User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:01:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Antietam. Worst single day.
Bloodiest battle for American casualties- Meuse-Argonne Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa On American soil- Gettysburg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:09:55 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:23:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa
I think Stalingrad is actually considered the bloodest battle of all time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:34:30 PM EDT
[#4]
The US Civil War was so bloody, foreign military observers were heard to remark that "the nations of the world should do whatever they can to keep these American savages within their own borders!"
It was warfare on a scale the world had never known, and even to this day, the numbers of casualties are still shocking. I think the British lost 30,000 men in one day at the battle of the Somme. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:36:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Antitam
The Civil War was horrible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:39:15 PM EDT
[#6]
The civlil war was horrible, WWI was an ambonition beyod description. It really does explain the obseqiousence towards Germany in the 30's. You see what they were eager to avoid. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:41:51 PM EDT
[#7]
Most casualties in one day of the Civil War. Not the bloodiest battle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:41:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Antietam. most casualties in a single day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:42:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Here is a actual diary of a German officer at the battle of Stalingrad. Pretty interesting read.
www.stalingrad-info.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:42:33 PM EDT
[#10]
I believe that to be correct. I think the single bloodiest day for any army was the first day of the battle of the Somme. The British took 58,000 casualties with 20k KIA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:43:41 PM EDT
[#11]
tag... I dig history.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:45:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Americans were there? The question was American history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:50:21 PM EDT
[#13]
BTW, Leningrad was worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:53:28 PM EDT
[#14]
"all nationalities" I would say that includes all battles myself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:54:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Whatever. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:59:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Battle of Leningrad=1,316,470
Like I said. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leningrad All nationalities meaning the enemy and Americans. Duh. The question to the thread you replied to had to do with American History, got it? Now stay with me here. I responded with American battles. Verstehen Sie? You're pretty slow on the uptake, eh? Anything else you'd like me to explain? Like simple math maybe? Or reading comprehension? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:02:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Well Duh everybody should of known that. By the way Leningrad is considered a Siege instead of an actual battle. Stalingrad 2 million soldiers and civilians killed . Duh |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:07:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Here's something else from wikipedia: By any measure the battle of Stalingrad was arguably the largest single battle in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile owing to the vast scope of the battle and the fact the Soviet government didn't allow estimates to be run for fear the cost would have proven too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations, however, the Soviet counter strike cut off and annihilated the entire 6th Army (which was exceptionally strong) and parts of the 4th Panzer Army. Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or missing. An unusually high proportion of total German casualties were killed and captured (96,000 of whom were prisoners). In addition, and as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army. Soviet military losses are disputed. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered 478,741 men killed and 650,878 wounded (for a total of 1,129,619). These numbers, however, include a wide scope of operations. More than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the 6th and 4th armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, a total of anywhere from 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Allied casualties resulted from the battle, making it by far the largest in human history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:08:43 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:13:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Mett, my numbers are only for Soviet casualties at Leningrad. Numbers for both sides are well over 2 million. Some sources list Soviet casualties at 3,437,066 soldiers only.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:17:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Both were sieges. Duh. A siege is a battle where one side is surrounded. Of course you knew that, right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:20:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Not all sources are available on the internet. You might want to debate the issue with William Craig author of Enemy at the Gates
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:28:54 PM EDT
[#23]
You mean the 30 year old book that has a fictional duel in it? Hahaha!
We have more access to USSR and East German casualty records now than we did in 1973 when the book was written. You have shown yourself inadequate at the task of backing up your speculation. I have provided hard numbers from a few reliable sources that are based on other more numerous reliable sources. Stalingrad lasted 7 months. Leningrad lasted 2.5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:30:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Gettysburg and Shiloh
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:30:55 PM EDT
[#25]
How about the battle for mainland Japan? Do the bombings of Nagasaki (sp?) and Hiroshima(sp?) factor in or the American lost in the siege of the Pacific? This is good I'm gaining knowlegde, but my spelling still sucks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:36:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Speculation you say. This is a total waste of my time. BTW that book is considered by historians to be the best historical record of the Battle of Stalingrad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:38:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Those are bombings, not really battles. You need both sides in large numbers actively trying to destroy one another for a battle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:38:42 PM EDT
[#28]
You are showing your ignorance of the facts. That duel actually happened. You might try reading the book I am sure you would learn something. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:41:13 PM EDT
[#29]
It certainly is a waste of your time to spew false information and think you can get away with it. I agree and I'm glad you have awoken to that fact. Congratulations!
Which historians? Most I know laugh at his account of a duel that never took place. You really do believe the snippets of reviews on the dust covers of books, eh?  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:42:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Are you freaking kidding me? You can't be that damn dense. Do some research. The German sniper named never existed in any record. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:45:47 PM EDT
[#31]
http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/soviet_sniper_article.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 11:51:39 PM EDT
[#32]
216.198.255.120/russianpart/russnipers.html BTW:
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:32:43 AM EDT
[#33]
Could you imagine the howls of protest(and some glee) from the main stream media if we were to be involved in a battle with those loses today?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:48:12 AM EDT
[#34]
America's ability to tolerate casualties is related to the perception of the "justness" of the war. It was easy for the average American to understand why we were involved in WW1 and WW2. There were clear, tangible American interests that were being threatened by specific nation-states. You can't make that kind of black and white explanation to motivate people to die in the half a dozen "small wars" that we've fought since then. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:03:18 AM EDT
[#35]
Tangible assets? What tangible assets did the US have in europe? What tangible assets did the US have when we deployed the flying tigers to China to engage Japan before Japan had enough of our medling and bombed Pearl Harbor in reprisal? Also, although the duel between Zeitsev and Konig never really happened, there were many small duels between german and soviet snipers in the battle of Stalingrad. Enemy at the Gates is basically a romanticised compilation of what actually happened by using a historical figure and attributing all actions to that figure and a fictional antagonist. Even today, the primary offense against a sniper is another sniper. There were many smaller "duels" throughout the Stalingrad campaign and the german snipers were ordered to target soviet snipers if at all possible. You are taking the refutation of an exaggerated story and using it to deny historical fact by denying any duels. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:53:45 AM EDT
[#36]
Perhaps only marginally related to the topic at hand, but with regard to the costliest war in relation to total American population, read up on "King Philip's War" (June 1675 to August 1676).
Wampanoag Indian Chief Metacom, known to the English settlers as "King Philip", attacked the colonial settlement at Swansea, Massacusetts. This initiated a brutal war that eventually led to the destruction of the Wampanoag and almost bankrupted the Plymoth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies of New England as well as resulting in severe (considering the tiny population at the time) colonial casualties. Interesting reading. Let's say just say warfare wasn't as "PC" back then as it is today. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 10:19:30 AM EDT
[#37]
In terms of American friendlies killed, Battle of Little Bighorn had 100 percent KIA (and over thirty percent if you include the entire unit under Benteen, etc.). Battle of Orisikany had horendous casualties too. Must be well over fifty percent on one day.
I am sure the Greeks or Romans were involved in battles which had 50,000 casualties in one day. GunLvr |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 1:48:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Shermans march to the sea killed ALOT of defenseless men, women, and children. Not really a battle though when you just massacre innocents.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:01:57 PM EDT
[#39]
WTF are you talkiing about? Show me where I did that. What I did was point out that that book was flawed and if the author got that wrong it is not much of a stretch to think he was wrong when he said Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle. Numbers and hard facts back up my assertion. It is one thing to report that duels took place. It is quite another to relate an entirely fictional story as fact. Hollywood does that sort of shit. Any author that does so deserves the hit on his reputation as a historian. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:12:41 PM EDT
[#40]
How do we determine bloodiest? Is it actual wounded/killed, or by percentage of troops engaged?
No doubt when we count bodies the CW, and WW battles will win. If we go by percentages then Oriskany or Little Big Horn would be in the running. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:13:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Can anyone please explain why they choose to engage each other the way they did during the civil war ? Standing up trading volleys seems pretty nuts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:15:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Tanam, the early battles were like that. From Gettysburg on they would actually take cover. The trenches dug are still on the battlefield at Gettysburg. By the end of the war it resembled the trenches of WW1, especially around Richmond and Vicksburg.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:41 PM EDT
[#43]
By numbers of casualties. It's not very bloody when one person is killed but it is considered shocking when large numbers are. That is why serial killings are more shocking than the usual one or two dead. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:08:28 PM EDT
[#44]
1 Dead aint a battle, but say 299 wounded or killed out of 300 PFD that day would be quite a bit |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:39:07 PM EDT
[#45]
Yes but 299 out of 300 compared to 7000 dead bodies lying around aint the bloodiest.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
