Fiercest Battle in History
The Battle of Badajoz. The attack started at 2200 hours. 3000 British dead in just a few hours and in mainly 1 spot. Wellington broke down upon seeing the carnage in the breaches. 72 hours followed of an army out of control ending with 4000 dead civilians, who were on their side.
Here is a link in support of my consideration of Assaye, India 1803.
It can be noted that, as the link quotes, Wellington considered it his hardest battle, and did not care to speak of it, but when asked , wuold repliy with one word grunted - 'Assaye'.
http://www.britishbattles.com/second-mahratta/assaye.htm
The '74th Highlanders' quoted became 2nd Bn. The Highland Light Infantry, and, as the link states, they lost all their Officers that day,but one wounded left on the field; they also lost all their NCO's but the quarter-master, down to the Corporals, who continued leading their remnants in the battle.The were awarded the honour of an Elephant on their badge, and each year the Regiment celebrates the battle by allowing the Corporals to take over command of the Regiment for the day. Assaye Day.
Uniquely, I believe, The Highland Light Infantry are in fact not Light Infantry; they have a Support Company, and march at the normal infantry 120 paces as opposed to 180. The 'Light Infantry' title is another hard earned battle honour.
It can be noted that, as the link quotes, Wellington considered it his hardest battle, and did not care to speak of it, but when asked , wuold repliy with one word grunted - 'Assaye'.
Although outnumbered ten to one, General Arthur Wellesley defeated the well trained Mahratta army in one of the fiercest battles in India. It was the first of many victories by the future Duke of Wellington, and the bloodiest for the number, he recalled, that I ever saw.
http://www.britishbattles.com/second-mahratta/assaye.htm
The '74th Highlanders' quoted became 2nd Bn. The Highland Light Infantry, and, as the link states, they lost all their Officers that day,but one wounded left on the field; they also lost all their NCO's but the quarter-master, down to the Corporals, who continued leading their remnants in the battle.The were awarded the honour of an Elephant on their badge, and each year the Regiment celebrates the battle by allowing the Corporals to take over command of the Regiment for the day. Assaye Day.
Uniquely, I believe, The Highland Light Infantry are in fact not Light Infantry; they have a Support Company, and march at the normal infantry 120 paces as opposed to 180. The 'Light Infantry' title is another hard earned battle honour.
Last edited:
Partisan
Active member
Is therer a simple way to do a summary of all these battles, so we could get running poll going? Or is it better that we keep delving and debating?
I'm now starting to lean towards Gettysburg, having just checked it out, it combined the worst elements of massed infantry tactics coming up against new technology. The casualties weren't as fierce as WWI, but still...
I'm now starting to lean towards Gettysburg, having just checked it out, it combined the worst elements of massed infantry tactics coming up against new technology. The casualties weren't as fierce as WWI, but still...
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The problem is that there is no real criteria for "fiercest".
I personally think that would be possible to work out a ratio based on length of battle, area size and casualties involved but it would be a lot of work and in the end it probably wouldn't include some of the less tangible factors.
There is also the issue of accurate casualty counting for battles such as Cannae or Adrianople lets face it not even the Russians have an accurate count of its WW2 losses.
I think this is one argument that is best left to personal opinion as I am sure a popular vote would put Stalingrad at the top of the list through the shear magnitude of battle but in reality there are many contenders for the title.
Last edited:
King of the Deep
New Member
Battle of the Atlantic U Boats
in terms of casualties the Germans lost 30,000 out of 40,000 Submariners,and 773 out of just over a 1000 submarines. 3500 merchant ships,175 warships,and 50,000 odd Allied Seamen,and spanned the whole war,and covered 1000's of square miles.
"Of all the branches of men in the Forces there is none which show more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the Submariner. Great deeds are done in the Air or on the Land but, never the less nothing surpasses their exploits".
irate:
The fiercest Battle of all time has got to be the Battle of the Atlantic,in sheer terms of importance,to conducting the second world war.
in terms of casualties the Germans lost 30,000 out of 40,000 Submariners,and 773 out of just over a 1000 submarines. 3500 merchant ships,175 warships,and 50,000 odd Allied Seamen,and spanned the whole war,and covered 1000's of square miles.
"Of all the branches of men in the Forces there is none which show more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the Submariner. Great deeds are done in the Air or on the Land but, never the less nothing surpasses their exploits".
irate:While a much smaller battle the intensity of loss @ Cold Harbor exceeds Gettysburg considerably. In big Battles, Sharpsburg is well ahead of Gettysburg.
Mikefrombelgium
Active member
Battle of the Buldge (ww2), battle of Ypres (ww1), battle of passchendaele(ww1)
no doubt that ww1 had some of the feircest battles known to man, war is ugly, but that war was extremly ugly.
but then again i dont know much about battles not happing on european soil so just my 2 cents
no doubt that ww1 had some of the feircest battles known to man, war is ugly, but that war was extremly ugly.
but then again i dont know much about battles not happing on european soil so just my 2 cents
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I still lean towards Verdun.
And to back it up...
The Battle of Verdun 1916 - the greatest battle ever
French attack on the German lines during the Battle of Verdun The Battle of Verdun is considered the greatest and lengthiest in world history. Never before or since has there been such a lengthy battle, involving so many men, situated on such a tiny piece of land. The battle, which lasted from 21 February 1916 until 19 December 1916 caused over an estimated 700,000 casualties (dead, wounded and missing). The battlefield was not even a square ten kilometres. From a strategic point of view there can be no justification for these atrocious losses. The battle degenerated into a matter of prestige of two nations literally for the sake of fighting......
http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/battleverdun/index.htm
And to back it up...
The Battle of Verdun 1916 - the greatest battle ever
http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/battleverdun/index.htm
D-Day, the Battle for Normandy. 'In the whole history of war', Stalin wrote to Churchill,'there has never been such an undertaking'. The very scale and its meticulous planning were unprecedented. The thick hedgerows of Normandy were ideal for the defender, and the Germans, especially the Waffen-SS divisions, fought with cunning and a desperate ferocity. British, Canadian and American forces became involved in battles whose savagery was often comparable to the Eastern Front.
The average losses per division on both sides in Normandy were to exceed those for Soviet and German divisions during an equivalent period on the Eastern Front.
German losses on the eastern front averaged just under 1000 men per division per month.
In Normandy they averaged 2300 per division per month.
The calculation for the Red Army is much more complicated, BUT it would appear to be well under 1500 per division per month.
Allied casualties in Normandy were close to an average of 2000 per division per month.
The average losses per division on both sides in Normandy were to exceed those for Soviet and German divisions during an equivalent period on the Eastern Front.
German losses on the eastern front averaged just under 1000 men per division per month.
In Normandy they averaged 2300 per division per month.
The calculation for the Red Army is much more complicated, BUT it would appear to be well under 1500 per division per month.
Allied casualties in Normandy were close to an average of 2000 per division per month.
In Iwo Jima I think died 20.000 japs and 5000 marines in a month (I think I remember that, but not sure at all)
Yes I put Somme some days ago, was reminding of a WWII Battle
bigcanada813
Canuckus Maximus
I would have to agree with Monty. After the initial German successes at the end of February, the French Army would immediatly launch a local counter-attack to reclaim any lost territory, no matter the cost. Not only that, over have of the units in the French Army fought at Verdun at some point during the battle.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
One of the most vicious battles in history has got to be the Battle of Isandlwana 22nd January 1879.
Over 1000 British troops were massacred by something in the region of 25,000 Zulu's. No quarter was given or asked, slain troops were disemboweled after being stabbed by the iklwa, a shorter version of the assegai.
The Zulu method of attack was:-
1. The main force, the "chest", closed with the enemy and pinned it in position.
2. The "horns", while the enemy was pinned by the "chest", would flank the enemy from both sides and encircle it; in conjunction with the "chest" they would then destroy the trapped force.
3. The "loins", a large reserve, was placed, seated, behind the "chest" with their backs to the battle. The "loins" would be committed wherever the enemy threaten to break out of the encirclement.
A Zulu chief after the battle stated regarding the British troops, “They fought like lions and fell where they stood.”
After the battle a lot more respect was shown by both sides for their foe.
Over 1000 British troops were massacred by something in the region of 25,000 Zulu's. No quarter was given or asked, slain troops were disemboweled after being stabbed by the iklwa, a shorter version of the assegai.
The Zulu method of attack was:-
1. The main force, the "chest", closed with the enemy and pinned it in position.
2. The "horns", while the enemy was pinned by the "chest", would flank the enemy from both sides and encircle it; in conjunction with the "chest" they would then destroy the trapped force.
3. The "loins", a large reserve, was placed, seated, behind the "chest" with their backs to the battle. The "loins" would be committed wherever the enemy threaten to break out of the encirclement.
A Zulu chief after the battle stated regarding the British troops, “They fought like lions and fell where they stood.”
After the battle a lot more respect was shown by both sides for their foe.
Last edited:
