Talk:Battle of the Bulge

Using proper English

This page should be written in so-called 'British English', or what I would call proper English, firstly because it is about a battle in Europe, and the English that is used in Europe is 'British English', and secondly, if you're going to quote the rules of wikipedia, an article should be written in the form of English that the original author used. The first person to create this page was a user called 'Tarquin' who is British. VenomousConcept (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR. The article has been in American English for the last seven years WP:RETAIN, and involved American troops more than British ones. The nationality of the original editor is irrelevant. (Hohum ^@) 13:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Clervaux

I've created an article on the Battle of Clervaux. Interested editors may want to link it from this article, it seems reasonably notable and relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NUTS

For those who are still confused 65 years later, could an American perhaps contribute an explanation of what is meant by the response 'Nuts' in this context? The only explanation of it that I can think of is, "Bugger, we've lost." Evidently that is not what is meant, because they didn't surrender and it is regarded as a morale-lifter to the troops. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I always interpreted it to mean that the American commander thought the German commander was nuts (i.e., not sane) for believing that they would surrender. But I could be wrong. Famartin (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it just means no, like a Brit saying "Bollocks". Hohum (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Slang an expression of disappointment, contempt, refusal, or defiance" (link). Hohum's translation works quite well. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Number of German soldier

According to Wikipedia, the German troop vary from 200,000 to 500,000. Is 500,000 is a bit exaggerated? According to the book 12thSS Panzer Division, there are only 18 German divisions. More than half are Volksgrenadier, also the German division are understrenght. The book also claim the number of US division initially is 55. I believe that the german number are exaggerated and the US number are too low. Seriously, 55 division and 384 artillery guns. On the German report, their artillery is outnumbered by those of the US ten to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.24.168 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

All of the strength / gun quotes depend on the date one is considering. At the start of the battle, German artillery most likely outnumbered the U.S. pieces in the VIII Corps sector. Likewise, the U.S. had only 3 divisions and part of an armored division in the sector, not sure where the "55 division" quote might come from. Most commonly quoted German division quantities range around 25 to 26 that took part in the battle during various phases. The German report you're looking at has to be considered in terms of 1) date it was issued and 2) quality of intelligence the Germans had at that point. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can any one tell me the name of the panzer division involve during the battle? 1800 tanks for the German seem to be much bigger than what it really is. There are only 8 German tanks division, and the number of tanks in each german divisions are much smaller than those of the allies. For example, the US armour division consist of only tanks, while the Panzer division has its own artillery, infantry, repair, recon and what ever.

Not sure where you're getting your information, but the U.S. armored division had a lot more than tanks -- like the German Panzer divisions, the U.S. divisions had their own infantry, artillery, etc. On German tank strength, the problem with trying to find other quotes is that the 1800 figure is based on the total of German tanks committed to the Ardennes, not just what is present on 16 December 1944. I can find figures for 16 December; what was sent thereafter until the end of January 1945 or so is not so clear. All I can say authoritatively is that the Germans did not have 1800 tanks for the offensive on 16 December 1944. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See comment below. This is an important history article in Wikipedia, so I am going to ask for some help/comments from people with resources in the MILHIST group. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Strength quotes in battle box

An anonymous editor has mentioned that the strength quotes shown in the battle box, while cited (sort of), may bear further examination. A couple of examples will illustrate the issue. The U.S. tank quote of 1,300 is based on the 1st Army tank strength but apparently does not include 3rd Army tanks, or tanks of the British Army. Cole's quote of 1,800 German tanks is later mentioned as 1,700 to 1,800 tanks and assault guns -- a key change in the data definition. I am also surprised by the variance in the German personnel strength quote -- 300,000 personnel. I am going to ask at MILHIST to see if anyone is interested in fleshing (flushing) out better data. I also believe it would help to provide any quotes based on particular dates rather than trying to estimate total quotes for the entirety of the battle. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Germans got a somehow superiority at the assault area on 16 december, but those numbers obviously do not reflect the real strenght, as the Allies poured lots of units into the battle in the following days. According to Cole on 16 December at the assault area

• German Artillery was 1,900 (including rocket-launchers) and 394 for the Allies (p. 650)
• Germans got 970 Tanks + assault guns for the initial assault + another 450 in reserve units. Allies had 470 tanks at the assault area on 16 December (p. 73) (dunno whether that includes tank destroyers, there were "242 Sherman tanks, 182 tank destroyers" on 16 December per p. 650)
• Allied manpower was 83,000 and 200,000 for the Germans (p. 650)

Allied numbers later dramatically rised, but the numbers are hard to get. All i can find in Cole is:

Allied artillery was already 4,155 pieces on 23 December (p. 659). For the whole Battle the Germans fielded 1,800 tanks. StoneProphet (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stone. There's been no response yet at the MILHIST forum, but . . . what we might shoot for here is a table that compares two dates during the battle to compare the relationship of the forces at the start of the battle and then at a point where the Americans had significantly reinforced the Ardennes front. I've got some data on U.S. tank strength for 24 December 1944. For artillery, we might be able to get a count of battalions if nothing else. I've seen battle box set-ups that include both initial and reinforced strengths, so we can probably work whatever we pull together into the battle box. I'm hoping someone has a copy of Danny Parker's book as his work is strong on counting equipment and weapons. Thanks for the comments. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I took a shot at it with the resources I could find. The battle box now presents the force ratios at start of the offensive as well as some information on reinforcements and later strength quotes. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a table with strenghts from different dates is indeed a good idea. You already made a fine one. However, where did you take the numbers from this heartofeurope site from? I can find only the order of battle there, but no troop strenghts (like those 440 tanks etc.). I ask because i have another book with some slightly different numbers for reinforcements, which i could work in for German reinforcements (the book from Mitcham). StoneProphet (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I used the vehicle numbers shown on the website (20 JgPz 38, etc.) and ran a total of what was shown. I compared the figures to information in Quarrie's books as well as extensive postings made by Forrest Gopper to the first version of the Feldgrau.com website (which I can unfortunately no longer find on-line). The vehicle numbers, by type, corresponded fairly well in cases where different sources address them -- there are some small differences, which is why I did not try to exactly specify a number and used a format like "440+" -- the "+" in these cases may vary by up to maybe 20 depending on who counted and which sources they used. Note the figures for "armored reinforcements" includes the II SS Panzer Corps which was not part of the initial attack. Chip away at the data if you believe you've found better sources. I can provide numbers for each unit that I was able to locate and which led to the numbers I quoted in the battle box. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I also reviewed the count and type of artillery battalions on the U.S. side on 16 December 1944. Cole states there were 394 artillery pieces while the German official history quotes another English-language source that there were 504 pieces. I've tried to make sense of these figures based on numbers of authorized pieces in the battalions but cannot. My "authorized" estimates come close but I'm not sure where Cole or the German history got these numbers from unless they were counting actual numbers available from unit reports. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Well, the Book by Mitcham also gives 394 Allied artillery pieces for 16 December, they probably use the same source. However, Allied numbers are not the problem anyway, its the German ones. It seems the problem the IP pointed out still persists (at least for manpower), as there are no numbers for the Germans during the main fighting at the end of December. 500,000 men are very much, thats probably the number of Germans during the Allied counteroffensive during January? Because e.g. according to the Mitchhams book, German reserves for the initial fighting was only 55,000 men and 561 tanks/assault guns (But he also states the Germans launched the attack with 250,000 and not 200,000 men). That would still make only around 300,000 men, and i dont think the Germans magically found another 200,000 men in a few days. Or maybe they just count differently (counting non-fighting personnel or include German units which did not take part until the later Allied offensive)? StoneProphet (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stone, I think your last comment is the heart of the issue. The quotes we have for the most part don't identify exactly what they're describing -- combat strength, total strength, etc. The "500,000" (also have seen "almost 600,000") is quoted by several authors but I don't have their works and when I can find the work on-line, it doesn't describe the number. My strong opinion is that it may be too high. I could compare, say, the "divisional slice" for units of a 1944 Heeresgruppe with a known strength from German reports and then work an estimate for what Heeresgruppe B's strength could have been for the Bulge -- but it won't mean anything for a Wikipedia article. Another thing I have seen is a tendency for some authors to bundle the Ardennes and Alsace figures together as if it was one big event (that's why this article had the 800,000+ quote for Allied forces before, even though Cirillo's work quite clearly states that only 610,000 of that figure is allocated to the Battle of the Bulge.) So again -- we have these quoted figures but no key to truly understanding them. My initial guess, without any analysis, is that Army Group B was probably somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 in strength -- total, not just combat elements, and including 15th Army (which may also be counted in the strength quote even though it played no real role in the battle). W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Army Group B with its ~29 divisions had indeed only 300,000 men. Cole says the average German Division had only ~10,000 men (650-651). So even if you sum them up (you already did that too as i see on my talkpage) we get exactly ~300,000 men. So i guess the higher numbers must include more units than those 30 Divisions which were committed by the Germans for the December fighting. We have to find a solution for the infoxbox, so i guess its save if we say that German strenght during the December fighting was 300,000 men? Thats at least supported by Cole (indirectly) and by Mitcham. I have none of the sources which claim 500,000 men (currently only one is included?), so i cant check what they say exactly. But maybe we can state that 500,000 men was for January including Nordwind, since we can safely assume that it is impossible that Army Group B had so much soldiers during the December fighting? Then we could also reinsert the 840,000 men figure of Cirillo for Allied strenght (just for comparision, since Nordwind is mentioned in this article too). StoneProphet (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)