The Worst Battlefield of WWII

[syscom3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[parsifal]

Thanks for reminding me wildcat, Id forgoten about that battle

 

[Oreo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A few pretty bad days around monte cassino.

 

[stona]

Kohima.

Steve

 

[Outta Leftfield]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[parsifal]

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