Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive/archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Closed as Not Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 07:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive

More difficult article than I originally thought it was going to be. But I finished it. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Patton123

• Perhaps "Main article: Battle of the Bulge" should be replaced with "This is a sub-article to Battle of the Bulge". This is mentioned in the lead section guidelines and I think it would be a better template note than the {{tl|main}) template. You don't have to do this though.
• The caption to the image of the M8 car reas "An American M8 armored scout car marches in front of the Arc de Triomphe at the "Liberation Day" parade in Paris". Armoured cars can't march lol..
• The caption to the image of the men with the panzerfauses reads "German panzer grenadiers deployed in Western Germany". Isn't Panzergrenadiers one word or am I mistaken?
• The "A profile image..." needs to be removed from the image of Friedrich August Freiherr. Readers can see that it is a profile image and just want to know who he was.
• Apart from these minor issues the article is well referenced, well written and I support its promotion to A-class.--Patton^t/c 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Fixed on all accounts. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shimgray

• The title is clumsy - "Wehrmacht forces in the Ardennes Offensive", or deployed for, or something would be better, perhaps?

• I was quite surprised to read this and not find an order of battle - there is effectively one in the text, but a clear tabular one at the end might benefit the article. The one at Battle of the Bulge order of battle is probably a bit excessive, but maybe a table showing divisions assigned to the various corps, etc?

• On the subject of units, they could do with linking throughout, and I'll have a stab at that just now. Otherwise, like it. Shimgray | talk | 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I plan to make an order of battle on a separate article. I want to break up the one that already exists (move the existent one to "Allied order of batle") into two, and get both featured. That way we have a text article that focuses a lot more on deployment and the condition of those armies, and then the list. It also makes for a lot of featured content. In regards to the title, the main problem is the length of the title. Given the length constraints, the current one seems like the best option. I want to avoid "in" because they ended up fluctuating, so it would be a much more complex article (and one which would be covered already by the main article). JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with wanton linking, as you can see, is that many of those units lack articles. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I like to consider this a feature. :-) Redlinks aren't bad things, and it's a fairly safe bet that every WWII German division will end up having an article - it's best if we build the framework now. Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the OOB, that's great; regarding the title, I'm still not convinced. Could we at least have "for the"? Shimgray | talk | 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather link them afterwards; redlinks can make or break a featured article candidate, sometimes. The problem is that these redlinks are glaring, increasing the chances of having people comment on them during a FAC. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article to incorporate "the". JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose for now This is a fantastic concept for an article and I wanted to support it, but I don't think that it meets the criteria yet. My comments against the criteria are:
  • A1: Pass
  • A2: Fail: Pass
    • I think that the background section is too long and a bit unfocused. This should be a short summary of the degradation of the Germany Army during 1944 as a result of its defeats on all fronts rather than a fairly detailed account of the fighting on the western front. I was also suprised that this section only covers German losses on western front, when the German Army also suffered disastrous losses on the Eastern Front and significant losses in Italy which impacted on the size and quality of the forces available for this offensive.
    • Likewise, the demands of the other fronts were also obviously a constraint on the forces which could be spared for the Ardennes, and a high-level summary of this should be mentioned in the 'Wehrmacht dispositions' section.
    • I think that the article would also benefit from a section at the end which discusses the results of the campaign for the German Army - the high losses suffered and the destruction of the German mobile reserve during this offensive are often credited as having significantly shortened the war.
    • I agree that a summary order of battle (with a link to the longer OOB) would be great - it may be worth approaching User:Noclador and asking if he'll create an orbat graphic (the necessary data seems to be in the current OOB article)
  • A3: Pass, though the lead might be a bit too long
  • A4: Fail, I'm afraid. I found many of the paragraphs to be too long and there's too much repetition (for instance, 'Western Allies' is used three times in the first three sentences in the background section). The article's content is fantastic and the writing is generally good, but it needs a copy-edit. I agree with Shimgray's comment about the article's name.
  • A5: Pass Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. I will respond to your comments one by one:

1. The background section is long, but I feel that a summary of German casualties suffered throughout the campaign in Western Europe is essential to understand the situation the Wehrmacht was in on the even of the Ardennes offensive. Those casualty figures don't make much sense if the background of why they were suffered isn't provided. The second paragraph of the background, for example, deals with German casualties in August 1944, as opposed to explaining the Western Ally's advance. The third paragraph is essential, because it explains the Western Allies' halt in late September and August, and sets up the background for an explanation of the battles along the Siegfried Line. These in turn are completely necessary because it offers the reader a perspective on why the Ardennes Offensive was even possible; had Eisenhower, for example, allowed the Third Army to advance unrestricted and halted his other armies, the war might have ended very differently. German casualties accepted during this period are also very important, because this is the Wehrmacht which would have to be rebuilt. Without a detailed picture of the Wehrmacht during the previous months of fighting, one doesn't really get an accurate picture of how much work went into rebuilding it for the Battle of the Bulge.
2. Casualties on the Eastern Front did play a large part, of course. On the other hand, deployments to the Eastern Front didn't as much as you'd think. 70% of production was going to the West, while many historians claim that the stripping of the Eastern Front from its tanks actually opened the Germans to disaster during the Soviet January offensive in 1945. The Italian Campaign, by this time, I think is largely irrelevant, given that the allies had landed in Southern France. The most relevant casualties were those suffered in the West, given that these would impact the units that participated in the Ardennes the most.
3. An order of battle will come; I'm waiting for a book I bought, as my current books don't mention some divisions which were in some infantry corps (I guess the authors didn't believe they were notable enough for mentioning).
4. If you could find a synonym for Western Allies, I could replace some with that.
5. The only paragraph that I could see being too long is the first paragraph of the "mobilizations and movements" section. But the information in the paragraph is all relevant to a single topic, so I don't see how it would gain anything by breaking it up. Personally, I prefer longer paragraphs over choppier text, dividing over many paragraphs. It's how all my articles have been written.
6. What I can see as a good addition would be the impact of the mobilization on the Eastern Front. I think that casualties taken during the campaign are irrelevant to the article, as this article doesn't deal with the Wehrmacht during the offensive, just prior to the offensive. The problem is finding enough information other than "the Germans stripped the Eastern Front of important units" to qualify for a new section.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added what information I could gather on the impact of the forces mobilized for the Ardennes Offensive on the Eastern Front. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I split that paragraph up and I removed some instances of "Western Allies". I've also copyedited here and there, and I believe another editor from IRC will copyedit it a bit, as well. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. I've struck out the my comments which have been addressed, but I still think that the article needs a thorough copy-edit to meet the criteria for the reasons I noted above. While this article's content is fantastic, I find it difficult to read (my main comments are the long paragraphs and some awkward wording throughout the article). While not a reason to oppose, a high-level OOB in tabular form would be invaluable if a graphic isn't available - at present the article has lots of dense paragraphs with names of units, and it's a bit hard to see how they all fitted together. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree, this isn't a list; I'm waiting for a book by MacDonald to come through the mail. Once it arrives I can start a dedicated list for the German order of battle, and link it. In regards to copyediting, I have copyedited the lead and made the paragraphs a lot shorter (about 1kB worth of text out). I will give the rest of the text a copyedit later today. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've copyedited throughout, although I will continue to look at it and improve the prose (to clarify it). But, I don't see how the paragraphs are too long. These paragraphs are no longer than those in any other article I've worked on (which have passed at FAC; compare to Operation Uranus). I will continue to look at the prose, though. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I've followed the article from it's conception, and having looked over the changes made by Catalan in response to Nick, I can find no reason to oppose or anything major that needs addressing. Skinny87 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It could use a copy-edit, and I would recommend one before FAC, but otherwise I could find only one specific problem: You say that "five German army groups fielded Army Group Center and Army Group A;" yes this doesn't make any sense...Five Army Groups "field" two army groups? Otherwise it looks good. – Joe Nutter 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, yes, that was pretty confusing. I've clarified it; it should have been two out of five army groups. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the introduction needs a rewrite. In particular,

1. The first sentence is rather clumsy and makes it sound like all of the troops that took part in the offensive were recruited just before the attack. Is this the case? Also, should the recruitment effort be mentioned before the offensive is even mentioned? Were the soldiers recruited for the offensive, or just to replace losses sustained during the Allied advances?
2. "Rapid Allied advance had caused a supply problem". It took me a second to work out that this meant "a supply problem for the allies". Maybe this can be rewritten?
3. "increased the call-up age range". From what? How many additional men did this make available? What percentage of soldiers in the offensive were veterans (and where had they served previously)?
4. I'd like to see a comparision involving the number and types of Allied forces opposing them. What impact did the call-up have on industry?
5. "oftentimes" - is this meant to be "sometimes" or "often"?
6. " mobilized a force of no less than 1,400 armored fighting vehicles". What type/quality were these vehicles? Were the new troops trained in their operation, or were they operated by veterans?

I've never done an A-class review, so please bear with me. This is a great article, and I'd like to see it promoted eventually. Will there be a corresponding article for Allied forces? Lawrencema (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my responses below:

1. Yea, it was a hard first sentence to write, because the article's title is strange. Like the background states, manpower in the West by 1 September 1944 amounted to roughly ~200,000 to ~400,000, and then in late November and early December this was increased to ~1,000,000. It's safe to assume that the majority of the personnel which would take part in the offensive were new; very few of them may have been veterans (although, of course, there are always veterans). The introduction covers the article in order of the sections below it. The second paragraph isn't covering the offensive, per se, it's covering the armies earmarked for the offensive. The third paragraph explains how these armies were formed.
2. I re-wrote it; hopefully that is clearer.
3. That information is covered in the article itself; the lead is just supposed to summarize the article, not explain itself.
4. I think a comparison should be reserved for the Battle of the Bulge article itself; that way the article can focus on a comparison, while this article goes into detail about the Werhmacht forces deployed for the battle. Battle of the Bulge is an article that I will work on in the near future (I'm waiting for sources to arrive to my house). And yes, there will be a similar article for Allied forces (albeit shorter, since there wasn't too much preparation going on).
5. Changed to "often", although "oftentimes" is recognized as a word by Firefox.
6. I wanted to write a section on the quality of German weapons, but the only information I really have is on armor and it's all indirect. My sources themselves don't really cover the quality that well. I didn't want to create a section just on German armor, because then I'd get complaints that I didn't cover their small-arms, et cetera (information I just don't have). Nevertheless, some of the tank models used are stated in the article itself, where the reader can click on the link and read about them separately.

Again, thank you. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment no issues related to external or dismabig links found. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The caption of the lead photo doesn't really tie into the focus of the article. It's a relevant photo for the article for sure, but either the caption needs to be altered to tie in, or perhaps a different photo should lead. Also, several of the photo captions seem generic and not particularly tied to this article. For example, File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1975-102-14A, Panzer VI (Tiger II, Königstiger).jpg with the caption Tiger II tanks preparing to enter action. Maybe something like Tiger II tanks, like these pictured here, were used in the Ardennes Offensive by [insert Unit(s)].
  • Perhaps Hitler's official title (Chancellor?) should be used instead of the POV-ish "dictator"
  • Is "recruited" really the right word for how the Germans obtained Eastern Europeans for service? It sounds a bit euphemistic to me…
  • Is there a previous campaign that can be linked in the sentence Although Allied forces had been contained along the Siegfried Line, the campaign had been a disaster for the Wehrmacht.?
  • The portrait orientation photographs should have the "upright" tag added to keep them from dominating the page. Especially the portrait of von der Heydte. (Shudder.)
  • The sentence that begins On 2 September, General George S. Patton's Third Army requested … seems like it might fit in better after the next sentence, as an example of why the offensive slowed
  • Whose casualties are referred to in the sentence The Third Army's battle around Metz had cost an estimated 47,000 casualties.?
  • Too many close tos in the sentence by mid-October the two Allied divisions had lost close to 80% of their total combat strength, or roughly 4,500 men, while the Germans had lost close to 3,300.
  • In the sentence Although von der Heydte originally requested to instead use the entirety of the 6th Parachute Regiment…, I'm not sure the word instead does anything but split the infinitive, given that the reader knows that an alternative is presented by the word Although.
  • In the sentence In the little time available some men received basic jump training, although matters were complicated by the lack of transport aircraft (about 100 Junkers Ju 52). what is the parenthetical referring to? The number of aircraft needed, or the number available?
  • Assuming they are one and the same, the unit is referred to as both Battle Group von der Heydte and Kampfgruppe von der Heydte in the span of a few sentences. They should probably both be the English name, or, at the very least, the second should be italicized as a foreign phrase.
  • In the paragraph beginning Although Western Allied bomber missions had increased … there are several numbers immediately following years, like 1944 1,017. While not grammatically incorrect, they can cause confusion. I'd recommend recasting the sentences so as to keep the years and other figures separate.
  • In the following paragraph, the conversion 2,273,045,000 litres (500,000,000 imp gal) is presented. The liter quantity seems impossibly precise, compared to the corresponding Imperial gallon figure, and to the similar conversion given for Patton's fuel request given previously in he article. If (as I suspect) the Imperial gallon figure was the one given in the reference, the liter conversion needs to have a comparable level of precision, like 2.3 billion litres. The same goes for the other conversions in the same paragraph.
  • In the sentence In January 1945 the Wehrmacht was roughly 800,000 men short of complete strength, despite the reorganization of German units in order to take into consideration manpower losses; much if its strength was used for the Ardennes Offensive. should it read much of its strength… instead?
• A very informative and well-researched article. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from my understanding of MOS, ampersands are not to be used in "Smith & Jones" etc/. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.