I made one for Passchendaele and Pearl Harbor, now its time for the ardennes offensive.

Today in 1944 was when 25 German divisions consisting of the bulk of hitler's elite SS units hit the allies in a do-or-die attack to seize antwerp's immense supplies. The allies were totally unprepared, believing that germny was exhausted by the war and couldnt fight any longer. The offensive through the ardennes was one of the bloodiest and most notorious battles ever seen. The battle is now known as Either the Ardennes Offensive or the Battle of the Bulge. This is a discussiopn thread concerning those hellish 6 weeks in the bloody and cold Ardennes.

doomed to fail--it needed allied airpower neutalized by the weather to suceede. as soon as the weather cleaned the planes and bombers were zapping anything that moved

Also when the weather was bad the German armour and supplies were clogged up on the roads unable to advance quickly, either way they lost out.

One thing you don't see very often btw is remarks on the British intervention in the battle. British troops were engaged on the Northern area of the campaign for some time, though this is largely ignored in many books I have seen, or sidelined to maybe 5-6 pages out of 300.

And the 101 airborne holding the Bastonge pocket and thus delaying the Germans. And who can forget Gen. Macuffile(sp?) reply to German surrender demands.

"Nuts"

that was it, and that fight was pure bloodlust. Uts suprising though that an airbourne unit held off tanks, but then agian Arnhem was just 2 months earlier.

Originally posted by Sarevok
Its suprising though that an airbourne unit held off tanks

As well as the 101st Airborne, the American forces encircled at Bastogne included about half an armoured division ;) (from memory, Combat Command B and some of Combat Command R from the 5th Armoured Division). The tankers contribution is often ignored.

OTOH, when the conditions were right, elite light infantry were able to hold off armour - For instance, the Australian 9th Division defeated one and a half German armoured divisions during the siege of Tobruk, and Soviet infantry inflicted crippling losses on the armour-heavy German 6th Army at Stalingrad.

of course the stalingrad case was a bit... messy. the casualties to kill the 6th army were outright insane.

Although the British helped stabilize and remove the "Bulge" I think Monty suxxors. Pompous windbag who lacked imagination.

Montgomery's talents or otherwise is no justification for the exclusion in a lot of films and literature of the British support for the American armies in the area. And yes, as has been stated, with the right conditions, usually those that impede armour being used properly it's easy for infantry to hold a position if supplied.

Montgomery did well during the battle - he recognised that it was primarily an American afair, and concentrated on supplying support to the American units involved (including the US 9th Army which was part of his 21st Army Group and another American Army which was transfered to his command after being cut off from the US 12th Army Group's HQ by the German 'bulge').

However, while this generated lots of good-will from American generals, he threw it away shortly after the battle when he told reporters that British troops were primarily responsible for stoping the Germans.

Monty ALWAYS did that, and I cant stand people who do that. He seems to me to just have become way too cocky and arrogant after El Alamein.

He was cocky and arrogant before El Alamain as well ;)

naturally... what do you all know about the battle of the bulge?

I'm pretty familiar with Wacht am Rhein.

What specifically are you looking for?

The Battle of the Bulge began as a route for the US Army, many units were overrun and surrendered in the first few days. Some stood and fought, even when hopelessly surrounded. Most of them were wiped out while the support units retreated.

It had all the markings of a disaster.

Some credit must go to Eisenhower, who saw the opportunity to engage the German army in the open, out from behind the Seigfried line. He rallied his generals and gave the order to hold the line, which helped prevent a wider disaster.

The British, Canadian and Polish forces to the north saw some heavy action, but they were not in the crosshairs of the massed German armored forces. The Americans were.

The most bitter fighting of the Western Front occured during December and January of that winter. Entire divisions were chewed to pieces in that frozen hell.

I never knew just how bad it was until I read a few books about it. It was very bloody, the men who fought there suffered horribly. The temperatures never got above freezing, the soldiers lived in holes night and day, enduring artillery bombardments and constant attacks and counterattacks.

My grandfather was an platoon sargeant in the 5th Infantry Division, which was part of Patton's counter-offensive at the southern part of the German salient. He survived day after day of numbing cold and constant battle, then got wounded and evacuated to England.

He didn't talk about it much, except to say that no movie ever did justice to what really happened there. It was a slaughterhouse.

can you suggest any books, or perhaps put up some pictures?

Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose gives the "grunt's eye view" of the war in France and the Low Countries for Americans in 1944.

I'd say it rates in the top 10 best novels about WWII.

sounds kind of interesting. I think ill be sure to look at that as i have yet to find a good book on the ardennes.

Map of the battle (http://www.house.gov/va/images/press/bulge.jpg)

Photographs from the battle (http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~dsargent/bulgepictures.htm)

Story and pictures (http://www.grunts.net/wars/20thcentury/wwii/slayden/slayden3.html)

thanks, ill look at them tommorow as I have no more time for today.

The Germans suffered a lot of casualties during this battle. These units were desparatley needed on the eastern front. The German high command did a pretty good scraping together all the divisions for this attack even if there were a lot of Volksturrum. A good book on the subject is: Joachim Peiper 'The devil's adjudant'. It has a really good apendix

Indeed they were needed in the east, from what I remember Hitler threw more tanks into the Bulge than he had on the entire eastern front! Considering the ludicrously poor chance of a sizeable victory and the other factors involved it was a futile exercise.

it might have worked. If they had taken antwerp and its overwhelming supplies, they also would have cut the btirish off in holland. They hoped of r a seperate peace with them to prove the salvation of germany.

They tried moving armoured forces over a wooded, mountainous terrain in the middle of winter. In 1944 they had appalling weather (a two edged sword), blocked roads, never enough fuel and supplies, not enough room to manouver, difficult terrain to overcome, the wrong tanks for the attack and so on. It was doomed to failiure before it began, the allies in the west were infinitely unlikely to collapse as quickly as they did in 1940, Antwerp was well beyond the operational range of the King Tiger or Panther, they would never have reached it without capturing supplies.

The Allies were fighting for keeps and would probably never sue anyway. Neither the USA or Britain were anything like as poor in their generals or tactics as the Franco-British forces of 1940. The whole thing was a pipe dream, Hitler lived in a dream world at this stage, no operation coming under the conditions the Germans in the bulge faced would suceed without the biggest amount of blind luck in the history of warfare.

The chances for Germany's success were not good, but they managed to kill alot of people and stall an Allied advance into Germany for months. Hitler seemed to (incredibly) believe that once the Soviets started over-running Germany, the Western Allies would switch sides in the war.

Originally posted by joespaniel
The chances for Germany's success were not good, but they managed to kill alot of people and stall an Allied advance into Germany for months. Hitler seemed to (incredibly) believe that once the Soviets started over-running Germany, the Western Allies would switch sides in the war.

True, but at the cost of many of his larger tanks to lack of fuel rather than in combat with the enemy, and some of his more elite troops.

true, i would still have slammed the ardennes. but i would have slammed straight for antwerp then took the fuel re-establish the line and i would have sent the 25 divisions to the east to kill alot of russians. I would likely have to split them, and use the western front's half to stall them on the rhine and seigfreid lines. how aobout any1 else? what would have been your war plan?

Mine would have followed Rundstedt's advice:

"surrender you fool" :D (not directed at you sarevok btw)

I personally don't think any kind of drive to the Rhine was worth the manpower, supply and equipment losses. German plans heavily relied on intact bridges over the Meuse, something for which they relied on Skorzeny's men(the greif commandos), who in this role failed before they even started when the cover for their mission was blown before the attacks even began. Also the brigade he raised using US equipment was woefully under-equiped and forced to modify german stuff to appear american. Also the delays in the early days of fighting caused the Meuse crossings to be protected better before the Germans could ever arrive.

Whilst it's good for Hitler that the Germans pushed the allies back that far, their chances of sucess on the expected scale were laughable. All the allies needed was time to concentrate and counter-attack, this was bought in dozens of ways, not all of them combat related. Anywhere the Germans tried such an assault was less likely to suceed because the Allies could bring more resources and men to the campaign in time.

I personally wouldn't have bothered at all with the whole offensive. The germans ability to transfer both supplies and troops from font to front on such a scale was minimal to say the least, negating the possibility of smashing the allies and then running east straight away. Also I don't know what you mean by attacking straight to antwerp, I was under the impression that that was the german intention...

Germany didn't have the fuel to fight an offensive war by the winter of 1944. British and American bombers had almost completely cut off thier supply.

In the end, the Battle of the Bulge just made it easier for the Russians to smash thier way into Germany while holding up the Western Allies for a few months. Considering what the Soviets did to Germany, it probably was a bad idea.

If I were Hitler I would have used all my best forces to fight a defensive war in the East. Germans had more stomach for fighting the Soviets than the British/Americans. The Russians were barbarians and after witnessing their conduct in East Prussia and other German territories it would have been my main priority to stop them.
The hatred I have for Hitler stems not so much from what he did to the Jews but from what he put the German people through.

Originally posted by rilnator
Germans had more stomach for fighting the Soviets than the British/Americans.
You can be pretty sure that pretty much everyone was happy to be assigned to the Western front instead of the Eastern one... ;)

Originally posted by Sarevok
true, i would still have slammed the ardennes. but i would have slammed straight for antwerp then took the fuel re-establish the line and i would have sent the 25 divisions to the east to kill alot of russians. I would likely have to split them, and use the western front's half to stall them on the rhine and seigfreid lines.

That was pretty much what Hitler was hoping to achieve ;)

An interesting thing about the battle of the bulge is that it provides an interesting counter-point against the people who argue that the French were fools for not anticipating a German armoured thrust through the Ardennes in 1940. As the events of 1944 clearly illustrated, the French were pefectly justified in holding the belief that the Ardennes was lousy tank country. Their mistake was to not deploy the relatively small number of quality troops who were needed to convert the Ardennes from lousy tank country to impassable tank country.

BTW, I don't see how the attack slowed the Western Allies penetration of Germany - at the time of the German attack, this effort had already been all but abandoned due to logistical problems, the winter weather and the unexpected strength of the German border defences. If anything, Hitler's offencive greatly increased the speed of the Allied offencive into Germany - the 300,000 killed and captured the Germans lost would have been a lot more effective had they stayed behind the West Wall and Rhine River. Most military historians think that the attack greatly helped the Allies efforts in 1945, and I see no reason to disagree.

very well put, that was the thing that was missing, though in 1940 they couldnt because belgium would have declared war. Belgium had turmoil in between wars and when war outbroke they massed on both borders.

Originally posted by rilnator
The Russians were barbarians and after witnessing their conduct in East Prussia and other German territories it would have been my main priority to stop them.

The Germans did much, much worse things to the Poles and Russians first.

Originally posted by Case
Most military historians think that the attack greatly helped the Allies efforts in 1945, and I see no reason to disagree.

Everything I've read says the opposite. It took over a month to regain the ground lost and another six weeks to reconstitute the front line units, most of which suffered huge casualties.

Originally posted by Case
If anything, Hitler's offencive greatly increased the speed of the Allied offencive into Germany - the 300,000 killed and captured the Germans lost would have been a lot more effective had they stayed behind the West Wall and Rhine River.

At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured.

I don't know where you're getting this 300,000 from.

Originally posted by joespaniel


The Germans did much, much worse things to the Poles and Russians first.

How nice, nice to see savage actions are excused because somebody did it first.....

Massacre begat massacre I suppose.

Originally posted by joespaniel
Everything I've read says the opposite. It took over a month to regain the ground lost and another six weeks to reconstitute the front line units, most of which suffered huge casualties.


In the words of the offical US Army history of the battle The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge "The material losses inflicted by German action [during the Battle of the Bulge] represented only a temporary dimuation of the fighting strength of a few of the American divisions and were normally replaced within a fortnight".

At the conclusion of the battle the casualties were 81,000 U.S. with 19,000 killed, 1400 British with 200 killed, and 100,000 Germans killed, wounded or captured.

The offical history gives American battle casualties as:
total: 41,3155
killed in action: 4,138
wounded in action: 20,231
missing in action: 16,946 (most of whom would have been captured)

During the period of the battle, the US Army formations in the Ardennes recieved 31,505 individual replacements to make up these losses.
(all figures are from page 674)

While there were doubtless thousands more casulties from the cold, accidents and the like, it's hard to say what proportion of these can be attributed to the German's decision to go on the offencive.

Unfortunetly, the book doesn't offer a definitive figure for the German losses, observing that, on average, each German division involved in the battle took about 2,500 casualties (these would have been much higher in some formations then others). Your figure for total casualties is undoubtably more accurate then mine though - the Offical History says that the total German strength at the start of the offencive was about 200,000 men :o (as compared to about 83,000 Americans).

I can't find figures for German equipment losses, but they must have been considerable - for example, the US 2nd Armoured Division claimed the destructionof 82 German tanks, 83 artillery guns and over 400 trucks in a matter of days (see page 574). Given that the Germans had almost no ability to make good these losses and issue them to units at the front, such losses would have been crippling - 82 tanks would have been the best part of a Panzer division for example.*

In terms of damage to a formations, the history states that a single US infantry division was destroyed, and two divisions, along with an Armoured Combat Comand were temporarily crippled.

Considering that during the fighting on the West Wall the casualty ratio was undoubtably going against the Allies, and they still hadn't satisfactorally breached the wall by the time of the German attack, I can't see how there could be any argument that the Allied victory during the Battle of the Bulge shortened the war. Aside from the mathematics, the fact that the Germans utterly wasted their last throw of the dice (which would have fallen somewhere) can only have shortened the war. If those units had been, say, lurking behind the Rhine when the Western Allies staged their crossing, or been positioned to oppose the Soviet Vistula-Oder operation then the war could easily have been extended for a few more horrible months while the Allies licked their wounds.

Indeed, some people even believe in a conspiracy theory where Eiesnhower ordered a blind eye to be turned to the German preperations in order to ensure that they launched an attack, so that their formations could be destroyed in the open! (I don't believe this myself - the Allied reserves were out of place, and any relevant files would have been declasified by now).




*Incidently, the 2nd Armoured Division's losses during the same period were 5 light tanks and 22 medium tanks, which should provide some food for thought for those folks who seem to think that American armour always took heavy losses when fighting German armour. (personel casualties were even lower: 17 KIA, 26 missing and 201 wounded). It should be noted though that the 2nd Armoured was a very good division.

Either way, the offensive gained nothing in real terms. Hitler's forces were no longer capable of offensive actions by this stage of the war, to launch one was pointless. To launch one like the bulge was laughable. If it speeded the defeat then I say a big "thanks" to Mein Fuhrer ;)

Originally posted by privatehudson
Either way, the offensive gained nothing in real terms. Hitler's forces were no longer capable of offensive actions by this stage of the war, to launch one was pointless. To launch one like the bulge was laughable. If it speeded the defeat then I say a big "thanks" to Mein Fuhrer ;)

My thoughts exactly. The attack was an act of folly, which shortened the sufferings of millions.

Oh yes, and I noticed your attempt to disprove that it was average for allied forces to take heavy losses against german armour. The bulge and the 2nd armoured were exceptional :p

The attack was not insane, but it was definitely a do or die gamble. Obviously Hitler died. The goal of reaching Antwerp was vapor. It was much too far away. However there was a real opportunity to drive several areas back on an impassible river and cut them up, as well as a legitimate chance to break the line and savage the rear.

I know a Lt. tank commander from 3rd Army, under Patton, which was famously rushed to the Bastoine encirclement. He says that the General was talking about a winter campaign as early as October, because of the battle remains, which among other things had no winter clothing, consisted only of older armor units, etc. Patton had his people cutting contingency orders for several days before the attack. It was in some opinions the most brilliant staff action of the war.

J

indeed, that is some interesting additional info. The ardennes was do-or-die there is no question about that. Despite all of this knowledge being passed, you dont hear about it as much as stalingrad or D-day yet the fighting there was at least if not more savage than those 2 (actually probably not stalingrad).

Originally posted by privatehudson
Oh yes, and I noticed your attempt to disprove that it was average for allied forces to take heavy losses against german armour. The bulge and the 2nd armoured were exceptional :p

I don't see how the 2nd was particularly exceptional - while it was a great division, some other American Armoured Divisions were just as good, and the British 11th and Guards Armoured built up excelent reputations during the European campaign. Even the British 7th Armoured was perfoming well by 1945 (though it's perfomance in Normandy left an awful lot to be desireed). You seem to be trapped in the belief that the German Armoured formations were automatically superior to the Allies.

they were, so when an allied armored division distinguished itself it became very well known because it had stood up to the strength of the wehrmacht's panzers.

You seem to be trapped in the belief that the German Armoured formations were automatically superior to the Allies.

Not at all, I'm more of the belief that whilst good too many things played against the formations during the entire or majority of the period, be it bad tactics, bad equipment or bad situations. I tend to look at the whole situation, the allies superior performances came during a period when the Germans found themselves outnumbered, without air support mostly and woefully lacking in supplies.

Whilst I agree certain formations outfought the germans on many occaisions, or entire periods the notion that this was under fair conditions is more often than not laughable. I could cite the heavy losses incurred by the Guards in Market Garden, but this is hardly fair given the situation they were in. Similarly placing an understrength german formation comprising ad-hoc units with bare minimum supplies and making them dodge allied planes is not a fair way to judge their performances either.

And I did not intend my comment to indicate that the 2nd armoured were the sole formation, but rather that in such a situation as the bulge, the germans after the initial shock were doomed anyway, the situation was much in the favour of the advancing allies such as 2nd armoured and losses that light are to be expected in any such like situation regardless of the unit. Also my main point was to remark on the exceptional or otherwise nature of the losses, not the abilities. The fact that low losses occurred in that battle or others does not make this the norm, hence my comment about it being unusual/exceptional.

They weren't automatically superior no, I did not indicate this, I have just stated my beliefs that the german armoured formations would more often than not outfight their opponents if they faced them evenly, and since this was rarely the case, of course they would often be outfought. Rare is the occaision that you can isolate the result of an armoured clash to just the formations involved and their abilities or otherwise.

germny tanks typically were better then allied tanks though.

Originally posted by Sarevok
germny tanks typically were better then allied tanks though.

That's highly arguable. Most French and British tanks were better then their German foes in 1940. The tanks which made up the bulk of the Soviets vast fleet in 1941 weren't all that inferior to the German tanks, and the relatively scarce T-34 and KV-1 were undoubtably superior. The Germans had the edge over the Soviets in 1943, but this was eroded in 1944 as the Joseph Stalin and T-34/85 tanks were introduced along with the SU-122 and 152 tank destroyers (anyway, the Tigers and Panthers were only available in limited numbers in 1943).

Throughout the war the Pz-III and Pz-IV made up the vast majority of the German tank fleet (the Pz-III numbers declined while the Pz-IV numbers increased). Neither tank was ever really significantly superior to thier main oponents, with the T-34 and Sherman, the mainstays of the Allied tank fleets, being somewhat superior to both the main German models.

the sherman i dont agree with but the T-34 i do, and poanzer IV's were actually very good.

The panzer mark 4 was lower than a Sherman (smaller target) and had a better gun than most models of the Shermans.

Originally posted by Case
Most French and British tanks were better then their German foes in 1940. The tanks which made up the bulk of the Soviets vast fleet in 1941 weren't all that inferior to the German tanks, and the relatively scarce T-34 and KV-1 were undoubtably superior.


The Germans made up for the inferiority in tanks by massing them at critical points, while the British and French spread thier armor out (too thin).

The Germans also had unity of command, better commo and motivation in 1940.

Originally posted by joespaniel


The Germans made up for the inferiority in tanks by massing them at critical points, while the British and French spread thier armor out (too thin).

The Germans also had unity of command, better commo and motivation in 1940.

Yep, and that, along with air-superiority made the difference. If the allies knew what they were doing in 1940, the Germans probably would have been stoped cold, much like they were in 1944.

Indeed, when the Germans unleashed blitzkrieg in 1940, the Allies were more or less taken by surprise; but by war's end, everybody was using the same tactics. Or used to them.

Except for the Japanese though, note how successful was the Soviet blitz against the Japanese forces in Manchuria in 1945.

Throughout the war the Pz-III and Pz-IV made up the vast majority of the German tank fleet (the Pz-III numbers declined while the Pz-IV numbers increased).

Not during the Normandy and following campaigns, the panzer IV there was no more numerous at this stage than the panther. Also german armour could still go toe to toe with the later vehicles you mention, the JSII and tank destroyers, the Jagpanther series was pretty much the best vehicle of the war and the Jagpanzer IV was a decent vehicle also. The erosion only occurred to a certain extent depending on the formation as these vehicles were at least the equal of their soviet enemies.

I dont think that shermans could even penetrate the armorof the panther's either.

Originally posted by Sarevok
I dont think that shermans could even penetrate the armorof the panther's either.
A sherman firefly could, easily and so could a Pershing. Although neither of these vehicles were overly common in allied armoured formations nor was the Panther. The American M-36 was viewed as superior to the Jagdpanther. It was quicker, had a rotating turret and a 90mm gun.
While on the subject of Pz IVs I don't think you can sum them up as just Pz IVs in Gerneral. I mean the later model Pz IVs with extra armour skirting and the L-70 75mm can hardly be compared to the Pz IV A.

Originally posted by rilnator

A sherman firefly could, easily and so could a Pershing. Although neither of these vehicles were overly common in allied armoured formations nor was the Panther. The American M-36 was viewed as superior to the Jagdpanther. It was quicker, had a rotating turret and a 90mm gun.
While on the subject of Pz IVs I don't think you can sum them up as just Pz IVs in Gerneral. I mean the later model Pz IVs with extra armour skirting and the L-70 75mm can hardly be compared to the Pz IV A.

The Jackson was inferior in armour though making it vulnerable to german vehicles in the same way the Firefly was. It was also sometimes vulnerable to infantry as it was open topped. Also the Panzer IV was never equipped with the L/70 version of the 75mm gun as this was the gun that was in the Panther, the largest the Panzer IV ever used as a tank was an L/48 (I think, in the 40's anyway). The later Jagpanzers used the L/70 though.

And from what I've seen online, the difference in speed was neglible, the Jagpanther could manage 55/30 km/h (on/off road) and the M36 42/32 km/h, which would indicate the opposite of what you mention. Those were from www.onwar.com

seems like the jagdpanther was a better thank, which is easier to believe. German tanks were good and effective. This was also because they had excellent commanders.

Originally posted by privatehudson


The Jackson was inferior in armour though making it vulnerable to german vehicles in the same way the Firefly was. It was also sometimes vulnerable to infantry as it was open topped. Also the Panzer IV was never equipped with the L/70 version of the 75mm gun as this was the gun that was in the Panther, the largest the Panzer IV ever used as a tank was an L/48 (I think, in the 40's anyway). The later Jagpanzers used the L/70 though.

And from what I've seen online, the difference in speed was neglible, the Jagpanther could manage 55/30 km/h (on/off road) and the M36 42/32 km/h, which would indicate the opposite of what you mention. Those were from www.onwar.com

I got my information from Janes armoured fighting vihicles of WW2 and it states that the M-36 had max of 48kmph while the Jagdpanther was 42kmph. The question I answered was regarding Sarevok's claim that the Sherman didn't have the firepower to take out a Panther not which is the best all round tank.

I've usually considered the Jagpanther faster as it is always rated as such in wargames were such a difference counts. Whomever is right there the difference is neglible as to make little point anyway. As for the point on the sherman, it really depends on the mark as you stated, I was just correcting what I saw as a series of errors in your post and replying to your point about the M36 being a superior vehicle. Some shermans had the firepower, at least half I would guess even in 1945 did not though which is where the ambiguity as to it's capacity to engage panthers comes from.

you know, this is all really good info about tanks and all, but im not exactly sure what this has to do with the story of the ardennes offensive, although it was an enourmous tank battle.