Fiercest Battle in History

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

Percentage, not numbers outright. The US lost approx 10% of their forces at Guadalcanal, the Australians lost 21% of their forces in New Guinea. Thats what I mean. Percentage of soldiers lost in battle is a good way of figuring the impact.
 
If you want to talk percentages, AussieNick, that's fine. The Germans had over 200,000 troops in Stalingrad at the start of the battle and only 93,000 went into captivity so that's a greater than 50% loss ratio for the Germans alone. The Russian figures will never be accurately known but all who were there on both sides said it was much worse for them. A further note, although not part of the battle itself, the loss ratio for those Germans in captivity was far greater than those who died in combat. Of those 93,000 only 2400 ever returned to Germany so nothing approaches Stalingrad. Your troops suffered terribly it's true, but they did not suffer worse than Stalingrad.
 
As soon as you factor the Russian Winter into the equation, the Eastern Front of WW2 was perhaps the most horrible war area in history. The question is, which of those battles was the fiercest. Stalingrad would probably be it, but there are many alternatives that were quite terrible.
 
Kane said:
Like you guys mentioned earlier, Stalingrad.

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

My nominees would be:

- battle of Gaugamela (331 BC, Alex the Great vs. Dareios the Persian emperor)
- Varus campaign (9 AD, 3 roman legions under Varus vs. Arminius and his germanic tribes)
- battle of Azincourt (1415, 6000 Britons, mostly longbow archers vs. a french army of 26000, mostly knights and noblemen)

More recent, the Napoleonic Wars:
- battle of the nations at Leipzig (1813, France and several smaller allies (Poland,...) vs Prussia, Sweden, Austria and Russia)
- battle of Borodino (1812, la grande armée vs. a Russian army led by general Kutusow)

These are some that come to mind, though my knowledge of ancient history is deficient at best so there may be many others.

Gaugamela, Leipzig and Borodino stand out judging from the mere number of casualties. OTOH, three legions plus auxiliaries was an impressive army at the time of the Varus campaign and there were only few roman survivors.
Azincourt isnt a bad guess either, many casualties in a short span of time, slaughtering of prisoners by the British, etc.
 
lol, this is really funny

stalingrad wins hands down.

citybattles are the bloodies of them all. men determined to reach the volga aginist men determined to defend to their deaths, you can imagine how bloody it would be.

the death toll also agree that stalingrad is the grandest and bloodiest battle of them all

3 months of both sides going at each other with any weapons they can lay their hands on is quite a long time for such a men-wasting battle
 
okies

I still say when the Romans invaded England.................pure true bloody evil history. Thats when battles were wars!!
 
I don't know about that..... I'd be more frightened to charge into machine gun fire while being under-armed and have a fear of being shot if I retreat than lining up on a field and then the two sides charging each other. Also house-to-house is a tactical nightmare where the majority of casualties occurs, and Stalingrad was the bloodiest city battle. I think Borodino maybe the bloodiest field battle.
 
Well its kind of a silly question really.. Stalingrad "is" the fiercest battle.
Thats a fact.. not much to debate really...
 
think about it

Just because one battle has guns and another from 43bc doesn't.........that doesn't offically make it fiercer.....you think romans version of a gun would of been the weapons they used and it scared people just as guns scare us
 
actually, i think sharpel and artillery gun fire that could split ur body, rip ur limbs apart and create holes in your body is alot more evere than a mere knife wound
 
paratroopa said:
actually, i think sharpel and artillery gun fire that could split ur body, rip ur limbs apart and create holes in your body is alot more evere than a mere knife wound
Click to expand...

O I don't know, I'm pretty sure spears put holes in your body, and swords no doupt rip your limbs off pretty good.

That being said, it would be a mistake to assume ancient battles were continuous. Most historians believe that ancient battles, perticularaly Roman and Greek period ones, would have been faught in many short periods, with the formations moving into each other and fighting hand to hand for a brief period of time then pulling back, recouping and attacking again. Certainly it was not like the continuous warfare we see in more modern times.
 
Anyone think of this one?

Well i guess it really boils down to your definition of " feirce" personally i think you would also have to put sometime of time limit when you say " the most fierce battle" If you have a open ended time limit, then ya the huge drawn out siege of stalingrad would probably win. If you are looking at single BATTLE, that is a 1-3 day confrontation by two opposing armies. I would definitiely go with a older war. Melee combat, in my mind, will always be much more up close, much more personal, and much much more fierce then the combat of modern times. ( Thats not to belittle the harsh conditions of modern combat)

I think, with a reasonable time contraint, the fierciest battle would be the battle of Cannae. Im sure your all familiar with it, its where Hannible implemented this massive double envelopment, surrounded 70 thousand or so terrified Romans, and proceeded to slaughter them for a whole day. I think when men are backed into a corner, they fight hardest and fierciest. Plus the up close and personal nature of ancient warfare would have made it definitely a contender for the fiereciest fight.
 
if ur talking about fierce as in concentration of men and the amount of time, then i definetly say kursk

especially the battle of provohoka where thousands of tanks clash and thousands of invantry fought from trench to trench

the battle lasted a whole day and thousands of tanks lay dead, nearly 1/3 of russian tank strength was used up

i still say modern battles are more fierce
 
Re: Anyone think of this one?

PasLon said:
I think, with a reasonable time contraint, the fierciest battle would be the battle of Cannae. Im sure your all familiar with it, its where Hannible implemented this massive double envelopment, surrounded 70 thousand or so terrified Romans, and proceeded to slaughter them for a whole day. I think when men are backed into a corner, they fight hardest and fierciest. Plus the up close and personal nature of ancient warfare would have made it definitely a contender for the fiereciest fight.
Click to expand...
Having just come off writing a term paper on the Punic wars, I think I might have something to say. Wars of this period were bloody; but generally not terribly "fierce". "Fierce" would imply a continuous swirling melee of un halted slaughter...ancient warfare did not look like that. The simple fact that both the Carthagrinian and Roman armies were heavily dependant on heavy infantry meant that both sides would only fight for short durations of time, back off, then go at it again.

In comparison, Stalingrad was fought 24 hours a day, every day, for it's entire durations. There were no pauses in the conflict; and troops would be fighting on the front for prolonged periods of time. This contrasts sharply with the battles of the Punic wars, were only a small percentage(the first ranks) of troops actually fought, and only then for small periods of time, a quarter of an hour at the most. To prove this, try pugilt(sticks with padded ends) fighting for a 3 minute bought...it's exhausting. That's with only a stick, and maybe some football/hockey gear on. The Romans and Carthaginians wore bronze and carried wooden shields(for the most part).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top