What was the most one-sided battle in history? - Page 2


Read more about 27 Aug 1896, the shortest ever war, it lasted from 9.00 am to 9.45am. A british fleet delivered an ultimatum to the sultan of zanzibar to evacuate and surrender his palac

Military Medals Store

  International Military Forums > >

User Name
Password

 
September 13th, 2004   #11
Shadowalker
 
 
27 Aug 1896, the shortest ever war, it lasted from 9.00 am to 9.45am. A british fleet delivered an ultimatum to the sultan of zanzibar to evacuate and surrender his palace, it took 45 minutes of bombardment to convince him to do so. (taken from the guinness book of records)
 
-
September 13th, 2004   #12
zyonchaos
 
 
Oh cmon the most one sided battle ever if nobody can remember the battle they could at least refer to the film......


Still confused....

What about Zulu eh???
Rourkes drift Wednesday 22- Thursday 23 January, 1879, when some 150 soldiers defended a supply station against some 4000 Zulus, aided by the Martini-Henry rifle 'with some guts behind it'

The largest number of Victoria Crosses awarded to a regiment for one action!

The VC Winners

Lt. John Rouse
Merriott Chard
Lt. Gonville
Bromhead
Cpl. William
Wilson Allen
Cpl. Ferdnand
Christian Schiess
Pte. Frederick Hitch

Pte. Henry
(Harry) Hook
Pte. Robert Jones
Pte. William Jones
John Williams
Fielding
James Henry
Reynolds
James Langley
Dalton

Jay


From within Chaos Comes Order
When there is no order in the world around us, we must adapt ourselves to the requirements of chaos instead.
Law is order in liberty, and without order liberty is social chaos.
Too little liberty brings stagnation and too much brings chaos
Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting.
If at first you dont succeed, skydiving is not for you!!
 
September 13th, 2004   #13
Doppleganger
 
 
Rourke's Drift is indeed a good contender but for sheer scale and amount of casualties and prisoners on one side you can't look past the Battle of Kiev.
 
September 14th, 2004   #14
Red_Army
 
 
Opium War
Britain vs. China (1839-1842)

Britain 10,000 troops
China 150,000 troops

Result: Hong Kong ceded to British Empire, $ 5 million in silver + 5 ports.
 
September 14th, 2004   #15
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
You know, some people think Hitler actually made the right decision here. There's a school of thought that says that Armeegruppen Mitte may have been outflanked on their right hand side had they not dealt with the Soviet Armies in the Ukrainian sector first.

I'm not convinced myself I have to add.
Me either. Moscow was the logistical heart of the Russian military machine. Resupply for Leningrad and Kiev would have been poor at best had it been taken and held. Army Group Center was not likely to be outflanked. They were advancing too quickly, so their greatest danger was outrunning their supply lines. If the German Armed Forces had been left to creatively adapt to whatever changes came, I don't think this would have been a major issue either.


"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too fond of it."
- General Robert E. Lee
Warning, critical pebkac error in the iD10t!! pebkac\wtflolurpwnzd\snafuroflmao.exe called iD10t, iD10t failed to respond!! System in danger!!

"It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man." -Chevy Chase
 
September 14th, 2004   #16
gladius
 
The battle of Blood River.

Boers (South African settlers) vs the Zulu.

After a Zulu incursion into Boer territory which killed many settlers, the Boers went to go after the Zulu. About 400 Boers picked a good defensible spot by the Ncome River and circled their wagons into a lager. A massive Zulu horde came and attacked and a pitched battle was fought.

The result: Around 10,000 Zulu wariors lay dead. As for the Boer casualties, one man got a cut on his hand.

--------

But I gotta agree with Kiev and Barbarossa for sheer scale.
 
September 14th, 2004   #17
godofthunder9010
 
 
Hmmm, are you sure of the total of dead Zulu being 10,000? This site http://www.travelbutlers.com/South-A...ttlefields.asp says it was 3,000, but the overall size of the Zulu force apparently was 10,000.
 
September 15th, 2004   #18
gladius
 
Yes I might be wrong, but in the book I read they never mentioned the casualties, they just mentioned the 10,000 and that they were totaly massacred. Not to mention I read this story about 5 years ago, so my memory is a bit cloudy. It was a really great book about the history of South Africa by a really famous author I forgot who.
 
September 15th, 2004   #19
Paddster
 
My Great-Great-Great-Great Grandad fought at Rorkes Drift! He was only 15 years old... he brought back the Union Jack, and was awarded a medal for it.

http://www.gtj.org.uk/item.php?lang=en&id=18634&t=1 thats him on the site
 
September 15th, 2004   #20
Fix bayonets
 
 
I have two battles that I wish to mention one of which is American, although I am British.

The first one is the Alamo; 185 VOLUNTEERS fought for thirteen days against a proffessional army of 4,000 men, eventually climaxing in a Battle in which all of the brave volunters lost their lives.

The second one is Assaye; where Major-General Arthur Wellesley with 4,520 British and Indian soldiers attacked an army of 47,000 Maratha tribesmen and regular soldiers and Wellesley won.
 



Tags
battle, casualties, history, one-sided, sizes