# The Worst Battlefield of WWII



## Njaco (Jul 18, 2012)

I just read an excerpt that the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea was the worst battlefield that was fought - especially for the Anzacs. It got me thinking: What was the roughest/ toughest battlefield fought during WWII? 

This is multiple choice and please give your reason!


----------



## rochie (Jul 18, 2012)

am reading Citizen soldiers by S.Ambrose and the Hurgten forest sounded pretty rough.

close planted tree's, not being able to stand up straight, deep snow, freezing cold, dark, misty and only able to advance straight into enemy fire plus it seemed a sensless objective to take without taking other objectives in the area !


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 18, 2012)

I voted Stalingrad because it was bloody and close - like many of the other choices - but, more significantly, because it was a 'turn-around' battle. The Germans entered triumphantly in the summer of 1942 and exited in 'chains' to Siberia in January, 1943. 

MM


----------



## rochie (Jul 18, 2012)

could also add Peleliu.

baking hot, solid coral so no fox holes, jagged terrain with an entrenched and fanatical enemy !


----------



## Njaco (Jul 18, 2012)

except that it won't let me edit the polll!!!!

Need to correct the spelling on Forest and add Bastogne along with your suggestion. WTF!!!!


----------



## Juha (Jul 18, 2012)

Kokoda Trail, Peleliu, New Georgia in Pacific
The wilderness North of Lake Lagoda in the winter 39-40, much colder with much more snow and darkness than in Hürtgen Forest, very heavy losses to encircled Soviet formations.
Väliasema fighting in late Feb 40 in Karelia Isthmus, fighting in hastly constructed positions with extremely limited A/T weaponry against enemy with a couple thousands tanks and very powerful artillery.
Fighting on the islands in the Bay of Viipuri/Vyborg in March 40 and in July 44

Juha


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 18, 2012)

Voted for Iwo Jima and Stalingrad. Would also vote for Peleliu if possible. I could also suggest Okinawa or maybe because they were very similar it should be listed as Iwo Jima/Okinawa. 

All those I listed, plus some above that I didn't vote for, were fought step by step and every inch of gained ground was precious and bloody.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2012)

I voted for Stalingrad because of the combination of terrain, weather and brutal fighting by both sides. 

Now having said that, I think all battlefields are "worse" in there own way, and you cant place one above the other. I am sure that most who have spent time in a combat zone will zone will agree.


----------



## rochie (Jul 18, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I voted for Stalingrad because of the combination of terrain, weather and brutal fighting by both sides.
> 
> Now having said that, I think all battlefields are "worse" in there own way, and you cant place one above the other. I am sure that most who have spent time in a combat zone will zone will agree.



well said Chris


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 18, 2012)

Iwo Jima for me. Stalingrad a close second. You could add Stuttgart to the Schweinfurt/Regensburg run. IN many ways the same kind of beating but aggravated with an overlay of Charge of the Light Brigade stupidity.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 18, 2012)

"Worst" might be mis-used by me. I believe that I was looking for the roughest / toughest. I agree with Adler that any battlefield is difficult but some were pure hell. I was just curious what everyone thought.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2012)

I too no offense to your use of the word "worse". It was just my opinion on the topic, nothing else.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 18, 2012)

No worries. You just made me realize I may have used the wrong terminology.

Its all good!


----------



## renrich (Jul 18, 2012)

Miyitkina (SP?) in Burma.


----------



## Bernhart (Jul 18, 2012)

aluetians bad time all around


----------



## Oreo (Jul 18, 2012)

I would say Attu, agreeing with Bernhart. Not to detract from the others, of course. Pelelieu was pretty bad. So were Stalingrad, Okinawa, Iwo, Ardennes, Kursk-- I'm just glad I wasn't at any of them at the time.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2012)

Stalingrad - hands down. Sheer body count, brutal winter conditions, starvation, POW count after surrender.

Okinawa was worse than Iwo Jima.

Was Kokoda trail even close to Guadalcanal? Both were grim jungle campaigns... 

Schweinfurt and Ploesti cost a lot of aircraft - Berlin a lot more - and had at two missions, each of which, which exceeded October 14, 1943 Black Thursday. The March 6 and April 29 Berlin missions cost the US more (each) arcraft and crews than any other single day of combat operations - ever.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 19, 2012)

not in the same league as Staligrad but certainly amongst the toughest on the Western Front was the Battle of the Scheldt and the Breskins pocket the 3rd Canadian Div ((Water Rats) had more amphibious assaults against defended positions then any other Allied unit including USMC in WW2 as most of the Netherlands had been flooded leavimg only the roads above the water in the effort to open Antwerp up for shipping


----------



## mikewint (Jul 19, 2012)

My worst is not on your list. I offer the following:
1. OKINAWA More than 100,000 Japanese soldiers and 12,000 American soldiers died in Okinawa. This isn't including those wounded, which for the U.S. forces amounted to 36,000 soldiers. Tragically, some estimate that Okinawan civilians made up 150,000 of the dead left in the battle's wake.
2. D-DAY The whole invasion spanned several months and lasted until the end of August. Casualties were high on both sides: Estimates peg German casualties at a staggering 320,000 (30,000 dead, 80,000 wounded and the rest missing) and Allied casualties at about 230,000 (more than 45,000 dead).
3. BATTLE OF THE BULGE Some have called this battle the bloodiest for Americans, as 19,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives and more than 70,000 were wounded or went missing. For comparison, of the 12,000 British casualties, 200 were killed. The Germans likewise suffered heavily with about 100,000 casualties.
4. STALINGRAD Stalingrad was a decisive battle that changed the tone of the war in favor of the Allies. And although the Soviets won, they also suffered more casualties than their enemies in the process. Axis forces had about 800,000 casualties, compared to more than 1 million on the Soviet side. In addition, about 40,000 civilians died in the conflict.
5. BATTLE/SIEGE OF LENINGRAD As you might expect from a battle that lasted longer than some wars have, the number of deaths was astronomical. Most horrific is that more than 1 million civilians lost their lives as a result of the conflict. This number made up about one-third of the local population at the time. Some fell victim to warfare directly, others from disease, freezing to death or starvation -- Nazi forces blockaded the city to prevent the people from receiving supplies. The Soviet army lost more than 1 million lives as well, not including more than 2 million sick or injured. The number of German casualties is disputed, but approximates 216,000.
6. INVASION OF POLAND On Sept. 1, 1939, the Germans attacked Poland from the west, and the Polish forces retreated directly into the hands of the Russians, who were waiting to attack from behind. Caught in the crossfire of this secret pact between their neighbors and awaiting aid from France and the United Kingdom that never came, 65,000 soldiers from Poland's 950,000-strong military force were killed, more than 133,000 were wounded and the rest were considered captured. Fifty-nine thousand soldiers from the USSR and Germany were killed or wounded.

7. OPERATION BAGRATION In mid-August 1944, the Soviets reached the outskirts of Warsaw, Poland, just as the Polish resistance had itself risen up against the Nazis. All told, Operation Bagration took 350,000 German and 765,000 Soviet troops.
8. IWO JIMA Though the number of troops killed on Iwo Jima doesn't rival some of World War II's other battles, the battle is notable for the percentage of troops killed. On Iwo Jima, Japanese troops fought to the death -- of the nearly 22,000 Japanese troops who started the battle, only 216 were taken prisoner. The rest were killed. With 26,000 U.S. troops killed or injured, the Battle of Iwo Jima is the only clash of World War II in which U.S. casualties outnumbered Japanese casualties.
9. BATTLE OF BERLIN The Battle officially ended on May 2, 1945. However, the fear of surrendering to the Soviets was so strong that the Germans continued fighting in hopes of breaking through the Soviet siege in order to surrender to Western forces instead of the USSR. The cost to the Soviets was more than 70,000 men (many believe that number could have been fewer had Russian generals not been so eager to capture Berlin before the United States). Nearly 250,000 Germans died.
10. BATTLE OF SINGAPORE Aided by air supremacy, the Japanese exploited holes in the defense to infiltrate the island and in exactly a week -- Feb. 8 to Feb. 15, 1942 -- had taken it. Five thousand British and Australian troops were killed or wounded, but the real toll on Allied troops were the 80,000 who went to Japanese prison camps, the vast majority of whom would never make it home. In addition, after the battle, the Japanese massacred ethnic Chinese males (Japanese and Chinese dispute numbers, probably 50,000 to 100,000) on the island.
Finally, in my opinion, THE BATTLE OF MOSCOW has to rank as the bloodiest battle of WWII. It took place between October 1941 and January 1942. The Soviet defensive effort frustrated Hitler's attack on Moscow. Moscow was one of the primary military and political objectives for Axis forces in their invasion of the Soviet Union. As always German and Russian figures differ but range from: German 248,000 to 400,000 and Russian 650,000 to 1,280,000


----------



## Juha (Jul 19, 2012)

As small hells on the earth Kholm/Cholm and Velikiye Luki

Juha


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2012)

NJACO, as bad as the Kokada Trail was, the fighting for the terminus of the trail at Buna and Gona ranks among as the most brutal and primitive type of fighting of the war. Strictly a light infantry type of fight in the middle of fetid disease ridden malarial swamps. This took place before the allied logistics pipeline was in place and ground support from the 5th AF was non existent and pretty much useless. Same with any type of artillery support. It didn't work.

The Aussie and US Army troops who fought there deserve all the praise in the world for their accomplishments.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2012)

I assume you can look at the battle from either sides POV. I think the fights in the South SW Pacific were among the toughest ever fought by the allies. But from the japanese viewpoint I think Kokoda or Buna or Sanananda comes very close to hell on earth. Reduced to cannibalism, strapping greanades to run under tanks, Banzai charges with no ammunition in the spout....it doesnt get much tougher than that. And I do not exaggerate, the Japanese fought virtually to the last man. we never had a big POW problem in Papua......


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2012)

A lot of them were pretty bad. Tell me about a good one-- a battle that went well and wasn't too difficult or nasty? Hmm....


----------



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2012)

Actually I do know one that went fairly well. The "battle" of Kiska.
Kiska - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, considering the circumstances, the death rate and casualty rate were still too high. . . .


----------



## Njaco (Jul 20, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> NJACO, as bad as the Kokada Trail was, the fighting for the terminus of the trail at Buna and Gona ranks among as the most brutal and primitive type of fighting of the war. Strictly a light infantry type of fight in the middle of fetid disease ridden malarial swamps. This took place before the allied logistics pipeline was in place and ground support from the 5th AF was non existent and pretty much useless. Same with any type of artillery support. It didn't work.
> 
> The Aussie and US Army troops who fought there deserve all the praise in the world for their accomplishments.



The book I was reading had those battles as included with Kokoda. Would you separate them as different battles? I really don't know.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2012)

The IJA had such poor logistical and fire support that almost every battle was horrible. By contrast the USMC had many tough fights but at least the Jarheads had food to eat, water to drink, ammunition, medical supplies, concertina wire, sand bags, radio batteries, artillery support, armored vehicle support, trucks and Amtracs for troop transport etc.


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 21, 2012)

As for tough battlefields, Shaggy Ridge would rate up there.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/shaggy-ridge-20976.html


----------



## parsifal (Jul 21, 2012)

Thanks for reminding me wildcat, Id forgoten about that battle


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2012)

Attu was still pretty bad. Every battle is bad for the side that loses. Bataan / Corregidor must have been pretty bad for the US/Philippine troops.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Attu was still pretty bad. Every battle is bad for the side that loses.



Wrong, every battle is hell for all soldiers on both sides...

Whether it be psychological or physical, the toll that it takes on all men, is terrible. Having seen the effects it has on people first hand, I can attest to this. 

It has nothing to do with winning or losing.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2012)

i think he is aluding to the fact that when the island was retaken in '43, the japanese had abandoned the island.

However there were some sea battles that led to that point........they most definately were not walks in the park for either side


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wrong, every battle is hell for all soldiers on both sides...
> 
> Whether it be psychological or physical, the toll that it takes on all men, is terrible. Having seen the effects it has on people first hand, I can attest to this.
> 
> It has nothing to do with winning or losing.



Yes, you are right. Every battle is terrible, for everyone involved. But I don't suppose there was much point in starting this thread unless we were talking about the WORST battles. So if there are worst, it stands to reason there are also better ones. The losing side always has it bad-- although I suppose there could be battles where the losing side simply surrenders without much bloodshed. In which case, I suppose that would qualify as a "better" battle. 

I was not trying to minimize the agony that everyone involved in a battle inevitably goes through. Sorry if I came across that way.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 23, 2012)

parsifal said:


> i think he is aluding to the fact that when the island was retaken in '43, the japanese had abandoned the island.



Just to clear that up, there were two incidents I referred to earlier. The battle of Attu was indeed a very nasty battle for both sides, with many casualties and terrible climactic elements. The "battle" of Kiska was when the Allied forces invaded Kiska only to find out that the Japanese had already left a short time earlier. In spite of this fact, several service men were still killed by friendly fire and by booby traps, and a number more were wounded or incurred trench foot or other climactic ailments during the landing. (See "The Thousand-Mile War" for one detailed account of the actions at Attu and Kiska).


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 28, 2012)

A few pretty bad days around monte cassino.


----------



## stona (Jul 28, 2012)

Kohima.

Steve


----------



## Outta Leftfield (Jul 30, 2012)

Stalingrad was nasty: an endless battle in terrible cold fought with ever-decreasing food supplies over an ever-deepening pile of urban rubble, with both armies facing seemingly hopeless odds and one army ending up totally destroyed. There wereother nasty battles, but the one I would least like to have been in (either as a German or Soviet) was Stalingrad.


----------



## glennasher (Jul 30, 2012)

My first thoughts, were of New Guinea or Burma, with all the diseases, terrain, supply problems, etc. PLUS the enemy, depending on whichever side you're on.
Then again, there are no good battles, period.


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 2, 2012)

I voted for Iwo Jima because it was a very long and costly battle for both sides. The island was so heavily fortified that the assault was 36 days long!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2012)

Using that criteria, why not Stalingrad? It lasted almost 6 months and total casualties numbered almost 2 million for both sides combined.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2012)

Most members agree with you Adler, acording to the poll results. However, size of the battle does not necessarily mean the worst conditions or ordeals for battle. I am very much in the minority, but I believe there were more of an ordeal at a personal level than Stalingrad. Though Stalingrad, according to my father was hell on earth


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Most members agree with you Adler, acording to the poll results. However, size of the battle does not necessarily mean the worst conditions or ordeals for battle. I am very much in the minority, but I believe there were more of an ordeal at a personal level than Stalingrad. Though Stalingrad, according to my father was hell on earth



Yeah my Grandfather was in Stalingrad. Unfortunately he is no longer with us today.

I agree with you though, I find it hard to place one battle over another, especially when one takes into account the effects they have on men.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 3, 2012)

I just watched a docu on Monte Cassino. Seems that was pure hell as well.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 3, 2012)

They say that sometimes theres worse things than dying.......


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 3, 2012)

Worst battlefield of World War II?

Answer: ALL OF THEM!

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 3, 2012)

Kollaa River Line and Battle of Tolvajarvi, fireteams and squads vs companies, companies vs battalions, battalions vs regiments, regiments vs divisions, divisions vs corps all fought near the arctic circle in the coldest winter since 1828!


----------



## meatloaf109 (Aug 3, 2012)

ToughOmbre said:


> Worst battlefield of World War II?
> 
> Answer: ALL OF THEM!
> 
> Steve


Got that one right brother!


----------



## vinnye (Aug 10, 2012)

Kohima and Monte Cassino were grim to say the least and would get my vote.
Lots of others mentioned on land,at sea or in the air were no less dreadful. No such thing as a nice battle!


----------



## Mr.No one (Sep 8, 2012)

Rzhev?

Lasted a year and cost over a million cassualties...

I did vote for Stalingrad though.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 10, 2012)

How about 19 July 1940? Being stuck in the gun turret of a burning Boulton Paul Defiant as it spirals uncontrollably toward the ground? You can't turn the turret 90 degress to open the hatch at the back to get out because the hydraulic pump's been shot to pieces and the turret's jammed; your only way out is by crawling through a hole in the bottom of the turret big enough only for a small puppy to get through that leads into the rear fuselage, in the belly of which is an equally small orifice covered by an oval hatch. Dressed in a big sack nick-named the Rhino Suit, which is wrapped around you like a blanket that houses your parachute and inflateable dinghy, you know there's no way of squeezing through that impossibly small gap.

Did I mention the aircraft was on fire and plunging helplessly toward the ground because your pilot was killed in the first pass of a schwarm of over thirty Bf 109s that attacked your formation of nine Defiants crewed by airmen without an ounce of combat experience between you all?

As tongues of flame lick away at the outside of the turret, having already engulfed the cockpit ahead of you, in a fit of desperation you fumble with the latch of the holster of your Webley revolver...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm not really sure I can rate which battlefield was the worst. Each theater of operation had its own demons. That being said, I would like to say that the Eastern Front and the Pacific Front were overall intolerable. Stalingrad comes to mind, and after reading Eugene Sledges memoirs and other sources, Peleliu was its own hell. Still, like I said, I cannot rate what was the worst overall.


----------



## zoomar (Nov 7, 2012)

I see just about everybody agreed with me it would have to be Stalingrad, regardless of whether or not you were German or Russian. Horrible conditions, both sides brutal beyond belief, common soldiers just as likely to be shot by their own officers as the enemy, just nasty - as would the entre East Front have been.


----------



## Readie (Nov 14, 2012)

The North Atlantic conveys at the height of the U boat campaign must feature in a poll of hellish situations. Being a sitting duck on a tanker? Jeez....


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 14, 2012)

Readie said:


> The North Atlantic conveys at the height of the U boat campaign must feature in a poll of hellish situations. Being a sitting duck on a tanker? Jeez....



On the other hand, being under a destroyer attack for hours on end would be terrifying as well.


----------



## Readie (Nov 14, 2012)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> On the other hand, being under a destroyer attack for hours on end would be terrifying as well.



True enough. But, the civilian status of the merchant marine vessel crew makes them a special case in my opinion.
Along with Bomber Command we have taken a long time to put up memorials to remind people of the incredible sacrifices made....


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 14, 2012)

Readie said:


> True enough. But, the civilian status of the merchant marine vessel crew makes them a special case in my opinion.
> Along with Bomber Command we have taken a long time to put up memorials to remind people of the incredible sacrifices made....



I can understand that perspective, civilian versus military.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 15, 2012)

Readie said:


> The North Atlantic conveys at the height of the U boat campaign must feature in a poll of hellish situations. Being a sitting duck on a tanker? Jeez....



Especially on the Murmansk run - freakish cold.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 16, 2012)

dead from hypothermia in under 5 minutes


----------



## Readie (Nov 16, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Especially on the Murmansk run - freakish cold.



Unbelievable storms too. My idea of pure hell.
Without the conveys there could be no D Day, Bomber offensive and defeat of the Third Reich.
We owe those mariners big.
Cheers
John


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 16, 2012)

My Mothers Uncle was a Merchant Mariner in tankers and a teetotal Methodist but apparently every time he came home from a convoy he went on a bender drinking till he collapsed. My mother said one time he was brought home on a door by 2 friends from his chapel, nothing was said even by the minister it was his way of dealing with the stress of working on a 100 octane bomb and everyone understood.


----------



## barney (Dec 1, 2012)

Peleliu. Highest causality rate of any battle fought in the Pacific. Fought in a baking volcanic moonscape by the 1st Marine Division. All the hard nuts went to the 1st Marine. And finally, no reason for the battle in the first place.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 1, 2012)

Maybe the highest casualty rate for the marines. But their were battles in New Guinea that were more vicious with an even higher casualty rate.


----------



## barney (Dec 1, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> Maybe the highest casualty rate for the marines. But their were battles in New Guinea that were more vicious with an even higher casualty rate.



The casualty rate is a quote from Wikipedia. So, maybe true. 

My namesake died in the fighting at Buna but after reading WITH THE OLD BREED I'm sticking with my choice of Peleliu.


----------



## Elmas (Dec 5, 2012)

The Battle of the Atlantic.
Being trapped in a submarine going down or to receive a torpedo with a temperature of the water of 5 °C I think must have been dreadful.


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2012)

Elmas said:


> The Battle of the Atlantic.
> Being trapped in a submarine going down or to receive a torpedo with a temperature of the water of 5 °C I think must have been dreadful.



BoA agreed, but please also consider the merchant seaman that the U boats condemned to death.
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2012)

Readie said:


> BoA agreed, but please also consider the merchant seaman that the U boats condemned to death.
> John



I think that is what he did, by saying taking a torpedo with water temps of 5 C. Normally it was the surface ships that took torpedos...


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think that is what he did, by saying taking a torpedo with water temps of 5 C. Normally it was the surface ships that took torpedos...



Fair comment Chris
Elmas, please ignore my post.
Cheers
John


----------



## stug3 (Jan 15, 2013)

Hundreds of horses hooves discovered in German positions within Stalingrad, all that was left of the transport livestock that had been eaten in desperation.


----------



## VinceReeves (Mar 2, 2013)

I think it's Iwo Jima - it's the only battlefield I can think of that was absolutely primed to be a death trap. The Japanese worked out every fire position on the island, and anywhere that was potential cover was mined and booby trapped. They then pre-ranged every yard of ground from their pre-prepared indirect firing positions. For their direct firing positions, they graded the fuses of their airburst shells against distance so that they could always guarantee maximum damage against advancing infantry.

There really hasn't been another battle like it, anywhere. Stalingrad was an extreme version of a standard modern urban battle. Iwo Jima was totally unique.


----------



## stug3 (Mar 2, 2013)

Stalingrad was 5 months of torturous hell, especially for the Germans their hapless allies. 5 months of increasing, impending, claustrophobic doom along with starvation as the icing on the cake. I think only prolonged jungle battles (Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Burma, etc.) would be comparable.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2013)

The problem with Stalingrad is that it commeitted the Germans to a frontal assault in an urban environment. The chief German advantages, their mobility and superior C&C were really minimised in that situation


----------



## stug3 (Mar 10, 2013)

Eastern Front 1943


----------



## airminded88 (Mar 11, 2013)

Every single battlefield in the air, ground, sea or below the sea must have been a living hell to the ones involved in them.

I voted for Stalingrad for its sheer magnitude, miserable conditions and the horrendous stories that came out of it; but I think that Okinawa and the Kokoda Trail come very close to it as well.
Ploesti deserves a mention too.


----------

