Talk:Meuse–Argonne offensive

Further information

I've found that this article has very little operational information when compared to other sources, and many sentences come off as very malicious such as the line "The strategic goal was sound; cutting the Germans from their main supply line. However, this was a failure." While this is well and good, it is making a wide generalization when compared to other facets of the offensive. I am not claiming that the page is wrong, but that very little explanations are given. If it is alright, I would like to plan to add some of the following topics when I have time:

• Pre-battle plans and Pershing's decision to split his forces up to allow for successive attacks on St. Mihiel first, followed by the Meuse-Argonne, which would help explain operational difficulties.
• Increased information on weather, terrain, and traffic conditions that led to poor logistical support for American and French forces.
• More detailed information on the German defenses.
• Force failures of some inexperienced divisions, such as the 35th Divisions complete dissolving.
• Stopgap measures of more experienced divisions (ie the 42nd) used to fill in for failing rookie divisions.
• Operational information on the different First Army corps' attacks on separate sectors of the push.
• Breaking of the Hindenburg line in the Kreimhilde Stellung
• Strategic failures following the American breakout across the Meuse. Careful steps should be made here and need others help to not overblow or underplay this specific point. It should be noted that in many sectors here, Americans had much of the German forces in retreat, but overzealousness on the point of some American generals and divisions led to reckless casualty-inducing advances (most notably in Sedan) that led to mass confusion, and in many cases, large amounts of friendly fire.

I also believe that when discussing victory a number of factors must be noted besides simply the numbers of casualties involved. While the Americans certainly weren't the first to break the Hindenburg line, nor the most effective at it, the confusion sustained from the offensive all but scattered many German army elements and diffused holes into the line for other forces to capture. Likewise, while original plans were achieved far too late (and could be considered a failure on that scale), it must be noted that by 3rd November that Americans had much of the German opposition in retreat, and following the breakout had advanced a great deal in proportion to the original progress-- mostly because of the horrible state the German Army was in. It seems a very difficult thing to sum up in terms of "American Victory" or "Marginal American Victory," since on one hand it was a victory in terms of a blow that had the Germans retreating rapidly and unable to regroup effectively starting by 3rd November in the targeted sectors, but on the other hand was an operational and strategic failure in terms of the battle plans and any semblance of a timeframe or troop cohesion.

Any comments would be appreciated, --68.113.199.134 06:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Fingus

Marginal victory

In terms of Marginal American Victory, would this be pertaining only to troop casualty numbers, since this was the campaign that essentially broke the hindenburg line and allowed for the allies on many sectors to start breaking through (and thereby casuing a major German retreat)?

"since this was the campaign that essentially broke the hindenburg line and allowed for the allies on many sectors to start breaking through"

That is simply NOT true at all, please learn some basic history of the war; the Hindenburg line was not in this secotr of the front line at all. And it was broken by a contemporary attack by British empire forces (the second battle of Cambrai). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Eyre (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the word marginal could be removed. It would not have been a decisive victory though, since WWI was in its essence a war of attrition and did not end because this or that position was taken but because the allied resources were larger than Germany's. In that respect, every battle ended either in a stale-mate or in a marginal victory. The latter as you remark usually only referring to troop casualty numbers. I would keep the word marginal. Piet 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was just one of the many attacks that were driving the Germans back. The Hindenburg Line was truly smashed when the British captured the St Quentin Canal in October. Darkmind1970 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be listed as a Phyrric American victory due to the high casualty rates BritBoy 19:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was changed to "Allied Pyrrhic Victory" in the infobox, but that doesn't seem right to me. A Phyrric victory isn't just a victory with high losses, but one where the loss is devastating to the victor to the point where despite having fewer casualties and/or gaining the objective (otherwise it wouldn't be described as a victory at all) it puts the battle's winner at a later disadvantage. If meerly having high losses made for a phyrric victory than every non-overwhelming victory in large bloody battle would be Pyrrhic. twfowler (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. People overuse the term "pyrrhic victory" without seeming to be entirely sure what it means. A pyrrhic victory is one where the victor suffers casualties that prove devestating in the long run. Considering the Allies won the war, and that the American Army was in no danger of running out of men (unlike the German Army) this was not a pyrrhic victory. Unless someone objects, I will be changing it shortly. Jrt989 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this was not a pyrrhic victory, but what do you propose to call it? One thing we can conclude is that the outcome on the Meuse-Argonne front, while militarily a victory, did little by itself to influence the war's outcome. The French, British and other allies had already won the stalemate, with Germany collapsing economically, and the Allies had already broken the Hindenburg line in multiple places (though it is odd that the article only mentions the one such place where American forces were also involved). So, to put this in the context of the Grand Offensive and WW I in general, I would call this a minor victory. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about simply an "Allied Victory"? I don't see the need to call it a major victory, or a minor victory, or a strategic victory, or anything like that. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

German Fifth Army

I have removed this link because it points to a WWII entry. Piet 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Most Lethal American Battle?

I believe this is the most lethal battle in American history. If it is not, please remove it from the article page. Captain Jackson 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Marginal American Victory?

In terms of casualties received by both sides, American forces were unquestionably victorious, especiacially in light of the fact that they were surrounded, outnumber, and the French were not there to support them when they should have been. Moreover, as this was the battle that broke through the German lines and essentially ended the war, the word "marginal" is completely unappropriate. 141.161.177.65 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Gabriel

With respect Gabriel, I think you have it wrong. Surrounded and outnumbered? The "lost battalion" was only a small part of the whole operation, and was the only example that backs your statement. "as this was the battle that broke through the German lines and essentially ended the war" - M-A formed one part of a large concentric action starting on 26 Sept. The Hindenburg line was broken in this area on 14th October (as noted in the article). It had already been broken elsewhere by British, Canadian, Australian and American forces - at Drocourt-Queant, and Battle of the Hindenburg Line. FrankDynan 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect Gabriel, the Meuse Argonne did not contribute much to Allied victory and in terms of casualties received by both sides it would have been a tie. Frank, The Americans pierced the second line of the Hindenburg position on October 16, a goal that Pershing had set for the 26th of September. It wasn’t until October 31 that the third German defensive position of the Hindenburg Line was broken all along the front at the Meuse Argonne battle. By October 4th the British Armies had their part of the Hindenburg Line behind them. Brocky44 06:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added an article titled Grand Offensive to link to this article plus Battle of the Hindenburg Line. I'll add content to that article describing the other related actions, or create separate articles as needed. Decided this based on the article on Ferdinand Foch, where it referred to the "Grand Offensive", but linked to this article, which is quite misleading. FrankDynan 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The knowledge you all reveal here is ATROCIOUS. This battle did NOT involve the Hindenburg line. This battle occurred in the Meuse-Argonne sector and the Hindenburg line was over 100km to the west of this part of the Western front.

This offensive failed to take its objectives and should be regarded as an Entente defeat. Although strategically; its forced dedication of German reserves and inflicted casualties contributed to the eventual defeat of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Eyre (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Forces involved in this Offensive

I've just read the general Wikipedia article on the final Allied offensive (of which the Meuse-Argonne Offensive is a link) and the information regarding Allied forces involved is conflicting in each article. In the general article, this offensive is portrayed (I think more correctly) as a joint Allied offensive of which the American troops were a part of:

"Then on 26 September 1918 soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force, British Expeditionary Force, Canadian Corps, French Army and American Expeditionary Force began a combined offensive along much of the Western Front. The Hindenburg line was broken by Australian, British, Canadian and American troops within hours of the attack starting. This show of force forced the German High Command to accept that the war had to be ended. American numbers together with British and French combat effectiveness was destroying the German Army as an effective fighting force. However casualties remained heavy in all of the Allied fighting forces, as well as in the retreating German Army."

However, this article appears to be geared solelkfjdofaikdjlfkly around the American involvement and suggests that the American troops were the sole / at least dominant force in this attack. I think that this is a misrepresentation of events, and should be altered.

I've been watching these pages - this and the Grand Offensive and "daughter" articles - for a while hoping someone other than me would clean them up (despite the fact that I undertook to do so). I have found it very difficult to formulate a consistent approach across these articles with a view to:

1. getting the individual article detail correct 2. getting the interrelationships correct - ie so the text of one article does not conflict with a related article. 3. avoiding "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy about who "won the war". 4. and all the while respecting the various nations "claims" in the interests of avoiding flame wars.

The emphasis on US forces in this article is correct, however. Perhaps all of the articles need to be clearer on emphasising both the separateness of the actions (operationally) and their interrelationship at a strategic level.FrankDynan 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Opposing forces

U.S. Forces consisted of ten divisions of the U.S. First Army commanded by General John J. Pershing until October 16 and then by Lt. General Hunter Liggett. German forces consisted of approximately forty German divisions.

This info is all wrong it should say- 25 American and 4 French divisions attacked with 189 tanks along a front of 22 miles defended by 5 German divisions, 4 of which were described as low grade.Brocky44

I know there were four Austro-Hugarian divisions in the area. I would like to know more about the battles they fought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvasii23 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

casualty figures

the article contradicts itself here, german casualties is 120,250 in the summary and 126,000 in the casualty section.

Casualty Figures

I was surprised to see that the casualty figures given in this article for the American Expeditionary Force at this engagement are higher than the 117,000 normally cited. I was equally surprised to see exact numbers given for the killed and wounded (but not the missing or captured) for the German Army at the Meuse-Argonne. All we usually get for the German losses is the claim of 100,000 made by the AEF themselves without any information from the other side. I would be very interested to see the sources for the figures given in this article.

In illustration of how vague appears to be our knowledge of the German loss at the Meuse-Argonne, I quote Paul F. Braim from his book, "The Test of Battle: The American Expeditionary Forces in the Meuse-Argonne Campaign" (Associated University Presses; Cranbury, New Jersey; 1987):

The First Army reported the capture of 26,000 prisoners of war in this campaign, though other statisticians cite only 16,000.

The number of prisoners taken should be a simple matter of record: yet the fog of war seems to have clouded it in this instance. Granted that the Battle of the Meuse-Argonne was the U.S.A.'s main battlefield contribution to an event as momentous as World War I, our knowledge of it is surprisingly poor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flonto (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC). Flonto 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Objectives

The article says, "The objective of the offensive was the railway hub at Sedan, which provided supply support for the German armies in the southeastern sector of the Western fonties." What are "fonties"? If it's a typo, I can't even hazard a guess from the context what it should be--fronts? Frontiers? MylesCallum (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

US Bias

The Meuse-Argonne offensive involved the US 1st Army (composed of 12 US divisions under John Perishing) and the 4th French Army (31 French divisions commanded by Henri Gouraud) - however the article only talks about the US particpation.
The article needs to be edited to include the role, actions, casualties (etc.) of the French 4th Army. MWadwell (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I added information about the French and German forces and generally attempted to rebalance the whole article. I discussed the respective American and French contributions to the victory. I tried to improve the flow, though there is probably still room for improvement. More material on the German side of the battle would be welcome. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

French bias instead?

Where did the information about the French vastly outnumbering American troops come from? According to Pershing's report after the battle, the Americans began the offensive with 15 divisions, to which the French added 6. To these figures, it must be remembered that the American divisions were approximately twice the size of the French divisions at the time (26,000 men). Pershing also cites a figure of more than 1,000,000 Americans in area by the fight's end.

Also, it's worth noting that Erich Ludendorff himself, in reflecting on the battle after the war, gave the credit for the success to the American effort, noting that the French were battle-weary and not particularly effective. Jrt989 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Further note — The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, edited by Venzon and Miles, says the following on page 385: "A total of 1.2 million Americans were engaged in the campaign, of which 850,000 were combat troops. Twenty-two American divisions were engaged in the battle..." Again, it should be remembered that American divisions were twice the size of French and British divisions. Jrt989 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In line with this information, I have updated the page to better reflect the true size of the American contribution, while at the same time continuing to note the important involvement of the French 4th Army. If anyone objects, please feel free to comment here. Jrt989 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

While parts of the Venzon and Miles volume are useful historical material, the Braim contribution therein is a confused mishmash of numbers pertaining to the Meuse-Argonne front, the Argonne forest, and the overall Grand Offensive. Note also how Braim conflates fighting troops with support troops, in the U.S. case only. This is just not reliable material.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the merits of the book (for the moment), why did you revert my edit concerning comparative troop strength? There are many sources that note that American divisions were twice the size of French or British divisions. What source do you have that so specifically lists the size of a French division as being 24/31 the size of an American? Jrt989 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to have deleted my edit concerning French divisions being half the size of American divisions by claiming that (if I understand your edit summary correctly) no reference was made on the page cited. See here, top of page. Jrt989 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The latter edit I did partly because the source was incomplete. Feel free to include a full reference, including author of the specific chapter. The ratio I used is from Wilson, but that, like the "2/1" is an average that does not speak to the exact situation here. We also know that the French and British divisions were partly replenished prior to the Grand Offensive, and there was a difference in support vs. battle ratios, so the 2/1 ratio too is inaccurate for the specific timeframe of the topic of this article. From the sources I know, I think a safe approach is to state clearly that the U.S. divisions were oversized, and mention the actual number of French divisions without venturing into a precise comparison. I edited accordingly, also with a view to reducing the redundancy that afflicted this topic. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And finally, a quick check of Google News and ProQuest historical newspapers support Braim's "unreliable" assertion that 22 American divisions participated in the fight. See here, for instance. Others support the claim of 1.2 million Americans participating. Jrt989 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, mind the confusion in troop definitions.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is best to simply mention that the American divisions were oversized and up to twice as large on occasion, without needing to go into partiulars. Your last edit seems good to me. However, I do want to include the information about there being 22 American divisions involved total. Any objections? Jrt989 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jrt989, I have no objection. The only concern is to find a place to put this information, so that it does not get confused with the initial troop strength. Alas I don't know of a reliable source for the French totals, and like the German total that's a more complicated number anyway as some units were split and the front itself split. I added a sentence with the amount of heavy arms involved. For your purpose, you could add a sentence after "tanks and 840 planes.", such as "Both the U.S. and French Armies brought in reinforcements, and eventually 22 U.S. divisions took part in the offensive at one time or another." This would be balanced in the next paragraph by the approximate German number. I note, though, that sources disagree on the number of people this represents, probably again because Americans counted supporting and reserve troops in their total, while the German and French counted only frontline troops.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Have added. Jrt989 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

problems with casualty figures

The current casualty figures cited are highly inaccurate and need to be revised if they are to properly reflect the participation of the French. The current numbers (125,000 Allied, 100,000 German) in fact only represent American losses and American estimates of German casualies inflicted by American forces. French casualties (and total German casualties) are not, therefore, listed, but the way the infobox is worded it appears that they are. Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be an easy problem to fix. American casualties are well accounted for, and officially stand at 26,277 killed and 95,786 wounded, for a total of 122,063 (see Ferrell, Robert H. America's Bloodiest Battle: Meuse-Argonne, 1918). I'm not sure where we can find the French and German numbers, but the casualty figures cannot remain as they are. Jrt989 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

157 Infantry Division image caption

The image caption for the flag of the 157th Infantry Division is preposterously long. That amount of information should be on a page about the division, not in an image caption.Winterbadger (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Title formatting

Why does the word "Offensive" have a capital "O"? There are many places in the text where the phrase has a lower case "o". Also, shouldn't the dash be an ndash: – ? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC) :I agree and am changing it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Francesco Liberatore

I'm curious why the death of one soldier is mentioned with no reference to any impact on the battle as well as no citations. ([[1]])

It might be in reference to this soldier: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wiozauke/military/RollofHonor.L-M.html LIBERATORE, FRANCESCHO, born in Raiano, Italy, February 29, 1896; son of Pasquale and Nainzeata (Susi) Liberatore; lives Belgium, Ozaukee County, Wis.; entered service at Port Washington, Wis., May 25, 1918; member Company D, 341st Infantry, 86th (Black Hawk) Division, transferred to Company B, 354th Infantry, 89th Division; rank, private; trained at Camp Grant, Ill., and Camp Upton, N. Y.; foreign station, France; battles, Argonne Forest. Killed in action in Argonne Forest, November 1, 1918. Buried at the Commune of Landres at St. Georges, Ardennes, France.

I'm removing it from the Legacy section. Habap (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Siam?

Not to downplay the mighty nation of Siam and their contribution to the war but... Why is Siam listed like a major ally in this battle?

The source linked is a piece from the journal of the Siam society dealing exclusively with Siamese participation in the war which isn't a great start and even then it doesn't mention how many troops Siam sent or where they fought, in fact it specifically mentions that they were mostly supply units and drivers. Even if we accept the source the as factual (which it seems to be) it really doesn't say that Siam was in any way a major contributor, just that they sent some volunteers to France and some of them fought.

Even making charitable assumptions the amount of men sent can't have been much more than thirty thousand in total (the source lists aprox 8k casualties and attrition in the war was pretty high) with a good proportion of them not being combat troops. Contrasting that to over a million US troops in action and I think you can see the problem here.

Siamese troops just weren't a big part of the offensive. Listing them like a major ally in the battle when they contributed an infantry brigade at most just seems misleading. Especially as there's no information about Siam actually even fighting at all in this battle (no casualty figures, no places of action) there's not even certainty that a single Siamese soldier fought here. They were integrated into the French army not the American one.

It just seems disingenuous to put them along side the major Allies here. If we want a historical note then fine, but they have no place in the infobox IMHO.

82.132.243.113 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with this and would think that it is best to remove it. Ifly6 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I reinstalled Siam since I was not notified of this so called consensus. The article should list every single nation taking part in the offensive however small their participation. As for the criticism of the source it is a well known scientific journal. Purposefully ignoring Siam's and China's participation in the war is perpetuating a biased interpretation of world history as found on Wikipedia.--Catlemur (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Listing every single nation taking part, to me, seems like giving undue weight towards Siam's participation in the war. When the AEF has 1.2 million men and the French have similar numbers on the front, inclusion of the Siamese Expeditionary Force's 1200 men (from the source provided) as if they were one of the major allies treats Siam as if it were a major contributor. On a proportion basis, Siam's contribution was less than a tenth of one per cent. It shouldn't be included. Ifly6 (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Siam took part in the battle, therefore it should be listed as a participant in the infobox, I would not consider an inclusion in the infobox to be something extraordinary. Neither does it belittle the contribution of the AEF, the weight given to Siam is balanced as the infobox clearly mentions the number of participants. Most people only read the infobox and the introductory passage, excluding Siam from the infobox would lower the quality of the article overall and paint a picture of a battle without Siamese participants.--Catlemur (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a relevant guideline: WP:MILMOS#PRECISE, which stresses precision in infoboxes.--Catlemur (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ifly6:, if consensus is important, the count is now three, for removal (the original non-logged editor, Ifly6, and myself). As I have expressed to Catlemur, the source is a primary source of second tier, and fails, as a primary (vs secondary or tertiary source type) to provide the scholarly context to (i) substantiate the content of the single priamry source, or to (ii) establish the scholarly context for the single fact of Siam's 1200 troop presence. (The lists of good secondary and tertairy sources should be summarised in the infobox; additional entries should not be mined from primary sources, in defiance of WP sourcing policies/guidelines.) A regular editor should feel free to hold this and all aspects of the article to the high referencing standards WP states for its content. 67.184.62.39 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Key image

The imaginative painting of an attack by a U.S. detachment does not really reflect the offensive which is the topic of this article, so I removed it until we can agree on a better one. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Overview Section: Shame on You

Five paragraphs, four with no citations. Fifteen sentences, and 2-3-times that number of distinct, purported fact-filled phrases for a word count of >560, and only two citations to cover all of it. All despite all WP policies to the contrary, arguing that WP's veracity lies on its tying its content to reliable sources. And a single paragraph tag calling for more citations, that is almost two years old (dated September 2016), with insubstantial improvement and no hard decision taken. This is a disservice to young readers, and an embarrassment to those claiming encyclopedic content. Shame on the system that allows this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:ca80:3cb5:ada0:92b0:eb63:c91e (talk • contribs)

WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

French deaths unknown?

The opening section claims the number of french deaths in the campaign is unknown. Given the significance of campaigns such as this one and the amount of research on the period I find this hard to actually believe. At the very least some researcher somewhere must have compiled an estimate. Also on a wider point I have to agree with previous comments that this page has general issues with unsourced material and american-slanted narrative. It feels to me that the entire thing needs a rewrite.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1A5:1B45:2A6A:89E8 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This battle was NOT an Allied/American victory!

The comments on here reveal appalling ignorance amongst contributors. This offensive FAILED to meet all of its objectives and thus was a victory for the GERMANS, not for the Allies and the US army. It did however contribute to the German defeat in the war as it expended many German reserves and inflicted unsustainable losses. And it did NOT involve the Hindenburg line! I don't know where anyone ever got that idea from. The US Army's involvemnt with breaching the Hindeburg line was at the battle of St. Quentin Canal with II US Corps, which was an entirely separate operation (under British command) to this offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Eyre (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Siam source

The source for Siam's participation in the Meuse-Argonne offensive is invalid/broken, is there another source backing up the claim of Siamese participation in the battle? Colin Zhong (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Siam Society reorganised their website sometime ago. I've replaced the PDF URL. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COMP II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwerry98 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jwerry98 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of "US Marines during the offensive" is wrong on both counts

This is not an image of US Marines during the Meuse-Argonne, it is an image of Iowa National Guardsmen taken 6 months earlier. The image is 111-SC-8364 in the National Archives. The original description reads: "168TH INFANTRY (FORMER 3RD Iowa Infantry) --French and American raiding party making their way to a Mecklembourg trench. This trench was captured in a former raid. Badonviller, France, March 17, 1918." Link: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55177246 Tenacious Trilobite (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)