Hyperbole in describing one battle is a major error? :pCult Icon wrote: ↑11 Aug 2019, 05:54You have major errors in your post. The German forces in the Ardennes were 3rd tier (KW III, IV common) and not really offensive capable. The US forces were initially outnumbered but then quickly reinforced their position to superiority. Certainly in some areas of the defensive battle their artillery was vastly superior. They were definitely not "third rate" given the severe tactical defeats of certain US infantry and armored divisions, many of which were much better equipped than the formations that pushed through them.HistoryGeek2019 wrote: ↑11 Aug 2019, 05:34
I know right. If you look at what actually happened in the war, America had its way with the Germans from start to finish. America landed in North Africa in November 1942, and less than 2 years later had captured Rome and invaded southern France, but to hear some people, the Germans won by "delaying" the Americans. And in Normandy and France the Allies absolutely obliterated the German army. Even in the Battle of the Bulge, the mighty Wehrmacht was not only delayed, but stopped, by third tier American units. And after that the German army was once again obliterated by the United States.
The German forces were- qualitatively- good at defense and delaying regardless of vast numerical superiority- even as their offensive capabilities dried up in 1943. This tends to lead to a lot of alternate history scenarios of the German forces bleeding their enemies dry if they had 2 times, 3, times, etc. more forces..
The Germans were good at delaying? So when the Allies landed in Normandy in June 1944, the Germans delaying them from conquering all of Germany for another 11 months is a good delay? :p