The bloodiest, most devastaing battle of WW2...

Wolfshook · 06-20-2001, 09:40 AM

Hello all,

I just wondered what you guys think (and remember this is your personal opinion, so no one's answer is THE CORRECT ONE) the bloodiest battle of WW2 was?

Was it the battle for Caen, with the brave Canadians clashing with the young boy soldiers of the 12th SS "Hitlerjugend?" Or, the gallant defense by the Aussies of Tobruk, against Rommel's Deustche Afrika Korps? Or did it happen when US Marines landed on Okinawa, and moved inland to fight against the dogged resistance of the Japanese? Or, maybe it was between the Fallschirmjager defending the Monte Cassino, in Italy, from advancing American troops?

Post your battle, explain it some to us, as I'd like to hear your perspective, and reasons why. Why? I just like talking about WW2.

------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

Wolfshook · 06-20-2001, 11:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Recycled Spooge:
Plus, all the best German soldiers were in the eastern front. All the trainees were on the western front since there was no action there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't mean to pick on you, I would never do that. However I strongly disagree with you, and this statement.

These divisions fought on the Western Front, against the Allies: 1st SS "LAH", 2nd SS "Das Reich", 12th SS "Hitlerjugend", Panzer Lehr, 21st Panzer Division, 116th Panzer Division "Windhund", 3rd Fallschirmjager Division, 352nd Infantry Division, etc. All were considered, if not elite, top notch divisions. All fought with bravery and determination, against incredible odds, IMO.

My pick for the bloodiest? The Battle of Kharkov, 1942.

------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

Hells-Angel · 06-20-2001, 11:13 PM

you think those figures are high, I know this is ww1 I am talking about but the battle of the somme in 1916 had about 1 million killed or wounded.

Recycled Spooge · 06-20-2001, 11:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gen. Rommel:
The Battle of Stalingrad...hands down. THAT was the bloodiest battle...and one of the most important battles. That battle was truly hell...men were starving and dying of diseases so they can hold the city named after their leader who can be blamed for the diasters that occured when the Germans invaded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HEHE, that was exactly the battle I was thinking of. During some of the Soviet battles, the Soviets made their prisoners walk on mine field to clear the way for their tanks and soldiers. Stalingrad was the farthest the Germans ever got. After this they turned and headed back to Germany. The T34s really turned the war.

SoLiDUS · 06-20-2001, 11:39 PM

LOL.

The slaughter on the Normandy beaches.. HANDS DOWN. I will not extrapolate on my decision because of its apparent obviousness.

I know I would've chosen to fight in Stalingrad over landing on one of the sectors of the beach..

Recycled Spooge · 06-21-2001, 12:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Wolfshook:
I don't mean to pick on you, I would never do that. However I strongly disagree with you, and this statement.

These divisions fought on the Western Front, against the Allies: 1st SS "LAH", 2nd SS "Das Reich", 12th SS "Hitlerjugend", Panzer Lehr, 21st Panzer Division, 116th Panzer Division "Windhund", 3rd Fallschirmjager Division, 352nd Infantry Division, etc. All were considered, if not elite, top notch divisions. All fought with bravery and determination, against incredible odds, IMO.

My pick for the bloodiest? The Battle of Kharkov, 1942.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, that's nice but those divisions used to fight in the EAST, and I was talking about the state of the western front BEFORE the Normandy invasion. Most of those divisions you are talking about attacked during the Battle of the Bulge. I know that they send the best SS divisions to France after the Normandy invasion.

Recycled Spooge · 06-21-2001, 12:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SoLiDUS:
LOL.

The slaughter on the Normandy beaches.. HANDS DOWN. I will not extrapolate on my decision because of its apparent obviousness.

I know I would've chosen to fight in Stalingrad over landing on one of the sectors of the beach..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HEHE, there's nothing better than charging Germans with no gun. This was in Enemy At the Gates and it did really happen, so kudos to that film because that was like the best part of the whole movie. That and the Stuka strafing.

IwoJima · 06-21-2001, 01:22 AM

The bloodiest? I'd have to say, maybe the battle of dieppe, in 1943 with the canadians attacking the french port and taking over 3000 casualties and retreating, a total loss, or maybe, the battle of kursk(tank battle between russians and germans) or stalingrad which you all know. okinawa is up there with iwojima, tarawa, and all the other pacific battles that were so horrific

IwoJima · 06-21-2001, 01:27 AM

Listen punks, im sick of the people who say without a doubt that the normandy campaign was the bloodiest of the war. It by far was not. The only beach considered out of the five that was a disaster was omaha beach taken by the american 29th and 1st divisions. And about 2500 casuaties mounted. Battles on the eastern front and in the pacific were far worse.Anyone who says, oh normandy was the worst, knows truly little about world war 2 itself, and only about the game, mohaa.

SoLiDUS · 06-21-2001, 01:35 AM

We're talking bloodiest here...

Omaha (and other beaches) : big machine guns ripping your entire body to shreds. Mortars everywhere.. chances of survival ? practically nil.

Stalingrad : some light machine guns and rifles. Perhaps some grenades..

I'm convinced the Normandy beach(es) was/were the site of the bloodiest battle(s) ever.

Wolfshook · 06-21-2001, 01:41 AM

Of course they fought in the East, for the most part. Germany was at war...any division available fought. No division just sat around, unless they needed to be refitted with men and equipment.

And, most of those divisions were there before the invasion. They were just not released, by Hitler, to counterattack the Allies on the beach.

Panzer Lehr: Stationed in France, beginning May, 1944.

21st Panzer Division: Stationed in France, beginning July, 1943.

352nd Infantry Division: Stationed in France, beginning November 1943.

3rd Fallschirmjager: Stationed in France, beginning October 1943.

116th Panzer Division "Windhund": Stationed in France, beginning March 1944.

12th SS "Hitlerjugend": Stationed in France, beginning April 1944.

1st SS "LAH": Stationed in Belgium, and arrived in France, July 27-28th. This late date of arrival is only due to the allied airpower in the area. If that had not been the case, the 1st SS would have arrived much sooner. However, the 101st SS Scwhere Panzer Abteilung, belonging to the 1st SS, began fighting the Allies on June 13th.

2nd SS "Das Reich": Stationed in France, beginning January 1944.

Sorry, but you were wrong, for the most part. Germany knew the Allies were coming. However, they had to put most of their divisions on the Eastern Front, because his forces were so overwhelmed. They did have elite forces in western europe, and were ready for the Allies. However, they just didn't have enough of those forces, to do anything more than stall the Allies, until they could retreat back to Germany.

Sorry, but I just had to correct you.

------------------
34. SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division Landstorm Nederland

"Meine Ehre heißt Treue"

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

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).]

Hells-Angel · 06-21-2001, 01:49 AM

I agree with solidus on this one, normandy did have a few more limbs in my thoughts.

BlueDevil · 06-21-2001, 02:17 AM

Yep Im gonna have to agree with H-A and Solidus on this one. If we were talking casualties, (which we are NOT) then what about all those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki <---- sorry cant spell-- after the atom bombs were dropped on them. People still to this day may be suffering from radiation poisoning. But my friends,like the good man said, we are talking blood and gore.

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

Recycled Spooge · 06-21-2001, 02:18 AM

The Germans lost 110,000, and 91,000 were taken prisoner. Around 6,000 returned from captivity. By the way, we are only talking about the Germans here.