# The World's Bloodiest Battles



## comiso90 (Jul 29, 2009)

It's a shame more Americans dont know the scope of the carnage on the Eastern Front.

The World's Bloodiest Battles - Photo Gallery, 21 Pictures - LIFE

.


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 29, 2009)

Great photos!


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2009)

Saw it. Don't really think they got it right. While the Eastern Front was a big time blood bath and deserved to be in the list of bloodiest battles, the perspective was definitely western centric. Some of the battles that weren't in there and should've been there are, (IMHO and in no particular order):

Borodino
Cannae
Waterloo
Shiloh
Almost anything in the East (China V Japan over the past 1000 years)

The problem with the methodology is they battles Time uses are more campaigns than battles. Most battles in antiquity (over 100 years ago) were one day affairs. If you extrapolate the casualties of that single day into a battle as long as Stalingrad, you would litterally have millions of dead. 

The definition of battle has changed and that probably started some time around the American Civil War. Not quite the same anymore.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 29, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Saw it. Don't really think they got it right. While the Eastern Front was a big time blood bath and deserved to be in the list of bloodiest battles, the perspective was definitely western centric. Some of the battles that weren't in there and should've been there are, (IMHO and in no particular order):
> 
> Borodino
> Cannae
> ...




Errr... give them a break... I dont think Life had any cameras at Waterloo! It's in the context of photos
.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 29, 2009)

I think the problem with some of the battles you listed was more due to a lack of cameras during that time period.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2009)

Ok, I gotcha. It was a picture spread and LIFE magazine is a picture mag. Cool with that. 

My point was, outside of Stalingrad, they really weren't the most bloody battles in history. More along the lines of the "Bloodiest Battles we have pictures of". I could go with that one.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 29, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Ok, I gotcha. It was a picture spread and LIFE magazine is a picture mag. Cool with that.
> 
> My point was, outside of Stalingrad, they really weren't the most bloody battles in history. More along the lines of the "Bloodiest Battles we have pictures of". I could go with that one.




Yes..agreed... but its a title of a article not a text book. You are right though... there are a lot of 8 year olds (and adult morons) out there that will think D-Day was one of the "Bloodiest Battles" when in fact it's probably not in the top 200.

we could go back to Hannibal...


----------



## timshatz (Jul 29, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Yes..agreed... but its a title of a article not a text book. You are right though... there are a lot of 8 year olds (and adult morons) out there that will think D-Day was one of the "Bloodiest Battles" when in fact it's probably not in the top 200.
> 
> we could go back to Hannibal...



Yeah, bad as D-Day was, the Soviet Union had battles that bad or worse every day. Statistically anyway. If you figure there were 1000 dead at Omaha beach (worst beach on D-Day). Soviet Union lost something like 27 million in less than 4 years,civilians inclusive, strictly military is about 9 million-not sure on that last number.

1400 days/27,000,000= 19,285 dead per day (civilians inclusive)
Strictly military 1400/9,000,000= 6,428 dead per day. 

So the Soviet Union has a battle 5x worse than Omaha beach every day for close to 4 years. 

Jeez, I knew it was bad but when you do the math...


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 29, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, bad as D-Day was, the Soviet Union had battles that bad or worse every day. Statistically anyway. If you figure there were 1000 dead at Omaha beach (worst beach on D-Day). Soviet Union lost something like 27 million in less than 4 years,civilians inclusive, strictly military is about 9 million-not sure on that last number.
> 
> 1400 days/27,000,000= 19,285 dead per day (civilians inclusive)
> Strictly military 1400/9,000,000= 6,428 dead per day.
> ...



Quite a breakdown timshatz... 

Many people are ignorant about history.. but even the WW2 generation can be clueless..

To this day, my mother, and many others from her generation, have no clue about the carnage on the eastern front. She thinks it was an unimportant side show and the real fighting was in the west...

sigh...
.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 29, 2009)

I was gonna disagree on the Gettysburg pic - I believe Antienam had about 50,000 casualties in one day. Almost for the whole Vietnam War. I may be wrong but after what you guys said about pics, that might be the criteria they're going with.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 29, 2009)

Chris,

Antietam was the bloodiest *one-day *battle of the Civil War. But there were other battles, lasting more than one day, in which more men fell. The numbers below are total casualties for both sides.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 29, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> Chris,
> 
> Antietam was the bloodiest *one-day *battle of the Civil War.



and American History


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 29, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> and American History



Absolutely!

TO


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 29, 2009)

Comiso - I agree with your premise. That said, it's a shame more people _outside_ the USA don't know the extent of the Civil War "butcher's bill".
Understanding the effect of _that_ war on American society is fundamental to understanding America today. The American public _will not tolerate_ a long war - no matter how just.

Good thread. 

MM


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 29, 2009)

Very interesting - although as a point of semantics, I would have to say that most of these engagements were really campaigns rather than battles, although the two seem to become interchangeable from WWI onwards. Seeing stuff like this really puts into the perspective the way that technology has changed the battlefield over the last two centuries, first leading to a massive increase in casualties between 1850 and 1945, then a decrease ever since as wars are increasingly fought over much larger spaces with fewer troops...


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2009)

Thanks for the clarification guys. Although I know about the Civil War, its not my forte.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, bad as D-Day was, the Soviet Union had battles that bad or worse every day. Statistically anyway. If you figure there were 1000 dead at Omaha beach (worst beach on D-Day).



Check out your casualty numbers. They were much higher than 1000 on Omaha. Totally allied casualties on June 6, 1944 are estimated at about 10,000 killed and wounded. 

On Omaha Beach alone the 16th and 116th RCT’s lost about 1,000 men each (KIA).


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 30, 2009)

I believe the bloodiest battle (in terms of total casualties) in American history was the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge).

90,000 American casualties (19,000+ KIA)

TO


----------



## timshatz (Jul 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Check out your casualty numbers. They were much higher than 1000 on Omaha. Totally allied casualties on June 6, 1944 are estimated at about 10,000 killed and wounded.
> 
> On Omaha Beach alone the 16th and 116th RCT’s lost about 1,000 men each (KIA).



I think you're looking at the total casualties for that attack. I think Omaha's total casualties were in the 2500 range. Not sure, would need to research. It was, by far, the worst of the 5 beaches. Odd thing, but the US had the worst (Omaha) and easiest (Utah) beaches. 

That being said, I think the totals for the dead were under 1000 on Omaha. But, I'll look into it. Even 1000 lost in a regiment of 3000 (Casualties, not deaths) would make the unit combat ineffective. 

My understanding of the worst day for an American unit in WW2 was the 3rd ID in the break out from Anzio when they lost 900+ in a single day, KIA.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 30, 2009)

From Wiki (take it with a grain of salt) about Omaha:

"Casualties for V Corps were estimated at 3,000 killed, wounded and missing. The heaviest casualties were taken by the infantry, tanks and engineers in the first landings. The 16th and 116th RCT’s lost about 1,000 men each.[78] "

Link to the article:

Omaha Beach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 30, 2009)

American airborne losses on June 6th (from the book "D-Day" by Dr. Stephen Badsey). Gives you an idea of how hard it was to get a real handle on actual Overlord losses.

*101st*

"The division's known losses for D-Day were 182 killed and 537 wounded.* But 1,240 men remained missing, and most were never found.*

*82nd* 

"156 known dead, 347 wounded and *756 missing, presumed dead*."

TO


----------



## timshatz (Jul 30, 2009)

Airborne losses were a big problem, always have been. Dropped all over the place, no static lines of support. People in their own stick didn't even know where each other were (the standard tactic of the front and back guys rolling up the stick towards the center didn't work when you didn't know where you dropped). Everyone fighting on their own and many times they die unremarked. The enemy (or locals) bury them without fanfare and that is pretty much that. 

IMHO the same thing happens with all forces of elite levels. They tend to get put into positions where nobody on their side is around to see what is happening or lend support. Would consider the airborne of WW2 in that capacity, especially in Normandy. But LRRPs, SF, Recon, Seals, ect are very susceptable to "just dissapearing". Especially when their missions are far behind enemy lines. 

Other units in a similar situation in WW2 would be Air Recon, PT Boats, Subs. Essentially, any group that operates far from the Main Force. A lot of times, they just don't come back.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 30, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> Understanding the effect of _that_ war on American society is fundamental to understanding America today. The American public _will not tolerate_ a long war - no matter how just.
> 
> MM



No nation will tolerate a long war but the US is basically steadfast. The US fought for 10 years in the incredibly poorly run Vietnam War, probably the longest war in the last two hundred years. The Iraq war lasted 5 years (2003-2008 ). The on-going war with the Taliban is into its 6th year. As a comparison, WW I lasted 4 years and WWII lasted 6 years. Most other wars were only a few years long (except, of course, the 3000+year war between the Jews and the Arabs).

It is true that you must beat the US politically since it is militarily overpowering, but to believe that the US is weak in its determination to execute war over an extended time is historically unsupportable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

timshatz said:


> I think you're looking at the total casualties for that attack. I think Omaha's total casualties were in the 2500 range. Not sure, would need to research. It was, by far, the worst of the 5 beaches. Odd thing, but the US had the worst (Omaha) and easiest (Utah) beaches.
> 
> That being said, I think the totals for the dead were under 1000 on Omaha. But, I'll look into it. Even 1000 lost in a regiment of 3000 (Casualties, not deaths) would make the unit combat ineffective.
> 
> My understanding of the worst day for an American unit in WW2 was the 3rd ID in the break out from Anzio when they lost 900+ in a single day, KIA.



My understanding is that those losses were for the landings themselves.


----------



## herman1rg (Jul 30, 2009)

What about the Battle of the Somme WW1

Battle of the Somme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 30, 2009)

Hurtgen was also pretty dang bloody. Dunno if it qualifies as a battle or as a series of campaigns, since it took place between Sept '44 and Feb '45, but either way it was still a mess.

Battle of Hürtgen Forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 30, 2009)

herman1rg said:


> What about the Battle of the Somme WW1
> 
> Battle of the Somme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Somme is featured in the photo essay posted:

The World's Bloodiest Battles - Photo Gallery, 21 Pictures - LIFE
.


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 30, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> American airborne losses on June 6th (from the book "D-Day" by Dr. Stephen Badsey). Gives you an idea of how hard it was to get a real handle on actual Overlord losses.
> 
> *101st*
> 
> ...



wow... i didnt know so many were w/o status!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> American airborne losses on June 6th (from the book "D-Day" by Dr. Stephen Badsey). Gives you an idea of how hard it was to get a real handle on actual Overlord losses.
> 
> *101st*
> 
> ...



The author did a sloppy job with his figures. Many of the missing were captured and accounted for. And postwar accounting came up with increasingly accurate figures.

My figures I got from several websites show the 101st had 381 dead on June 5th/6th. The 82nd had 276.

And these websites accounted for every reported casualty and their disposition.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 30, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The author did a sloppy job with his figures. Many of the missing were captured and accounted for. And postwar accounting came up with increasingly accurate figures.
> 
> My figures I got from several websites show the 101st had 381 dead on June 5th/6th. The 82nd had 276.
> 
> And these websites accounted for every reported casualty and their disposition.



Not sure about that sys. If you go to 20 different sources, you'll get 20 different figures. I quoted this particular author as an example of what the casualties might have been. The truth is that the exact number will probably never be known.

Also, the Slapton Sands casualties (approx 600 killed) were initially thrown into the figures (more confusion). 

Not saying you're right or wrong, but the numbers you quote seem light.

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> Not sure about that sys. If you go to 20 different sources, you'll get 20 different figures. I quoted this particular author as an example of what the casualties might have been. The truth is that the exact number will probably never be known.
> 
> Also, the Slapton Sands casualties (approx 600 killed) were initially thrown into the figures (more confusion).
> 
> ...



Ive counter checked the websites that had a man by man listing and they came up with the same numbers within a few percent of each other.

The numbers might seem light, but when you look at the casualties over a period of several days, they add up.

And I (and many others) qualify a date of death for when the soldier actually passed on. Some authors say someone died on June 6th, even though they were wounded on that day and died a couple days later.

And one thing that always makes me wonder is when a number of "missing" is quoted. Usually that includes the POW's, and not a KIA. I look for figures that qualify the MIA's with a category of "missing with a finding of death, or missing, body not found". 

As with looking at the pilot claims from WW2, casualty totals for the ground troops must also be looked at with a skeptical eye. If someone claims a figure, "show me your source".


----------



## Amsel (Jul 31, 2009)

The Battle of Okinawa is one of the bloodiest battles in modern history. It is often forgotten how vicious of a fight it was. It stretched over 87 days and fought in some grueling conditions. The attack on Okinawa took a heavy toll on both sides. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. Possibly the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics where Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought.The Americans also lost 36 ships. 368 ships were also damaged. 763 aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16 ships sunk and over 4,000 aircraft were lost. Also 1/4 of the civilian population were casualties during the battle, with a civilian casualty toll in the hundreds of thousands.

EB Sledge wrote a chilling book about his experience at the battle called The Old Breed.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2009)

WOW! It's amazing when you just see the numbers.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 31, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> WOW! It's amazing when you just see the numbers.


The casualty toll at Okinawa pretty much gave a bleak outlook for the invasion of mainland Japan. The fierce resistance and the fanaticism of the civilian population as well as the Imperial Army caused the projected casualties for the invasion of Japan to be in the millions. The Battle of Okinawa helped the decision to use the atom bomb against Japan seem the less bloody alternative to defeat Imperial Japan.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 31, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The casualty toll at Okinawa pretty much gave a bleak outlook for the invasion of mainland Japan. The fierce resistance and the fanaticism of the civilian population as well as the Imperial Army caused the projected casualties for the invasion of Japan to be in the millions. The Battle of Okinawa helped the decision to use the atom bomb against Japan seem the less bloody alternative to defeat Imperial Japan.



Very true. What people forget about when they say the bomb was racist or dropped to impress the Soviets is the US had just fought Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Both were the worst battles of the Pacific war. Each had the characteristics of a mini-Stalingrad. Dug in armies attacking the same ground over and over. 

The US had something like 200K in land troops at Okinawa with a KIA rate of roughly 3.5%. But the Japanese only had about 110K against them. When the US intended the invasion of Japan, the Japanese considered this the opportunity to bring their Ground Forces into the battle. They were looking at getting over a million troops into the fight. Whereas the US planned for 325K defenders, there were, in actuality, over 820K on Kyushu by the time August of 1945 rolled around.

In the invasion of Japan, If we take the Allied losses as a percentage of Allied troops involved and use Okinawa as the yards stick, we have the following:

550K x .035= 19,250 dead. 

Further, if we include total casualties (Okinawa had 72K total non-fatal casualties or 36%), again using Okinawa for the basis, we get the following:

550K x .36= 198,000. That would be broken down into Wounded, Missing, Sick, Psychological Casualties (a large and getting larger segment of non-battle casualties). 

Total Allied losses for the invasion of Japan using the US operation at Okinawa as a template, 217,250 is the number. Roughly 39.5% of the force. 

Japanese Casualities, using the same method are as follows:
Okinawa total force: 120K
Kyushu: 900K (using an average of the August number of 820 and the probably number of November 1st, 1 million. Just averaging down on it for conservative numbers sake)

Total number of Japanese troops on Okinawa: 120K
KIA on Okinawa for Japanese troops: 110K,
Captured: rougly 8-10K (first battle in the pacific where significant numbers of japanese were captured)

Japanese (military) for the invasion of Japan:
900K x .91= 825K KIA
Captured: 81K

Japanese Civilian casualties would've been signicantly worse than Okinawa as months of poor food and hard work coupled with shortages in same foodstuffs and poor medical care/hygene increases the number. On top of that, the rice crop failed in the fall of 1945. The civilians would not be moved from the battle areas and would be expected to fight and die. 

My offhand guess is something on the order of 2 Million dead in the Civilian end. That covers all of Japan. Most of that is caused by disease and starvation with the old and young be the preponderance of the dead. 

So, by putting it all together (and leaving out the dead Allied POWs and civilians in Japanese occupied areas of China and Asia), we have something on the order of 3 million dead in an invasion of Japan.

Without a doubt, it is the bloodiest land battle never fought.


----------

