re: Was there a battle in history bloodier than Stalingrad?

quote:

---

I dare say, with the possible exception of some of the exploits of the Mongols, nothing in history can compare to the "Rape of Nanking".

---

Sounds like we're on the same page here.

quote:

---

battle in history bloodier than Stalingrad?

---

The Battle of the Synchronized Amazons

quote:

---

Omaha beach was awful but the other beaches weren't as bad. Landing at Omaha would certainly have been one of the scariest experiences in military history though.

---

Just to put things in perspective, at Stalingrad, each side had roughly the equivalent of an Omaha Beach every day for 6 months. (Each side suffered between 400k and 450k KIA over the roughly 6 months, depending on how you assess the area of operations/area of interest - so, that gives you between ~2400 to ~2750 KIA each day, each side - and total casualties amounted to a little over double the KIA).

It is difficult to imagine an almost purely military struggle more bloody than Stalingrad because no one fields armies of that size anymore. Logistically, no one wants to feed, clothe and equip an army of that size, and military forces are supremely lethal in modern times making such a large concentration of forces - essentially - an attractive target.

The projected campaign to invade and conquer the Japanese home islands in 1945 or 1946 expected to have similar or higher rates of casulaties on both sides, but contemplated a lot of civilian casualties as well, particularly based on what happened at Okinawa.

This is very true. Manila was laid waste by American forces.

Below is a picture of Stalingrad in the battle's aftermath. The square patches surrounding the partially intact buildings are where buildings once stood. There was literally nothing left of a lot of these structures:

quote:

---

Just to put things in perspective, at Stalingrad, each side had roughly the equivalent of an Omaha Beach every day for 6 months.

---

thanks for the cold shot of reality...