Talk:Meuse-Argonne Offensive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

Contents 1 Further information 2 Marginal victory 3 German Fifth Army 4 Most Lethal American Battle? 5 Marginal American Victory? 6 Forces involved in this Offensive 7 Opposing forces 8 casualty figures

[edit] Further information

I've found that this article has very little operational information when compared to other sources, and many sentences come off as very malicious such as the line "The strategic goal was sound; cutting the Germans from their main supply line. However, this was a failure." While this is well and good, it is making a wide generalization when compared to other facets of the offensive. I am not claiming that the page is wrong, but that very little explanations are given. If it is alright, I would like to plan to add some of the following topics when I have time:

• Pre-battle plans and Pershing's decision to split his forces up to allow for successive attacks on St. Mihiel first, followed by the Meuse-Argonne, which would help explain operational difficulties.
• Increased information on weather, terrain, and traffic conditions that led to poor logistical support for American and French forces.
• More detailed information on the German defenses.
• Force failures of some inexperienced divisions, such as the 35th Divisions complete dissolving.
• Stopgap measures of more experienced divisions (ie the 42nd) used to fill in for failing rookie divisions.
• Operational information on the different First Army corps' attacks on separate sectors of the push.
• Breaking of the Hindenburg line in the Kreimhilde Stellung
• Strategic failures following the American breakout across the Meuse. Careful steps should be made here and need others help to not overblow or underplay this specific point. It should be noted that in many sectors here, Americans had much of the German forces in retreat, but overzealousness on the point of some American generals and divisions led to reckless casualty-inducing advances (most notably in Sedan) that led to mass confusion, and in many cases, large amounts of friendly fire.

I also believe that when discussing victory a number of factors must be noted besides simply the numbers of casualties involved. While the Americans certainly weren't the first to break the Hindenburg line, nor the most effective at it, the confusion sustained from the offensive all but scattered many German army elements and diffused holes into the line for other forces to capture. Likewise, while original plans were achieved far too late (and could be considered a failure on that scale), it must be noted that by 3rd November that Americans had much of the German opposition in retreat, and following the breakout had advanced a great deal in proportion to the original progress-- mostly because of the horrible state the German Army was in. It seems a very difficult thing to sum up in terms of "American Victory" or "Marginal American Victory," since on one hand it was a victory in terms of a blow that had the Germans retreating rapidly and unable to regroup effectively starting by 3rd November in the targeted sectors, but on the other hand was an operational and strategic failure in terms of the battle plans and any semblance of a timeframe or troop cohesion.

Any comments would be appreciated, --68.113.199.134 06:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Fingus

[edit] Marginal victory

In terms of Marginal American Victory, would this be pertaining only to troop casualty numbers, since this was the campaign that essentially broke the hindenburg line and allowed for the allies on many sectors to start breaking through (and thereby casuing a major German retreat)?

Maybe the word marginal could be removed. It would not have been a decisive victory though, since WWI was in its essence a war of attrition and did not end because this or that position was taken but because the allied resources were larger than Germany's. In that respect, every battle ended either in a stale-mate or in a marginal victory. The latter as you remark usually only referring to troop casualty numbers. I would keep the word marginal. Piet 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was just one of the many attacks that were driving the Germans back. The Hindenburg Line was truly smashed when the British captured the St Quentin Canal in October. Darkmind1970 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Fifth Army

I have removed this link because it points to a WWII entry. Piet 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most Lethal American Battle?

I believe this is the most lethal battle in American history. If it is not, please remove it from the article page. Captain Jackson 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal American Victory?

In terms of casualties received by both sides, American forces were unquestionably victorious, especiacially in light of the fact that they were surrounded, outnumber, and the French were not there to support them when they should have been. Moreover, as this was the battle that broke through the German lines and essentially ended the war, the word "marginal" is completely unappropriate. 141.161.177.65 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Gabriel

With respect Gabriel, I think you have it wrong. Surrounded and outnumbered? The "lost battalion" was only a small part of the whole operation, and was the only example that backs your statement. "as this was the battle that broke through the German lines and essentially ended the war" - M-A formed one part of a large concentric action starting on 26 Sept. The Hindenburg line was broken in this area on 14th October (as noted in the article). It had already been broken elsewhere by British, Canadian, Australian and American forces - at Drocourt-Queant, and Battle of the Hindenburg Line. FrankDynan 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect Gabriel, the Meuse Argonne did not contribute much to Allied victory and in terms of casualties received by both sides it would have been a tie. Frank, The Americans pierced the second line of the Hindenburg position on October 16, a goal that Pershing had set for the 26th of September. It wasn’t until October 31 that the third German defensive position of the Hindenburg Line was broken all along the front at the Meuse Argonne battle. By October 4th the British Armies had their part of the Hindenburg Line behind them. Brocky44 06:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added an article titled Grand Offensive to link to this article plus Battle of the Hindenburg Line. I'll add content to that article describing the other related actions, or create separate articles as needed. Decided this based on the article on Ferdinand Foch, where it referred to the "Grand Offensive", but linked to this article, which is quite misleading. FrankDynan 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forces involved in this Offensive

I've just read the general Wikipedia article on the final Allied offensive (of which the Meuse-Argonne Offensive is a link) and the information regarding Allied forces involved is conflicting in each article. In the general article, this offensive is portrayed (I think more correctly) as a joint Allied offensive of which the American troops were a part of:

"Then on 26 September 1918 soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force, British Expeditionary Force, Canadian Corps, French Army and American Expeditionary Force began a combined offensive along much of the Western Front. The Hindenburg line was broken by Australian, British, Canadian and American troops within hours of the attack starting. This show of force forced the German High Command to accept that the war had to be ended. American numbers together with British and French combat effectiveness was destroying the German Army as an effective fighting force. However casualties remained heavy in all of the Allied fighting forces, as well as in the retreating German Army."

However, this article appears to be geared solely around the American involvement and suggests that the American troops were the sole / at least dominant force in this attack. I think that this is a misrepresentation of events, and should be altered.

I've been watching these pages - this and the Grand Offensive and "daughter" articles - for a while hoping someone other than me would clean them up (despite the fact that I undertook to do so). I have found it very difficult to formulate a consistent approach across these articles with a view to:

1. getting the individual article detail correct 2. getting the interrelationships correct - ie so the text of one article does not conflict with a related article. 3. avoiding "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy about who "won the war". 4. and all the while respecting the various nations "claims" in the interests of avoiding flame wars.

The emphasis on US forces in this article is correct, however. Perhaps all of the articles need to be clearer on emphasising both the separateness of the actions (operationally) and their interrelationship at a strategic level.FrankDynan 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing forces

U.S. Forces consisted of ten divisions of the U.S. First Army commanded by General John J. Pershing until October 16 and then by Lt. General Hunter Liggett. German forces consisted of approximately forty German divisions.

This info is all wrong it should say- 25 American and 4 French divisions attacked with 189 tanks along a front of 22 miles defended by 5 German divisions, 4 of which were described as low grade.Brocky44

[edit] casualty figures

the article contradicts itself here, german casualties is 120,250 in the summary and 126,000 in the casualty section.