Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Single bloodies battle in WWII?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by liang, Dec 20, 2004.

  1. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  2. DesertWolf

    DesertWolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    If u discount the POWS and civilians it would probably be Kursk. Otherwise its stalingrad or more probably the seige of leningrad.
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  4. DesertWolf

    DesertWolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Sorry, forgot the battle of Berlin.


    600,000 red soldiers killed, 150,000 german soldiers killed. Add the cilians and ud get...... :eek:
     
  5. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  6. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  7. cheeky_monkey

    cheeky_monkey New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    england
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  8. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Plus Roumanians, plus Hiwis..... add up to another 200,000 potentially for them...
     
  9. Charley

    Charley New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Stockport, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I think both the Somme and Paschendale were bloodier than Verdun
     
  10. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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...
     
  11. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  12. David.W

    David.W Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Devon. England
    via TanksinWW2
    On a proportional scale, I beleive the Hurtgen Forest to have been exceptionally costly to the Americans.
     
  13. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    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?
     
  14. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    8 million USSR soldiers didnt die in that period ! It was more like 3 million, your numbers include prisoners, wounded and civilians.

    KBO
     
  15. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, they include POWs and wounded, but not civilians. There were actually 3,9 million Soviet soldiers taken prisoner in 1941.
     
  16. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    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:
     
  17. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    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
     
  19. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  20. Gatsby phpbb3

    Gatsby phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     

Share This Page