re: The Top 10 Bloodiest Battles of the 21st Century...

quote:

---

My Thanksgivings are generally filled with love. I guess it is different in your house.

---

And I bet your mouth is filled with penises

Russia and Eastern Europe have no problems killing a shitload of people to gain land mass the size of Rhode Island

Russians, militarily, are absokute savages for numbers.

quote:

---

No and no

---

Not arguing but I was always taught the war had ended and word simply hasn’t made it down that far south so they were still fighting? I know I didn’t make that up

Could just be Louisiana public school education as well.

quote:

---

Couldn’t find sources on the figure of 311,650 casualties in the Battle of Bakhmut.

---

I used Grok to help with my research and the sources that it cited for that figure were a combination of Wikipedia and U.N. watchdog websites. While I think the figure might be an overestimation, I also think the number ChatGPT cited is an underestimation as Wagner even claimed that they had lost 20,000 killed alone in the Battle of Bakhmut. When you include the number of wounded and captured personnel, that likely pushes total Russian casualties past 100,000.

At the end of the day, the fog of war is just way too thick at the present moment. Lots of propaganda is floating around out there and, admittedly, I may have fallen for it in my research.

quote:

---

A lot easier to say that sitting at home 80 years later vs. being a battle-weary soldier in Europe who did his part to defeat the Germans and was ready to go home.

---

Yep. People act like the US forces would roll through the Red Army. The Red Army was much more battle tested than the US/Allies, and even with the difference in industrial output would've given the US a fierce battle with huge losses during the attempt. US soldiers wanted to go home. Everybody today picks that lowhanging fruit of "we should've gone ahead and finished the Russians" like they have Einstein's brain.

Port Hudson, not Vicksburg, was the last Confederate installation on the Mississippi River to fall to the Union contrary to popular belief. However, a lot of people believe the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the War of 1812 ended but that’s not true. Perhaps you're thinking of this.

quote:

---

The US would have rolled over the USSR. We would have attacked their skimpy industrial base, bombed their oilfields, then gone on the offensive against a non-mechanized army. It would have taken six months to a year to neutralize them, but we would have had complete air superiority, total control of the seas and an industrial base that was completely out of harms way. It would have been just a matter of time, and US casualties would have been very limited by not engaging much until the USSR’s industrial capabilities and supply chains had been destroyed.
quote:
US soldiers wanted to go home.

This, and the public’s war weariness, made the former an impossibility.

---

I lean this way as well. Unlike the Germans, the Russians simply were not capable of fighting at high altitudes against the 8th AF, and since we were their sole source of high octane avgas, the Red AF would have been crippled very quickly. Their numbers look overwhelming on paper, but none of their divisions were anywhere near full strength. There was a legit fear that the Red Army would just keep rolling westward to the sea at the time, but they would not have gotten far before we ended their supply lines and left them a starving, out of fuel, shoeless (we supplied most of their boots) rabble.

Having said that, the last couple of sentences are true as well, It would have been a tough sale to the US troops and public unless Stalin started it.

I hate communist but who is communist in any of these battles?