 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:27
|
|
The definiton of what counts as a battle is key:
For example, the Somme killed rmoe people than verdun, but, according to my spurce on WW1 (The Experience of World War I by JM Winters), a total of 2.1 million men fought at the Somme while a total of 4.3 million men fought at Verdun. the difference is that thet french kept rotating units through the Verdun front while the same units generally stayed the whole time at the Somme, nuless they ceased to exist.
About Citadel: it was an operation carried out over tens, if not hundreads of miles. If you can view Citadel as one single battle, then aren't other operations to be counted the same? Why not treat Barbarossa as one battle? This would certainly make it the biggest battle in history.
Maybe that's to broad, maybe just count operations along more limited fronts. Well, then you could define Operation Blue, the German summer offensive in the east of 1942, which eventually became the battle for Stalindgrad, as the biggest battle.
We might also be forgetting operations such as the Soviet counterattack after Citadel, or Operation Bagration, which intailed the destruction of the Central army group in the East by at least 2 entire Soviet fronts. In just about a month (much shorter than both the Somme or verdun), 1 million + soviet forces destroyed a force of about 980,000 Germans.
What I can say with complete certainty is that the Eastern front in WW2 was the largest, bloodiest land campaign ever waged by man, and may very well remain so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001 time: 23:27
|
|
Like Drake, I would have guessed Kursk, though Verdun and Somme are good picks as well.
One that I don't think has been considered is Bagration. It has to be right up there, if it fits the criteria at least, it was a broader offensive than say, Verdun.
-edit oops Ge briefly mentioned it earlier.
Last edited by monkspider on 06-04-2003 at 11:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:27
|
|
quote: I wish I can locate this again, but he claimed that this particular battle was the largest in human history. If I get the urge to go back, I will let you know if I find it again. Unless someone else might know which battle I'm alluding to. |
Sorry if this has already been answered, I'm just on the first page. But you are talking about Operation Bagration, the destruction of Army Group Center.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:27
|
|
Here's a new category: Largest single-day engagment, in terms of a battle that started and ended in a single day, fought on a single battlefield.
Antietam is the first that comes to mind, although I'm sure there are others.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:27
|
|
Good point...I thought about Leipzig, but that was a 3 day battle. I suppose both Austerlitz and Waterloo would beat Antietam, though.
Actually, First Borodino was bigger than Austerlitz, though, wasn't it?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001 time: 14:27
|
|
quote: Actually, First Borodino was bigger than Austerlitz, though, wasn't it? |
I don't remember. It certainly could be, as could Waterloo. I'd have to check.
Anyway, Antietam was closer to Austerlitz than I thought. The Union had 90,000 men while the Rebs had around 40,000 effective troops out of the 70,000 they started the Maryland invasion with.
At Austerlitz, Napoleon had 75,000 men and the Allies had 90,000. Not that much bigger that Antietam...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:27
|
|
quote: Waterloo was smaller than both Austerlitz and Antietam; 74,000 French and 58,000 Allied. |
Ummm, the Allied (British, Dutch, German, etc., but not counting Prussian) numbered 107,000, while the French had 120,000. So Waterloo was only a bit smaller than Borodino, and certainly bigger than Austerlitz. Waterloo would be the biggest if you included the Prussian Army, which was barely engaged.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001 time: 14:27
|
|
quote: Ummm, the Allied (British, Dutch, German, etc., but not counting Prussian) numbered 107,000, while the French had 120,000. So Waterloo was only a bit smaller than Borodino, and certainly bigger than Austerlitz. Waterloo would be the biggest if you included the Prussian Army, which was barely engaged. |
Well, if you count Ligny it wouldn't be a one-day battle now would it? 
The numbers I gave were the troops numbers for the actual battle of Waterloo. Both sides started the campaign with more, but this had been reduced by the time of the final battle.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:27
|
|
quote: Well, if you count Ligny it wouldn't be a one-day battle now would it? |
I'm not counting Ligny - that battle didn't even involve the British.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|