Talk:Battle of Elsenborn Ridge
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Filling out the Stub
Additional information has been added to fill out this stub from MacDonald's excellent book, "A Time for Trumpet's". More information from other sources will probably added in the near future. Hopefully this article will be a tribute to the sacrifices made by all involved in this significant battle.
At this point I have got most of the stuff in the article that I intended. Since this was my first Wiki contribution I did not appreciate at first that it represents a nexus in a web of information that extends in every direction. Also with all the formatting templates the article resembles a computer program more than a text article once it is completed. I am really impressed with the scope and power of this media tool. I am also grateful for all the contributions by others to this article and subject. Associated articles on the battle for the twin villages and Dom. Butgenbach would probably go well with this article. Frank (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the writer sure the 17 pounder is used at all in US Army? It was not mounted in any M-18 tank destroyer model that I know of; these mounted the M4 76mm gun, and the ammo for the 17 pdr. was not compatible with that weapon. The assertion that German mechanized tactics was more sophisticated than that of the US Army in late 44 is in my opinion dubious; any objective source to support that claim? Hope that helps.
The writer was sure until he saw that General Jacob Devers, Commander of the American Armored Force, could not be bothered to attend a comparison demo of the American and British 76.2mm (3") guns. (Tank Tactics by Roman Jarymowycz, Pg 262). At the Fort Snelling Military Museum we have a couple of M4A3E8 tanks with muzzle brakes which I had thought were only on the British 17-pdr. Devers's inattention is also a good illustration of the general cluelessness of the American Armored Command. The Germans generally had a better grasp of mechanized warfare. Their undetected concentration and breakthrough in the Battle of the Bulge is another. Sorry I did not notice this information sooner, I am not used to anyone doing the discussion thing, and yes, it helps a lot. Thank you very much and keep up the good work. Frank (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"The 99th as a whole, outnumbered five to one, inflicted casualties in the ratio of eighteen to one. The division lost about 20% of its effective strength, including 465 killed and 2,524 evacuated due to wounds, injuries, fatigue, or trench foot. German losses were much higher. In the northern sector opposite the 99th, this included more than 4,000 deaths and the destruction of sixty tanks and big guns." This absolutely cannot be right, as that would mean that 90000 of the 100000 German casualties would have been suffered at Elsenborn ridge, which is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The listed source for the section "Disproportionate German casualties" is the excellant online article: "Why the Bulge Didn't Break: Green Troops Grew Up Fast to Become Heroes of Hofen" by Rob Dean. Dean in turn used Major General E. Lauer's booklet: "Battle Babies: The Story of the 99th Infantry Division in World War II", (Nashville, Tenn.: Battery Press, 1985), as the source for his claims regarding German losses in attacks made on the 99th Division during the Elsenborn ridge battles. Lauer's booklet was based on his articles in "Stars & Stripes" printed in Paris in 1944-1945. Although General Lauer's very justifiable pride in the soldiers under his command is reflected in his articles, he can hardly be regarded as a objective recorder of historical data. His claim that "Approximately 4000 "Supermen" were killed by the 99th alone..." is not reflected in records of German losses by other historical sources. Therefore the challenge that this data is exaggerated is probably true. I will alter the section accordingly. Frank (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I am attempting to clean up the references..at first just substituting easier links to follow..e.g., on Cole using page number ranges instead of chapters...and the very ambiguous "introduction". Just explaing what all these edits are for...I don't intend content changes. Juan Riley (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
While the geographic feature upon which the battle on the northern shoulder of the Battle of the Bulge is Elsenborn Ridge, I don't think this an accurate name for the battle itself. I searched online and in printed literature for names used to describe this portion of the Battle of the Bulge using various terms. The most specific seems to be the "Battle of Elesenborn Ridge". Another possibility is the "Battle of the Northern Shoulder" although this generates a lot of general results about the Battle of the Bulge. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I concur. Present name is more appropriate to an article on geographical location..not the battle that took place there. Juan Riley (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the name "battle of Elsenborn ridge" or "battle for Elsenborn ridge" is not very commonly used. Everyone who analyses the battle of the Bulge know that the Germans lost the battle in Elsenborn and St. Vith, but most people remember Bastogne which is much more dramatic scenario (with the 101 Airbone guys surrounded by the Germans and saved at the last minute by Patton's cavalry - it looks like a western movie!). More information can be found here. I however definitely agree on the fact that the title should be "Battle of Elsenborn Ridge" as used for instance here rather than simply Elsenborn ridge. This also make me think it is time I translate this excellent article for the French Wikipedia. --Lebob (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
For a discussion about splitting this article along with splitting a portion of the Battle of the Bulge to form a single article about the aftermath of these battles, see Talk:Battle of the Bulge. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Battle of Elsenborn Ridge. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417222338/http://www.firstdivisionmuseum.org/education/Pdfs/B_of_Bpdf/Section_2_Butgenbach.pdf to http://www.firstdivisionmuseum.org/education/Pdfs/B_of_Bpdf/Section_2_Butgenbach.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318155306/https://www.benning.army.mil/monographs/content/wwii/STUP2/FabianichKeith%20P.%20MAJ.pdf to https://www.benning.army.mil/monographs/content/wwii/STUP2/FabianichKeith%20P.%20MAJ.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706133531/http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:cavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6 to http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:cavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911002027/http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu:80/~etmcmull/BOBGALWY.htm to http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/BOBGALWY.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722060324/http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=341&Itemid=4 to http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=341&Itemid=4
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ss501panzer.com/Peiper_Trail_Part_2.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ss501panzer.com/Peiper_Trail_Part_3.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615174621/http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/Siegfried/Siegfried%20Line/siegfried-fm.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/Siegfried/Siegfried%20Line/siegfried-fm.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061030042035/http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3031946.html to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3031946.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.