# Talk:Battle of Lanzerath Ridge

I migrated some info on the I&R platoon from the article on Lyle Bouck that held the Germans up for most of December 16. However, I cannot find sources on the rest of the battle that is described as an overwhelming victory for the Germans in the area around Lanzareth. Specifically, I cannot find sources for the huge casualties suffered by the US forces. The number of German casualties appears to be incorrect, in that they suffered at least 4-600 dead and wounded at the hands of the 18 man I&R platoon. So where was the rest of the battle of Lanzareth ridge fought? Where were all these American casualties killed or wounded? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at this page [1] you will find far lower numbers for German casualties: 60 killed AND wounded, this would make for about 15 killed. Bouck's heroes did apparently not inflict "500 casualties" on German paratroopers, but they fended off the German unit consisting of 500 soldiers for several hours. And this page from Germany [2] even tells us about only 7 Germans killed! --Akribes (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the discrepancy in casualty numbers and just cited the two numbers at widest variance. Feel free to clean it up if you get to it before me. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was planning to help with the GA review, but I feel that fixing the obvious mistakes was a priority. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Lanzerath Ridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The article is well written and follows a consistent style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
In 'American defensive preparations', the final paragraph needs a reference for the temperature of the night.  Done
'U.S. artillery unavailable' needs a reference for the second paragraph.  Done
'German attack' needs a reference for the fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs and the end of the final paragraph.  Done
'German armor advance' needs a reference for the third and seventh paragraph, and the end of the eighth.  Done
'Prisoners of war' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph.  Done
'Unit recognition' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph. The paragraph after the list of medal recipients also needs a reference.  Done
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The article covers the main points and remains focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article maintains a neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images are well used and in the public domain.
Overall: Good work. A very comprehensive article and a good read. Harrison49 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

At times the article says the Intel/Recon force involved in the action only comprised two 9-man squads, other times it says the whole Ptn was involved. The only mention of the HQ Squad indicates it was attached to the (394th) Regiment's S2 Section - although the actual sentence is ambiguous, it is unclear if the two Squads are also attached to the S2 Section!
The official establishment of a US Infantry Regiment's I&R Ptn was 1 Officer and 24 men, organised as a 7-man HQ (Officer, SSgt + 5) and two 9-man Squads (Sgt, Cpl + 7).
If the unit involved at Lanzerath Ridge only comprised the two Squads, then the Officer wouldn't have been there! And as he was there, and there were only 18 men present, the two Squads could not have been at full strength - I would have been surpised if they were, as at that stage of the war, most front-line units (even SS) were understrength. 
I consider it unlikely that the officer would have travelled unaccompanied by anyone else from HQ Squad; I would have expected him to have a driver and maybe the Ptn RTO [could this be T/3 Fort?]. It also seems unlikely that one of the squads had an extra NCO - it is more likely that TSgt Slape was the Ptn's acting SSgt.
I therefore conclude that the 18-man defence force comprised the two understrength Squads and some, or all, of Ptn HQ.
I suppose someone noted that there were 18 men present and that a full strength Squad was 9 men, then jumped to a false conclusion.
---
Background Section, Paragraph 1 - 100's of armored units! No way! That would have been too much for Barbarossa! I have removed the 'however' in the last sentence; the word indicates a contrary position to the first part of the sentence, i.e. part of the sector was not peaceful, which is denied by the rest of the sentence, 'ghost front', and by the preceeding sentence, which says the american's were unaware of the german build up (and thus the sector was quiet). 
German armour advance Section - What is the source of Peiper's route? From studying a map, it doesn't make any sense!
Paragraph 3 - '1st SS Panzer Division rolled out of Lanzareth and headed east for Bucholz ...' On my map this is NNW!
Paragraph 4 - 'Driving east, the Germans entered Honsfield' wrong again, this time NW!
Paragraph 5 - ' .. switch his planned route to the south through Büllingen ...' nope, Bullingen NNW of Honsfield
Paragraph 5 - 'Peiper turned south to detour around Hünningen, interested only in hurrying west' - Bullingen is NW of Hunningen! If he detoured south, he would have ended up back in Honsfield; if he continued west he would be moving further away from Hunningen!
820th Tank Destroyers" - Does anyone know the source of the strength figures for the TD Ptn? My source indicates 52 men for a towed 3" A/Tk Gun Ptn.Glevum (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! You seem very familiar with typical unit assignments. The HQ platoon was indeed back of the forward lines. I'll see if I can find any info on their disposition. Whether Bouck should have been with them or not, it's well documented that he was with the two forward platoons.
The two mentions of "east" are wrong, and I changed them to "west." The various Rollbahns are confusing and hard to track down. Any help you can offer would be appreciated.
— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I found a source that states that the I&R platoon of the 394th and similar divisions didn't have a HQ unit, but was comprised of the following units:
Each regiment's headquarters company in the U.S. Army included an Intelligence & Reconnaissance Platoon. This usually consisted of 18 men, in two reconnaissance squads, each with three jeeps—one equipped with a radio transmitter—and a platoon lead with a jeep. The task Of such a reconnaissance platoon consisted Of reconnaissance and patrol to obtain such intelligence about the enemy and the terrain that was not available to the battalion and regimental infantry companies. 
-- From The Ardennes, 1944-1945
This information conflicts with what is reported in another source, I&R-394/99th Infantry Division Lanzerath 12/44, which states,
An I&R Platoon (Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon) was organic to each Infantry Regiment during the war. The 25 soldiers in the platoon consisted of 2 9-man reconnaissance squads and a 7-man headquarters section who worked in the regimental S2 section.
So I don't know which is current, and I'll investigate further. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I found a paper written by military author which appears to confirm there was a HQ squad:
The I&R platoon was equipped with eight M151 1/4 ton (JEEP) vehicles: two were for the platoon headquarters and three for each of the two reconnaissance squads.
-- The Intelligence And Reconnaissance Platoon, 1935-1965: Lost In Time  — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Lanzerath Ridge. 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/20110706133531/http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:cavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6 to http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:cavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706133531/http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:cavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6 to http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:cavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Lanzerath Ridge. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85%3Acavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1%3Abattle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710205406/http://www.eucmh.com/2009/02/15/dec-16-1944-lanzerath-ir-39499-id/ to http://www.eucmh.com/2009/02/15/dec-16-1944-lanzerath-ir-39499-id/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.criba.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85%3Acavalry-in-the-gap&catid=1%3Abattle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6
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) 03:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We live in a time now that we should move forward from just heroic stories. True research has been done numerous times changing this story completely with way lesser numbers of casualties on the German side and making the battle during only a fraction of the time on this page. It’s about real history now not keeping up a convenient sounding American tale. 2001:1C04:3D07:6400:5D1C:E5F5:C7C5:7EED (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Brave anonymous user, if you have some citations from your so-called "true research" that prove this action did not delay the German advance by almost a full day, disproving the heroic stand of 18 US soldiers against several hundred Germans, please provide a few sources and update the article. Otherwise we will allow the heroic stories to stand and for you to remain in the bushes. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 00:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is described as an American victory. Although heroic, the Americans were eventually taken prisoner so the battle’s outcome was ultimately a German victory and any American victory would have to be seen as moral at best. 2001:BB6:18BC:C558:854F:5D92:C9BC:552 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)