What was the most one-sided battle in history?

redcoat said:
My favourite
1941 Britain v Italy

The British counter-attack on the Italian forces which had attacked Egypt, ending in the battle of Brada Fomm
A force of 50,000 British Commonwealth troops defeated an Italian army of 250,000, capturing 130,000 troops, 845 field guns, 380 tanks for a loss of under 2000 men.
Click to expand...

The only quibble I'd have with this nomination is that the Italian forces in WW2 were not of the highest quality shall we say. Quite well equipped but poorly trained, poorly led with poor morale. The outcome of this battle was never in doubt.
 
beardo said:
what about the famous ''Bravo Two Zero'' SAS patrol in the 1st Gulf War...

8 SAS sent out to recce a supply route and blow up a communications line, ended up being compromised and having to retreat 200 miles. During this retreat they came upon fire and had to take out APC's and dodge 57mm AAA rounds. 3 were killed, 4 were captured, 1 escaped. During the mission they got 250 confirmed kills
Click to expand...

yes but it depends who you listen to
if you read "the real bravo two zero" he refutes most of what mcnab says, about being discovered, and the ammount casualties, and even the taxi they used to get out of there at the end!]
craziness, who to believe?
 
What about Rangers and the D guys in Somalia? I believe it was something like 18 Rangers dead and 1500+ insurgents deaths. There have been claims of far more then 1500 insurgent deaths.
 
For another small scale battle how about the Battle at Cowpens in South Carolina during the American Revolutionary War? According to the official reports (which admittedly may or may not be accurate on the American side) the Americans had roughly 800 men vs the 1200-1300 Royal Dragoons and Highland Infantry of the british. The battle lasted just about an hour with the British losing over about 100 dead, 200 wounded and 500 captured. The American (again according to the official reports) lost 12 dead and 60 wounded. It can be said this stunning victory (against one of the British army's up favorites of the time - Banastre Tarleton)
led directly to the victory at Yorktown. Some historians believe that one of the reasons for the British loss was that Tarleton basically ran his men into the ground trying to catch the Americans.
 
I have to Say the Battle of Blood river. But then again, I'm biased! I had ancestors at the battle.
If memory servers, I don't thenk there were any major Boer casualties (fatalities).
 
Thermopylae, no question. 300 Spartans vs. 10,000 Persians if the numbers are to be believed and they probably can be. The Spartans were tougher than woodpecker lips. Since the shield is the heaviest thing to carry into battle if you ran from battle in cowardice it would be tossed away. Spartan mothers and wives urged their men to "come home with your shield or on it (dead)".
 
early ww 2 in the desert , italian casualties ( dead , injured or captured ) 100000
the british loosing only 500

thats a fairly good effort :o
 
id have to say Operation Juat Cause (US vs. Panama) was more one sided than Grenada

the Aussies have several claims for these, those guys are some bad*ss dudes!!!

Thermopylae, a good example

Pearl Harbor, there were approximately 29 Japanese planes shot down, plus a minisub. (ironically, at the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, the Americans slaughtered a large, inexperienced force of Japanese planes, at the cost of only 29 of their own)

the Alamo, good choice

anything in WW2 i dont think should get this honor

Vietnam, anyone?

the Battle of Saratoga in the US Revolutionary War

just about any other battle in the Revolutionary War

i cant decide, theyr all good choices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top