Fiercest Battle in History
papasha408
Active member
Cannae was fierce. The cream of Rome's military laid to waste with brilliant tactics.
Machiavelli
Active member
How about Kursk? Biggest tank battle ever. And veterans said, it was hell.
Machiavelli
Active member
oh yeah i agree, the german submarine wars was churchill's greates fear and nightmare.
Tuco_the_Ugly
Active member
While it isn't the fiercest battle in History I believe Gettysburg should get an honorable mention. The third day of that battle was a bloody massacre.
Remington 1858
Active member
I would have to concur with the selection of Stalingrad for the following reasons:
1. the vast casualty figures
2. the decisive result.
3. The scale of battle
After Stalingrad, even Hitler no longer talked about defeating the Soviet Union. From that point on the Germans were simply trying to hold on to what they had already conquered. It was a turning point psychologically for Germany and the rest of the world as well. Many people and nations switched allegiances at that point.
Many of the other battles mentioned were very tough slugging matches, but they weren't game - changers.
The Germans still had a lot of combat power after Stalingrad, but it was apparent that the days of conquest were over. From that point on, they had lost the strategic initiative.
1. the vast casualty figures
2. the decisive result.
3. The scale of battle
After Stalingrad, even Hitler no longer talked about defeating the Soviet Union. From that point on the Germans were simply trying to hold on to what they had already conquered. It was a turning point psychologically for Germany and the rest of the world as well. Many people and nations switched allegiances at that point.
Many of the other battles mentioned were very tough slugging matches, but they weren't game - changers.
The Germans still had a lot of combat power after Stalingrad, but it was apparent that the days of conquest were over. From that point on, they had lost the strategic initiative.
Kurst
The total size of the Soviet force was 1,300,000 soldiers with 500,000 soldiers in reserve that ended up being tossed into the battle at Prokhorovka. Germans troops’ strength was 900,000 soldiers. The Soviets had ~ 3400 tanks vs. the Germans ~ 2700. The Soviets had >2700 aircraft and the Germans had ~ 2000. Unlike Stalingrad which was a battle of attrition Kurst was a head on full bore attack into vicious well entrenched Red Army. It finally dispelled the myth that the Soviets couldn't win in a summer offensive. The exact amount killed is still unknown. But many hundreds of thousands lost their life in a battle that only lasted ~1.5 weeks.
The total size of the Soviet force was 1,300,000 soldiers with 500,000 soldiers in reserve that ended up being tossed into the battle at Prokhorovka. Germans troops’ strength was 900,000 soldiers. The Soviets had ~ 3400 tanks vs. the Germans ~ 2700. The Soviets had >2700 aircraft and the Germans had ~ 2000. Unlike Stalingrad which was a battle of attrition Kurst was a head on full bore attack into vicious well entrenched Red Army. It finally dispelled the myth that the Soviets couldn't win in a summer offensive. The exact amount killed is still unknown. But many hundreds of thousands lost their life in a battle that only lasted ~1.5 weeks.
reason for Kurst
Other Battles resulted in a much larger loss of life over much longer periods of time; Kurst was likely the most intense battle during its reality short duration:
· Stalingrad which took place from August 23 1942 to February 2nd 1943 where ~ 1.5 million died (not including civilians and POW’s)
· And the battle of the Somme. Where nearly 1.1 million were killed between July 1st and November 18th 1916.
Other Battles resulted in a much larger loss of life over much longer periods of time; Kurst was likely the most intense battle during its reality short duration:
· Stalingrad which took place from August 23 1942 to February 2nd 1943 where ~ 1.5 million died (not including civilians and POW’s)
· And the battle of the Somme. Where nearly 1.1 million were killed between July 1st and November 18th 1916.
elmosquito
Active member
you could list the top five fiercest battles in history by picking any five battles in the Eastern Front during WWII. just remember to place Stalingrad at number one.
lol at those picking island battles in the pacific, its funny how provincial most of you think.
We're talking about the fiercest here. where combatants involve not mere platoons or divisions but whole armies, with thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of artillery pieces fire millions of shell rounds at the same time, where casualties are counted not in terms of thousands but hundreds of thousands or even in millions (something which is incomprehensible in other theaters of war), where all rules of engagement and acceptable conducts of war are disregarded, where scorched earth policies are implemented as a regular operating procedure, where soldiers are killed by their own officers if they take one step back from the frontline, where civilian casualties are at par if not greater than military casualties, where the consequence of defeat is total extermination of the whole race, where soldiers' lifespan in battle is pegged at 24 hours and daily reinforcements are necessary to replenish the ranks, where soldiers are resigned to their fate and could only wish that they die by headshot to minimize the agony, where combatants fight to the death because capture is the worse thing imaginable. That is the definition of fierce. and human history has never known such fierce combat until the Soviet Union and Germany faced off in WWII
lol at those picking island battles in the pacific, its funny how provincial most of you think.
We're talking about the fiercest here. where combatants involve not mere platoons or divisions but whole armies, with thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of artillery pieces fire millions of shell rounds at the same time, where casualties are counted not in terms of thousands but hundreds of thousands or even in millions (something which is incomprehensible in other theaters of war), where all rules of engagement and acceptable conducts of war are disregarded, where scorched earth policies are implemented as a regular operating procedure, where soldiers are killed by their own officers if they take one step back from the frontline, where civilian casualties are at par if not greater than military casualties, where the consequence of defeat is total extermination of the whole race, where soldiers' lifespan in battle is pegged at 24 hours and daily reinforcements are necessary to replenish the ranks, where soldiers are resigned to their fate and could only wish that they die by headshot to minimize the agony, where combatants fight to the death because capture is the worse thing imaginable. That is the definition of fierce. and human history has never known such fierce combat until the Soviet Union and Germany faced off in WWII
elmosquito
Active member
Kursk is a candidate as the fiercest battle because of its scale. It was one campaign, almost in the same scale as Operation Barbarossa or Operation Blue but it ended very quick because the operation was met head on by the Russians and the whole battle consumed in a matter of weeks.
You could look at it from two perspectives:
From the Russian side, they are going to take on the full might of the German Blitzkrieg (on the back of tiger tanks) on open field during clear summer weather. The german blitzkrieg is an unstoppable force and has not been defeated except in exceptional circumstances (moscow during a fierce russian winter where wermacht units had to survive the cold and the russian counteroffensive at the same time, in the caucasus where the blitzkrieg stopped at the foothills of the mountain regions, and stalingrad where the germans where forced to abandon blitzkrieg to fight a nasty urban warfare in the ruins of the city).
From the German side, they will be attacking the most fortified place on earth (kursk's defensive lines were said to be eight times deeper than the maginot line) with russians waiting for them and aware of their plan.
Kursk was legendary and i think this is the true turning point of WWII, the defeat where Germany was never able to recover from, where the resurgent red army was not only able to tame the german blitzkrieg but also master it on their own and implemented it later to chase the germans back to berlin
Last edited:
elmosquito
Active member
how could the bloodiest not be the fiercest as well? You should read up on how the soviet union and germany fought each other and got on each other's necks like its never been done in human history. The eastern front was a war of annihilation. it was the phone booth slugfest everyone bought tickets for, no quarters given, no prisoners taken. all other wars were mere undercards, Soviet Union vs. Germany was the main event
elmosquito
Active member
then its not fierce enough. When combatants on both sides have the luxury of waiting from a relative safety and afraid to take the offensive to minimize casualties, its never gonna be as fierce as the battles where combatants are whipped by their officers to run on suicidal attacks, or driven by their fanatic love for their nation and insatiable hate against the enemy to force the fight. That is fierce and corollary it becomes bloody.
These kinds of fight is found in total wars, where the very survival of the nation (and of the race) is at stake. its a whole lot different to your "fierce' skirmishes where a hundred death is considered high and the combatants went back to the barracks at the end of the day to play cards lmao
Kursk
I agree. The Kursk struggle was one of little maneuver. Perhaps some in the south by Manstein, however this was quite limited in scope. It was more of a WW1 style battle sending a large army head on into well fortified defenses with the defender having a large superiority in men and equipment. The Germans only had a qty of ~ 100 tiger tanks, some “Elephants and Panthers” which had teething issues. Many Germans went to battle in the older Panzer III which were inferior to the T-34.
Despite a possible breakthrough in the south they eventually were defeated by attrition. Thus ending any large scale offensive capabilities for Germany. From here the Germans direction was west. However some notable counter offensives took place I.E.: Budapest
I agree. The Kursk struggle was one of little maneuver. Perhaps some in the south by Manstein, however this was quite limited in scope. It was more of a WW1 style battle sending a large army head on into well fortified defenses with the defender having a large superiority in men and equipment. The Germans only had a qty of ~ 100 tiger tanks, some “Elephants and Panthers” which had teething issues. Many Germans went to battle in the older Panzer III which were inferior to the T-34.
Despite a possible breakthrough in the south they eventually were defeated by attrition. Thus ending any large scale offensive capabilities for Germany. From here the Germans direction was west. However some notable counter offensives took place I.E.: Budapest
Remington 1858
Active member
Fiercest battle
The battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809 would take some beating for the title of bloodiest battle since half of the troops on both sides became casualties. The cause of the encounter was the attempt by Napoleon to make an assault crossing of the Danube river while the other side of the river was held by Austrian forces concentrated around two villages, Aspern and Essling.
Napoleon was defeated in this first attempt, his first defeat in a decade.
Imagine having only a 50/50 chance of coming out of the battle unscathed. In those days, given the state of the medical services, any serious wound was a death sentence either from loss of blood, traumatic shock in the short term or infection or septic shock later.
Battles of the Napoleonic Wars were horrible affairs. In modern terms, it would be like two armies marching to within 50 meters of each other and then each side opening up with sawed - off shotguns.
The battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809 would take some beating for the title of bloodiest battle since half of the troops on both sides became casualties. The cause of the encounter was the attempt by Napoleon to make an assault crossing of the Danube river while the other side of the river was held by Austrian forces concentrated around two villages, Aspern and Essling.
Napoleon was defeated in this first attempt, his first defeat in a decade.
Imagine having only a 50/50 chance of coming out of the battle unscathed. In those days, given the state of the medical services, any serious wound was a death sentence either from loss of blood, traumatic shock in the short term or infection or septic shock later.
Battles of the Napoleonic Wars were horrible affairs. In modern terms, it would be like two armies marching to within 50 meters of each other and then each side opening up with sawed - off shotguns.
elmosquito
Active member
it was of little maneuver on the side of the germans because they have no choice, their offensive was foiled and the only way out is to go ahead with the campaign knowing that the russians have built extensive defensive lines waiting for them (they just didn't know the extent yet of how deep those lines were).
However, for the russians, Kursk was a battle of tactical and strategic brilliance. So much mind was put into spying and predicting where exactly Operation Citadel is going to be launch, how large is the attacking force and what were they made of. The defensive lines built around kursk to contain the German Blitzkrieg is something that is now required reading in every military textbook. not only the formation of the lines, but on how they were built secretly without the Germans being able to know. the final battle at the fields of prokhorovka was also a tactical triumph for the soviets whose t-34s are not capable of engaging tiger tanks from a distance, and so the tanks have to get close and fight a close battle
elmosquito
Active member
now this shit is brutal as well, considering the scale and the weapons used, the death toll is equivalent to those exacted in modern warfare