what was the largest british land battle of ww2




 
--
 
August 28th, 2005  
knight01
 

Topic: what was the largest british land battle of ww2


does anyone know what the largest british land battle of the war was. i know that the battle of the bulge the usa's largest land battle but i would like to know about the largest mainly british land was. help would be appreciated
August 28th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Now that is a question and half, We had enormous forces in North Africa, Europe, and South East Asia and we could not have afford to lose on any of these fronts.
August 28th, 2005  
TBA_PAKI
 
Probably the battle of Al-alamein in EGYPT, led by "Montgomery" and total troops envolved in this operation were 220,000 with 1000 Tanks vs 500 Tanks of Afrika Corps.
--
August 28th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
We had more than that when we put our Armies into Europe.
August 29th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Largest, depending on what. Numbers of soldiers/tanks/shells fired/days fought/deaths? It's hard to say.

But, It'd be the battle of Monte Casino in my opinion. 3 months to take one bloody mountain.
August 30th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Monte Casino....was an international Battle, with Indians, Gurkha's, Poles, Chechz,Kiwis, Canadians and Americans all taking part I forgot also top add the Free French that did some good work on this battle.
August 30th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
We had more than that when we put our Armies into Europe.
I think LeEnfield is correct. The largest British only land battle in WWII was likely Brits vs. Germans in and around the Belgian border in May 1940 - which of course lead to Dunkirk and that's probably why it isn't a number bandied about. Better to remember the men who were saved at Dunkirk rather than the total amount of men who had been fielded. Too easy to see then the amount lost. Not a favorable thing in wartime and now as years have passed still not a thing popular to remember.
August 30th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Charge 7 mentioned Normandy. when you think that we lost 27,000 killed just taking Caen it will give you some idea of the size of this battle. There where nine German divisions in Normandy and 6 of them where around Cane, and they developed defence in depth all around this area so as you over ran one line you then ran in to the next one very shortly and it worked out to be a war of attrition. I should also menetion that the Canadians fought hard all round this area and a number were tied up and then shot by the Germans, and it was not just the odd one whole groups of them were found killed this way.
August 31st, 2005  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
We had more than that when we put our Armies into Europe.
I think LeEnfield is correct. The largest British only land battle in WWII was likely Brits vs. Germans in and around the Belgian border in May 1940 - which of course lead to Dunkirk and that's probably why it isn't a number bandied about.
Actually the British forces saw little combat as such in that area, the collapse of the French flank, forced the British to retreat to the Channel ports almost before battle had been joined
Quote:
Better to remember the men who were saved at Dunkirk rather than the total amount of men who had been fielded. Too easy to see then the amount lost. Not a favorable thing in wartime and now as years have passed still not a thing popular to remember.
The total losses of the British in France was 68,000( killed, wounded, and captured) out of a total of around 335,000.
August 31st, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
We had more than that when we put our Armies into Europe.
I think LeEnfield is correct. The largest British only land battle in WWII was likely Brits vs. Germans in and around the Belgian border in May 1940 - which of course lead to Dunkirk and that's probably why it isn't a number bandied about.
Actually the British forces saw little combat as such in that area, the collapse of the French flank, forced the British to retreat to the Channel ports almost before battle had been joined
Quote:
Better to remember the men who were saved at Dunkirk rather than the total amount of men who had been fielded. Too easy to see then the amount lost. Not a favorable thing in wartime and now as years have passed still not a thing popular to remember.
The total losses of the British in France was 68,000( killed, wounded, and captured) out of a total of around 335,000.
I was under the impression there had been a fighting retreat? How many of the 335,000 were involved in that?

Also, 68,000 out of 335,000 is of course a greater than 20% casualty count. Less, though than I had thought.

One last thing, 335,000 seems like a rather large force of Brits. Was there any larger then?