Plan_D, you've made some interesting and informed points but I believe the facts run counter to some of your arguments.
Eisenhower wanted to cut the Germans off. The plan called for the American First and Third Armies to collapse the pocket at Houffalize, well behind the German front. Anyone who looks at a map of the battle will see that capturing Houffalize quickly would have achieved that goal.
Ike pushed Montgomery to launch the attack on 1-Jan. Monty felt it imprudent to move that quickly and didn't launch his attack until 3-Jan.
Monty's two day delay wasn't the proximate cause in the German forces escaping the collapsing pocket. A well executed German retreat was. However Monty's slow reaction was much more a contributing factor than Ike's supposed lack of vision.
It is true that the BEF wasn't defending at the point of attack. However the BEF's invasion of Belgium was based on an expectation that the French lines would hold. The French collapse left the BEF's flank exposed and directly led to the near disaster at Dunkirk.
Surely the successful German attack through the Ardennes was a surprise to the BEF in any reasonable definition of "surprise." If not the BEF were completely bonkers to have invaded Belgium while expecting the Germans to make that position untenable.
This is more of a niggling point but most reports of the battle put the German troop count at 500,000, the American troop count at 600,000, the British troop count at 55,000, along with a smaller complement of Canadian, Belgian, and French troops.
With more than 90% of the Allied troops being American, it's not unreasonable for a person to suggest that the Americans stopped the Germans. Certainly 55,000 British troops on their own were not going to stop 500,000 Germans but 600,000 American troops on their own might have.
Stating that "the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces" without mentioning the scale of British involvement is a bit misleading. And if it's a matter of honor to give Britain credit for its contributions in a minority role, why mention the British troops without mentioning the other nations?
Yes, Patton wanted to cut off the Germans but, no, Patton did not feel that his Army was used incorrectly. If you have a quote of Patton saying something to that effect, that would be interesting to read.
Everything I've read indicates Patton was happy with the Houffalize target but frustrated with his rate of progress.
Best regards,
I didn't blame the Ardennes Offensive on Eisenhower, I said his blunder was his reaction to it i.e not cutting the Germans off, but pushing the bulge out.
Eisenhower wanted to cut the Germans off. The plan called for the American First and Third Armies to collapse the pocket at Houffalize, well behind the German front. Anyone who looks at a map of the battle will see that capturing Houffalize quickly would have achieved that goal.
Ike pushed Montgomery to launch the attack on 1-Jan. Monty felt it imprudent to move that quickly and didn't launch his attack until 3-Jan.
Monty's two day delay wasn't the proximate cause in the German forces escaping the collapsing pocket. A well executed German retreat was. However Monty's slow reaction was much more a contributing factor than Ike's supposed lack of vision.
I must make some corrections for you, the offensive through the Ardennes in 1940 did not catch the British by surprise - they weren't there to be surprised.
It is true that the BEF wasn't defending at the point of attack. However the BEF's invasion of Belgium was based on an expectation that the French lines would hold. The French collapse left the BEF's flank exposed and directly led to the near disaster at Dunkirk.
Surely the successful German attack through the Ardennes was a surprise to the BEF in any reasonable definition of "surprise." If not the BEF were completely bonkers to have invaded Belgium while expecting the Germans to make that position untenable.
And the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces, as the British were striking at the north of the bulge. Which led to the 6th Coldstream Guards capturing a fully functioning Panther G which had been abandoned because of lack of fuel.
This is more of a niggling point but most reports of the battle put the German troop count at 500,000, the American troop count at 600,000, the British troop count at 55,000, along with a smaller complement of Canadian, Belgian, and French troops.
With more than 90% of the Allied troops being American, it's not unreasonable for a person to suggest that the Americans stopped the Germans. Certainly 55,000 British troops on their own were not going to stop 500,000 Germans but 600,000 American troops on their own might have.
Stating that "the 1944 offensive was stopped by both the British and American forces" without mentioning the scale of British involvement is a bit misleading. And if it's a matter of honor to give Britain credit for its contributions in a minority role, why mention the British troops without mentioning the other nations?
And the U.S 3rd Army was used incorrectly in the counter-attack, Patton himself knew so and stated that he wanted his army to be used to cut the Germans off at their rear.
Yes, Patton wanted to cut off the Germans but, no, Patton did not feel that his Army was used incorrectly. If you have a quote of Patton saying something to that effect, that would be interesting to read.
Everything I've read indicates Patton was happy with the Houffalize target but frustrated with his rate of progress.
Best regards,