• I think not… for one my site is published by the US army…while yours is published by anybody who wants to add any inaccurate details.

  • @Imperious:

    I think not… for one my site is published by the US army…while yours is published by anybody who wants to add any inaccurate details.

    That may be……but your website is too long to read.  If you want the Battle of the Bulge in a nutshell…then go to the link I provided.  :wink:

  • True statement… but is it accurate?

  • @Imperious:

    True statement… but is it accurate?

    Its close enough.  As long as it doesnt state something outrageous like the Germans wore pink uniforms in the battle etc., then its all gravy.  :lol:

  • History, my friends, is nothing more than the pack of lies we all agree on.  I think Napoleon said that but not quite in those words.  He spoke french you know.

  • Napoleon also said, “An army marches on its stomach” and that is what killed his own army in Russia.  Oh, I think that winter thing had an affect as well.

    The Battle of the Bulge (or the 2nd Ardenne Offensive) is rather interesting for a great many reasons.  One of them is numerically speaking, the Germans had better numbers on the Allies for the 2nd Offensive than when the Germans invaded France in 1940 (except for that airpower component thingy).  This battle also blows the doors off the concepts of Blitzkrieg, and how to stop it.

    I would have used the Material to hit Russia, not the Western Powers.  I believe it would have been more effective.

  • I would have used the Material to hit Russia

    Hitler considered this and the conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you posted. The additional forces against the Soviet front would have had no effect on the strategic outcome of the eastern front. The issue was one of knocking the weaker opposing enemy like Napolean did at the “battle of the nations” You defeat the weaker enemy first before they combine and destroy you. Hitler saw some window of time where he felt he could alter history before it altered his thousand year reich.

  • Heh, I know what Hitler thought.

    The idea would have been to delay the Russians and sue for peace soley to the Western Powers.  If Russia had been dealt a significant blow and left them the east border of Poland or further, the US and UK would have more bargaining power than Russia and possibly accepted the surrender based on fear of how Russia would treat the German peoples.

    As it historically stood, Germany asked the Western Allies for peace much too late and Russia was already quite close to the German borders.  The US and UK feared confrontation with the Russians.  Had the Russians been kept at bay deep in Eastern Europe, an agreement might have been reached.

  • Hitler would never any surrender and the only “official” effort was conducted by Himmler thru Count Bernedotte of Sweden. Hitler once he found this out considered his loyal  and “True Heinrich” a traitor and ordered him shot. He had no authority to conduct any negotiations. So Hitler was only prepared to accept a stalemate in the war… allowing him to reform his forces, while Goebbles and Himmler intimated about some such operation of “joining the allies” in a crusade against the Soviets with reformed SS divisions and the entire German army only fighting east. But this was not in Hitlers mind. Only a last minute victory like his hero Frederick the Great before him could have been possible but only in his mind. His downfall was soon to be faced. I think his assessment was correct regarding an offensive operation in the east would have proved a failure. The only strategic item within the grasp of the Whermacht was possibly a drive back to retake the Polesti oil fields and turning into one of his “fortress cities” which had no credible military value. It would in any event have not reached that far and would have been cut off. The soviets outnumbered him about 8 to 1 so what could such an offensive hope to gain?
    It would not have bought time like delaying the expected Allied offensive in the west. The Soviet offensive was not planned during this period. Plus the idea of trapping the British and portions of the American armies in the north was something that was not the situation on the eastern front. The Germans in this theatre had actually more forces than the allies in sections of the line. Plus the weather was a key factor in the decision to attack. The Soviet had huge air superiority and Poland was not known for low fog patterns for up to 6-7 days, while the forests and fog of Belgium would be perfect cover. Any major attack on the east would not have meet the objective of surprise which was essential for and envelopment of the enemy forces. Speed was also critical and at this time of year it rained and was prone to mud problems which would bog down any attack.
    The only realistic military objective was in the west, but i favor the “small solution” or “little slam” proposed by Von Runstead which was a much smaller envelopment against the salient located at Aachen. This would have netted about 12-15 divisions. It was realistic and it could be done. Antwerp was beyond the reach of Hitlers 6th SS panzer corps and the campaign showed why.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures