Which battle claimed the most military victims on both sides in WWII? The wounded/killed/missing only, POWs don't count, neither do civilians. In WWI, I believe it was Verdun, the months long battle claimed over a million casualties.
If u discount the POWS and civilians it would probably be Kursk. Otherwise its stalingrad or more probably the seige of leningrad.
Kursk, Stalingrad or the assault on Berlin. I don't know which one cost the highest amount of casualties, but consider that of 6th Army encircled at Stalingrad, an army of more than 350,000 men, only 90,000 were taken prisoner.
Sorry, forgot the battle of Berlin. 600,000 red soldiers killed, 150,000 german soldiers killed. Add the cilians and ud get......
Yep, that was my 1st guess, it was reported to be the Red Army's bloodies battle in WWII, granted they have lost more soldiers (most via POW) during early phases of the German invasion. I wonder how Stalingrad or Leningrad's military casualties compare with it, anyone got any info? My suspicion is between these 3 battles. Although the Germans suffered their worst defeat (numerically speaking) in Operateion Bagration.
But as was mentioned before that was hardly a battle. It was a campaign. Though Kursk was probably the worst in terms of equipment lost, for both sides, I think the battles of Stalingrad and Berlin indeed are the contestants for most casualties.
the battle of stalingrad total losses are german 800,000 soviet 1,300,000 Total battle casualties = 2,100,000 This makes it the the most costly battle of ww2.
The Somme and Verdun offensives are on lonely depths with each having claimed about a million lives. However, in WW2 the armies involved were much larger and movement of troops much more common; casualties were higher...
In the West, the Battle of the Bulge was the bloodiest, with 88,000 Allied casualties (mostly American) and something over 100,000 Germans. Plus the civilians, of course.
On a proportional scale, I beleive the Hurtgen Forest to have been exceptionally costly to the Americans.
Not only the absolute losses are interesting, I think. One can also look at proportion of losses in battles or campaigns. The most catastrophic proportion in WW2, I believe, was Barbarossa in 1941. In the period June -December the Soviets have lost almost 8 million men against 831 000 Germans. !0:1, in other words. The absolute numbers in itself are impressive. I have no idea what the proportion was at Dieppe. Can anybody help?
8 million USSR soldiers didnt die in that period ! It was more like 3 million, your numbers include prisoners, wounded and civilians. KBO
Yes, they include POWs and wounded, but not civilians. There were actually 3,9 million Soviet soldiers taken prisoner in 1941.
Hurtgen forest , or the Battle of the Bulge , were , in my opinion, the bloodiest battles of WW2, also, Stalingrad was an extremely bloody battle. :kill: :bang:
Stalingrad. "Casualties for the Axis totalled at around 850,000. Among those lost were 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians and 120,000 Hungarians. Soviet military losses totalled at 750,000. More than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs." Wikipedia.
Proportionally, Dieppe should get a nod. Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives. http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/dieppe.html
Proportionately, obviously any battle the Japanese fought to the death had the highest number of casualties. In the west, I think the battle the 1st British airborne put up in Oosterbeek was one of the bloodiest. However neither of these fronts can hold a candle to the sheer scale of fighting in the East, where in absolute numbers as well as maybe in relative numbers, casualties were simply higher.
It seems to me that the battles fought on the Eastern Front were bloodier and on a far larger scale than those in the west.