Outright contradictions are not that uncommon when comparing descriptions of the same engagement from both sides. I remember reading about one example from the Ardennes offensive. The American AAR was basically "we were attached by a German force but held our line and drove them off."
The German version of the same events was "we advanced, broke through the US resistance and proceeded on to our objective." It is hard to reconcile those at first glance: you wouldn't really expect there to be any disagreement about whether the US defensive line was breached or not.
The author of the book big some more digging to resolve the issue. It boiled down to neither side understanding where the other side's lines were. IIRC the US forces had repositioned some days earlier to shorten their lines, with the effect of leaving a no man's land between the forces that neither side was aware of: both regarded it as event held terrain. The German mission was to break through in to this territory. Their advance brought them obliquely in to contact with the US line. So naturally they engaged where necessary and continued to advance where there was no resistance. On the map, they kind of 'bounced' off the US line, changing their line of advance a little which took them away from the MLR again and back in to no man's land. They interpreted this as breaking through a thinly held line in to the enemy rear.
For the US forces obviously this looked like Germans engaging their line and then pulling back without achieving anything, not realising that this was more a case of the Germans passing by close in front of them rather than trying to penetrate the line the US was actually holding (because the German movement wouldn't make any sense if the Germans correctly knew the US line).