Originally Posted by EagleStrike

Black Hawk Down

sweetie if no one told you, its a film hun..............lol

The fight was real......................the film was a lil stretched lol

That wasn't the fiest battle though, just a standard practise for that sorta country

Like you guys mentioned earlier, Stalingrad.

How about Ancient Historical battles? We often spoken of battles occured in the Modern Era.

Id say just about any battle in WW2 where American Marines and Japanese soldiers went face to face. Too many to name.

Originally Posted by Vitaly

I would say Stalingrad also, it holds the Guinness World Record for Bloodiest Modern Battle; "The greatest death toll in a battle has been estimated at 1,109,000 in the Battle of Stalingrad, USSR (now Volgograd, Russia), which started in the summer of 1942 and ended with the German surrender on January 31, 1943. Approximately 650,800 Soviet soldiers were wounded but survived.

Many experts consider Stalingrad to be the crucial turning point of World War II. The battle, which raged fiercely from the summer of 1942 until January 31, 1943, marked the fullest extent of Nazi Germany's incursion into Russia. Stalingrad, because of its commercial and industrial importance, was seen as a major prize.

One obvious reason behind the battle's terrible destructiveness was the importance of Stalingrad. Russian soldiers were ordered never to "take a step backwards". Stalin, the Soviet leader, knew that losing the city that bore his name would be of immense symbolic and military significance.

Hitler, the German leader, was equally determined. He showed a lack of military judgement by not allowing the Nazi armies to retreat even when they were almost completely encircled by the Russians. The Germans were made to remain and face near total annihilation by the ultimately victorious Russians."

Also the condition of the city with all of the house to house (CQB) combat would be a surreal experience. Don't forget there wasn't any set tactics for room clearing. Plus the amount of overall military units in the city would help place it as the Fiercest Battle in History. At least in my opinion.

Have to make a couple of comments regarding Hitler's decision not to allow 6th Army to retreat from Stalingrad.

To begin with, it was a decisive battle but in isolation it probably wasn't by itself as big a turning point as is popularly believed. It was the beginning of the reversal of fortunes on the Eastern Front but after Stalingrad Germany were still very much in it, although they had lost the chance to decisively beat the USSR. Stalingrad AND Kursk together marked the true turning point of WW2.

Secondly, much has been made of the foolishness of Hitler in allowing 6th Army to march into the centre of Stalingrad and insist that there was no retreat. Whilst Hitler's reasons for ordering a 'no retreat' policy were flawed and for selfish personal reasons, the net result was probably the correct military decision once the German flanks had been smashed by the Red Army. There were 3 good reasons why 6th Army should not have retreated from Stalingrad once it had been encircled.

1. The units in 6th Army were battered, exhausted, demoralized and very low on supplies. If they had attempted a break-out in harsh winter conditions these units would have been cut to pieces. Although not one of the better German commanders, Paulus was not an idiot and must have been well aware of this.

2. 6th Army tied up an immense amount of Soviet formations, 61 to be precise. This allowed the rest of the German southern line the chance to stabilize and to retreat in an orderly manner. If 6th Army hadn't been tieing up all these Soviet formations, then they would have been free to unleash themselves against the fragile German line, likely causing even more German casualties than was historically recorded.

3. 4th Panzer Army, which was the principal German armored force in the area, did not have enough fuel supplies and was in the wrong position to assist in any break-out.

Sometimes, there were occasions where Hitler did the right thing but for the wrong reasons. This happened to be one of those occasions.

Id say just about any battle in WW2 where American Marines and Japanese soldiers went face to face. Too many to name.

Yes I certainly agree that the battle in the Pacific Theatre were among one of the fiercest in history.

However, the Eastern Front was fiercest judging from the boiling hatred between two opposing sides, property damage, unspeakable Civilian death toll, toils, endurance, staggering casualty rates, and the brutality of nature.

The Eastern Front was definetly fiercest in terms of size and numbers.

Originally Posted by Anya1982

sweetie if no one told you, its a film hun..............lol

The fight was real......................the film was a lil stretched lol

That wasn't the fiest battle though, just a standard practise for that sorta country

thanks for that anya, i wanted to post, but you put it a lot better than i would have!!!!!


what about the british 1st Airborn Div @ Arnhem during operation market garder. while the casualties weren't high compared to some fights,
taken from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...borne_Division

High Command had estimated that the 1st Airborne could only hold the position north of the river for four days, at its highest readiness. However, with horribly depleted forces (including a battalion stranded in a hostile town), it held the position for nine days. With less than 1/4 of the division returning from Arnhem, it saw no more action for the rest of the war.

now thats impressive!!!

I still say the New Guinea campaign by Australia. We suffered the same casualty rate as the German army in the "Kessel" of Stalingrad, and this is often recognised as the worst casualty percentage in the European campaign. To put it into perspective in the Pacific campaign, we lost double what the US lost in Guadalcanal.

Originally Posted by AussieNick

I still say the New Guinea campaign by Australia. We suffered the same casualty rate as the German army in the "Kessel" of Stalingrad, and this is often recognised as the worst casualty percentage in the European campaign. To put it into perspective in the Pacific campaign, we lost double what the US lost in Guadalcanal.

i second this motion

Casualties in the Pacific numbered in the thousands. Casualties on the Eastern Front numbered in the millions. Stalingrad/Kursk hands down.

Sorry, I should have said allies instead of American.