I was thinking, which battle/operation has the most casualty?
I was thinking of either Operation Overlord, Battle of the Bulge or the Russians entering Berlin.
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
WWII Battle with the Most Casualty?
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 03:45 AM UTC
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 03:59 AM UTC
The Soviets suffered 500,000 KIA at Stalingrad, the Germans 150,000 plus or minus. Another 91,000 or so Germans were captured.
If not number one, has to be pretty darn close to the top of the list.
Shaun
If not number one, has to be pretty darn close to the top of the list.
Shaun
mikeli125
Member Since: December 24, 2002
entire network: 2,595 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,079 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 04:35 AM UTC
The Us lost alot during the Hurtgen forest battles I thinbk around 40,000 Kia and wounded
sad thing was the battle didnt have to take place, or monte cassino one of the hardest fought battles of WW2
sad thing was the battle didnt have to take place, or monte cassino one of the hardest fought battles of WW2
Mahross
Member Since: March 12, 2002
entire network: 837 Posts
KitMaker Network: 183 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 02:51 AM UTC
Biggest losses was probaly the cauldron battles in operation Barbarossa. The Russian lost 10000's in each of the encirclements.
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 03:08 AM UTC
Whoa! Can't you just imagine that bloodfest? Now that's nasty! 
Who would want to see a pile of dead bodies lying around? Simply nasty
Who would want to see a pile of dead bodies lying around? Simply nasty keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 03:26 AM UTC
During the First World War, during the First Battle of the Marne, the Germans and the French each suffered 250,000 casualties, during 4 days of fighting...
Assuming they were fighting 24 hours a day that comes down to about 90 casualties a minute, for 4 days straight...
What a waste...
Shaun
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 04:45 AM UTC
In the European Theater, I believe you will find the Battle of the Bulge the most expensive in terms of casualties. The Russian taking of Berlin is certainly way up there...their fratricide rate is phenomenal. In the Pacific, I am spit-balling, but I believe it is unquestionably the Battle for Okinawa. Anyone have some hard numbers....Jeff usually chimes in with some good data.
DJ
DJ
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 05:11 AM UTC
Some numbers:
Okinawa: US total: 38,000 WIA, 12,000 KIA and MIA. Japanese total: 107,000 killed, civilians: plus or minus 100,000
Berlin: Russian total: 80,000 KIA, 275,000 WIA or MIA. Germans: 150,000 KIA
The Russians lost 2,000 tanks taking Berlin….
Battle of the Bulge: Germans: 100,000 total killed, wounded, and captured. US: 81,000 total including roughly 20,000 killed and 25,000 captured.
I didn't have any idea the US casualties at Okinawa were that high...
HTH,
Shaun
Okinawa: US total: 38,000 WIA, 12,000 KIA and MIA. Japanese total: 107,000 killed, civilians: plus or minus 100,000
Berlin: Russian total: 80,000 KIA, 275,000 WIA or MIA. Germans: 150,000 KIA
The Russians lost 2,000 tanks taking Berlin….
Battle of the Bulge: Germans: 100,000 total killed, wounded, and captured. US: 81,000 total including roughly 20,000 killed and 25,000 captured.
I didn't have any idea the US casualties at Okinawa were that high...
HTH,
Shaun
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 05:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Some numbers:
Okinawa: US total: 38,000 WIA, 12,000 KIA and MIA. Japanese total: 107,000 killed, civilians: plus or minus 100,000
Berlin: Russian total: 80,000 KIA, 275,000 WIA or MIA. Germans: 150,000 KIA
The Russians lost 2,000 tanks taking Berlin….
Battle of the Bulge: Germans: 100,000 total killed, wounded, and captured. US: 81,000 total including roughly 20,000 killed and 25,000 captured.
I didn't have any idea the US casualties at Okinawa were that high...
HTH,
Shaun
Shaun--- normally folks say that Iwo Jima (19 February 1945) was the costliest. However, the invasion of Okinawa (1April1945) placed a force the size of the Normandy invasion on the island. If memory serves me correctly , one out of every three naval casualties in WW II results from the attacks on the ships by the Japanese. The land battle goes on for well over three months. There is much (IMHO) justifable criticism of Buckner's strategy (USA commanding general, killed in the battle). Several great books on it, but the classic in my mind is the Belote brothers "Typhon of Steel." Interesting subject.
DJ
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 01:03 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Some numbers:
Okinawa: US total: 38,000 WIA, 12,000 KIA and MIA. Japanese total: 107,000 killed, civilians: plus or minus 100,000
Berlin: Russian total: 80,000 KIA, 275,000 WIA or MIA. Germans: 150,000 KIA
The Russians lost 2,000 tanks taking Berlin….
Battle of the Bulge: Germans: 100,000 total killed, wounded, and captured. US: 81,000 total including roughly 20,000 killed and 25,000 captured.
I didn't have any idea the US casualties at Okinawa were that high...
HTH,
Shaun
Just a question, what does WIA mean? Wiped-out in action? I know what KIA and MIA (killed in action, missing in action) but not WIA. Looks like a new word in my dictionary
clausen
Member Since: May 03, 2003
entire network: 449 Posts
KitMaker Network: 223 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004 - 07:19 PM UTC
Wounded In Action!
Bjoern
Bjoern
Mahross
Member Since: March 12, 2002
entire network: 837 Posts
KitMaker Network: 183 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 13, 2004 - 06:41 AM UTC
The casualty rate in ww1 might have been high but that of ww2 was just as high. For example in the battle for normandy the casualty rate was roughly the same as the british suffered during the 3rd battle of ypres.
flitzer
Member Since: November 13, 2003
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:21 PM UTC
I realise the numbers of casualties are insignificant compared to modern battles, but with regard to differences of fatalities from both sides The Battle of Agincourt is a remarkable example.
It is reported as French dead 10,000 against 26 English.
How true or accurate this is, is anyones guess.
Cheers
Peter
It is reported as French dead 10,000 against 26 English.
How true or accurate this is, is anyones guess.
Cheers
Peter
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 02:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I realise the numbers of casualties are insignificant compared to modern battles, but with regard to differences of fatalities from both sides The Battle of Agincourt is a remarkable example.
It is reported as French dead 10,000 against 26 English.
How true or accurate this is, is anyones guess.
Cheers
Peter
What a ratio! What weapon are they using anyway?
flitzer
Member Since: November 13, 2003
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 04:06 AM UTC
Hi Shonen,
the majority of the British army were bowmen armed with the great longbow. A longbow was as tall as the man that fired it and an arrow from this would, and did, go straight through the armour of the time like paper, if in effective range...not sure what that was though but it was a lot more than ordinary bows. So in effect the French couldn't get anywhere near the English before they were cut to pieces.
Cheers
Peter
the majority of the British army were bowmen armed with the great longbow. A longbow was as tall as the man that fired it and an arrow from this would, and did, go straight through the armour of the time like paper, if in effective range...not sure what that was though but it was a lot more than ordinary bows. So in effect the French couldn't get anywhere near the English before they were cut to pieces.
Cheers
Peter
mikeli125
Member Since: December 24, 2002
entire network: 2,595 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,079 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 04:49 AM UTC
Peter,
there was a very interesting program about the battle were they analizsed the out come and the reason the french lost was due a no of factors which were the rain which muddied up the battlefield and due to the smooth surface of the asuits of armour it really made walking hard due to the resistance of the mud, the english had cloth covered feet so didnt stick into the mud as much, also there was a incline that the french had to walk up so by the time most of them got there they were dog tired, and due to them not following orders from the french commander but made for the english nobles in the hope of capturing them for ransom it caused mass confusion in the french ranks many fell into the mud and were unable to get up due to the stickiness of the mud so simply drowned
there was a very interesting program about the battle were they analizsed the out come and the reason the french lost was due a no of factors which were the rain which muddied up the battlefield and due to the smooth surface of the asuits of armour it really made walking hard due to the resistance of the mud, the english had cloth covered feet so didnt stick into the mud as much, also there was a incline that the french had to walk up so by the time most of them got there they were dog tired, and due to them not following orders from the french commander but made for the english nobles in the hope of capturing them for ransom it caused mass confusion in the french ranks many fell into the mud and were unable to get up due to the stickiness of the mud so simply drowned
flitzer
Member Since: November 13, 2003
entire network: 2,240 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:42 PM UTC
Hi Mike,
interesting stuff, I wish I'd seen it. Also I read reports that there was sickness in the English army and they had to stand and fight at Agincourt rather than make a run for it, in fear of being over-run.
Also the Battle of Agincourt is supposed to be the origin of the rude version of the "V" sign.
Cheers
Peter
:-)
interesting stuff, I wish I'd seen it. Also I read reports that there was sickness in the English army and they had to stand and fight at Agincourt rather than make a run for it, in fear of being over-run.
Also the Battle of Agincourt is supposed to be the origin of the rude version of the "V" sign.
Cheers
Peter
:-)
cardinal
Member Since: October 05, 2003
entire network: 1,008 Posts
KitMaker Network: 492 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 23, 2004 - 05:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
the majority of the British army were bowmen armed with the great longbow. A longbow was as tall as the man that fired it and an arrow from this would, and did, go straight through the armour of the time like paper, if in effective range...not sure what that was though but it was a lot more than ordinary bows. So in effect the French couldn't get anywhere near the English before they were cut to pieces.
I think this is the battle where the longbow was proven to be a superior weapon than the crossbow.
keenan
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 23, 2004 - 05:41 AM UTC
Sorry if I am threadjacking but I found a nice little site about Agincourt.
http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html
Nabbed the following quote from here:
http://www.pomian.demon.co.uk/longbow.htm
"At the battle of Agincourt, sources estimate that there were about 5,000 English archers. At a rate of fire of 8 arrows a minute, 40,000 arrows could be loosed each minute; that is almost 700 arrows a SECOND! After the battle, some chroniclers say that the battlefield looked as if it had snowed, such was the quantity of fletchings from the arrows in the ground."
Pretty awesome firepower for 1415 AD...
Shaun
http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html
Nabbed the following quote from here:
http://www.pomian.demon.co.uk/longbow.htm
"At the battle of Agincourt, sources estimate that there were about 5,000 English archers. At a rate of fire of 8 arrows a minute, 40,000 arrows could be loosed each minute; that is almost 700 arrows a SECOND! After the battle, some chroniclers say that the battlefield looked as if it had snowed, such was the quantity of fletchings from the arrows in the ground."
Pretty awesome firepower for 1415 AD...
Shaun
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.