Alliedassault - View Single Post - The bloodiest, most devastaing battle of WW2...

SoLiDUS · 06-21-2001, 01:41 AM

That's quite an assumption there IwoJima.

Because I answer Omaha for it's massive amounts of gore and blood (compared to other battles that were simply... bloody) I am thought to be an uneducated prick ?

The question was: "Which battle do YOU think was bloodiest (and in this respect, goriest as well) and why."

We are not talking casualties here ; only how bloody/gory it was.

Getting blown to shred by mortars every 5 seconds, dismembered and beheaded by heavy machine guns without stepping out of a higgins boat is about as bloody/gory as it can get.

That, my friend, was a valid answer to the posited question. Dying of starvation or hunger isn't bloody. Dying of rifle shots or grenade fragments IS.

But when you compare these 2 with their Omaha versions, you have your answer..

[This message has been edited by SoLiDUS (edited June 21, 2001).]

	(#12)
SoLiDUS is Offline Senior Member Posts: 5,158 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Gatineau, Qc, Canada	06-21-2001, 01:41 AM That's quite an assumption there IwoJima. Because I answer Omaha for it's massive amounts of gore and blood (compared to other battles that were simply... bloody) I am thought to be an uneducated prick ? The question was: "Which battle do YOU think was bloodiest (and in this respect, goriest as well) and why." We are not talking casualties here ; only how bloody/gory it was. Getting blown to shred by mortars every 5 seconds, dismembered and beheaded by heavy machine guns without stepping out of a higgins boat is about as bloody/gory as it can get. That, my friend, was a valid answer to the posited question. Dying of starvation or hunger isn't bloody. Dying of rifle shots or grenade fragments IS. But when you compare these 2 with their Omaha versions, you have your answer.. [This message has been edited by SoLiDUS (edited June 21, 2001).]