Could the Germans have won the battle of the Ardennes in ww2?

Question

Ive been watching the band of brothers tv series and i was just wondering if 'Hitlers last gamble' offensive in the Ardennes could have suceeded with better luck? Or was it always a non-starter, bound to fail?

Answer 1

Many of the answers above are well informed and correct from several standpoints but the real issue is: Could winning the Battle of the Ardennes in 1944-1945 have accomplished its intended objective (separating Allied forces and providing a potential for a truce in the West.) Well, the answer is no for several reasons:
1) Capturing Antwerp from the south is already a difficult task because of the extensive canal and river systems all around it.
2) Allied forces, even when isolated by ground, could have been supplied by air (all of West Berlin was air supplied 3 years later with a transport aircraft force of similar size then extant in Winter1944. No mass surrender would have occurred.
3) A political solution was by then beyond the reach of the National Socialist leadership, all peace talks to that point had been politely rebuffed.
4) Allied forces in the Ardennes were a bit weak at the time, but those in the North after Market Garden and those involved in the ongoing struggle in the Hürtgen forest and surrounding region were large and well equipped (these also would have had an excellent chance of completely isolating any OBWest forces that did achieve a breathrough. Lets look at this from a purely strategic point of view:
Some of the prime principles used by conventional forces since Napoleon (Jomini, Clausewitz and others have since expounded and elaborated upon these principles at GREAT length) are to use superior force against a vital and weakly defended part of the enemy´s line, reinforce success and discontinue unsuccessful attacks (too bad these concepts were forgotten in 1915!)
Well, to address the first point, was superiority achieved? Ever so barely. Was the targeted point of the line vital? No, see above. Was success reinforced? No. Were unsuccessful efforts discontinued? No. Result: ineffective attack that actually hastened the fall of the Reich :)

So in a more succint fashion, the answer to the question is no.

Answer 2

No, the german offensive needed two things - fuel and the right weather. They ran out of fuel (never a good idea to rely on capturing stock from the enemy), and the weather broke leaving their attack vulnerable to allied air power (which was pretty much dominant by that point). If the weather had held a bit longer they might have got further, but all it would have done would have been to allow the Russians to advance further West. The war was, all over bar the shouting at that point as most of the German's allies on the Eastern front had changed sides (Rumania, Bulgaria, Finland), and it was only a matter of time before the war ended. I guess to sum up, they could have won the battle, but the war was already lost.

Answer 3

No. Von Rundstedt, head of the German army in the West, was against the campaign from the start, saying it was a waste of valuable resources that would be better off being used in defence. Although there was some initial success, the campaign was helped by the weather grounding Allied air support. As soon as the Americans rallied from the initial surprise and the fog cleared, allowing the air force back into the game, it was lost for the Germans. They simply did not have the resources left at that point in the war, but Hitler wanted an offencive, as he always did.

Answer 4

No. It was destined to fail and by that point in the war the game was up for Germany anyway. Hitler would have been better off keeping his remaining armed forces for the defence of the reich.

His tanks, many of which were very heavilly armoured and not very mobile were much more suited to a defensive role anyway.

His only chance would have been to fight a totally defensive war in the hopes of prolonging it. That would have given his scientists the chance to develope some of the wonder weapons they were working on. Had he got the bomb and had he been able to use it agains the US and soviet union he may well have been able to push for peace, although even that is doubtfull. His scientists did get very close to giving him an atomic bomb though and they did also get quite close to developing a bomber capable of reaching the US.

Hitler could have won the war, but it is highly unlikely that changing anything as late as 1944 would have made a difference.

Answer 5

They could well have won the battle if the weather hadnt been so bad and if they had more fuel for their tanks. But ultimately they would still have lost ww2 although the Russians would have occupied far more of western europe as a result of an Ardennes victory.

Answer 6

If you mean could Germany have won the war had they succeeded, The answer is most likely No. It would have at best prolonged the war. Germany had lost most of it's fighting ability by the time the offensive began. Short on weapons, fuel and even it's best fighting units, the German military was on it's last legs. Their Navy and air force were non-exist ant. They had lost all the lands and resources they had occupied just a few years earlier. On the allied side was the overwhelming resources of more than a dozen nations as well as the new atomic tect items like the "atomic bomb".

Answer 7

Well they could have. They had suprise, good weather, and better tanks. They caught the Allies off guard, but ran out off gas and luck. Would it have changed the outcome of the war? No, the Soviets were still rushing in from the east. Plus once the weather improved, US Air power sealed the deal. Give Hittler credit. He was at 4th down and 20. He throw the long ball. Just did not get the TD he wanted.

Answer 8

not really. the disproportion of air power was far too great. For so long as the bad weather lasted, they were advancing (though way behind schedule). Patton attacking from the south + improved weather ended all hopes.
It cost them dear. These same divisions would probably have been enough to stop the russians advancing into Rumania and Hungary, and maybe enough to blunt the January offensive through Poland

Answer 9

The goal (as you probably know) was Antwerp. And they just might have made it there. But in the battle of attrition the Nazis were "out". A lot more American lives would have been lost and the war would have lasted longer. With the Russians coming in from the east, it was better for Germany this "Battle of the Bulge" was not successful for them.

Answer 10

I accept as true with those who suggested Kursk. This action effectively broke the again of the German tank divisions, eliminating thousands of adult males and kit at a time even as they in simple terms might want to no longer replace them. Had they both received or no longer fought this offensive, the steadiness of the 2d international conflict might want to were notably diverse. There might want to were some distance extra instruments accessible for the defence of western Europe, and the full tale of the Normandy landings might want to correctly were diverse. it might want to truly be suggested that, if Hitler had completely centred on assaulting Britain fairly than establishing a the front antagonistic to Russia, Germany might want to correctly have managed to invade Britain effectively, therefore the full marketing campaign ordinary as Operation Barbarossa develop into probable the perfect challenge the Allies might want to have develop into hoping for. Attacking a united states with the large elements of Russia develop into in simple terms a step too some distance.