114.187 ( talk) 11:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be some figures about reinforcements. Currently, as of the chart, there were 83,000 men but over 89,000 casualties. I thought that even James Bond said that you couldn't die twice.
Who ever scripted this page must have been joking. Right before the top paragraph it says poopy poopy poopy. Now I'd be more than happy to fix it if I could FTP wikipedia. But I cant because my username and password are useless for FTP purposes on this site. So either someone else fix it or you will get more complaints like this one. Its a simple error to fix, just delete it and re-FTP it. This kind of thing gives wikipedia a bad rep within schools.
-Harrison 4-5-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slack565 ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Toward the end of this article, it claims that "the German offensive drew to a close on 25 January." The very next section, it says, "On 7 January 1945, Hitler agreed to withdraw... thus ending all offensive operations."
That's a two and a half week disagreement in a battle that only took place for 3 weeks!
I'm new to Wikipedia... but can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.145.67 ( talk) 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states in the lead that the Bulge was America's largest and bloodiest battle in history (although the reference cited only claims that it was America's bloodiest of World War II). I have always been under the impression, and have read it in many places, that the Meuse-Argonne of World War I was actually America's bloodiest. Official casualty figures from that battle were 26,277 KIA and 95,786 wounded, or a total of 122063 without counting captured (who I don't suppose count as being "bloodied" anyway). Accordingly, I'm going to delete the reference to "bloodiest" battle. If anyone objects, please feel free to respond. Jrt989 ( talk) 17:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this article is tagged as a stub? Jrt989 ( talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Battle of the Bulge was fought in Belgium and Luxembourg and German land was not involved so I removed Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.151.118 ( talk) 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why there is no details about the American counter offensive during Battle of the Bulge ? ..... I mean the details only about the German offensive and since the article is about Battle of the Bulge not just Operation Wacht um Rhein .... I think the article needs improvment.
-- 82.116.151.118 ( talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a Canadian flag in the beligenrents box on the side of the article. And why is this? NO CANADIAN TROOPS FOUGHT IN THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. NONE WHATSOEVER.
But since Canada likes to take credit for "winning" every battle in World War II, perhaps we should just remove the American flags and replace them with Canadian maple leaves and let them arrogantly take credit for Bulge altogether! What a f--king joke. -- 74.47.102.193 ( talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted an IP editor who had reinserted his original edits after their previous entry was reverted due to being uncited. While the reinserted text did have some sources, they were a mix of incomplete and dubious quality. Hopefully he will put his case here as we may still be able to improve the article with his input. Hohum ( talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The battle of the Bulge is one of the most remarkable battles of WW2, unfortunately the reasons have been censored for over 60 years.
Montgomery did rescue the US Army, which without his input would have been comprehensively defeated. It was not politically or cultural acceptable to mention that at the time, though after 60 or so years I would hope we would be able to look at the facts with some detachment.
The German attack cut all communications between Bradley (who was in Luxembourg) and his northern Armies. They were leaderless and disorganised, under normal circumstances they would have been defeated. Montgomery (like Patton) anticipated the German attack and made plans to improvise a command structure in advance for the US Army which he knew would suffer a crippling blow. He also and moved reserves to the Meuse to protect the Meuse crossing which were the main German objective.
Although literally 'erased' from US maps, Montogomery used the British XXX Corps (with its Canadian troops) to plug the hole in the US line, they then drove forward to Houfalazie and Bastonge relieving them from the West.
A British account of the situation contemporary with events can be found in Alanbrooke's (Commander in Chief of the British Army) war diaries and in the British HMSO official histories. They both differ significantly from US histories and personal memoirs, which although not necessarially inaccurate omit many significant details with the aim of minimising British involvement.
The actual US units which were taken under British command in the heat of battle actually had a response at direct variance to the US histories - if you care to check out the documentary series 'The World at War' episode 19 you will find an interview with General Lawton Collins being quite frank about the fact that the British 'saved our ass' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh? You prefer secondary sources to primary???? Why would you prefer a secondary source to a primary?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
So Wikipedia is for dummies who prefer what historians tell them rather than figuring things out for themselves. . . .. of course the 'historians' would never have an agenda of creating a history that suits their agenda.
Although British troops did not directly relieve Bastonge they made contact with US troops in the area of 'La Roche'. This Belguim site explains the battle situation without the usual US Army propaganda.
http://www.batarden.be/defo_en.htm
It's somewhat different from US histories. . .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confusing 'Well respected historians' with 'Well respected American historians' It's clear from the Alanbrooke diaries that the British regarded Eisenhower as completely incompetant to command armies in the field. 90% of the British effort in NW europe was involved in preventing Eisenhower demonstrating his incompetence - check out the Alanbrooke diaries.
I've got a nice map showing the movement of XXX Corps in the Times Atlas of WW2, but copying that and using it would be against copywright - how very convienent for those who wish to claim the Battle of the Bulge as being an entirely American battle.
There's the 'American Propaganda' version of history as posted in this Wiki, and the real version of history, which is very different.
Can Americans give up the propaganda fantasy and address the historical facts? In my long (15 years) experience of the internet I've only once met an American who could address the historical facts head on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . . the US Army was never cut in half, the gap was never plugged by the British XXX corps, the US Northern flank never lost all command and control, the British XXX Corps never advanced to Houfalaize.
This is not about the facts - its about what you (and Americans generally) want to believe, and you don't want to believe the British saved the US Army, inspite of the fact that Americans who were there at the time saying otherwise.
Seen this movie too many times before - if its a choice between recognising US failure and lying. . . . .we all know what version of history Americans are going to give us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It's significantly different from the account in this article, which mentions neither the role of the British in plugging the gap in the US line or complete loss of communications by the Northern Armies. Montgomeries plan involved blocking the German path north while drawing them to the West, away from their objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.189.159 ( talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The info box says the Germans committed 500 tanks yet lost 700. Something needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.100.188 ( talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope that the anon aditor comes here to discuss his/her changes. If they are correct I will gladly accept that argument (with a reliable source). Yet the sources now given seem to dispute the changes. Jojhutton ( talk) 21:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"Among 600,000 Americans eventually involved in the fighting -- including 29 divisions, 6 mechanized cavalry groups, and the equivalent of 3 seperate regiments -- casualties totalled more than 81,000, of which 15,000 were captured and 19,000 killed. among 55,000 British -- 2 divisions and 3 brigades -- casualties totalled 1,400, of which just over 200 were killed. The germans, employing close to 500,000 men -- including 28 divisions and 3 brigades -- lost at least 100,000 killed, wounded and captured."
Consistency needs to be maintained between the article and the infobox casualty listing, please. The main article cites official Army reported losses at 80,897, where the infobox has 84,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.115.162 ( talk) 09:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
nirvana77 puts "91,132 killed, wounded, captured or missing" in the box for german casualties. i explained him that hes wrong because he mixed up bulge and nordwind. he quotes cirillo , here is the exact quote
22.932+67.200 = nirvana's 91,132 , thats WRONG nordwind is not a part of battle of the bulge
from the same article u can get the allied casualties, the infobox only uses the bulge casualties not the casualties of nordwind. allied casualties for nordwind and bulge would be 103.000 plus french first army. now we have german casualties for nordwind and bulge and allied for bulge. i was reverted 3 times....
same with battle strength —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
what are u talkin men u quoted cirillo u should be banned u quote cirillo but this numbers cant be found there. so your edits are bullshit because u are lyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
hm ok. the problem is that for one year the article quoted cirillo, who never used such numbers. even after i started talk about the problem i got reverted and nirvana put obvious wrong sources in the text. so can u hohum quote please 1 or 2 books here? with the full sentence saying 500.000 german in the battle of the bulge. all documents everyone can read in the www are not claiming 500.000 ... . please 1 or 2 sentences about the doubtable 500.000 , thank u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
ok guys i think u bought bad books or books . "They had massed all their forces - some 500,000 men - at that particular point to launch the attack." this is NOT POSSIBLE u can sell this book.
it is obivous that 500.000 did NOT participate in this battle , i dont how much reservs army group B got but both qoute are INCORRECT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 23:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
i checked the books, your big problem is that all of these books uses the same ground source for the claim of 500.000. so u have only one basic source. and when the basic source claims 500.000 germans in 28 divisions the sources highly doubtable. when somebody writes a book about one division he will always use another source for the menpower for example because his research will deal with the division. the author of the airborne books is even so incompetent that he takes this number of 500.000 and says that this germans attack. please provide the basic sources and not books which copy this sources.
now we have one! source claiming 500.000 germans in 28 division, everyone who dealt with the wehrmacht knows that in 44/45 28 german cant be 500.000.
here u got the same 28 divisions but analysed by somebody who knows that german divisions dont count 18.000 men: " 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge" "The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men."
both authors mean the same 28 divisions but your sources i wrong.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
i quoted this here http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_Cont.htm#toc , cirillo says the same . both reliable i guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
even the wiki aritcle about german strenght for battle of bulge says 240.000 in 30 divisions. the 2 divisions more are likely the OKW Reserves 10SSPz and11Pz —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.192.121.123 (
talk)
00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
hohum u start beeing annoying. i provided little to none? the whole article is based on the articles i took my numbers out. u provided ten chronics of divisions which use the same basic source. u call this overwhelming u little hobby historian should start learning how to analyse books. the Big problem is that u know nothing u print sentence like "the 28 german divisions numbered 500.000" , everyone how studied wehrmacht knows that this is impossible but u come and put this in the box because 5 books quoting this nonsense.
this is not my assumption thats fact. i quotet the army history article who said correctly german Inf-Div is numbering about 10.000 mens but u amateur ignore this because u cant respond to it. than u go search for amateur historians which have written books which costs 5 dollars. how can a book with good research cost 5 dollars. noob.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
nono my question was how can 28 german divisions have 500.000 men. U HOHUM QUOTED 28 DIVISION WITH 500.000 Men. the reality of wehrmacht structure contradicts this completly. my question was clear. that u dont answer my simple question and try to answer another shows how clumsy u are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
instead of answering the question u come with blabla and show me were i can find the answer, when u know the answer then please tell me... the 3 german armies had 28 divisions involded and 2 in OKW reserve, how can this divisions have 18.00 at average, how? even at full strenght german Inf.Div did not have 18.000 men ^^
hohum is it possbile that u not even hold one of the books u quote?
no everyone can read here that u not answered the question. when i click your link there is a short description of the battle not more no numbers no figures. i guess that your figures always include operation nordwind. and again how can 28 german divisions have 500.000 when not even german fullstrenght divisions have 18.000 men. simple question please answer.
maybe there is a copyright problem because iam from germany so i cant read the text of the book, maybe u copy the text and print it here, then i can see ....
ok i try to be kind again to solve this problem. hohum is it possible that your "sources" all include operation nordwind? many authors do this. but battle of the bulge and nordwind are two different articles. both articles the one by cirillo and the other dont support your figures. this 2 articles are the basement of this article why should they be so fucking wrong? there is a huge difference between 250.000 and 500.000 . its obvious that they dont mean the same troops. do u see that there is something weired?
read carefully, i talk about the 500.000 germans in the battle of the bulge. but tell me what numbers are mentioned in your books about the german strenght —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.192.121.123 (
talk)
21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
awesome name for a history book "armaggedon" and 8 dollars mean very much research in the book :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
prices are based on many factores, one of them is the invested money. books with big research are more expensive then books how copy old facts. thats the problem with u and your gang u go buy books which all copy the same sources and than u collect them as sources to support your figures. hohum cites a divisions chronic which simply copies a sentence and puts it in a totally wrong context. and that u dont agree with hastings is obvious because u are military incompetent and fan of the british army^^. max hastings book is one of the first i found cited here which gots only good reviews, so much other books here mentioned got bad reviews....
and enignma read what i wrote, all my assertion were based on the two online articles of the US military. the complete article is based on this articles. but all of u think the numbers are wrong. nearly all of your sources say 28 divisions with 500.000 men. but to this time its impossible to say how much germans were involved. the both articles said correctly german strenght is hard to estimate BUT ALL YOUR SOURCES SAY THE SAME WORDS OF 28 DIVISIONS WITH 500.000 MEN, lol ...... . so apperently... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
READ what i wrote!! i provided the sources which are mentioned in the text already. both articles name the 67.000 casualties. when i come to this discussion text, the infobox said "91,132" casualties and this was based on the articles which names this 91,132 casualtes as the summ of nordwind and bulge. and this WAS WORNG. and historical work becomes more accurate with more research , so books written 2 days after world war 2 are less reliable than newer books in general. i dont know your book... . - - an yes the british army was "incompetent" compared to wehrmacht; soldiers, tankers, pilots, officers, generals.... most not british/american historians will tell u. iam pretty sure the hasting is not perfect , his military opinion about zhukovs shows.... - - PS i bet 2000 euros that no 500.000 soldiers took part in bulge.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.131.130 ( talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
These links need to be updated. They have apparently been moved. I would have done it my self but I don't know how. :( -- Brian 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I know of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion and the Canadian Forestry Corps at the battle of the Ardennes, why is Canada not listed with Britain and the USA? Wouldn't seem fair... if you can recognize the British at Vimy Ridge with 1 brigade out of 11, you can recognize Canada at the battle of the Ardennes. We don't want to have a double standard at wikipedia do we?
guess the person who wrote this doesn't believe in Canadians
==Source for the Wereth 11?==The assertion regarding the Wereth 11 needs a source. It sounds made up. AaronCBurke 18:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I am "messing" with the US Army casualty figures. The figures I am providing are from an official US Army source, and are consistent with those reported in other official US Army sources including the Army's Official Report on Casualties in WWII.
Don't trust internet sources. They are often wrong.
Best Regards, Philippsbour
Do you think any historian would agree on that number?
1310 Hours 28 March, 2006
Professional military historians work from primary sources as much as possible. In the case of casualty figures, the primary sources are official sources. After all, who counted the dead, wounded, missing, and captured? The U.S. Army. Yes, there are no absolute, hard casualty figures for any battle, but the best we have are those recorded by the U.S. Army, and even they vary somewhat. But they vary only by a relatively small amount, not by tens of thousands, as you would suggest. So the answer to your question is that any professional military historian who has half a brain will have to accept these figures. How else can they arrive at a number? Magic?
Best Regards, Philippsbourg
How long has these numbers been around, since what, a week after the battle? And also you must not think so high about military historians because many would dismiss that number.
1330 Hours, 28 March, 2006
One of the common problems, other than my own in adding the numbers incorrectly, is the tendency for the total casualties for both the Ardennes-Alsace campaigns to be added together. Sometimes this is compounded by using figures for the entire theater, rather than the individual campaigns themselves. Yet another is the confusion of double counting casualty figures for units that passed from one command to another. And yet another is the double counting of MIAs who were also POWs, who were also WIA or KIA. All of these things serve to complicate the task of getting to the "more correct" numbers.
I prefer to stick with the official figures for a variety of reasons, including the fact that this reflects the US Army's ability to tally its casualties very quickly using Morning Reports.
Doubling the number of the official numbers without some serious research on which to base them seems to be a poor way to write history.
I forgot to add that the "Medical Service in the ETO" history that I cited was published in 1992.
Best Regards, Philippsbourg
Is the german casulties "official figures"? I ave read 3 books today that says 81,000 casulties for the allies in the battle of the bulge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.112.74 ( talk)
The numbers in the battlebox are pulled from Parker's book listed in the bibliography. I can find the page if anyone is that curious, but basically pull any legitimate history of the battle and you get figures of oh 70-120 K on either side. Revisionst history certainly has a place, but not in a mainstream article. To contend that the casualty figures are roughly half of accepted figures would deserve its own article and also to be at all consistent would need to encompass standard casualty counting methods throughout the war. Tangerinebunny 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have checked several books now and nothing comes close to your number that there were 30,000 US casulties, absolutley nothing. The lowest number i found was about 75,000. I find it very very hard to belive that it would be just 30,000 US casulties when everything ellse says that its not so. To present this at Wikipedia would lower their credablility.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, but I was reading the Battle of the Bulge article on Encarta 2006 and this was written: “Managing to avoid being cut off by an Allied pincer movement, the Germans withdrew to their own lines in January, but heavy losses, including some 220,000 casualties, contributed to their final collapse in the following spring.” I'm just curious why their casualty number is so much higher than the one here.
That the Germans would have lost nearly 50% of their force seems far fetched...
An anonymous editor has added statements about the operation being called Herbstnebel. The most recent being: Some sources indicate that shortly before the fighting began the OKW named it "Herbstnebel" (Autumn Fog).. Now I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but we have found several sources saying that Herbstnebel was the name of one of the initial plans from the planning stage of this. Please make sure you've read Operation Herbstnebel, and then if you can tell us which sources it is that say this (and they are relatively reliable) then we can add the statement back. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the stuff about the arguments between the generals really belong here? It's not about the Battle; wouldn't it be better on the pages of the generals concerned? DJ Clayworth 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This article states: "The Red Ball Express stopped delivering supplies and started moving troops. Within a week, 250,000 troops had been sent." But Red Ball Express page says, that convoy action finished on 16 November 1944. Is there anyone to clarify that?
The RBE was one of only many express operations of the Communications Zone Services of Supply, US Army. Technically the supply operations of the ETO were conducted by the Services of Supply operated variously under the direction of the Communications Zone (ComZ) and the Southern Line of Communications (SOLOC).
US Army supply operations increased during the Battle of the Bulge, they did not decrease.
Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg ( talk • contribs) .
By 15 January, VI Corps was fighting for its very life on three sides in the Alsace. Immediately prior to this sentence, and immediately following, the text returns to a description of "U.S. Seventh Army". VI Corps is not otherwise introduced in this major section. MaxEnt 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Casualty estimates from the battle vary widely. The official US account lists 80,987 American casualties, while estimates range from 70,000 to 104,000.
In the pink overview sidebar it says 41,200 Allied casualties with a reference to a different source. MaxEnt 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
no its true.... it took the best tanks out too-- 24.225.156.40 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The original poster probably was confused about the term "cream", which in this case means the prime or best. 63.131.9.22 ( talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Our vandalism reverts and the ongoing argument about casualties have allowed errors to creep into the article. I just fixed the battle box stating that it took place in Devon. Could folks please review the entire article for similar errors. We also need to fix the casualty numbers per the discussion above. -- Habap 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made some fairly substantial edits to the article tonight. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but some SS hero worship has creeped in, as well as repetitive sentences and a fairly conversational tone. I've injected some economy in the wording - some concepts were spelled out in long run on sentences when really, a wikilink to an article will suffice to inform the reader. I also wonder if the Patton-Montgomery bunfight really needs three paragraphs here - it seems to me to be almost completely irrelevant to the battle, as interesting as it is to an examination of high command in the Second World War. Kudos to the original editors for giving this article a good start. What is needed now are significant numbers of citations for this article, to give it credibility. Michael Dorosh 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it really true that their response time was slow? Danny S. Parker frequently said it was a "timely Allied reaction". The Wiki itself says, "before the first day was finished, Eisenhower...had ordered vast reinforcements to the area", this was quite contrary to Hitler's belief that it would take 2 or 3 days for an Allied response to commence (and somewhat contradictory to the top quote). Just because it was quicker than Hitler expected I'd want to call it a timely response.
I'll leave it to someone else to change it as I don't know much about this kind of stuff.
Schnozzinkobenstein 19:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Two claims in this statement seem almost ludicrously false . . .
First, by what possible standard could the Allied response be considered "slow?" While I don't have the exact figures to hand, consider that the allied forces on the western front were terribly understrength for the front they were covering, they were operating in horrible winter weather, and were overcommitted to winter offensives due to unrealistic estimates of their attacking power relative to their opposition. In spite of this, the 7th and 10th Armored divisions and the 82nd and 101st infantry divisions were in action or committed to the battlefield within forty-eight hours of the opening of the offensive. By the fourth day of the battle, the British 30th Corps was in a blocking position west of the Meuse, effectively negating any potential German strategy victory. Meanwhile, the two most powerful allied armies on the western front, the American 1st and 3rd, had been pulled out of frontline positions and were already containing and counterattacking the flanks of the German offensive. Could any other army in the history of warfare, even the elite German Panzer Armies of 1941-1943, have managed such a manuever under those conditions?
Second, was it not physically impossible for the offensive to have set the the allied offensive timetable back by "months?" The final allied assault into Germany began on February 8, 1945, well before the end of winter and only seven weeks after the beginning of the German counteroffensive. From that day to the German surrender on May 8, 1945, only three months passed. How much faster could the allies have possibly advanced against an army of the quality they faced and under such difficult conditions of weather and terrain?
The consensus among the authors of the many books and articles I've read on this topic over the last thirty years is that Watch on the Rhine shortened the war in Europe by many weeks, rather than lengthening it.
Which spelling convention should be used in this article? At the moment it is a mixture of both, which looks odd to me. -- Guinnog 00:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it intentional that the only two German divisions mentionned in the article are SS (1st and 12th)? I probably have the material to add either all forces involved (probably just those relevant to the sections) or add a few more samples to remove the idea that all german troops were SS (or that the SS were some kind of elite).-- Caranorn 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've started adding the original US Army report on this battle to Wikisource. The first six chapters plus the images therein have already been added, and more will be added in time. I've added a link in the Wikipedia article.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the two small scale maps of the Bulge area with one of much larger scale that pinpoints the local terraign. It is much easier to read, and comes from the official battle report. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that this sentence fragment neds to be changed. If you check the battles that the US engaged in during World War I, you will find that they were larger than any of the battles of World War Two by virtue of the number of troops participating therein. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that there should be some consideration made to the French and Belgians who fought and died in the Battle of the Bulge. As long as the British are being honored for their contibutions then why shouldn't the French and Belgians be too?
There is a contradiction between what is stated in this article:
"Even Ultra (the allies reading of secret German radio messages) revealed nothing about the up-coming buildup and offensive."
and what is found in the article on Ultra:
"Likewise, Ultra traffic suggested an attack in the Ardennes in 1944, but the Battle of the Bulge was a surprise to the Allies because the information was disregarded."
Eric Le Bigot 08:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The official name of the country during WWII was Deutschland (Germany), or Deutsches Reich (German Reich), or in speeches Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) or Drittes Reich (Third Reich). Germany was governed by the Nazi party; the Soviet Union was run by the Communist party, yet that country is not labeled in Wikipedia as the Communist Soviet Union.-- Gamahler 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"When General Anthony McAuliffe was awakened by a German invitation to surrender, he gave a reply of annoyance that has been variously reported and was probably unprintable."
Where did this come from? There are accounts by persons present in the headquarters that flatly contradict it. These accounts have McAuliffe awake and busy running the battle at the time the German surrender demand arrived, and saying "Aw, nuts!" when told of the demand. He was apparently inclined to ignore it as he had other things to worry about. A staff member suggested that a reply was necessary, and another staff member suggested that his original comment "Nuts!" was hard to beat. See, for example, Charles MacDonald's account of the battle, A Time for Trumpets.
If there is some basis for this alternate description of what happened, then a cite is needed.
To have this summarised simply as "Allied victory" in the battlebox, I think is a gross oversimplification. In fact, most of the information in the "Aftermath" section point to it being one of the last major German victories:
I think the summary would be more accurate if it read "Stalemate" .
Grant | Talk 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the overall strategic situation is irrelevant to the outcome of the battle itself, as is 20/20 hindsight; let's stick to the battle itself. Grant | Talk 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else but that does not say "clear Allied victory" to me, whatever the consequences three or four months later. Grant | Talk 10:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
... I'd like to add to this discussion: I don't think this can be called an 'Allied Victory' either. As far as I know, a victory takes a winner and a loser, like in a football-match. When it's Chelsea 1 - Arsenal 0 this is a victory for Chelsea. The Battle of the Bulge: Chelsea trying to score a goal against Arsenal, failing to do so, result 0 - 0. You can say 'its a victory for Arsenal because they were able to keep Chelsea from scoring', but this is false. It will take the next match (Invasion of Germany) to score the 1 - 0 that makes Arsenal the winner. I hope that with this example I have proved it cannot be called an Allied victory, because nothing was decided yet (even though Chelsea was demoralized etc. etc.). I think Stalemate is the appropriate judgement, with as someone said before Tactical victory to the Germans, but because they spent their last resources for a realistic counterattack in the West a Strategic defeat (for the Germans, meaning Allied Strategic Victory). It would be unfair to judge this as a German defeat looking at what they accomplished fighting vast Allied air formations. So I'll change to Stalemate for now, try to beat my example ;-).
Wiki1609 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:Your example is just plain wrong. A war (usually) consists of many battles. By your logic, "because nothing was decided yet", all of them but the last one is a stalemate. This is simply not the case. The Germans lost the battle for all of the reasons I have mentioned above, none of which you have responded to. Raul654 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a sticky mess. Here and elsewhere, there are debates over the words "victory", "defeat", "stalemate", "decisive", strategic", ad nauseaum. Do we mean the same thing with the same words? Is the outcome in terms of the battle, the theatre, the war? As a community, we need to get a consensus on these descriptions, IMO. FWIW, I'd regard this as a "German failure", as they failed to achieve their objectives, not as a defeat or victory, given the circumstances. Nothing is clearcut. Folks at 137 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
@ User:Raul654 First of all, my logic does not imply what you think at all, you simply dont want to admit my example is exactly what is going on here. When I claimed nothing was decided yet I was right, because this battle a) did not decide the Western Allies won the war in the West any more than they already had the advantage after landing in Normandy b) did not decide for the Germans they were defeated as the 'real' fight was in the East, their plan to roll the Western Allies back simply failed. I already responded to your arguments about spilt reserves etc., but that the Germans were demoralized and everything does not matter for the dry outcome of this battle (and as such, my example is right). German reserves were inevitably running out before the Battle of the Bulge. Fact is that the Germans scored many tactical victories, only their strategic objectives (which you must not forget were most likely best-case accomplishments, hardly attainable for the German army in their late 1944 state) were failed to attain. What they were able to achieve on the tactical level was still a hard job, just looking at numbers (only 2½ to 1 advantage in ground forces for the initial moments, with inferior air support) showing for some of the last times the German skill in fighting. But the Allies did not win anything from this failure, they actually lost territory and, for a while, the initiative. The outcome was simply a bled-out counteroffensive with a forceful retreat to more stable German defensive lines. Neither an Allied Victory or German defeat as in for example the Soviet Victory at Stalingrad.
And I agree, it does depend on your definition of 'victory', especially in complicated modern warfare with all its levels of operation.
And by the way, this situation can be compared with the German Schlieffen plan of WW1. Here German strategical objectives were failed to accomplish as well, but this is never counted as an Entente victory. The failure of this plan resulted in a stalemate for the next three years on the Western Front. And since this is classified as a stalemate, the Battle of the Bulge should be as well.
Wiki1609 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Schlieffen plan had a similar outcome, it does not matter for the designation if the stalemate lasted for 3 years or 3 days. After the Schlieffen plan failed numerous offensives were launched but the stalemate remained, so just having an offensive doesnt mean theres no stalemate. You cant say 60 years later that because the Battle of the Bulge was followed by a succesful Allied offensive that the whole Battle of the Bulge was an Allied victory, for that no longer was the Battle of the Bulge. Wiki1609 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was a German offensive, and it failed because its goal was to get Antwerp. So obviously the Germans didn't win, but it cost the allies a month of time, men, and supplies, which infers that the Germans suceeded in a secondary goal, to slow the allied advance. I'm not saying it should be stalemate because it can be argued both ways, but I think that a good page would be to be about the arguements over who won, or is there a page in existance? -- LtWinters 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And it is "incomprehensible" to me that some editors think this article is about the overall strategic situation in Europe during early 1945, as though there is not enough to discuss in the Battle of the Bulge itself!
Anyway, those are great references and are what I've been requesting. I accept that it was an Allied victory, albeit not a "decisive" one. Grant | Talk 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Added Fall Martin and Operation Herbstenebel. For some reason these operational plans dont appear in the sections dealing with German planning. Did they get removed since being a featured article? This statement: "Several plans for major Western offensives were put forward, but the German High Command quickly concentrated on two" appears to allude to the planning conducted by Jodl.
Hitler asked for a combination of Operation Holland and Operation Liège-Aachen on 9 October. This was delivered as a full plan by Jodl on 19 October. On 22 October Model and Rundstedt got involved. Article doesnt mention this but continues with mention of "the plan". Can someone include mention of operational plans Herbstnebel & Martin outside of the footnote where I put them (I didnt want to begin an edit war)? Ideally they belong in a main article titled "Wacht am Rhein" which details German planning and operations. Fluffy999 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Before the first paragraph at the top it says poopy poopy poopy, someone take it out for the sake of humanity!!! Slack565 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Harrison 4-5-07
Already did.-- LWF 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, got the chance to look at the sources. There seems to be some confusion about these two names and Model's and Rundstedt's hand in them.
Sources: The Battle of the Bulge: The German View, ed Danny Parker, 1999, pp.95-100; Panzers in Winter: Hitler's Army and the Battle of the Bulge, Samuel Mitcham, 2006, p.38; Hitler's Commander, Steven Newton, 2006, pp.329-334. -- Hongooi 11:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Under "Planning" it reads:
"The U.S. units deployed in the Ardennes thus were a mixture of inexperienced troops (such as the rookie U.S. 99th and 106th Divisions), and battle-hardened troops sent to that sector to recuperate (the 2nd Infantry Division)."
Several paragraphs later:
"The attacks by the Sixth SS Panzer Army's infantry units in the north fared badly due to unexpectedly fierce resistance by the experienced U.S. 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions at the Elsenborn Ridge,"
was the 99th now a rookie division or an experienced one (I don't know, so I can't correct one of the statements myself
Thanks -- Albert Cuandero 21:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"...the attack still achieved surprise. The degree of surprise achieved was compounded by the Allies' overconfidence..." It should be mentioned that though the Allies did underrate the strength of the German Army, the Ardennes offensive was a pretty reckless move on the German side - some sources have suggested that many of Hitler's closest generals disputed over it, insisting that Hitler put more forces on the Eastern front. The degree of surprised achieved was not only because of the Allies' overconfidence, but more of its recklessness. Comments? Aran| heru| nar 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
How could the americans have 89,987 casualties if the allied forces where about 83.000 ?
81.232.67.249 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) bk
In fact this picture shows indeed Belgian civilian killed but the explanation below is wrong. This picture has been taken Malmedy after one of the three mistaken bombing of the USAF. On 23, 24 and 25 december was bombed by the USAF while the US troops were holding the town. At least 200 Blegian civilians were killed and a still unknown number of US soldiers. I intend to change the text below the picture soon. -- Lebob-BE 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Robert Shaw was a German Commander ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.63.2 ( talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
About Wacht am Rein: is the translation correct? "Wacht" can also be translated as "(to) guard". (To) Guard the Rhine? -- Soetermans ( talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Sir Brandenberg's Seventh Army pushed towards Luxembourg in their efforts to secure the flank from Allied attacks"
Should this not be Brandenberger? America's Wang ( talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How come they don't add up? It should be 84,323. The German numbers add up correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 ( talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The very first paragraph of this article says "but it is known to the general public simply as the Battle of the Bulge, named after the local sawmill."
What the -- ?
Every other source I've ever seen (and even the rest of this article) states that the "bulge" is the bulge backward in the Allied line, i.e., the German salient. I suppose it's remotely possible that Bulge was originally a local place name that was misunderstood by newsmen early on to refer to the salient for which it was such a natural fit . . . but is there any reason to believe this? There's no citation here, and I'm wondering if it isn't actually a joke that should be excised.
66.241.73.241 ( talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember the guys name, but there was an airborne general who was asked to surrender and he replied "nuts!" Shouldn't he be under commanders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnsworth ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Having looked through this article multiple times, I wouldn't even place it at GA status. Entire sections are without footnotes, and there is a popular culture section without any references or citations. It also needs a very good copyedit. I will have some spare time to work through it in a few weeks, but I'd definitely like to get this downgraded if possible. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone got the books listed in the refs or can we just wipe them or move them to a "Further reading" section. We really need to start on the citing campaign for the article, though I don't have any books on the subject. Woody ( talk) 11:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the following sentence in the 'drafting the offensive' section. "There is no evidence that Hitler realized, or any of his military staff pointed out, that of all the major combatants, the United States was the least damaged and had the greatest restorative powers.". This seems to be trying to imply that this fact was significant and Hitler should have realised it. In fact it is perfectly possible that Hitler assumed a) US armies would not fight as effectivly as British ones and b) it would be casualties and morale effects that caused the US to pull out of the war, even if they were relatively undamaged. I would recommend removing the sentence. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"open ground beyond the Meuse offered the prospect of a successful dash to the coast" I don't have sources for it, but I've seen a TV doc that suggests the inadequate road network N-S (as v E-W) was a factor, as much as "open ground". True? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The references supplied for casualties were a self published source helium.com and the otherwise excellent The Ardennes:Battle of the Bulge] which doesn't give casualty figures like those in the infobox. I have removed them.
Numbers I can get are:
“ | Some thirty-two U.S. divisions fought in the Ardennes, where the daily battle strength of U.S. Army forces averaged twenty-six divisions and 610,000 men. Alsace added eleven more divisions to the honors list, with an average battle strength of 230,000. Additionally, separate divisional elements as well as divisions arriving in sector at the end of the campaign granted participation credit to three more divisions. But the cost of victory was staggering. The final tally for the Ardennes alone totaled 41,315 casualties in December to bring the offensive to a halt and an additional 39,672 casualties in January to retake lost ground. The SHAEF casualty estimate presented to Eisenhower in February 1945 listed casualties for the First Army at 39,957; for the Third Army at 35,525; and for the British 30 Corps, which helped at the end at 1,408. Defeating Hitler's final offensive in the Alsace was also costly; the Seventh Army recorded its January battle losses at 11,609. Sickness and cold weather also ravaged the fighting lines, with the First, Third, and Seventh Armies having cold injury hospital admissions of more than 17,000 during the entire campaign. No official German losses for the Ardennes have been computed but they have been estimated at between 81,000 and 103,000. A recently published German scholarly source gave the following German casualty totals: Ardennes—67,200; Alsace (not including Colmar Pocket)—22,932. Most of the figures cited do not differentiate between permanent losses (killed and missing), wounded, and non-battle casualties. | ” |
“ | Among 600,000 Americans eventually involved in the fighting... 29 divisions, 6 mechanized cavalry groups, and the equivalent of 3 separate regiments - casualties totalled 81,000 of which 15,000 were captured and 19,000 killed. Among 55,000 British - 2 divisions and 3 brigades casualties totalled 1,400, of which just over 200 were killed. The Germans, employing close to 500,000 men - including 28 divisions and 3 brigades - lost at least 100,000 killed, wounded and captured.
Both sides lost heavily in weapons and equipment, probably as many as 800 tanks on each side and the Germans a thousand planes |
” |
The second reference suggests more tanks were lost per side than is currently given by our article as having been present. Does anyone else have useful references for this? Hohum ( talk) 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
“ | In late December German propagandists claimed that the object of the Ardennes offensive had been to cripple the attack capabilities of the Allied armies and chew up their divisions east of the Meuse. There also is considerable evidence that Model, and perhaps Rundstedt, accepted this as a reasonable tactical objective in the operations from Christmas onward. The attainment of this goal, to chew up Allied divisions and dull the cutting edge of the American armies, was achieved in only limited fashion. The attack of twenty-nine German divisions and brigades destroyed one American infantry division as a unit, badly crippled two infantry divisions, and cut one armored combat command to pieces. The total of American battle casualties reported for the period 16 December through 2 January (although these probably were incomplete returns) numbered 41,315 officers and men, of which 4,138 were known to be killed in action, 20,231 were wounded in action, and 16,946 were reported missing. During the same period the American formations in the Ardennes received 31,505 replacements, or "reinforcements" as these individual soldiers now were named. The matériel losses inflicted by German action represented only a temporary diminution in the fighting strength of a few of the American divisions and normally were replaced within a fortnight. | ” |
(outdent) Thanks for the help! I was looking for final figures, primarily for the infobox, but numbers to 2nd January might find a place in a relevant part of the main article. Hohum ( talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Robert G. Snyder my dad fought at the battle of the Bulge. Today I received the blanket he had while he was at the Battle of the Bulge. A relative had it. Dad was wounded in France and received a Purple Heart. He was a DAV, he passed away Oct 18th 2004. He had won a second purple heart but never received it. He three brothers that fought in WWII, Lawrence Snyder, John Snyder and William Snyder. Dad was a Sgt E-5. He really never talked about WWII. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.144.135 ( talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency in the " Germans strike back" section. The article indicates that Seventh Army's VI Corps suffered a total of 14,716 casualties in Unternehmen Nordwind in January 1945, yet only 11,609 casualties are claimed for all of Seventh Army for January. Do the two figures reflect different time periods, or is there an actual mistake there? Thanks, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The casualty figures should be for the U.S. Army since British forces were only slightly involved. The actual casualty figures for the U.S. Army are much, much lower than were in the box. My source is: Cosmas and Cowdrey, Medical Service in the European Theater of Operations. Official U.S. Army History; Medical Dept.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit 1430 Hours, 25 March 2006
The German offensive in the Ardennes was not the last major German offensive on the Western Front. That dubious honor belongs to Operation Nordwind. Operation Nordwind was not a subordinate operation of the German offensive in the Ardennes. I removed it from the list of subordinate operations. Nordwind was a completely independent operation.
For proof, please see the official US Army History of the Seventh US Army: Smith and Clarke, "Riviera To The Rhine." Dr. Clarke is the Chief Historian of the US Army.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit: 1600 Hours, 25 March 2006
The official name assigned to the Battle of the Bulge by the U.S. Army is the Battle of the Ardennes. After the war it was coupled with the Battle of the Alsace, and official campaign credits are for the Battle of the Ardennes - Alsace, despite the fact they were separate and distinct battles fought over 100 km apart almost entirely by different American units.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit: 1735 Hours, 25 March 2006
The official U.S. Army dates for the campaign, Ardennes-Alsace is 16 December, 1944 - 25 January, 1945, not 28 January!
Best Regards, —This unsigned comment was added by Philippsbourg ( talk • contribs) .
If so erase all tanks planes ships and material casualties from all battleboxes in wikipedia.(addind the original info)
2005 Hours, 11 April, 2006
Again, tanks, planes, ships, and material are not repeat not casualties. The term "casualties" refers to human beings. Please consult a dictionary.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipsbourg ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is incosistent, and ridicolous not to include the materiel lost into a battlebox even though their are not casualties.
This article could really use a concise introductory paragraph. You know, something like "The Battle of the Bulge was a major battle in World War II in which the Allied Forces....etc."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.114.187 ( talk) 11:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be some figures about reinforcements. Currently, as of the chart, there were 83,000 men but over 89,000 casualties. I thought that even James Bond said that you couldn't die twice.
Who ever scripted this page must have been joking. Right before the top paragraph it says poopy poopy poopy. Now I'd be more than happy to fix it if I could FTP wikipedia. But I cant because my username and password are useless for FTP purposes on this site. So either someone else fix it or you will get more complaints like this one. Its a simple error to fix, just delete it and re-FTP it. This kind of thing gives wikipedia a bad rep within schools.
-Harrison 4-5-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slack565 ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Toward the end of this article, it claims that "the German offensive drew to a close on 25 January." The very next section, it says, "On 7 January 1945, Hitler agreed to withdraw... thus ending all offensive operations."
That's a two and a half week disagreement in a battle that only took place for 3 weeks!
I'm new to Wikipedia... but can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.145.67 ( talk) 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states in the lead that the Bulge was America's largest and bloodiest battle in history (although the reference cited only claims that it was America's bloodiest of World War II). I have always been under the impression, and have read it in many places, that the Meuse-Argonne of World War I was actually America's bloodiest. Official casualty figures from that battle were 26,277 KIA and 95,786 wounded, or a total of 122063 without counting captured (who I don't suppose count as being "bloodied" anyway). Accordingly, I'm going to delete the reference to "bloodiest" battle. If anyone objects, please feel free to respond. Jrt989 ( talk) 17:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this article is tagged as a stub? Jrt989 ( talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Battle of the Bulge was fought in Belgium and Luxembourg and German land was not involved so I removed Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.151.118 ( talk) 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why there is no details about the American counter offensive during Battle of the Bulge ? ..... I mean the details only about the German offensive and since the article is about Battle of the Bulge not just Operation Wacht um Rhein .... I think the article needs improvment.
-- 82.116.151.118 ( talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a Canadian flag in the beligenrents box on the side of the article. And why is this? NO CANADIAN TROOPS FOUGHT IN THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE. NONE WHATSOEVER.
But since Canada likes to take credit for "winning" every battle in World War II, perhaps we should just remove the American flags and replace them with Canadian maple leaves and let them arrogantly take credit for Bulge altogether! What a f--king joke. -- 74.47.102.193 ( talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted an IP editor who had reinserted his original edits after their previous entry was reverted due to being uncited. While the reinserted text did have some sources, they were a mix of incomplete and dubious quality. Hopefully he will put his case here as we may still be able to improve the article with his input. Hohum ( talk) 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The battle of the Bulge is one of the most remarkable battles of WW2, unfortunately the reasons have been censored for over 60 years.
Montgomery did rescue the US Army, which without his input would have been comprehensively defeated. It was not politically or cultural acceptable to mention that at the time, though after 60 or so years I would hope we would be able to look at the facts with some detachment.
The German attack cut all communications between Bradley (who was in Luxembourg) and his northern Armies. They were leaderless and disorganised, under normal circumstances they would have been defeated. Montgomery (like Patton) anticipated the German attack and made plans to improvise a command structure in advance for the US Army which he knew would suffer a crippling blow. He also and moved reserves to the Meuse to protect the Meuse crossing which were the main German objective.
Although literally 'erased' from US maps, Montogomery used the British XXX Corps (with its Canadian troops) to plug the hole in the US line, they then drove forward to Houfalazie and Bastonge relieving them from the West.
A British account of the situation contemporary with events can be found in Alanbrooke's (Commander in Chief of the British Army) war diaries and in the British HMSO official histories. They both differ significantly from US histories and personal memoirs, which although not necessarially inaccurate omit many significant details with the aim of minimising British involvement.
The actual US units which were taken under British command in the heat of battle actually had a response at direct variance to the US histories - if you care to check out the documentary series 'The World at War' episode 19 you will find an interview with General Lawton Collins being quite frank about the fact that the British 'saved our ass' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh? You prefer secondary sources to primary???? Why would you prefer a secondary source to a primary?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
So Wikipedia is for dummies who prefer what historians tell them rather than figuring things out for themselves. . . .. of course the 'historians' would never have an agenda of creating a history that suits their agenda.
Although British troops did not directly relieve Bastonge they made contact with US troops in the area of 'La Roche'. This Belguim site explains the battle situation without the usual US Army propaganda.
http://www.batarden.be/defo_en.htm
It's somewhat different from US histories. . .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confusing 'Well respected historians' with 'Well respected American historians' It's clear from the Alanbrooke diaries that the British regarded Eisenhower as completely incompetant to command armies in the field. 90% of the British effort in NW europe was involved in preventing Eisenhower demonstrating his incompetence - check out the Alanbrooke diaries.
I've got a nice map showing the movement of XXX Corps in the Times Atlas of WW2, but copying that and using it would be against copywright - how very convienent for those who wish to claim the Battle of the Bulge as being an entirely American battle.
There's the 'American Propaganda' version of history as posted in this Wiki, and the real version of history, which is very different.
Can Americans give up the propaganda fantasy and address the historical facts? In my long (15 years) experience of the internet I've only once met an American who could address the historical facts head on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . . the US Army was never cut in half, the gap was never plugged by the British XXX corps, the US Northern flank never lost all command and control, the British XXX Corps never advanced to Houfalaize.
This is not about the facts - its about what you (and Americans generally) want to believe, and you don't want to believe the British saved the US Army, inspite of the fact that Americans who were there at the time saying otherwise.
Seen this movie too many times before - if its a choice between recognising US failure and lying. . . . .we all know what version of history Americans are going to give us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanaich ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
It's significantly different from the account in this article, which mentions neither the role of the British in plugging the gap in the US line or complete loss of communications by the Northern Armies. Montgomeries plan involved blocking the German path north while drawing them to the West, away from their objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.189.159 ( talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The info box says the Germans committed 500 tanks yet lost 700. Something needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.100.188 ( talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope that the anon aditor comes here to discuss his/her changes. If they are correct I will gladly accept that argument (with a reliable source). Yet the sources now given seem to dispute the changes. Jojhutton ( talk) 21:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"Among 600,000 Americans eventually involved in the fighting -- including 29 divisions, 6 mechanized cavalry groups, and the equivalent of 3 seperate regiments -- casualties totalled more than 81,000, of which 15,000 were captured and 19,000 killed. among 55,000 British -- 2 divisions and 3 brigades -- casualties totalled 1,400, of which just over 200 were killed. The germans, employing close to 500,000 men -- including 28 divisions and 3 brigades -- lost at least 100,000 killed, wounded and captured."
Consistency needs to be maintained between the article and the infobox casualty listing, please. The main article cites official Army reported losses at 80,897, where the infobox has 84,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.115.162 ( talk) 09:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
nirvana77 puts "91,132 killed, wounded, captured or missing" in the box for german casualties. i explained him that hes wrong because he mixed up bulge and nordwind. he quotes cirillo , here is the exact quote
22.932+67.200 = nirvana's 91,132 , thats WRONG nordwind is not a part of battle of the bulge
from the same article u can get the allied casualties, the infobox only uses the bulge casualties not the casualties of nordwind. allied casualties for nordwind and bulge would be 103.000 plus french first army. now we have german casualties for nordwind and bulge and allied for bulge. i was reverted 3 times....
same with battle strength —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
what are u talkin men u quoted cirillo u should be banned u quote cirillo but this numbers cant be found there. so your edits are bullshit because u are lyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
hm ok. the problem is that for one year the article quoted cirillo, who never used such numbers. even after i started talk about the problem i got reverted and nirvana put obvious wrong sources in the text. so can u hohum quote please 1 or 2 books here? with the full sentence saying 500.000 german in the battle of the bulge. all documents everyone can read in the www are not claiming 500.000 ... . please 1 or 2 sentences about the doubtable 500.000 , thank u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
ok guys i think u bought bad books or books . "They had massed all their forces - some 500,000 men - at that particular point to launch the attack." this is NOT POSSIBLE u can sell this book.
it is obivous that 500.000 did NOT participate in this battle , i dont how much reservs army group B got but both qoute are INCORRECT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 23:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
i checked the books, your big problem is that all of these books uses the same ground source for the claim of 500.000. so u have only one basic source. and when the basic source claims 500.000 germans in 28 divisions the sources highly doubtable. when somebody writes a book about one division he will always use another source for the menpower for example because his research will deal with the division. the author of the airborne books is even so incompetent that he takes this number of 500.000 and says that this germans attack. please provide the basic sources and not books which copy this sources.
now we have one! source claiming 500.000 germans in 28 division, everyone who dealt with the wehrmacht knows that in 44/45 28 german cant be 500.000.
here u got the same 28 divisions but analysed by somebody who knows that german divisions dont count 18.000 men: " 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge" "The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men."
both authors mean the same 28 divisions but your sources i wrong.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
i quoted this here http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_Cont.htm#toc , cirillo says the same . both reliable i guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
even the wiki aritcle about german strenght for battle of bulge says 240.000 in 30 divisions. the 2 divisions more are likely the OKW Reserves 10SSPz and11Pz —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.192.121.123 (
talk)
00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
hohum u start beeing annoying. i provided little to none? the whole article is based on the articles i took my numbers out. u provided ten chronics of divisions which use the same basic source. u call this overwhelming u little hobby historian should start learning how to analyse books. the Big problem is that u know nothing u print sentence like "the 28 german divisions numbered 500.000" , everyone how studied wehrmacht knows that this is impossible but u come and put this in the box because 5 books quoting this nonsense.
this is not my assumption thats fact. i quotet the army history article who said correctly german Inf-Div is numbering about 10.000 mens but u amateur ignore this because u cant respond to it. than u go search for amateur historians which have written books which costs 5 dollars. how can a book with good research cost 5 dollars. noob.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
nono my question was how can 28 german divisions have 500.000 men. U HOHUM QUOTED 28 DIVISION WITH 500.000 Men. the reality of wehrmacht structure contradicts this completly. my question was clear. that u dont answer my simple question and try to answer another shows how clumsy u are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
instead of answering the question u come with blabla and show me were i can find the answer, when u know the answer then please tell me... the 3 german armies had 28 divisions involded and 2 in OKW reserve, how can this divisions have 18.00 at average, how? even at full strenght german Inf.Div did not have 18.000 men ^^
hohum is it possbile that u not even hold one of the books u quote?
no everyone can read here that u not answered the question. when i click your link there is a short description of the battle not more no numbers no figures. i guess that your figures always include operation nordwind. and again how can 28 german divisions have 500.000 when not even german fullstrenght divisions have 18.000 men. simple question please answer.
maybe there is a copyright problem because iam from germany so i cant read the text of the book, maybe u copy the text and print it here, then i can see ....
ok i try to be kind again to solve this problem. hohum is it possible that your "sources" all include operation nordwind? many authors do this. but battle of the bulge and nordwind are two different articles. both articles the one by cirillo and the other dont support your figures. this 2 articles are the basement of this article why should they be so fucking wrong? there is a huge difference between 250.000 and 500.000 . its obvious that they dont mean the same troops. do u see that there is something weired?
read carefully, i talk about the 500.000 germans in the battle of the bulge. but tell me what numbers are mentioned in your books about the german strenght —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.192.121.123 (
talk)
21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
awesome name for a history book "armaggedon" and 8 dollars mean very much research in the book :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
prices are based on many factores, one of them is the invested money. books with big research are more expensive then books how copy old facts. thats the problem with u and your gang u go buy books which all copy the same sources and than u collect them as sources to support your figures. hohum cites a divisions chronic which simply copies a sentence and puts it in a totally wrong context. and that u dont agree with hastings is obvious because u are military incompetent and fan of the british army^^. max hastings book is one of the first i found cited here which gots only good reviews, so much other books here mentioned got bad reviews....
and enignma read what i wrote, all my assertion were based on the two online articles of the US military. the complete article is based on this articles. but all of u think the numbers are wrong. nearly all of your sources say 28 divisions with 500.000 men. but to this time its impossible to say how much germans were involved. the both articles said correctly german strenght is hard to estimate BUT ALL YOUR SOURCES SAY THE SAME WORDS OF 28 DIVISIONS WITH 500.000 MEN, lol ...... . so apperently... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
READ what i wrote!! i provided the sources which are mentioned in the text already. both articles name the 67.000 casualties. when i come to this discussion text, the infobox said "91,132" casualties and this was based on the articles which names this 91,132 casualtes as the summ of nordwind and bulge. and this WAS WORNG. and historical work becomes more accurate with more research , so books written 2 days after world war 2 are less reliable than newer books in general. i dont know your book... . - - an yes the british army was "incompetent" compared to wehrmacht; soldiers, tankers, pilots, officers, generals.... most not british/american historians will tell u. iam pretty sure the hasting is not perfect , his military opinion about zhukovs shows.... - - PS i bet 2000 euros that no 500.000 soldiers took part in bulge.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.131.130 ( talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)