Battle of the Bulge - 16 December 1944

The Americans did well on many occasions, sometimes they wiped the floor with German raw recruits, such as Arracourt. The Americans had no particular motivation to fight the Germans, unlike the Soviets and British. Much of the Commonwealth had no conscription, so the Irish, Canadians and so on were there highly motivated.
It is understandable than an American was just a conscript who wanted to get home in one piece.

Oddball: To a New Yorker like you, a Hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on 3 Tigers. - Kelly's Heroes
 
American troops with a few notable exceptions(Airborne, Rangers) didn't have a good reputation when you asked the enemy for an opinion. A few Canadian and British units has a similarly bad reputation but often more due to poor leadership than troop quality. A problem post war was American films and propaganda which seemed to portray that U.S. soldiers won WW2. If anyone "won WW2" it was the Soviet Union. Even in Normandy post war critics (American) of British/Canadian efforts fails to acknowledge that Commonwealth and British units face nearly 3/4 of the German armour in Normandy. The big American "breakout" from Normandy was greased with English and Canadian blood. Patton's relentless complaining about Monty "dragging his feet" in Normandy might have turned out different if he had faced the opposition that Monty had. I suspect the Germans would have handed Patton his ass.

Montgomery's remarks on the quality of American troops were to the effect that they were as good as any if properly led. By the time the Americans were putting troops on the ground in Europe everyone else had put a lot of time and blood getting their training up-to date and the selection of leaders and commanders figured out. Of course this meant they were also running out of men.
 
Patton's well known shifting manoevre wouldn't be so impressive if the allies knew about the Bulge ahead of time (I'm thinking due to Ultra).
I seem to recall Montgomery saying something to the effect of "the less people know about the Bulge the better" which implied that they knew what was coming, at least on a higher level, but didn't warn local Allied units.

The Germans would've been better off hiding behind the Rhine with some of that armour--the rest being sent to fight the Russians IMHO

You have company in the form of many Werhmacht leaders. At that point much of the German military was fighting to stave off the Red Army in hope that their homes would be conquered by the Western allies instead.
 
Patton's well known shifting manoevre wouldn't be so impressive if the allies knew about the Bulge ahead of time (I'm thinking due to Ultra).
I seem to recall Montgomery saying something to the effect of "the less people know about the Bulge the better" which implied that they knew what was coming, at least on a higher level, but didn't warn local Allied units.

The Germans would've been better off hiding behind the Rhine with some of that armour--the rest being sent to fight the Russians IMHO

Never underestimate the "generalship" of Hitler which was motivated more by hunches and instinct than any military skills. He was often a closet ally who worked on our side to the detriment of the conduct of operations by the German generals - kind of like an early version of Saddam Hussein.

The Ardennes was a huge crap shoot and he gambled big time on its success. He believed that if he could seize Antwerp and cut off the main allied logistics port and split the US and Brit/Cdn Armies in the process he might be able to conclude a negotiated peace with the western allies and then turn his efforts to Russia.

There was never a chance of success given allied superiority in the air and in logistics, firepower and mobility/flexibility. The Ardennes gamble was hampered by poor selection of terrain for high tempo armoured warfare, lack of air cover and shoestring logistics. The Germans never made it to the River Meuse, let alone Antwerp.
 
Back
Top Bottom