The World's Bloodiest Battles - Aircraft of World War II

comiso90 · 07-29-2009, 08:56 AM

It's a shame more Americans dont know the scope of the carnage on the Eastern Front.

The World's Bloodiest Battles - Photo Gallery, 21 Pictures - LIFE

.

Catch22 · 07-29-2009, 09:37 AM

Great photos!

timshatz · 07-29-2009, 09:38 AM

Saw it. Don't really think they got it right. While the Eastern Front was a big time blood bath and deserved to be in the list of bloodiest battles, the perspective was definitely western centric. Some of the battles that weren't in there and should've been there are, (IMHO and in no particular order):

Borodino
Cannae
Waterloo
Shiloh
Almost anything in the East (China V Japan over the past 1000 years)

The problem with the methodology is they battles Time uses are more campaigns than battles. Most battles in antiquity (over 100 years ago) were one day affairs. If you extrapolate the casualties of that single day into a battle as long as Stalingrad, you would litterally have millions of dead.

The definition of battle has changed and that probably started some time around the American Civil War. Not quite the same anymore.

comiso90 · 07-29-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshatz

Saw it. Don't really think they got it right. While the Eastern Front was a big time blood bath and deserved to be in the list of bloodiest battles, the perspective was definitely western centric. Some of the battles that weren't in there and should've been there are, (IMHO and in no particular order):

Borodino
Cannae
Waterloo
Shiloh
Almost anything in the East (China V Japan over the past 1000 years)

The problem with the methodology is they battles Time uses are more campaigns than battles. Most battles in antiquity (over 100 years ago) were one day affairs. If you extrapolate the casualties of that single day into a battle as long as Stalingrad, you would litterally have millions of dead.

The definition of battle has changed and that probably started some time around the American Civil War. Not quite the same anymore.

Errr... give them a break... I dont think Life had any cameras at Waterloo! It's in the context of photos
.

vikingBerserker · 07-29-2009, 10:01 AM

I think the problem with some of the battles you listed was more due to a lack of cameras during that time period.

timshatz · 07-29-2009, 10:24 AM

Ok, I gotcha. It was a picture spread and LIFE magazine is a picture mag. Cool with that.

My point was, outside of Stalingrad, they really weren't the most bloody battles in history. More along the lines of the "Bloodiest Battles we have pictures of". I could go with that one.

comiso90 · 07-29-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshatz

Ok, I gotcha. It was a picture spread and LIFE magazine is a picture mag. Cool with that.

My point was, outside of Stalingrad, they really weren't the most bloody battles in history. More along the lines of the "Bloodiest Battles we have pictures of". I could go with that one.

Yes..agreed... but its a title of a article not a text book. You are right though... there are a lot of 8 year olds (and adult morons) out there that will think D-Day was one of the "Bloodiest Battles" when in fact it's probably not in the top 200.

we could go back to Hannibal...

timshatz · 07-29-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comiso90

Yes..agreed... but its a title of a article not a text book. You are right though... there are a lot of 8 year olds (and adult morons) out there that will think D-Day was one of the "Bloodiest Battles" when in fact it's probably not in the top 200.

we could go back to Hannibal...

Yeah, bad as D-Day was, the Soviet Union had battles that bad or worse every day. Statistically anyway. If you figure there were 1000 dead at Omaha beach (worst beach on D-Day). Soviet Union lost something like 27 million in less than 4 years,civilians inclusive, strictly military is about 9 million-not sure on that last number.

1400 days/27,000,000= 19,285 dead per day (civilians inclusive)
Strictly military 1400/9,000,000= 6,428 dead per day.

So the Soviet Union has a battle 5x worse than Omaha beach every day for close to 4 years.

Jeez, I knew it was bad but when you do the math...

comiso90 · 07-29-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshatz

Yeah, bad as D-Day was, the Soviet Union had battles that bad or worse every day. Statistically anyway. If you figure there were 1000 dead at Omaha beach (worst beach on D-Day). Soviet Union lost something like 27 million in less than 4 years,civilians inclusive, strictly military is about 9 million-not sure on that last number.

1400 days/27,000,000= 19,285 dead per day (civilians inclusive)
Strictly military 1400/9,000,000= 6,428 dead per day.

So the Soviet Union has a battle 5x worse than Omaha beach every day for close to 4 years.

Jeez, I knew it was bad but when you do the math...

Quite a breakdown timshatz...

Many people are ignorant about history.. but even the WW2 generation can be clueless..

To this day, my mother, and many others from her generation, have no clue about the carnage on the eastern front. She thinks it was an unimportant side show and the real fighting was in the west...

sigh...
.

Njaco · 07-29-2009, 11:45 AM

I was gonna disagree on the Gettysburg pic - I believe Antienam had about 50,000 casualties in one day. Almost for the whole Vietnam War. I may be wrong but after what you guys said about pics, that might be the criteria they're going with.

ToughOmbre · 07-29-2009, 12:50 PM

Chris,

Antietam was the bloodiest one-day battle of the Civil War. But there were other battles, lasting more than one day, in which more men fell. The numbers below are total casualties for both sides.

comiso90 · 07-29-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Chris,

Antietam was the bloodiest one-day battle of the Civil War.

and American History

ToughOmbre · 07-29-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comiso90

and American History

Absolutely!

TO

michaelmaltby · 07-29-2009, 05:03 PM

Comiso - I agree with your premise. That said, it's a shame more people outside the USA don't know the extent of the Civil War "butcher's bill".
Understanding the effect of that war on American society is fundamental to understanding America today. The American public will not tolerate a long war - no matter how just.

Good thread.

MM

BombTaxi · 07-29-2009, 06:01 PM

Very interesting - although as a point of semantics, I would have to say that most of these engagements were really campaigns rather than battles, although the two seem to become interchangeable from WWI onwards. Seeing stuff like this really puts into the perspective the way that technology has changed the battlefield over the last two centuries, first leading to a massive increase in casualties between 1850 and 1945, then a decrease ever since as wars are increasingly fought over much larger spaces with fewer troops...

07-29-2009, 08:56 AM	#1
comiso90 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: FL Posts: 3,514	The World's Bloodiest Battles It's a shame more Americans dont know the scope of the carnage on the Eastern Front. The World's Bloodiest Battles - Photo Gallery, 21 Pictures - LIFE . __________________ http://www.BOOKSonWAR.com/ .

07-29-2009, 09:37 AM	#2
Catch22 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 4,630	Great photos! __________________

07-29-2009, 10:01 AM	#5
vikingBerserker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,171	I think the problem with some of the battles you listed was more due to a lack of cameras during that time period. __________________ Take arrows in your forehead, but never in your back. - Samurai maxim

07-29-2009, 11:45 AM	#10
Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States Posts: 11,813	I was gonna disagree on the Gettysburg pic - I believe Antienam had about 50,000 casualties in one day. Almost for the whole Vietnam War. I may be wrong but after what you guys said about pics, that might be the criteria they're going with. __________________ "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" http://www.njcacoa.org/

07-29-2009, 06:01 PM	#15
BombTaxi Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Brownhills, W. Mids, UK Posts: 1,189	Very interesting - although as a point of semantics, I would have to say that most of these engagements were really campaigns rather than battles, although the two seem to become interchangeable from WWI onwards. Seeing stuff like this really puts into the perspective the way that technology has changed the battlefield over the last two centuries, first leading to a massive increase in casualties between 1850 and 1945, then a decrease ever since as wars are increasingly fought over much larger spaces with fewer troops... __________________ Good generals think about tactics. Great generals think about logistics. "If freedom is to be saved and enlarged, poverty must be ended. There is no other solution." - Nye Bevan "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" - John Donne, Meditation XVII

07-29-2009, 09:38 AM	#3
timshatz Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa Posts: 3,808	Saw it. Don't really think they got it right. While the Eastern Front was a big time blood bath and deserved to be in the list of bloodiest battles, the perspective was definitely western centric. Some of the battles that weren't in there and should've been there are, (IMHO and in no particular order): Borodino Cannae Waterloo Shiloh Almost anything in the East (China V Japan over the past 1000 years) The problem with the methodology is they battles Time uses are more campaigns than battles. Most battles in antiquity (over 100 years ago) were one day affairs. If you extrapolate the casualties of that single day into a battle as long as Stalingrad, you would litterally have millions of dead. The definition of battle has changed and that probably started some time around the American Civil War. Not quite the same anymore.

07-29-2009, 10:24 AM	#6
timshatz Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa Posts: 3,808	Ok, I gotcha. It was a picture spread and LIFE magazine is a picture mag. Cool with that. My point was, outside of Stalingrad, they really weren't the most bloody battles in history. More along the lines of the "Bloodiest Battles we have pictures of". I could go with that one.

07-29-2009, 05:03 PM	#14
michaelmaltby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 293	Comiso - I agree with your premise. That said, it's a shame more people outside the USA don't know the extent of the Civil War "butcher's bill". Understanding the effect of that war on American society is fundamental to understanding America today. The American public will not tolerate a long war - no matter how just. Good thread. MM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode