![]() |
|
|
|
#1 | |||||||
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,682
|
For those familiar with the military history of WW2, there are many battles that come readily to mind. These included the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Kursk, the Battle of the Bulge, and the Battle of El Alamein.
At the same time, there were battles that were not so well known, for one reason or the other. One was the battle in the Hurtgen Forest, when incompetent American generalship was paid for by the heavy casualties amongst the GI. The other was the Battle of Arracourt. In fact, there is no such thing as the Battle of Arracourt. There is no such designation in either American records or in German records. If it was referred to at all, it would usually be described as "the German counter-attack around Arracourt", or "the tank engagements around Arracourt". It is usually described as part of the overall Lorraine campaign fought by Patton's Third Army in Sep-Oct 44. The most evocative title for the actions fought around Arracourt was the one used by the French: "The Battle of the Tanks". That last title neatly summed up the nature of the engagement. Indeed, it was the largest tank engagement ever fought by the US Army, until the Battle of the Bulge, but the latter took place over a much larger geographical area and was really a series of battles. What was so special about this tank engagement then? Simply put, a German tank force equipped mostly with Panther tanks was defeated by an American tank force equipped mostly wiht 75mm Sherman tanks. Below is a brief description of the battle: Quote:
Note that the victory ratio was 32:285, or almost 1:9 in favour of the Americans. Of the units in the 4th Armored Division, one unit in particular distinguished itself. This was the 37th Armored Regiment, commanded by Creighton Abrams (Lieutanent-Colonel, then Colonel). Here is a description of the 37th actions around that time: Quote:
The victory ratio for the 37th was 14:55 or almost 1:4. By comparison, the battle around Prokhorovka during the Battle of Kursk - supposedly the largest tank battle in history - saw 32 German AFV's lost as opposed to 259 Russian AFV's. http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm If these figures are accurate, a single American armored regiment at an little known battle had actually destroyed more German vehicles than the Russians at the reputedly largest tank battle of WW2! Here are some descriptions of actions fought during the battle: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwi...aine-ch05.html The most amazing thing about this battle was that the Americans had fought it with inferior weapons. They were armed with 75mm Sherman tanks, 3-in M10 Tank Destroyers, and the 76mm M18 Tank Destroyers. Most of the German tanks were Panthers. Another point is that most of the American vehicles had seen continuous combat since Jul 44, and had been in the dash across France since Operation Cobra. The German panzer brigades, on the other hand, were fresh and armed mostly with factory new tanks. Further of note as well was that much of the actions around Arracourt was fought in fog, which neutralised the Allied superiority in the air. It is curious that while the Battle of Kursk, Rommel's dashes across North Africa, and other battles were very well known, this American victory had not received much notice. Perhaps because it was simply treated as part of the larger American victory in France. Perhaps compared to the greater drama of the Battle of the Bulge, this battle seemed so lop-sided. Whatever it is, the American armored units, and in particular commanders such as COL Creighton Abrams, deserved more recognition for their achievements, using inferior and worn-out tanks to defeat superior and brand-new tanks. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Blighty
Age: 34
Posts: 3,174
|
You should give 'panzer commander' a read, its by colonel hans von luck.
That mentions the battles around the Moselle. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 619
|
Awesome! In the truest sense of the word.
Can anyone give more details about the actions of the French 2nd Armoured Division? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Strike, fold, and leg it
Posts: 8,309
|
To be fair to the Germans, a lot of "fresh" units in 1944 had limited training and lacked experience as a lot of the older commanders had been killed off. I would also say that they may not have been as fully equipped as they should have been and were certainly lacking the air support. I dont know of the engagement, but I wonder whether the terrain favoured the American defence against the German counter-attack. That is not to say the US had it easy, because it would have still been a very hard fight.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|