If the germans would of caught bastonge?

To my opinion Bastogne was not so important, or to put it better: more important for the Americans than for the Germans. The main axis of the German attack was in the north carried by 6th Panzer-Army, especially 1st SS Panzer Corps.

Knowing this the failure to capture Sankt Vith in the first days of the battle cost the Germans more time and hindered them more in the deployment of both 5th and 6th Panzer-Army. Due to this delay the German attack lost power and momentum.

The defense put up at Sankt Vith effectively blocked the German attack long enough to put 82nd U.S. Airborne Division into position at Werbomont to bear the brunt of 6th SS Panzer Army until more reinforcements arrived.

 

i thought it was the 2nd SS well i guess ill check it

 

2nd SS Panzer Division, as part of the 2nd SS Tank Corps (Bittrich), 6th Tank Army, was sent into the fray on December 18th near Malmédy and Trois Ponts to support 1st SS Panzer Division; failing this, they were used to attack and finally capture St Vith, after which they turned west and chased the 82nd Airborne down to Manhay where 3rd Armoured and the 517th PIR defeated them. Later they fought to hold the northern shoulder of the Bulge out so that 9th Pz, 2nd Pz, 116th Pz and Pz Lehr could withdraw. I believe they weren't ever sent south to deal with Bastogne, but if so it was late December at the earliest when it happened.

 

I did a report about Manhay its a very interesting battle.

 

Hey, TD, maybe you could share your report with us...

 

Good question, and although Bastogne was a major intersection of roads, it was only the first stepping stone in the full operation. Antwerp and the split of the British and American armies was the full goal. But to me this inspires another question, could this objective even have been acomplished and how effective could the allies have counteracted this?

 

No - it was simply beyond their reach, not least logistically.

Even if they had, you would end up with a long narrow German-held corridor inbetween 2 Allied armies. It would have resulted in an encirclement and a crushing defeat for the Germans. As it was, the Bulge ended without a great encirclement, so maybe the Germans getting to Antwerp would have helped us!

 

The first stepping stone to Antwerp was Sankt Vith, and the Germans did actually capture this city. Bastonge was supposed to be taken by 5th Army as they passed it, and held by 7th Army as they defended the main attack's flank. This means the taking of this city would have contributed little if anything to the German advance on Antwerp which was already a logistical and strategical impossibility.

The Allies, due to their overwhelming superiority in fuel and replacements, would be able to react to anything and everything much faster and in greater force than the Germans. There is very little the Germans could have done that would have left SHAEF without options.

 

The importance of Bastogne gets massively overestimated.
It's capture by the germans wouldn't have changed the outcome of the battle in no way.

Most german commanders actually knew that they had practically no chance of reaching their objective.
They simply tought that desperate situations need desperate solutions and hoped that some panic or incredible blunders in the allied command would help them to perform the miracle.


Some say that by launching the Ardennes offensive, Hitler merely hoped to convince the allies that he could still be a strong partner in a future struggle against Stalin....

 

Ironically the Allied leaders practically begged Stalin to start his winter offensive early just to take some pressure off the Western front...

I have read two different stories of what Stalin did next. One claims Stalin did indeed speed up the preparations and started his offensive some time before the original planning (January 12th instead of 20th/24th?). Another claims that while Stalin pretended to have started his offensive early to gain credit with the Western Allies as a dependable ally, he didn't actually do so and the winter offensive had always been planned to start on January 12th. Does anyone know anything conclusive on this?

By the way, Castelot, you are absolutely right. The first thing that comes to people's minds when you mention the Ardennes offensive (provided they've heard of it at all) is Bastogne, even though its role in the original plans was minor.

 

good point guys, most people, including myself saw the Battle of the Bulge as a small thrust only around Bastogne. This is a sore topic for members of such units as the 82nd Airborne who were sent i believe further to the northeast and thus since were not in Bastogne were almost unheard of in the Bulge.

And isn't it so ironic that Hitler commited such force to the west, where he himself admitted had a chance for peace, and not to the east which had already shown sides of complete war with no quarter on either side.

 

Such a relatively small force would have had no chance of making any impact at all in the East. In the west Hitler merely hoped that by inflicting a reversal on the Allies it would bring back sore memories (Certainly for the British and French) or 1940, convince them that continuing the war with Germany would be simply too costly and that they would realise the error of their ways and side with Germany against the greater evil: The Soviet Bolshevik hoardes to the east.

Like most Nazi plans and designs of the time it was so divorced from the reality of the situation that these hopes and beliefs belonged in Fairy Land with the Munchkin men.

 

Had the original Herbstnebel plans had any chance of success, the Allies would have lost all of 21st Army Group in an encirclement, which was indeed a loss the British could not hope to replace. This would have meant much more than just "reviving old memories".

Fortunately Germany simply wasn't capable of a blow like that anymore.

 

That's the point though...

Inflict crippling losses on the British and Americans and they might 'come to their senses' (from Hitler's viewpoint :roll: ). The British certainly could not afford heavy losses - after D-Day they were not really able to fully replace combat losses properly - just too few people.
The US, obviously, is a whole different story, but it might well have created extra animosity among the Allies if the US had to effectively 'go it alone'.

 

re going it alone.

i dont think that would have happend, realy.
In ww1 the british army was more like 4 million men, and the uk suffered losses of 1.3 million k/w.
Whereas in ww2 i think the british army was 2.5 million, and had losses of 400k.
In ww2 the uk also had a larger pool of troops to pick from, i think the matter was the amount of time it would take to train and equip the men(of course i could be wrong).
It could be it would have taken 6 months to recover, but as its been stated germany would not beable to recover in time. even if they managed this.

 

I don't know the exact figures, but every source I've ever read claims that the British were continuously faced with replacement problems during World War II, repeatedly forcing them to disband units to replace losses in others. The British, once Monty assumed command, were reluctant to commit their troops to the Ardennes counterattack for exactly this reason.

 

Yes, I've heard about that too, and I think it's strange as, like it has been pointed out, in WW1, Britain lost much more men, and still did not seem to have such replacement problems as in WW2.

Maybe there were so much more men needed in rear services in WW2??

 

... or perhaps the fact that WW2 involved an awful lot of men involved in the Air Force compared to WW1, a bigger navy, more merchant shipping...
And more people working to produce goods and food - after all, WW1 had nothing like the same dire supply situation as WW2 had.
And it was a truely global war, rather than just Europe and a bit of scuffling in Africa...

Plus, it is well documented that by 1918 (1917 even) the British Army was having problems getting more men - which it solved by relaxing the physical & medical conditions for recuits. Bantam Battalions are the best-known example of this.

 

Yes, that must be it.

 

actualy ricky thats a good point.
But the only thing i read was a shortage of availble troops to deploy.
Not strictly a shortage of manning persay.
Otherwise it would be correct to say the us had manning problems too.
They ended up only deploying 86 divisions in the eto instead of the 100 or so they intended.
Simply because the process of training and equiping the troops would take too long.
But it is more than likely due to the industrial reasons as well as bigger navies and airforce's etc.