Battle of the Bulge

I think this is what he was trying to do:

 

I have to agree with syscom3 on that. I believe he saw western capitalist as prey, but communism as to similar to nazism and therefor a threat.

 

Others were Liege and Brussels,but Antwerp got more V-1 and V-2 than London,because it was strategically more important .

 

Germans targeted Antwerp's docks till 30 March 1945! You can see a map showing the hits one by one and the results also. http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/ant_map_large.jpg

So it is obvious how important was the big port of Antwerp for the supplying of the Allies' armies and justifies the decision of Hitler's for the Bulge attack. Antwerp was only a few Km from the frontline.

 

It only justifies it if there was a reasonable chance of success. There wasn't

for some definitions of "a few"
Looking at the map at Bastogne, Walloon Region, Belgium - Google Maps
I make over a 100 km from Antwerp to Bastogne so probalby 150+ to the front line.

 

Favorite weapon is a bit of an odd question - no offense - since both sides' weapons were the standard ones they used throughout the campaign, but let me nominate one that had one of its few moments of glory, the humble 57mm antitank gun. This had been rendered largely obsolescent by the increasing power of tanks and by the availability of alternate means of engaging them; supposedly American troops often left their 57s behind during the rapid advance across France. However it still packed a punch at close range, especially when equipped with APDS shot. During the initial German assault, defenders of points like Trois Ponts or Stavelot found that a well-concealed 57mm could pick off a German tank, block a street, or hold up an advance, costing the Germans time they could not afford to lose.

As for whether the Bulge was good strategy, the basic question is what else could they do? Assuming, as Hitler did, that surrender was not an option. The conventional response, that they should have held their panzers and other troops in reserve to respond to Allied attacks, would only delay the inevitable, all the talk of wonder weapons or some 11th-hour miracle like FDR's passing notwithstanding. They were in the position of a football team throwing a "Hail Mary" on their last play of the game - even if it probably won't work, is there a better play?

 

I would choose TNT as my favorite weapon of the battle.

As Peiper's panzer columns sped toward the Meuse, the "damned engineers" of the 1111th Engineer Combat Group (including Col. David Pegrin's 291st ECB) blew fuel dumps and bridges ahead of them. They also manned roadblocks that helped delay the panzers long enough for reinforcements to arrive and halt the advance. Similar tactics by other ECBs delayed the thrust toward Bastogne and gave the 101st the opportunity to get into position to defend the town. The panzers were forced to spend valuable time finding alternate crossings of rivers and without the capture of Allied fuel dumps, they had to be resupplied from their own reserves which stretched their supply lines and diminished their chances of success.

 

Why do you think so?

Yep

Then again, none of the top leaders of the major combatants in WWII was "top notch" at strategy, they were all rather inept at times.

 

I think the problem was that the receiver going long had a sprained ankle, a pulled hamstring and was near exhaustion.

 

In the ETO in 1944 only one major combatant was fighting a lost war with no hope of victory and could therefore not afford errors in strategy.

 

Very true.
Most of the Allied bonehead plans were in '41 & '42

 

As boneheaded as Barbarossa and declaring war on the US? Me thinks not.

 

Additionally to above posts we should consider the situation of the Germans in that time.
They fought against three fronts. East, West and Italy. For sure there was not any possibility for attack to the East. They just tried their best to defend and to retreat step by step with many losses.
In Hitler's mind, the friendship between Americans and English was not true. He believed that their friendship was like the friendship between wolves. That this friendship would not last after a defeat.
The people back in America, the families of the soldiers since the fight was not for their homes and country were easy to change their mind and to demand from their decadence government to stop of the war if they would faced a serious defeat with many casualties. So he could even negotiate a peace with conditions.
He also believed that the fight ability of the American was weak. He took advantage of all the problems the Allies was faced, mainly about supplying their marching Armies and choose to attack through Ardennes. Surprised everyone like in 1940.
It was not a reasonable plan. However we are speaking about Hilter. I do not think that someone can use the word 'reasonable' to describe him. Especially after July 20, 1944. We simply try to find out the motivation, to understand the incentives.
He believed that in case he succeeded, he could make peace with the Allies or at least to destroy about 30 Allies' divisions so to make the West Front weaker in order to economize some forces for the defense against the Russians and. In his mind The Allies would recover very slow after a strong hit of his SS Panzer forces.
If he could take Antwerp (extremely optimistic target- maybe totally impossible) since this city had the perfect port (and the nearest to the front line) the Allies' would have serious logistics problem and the end of the war would become a far away dream.
In Hitler's reality he had many chances to succeed.

 

If you think about it, if you're fighting a lost war with no hope of victory, it doesn't much matter if you make an error in strategy. What's it going to do - make you lose the war?? Get it over with sooner?? Conversely, as mentioned earlier, the "right" strategy is only going to drag it out a little longer. You might as well try something unconventional.

 

I just have one question concerning the ardennes offensive. I know it would be consider unbelievably to take armored units into a forested area, but why were we so surprised they did it. In early parts of WW2 the Germans came through the ardennes to bypass the maginot line in the battle of france. So why would we not take that into consideration. If we fortified that region better we could have saved a lot of lives. And just for kicks the Germanys came through the ardennes in WW1. Can someone please shed light on this for me.

 

Why was it a surprise? Because every one was thinking (better wishfullthinking) that the war was over,the Krauts would give up,and every one would be at home by Christmas .

 

Yeah, i was watching a documentary about the battle and it seems the port was a big deal at one part and i quote "There was enough food there to feed 100 armies" so yeah it must have been a pretty valuable target to the Germans.

 

The suprise factor was part wishfull thinking, part weak German resistance due to the buildup of men and material for the offensive. An overreliance on the ability of airpower to overcome serious threats and the decision to keep 'Watch on the Rhein' off the Enigma machine. With the last perhaps key. Had it been mentioned in Enigma the Allies would have took notice.

 

The greatest weapon in The Battle of The Bulge is The Surprise Attack from German!
And i think Otto Skorzeny is already made his move while German pushing allies from Ardennes.

 

I've wondered something about the Battle of the Bulge. Did the Germans send soldiers into Allied territory pretending to be Americans to cause havoc as the BB movie suggested?