Quick read, personal unit documentation quite good, context and background not very detailed or extensive. ( )

This was an excellent read. I found Kershaw to be a very compelling storyteller who is able to vividly recapture the Battle of the Bulge in stunning detail. ( )

This account of the resistance of the recon platoon of the 394th Infantry Regiment of the 99th Infantry Division in teeth of the Ardennes Offensive has it virtues, but that's so long as you keep your expectations down a bit.

When telling the direct story of Lt. Lyle Bouck and his men, Kershaw has a good tale to tell, as it encompasses the last great German offensive in the West, the survival of the platoon once taken captive, and General Patton's ill-fated raid to rescue his son-in-law. This is not to mention how the men came to adapt to civilian life and the process that led to the recognition of their heroism in the 1970s.

The problem is that if you're knowlegeable at all about this period, you're going to be annoyed at how Kershaw handles the context that surrounded the trials of these men. The narrative sometimes seems shallow enough that one wonders if the movies "The Battle of the Bulge" and "Patton" were milked for atmosphere. Most of the high-level personages invoked (Hitler, Eisenhower, Patton, etc.) almost come off as being stereotypes.

I also don't know whether it was sloppy editing or what, but it seems like every thirty pages or so one hits some stupid gaffe; usually in regards to the Germans. The 1st SS Panzer Division did not have its origins among the concentration camp guards; that was the 3rd SS Panzer Division. The Schmeisser machine pistol was not a particularly new gun in '44, though the first assault rifles were being issued to the German military. All the guns on a period B-17 were of the .50 caliber variety, not just the guns in the tail mounting. The Knight's Cross with oak leaves and swords was not the most prestigious version of that order, and so on. It certainly gets me to thinking about what other mistakes I missed.

Another issue is that the secondary source material used in producing this work was also a bit shallow. I realize that in such a book the point is not to bowl over the readers with the background research of the writer. At the very least though I expect Carlo D'Este's biographies of Eisenhower & Patton, Trevor Dupuy's analysis of the campaign, Peter Mansour & Michael Doubler's respective reappraisals of the how the American soldier fought in Europe, Michael Reynold's account of Kampgruppe Peiper, and Stephen Rusiecki's account of the 99th Infantry Division in the Battle of the Bulge to show up among the works consulted.

I hate to seem like I'm using a sledgehammer to hit a walnut, but there are a lot of long-time students of World War II who I suspect are going to feel just the way I do. For those of you who have just discovered the subject via this book, don't feel bad. It's not that you've been had, as this book is good so far as it goes, it's just that you have a lot more reading in front of you. Trust me, it'll be an adventure. ( )

Meh. Good story, but not the best WWII book I've read. ( )

I have not yet read this book. My husband, however, being a tanker in the US Army, says that this is one of the best books he's ever read. ( )