Talk:Battle of Clervaux

A fact from Battle of Clervaux appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 September 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Battle of Clervaux, part of the Battle of the Bulge, has been compared to the Alamo?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Clervaux.

Wikipedia

Military history: World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Overciting

This article has some problems with overciting; you don't need to have the same citation after every single sentence. For example, the first citation is redundant here: "Eventually, the American troops found themselves encircled.[14] The Americans refused to surrender and bloody street combat ensued.[14]" Parsecboy (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I most strongly disagree. Overciting can exist ONLY in case of WP:BLUE, which is not the case here. Therefore, good referencing practices demand a cite for every reference (to ensure that referencing is preserved even if a paragraph is split, or new content is inserted within). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involving forces

The battle's content indicated that American forces defending Clervaux came from the 110th Regiment and an artillery battalion. However, the infobox recorded that the Germans faced 2 infantry regiments. So, what was the infantry regiment which fought alongside the 110th???Ti2008 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Required

From the article: German forces had significant superiority in the region, and the engagement was described as a "couple of infantry companies and one company of light tanks versus substantial elements of an entire panzer corps."[16]

The US casualties section lists 2,000[2] to 2,750[3] 60 tanks[4] - this is hopelessly out of sync with the above statement since that would mean there would only be roughly 250-300 troops and 14 light tanks that suffered ten times more US casualties than there were US soldiers engaged. This could only make sense if this was discussing a subset of the battle. This is VERY unclear. The following paragraph lists 17 Sherman tanks being knocked out - since the Sherman is a medium tank and as such would not be part of the TOE for a company of light tanks (as mentioned in citation) which is also not correct. A US company of light tanks would generally be comprised of either M3/M5 Stuarts or M24 Chaffees - not M4 Shermans. 72.205.0.236 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the statistics of all the U.S. Army Regiments involved, however, I do know that 4 divisions, the 28th, 4th, 106th and 99th held an 80 mile stretch of what was known as The Ghost Front at that time. (Fold 3) The 109th, 110th, and 112th Regiments of the 28th Infantry Division were stretched along the Siegfreid line where the initial Nazi push came through and their numbers were about 4 times less than were recommended by traditional Army requirements in this situation. In some cases, the American troops were outnumbered by Nazis 5 to 1. (When discussed, this is normally referred to as being "thinly stretched" as stated in the Library of Congress Digital Collection Printable Timetable of the Battle of the Bulge.) The 110th 1st Battalion was covering approximately 11 miles. The 110th had just received a large number of new troops from the States after heavy losses at Hurtgën Forest so was comprised of about 1/2 fatigued, battle-weary soldiers and 1/2 "never seen battle" new recruits. Their numbers were not quite back to the normal 5,000 men of the 110th Regiment. (To Save Bastogne, Robert Phillips) 73.59.177.244 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 110th Regimental Headquarters was located in the Claravallis Hotel within Clervaux so the 110th was the main infantry group fighting in Clervaux but not the only group. There were 2 battalions of the 110th which could possibly be contributing to the confusion? 73.59.177.244 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and quotes are incredibly incorrect.

Article states that 600,000 US tanks were destroyed to only a handful of Germans.

The tanks in question were the M3 Stuart and M4 Sherman of which combined only 100,000 were produced, period, through the entire war. There were also only 50-60,000 US troops in Europe.

The source cited seems to be a honest author and never says these figures. Other sources I've checked vary but ballpark it's 60 tanks and 6,000 casualties not 600,000 tanks which would be more deaths than the US lost in the entire war. We only lost 41,000 troops, must be very survivable tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoprofin (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]