The 20th century’s 10 deadliest battles

[11B4V]

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.

You must also coincide the dates the different sides encompass for the operation. For the Russians it's 23 June- 29 Aug '44. German sources cite 22 June-4 July '44 for the German loss figures. So, it would be logical to conclude the Russian figures would be much lower using the German dates.

[grumbler]

Mukden?

The author can't decide whether he is talking about battles or disasters (or neither, like Tet).  Muckden was certainly up there on the casualty scale for battles, but I think there were probably ten battles on the eastern front in WW2 alone that had greater casualties.

[lustindarkness]

Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?

[11B4V]

IMO, the only EF battle that belongs on that list is Stalingrad.

Moscow a close second.

[grumbler]

IMO, the only EF battle that belongs on that list is Stalingrad.

Moscow a close second.

I'd argue that Second Kharkov and the Battle of Berlin belong to that list as well, if the list is one of costly disasters.

[crazy canuck]

Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?

Those 20th century battles/disasters/engagements or whatever bone pick Grumbler has, have nothing on the battles/disasters/engagements of the American Civil War. 

[Syt]

IMO, the only EF battle that belongs on that list is Stalingrad.

Moscow a close second.

I'd argue that Second Kharkov and the Battle of Berlin belong to that list as well, if the list is one of costly disasters.

I would possible add Kursk to the list.

[grumbler]

I would possible add Kursk to the list.

I'm not sure you could argue that Kursk was really a disaster for the Germans or Soviets, though.  The Soviets won, but suffered considerably more losses.  If it is just bloody battles, I'd agree with you.

[lustindarkness]

Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?

Those 20th century battles/disasters/engagements or whatever bone pick Grumbler has, have nothing on the battles/disasters/engagements of the American Civil War. 

This is true.

[crazy canuck]

Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?

Those 20th century battles/disasters/engagements or whatever bone pick Grumbler has, have nothing on the battles/disasters/engagements of the American Civil War. 

This is true.

Those pussies at kursk hide behind armour.

[lustindarkness]

At the Great Languish Gettysburg Meet grumbler showed us where he fought those glorious three days. He explained how they would line up and march straight into the enemy lines. No armor there, those brave men had no need for that.

[Eddie Teach]

Just imagine if Pickett's men had kevlar vests.   

[crazy canuck]

Just imagine if Pickett's men had kevlar vests.   

Wouldnt that just weigh them down as they charged?

[Viking]

IMO, the only EF battle that belongs on that list is Stalingrad.

Moscow a close second.

It says deadliest battles, not decisive.

[derspiess]

I'm not sure you could argue that Kursk was really a disaster for the Germans or Soviets, though.  The Soviets won, but suffered considerably more losses.  If it is just bloody battles, I'd agree with you.

It was a strategic blunder for the Germans, but yeah I wouldn't say it was a disaster.