The World's Bloodiest Battles

[ToughOmbre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What about the Battle of the Somme WW1

Battle of the Somme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RabidAlien]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[syscom3]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Amsel]

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]

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.