Talk:Battle of the Bulge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Battle of the Bulge is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 21, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
October 13, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 16, 2004, December 16, 2007, December 16, 2011, and December 16, 2014.
Current status: Former featured article

Was this a surprise or not?[edit]

Lead paragraph says, "The surprise attack caught the Allied forces completely off guard." Yet the fourth paragraph says it was predicted by Third Army Intelligence staff, and Ultra intercepts indicated an offensive was imminent. So which is it? Generally, attacks that are anticipated are not surprise attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence saw the build up and the high command ignored it. (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
British high command officer Strong, of the high command did see it and personally told Bradley who ignored it. The article states that. (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think also probable. Osizerok (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Germans attacked in the First Army sector. First Army was completely surprised; 12th Army Group was surprised. Third Army predicted the attack but they were not in the path of it. Because Koch (Patton's G-2) saw it coming, Patton was able to get Third Army staff working on counter-attack planning even before the SHAEF conference. This is one of the reasons Bastogne was relieved when it was. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Bastogne was relieved because Patton's force met little resistance on the way to the town. Koch did not know where the offensive would be. It could have been right at the US 3rd Army. (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"It was the largest and bloodiest battle fought by the United States in World War II..."[edit]

This statement is in the opening of the article. Is it really appropriate? The Battle of Okinawa seems more deserving of the title of "bloodiest battle fought by the United States in World War 2", if we're just accounting for the number of Americans that died. If we're not, then it would be the Battle of Luzon for the high number of Filipino civilian casualties. But I digress.

Americans killed: 19,000
Americans wounded: 47,500

Americans killed: 20,195
Americans wounded: 55,162
--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Point well taken. I modified the lede accordingly. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It remains the largest US Army battle of WW2 (and history). On Okinawa, of course, the engaged forces included the US Navy and Marine Corps as well as the Army. In the bulge it was all Army. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It was largest battle the US Army "participated" in. It was not just the US fighting. (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, it was merely 99% US Army. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "Strength" list length[edit]

The "Strength" list in the infobox is quite informative, but also quite long for an infobox. I would like move the bulk of this valuable information into a separate table for ease of use, and reduce the infobox to just the starting and ending numbers of infantry/armor divisions/brigades only. The table can be formatted for easier visual comparison by lining-up by date and type, and color-coded by Axis/Allied. Any comments before I do this? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Example (collapsed to save space)
Force Allied Axis
Month December January December January
Date 16th 24th 2nd 16th 16th 24th 2nd 16th
Men 228,741 ~541,000 ~705,000 700,520 406,342 ~449,000 ~401,000 383,016
Tanks 483 1,616 2,409 2,428 557 423 287 216
Tank destroyers
and assault guns
499 1,713 1,970 1,912 667 608 462 414
--A D Monroe III (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Done in this edit. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd Section[edit]

Well this is odd. "Allied high-command controversy[edit]

On the American side, most of the upper levels of leadership above division level took themselves out of the battle due to poor handling of intelligence, and the decision not to provide a mobile reserve force for meeting unforeseen contingencies.[105]:162

One of the fault lines between the British and American high commands was General Dwight D. Eisenhower's commitment to a broad front advance with no strategic reserve. This view was opposed by the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Alan Brooke, who promoted a rapid advance on a narrow front, with the other allied armies in reserve.[105]:91 This basic disagreement was the wedge Hitler hoped to exploit with his counteroffensive, and the fact that a breakthrough was achieved seemed to justify the British objections. Also the British remembered a similar German armored counterattack at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, where the American army was routed by the German strike, once again confirming the British conservative view of strategy.[106]:339"

The first paragraph is completely nonsensical. I would like to delete it unless someone can translate. The second is grammatically a lot better but still mostly nonsense. Again I suggest removal unless someone can explain what this is supposed to mean. Thanks. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I pared this section way down. There was indeed a controversy but this section did not remotely describe it accurately. It needs a lotof work but at least the worst of the nonsense is gone. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

lLuxembourgish resistance[edit]

hello, could somebody in the upper right box please change "luxembourgeois resistance" to it's correct english form : Luxembourgish resistance? luxembourgeois resistance is french, in english it is luxembourgish resistance. it's like saying deutsch resistance instead of german resistance. please use english spelling in english articles. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letzebuergerr (talkcontribs) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Bulge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)