Talk:Battle of Hürtgen Forest

message: This article might benefit from wider sourcing.  
For casulties, you could look at looking at the official US Army Surgeon General's history of the battle, at:
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/HuertgenForest/HF.htm
  
The account says: "The divisions suffered over 30,000 casualties in killed, wounded, missing in action, combat exhaustion, and to various disease and non-battle injuries....The fighting in the Hürtgen Forest was but one part of the overall Siegfried Line campaign during which the U.S. Army suffered very significant battle casualties, missing in action and captured, and disease and nonbattle losses. First and Ninth U.S. Armies 57,095 incurred battle casualties alone during the entire Siegfried Line Campaign. First U.S. Army combat losses totaled 47,039 (Killed  7,024 Wounded  35,155 Missing and Captured  4,860)."
The account concludes by saying:
"As the First Army G-3, General Thorson, put it succinctly: "We had the bear by the tail, and we just couldn't turn loose." 
More than 8,000 men from the First Army fell, prey in the forest to combat exhaustion and the elements. Another 23,000 were either wounded, missing, captured, or killed. That was an average of more than 5,000 casualties per division."
What had been gained at this cost? The Americans had battered at least six German divisions. They also had eliminated hundreds of individual replacements. They had conquered a formidable forest barrier by frontal assault. They also had forced the Germans to commit some of the forces intended to be held intact for the Ardennes counteroffensive. Beyond these, the fight in the forest had achieved little in the way of positive advantages—no German industry, limited roads. The basic truth was that the fight for the Huertgen Forest was predicated on the purely negative reason of denying the Germans use of the forest as a base for thwarting an American drive to the Rhine. In the process the fight thus far had failed to carry the only really critical objective the forest shielded—the Roer River Dams." Gaintes (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing 

message: Please do not put umlauts on every word. Google UK and other search engines distinguish between a word with a umlaut and without. If the article has all the words spelt Hürtgen then people searchin with Google in the UK NZ Aus SA and other will not find it. Neither of the references supplied use umlauts or the ue spelling. Philip Baird Shearer 20:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I get your point now. However, the name is Hürtgenwald, and leaving out the ü makes it another word. The ue is a barely acceptable replacement, a plain u is not. To help the search engines I propose we add a statement like "(sometimes called Hurtgenwald in English-written literature.)". Ok?  --Yooden 20:58, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
No this is an English Encyclopedia not a German one it is not wrong to leave out the umlaut on the word in English. Just leave the first word without an umlaut. The German in brackets informs anyone who needs or wants to know that the correct spelling in German is with an umlaut. Philip Baird Shearer 01:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The policy very clearly states use the most commonly used English version of the name. The most commonly used English version is "Hurtgen". I am holding a copy of the Whiting book, one of the two English-language histories of this battle (by someone who was a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and lived in Germany, i.e. not some random illiterate), and it uses "Hurtgen" throughout. "Hürtgen" is correct in German, "Hurtgen" is correct in English. Noel (talk) 04:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but this is hardly a good argument. "Hurtgen" is never correct in English, whereas "Huertgen" would be correct if you didn't want to use the umlaut in an English text. Just dropping the umlaut without proper substitution of the vowel with the vowel-"e"-combination is either sloppiness or ignorance, and will potentially change the meaning of the word in question. We should therefor use Munich or München, but not "Munchen" :-)) MikeZ 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I second this opinion.  The widespread, accepted transliteration of umlauted U in German is to use ue in English.  The ignorance of authors of books does not make changing umlaut-U to simply U correct.  I think we should be spelling it Huertgen everywhere, no matter what authors did in the past.  The guys who wrote those WWII books, and drew the maps, often did not know a whit of German (and didn't care).  It's just going to continue to confuse people to dumb this down to Hurtgen, because people are going to fail in their searches.Harborsparrow 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it IS accepted practice in non-German transliterations, given the history of the umlaut, which originates as a typsetting mark for the umlaut "_e" first as an actual "e" on top of the preceding vowel, then as a mere two dots representing that e. Diaeresis_(diacritic)#Printing_conventions_in_German
It is not the ignorance of authors it is common English usage (see WP:UE). See Google results:
*Books 1 - 10 of 61 on "Battle of Hurtgen Forest" -"Battle of Hürtgen Forest"
*Books 1 - 1 of 1 on -"Battle of Hurtgen Forest" "Battle of Hürtgen Forest".
*Scholar 1 - 5 of 5 for "Battle of Hurtgen Forest" -"Battle of Hürtgen Forest". 
*Scholar -"Battle of Hurtgen Forest" "Battle of Hürtgen Forest" - did not match any articles.
A Google Web search returns a lot of false positives it is necessary to to to the last page returned to see the true figures:
*Web 241 for "Battle of Hurtgen Forest" -"Battle of Hürtgen Forest" -wikipedia (page 25)
*web 46 for -"Battle of Hurtgen Forest" "Battle of Hürtgen Forest" -wikipedia (page 5)
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: FWIW neither a UK English nor a US English keyboard has any key of a character with an umlaut, thus any UK or US user has to use the Character Map simply to use a character with an umlaut, or to search for a word including such a character.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: umlauts

message: Does the count of American "casualties" here mean only fatalities, or does it include the wounded? Either way, a less ambiguous wording should be adopted, citation should be provided, and this article and Siegfried Line should be reconciled with one another on this matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Casualty means killed and wounded, if it means that, the word casualty should be used, but not if it only means dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.40.39 (talk • contribs) 7 Jan 2005.
::Yes, I know that's what it should mean, but in my experience people often use it incorrectly, and there is no citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  why should the german wikipedia site not be a serious reference, you idiot?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.38.72 (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Casualties" 

message: The section entitled "other" (1) is not in very good English and (2) seems to be POV without citation. Would someone knowledgable on this topic (I'm really not) please take it on? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
* Someone recently added an NPOV tag, anonymously and without comment. I will assume that this is endorsement of my issue here, unless someone says otherwise. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
:I removed the NPOV tag. If you think that "is not in very good English" then you can always improve it. Without knowning about 2 you can not judge if it is a NPOV or not. If you think it is factually incorrect then remove it. I think that if you wish to add a template then the one you should use is: . But see Wikipedia:Template messages for more options particularly Disputes and Cleanup --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone looking at the 28th's plan of attack is struck immediately by its serious flaws, which should have been obvious to the greenest lieutenant. In fact Cota had very little say in the plan. This recipe for disaster was largely dictated to him by Gerow and his staff, who apparently believed that since the Americans faced German units made up mostly of old men and young boys, one more good, hard push would be sufficient to end the war.
Which I think covers "ongoing discussion whether this battle did make any sense" that the original wikipedia contributer meant. -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing needed

message: The following was placed directly in the article. It is clearly talk page stuff. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? They could be mistaken, but other sources say that the American 1st and 4th Infantry divisions landed on Omaha Beach, and the 29th Infantry division was the only one that landed on Utah Beach. Besides reinforcements coming the next day, the 29th Infantry was able to link up with an airborne division that had landed on the morning of D-Day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.93.220 (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remarks from a vet 

message: I edited the following : "While defenders were protected from shrapnel by their defensive positions, attackers were in the open and vulnerable – lying flat (the natural response) or open foxholes were no protection. Conversely, attacking mortar teams needed clearings in which to work – these were few and dangerous, so support was often unavailable to rifle teams." 
Shrapnel was changed to 'shell fragments' - shrapnel was hardly used during WW2; even though the term is often used, it is not correct. Also, laying flat is actually an effective tactic when under artillery fire - not nearly as good as being dug-in with overhead cover, but vastly safer than remaining standing. DMorpheus 16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If artillery is bursting in the tree tops, laying flat actually presents more of a target for the treebursts above to hit....Michael Dorosh 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery/ mortar usage

message: This article needs the dates wikified eg 12th September to 12 September and the unitis mentioned should be put into standard unit formats and linked to the approprate page (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)) --Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify dates and units

message: Sources available to me indicate that the Americans did not start the assault to seize the dams, they failed to recognize their importance at first. Instead, they planned to nail German forces in the area in order to prevent reinforcements to the front further north around Aachen, where the fighting was almost as heavy as in the forest, and maybe even to outflank said frontline through the mountains. I will take the liberty to correct this if no one objects. --Derfflinger 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's correct. The *Germans* recognized the importance of the dams and that's what they were fighting to protect. The US mistakenly believed the forest could threaten other operations. They would have been better off leaving it alone. DMorpheus 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectives

message: G’day fellow contributors,I hope I didn't step on anyone’s toes with my pervasive copyediting of the past two days, but I found the article so interesting that I couldn’t resist: I think you’ve done a great job of pulling all that information together, so I thought I’d try to do it justice. (Apologies if this sounds partronizing—I don’t mean it too: this is really what I think.)The main weaknesses that I’ve tried to address were ones of clarity and consistency; for example, there was a mixture of Commonwealth English (BrE) and U.S.-American English (AmE) spellings and some abbreviations that, while perhaps familiar to military and WWII buffs, might have been confusing to the uninitiated reader (doubtless I’ve introduced a few of these myself, too...).Any fact checking I did, I did by comparing this article against its corresponding article in the German Wikipedia and articles linked to from here (and sometimes their corresponding German articles). In addition to these, there’s a German article called :de:Rurfront that is related to the Battle of Hürtgen Forest in that Rurfront is what the Germans call(ed) the front line along the Rur River.In any case, quite a few ambiguities still remain. The ones I could (or can) identify, I have marked (or will mark) with those in-line “citation needed” (etc) tags; this way, those of you who are more knowledgeable of these details can fill in the blanks. For example, in some places the article refers to the dams of Rur Lake, whereas the German mentions only one dam (called Rurtalsperre Schwammenauel); could someone make sure that the changes (there are three) I made from plural to singular are correct? Elsewhere, do any of you know the first name of the German General Schmidt who is supposed to have commanded the German forces? He’s not mentioned in the German article.If you're able to verify any of the queried (tagged) spots, please supply your source, either with an embedded message or a citation of some sort (your source). If you leave the query tag, I’ll remove it on a later copy-editing pass.I also intend to add some material from the German article about the Hürtgen Forest today—did you know that they still come across several sets of remains every year? I thought that amazing. The area is also still riddled with mines and such, as well as full of memorials to the fallen from both sides.As to whether there is a Rur Valley or not, I could not discern. The German refers to the Rurtalsperre, which could be interpreted to mean “the Rur Vally dam” or “dam in/of the Rur Valley,” but other than that I could find no references to just a Rurtal (Rur Valley); I addressed this by rewriting the spots mentioning a Rur Valley to say “low-lying areas downstream from the dam” or something similar. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrites of March 20–21 

message: Does it really make sense to compare the casualty figures for Hurtgen Forest with Omaha? We're talking about a 3-month battle vs one day. -- Hongooi 12:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the point of the comparison lies in the relative profile of the two battles. Not being American this is a bit of a guess, but corrections welcome. Omaha has a high profile as a heroic, essential battle against adversity and heavy casualties - it's a successful part of the successful US campaign in Europe. Hurtgen on the other hand is largely forgotten (few histories give it much space, much of the info I dug out is in a book by a British historian). It contrasts with the image of a largely purposeful US thrust into Germany - some historians argue that Hurtgen was unnecessary or badly managed or both. The comparison with Omaha is meant, I believe, to demonstrate the bloody nature of the battle and the impact on the units and men involved. As such, it's valid and should be kept, IMO. BTW, please sign your edits as shown at top of page. Folks at 137 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties vis-a-vis Omaha Beach 

message: So, was American warfare in Europe seriously compromised after winning the battle?--Ukas 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pyrrhic victory?

message: Both here and the German Wiki(Which this article links to)don't seem to have a source for their estimates. Anyone have anything? If not, then at the end of the week I will replace it with unknown- not because I doubt the figures, but because there appears to be no source.ShaneMarsh (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support for reasons I have stated in the section on umlauts above. PKKloeppel (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: But didn't add it in the article to prevent overburdening it with images. Image is high-res though and allows reading the print on the plaque in full resolution.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KallBridgePlaque.JPG  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.2.139 (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added an image of the plaque in Commons 

message: At least two of the external links are dead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.86.16 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Second time someone has come into this page and changed the casualty figures to show 50,000 US and 12,000 German. Problem is the sources cited say 33,000 American and 28,000 German. The editor doesn't change the source at all, just the numbers. Methinks someone has an agenda. Wokelly (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone keeps skewing the casualty figures 

message: There is a problem in this article in which the end of the action states 10th February 1945 in the infobox. Yet the battle section clearly states from 19 September - 16th December. I will change the time line in the infobox as per wiki guidelines with the results until a third phase within the article is created or even perhaps a separate article. This being the result of no offensive moves made by allied forces between 16 December - to early February in the area (because of the German counter offensive further South).  ChrisWet (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article timeline 

message: This article doesn't make a clear distinction between the river Rur, located next to the eastern part of the Hürtgenwald, and the river Ruhr, located in the Ruhr Metropolitan Region. I'm not sure whether these rivers were confused in some places.--91.61.103.119 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruhr vs. Rur 

message: Hi folks,
the picture Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J28303,_Hürtgenwald,_schweres_Infanteriegeschütz.jpg features the english caption "A German heavy mortar firing in defense against a U.S. attack on 22 November 1944 in the Hürtgen forest". While the gun seen is clearly not a mortar, but the sIG 33 ("schweres Infanterie Geschütz 33" or "heavy infantry gun 33"), I would like to change the caption and add a link it to the corresponding article on wikipedia. Also, the original german caption states "Bei Düren, Wald von Hürtgenwald.- Schweres Infanteriegeschütz beim Feuern, Aufnahme am 22.11.1944" also mentioning it’s a heavy inf. gun and not a mortar. Maybe some mortar fan wanted to augment the air burst/firing from clearings thing. Cheers Kohlesheriff (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Picture Caption 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Hürtgen Forest. 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/20080321051859/http://www.mobileregister.com:80/indexmain.html to http://www.mobileregister.com/indexmain.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201185341/http://www.armyhistory.org/ahf2.aspx?pgID=877&id=108&exCompID=56 to http://www.armyhistory.org/ahf2.aspx?pgID=877&id=108&exCompID=56
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A user of different IP adresses keeps changing the result and the sources. The sources from blogs and forums do not correspond to  WRS, so therefore I have restored the previous accepted sources. Shire Lord  (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes  

message: This article describes the battle as the longest the US Army has ever fought at 3 months (incorrect).  The Battle of Anzio was between 1/22/44 and 5/23/44, or 4 months. 65.254.18.190 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Longest battle the US Army has ever fought" (Wrong)