Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:00:32 PM EDT
I have heard that is was a WWI battle, perhaps Belleau Wood? Could this be? Something like 10+k casualties in one day?

Was it worse than Shiloh?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:01:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 10:06:09 PM EDT by hughjafj]
Antietam. Worst single day.

Bloodiest battle for American casualties- Meuse-Argonne
Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa
On American soil- Gettysburg
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:09:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Antietam. Worst single day.

Bloodiest battle for American casualties- Meuse-Argonne
Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa
On American soil- Gettysburg



Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:23:42 PM EDT
Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa


I think Stalingrad is actually considered the bloodest battle of all time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:34:30 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:36:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 10:39:51 PM EDT by raven]
Antitam

The Civil War was horrible.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:39:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:41:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Antitam

The Civil War was horrible.



Most casualties in one day of the Civil War. Not the bloodiest battle.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:41:51 PM EDT
Antietam. most casualties in a single day.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:42:28 PM EDT
Here is a actual diary of a German officer at the battle of Stalingrad. Pretty interesting read.

www.stalingrad-info.com/
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:42:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 10:44:28 PM EDT by METT-T]

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa


I think Stalingrad is actually considered the bloodest battle of all time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad




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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:43:41 PM EDT
tag... I dig history.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:45:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Bloodiest battle all nationalities- Okinawa


I think Stalingrad is actually considered the bloodest battle of all time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad




Americans were there? The question was American history.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:50:21 PM EDT
BTW, Leningrad was worse.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:53:28 PM EDT
"all nationalities" I would say that includes all battles myself.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:54:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
BTW, Leningrad was worse.




Whatever.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:59:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 11:02:15 PM EDT by hughjafj]
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?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:02:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
Battle of Leningrad=1,316,470

Like I said.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leningrad

All nationalities meaning the enemy and Americans. Duh.




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
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:07:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
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?



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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:08:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 11:09:52 PM EDT by hughjafj]
Another link for your "whatever."

users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:13:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 11:15:43 PM EDT by hughjafj]
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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:17:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 11:18:26 PM EDT by hughjafj]

By the way Leningrad is considered a Siege instead of an actual battle. Stalingrad 2 million soldiers and civilians killed . Duh

Both were sieges. Duh.
A siege is a battle where one side is surrounded. Of course you knew that, right?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:20:46 PM EDT
Not all sources are available on the internet. You might want to debate the issue with William Craig author of Enemy at the Gates

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:28:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 11:34:11 PM EDT by hughjafj]
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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:30:54 PM EDT
Gettysburg and Shiloh
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:30:55 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:36:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
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.




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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:38:07 PM EDT
Those are bombings, not really battles. You need both sides in large numbers actively trying to destroy one another for a battle.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:38:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:
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.




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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:41:13 PM EDT

Speculation you say. This is a total waste of my time.

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!



BTW that book is considered by historians to be the best historical record of the Battle of Stalingrad.

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?

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:42:46 PM EDT

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.

Are you freaking kidding me? You can't be that damn dense. Do some research. The German sniper named never existed in any record.

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:45:47 PM EDT

The story of Vassili Zaitsev has long been believed to be a historical fact. However, there has not been any documented proof that the legendary sniper duel between Zaitsev and Konig ever took place. As a matter of fact, Beevor's account mentions Koning and other accounts mention a Thorwald. I am inclined to believe that the Soviet Command invented this story to inspire the beleaguered troops of Stalingrad in their darkest hours of fighting the German onslaught. As a matter of fact, I had an occasion to interview an elderly Russian gentleman who claimed to have trained under Zaitsev in Stalingrad. When I asked about the duel, he replied something to the effect of, "Its true if that is want you want to believe". I don't doubt that many duels occurred between the snipers of both sides. However, to believe that the German High Command went to the trouble to commit the chief instructor of their sniper school to finding and killing one Soviet sniper is a lot to accept.

http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/soviet_sniper_article.htm
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:51:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 11:58:35 PM EDT by hughjafj]

*Indeed, the whole story of the sniper duel is fiction. There is absolutely no trace in
the German military archives or SS records of SS officer Heinz Thorwald.
Also there is absolutely no report of the duel in the Red Army files which concentrated
on sniper activities (the daily reports of the Political Department of Stalingrad Front to Moscow)
This great story can be classified as Sovjet propaganda.


216.198.255.120/russianpart/russnipers.html

BTW:


siege

n : the action of an armed force that surrounds a fortified place and isolates it while continuing to attack




bat·tle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (btl)
n.

An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign.
Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle.
A match between two combatants: trial by battle.

A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget.
An intense competition: a battle of wits.

v. bat·tled, bat·tling, bat·tles
v. intr.
To engage in or as if in battle.

v. tr.
To fight against: battled the enemy; battled cancer.



Link Posted: 3/5/2006 8:32:43 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 8:48:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gopher:
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?



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.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:03:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:

Originally Posted By Gopher:
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?



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.


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.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:53:45 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 10:19:30 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 1:48:58 PM EDT
Shermans march to the sea killed ALOT of defenseless men, women, and children. Not really a battle though when you just massacre innocents.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:01:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 4:05:25 PM EDT by hughjafj]

You are taking the refutation of an exaggerated story and using it to deny historical fact by denying any duels.

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.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:12:41 PM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:13:38 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:15:55 PM EDT
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.



Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:17:41 PM EDT

How do we determine bloodiest? Is it actual wounded/killed, or by percentage of troops engaged?


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.

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:08:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hughjafj:

How do we determine bloodiest? Is it actual wounded/killed, or by percentage of troops engaged?


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.




1 Dead aint a battle, but say 299 wounded or killed out of 300 PFD that day would be quite a bit
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:39:07 PM EDT
Yes but 299 out of 300 compared to 7000 dead bodies lying around aint the bloodiest.
Top Top