The 20th century’s 10 deadliest battles

[Monoriu]

But it explicitly says that

Army-technology.com lists the ten worst military disasters in the 20th century based on the reported casualties

if that is the only criterion, then the list seems off to me. 

[grumbler]

The Sino-Japanese war from 1937-45 is not covered?  The no. of casualties is in the millions.

The list is individual battles, not wars.

Bad, bad list.  Sometimes it lists battles, and sometimes offensives (like Tet, which included a number of battles).  Sometimes (like Tet) it includes civilian casualties, and sometimes it doesn't.  It seems more like a list drawn up by someone who didn't know the facts, and then some selective figure-quoting to make the numbers come out right.  I find the claim that the Soviets lost almost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration to be laugh-out-loud bullshit.

[jimmy olsen]

The Sino-Japanese war from 1937-45 is not covered?  The no. of casualties is in the millions.

The list is individual battles, not wars.

I find the claim that the Soviets lost almost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration to be laugh-out-loud bullshit.

If we go by killed and captured/missing, then that would be right according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

Germans 180,040 killed and missing
Soviet sources:[7]
381,000 killed
158,480 captured

[Malthus]

If based on casualties, the list is obviously bizzare. You could fit a Six Day Wars' worth of casualties into the Eastern Front of WW2 and it would not even be a footnote.

[derspiess]

Even in their victories the Soviets suffered horrendous casualties-- I don't see it being too hard to believe that they lost nearly twice as many as the Krauts did in Bagration.

[grumbler]

The Sino-Japanese war from 1937-45 is not covered?  The no. of casualties is in the millions.

The list is individual battles, not wars.

I find the claim that the Soviets lost almost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration to be laugh-out-loud bullshit.

If we go by killed and captured/missing, then that would be right according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

Germans 180,040 killed and missing
Soviet sources:[7]
381,000 killed
158,480 captured

First of all, you are talking about Wikipedia, so those numbers certainly are not reliable (the "Soviet Sources" consists of a single historian on a TV show in 2009 - what was "Soviet' about him, and why is he referred to in the plural?  To get more cred? And why does the cited source never present the numbers indicated?  All that source claims is that German losses exceeded 500,000).  Second, losses don't include just killed and missing.  Third, you have reversed the numbers:  the wiki article you cite has the 381,000 killed on the German side, not the Soviet!

[Brazen]

I suspect a lot of Wiki may have been involved in this one

I'm seldom called upon to visit military history in my articles, but if I did I'd be sure not to offer it up to the Languish vultures 

[Ed Anger]

Top Ten Spartan Latrines:

10 the trench Sans Testicles dug at Cornith, 407 BC

Etc. etc.

[Brazen]

Torpedo boats of the ancients.

[Ed Anger]

Katmai's battle of the bulge

[grumbler]

I suspect a lot of Wiki may have been involved in this one

I'm seldom called upon to visit military history in my articles, but if I did I'd be sure not to offer it up to the Languish vultures 

Offer it up for editing here.  The vultures would then be good for your final product.

[11B4V]

The Sino-Japanese war from 1937-45 is not covered?  The no. of casualties is in the millions.

The list is individual battles, not wars.

Bad, bad list.  Sometimes it lists battles, and sometimes offensives (like Tet, which included a number of battles).  Sometimes (like Tet) it includes civilian casualties, and sometimes it doesn't.  It seems more like a list drawn up by someone who didn't know the facts, and then some selective figure-quoting to make the numbers come out right.  I find the claim that the Soviets lost almost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration to be laugh-out-loud bullshit.

770,888 according to G.F. Krivosheev for the Russians.

180,040 KIA/MIA
590,848 WIA

[jimmy olsen]

The Sino-Japanese war from 1937-45 is not covered?  The no. of casualties is in the millions.

The list is individual battles, not wars.

I find the claim that the Soviets lost almost twice as many men as the Germans during Bagration to be laugh-out-loud bullshit.

If we go by killed and captured/missing, then that would be right according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

Germans 180,040 killed and missing
Soviet sources:[7]
381,000 killed
158,480 captured

First of all, you are talking about Wikipedia, so those numbers certainly are not reliable (the "Soviet Sources" consists of a single historian on a TV show in 2009 - what was "Soviet' about him, and why is he referred to in the plural?  To get more cred? And why does the cited source never present the numbers indicated?  All that source claims is that German losses exceeded 500,000).  Second, losses don't include just killed and missing.  Third, you have reversed the numbers:  the wiki article you cite has the 381,000 killed on the German side, not the Soviet!

You are completely correct. I just assumed that as per stereotype the larger number was the Soviet casualties.

[grumbler]

770,888 according to G.F. Krivosheev for the Russians.

180,040 KIA/MIA
590,848 WIA

Krivosheev includes non-combat "casualties" such as frostbite victims and anyone else who reports to a doctor for treatment for anything.   Nothing wrong with that (it is just another methodology) but we'd need comparable German numbers in order to conclude that the Soviets lost twice as many men in Bagration as the Germans.

[Neil]

Mukden?