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
.
The World's Bloodiest Battles - Photo Gallery, 21 Pictures - LIFE
.
The World's Bloodiest Battles
- Thread starter comiso90
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Catch22
Major
Great photos!
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #4
Errr... give them a break... I dont think Life had any cameras at Waterloo! It's in the context of photos
.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think the problem with some of the battles you listed was more due to a lack of cameras during that time period.
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #7
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...
- Thread starter
- #9
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...
.
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- Thread starter
- #12
and American History
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
michaelmaltby
Colonel
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
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
Tech Sergeant
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
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Thanks for the clarification guys. Although I know about the Civil War, its not my forte.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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
90,000 American casualties (19,000+ KIA)
TO
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.
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
"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
