Page 1 of 5
The worst battle in history to be in as a soldier?
Posted: 2006-02-13 06:06am
by wautd
Which battle in all history would be the worst to be in as a soldier? Not only considering life expectancy but also the daily life during that battle (hygiene, cold, hunger, mud, disease, chemical warfare, ...).
Top 3 would probably Verdun (WW1), Stalingrad (WW2) and Passchendaele (WW1), but maybe there are some less well-known battles?
Posted: 2006-02-13 06:29am
by The Grim Squeaker
Stalingrad.
The avergae temperature could reach -63 degrees Celsius (According to Operation Barbarossa pagexxx).
Many soldiers died by having their urine freeze up while pissing.
That is an exceedingly unpleasant way to die, captured soldiers were often tortured [if they were captured and not just shot], and it was a meat grinder on the WW1 level.
Still, I'm not sure if the life expectancy in itself is worse than running out into a machine gun (As was common in WW1)...
Posted: 2006-02-13 06:54am
by Lord Pounder
I always figured being a soldier in the Napoleonic Wars would be pretty shitty. No fox holes, no trenches, no armour, just a crude rifle and a quick formation march into a slow and painful death, no thanks.
Posted: 2006-02-13 07:27am
by Ubiquitous
The Battle of the Atlantic, specifically any civilian ships operating in freezing seas such as the Barents. The thought that at any second you could meet an icy death with no hope of escape, week in, week out, would certainly make a lot of people think: 'what the fuck am I doing here?'
Posted: 2006-02-13 08:06am
by wolveraptor
When Athens was sieged by Sparta during the Peloponnesian (sp?) War. A quarter of the civillians were killed by plague. It was pretty shitty.
Posted: 2006-02-13 08:11am
by Pax Britannia
Stalingrad.
Posted: 2006-02-13 08:13am
by Faram
Battle of Cannae as a Roman
Wikipedia, may or may not be true wrote:Casualties
Though the actual casualty figure remains debated, Livy and Polybius variously claim that 47,000—70,000 Romans died (though a more accurate figure is likely to haven been 50,000—60,000 fatalities) with about 3,000—4,500 taken prisoner. Among the dead included Lucius Aemilius Paullus himself, as well two consuls for the preceding year, two quaestors, twenty-nine out of the forty-eight military tribunes, and an additional eighty senators (at a time when the Roman Senate was comprised of no more than 300 men, this constituted 25%—30% of the governing body). Another 10,000 from the two Roman camps and the neighboring villages surrendered on the following day (after further resistance cost even more fatalities). In all, perhaps more than 70,000 Romans of the original force of 87,000 were dead or captured —totaling more than 80% of the entire army. For their part, the Carthaginians suffered 16,700 casualties (with the Celts and Iberians accounting for the majority). The fatalities for the Carthaginians amounted to 6,000 men, of whom 4,000 were Celts, 1,500 Spaniards and Africans, and the remainder cavalry. The total casualty figure of the battle, therefore, exceeds 80,000 men.
Conclusively, this makes the Battle of Cannae one of the single most bloodiest in all of human history, in terms of the number of lives lost within a day. The total number of lives lost during that single day, surpasses the number of servicemen killed in the Royal Air Force throughout the First and Second World Wars [16]. More men were killed at Cannae than in all the four months of the Battle of Passchendaele, which is considered one of the bloodiest battles of World War One [17]. So devastating were these losses, that the total number of casualties represents just under one third of the total number of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen killed in fours years of fighting during the Second World War [18]. In fact, the losses suffered within a single day at the battlefield of Cannae (no bigger than a few square miles), would not be equaled until the first day of fighting on the Somme in 1916 —which took place on a 25-mile front nearly 2,000 years later
Posted: 2006-02-13 09:03am
by Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba
Most pacific theatre battles in WW2 were pretty bad, like Iwo Jima. etc.
Other than that, certainly Cannae, Stalingrad, Gallipoli...
Posted: 2006-02-13 09:10am
by Azazal
Ubiquitous wrote:The Battle of the Atlantic, specifically any civilian ships operating in freezing seas such as the Barents. The thought that at any second you could meet an icy death with no hope of escape, week in, week out, would certainly make a lot of people think: 'what the fuck am I doing here?'
Don't forget being on a U-boat form mid 43 to the end.
Posted: 2006-02-13 09:25am
by WyrdNyrd
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:Other than that, certainly Cannae, Stalingrad, Gallipoli...
Gallipoli was an embarassing military failure, but didn't they eventually manage to evacuate most of the trrops? So it wouldn't constitute a meatgrinder like Cannae, Stalingrad, or some of the more famous Western Front battles, would it?
Posted: 2006-02-13 10:12am
by Civil War Man
Honorable mention: The Assault on Cold Harbor as a Union soldier.
Approximately 8000 Union troops were killed in roughly half an hour.
Also keep in mind that for most units during the Civil War:
1. Disease killed more soldiers than bullets did (though some of the more experienced units managed to break this trend).
2. The uniforms did little to alleviate either the heat or the cold.
3. For the South in particular, food got increasingly scarce as time went on.
4. Often have to carry massive amounts of gear (the rifles alone weighed 20 pounds) for 25+ miles every day. During the hottest days, one could follow in the wake of a formation and gather up discarded coats, backpacks, knives, and even firearms off the side of the road.
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:05am
by Jalinth
I'd say most WWI battles. The concept of lining up, and then walking across a crater blasted landscape opposed by enemies with machine guns was military idiocy of the highest order.
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:20am
by CarsonPalmer
I would have to say the Napoleonic battle, it might have Wagram, where the retreating Russian soldiers drowned as French artillery blasted holes in the frozen lake they retreated across. Also, the battle of the Wilderness in the American Civil War, where many of the wounded died when the battle led the thick woods to burst into flame.
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:21am
by The Yosemite Bear
I would say:
Gallopolli
Passengal
Verdon
Stalingrad
The big battle between Napoleon and Czarist Russia
Gettysburg
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:21am
by Darth Wong
Jalinth wrote:I'd say most WWI battles. The concept of lining up, and then walking across a crater blasted landscape opposed by enemies with machine guns was military idiocy of the highest order.
Don't forget the nerve gas. Coughing up chunks of your own lungs is a really unpleasant way to die.
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:24am
by Ace Pace
Ubiquitous wrote:The Battle of the Atlantic, specifically any civilian ships operating in freezing seas such as the Barents. The thought that at any second you could meet an icy death with no hope of escape, week in, week out, would certainly make a lot of people think: 'what the fuck am I doing here?'
EDIT: can't find source again so won't comment.
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:26am
by RedImperator
Darth Wong wrote:Jalinth wrote:I'd say most WWI battles. The concept of lining up, and then walking across a crater blasted landscape opposed by enemies with machine guns was military idiocy of the highest order.
Don't forget the nerve gas. Coughing up chunks of your own lungs is a really unpleasant way to die.
Nerve gas was a WWII innovation, but frankly, I'd take that over mustard gas if I had a choice. Nerve gas kills you quick. Mustard gas kills you by blistering your lungs (and your eyes, and the inside of your mouth and nose, and any other exposed mucus membrane).
Other than Stalingrad, I can't think of a place I'd like to be less than the Western Front.
Posted: 2006-02-13 11:58am
by wautd
RedImperator wrote:Darth Wong wrote:Jalinth wrote:I'd say most WWI battles. The concept of lining up, and then walking across a crater blasted landscape opposed by enemies with machine guns was military idiocy of the highest order.
Don't forget the nerve gas. Coughing up chunks of your own lungs is a really unpleasant way to die.
I'd take that over mustard gas if I had a choice.
Incidently, last week they started airing a documentary series about WWI and they started with chemical warfare (the reason I came up with this topic btw). That nasty shit even gets trough your gas mask. I was actually glad the footage was in black and white.
Tonight they'll handle Verdun
Posted: 2006-02-13 12:17pm
by Trytostaydead
wautd wrote:
Incidently, last week they started airing a documentary series about WWI and they started with chemical warfare (he reason I came up with this topic btw). That nasty shit even gets trough your gas mask. I was actually glad the footage was in black and white.
Tonight they'll handle Verdun
It's interesting to know that what they hand out to soldiers today is really just for their peace of mind.
Posted: 2006-02-13 12:33pm
by Mr Bean
Stalingrad was one if the, if not the worst battle to be in as an Axis or Allied Solider. The terrible conditions, poor nutrition on both sides. Lack of ammuntion, super-close quarters fighting. (Several thousand people were stabb/beaten to death as they were sleeping. Their awake comrades have just been killed a moment ago. Hundreds died in the same buildings as the battles raged forth street to street and back agian. On any given day possesion of most of the city could change hands. It was the longest city battle on record for men to fight and die that close to each other.
Posted: 2006-02-13 12:39pm
by Ace Pace
Mr Bean wrote:Stalingrad was one if the, if not the worst battle to be in as an Axis or Allied Solider. The terrible conditions, poor nutrition on both sides. Lack of ammuntion, super-close quarters fighting. (Several thousand people were stabb/beaten to death as they were sleeping. Their awake comrades have just been killed a moment ago. Hundreds died in the same buildings as the battles raged forth street to street and back agian. On any given day possesion of most of the city could change hands. It was the longest city battle on record for men to fight and die that close to each other.
What about being a civilian in the Leningrad siege?
Oh wait, they had food.
Posted: 2006-02-13 12:45pm
by Falkenhayn
Anywhere on the Karelian Isthmus during the Winter War, especially on the Finnish side during the Laade Road breakthrough, or the Russian side for the assaults on Taipale.
Posted: 2006-02-13 01:00pm
by Sea Skimmer
Darth Wong wrote:
Don't forget the nerve gas. Coughing up chunks of your own lungs is a really unpleasant way to die.
The first nerve agent Tabun (GA) was discovered in 1936. Most WW1 poison gas agents could be repelled with only a mask, only the various kinds of mustard gas could work through the skin. Though by the end of the war about 25% of all shells fired contained gas and concentrations often got high enough to kill a solider even through his mask.
Posted: 2006-02-13 01:25pm
by Vendetta
The Somme.
Quite possibly the ultimate in command incompetence repeated again and again over near six months, over a million lives gone between the two sides, and almost no strategic gains made.
The principal Somme battlefield is a spooky fucker of a place, even today. It's an almost flat field with trenches at each end, you can walk from one front line to the other in a few minutes, and there's a single petrified tree, about halfway between the two, that has stood since the war.
Posted: 2006-02-13 01:34pm
by That NOS Guy
I'll take the Somme over Verdun. Petain at least didn't order the first wave to march through no-mans land thinking the enemy would be flattened by the pre-battle barriage.
Then again, war is never really a cakewalk no matter how you look at it.