Unbelievable battles

:dubious: That is no where close to the bloodiest battle in history in three hourse. In Half the time, the battle of pearl harbor left 2467 dead, 1178 wounded and 1 captured, and along with 217 Aircraft, Five Battleships, One Minelayer, three destroyers and 5 midget submarines destroyed (Americans and Japanese Together).
I agree it's not.

We might try finding the quickest battle, and the bloodiest battle per hour or so.

The war between Denmark and Sweden 1675-77 held both a very quick affair - the battle of Halmstad 100 Swedes killed, up to 1500 Danes in less than an hours fighting - and a very bloody one - the battle of Lund, an entire day of fighting from early morning until dusk, between evenly matched armies of approx. 20-25.000 men each, resulting in 4000 Swedes KIA and 5000 Danes; i.e. about 20-25% of the men involved killed outright, in an early modern period battle with fire-power nowhere near that of modern armies. And none of the armies broke and had disproportionate casualties inflicted in it from that.
 
:dubious: That is no where close to the bloodiest battle in history in three hours. In Half the time, the battle of pearl harbor left 2467 dead, 1178 wounded and 1 captured, and along with 217 Aircraft, Five Battleships, One Minelayer, three destroyers and 5 midget submarines destroyed (Americans and Japanese Together).

Technically, that was actually 4+ hours, since the first engagement was a submarine around 6 AM. :p
 
One of the bloodiest one-day battles was Königgrätz (or Hradec Králové or Sadowa or Sadová) on July 3, 1866, during the Austro-Prussian War. The Prussians lost 9,172 officers and men killed, wounded or missing — the Austrians 44,872 officers men killed, wounded or missing.
 
:dubious: That is no where close to the bloodiest battle in history in three hours. In Half the time, the battle of pearl harbor left 2467 dead, 1178 wounded and 1 captured, and along with 217 Aircraft, Five Battleships, One Minelayer, three destroyers and 5 midget submarines destroyed (Americans and Japanese Together).

Most of those "sunk" ships were raised from that shallow harbor and repaired. If only the Japanese had struck those tasty, unfortified fuel tanks instead of relegating them to a low target priority for a 3rd wave attack, the Pacific War would have been a lot different.

If you want a fantastic naval engagement from WW2, take a look at the Battle off Samar, where a seemingly insignificant Taffy 3 comprised of 6 small carriers and a handful of destroyers and destroyer escorts go up against the pride of the Japanese navy (or what's left of it). You would expect to see those American ships sunk, and the Japanese shelling the American landings in the Phillipines. You would be dead wrong.

The lineup was incredible: the IJN Yamato with over 20 escorts against a puny force of 7 (I think) American destroyers and destroyer escorts. The battle is characterized by daring charges by these puny destroyers against the Japanese, sinking cruisers with torpedo attacks and pounding them with 5" guns. The planes on the carriers were launched immediately to make attacks against the Japanese fleet, but many planes were not properly equipped, and were attempting to strafe or drop depth charges onto the Japanese. Some were completely unarmed and simply made fake torpedo runs at the Japanese to cause them to change course and incite confusion. The Yamato was flanked by torpedoes that completely missed their targeted cruiser, and was taken out of the battle for ten minutes while she avoided them. The UU Samuel B. Roberts, the "destroyer escort that fought like a battleship", used its pair of 5" guns to beat up on three ships at least 10 times her size, and survived for more than an hour. On one occassion, the ship got so close to a Japanese cruiser so that the Japanese ship could not train its guns low enough to hit the destroyer escort. It then unloaded with it's anti-aircraft gun onto the bridge, killing its commanding officer. The already damaged USS Johnston single-handedly fought off a light cruiser leading a half-dozen destroyers to torpedo the American carriers. It was a breathtaking account of heroism and bold action...

The Dogfights episode on the History Channel does this battle justice. If you can catch it on a rerun, try to--CG animations show you the entire battle.
 
Most of those "sunk" ships were raised from that shallow harbor and repaired. If only the Japanese had struck those tasty, unfortified fuel tanks instead of relegating them to a low target priority for a 3rd wave attack, the Pacific War would have been a lot different.

If you want a fantastic naval engagement from WW2, take a look at the Battle off Samar, where a seemingly insignificant Taffy 3 comprised of 6 small carriers and a handful of destroyers and destroyer escorts go up against the pride of the Japanese navy (or what's left of it). You would expect to see those American ships sunk, and the Japanese shelling the American landings in the Phillipines. You would be dead wrong.

The lineup was incredible: the IJN Yamato with over 20 escorts against a puny force of 7 (I think) American destroyers and destroyer escorts. The battle is characterized by daring charges by these puny destroyers against the Japanese, sinking cruisers with torpedo attacks and pounding them with 5" guns. The planes on the carriers were launched immediately to make attacks against the Japanese fleet, but many planes were not properly equipped, and were attempting to strafe or drop depth charges onto the Japanese. Some were completely unarmed and simply made fake torpedo runs at the Japanese to cause them to change course and incite confusion. The Yamato was flanked by torpedoes that completely missed their targeted cruiser, and was taken out of the battle for ten minutes while she avoided them. The UU Samuel B. Roberts, the "destroyer escort that fought like a battleship", used its pair of 5" guns to beat up on three ships at least 10 times her size, and survived for more than an hour. On one occassion, the ship got so close to a Japanese cruiser so that the Japanese ship could not train its guns low enough to hit the destroyer escort. It then unloaded with it's anti-aircraft gun onto the bridge, killing its commanding officer. The already damaged USS Johnston single-handedly fought off a light cruiser leading a half-dozen destroyers to torpedo the American carriers. It was a breathtaking account of heroism and bold action...

The Dogfights episode on the History Channel does this battle justice. If you can catch it on a rerun, try to--CG animations show you the entire battle.
I brought up Pearl Harbor because off hand, it was one of the bloodiest short battles I could think of. The idea that, for its timeframe, Bunker Hill was the bloodiest battle ever, is simply absurd, and I just wanted to demonstrate it.

But yes, I saw that special on History channel. THAT was an unbelievable battle.
 
I know, I was only contributing a little to what you had said about Pearl Harbor. Honestly, the Japanese could have done a little better there. I found it funny that earlier during the Battle of Leyte, many of the Japanese battleships were facing American battleships that were "sunk" at Pearl Harbor, raised, refitted, and sent out to fight. It was almost a vengeance match...
 
I know, I was only contributing a little to what you had said about Pearl Harbor. Honestly, the Japanese could have done a little better there. I found it funny that earlier during the Battle of Leyte, many of the Japanese battleships were facing American battleships that were "sunk" at Pearl Harbor, raised, refitted, and sent out to fight. It was almost a vengeance match...
Indeed, Nagumo's decision to withdraw and not risk the third wave was possibly the greatest single error of the war...aside from starting it.
 
The Dogfights episode on the History Channel does this battle justice. If you can catch it on a rerun, try to--CG animations show you the entire battle.

Indeed, I love that show. :goodjob: I wouldn't really count it as a battle, but the one where the B-17 escapes from 17 or so Japanesse aircraft is pretty unbelievable too.
 
Nah, if you want to get into engagements that small, and this is crossing over with my badarses post, their was one Japanese Pilot, in an outdated Zero (Saburo Sakai), in the battle of Okinawa IIRC, who deliberately managed to get as many American pilots to engage him so that other Zeroes could escape. He ended up with some 20-30 F6Fs going after him alone, and then after his wingmen had escaped, managed to get himself away as well. When he landed and they inspected his plane they found that miraculously not only had he successfully engaged all those planes, they never landed a single round on him!
 
Battle of Kursk and Stalingrad come to mind when you think of bloodiest, in fact the eastern front was where the majority of dead on both sides happen
 
Battle of Kursk and Stalingrad come to mind when you think of bloodiest, in fact the eastern front was where the majority of dead on both sides happen
I wouldn't say that. The Battle of Stalingrad stretched over weaks, and we're dealing with bloodiest in the sense of sudden, violent casualties (in the instance given, three hours).
 
Think the last example you mean is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mirbat

Another example is here Tanga, where 800 Germans were able to hold against 8000 British and Indain soldiers. Or the 3 sieges of Kolberg. Or a fight of a dozen British soldiers in the 1960s against some islamists (I do not remember the place). Courage and outstanding leadership can win battles against all odds.

Adler


I like the Ploesti air raid (WW2) for all the 'wrong turns' that occur
http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=47
 
Wouldn't the bloodiest battles be most of the engagements of World War I?
 
Battle of Verdun, over 1 million French killed alone i believe.
Well, it was horrific, but maybe not as horrific as all that. Total German and French casualties have been officially estimated at about 700.000, slightly more Frenchmen than Germans, of which about 162.000 French soldiers were killed, and some 100.000 Germans. The unofficial estimates are a bit higher, up to a million, but no million of killed at least.
 
Ney, we lost "only" 120,000 dead, and 268,000 wounded.
The German 100,000 deads.
But the battle lasted 10 months.
That's a total of 220,000 dead, during 300 days. Only 700 dead per day
Yeah, well, searching the internet dregs up all manner of more or less divergent computations re. the casualties at Verdun.:crazyeye:
http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/battleverdun/slachtoffers.htm

It's somewhere in this order at least.:)

All in all, France lost 900 killed per day all through WWI.
 
Back
Top Bottom