Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#1

Post by stg 44 » 24 Nov 2020, 20:20

From Christer Bergstrom's "Ardennes Offensive":
In Büllingen, Peiper’s Kampfgruppe stood only slightly more than a mile south of Wirtzfeld. Had Peiper been allowed to make just a small deviation from the assigned march route to capture this location—which his task force without any doubt could have accomplished in a couple of hours—the road would have been opened to the 12. SS- Panzer-Division, which thus had been spared the costly battle of the ’twin villages’ Rocherath and Krinkelt (see pp. 191). Such a maneuver also would have enabled the two panzer divisions of the I. SS-Panzerkorps to carry out a pincer movement to surround and annihilate both U.S. 2nd and 99th Infantry divisions. This in turn would probably have resulted in a total collapse for the U.S. defenses in the sector assigned to the 6. SS- Panzerarmee, possibly allowing Sepp Dietrich’s troops to reach the Meuse within a couple of days. Moreover, von der Heydte’s paratroopers could have been relieved. But, as we have seen, Hitler had made it quite clear to the 6. SS-Panzerarmee that on no condition was it allowed to deviate from the assigned march route, and hence, Peiper continued westwards.

U.S. 2nd Infantry Division’s commander, Major General Robertson, felt a moment of strong anxiety. Early on the morning of 17 December he phoned the commandant of the Division’s Special Troops and told him that the Germans had broken through, and wanted him to get every man he could bring up—even cooks, truck drivers, and clerks—to form a last ditch defense of the command post. These were the troops that Sternebeck’s tanks had encountered north of Büllingen. But as the feared German attack from the south never materialized, Robertson soon was able to concentrate on the defense of the ’twin villages’ Rocherath and Krinkelt.
The US official history of the Bulge presents it a bit differently, saying the advance would have been up the Butgenbach road northwest:
The advance guard of the 1st SS Panzer Division had reached Büllingen on the early morning of 17 December, by its presence threatening the open right flank and the rear of the 99th Division. Although the German armored column veered southwest, under the eyes of the astonished Americans, the presence of the enemy this deep within the bare south flank was a cause of grave concern to General Lauer and later to General Robertson. Through the morning only a handful of engineers and headquarters
personnel, backed up with single tank destroyer and antiaircraft pieces, stood in the way of a German dash north across the American rear. But the 1st SS Panzer, intent on objectives far to the west, failed to make this play.3 A platoon of Mark IV tanks did scout the Butgenbach road but withdrew when three were destroyed by the few guns of Company B, 612th Tank Destroyer Battalion emplaced near Dom Butgenbach.
Either way, how would the rest of the Battle of the Bulge have played out had Peiper disobeyed orders and attacked into the rear areas of the 99th and 2nd divisions north of Buellingen? For the sake of argument let's say that Bergstrom is right and the move effectively pockets the 2nd and 99th divisions and destroys the Elsenborn ridge position, while even taking out part of the 1st Division's reinforcement (1 regiment, forget the number offhand), which had only just arrived at Elsenborn and didn't deploy it's first battalion until about 4pm, about 6 hours after Peiper moved out from Buellingen historically.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#2

Post by Andy H » 24 Nov 2020, 22:20

Hi stg44

As per the WI guidelines could you please give us your POV on how things may have varied, before others wade in?

Regards

Andy H


Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10063
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#3

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 24 Nov 2020, 22:30

Bergstrom does not mention the 1st ID was in reserve just west of the 2d ID, and the 30th ID also in reserve further west, a few kilometers NW of Malmedy?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#4

Post by stg 44 » 24 Nov 2020, 23:13

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
24 Nov 2020, 22:30
Bergstrom does not mention the 1st ID was in reserve just west of the 2d ID, and the 30th ID also in reserve further west, a few kilometers NW of Malmedy?
1st division only sent 1 regiment south on the morning of the 17th. The forward element arrived at Elsenborn at 9am and it took until 4pm or so (dusk in the text) to deploy. That was WAY later in the day after 1st SS Panzer would have been at Elsenborn. 30th ID only showed up on the 18th IIRC.
2 ID was scattered about at the time to support 99th division. So basically neither the 1st nor 30th were present at the time to actually matter to this POD.

From Cole's US history on the bulge p.113:
Reinforcements from the 1st Infantry Division, as promised by the VII Corps, arrived at Camp Elsenborn about 0900, reported to the 99th Division, and were dispatched at once toward Butgenbach. This village lay on high ground belong- ing to the vital Elsenborn ridge and would be the point of entry for any German thrust on the road net north of Bullingen.4
The 26th Infantry (Col. John F. R.Seitz) , which had been transferred to V Corps control the previous midnight, was the only unit thus far sent south by the 1st Division. At Elsenborn, after General Lauer had given a quick resumé of the situation, the regimental executive officer, then in command, put the 2d Battalion in the lead, sending it south to occupy two hills midway between Butgenbach and Büllingen which overlooked the main road connecting the two villages. By dusk the 2d Battalion (Lt. Col. Derrill M. Daniel) was deployed on the high ground near the tiny hamlet of Dom Butgenbach, dug in along the reverse slopes on a 2,100-yard front. Both flanks were wide open. The enemy, however, failed to react forcefully to the American move, although a 2d Battalion patrol found that the Germans still were in Büllingen.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#5

Post by Kingfish » 24 Nov 2020, 23:55

The overriding goal for Wacht am Rhein was to push west as far and as fast as possible before US reinforcements flooded the battlefield.

How does diverting 1st SS Pz northward comply with that goal?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#6

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2020, 00:13

Andy H wrote:
24 Nov 2020, 22:20
Hi stg44

As per the WI guidelines could you please give us your POV on how things may have varied, before others wade in?

Regards

Andy H
Ok. So per Bergstrom:
Such a maneuver also would have enabled the two panzer divisions of the I. SS-Panzerkorps to carry out a pincer movement to surround and annihilate both U.S. 2nd and 99th Infantry divisions. This in turn would probably have resulted in a total collapse for the U.S. defenses in the sector assigned to the 6. SS- Panzerarmee, possibly allowing Sepp Dietrich’s troops to reach the Meuse within a couple of days. Moreover, von der Heydte’s paratroopers could have been relieved.
Assuming this plays out as he says and catches that forward regiment of the 1st division, the 26th IR, as it was deploying to the area as well, then V Corps' front is collapsed and on the 18th the I SS Panzer corps would flow through and cause some serious damage. The 47th IR of the 9th infantry had deployed around Monschau on the 17th IIRC to help blunt further attacks from the 326th VG and would be vulnerable as well having been flanked from behind.

Unfortunately there isn't a good situation map that just shows the 17th, which would have helpful, but here is a US army map of the area:
pic3800763.png
Not only would the artillery of the 99th and 2nd divisions be wiped out, but a lot of V Corps heavy artillery and AAA would be trapped in this area, which was the heart of the local AAA belt. Butgenbach was also a significant supply dump, so the SS would capture a bunch of supplies and fuel as well. The rollbahns of the 1st and 12th SS would run through Spa, so if the 1st army HQ didn't evacuate quickly they'd be overrun, but as it was I doubt they'd be able to remove the necessary supply depots and various facilities set up in the region, which would be bad news for the Allied forces. Since 30th division was moving down via Eupen the night of the 17th and bedded down for the night in that area I'd imagine they'd establish a blocking position to defend corps HQ at Eupen and tighten up the flank of the 78th division to the east in conjunction with surviving forces around Monschau. The rest of the 1st division would also show up to their west I'd think. That unfortunately leaves the SS corps then to push west without much in their way and with the use of paved highways to move both their combat units and supplies:
Image

Effectively that would mean overrunning the supply areas of the Spa-Vervier-Liege triangle, which would be a disaster for the Allies:
https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_11.htm
roughly in the triangle formed by the cities of Liège, Verviers, and Spa, lay the supply installations built up through the autumn to support the advance toward the Rhine. At Spa, which had served the German Emperor as headquarters in World War I, the First Army had established its command post surrounded on every side by service installations, supply dumps, and depots. Liège, twenty miles northwest of Spa, was one of the greatest American supply centers on the Continent. Verviers, an important and densely stocked railhead lay eleven miles north of Spa.
...
Although both Malmédy and Stavelot were administrative centers of importance (Stavelot contained the First Army map depot with some 2,500,000 maps), the most important item hereabouts was the great store of gasoline, over two million gallons, in dumps just north of the two towns.

https://mikesresearch.com/2019/12/29/malmedy-1944/
Liege was the largest Allied supply dump on the continent which provided most of the supplies for both the British and US Armies.

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm
Certainly there was some danger involved in the maintenance of the great supply depots so close to the uncertain battle line. Brig. Gen. Robert M. Littlejohn was ordered on three occasions to evacuate the big depots at Liège, but instead simply brought in more supplies.
....
The proximity fuze, a tightly guarded American secret design for detonating projectiles by external influence in the close vicinity of a target, without explosion by contact, got its first battle test in a ground role during the Ardennes. This fuze, also known as the VT or POZIT fuze, had been prepared for some 210,000 rounds of artillery ammunition on the Continent in December. Most of this stock was antiaircraft artillery ammunition, and the 12th Army Group had proposed to try it out in the so-called Liège River Belt, the cordon of antiaircraft gun battalions which was organized to shoot down the V-weapons in flight to Liège.

https://history.army.mil/html/books/010 ... _10-15.pdf
Liège and Verdun, handling Class I and III supplies, and Reims, responsible for Classes II and IV, formed a strategic triangle to provide advance support for the 12th Army Group. This was the heart of Littlejohn's organization to back up the main combat effort in the ETO. He had proposed this plan to the COMZ G-4 as early as mid-September, but at that time neither supplies nor Quartermaster operating units were available.
Liège Depot was commanded by Col. Mortlock Petit. In December, its mission was expanded and redefined as 40 days' rations and 13 days' POL for 925,000 men of First and Ninth Armies.

Verdun was commanded by Col. Roland T. Fenton; it was to support 450,000 men of Third Army with 40 days' nonperishable rations, 22 days' cold stores, and 16 days' POL. Reims was to provide 40 days Class II for 2,225,000 men. These included the three armies, Ninth Air Force, ADSEC, and some 300,000 non U.S. troops.17

Although true intermediate depots such as Rennes, Le Mans, and Paris had been established, they remained of minor importance. As much transportation as became available was used to concentrate stocks in such forward depots as Nancy, Verdun, and Liège, with the expectation that with continued tactical successes, they would soon become intermediate depots. This is the essential element of the OCQM supply plan published on 1 December 1944.41

Actually, despite optimism all through the autumn, there were no outstanding Allied successes until March 1945, and meanwhile the lack of a supply system echeloned in depth hampered support for the combat forces. The most serious deficiency was at Liège. For lack of a base installation at Antwerp, this site had to function simultaneously as base, intermediate, and advance depot all winter. General Somervell, who visited the ETO in January 1945, pointed out these defects, and laid most of the blame on the system that gave the armies control of transportation.42

At Paris, Charleroi, Mons, Liège, and Verdun, tremendous quantities of quartermaster supplies were stacked in the freight yards. At Liège, eight million gallons of gasoline were lined along the Meuse River for two miles. In the absence of concentrated facilities, every depot became a cluster of subdepots distributed around the various centers.
....
Liège Depot controlled warehouses and open storage scattered across the entire width of Belgium from Herbesthal westward to Givet, France.
....
3,700 tons of balanced B rations, 16,000 tons of operational rations, 31,000 tons of unbalanced B's, 10 million packages of cigarettes, and 5 million gallons of packaged MT80 gasoline, all located in the Liège area
If you'd like to take a look the QM history I'm quoting from linked above on p.413 has a table that lists Liege was the main supply depot for FUSA and NUSA. It falls 1st and 9th armies are logistically castrated.

The wrinkle for the Germans is the Allied reserves from the 9th army and VII corps like 2nd and 3rd armored and 75th division which would all likely show up pretty quickly if Elsenborn ridge falls. Maybe on the 19th or 20th rather than 23rd, just further north than they deployed historically. But to counter them all the German forces historically tied down or constrained by the Elsenborn ridge position would then be able to meet them too, like 3rd Panzergrenadier, 9th and 2nd SS, etc. and they can have a much better supply system thanks to the international highway being available and the ability to use captured US stocks in Spa-Verviers-Liege. Also 9th army and VII corps would suffer from lack of supply if Liege falls and if 1st army HQ gets out of Spa on time then they'd once again have to evacuate from Liege, their historical retreat position, which given how much it disrupted command and control during their previous bugout wouldn't have the situation when they displace again.

Of course that depends on a lot continuing to go right for the I SS corps, but with having avoided the worst of the fighting for Krinkelt and Elsenborn the corps would remain quite powerful and would have the momentum behind them to advance quickly along much better roads than historically. Plus it splits the defenses organized historically along river lines south of the Hohes Venn.

It looks like on the map if the US forces were going to deploy on the hinge of Eupen then the Vesdre river would be their defensive line further west, it's just a question of who can deploy along the Vesdre more quickly and get to Liege first. Given the resulting confusion that would come from Elsenborn falling, which unhinges the northern shoulder of the bulge, the US forces, despite their excellent mobility, might not realize the danger quickly enough and/or face panicked soldiers fleeing and filling to roads. Bergstrom again:
In front of SS-Kampfgruppe Peiper, all American resistance collapsed. By noon on 17 December, news about the powerful German panzer column had caused widespread panic on the American side. Major Donald P. Boyer, operations officer in U.S. 38th Armored Infantry Battalion—part of Combat Command Reserve, 7th Armored Division, which was underway to join the 106th Infantry Division in the Sankt Vith area—describes the sight that met him at around one in the afternoon on 17 December, as he reached the road intersection at Poteau, some ten miles southwest of Büllingen:

’We were hit by a sight that we could not comprehend, at first; a constant stream of traffic hurtling to the rear (to the west) and nothing going to the front (to the east). We realized that this was not a convoy moving to the rear; it was a case of “every dog for himself”; it was a retreat, a rout.
Here would come a two and one-half ton [truck] with only a driver, then another with several men in it (most of them bareheaded and in various stages of undress), next perhaps an engineer crane truck or an armored car, then several artillery prime movers—perhaps one of them towing a gun, command cars with officers in them, one quarter ton [jeep]— anything which would run and which would get the driver and a few others away from the front; it wasn’t a pretty sight—we were seeing American soldiers running away.

About a mile farther up the road at the little town of Petit-Thier, all traffic had stopped. In fact, it was the most perfect traffic jam I had ever seen. We had run into this hopeless mass of vehicles fleeing to the rear on a narrow road which would barely support two-way traffic at slow speeds. Vehicles streaming to the rear had attempted to pass each other in the intervals between the tanks of the 31st Tank Battalion, which was leading CCB, and now no one could move...’64

This was the traffic jam that prevented Combat Command Reserve, 7th Armored
Division and Combat Command B, 9th Armored Division from relieving the 106th
Infantry Division in time. At around two in the afternoon on 17 December, the C.O. of the
latter unit, Brigadier General Bruce Clarke, held a meeting with the 106th Infantry
Division’s C.O., Major General Jones, at the latter’s command post in Sankt Vith, when
suddenly the 14th Cavalry Group’s commander, Colonel Mark Devine burst in, his face red.65 'General,' Devine gasped, 'we've got to run. I was just chased into this building by a Tiger tank, and we all have to get out of here!’66
Last edited by stg 44 on 25 Nov 2020, 00:18, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#7

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2020, 00:14

Kingfish wrote:
24 Nov 2020, 23:55
The overriding goal for Wacht am Rhein was to push west as far and as fast as possible before US reinforcements flooded the battlefield.

How does diverting 1st SS Pz northward comply with that goal?
It opens up the roads where the rest of the corps was checked and allows supplies to flow freely. Simply moving the 1st SS division alone through the gap is ultimately setting up the rest of the corps for failure, as they remained stymied by the 2nd and 99th divisions and unable to use their assigned routes. That and the II SS panzer corps in reserve. It frees up a bunch of space and roads for them to deploy and expand the bulge.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#8

Post by Kingfish » 25 Nov 2020, 00:57

stg 44 wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 00:14
It opens up the roads where the rest of the corps was checked and allows supplies to flow freely. Simply moving the 1st SS division alone through the gap is ultimately setting up the rest of the corps for failure, as they remained stymied by the 2nd and 99th divisions and unable to use their assigned routes. That and the II SS panzer corps in reserve. It frees up a bunch of space and roads for them to deploy and expand the bulge.
But OKW had no way of knowing that on the 17th.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#9

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2020, 01:12

Kingfish wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 00:57
stg 44 wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 00:14
It opens up the roads where the rest of the corps was checked and allows supplies to flow freely. Simply moving the 1st SS division alone through the gap is ultimately setting up the rest of the corps for failure, as they remained stymied by the 2nd and 99th divisions and unable to use their assigned routes. That and the II SS panzer corps in reserve. It frees up a bunch of space and roads for them to deploy and expand the bulge.
But OKW had no way of knowing that on the 17th.
Hence the POD is Peiper disobeying orders because HE knew the others were blocked.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6399
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#10

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Nov 2020, 01:13

The only reason Peiper turned from Honsfeld to Büllingen was because he received word his planned route from Honsfeld west through Hepscheid-Möderscheid-Schoppen was probably impassable. He thus gambled he could get his column through Büllingen, off his assigned Rollbahn D, and onto Rollbahn C, and would clear the road before the delayed 12. SS column needed the road. There was never any thought of attacking north, encircling anyone, or anything of the sort. He was already violating orders by going to Büllingen, why would he violate those orders further to go to Wirtzfeld, cutting further across the 12. SS line of march? His mission was the Meuse and a strategic victory, not some villages in Belgium.

Meanwhile, the two 3" GMC M10 of the 1st Plat, Co C, 644th TD Bn, C-9 under Sgt George Holiday and C-12 under Sgt Tom Myers, were excellently placed in concealment on the Büllingerberg to fire on any German column advancing on Wirtzfeld, It took them about 30 seconds and 7 or 9 rounds (accounts vary) at under 350 yards range to knock out the three Pz IV and the 251. A dismounted infantry attack over the Büllingerberg would have forced the TD to displace, but they simply would have fallen back to K-R and the 38th Infantry. Peiper could have for some reason then advanced, canalized on the narrow bridges crossing the narrow, but steep-banked watercourses south of Wirtzfeld, which would have eased the burden on the 1st Bn, 9th Infantry and three 3" guns of the 801st TD Bn there.

BTW, the leading elements of the 26th Inf got to Camp Elsenborn by 0700 17 December. The 2d Bn was settled into its positions at Bütgenbach by late afternoon...but Peiper wasn't interested in going there either.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#11

Post by Kingfish » 25 Nov 2020, 01:22

stg 44 wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:12
Hence the POD is Peiper disobeying orders because HE knew the others were blocked.
How does he -and no one else from 1SS Pz HQ all the way up to AG-B - arrive at this determination on the 17th?

It seems you are suggesting Peiper makes a decision based on intel he couldn't possibly receive (if at all) for another 3 days.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6399
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#12

Post by Richard Anderson » 25 Nov 2020, 01:28

Kingfish wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:22
How does he -and no one else from 1SS Pz HQ all the way up to AG-B - arrive at this determination on the 17th?

It seems you are suggesting Peiper makes a decision based on intel he couldn't possibly receive (if at all) for another 3 days.
To be fair, it is pretty obvious that Peiper knew that 12. SS was hung up on the route northwest from Losheimergraben, which is why he took the gamble of making the diversion looping through Büllingen.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#13

Post by Kingfish » 25 Nov 2020, 01:42

Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:28
To be fair, it is pretty obvious that Peiper knew that 12. SS was hung up on the route northwest from Losheimergraben, which is why he took the gamble of making the diversion looping through Büllingen.
Hung up, yes.

Destined to go nowhere for the next 5 days? Methinks no.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#14

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2020, 01:50

Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:13
The only reason Peiper turned from Honsfeld to Büllingen was because he received word his planned route from Honsfeld west through Hepscheid-Möderscheid-Schoppen was probably impassable. He thus gambled he could get his column through Büllingen, off his assigned Rollbahn D, and onto Rollbahn C, and would clear the road before the delayed 12. SS column needed the road. There was never any thought of attacking north, encircling anyone, or anything of the sort. He was already violating orders by going to Büllingen, why would he violate those orders further to go to Wirtzfeld, cutting further across the 12. SS line of march? His mission was the Meuse and a strategic victory, not some villages in Belgium.
I'm aware of what he did and why historically. The why of this change is immaterial to the discussion of the outcome of the different decision, but if you insist I did say because the rest of the corps was badly behind schedule and this move would save the entire corps time and give them the necessary roads to achieve their mission. 12th SS had no line of march given that they were backed up at their jump off point still. The diversion is a means to an end.
Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:13
Meanwhile, the two 3" GMC M10 of the 1st Plat, Co C, 644th TD Bn, C-9 under Sgt George Holiday and C-12 under Sgt Tom Myers, were excellently placed in concealment on the Büllingerberg to fire on any German column advancing on Wirtzfeld, It took them about 30 seconds and 7 or 9 rounds (accounts vary) at under 350 yards range to knock out the three Pz IV and the 251. A dismounted infantry attack over the Büllingerberg would have forced the TD to displace, but they simply would have fallen back to K-R and the 38th Infantry. Peiper could have for some reason then advanced, canalized on the narrow bridges crossing the narrow, but steep-banked watercourses south of Wirtzfeld, which would have eased the burden on the 1st Bn, 9th Infantry and three 3" guns of the 801st TD Bn there.
How would that do against Panthers? It's fine ambushing a few lost Pz IVs, but the mass of heavier tanks that make up the rest of the battle group are a different beast altogether if they roll in strength.

Is it Wirtzfeld or Butgenbach? Cole says Butgenbach and north to Elsenborn, Bergstrom says Wirtzbach, but he got some other stuff wrong in that book, so I'm included to trust the detailed Cole.
Again 3 TDs against a battle group isn't going to resist very long considering that they didn't at Honsfeld or Bulligen.
Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:13
BTW, the leading elements of the 26th Inf got to Camp Elsenborn by 0700 17 December. The 2d Bn was settled into its positions at Bütgenbach by late afternoon...but Peiper wasn't interested in going there either.
Source? I quoted mine (Hugh Cole) which says 9am and the deployment of that single battalion by dusk which was between 4-4:30pm in December.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Peiper turns north, impact on battle of the bulge?

#15

Post by stg 44 » 25 Nov 2020, 01:51

Kingfish wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:42
Richard Anderson wrote:
25 Nov 2020, 01:28
To be fair, it is pretty obvious that Peiper knew that 12. SS was hung up on the route northwest from Losheimergraben, which is why he took the gamble of making the diversion looping through Büllingen.
Hung up, yes.

Destined to go nowhere for the next 5 days? Methinks no.
How about for the sake of the discussion we focus on the result rather than nitpick the cause of a decision?

Post Reply

Return to “What if”