Talk:Battle of Liège

message: I've found no web site that lists casualties on either side in this important opening battle of the Great War.  Not even Barbara Tuchman's Pulitzer-winning "The Guns of August" contains that material.  Most peculiar.
BT 11-06
==
All right, I'm done for now, I'll finish the article later. It's going to be rather long... ^_^ ugen64 18:07, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
:Don't worry, I'll get to it... eventually...
::At least tell me who won the battle!--Milicz 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Casualties

message: Any idea why this was tagged as "not having a global perspective"?  From my own perspective it seems fine...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.102.147.50 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this "not global"? 

message: Started some cleanup, and adding some references.
MarcoLittel (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: [With my bad English]. According to Horne and Kramer who have strongly learned this chapter of World War I, the first German troops attacking Liège were not 59,000 but only 39,000. The first three days of the invasion was a huge disaster for the Brigades (of which the name is right on the page but they had less soldiers, firstly because some soldiers were not comitted in the battle). Five of the six German brigades must withdraw. On 5 August the 34th Brigade lost 1,500 soldiers and 30 officers (wounded or killed I think: a Brigade have  two regiments of 3,500 soldiers).  On 6 August 14th Brigade lost more than an half of all its soldiers. According to Horne and Kramer, between 3,500 and 5,000 German soldiers were killed during this first attack (and others were wounded). So, until 8 August, the attack failed. It is important to underline that because in order to be successfull the Schlieffen plan must work quickly!!!  The German army must go quickly until France and Paris. But after three, even four days, the German army was not further than its position from the beginning and perhaps back (Horne and Kramer wrote that). For Horne and Kramers the Belgian resistance during the Battle of Liège is one of the main causes of which they named German atrocities and these atrocities linked to the Rape of  Belgium. Why? The German army and perhaps also the German government  found this Belgian resistance illegal or illégitime because of the neutrality of Belgium (the resistance in itself was helping France but on the other hand Belgium had the right to resist according the Europen treaties of 1839)). It seems actually the  plan Schlieffen really failed because of this resistance of Liège. It is impossible to read that in French literature about the World War I but I think it is right (even if I am hesitating, the question is very disputed). Which is certain, it is the fact you are able to understand the atrocities in Belgium (and France):  because of this resistance Germany failed.
I have their book only (Horne & Kramer), in French. But it is possible to find some good books in English on the Web or in the libraries. For instance Gerhard Ritter The Schlieffen plan: critique of a myth (I read  only some passages). This book is interesting because following its author, the Schlieffen plan was the reason why Germany lost the war, on the political and diplomatic plan but perhaps  also on the military plan. It is important also for the History of Belgium because of the so-called Belgian atrocities, and for the History of Wallonia because the most of the casualties of these atrocities (also in France and Flanders), were in Wallonia (2/3 I think), Wallonia being the most important territory on the road of the German invasion. I have also World War One by Priscilla Mary Roberts (one of the authors) History and strategy by Marc Trachtenberg (Princeton 1991) : [. I have aslo an older book (on the Web), who gvers the same figures fort the number of soldiers in the two regiment of the German Brigades (3,500 soldiers). For the whole German army on 4, 5, 6 and 7 August, there were 39,000 troops. After German army added 60,000 other troops and a many pieces of artillery. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the Horne & Kramer's book is John N. Horne, Alan Kramer. German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. 608 S. $40.00 (leinen), .  José Fontaine (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors about the figures and the beginning of the battle ( humbly )

message: Added citations from OH, revised the conclusion and centred pic captions, put convert template round metric numbers and tidied some prose (adjective frenzy). Recommend that some of the recent writing more sceptical of the Schlieffen Plan as a blueprint rather than a deployment plan be incorporated (or linked) in the background section.Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Had another go at CE, removed some repetition, did more convert templating, tried to make level 2 and 3 headers the same as the Antwerp ones and moved several paragraphs which were out of sequence. Will look for more sources to cite the first half of the page tomorrow. Gave Namur a cameo in the subsequent operations section.Keith-264 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Found some citations in the Belgian OH and added  while searching.Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Found OOB details on a website which seems pretty decent quality but still looking for one about smelly forts. ;O) A fresh pair of eyes cast over the page would help. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The delay of the German advance needs a balancing sentence because at least one source had the railways open before the last fort fell.Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Started copy editing the page using Namur as a model but it needs a lot more than I can do today, revert as desired in the meantime as I've copied it into a sandbox for surgery. Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished the additions from the GOH but need to integrate the rest of the narrative.Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Recent edits suggest that the recounting of German allegations of civilian involvement in military operations have not been sufficiently shown to be allegations. The existing text puts the claims in inverted commas, to show that they are claims rather than facts but this has been challenged. Is it the custom in Belgian writing to use "You've got a big bum" rather than You've got a big bum to demonstrate the recounting of a claim rather than an endorsement of it?Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  German allegations of franc tireur crimes 

message: I've reverted recent edits for a lack of citation but would prefer to discuss them with the new editor 71 to avoid wasting effort. Keith-264 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 71 has been kind enough to add the citations, thanks very much; I've altered them to sfn for consistency. Let's hope that Zuber's book is on offer soon at a discount. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: John Buchan was a novelist who also wrote during and after the war on military subjects  including battalion and divisional histories. Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Buchan 

message: The Battle of Liège (French: Bataille de Liège) was the opening engagement of the German invasion of Belgium and the first battle of World War I. The attack on Liège city began on 5 August 1914 and lasted until 16 August, when the last fort surrendered. The length of the siege of Liège may have delayed the German invasion of France by 4–5 days. Railways needed by the German armies in eastern Belgium were closed for the duration of the siege and German troops did not appear in strength before Namur until 20 August.
Not the longest or most informative lead is it? May was justified by the sources we had and if Zuber rejects that view altogether, we can reword it here. I'll let Brigade Piron know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Can anyone please clarify the numbers of heavy siege artillery involved - and please source this, as it's to make a change to existing content.  At present, WP and some external sources, are making various claims for the numbers.
A small number (either 1 or 2) of the new German Krupp 42cm 'Big Bertha' were available. So Germany had to call on Austro-Hungary for use of the Skoda M 11 30.5cm siege mortars, with their Austro-Daimler M 12 tractors.  Either four or eight of these were supplied. The tractors were so effective that the mortars were very quickly in position. 
Questions remain over:
* One or two of the 42cm?   Only the two prototypes were ready, but did both see service?
* When did Germany request support from Austro-Hungary?  Was this prior planning, or an emergency request?
* How many of the Skoda mortars were used, four or eight? (Sixteen were in service)
Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a copy of Zuber now so will have a look. Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  p. 214 includes Heavy Coastal Mortar Battery 5: 1 × 30cm mortar
* p. 233 Mozin (Fleron commandant?) wrote that Fleron bombarded by v heavy shells, couldn't have known about the 42cm at Pontisse on 14 August and speculated that the fire could have come from the Austrian 30.5cm, which didn't fire at Liege Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  As you know, I'm an engineering rather than a military historian. What I'm reading (mostly Ludvigsen's Porsche biog) claims 2+8, in a panic afterwards, but specifically for Liège. So I'm wondering if the chronology was an early attack on Liège (i.e. without the Austro-Hungarians in the OOB) turning into a request to the Austro-Hungarians, and the 1+4 OOB from the outset applying specifically to Namur afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  Ludvigsen's point is about the tractor units, not the guns. Because these had Austro-Daimler's new 100hp tractors (which were dedicated to hauling the M11 Skodas), they could go from the railhead to their emplacements surprisingly fast, faster than anything else could. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanych & Rupp p. 26 "Because the number of batteries was four short of the pre-war planning estimates, the German General Staff requested four batteries (eight howitzers) of Skoda 30.5cm Model 11 howitzers from the Austro-Hungarian Army. These batteries arrived in mid-August, participating in the sieges of Namur, Maubeuge, and Antwerp, and in attacks against the French fortifications at Givet and the fortification zone between Verdun and Toul."
42cm "Big Bertha" and German Siege Artillery of World War I (2013) Osprey p. 26 Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I am the author of Big Bertha (howitzer) and will refer back to my main source, named above by Keith. At this time in the war, there were only two Big Berthas and both were equipped by KMK Battery 3. The official name for the Big Bertha was schwere Küstenmörser, "big huge coastal mortar", to obscure its true purpose - that term is therefore a reference to the Big Bertha. In addition to the Berthas, there were 16 other German siege guns, all detailed on page 26. There were no 42cm Gamma guns because they were a nightmare to transport. I am also going to take this time to remind the universe that "Big Bertha" refers to the M-Gerät, not the Gamma and especially not the Paris guns, which were 21cm, not 42cm. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I cited it to the Humphries and Maker translation of Der Weltkrieg that already cited the paragraph. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm busy elsewhere but I'll make time to look in Zuber later on. Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege artillery numbers? 

message: Apropos obliterated, should the following about 420 mm guns be gun? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Eythenkew! Keith-264 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obliterated 

message: We'll need to take some out to make roomKeith-264 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did zeppelins ever bomb Liège?  Bomb the forts? (which seems utterly impractical)   It would seem far more likely that they were spotting for the heavy siege artillery, rather than bombing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cited, see here  regards. Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overfilling article with illustrations