Talk:Siege of Bastogne

Casualties

Is there any source to the supposed casualties in the info box? --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Allied forces

If there were only American troops defending the city, should there really be references to "the allies"?

Yes, since supporting forces from without Bastogne included French, British, Dutch, Belgian and Polish forces in addition to other American units who all forced their way in from various directions from due south to due north. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course they should be called "the Allies", because all American troops were under the command of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force. Notice the word "Allied" in the title of this command. Indeed this article reports that General Eisenhower ordered the movement of troops, and he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. Thus the American troops were indeed "the Allies". Nick Beeson (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

They captured a town in Switzerland?

There is reference to a town "Noville" in the article. Clicking the link takes one to the wikpedia page for a town in Switzerland. Switzerland was mostly neutral in the war.

=I removed the [[ ]] from the first instance that shows Noville. But for some reason the original page remains - with the error intact, although the changes I have done are recognised in page History.  ???? However, I did add a link to the second mention of Noville that shows an artists impression of the liberation of town by Easy Company (Band of Brothers). The link page also contains a few words from Dick Winters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.218.40 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Expert Historian?

The second paragraph of the section "Initial combat at Noville" cites a conclusion of "a Military Channel expert historian" without further reference. I don't know how to mark that as needing further citation. Lapisphil (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Tanks

The article mentions that american tank destroyers destroyed several Tiger tanks at the initial combat at Noville while the only two tiger units 501SS and 506 Herr deployed with Dietrich army ! No way that tigers participated in Bastogne battle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, after extensive search I found that the 506 heavy tank battalion was engaged in the fight near Bastogne at Dec. 21 with 46 VIB ! and after withdrawal from the Arddenes some 2 weeks later it stil posses 30 king Tigers which means it lost 16 in combat but stil the American Tank destroyers were pulled out of Noville one day before the Germans committed the Tigers ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Air supply

Battle of Bastogne#Battle says "the surrounded U.S. forces could not be resupplied by air". But one of the pictures at Battle of Bastogne#Breaking of the Encirclement shows "101st Airborne troops picking up air-dropped supplies during the siege." according to its caption. My guess is that there was no air supply around December 21 but the picture was around December 25. But it doesn't say that, so it looks like a contradiction. Art LaPella (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The details at File:Bastogne resupply1944 sm.jpg say it was taken 26 December 1944, so I have updated the caption to clarify matters. (Hohum ^@) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but notice that the picture I was talking about was probably earlier than that other picture, because you can see much more snow. Art LaPella (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

120,000 Germans versus 11,000 Americans?

Really? That is how the infobox portrays the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.220.172 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Organic transport

Section 3 contains this sentence: "Both divisions were alerted on the evening of December 17, and not having organic transport, began arranging trucks for movement forward. "

I have no idea what 'organic transport' means and I was unable to find anything on Google. Can someone clarify or alter this term so that its meaning is clear? Manning (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it means they weren't Motorised infantry. (Hohum ^@) 00:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be trucks attached to the division. Since they are paratroopers they generally don't go to battle in trucks. These are kind of hard to drop out of air planes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was then. Today, we have LAPES drops. I would suggest changing 'organic' to 'accompanying'.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Authenticity

Stephen Ambrose is not known for his honesty, perfect example is Blithe, the soldier pictured in comp toccoa georgia 1942, who shot in the neck and never recovered in his book band of brothers, which is fabrication. Id avoid books by him when refering to WW2, alot of veterans have made comments to this. to lazy to login but im fortybam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.133.71.245 (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2012‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure that it was dishonesty so much as it was shoddy research and maybe a bit of laziness. No work of that magnitude and input from so many people would be without some errors.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The members of E company that were interviewed by Stephan Ambrose believed that Blithe had been killed in combat. Since Ambrose bases his writing on his interviews, it would apear to be an honest mistake. However, one might think a little bit more research would be warrented when discussing someones supposed demise.-Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.92.235 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Distance Werbomont to Bastogne

It is mentioned that Bastogne is 172 km away from Werbomont. This is largely overestimated nowadays via the motor way it is 50 km however by the time there was no motor way and probably the direct road passing by Houfalize was hold by the Germans. Maybe this distance was evaluated based on the actual itinerary that Mc aulife had to take ?91.180.214.101 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Distance

Some editor, correctly, mentions the movement of the 101st. The editor correctly points out the ways this was remarkable: finding transport; loading; moving out in good order; driving at night; lights on; and length of train. However unless the reader is well versed in European geography, the bare statement "from Reims to Bouillon" tells them nothing about how long the train was. I added 120 kilometres (75 mi) which gives most people a good idea. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Bastogne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210627/http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/3031921.html to http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/3031921.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

All the roads converged at Bastogne?

This needs rewording. Only the roads in the south converged at Bastogne. Those in the north converged at St Vith, and that was the axis of advance for the offensive. It’s nice to say that Bastogne was integral to the plan, but it’s not borne out by the offensive itself. The Germans didn’t need to capture Bastogne, the bulk of forces moving through the southern area bypassed it completely. 203.219.45.229 (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Order of battle and the scope of the article?

Firstly, this article mentions units that were not involved in the encirclement battle but only later after the arrival of Pattons Third Army.

Also, listed as German units participating in the initial siege are the 5th Fallschirmjager Division. It mentions later the German divisions that were shifted to Bastogne like 1st, 9th, and 12th SS, and thr Führer Begleit Brigade. Firstly, 5th FJ was not involved in the encirclement of Bastogne, it was further south fighting Pattons Army and later involved fighting in the Harlange Pocket. The SS divisions did arrive later around Bastogne later, but only the 9th SS (only briefly, two days before it was shifted back north) faced the 101st Airborne despite what is mentioned in the article. 1st SS was on the south-eastern perimeter of Bastogne against the 35th Infantry and 4th Armored divisions, while 12th SS faced the 6th Armored division. — Will Tyson for real (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

About the scope: the siege was broken on December 26, the later fighting around Bastogne shouldn’t be confused with the encirclement Will Tyson for real (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)