I suspect this might trigger a little light disagreement:
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurethe-20th-centurys-10-deadliest-battles---the-worst-military-disasters-4181684/ (http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurethe-20th-centurys-10-deadliest-battles---the-worst-military-disasters-4181684/)
The 20th century witnessed some of the worst military disasters ever in history during the two World Wars and other conflicts. Army-technology.com lists the ten worst military disasters in the 20th century based on the reported casualties.
Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Stalingrad caused about two million casualties from Soviet and Axis forces and stands as one of the century's worst military disaster. It was one of the bloodiest battles in history and is considered as one of the major battles in the World War II.
The Germans were surprised by the troop strength of the Red Army at Stalingrad (now Volgograd) as the Soviet Union deployed over a million soldiers in Operation Uranus to thwart the German Army inside the city. The Axis forces were heavily defeated by the Red Army at Stalingrad, resulting in withdrawal of their vast military force from the West to reinforce the losses in the East.
The death toll at Stalingrad was huge, leaving about 850,000 Axis soldiers dead, missing or wounded in the battle, and more than a million Soviet soldiers downed, missing or wounded. Most of the civilians residing in the city also died during the combat.
Battle of Moscow
The Battle of Moscow, code-named 'Operation Typhoon' by the Germans, occurred during World War II and witnessed about 1.6 million casualties.
The battle, which commenced in October 1941, was largely a defensive effort by the Soviets against the German attack on Moscow. The Red Army counter-attacked against the Germans to enable them to withdraw from Moscow when the offensive ceased.
The battle ended in January 1942, leaving estimated casualties of 174,000 to 400,000 for Germany and 650,000 to 1.2 million casualties for the Red Army. The defence of Moscow marked the success of Soviet resistance against the Axis forces and an operational and tactical failure for the Germans.
Battle of the Somme
The Battle of the Somme, also known as the Somme Offensive, caused the loss of more than 1.2 million lives from both the British-French empires and German Empire . Fought from July to November 1918 near the Somme River in France, it was one of the biggest conflicts of World War I.
The Battle of the Somme remains one of the bloodiest fights in history having caused approximately 57,000 casualties for the British Army on the very first day of the battle, blamed on the inexperience and patchy training of the British soldiers.
About 420,000 soldiers of British and Commonwealth forces died, were wounded or went missing during the fight, while French losses were more than 204,000 . On the other hand, the German Empire suffered about 680,000 casualties. The Allied forces seized a strip of land just 20 miles wide and 6 miles long from German possession at the cost of a huge number of casualties.
Operation Bagration
With total casualties of over 1.1 million, Operation Bagration was one of the worst military disasters in the history. Operation Bagration was a code name of the Belorussian Strategic Offensive Operation to clear German forces from the Belorussian SSR and eastern Poland during World War II.
The operation resulted in the devastation of 28 of 38 German Army divisions. About 350,000 to 400,000 men from the German Army were killed, wounded or captured. It was treated as the defeat resulting in the most German armed forces casualties in World War II.
The Red Army suffered more than 770,000 casualties, of which 180,000 were killed or missing in the action, and over 590,000 men were wounded. The Soviet forces liberated a large amount of their territory from Germany and significantly destroyed the German Army Group Centre.
Battle of Gallipoli
The Battle of Gallipoli, also referred to as the Gallipoli Campaign or the Dardanelles Campaign, left over 500,000 casualties. Fought on the Gallipoli peninsula, the World War I battle turned into a disaster when the Allied powers failed to control the sea route from Europe to Russia.
British and French vessels initiated naval attack on the Dardanelles Straits in February 1915, while troops from Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand invaded the Gallipoli Peninsula on land in April of the same year.
The Allied powers suffered over 250,000 casualties prior to their final evacuation from Gallipoli in January 2016, and the Ottoman Empire's casualties and losses totalled 218,000 to 250,000. The invasion ended unsuccessful as the Allied forces experienced fierce counter-attack from Ottoman troops. Bad weather, insufficient artillery, and inaccurate maps and intelligence also contributed to the failure of the Allied forces.
Battle of France
The Battle of France, or the Fall of France as it is more popularly known, accounted for total casualties of more than 500,000 soldiers from Allied and Axis forces. The battle included Fall Gelb (Case Yellow) and Fall Rot (Case Red) operations.
The Fall of France was a successful German invasion of France, as well as Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. About 360,000 men of the Allied armies were dead or wounded, while the Axis suffered over 160,000 casualties.
The French military resistance ended when German forces occupied Paris in June 1940 and France was subsequently occupied by Germany under an armistice signed between the nations. France remained under Axis occupation until liberated by the Allied forces in 1944.
Battle of Kolubara
The Battle of Kolubara or the Battle of Suvobor turned into one of the worst military disasters when a strong Austria-Hungarian invasion force was turned back by a poorly-equipped Serbian Army. The battle resulted in more than 350,000 casualties.
The Battle of Kolubara was regarded as the biggest fight between the Serbian and Austro-Hungarian armies during World War I. It involved the deployment of 450,000 Austria-Hungarian troops and 250,000 Serbian forces.
Austria-Hungarian armies suffered 224,500 casualties, and the Serbian Army's casualties accounted for 133,000 troops. The battle proved the successful Serbian counteroffensive capabilities against well-equipped Austria-Hungarian forces.
Tet Offensive
The Tet Offensive, resulting in total casualties of more than 100,000, was a major offensive began by North Vietnam and the Viet Cong against South Vietnam, the United States, and their allies in 1968.
The Tet Offensive was one of the biggest military combats of the Vietnam War. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong lost over 45,000 troops, while over 20,000 soldiers of South Vietnam and allies were killed and wounded in the action. Over 14,000 civilians died and 24,000 were wounded during the conflict.
The Tet Offensive proved to be a turning point in the Vietnam War. The conflict had a heavy impact on the US government and ultimately led to the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam, although it was a tactical victory for the South Vietnam and US forces.
Operation Market Garden
The Operation Market Garden disaster occurred when Allied forces failed to encircle the Ruhr Area. The battle resulted in over 26,000 casualties.
Allied forces launched Operation Market Garden in September 1944 to create a 64 mile-long airborne corridor allowing the entry of tanks and troops into Northern Germany. Over 20,000 paratroopers and more than 13,500 glider pilots, 5,200t of equipment, 1,900 vehicles and 560 guns were dropped during the operation making it the biggest airborne operation of those times.
Allied troops successfully captured a number of bridges during the initial stages of the operation, but experienced fiercer German resistance than expected. The Allies failed to cross the Rhine River in sufficient force and, as a result, suffered over 17,000 casualties. The German casualties and losses were estimated at about 9,000.
Six-Day War
The Six-Day War, also known as the Third Arab-Israeli War, caused more than 23,000 casualties in a surprise attack by Israel on Egypt, Jordan and Syria in response to Arab threats of invasion.
The Six-Day War began on 5 June 1967 when Israel launched surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-ields. The Air Forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria suffered heavy damage due to Israeli Air Force attacks. Israel launched a series of ground, air and naval attacks, and took control of the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
Israel suffered minimal casualties of over 5,000, while Egypt's casualties totalled 15,000. The casualties of Syria and Jordan accounted for 2,500 and 800 respectively.
I disapprove of this list.
The Sino-Japanese war from 1937-45 is not covered? The no. of casualties is in the millions.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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.
The only battles that deserve a place in a top 10 battles list for the 20th century that are not on the eastern front are Verdun and Somme. Pathetic piss ant stuff like Tet, 6 Day War and Market Garden doesn't.
Just off the top of my head, Kursk, Dniepr Crossing, Kiev, Kharkov, Veliki Luki all deserve to kick the non-east front and non-somme battles off the list. There is at least half a dozen more that I recognize by name and a further dozen that I don't that deserve a place on this list from the east front.
How is Verdun not on that list?
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2014, 06:26:02 AM
How is Verdun not on that list?
Dead Frenchmen don't count :contract:
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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.
Still. Some of the large battles in the Sino-Japanese war must have caused more casualties than, say, the six-day war.
Even if their criterium is "worst military disasters" (from whose perspective, actually?), the list is more than a bit dubious?
The Battle of Shanghai was probably the biggest single battle in the Second Sino-Japanese War with maybe 300.000 casualities. Certainly bigger than the Six Day War.
The Siege of Leningrad saw something like 4 million casualities among military and civilians.
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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.
Pray, may I ask who the author might be?
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2014, 06:59:08 AM
Pray, may I ask who the author might be?
Not me, which is what you're really asking, right?
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 07:00:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2014, 06:59:08 AM
Pray, may I ask who the author might be?
Not me, which is what you're really asking, right?
Well, there was no author name on the article. But it is good to confirm that you are NOT the author.
The author is talking military disasters, which I assume to mean serious losses or, as with the Tet offensive and six day war, events which caused one side enough political damage to change the will to continue hostilities. So in that sense he/she may have a point, but many of the other battles noted would also qualify. Maybe the author didn't want to name every one of the examples with battles on the WW2 eastern front, and chose other criteria.
But it explicitly says that
QuoteArmy-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.
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 27, 2014, 08:05:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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!
I suspect a lot of Wiki may have been involved in this one :hmm:
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 :lol:
Top Ten Spartan Latrines:
10 the trench Sans Testicles dug at Cornith, 407 BC
Etc. etc.
Torpedo boats of the ancients.
Katmai's battle of the bulge
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 10:04:43 AM
I suspect a lot of Wiki may have been involved in this one :hmm:
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 :lol:
Offer it up for editing here. The vultures would then be good for your final product.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 27, 2014, 08:05:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 06:23:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 27, 2014, 06:21:02 AM
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. :blush:
Quote from: 11B4V on February 27, 2014, 10:56:05 AM
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.
Mukden?
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 11:18:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 27, 2014, 10:56:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Neil on February 27, 2014, 11:34:42 AM
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.
Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?
IMO, the only EF battle that belongs on that list is Stalingrad.
Moscow a close second.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 27, 2014, 01:13:09 PM
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.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 27, 2014, 01:13:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2014, 02:20:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
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.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 02:37:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
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.
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.
Just imagine if Pickett's men had kevlar vests. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 27, 2014, 02:52:17 PM
Just imagine if Pickett's men had kevlar vests. :hmm:
Wouldnt that just weigh them down as they charged?
Quote from: 11B4V on February 27, 2014, 01:13:09 PM
IMO, the only EF battle that belongs on that list is Stalingrad.
Moscow a close second.
It says deadliest battles, not decisive.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2014, 02:27:32 PM
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.
Is this Daily Slate?
I'm having that now with my constipation.
MAH COLACE
Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 07:00:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2014, 06:59:08 AM
Pray, may I ask who the author might be?
Not me, which is what you're really asking, right?
We know you wouldn't confuse battles with campaigns, dear. :hug:
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?
Fact; America's most deadly enemy in her wars has been Americans...
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
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.
Yeah, I read that the Battle of Sharpsburg had the highest casualties for one day until the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Which in itself is considered the deadliest day of battle ever.
Quote from: PJL on February 28, 2014, 04:51:43 AM
Yeah, I read that the Battle of Sharpsburg had the highest casualties for one day until the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Which in itself is considered the deadliest day of battle ever.
Cannae is a fairly well documented one day battle which probably saw more dead than the first day of the Somme. And I am sure there must be more ancient or medieval battles like that. When you just meet with two armies on a field and slaughter each other, you can get very high one day losses.
What makes industrial warfare so deadly is that these kind of battles were sustained over weeks and months.
Quote from: Zanza on February 28, 2014, 05:13:50 AM
Cannae is a fairly well documented one day battle which probably saw more dead than the first day of the Somme. And I am sure there must be more ancient or medieval battles like that. When you just meet with two armies on a field and slaughter each other, you can get very high one day losses.
What makes industrial warfare so deadly is that these kind of battles were sustained over weeks and months.
What makes industrial warfare so deadly is also that the victor was almost as devastated as the loser, and so the battles, while bloody, were not decisive. In a battle like Cannae, the bulk of the Roman losses came after their formations fell apart, and so were inflicted at hugely disproportionate rates. There was still an effective Carthaginian army to take advantage of its victory and make sure the broken Romans didn't escape and recover.
Yeah, it seems that ancient battles (as far as I know, not an expert), were fairly low casualties until one side broke due to exhaustion or being flanked. The victors would then slaughter the defeated if they could.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 27, 2014, 02:52:17 PM
Just imagine if Pickett's men had kevlar vests. :hmm:
What would have happened if South African racists went back in time and gave the Confederacy AK-47s? So we know the answer to that one.
But what if at the same time, the NAACP found out about the plot, and went back in time to deliver kevlar vests to the Union?
Now that sounds like the makings of a great book...
Quote from: PDH on February 28, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Yeah, it seems that ancient battles (as far as I know, not an expert), were fairly low casualties until one side broke due to exhaustion or being flanked. The victors would then slaughter the defeated if they could.
We should go back to that.
How many ancient battles had the sheer number of participants in them? Logistics made uber-concentrations of soldiers relatively rare.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2014, 06:21:42 PM
How many ancient battles had the sheer number of participants in them? Logistics made uber-concentrations of soldiers relatively rare.
I am not sure what you are arguing. Certainly, numbers reported in ancient "histories" are generally much exaggerated (like the "two million man" army Xerxes supposedly invaded Greece with), but large armies (like that of Xerxes, which may well have been in excess of 500,000 including support personnel) were mustered for a campaign season. Alesia probably involved a quarter-million men and probably saw 100,000 casualties, including prisoners later released.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 28, 2014, 11:28:44 AM
Quote from: PDH on February 28, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Yeah, it seems that ancient battles (as far as I know, not an expert), were fairly low casualties until one side broke due to exhaustion or being flanked. The victors would then slaughter the defeated if they could.
We should go back to that.
We do.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitaljournalist.org%2Fissue0212%2Fimages%2Fturnley%2F4.jpg&hash=4b11d77d5c48d11c4c99b140cdcef580f1ef4f7f)
My pants are a dairy factory.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itshappeningnews.com%2Fimg%2F1388244719973.gif&hash=1b78f007cd635ef24934d096b26adbb853cd89a3)