The only time in American military history where we had to fight a breakthrough battle against enemy combined arms forces led by Armor was the 1944 Battle of the Bulge. Years later this battle was studied in ominous tones as the blueprint for a Soviet blitzkrieg against NATO.

What is lost in this comparison is that the U.S. Army, not the Mc has fought the nation's most capable foes. This sobering reality mitigates Mcrevisionism which uses ommission of who did the lion's share of winning WWII to paint a false context that the Mc did anything more than a small token part in the war effort.

Next, is the lack of appreciation on the part of historians to realize that Germany did not have an Airborne 3-Dimensional warfare arm at this point in the war to seize positional advantage and pockets of resistance like St. Vith and Bastogne did them in, as they had in Stalingrad, Leningrad and the forests of Russia. Blitzkrieg or "maneuver warfare" using combined arms only works if by isolating the enemy from his command/control, resupply that he collapses. If he doesn't collapse you need a SIEGE ENGINE to destroy pockets of enemy resistance without heavy casualties or the entire operation is at risk from an enemy deep in your rear attacking from a strongpoint.

Next that Armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) CAN move through wooded areas to attack, yet 99% of the time we use the roads and ignore off-road mobility perfected years later with the M113 ACAVs of the 11th ACR in Vietnam.