- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Was there a battle in history bloodier than Stalingrad?
Posted on 10/4/15 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 10/4/15 at 5:53 pm
Depending on how you score it, the Battle of Stalingrad cost the Soviets and Germans a combined 2 million casualties. 95% of the city was destroyed and only 7,000 of the 91,000 Germans who were captured inside the city ever saw home again.
The only other battles that come close are either the Battle of Berlin (1945) or the Battle of Verdun (1916).
The only other battles that come close are either the Battle of Berlin (1945) or the Battle of Verdun (1916).
This post was edited on 10/4/15 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 10/4/15 at 5:56 pm to RollTide1987
During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
Posted on 10/4/15 at 6:03 pm to Starchild
In the second Sino-Japanese war around 20 million Chinese died
Posted on 10/4/15 at 6:10 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Was there a battle in history bloodier than Stalingrad?
Not sure - has there been a scientific study done to determine the amount of blood spilled on the battleground?
Posted on 10/4/15 at 6:12 pm to bbvdd
quote:
In the second Sino-Japanese war around 20 million Chinese died
Can you narrow that down to a single battle.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 6:16 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
has there been a scientific study done to determine the amount of blood spilled on the battleground?
For a single day battle, it would be hard to find a bloodier one than the battle of Cannae in 220? BC. Hannibal's forces slew over 50,000 Romans that day. It was a battle of total annihilation.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 6:32 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Dem Crips had to be taught a lesson.
Was there a battle in history bloodier than Stalingrad?
Turf is turf, man.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 6:43 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
For a single day battle, it would be hard to find a bloodier one than the battle of Cannae
Battle of the Somme - July 1, 1916. 60,000 Brits fell in a single day.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 7:12 pm to RollTide1987
The Somme had like 1.3 million casualties in less than five months of fighting. That might be the worst in terms of human destruction in a short period of time.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 7:12 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
July 1, 1916. 60,000 Brits fell in a single day.
Yeah, hard to argue against Somme as WOAT
Posted on 10/4/15 at 7:15 pm to Rickety Cricket
The difference in the Somme versus Stalingrad was possibly civilian casualties. The whole eastern front World War Two was brutal but the Stalingrad campaign was extremely savage for any civilians trapped in the exchanges. Beevor's book was a good read.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 7:45 pm to TigerDog83
Marius slaughtered 90.000 Germans at Aquae Sextiae.
Posted on 10/4/15 at 8:38 pm to RollTide1987
There were 23,000 casualties in the 1-day battle of Antietam.
This post was edited on 10/4/15 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 10/4/15 at 9:13 pm to RollTide1987
D-Day?
...for more 'modern times'
...for more 'modern times'
This post was edited on 10/4/15 at 9:16 pm
Popular
Back to top

18










