A little history trivia . . .

MrFun · April 5, 2003, 01:57

What is the largest, SINGLE battle (not war) that occured in human history? Let's say some of the criteria is in terms of numbers of soldiers involved from both sides, and maybe the physical size/scale of battlefield.

I don't know.

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 02:05

I think it would be Kursk on the Eastern Front in WWII. I know it had the most tanks; I'm assuming there were a lot of infantry as well.

Boris Godunov · April 5, 2003, 02:07

I'd be almost positive it was Verdun or the Somme... WWI had the largest use of infantry of any war before or since.

AnnC · April 5, 2003, 02:13

It's got to be Gettysburg.

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 02:15

A quick Google search has brought up the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of Berlin, Kursk and Verdun as candidates. This could be a hard question to answer...

Boris Godunov · April 5, 2003, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by AnnC
It's got to be Gettysburg.

The forces at Gettysburg were piddling compared to the numbers of men in battles in WWI. In the battle of the Somme, there were 60,000 casualties by the end of the first day.

Gettysburg is, IIRC, the largest battle ever fought in the Western Hemisphere, though.

Lord Merciless · April 5, 2003, 02:23

I agree that Somme is the largest battle ever fought, in terms of manpowers involved. On the first day of the artillery bombardement, the British army used more artillery shells than their total prewar inventory.

On the first day of the infantry assault (7 days after the initial artillery bombardement), the British suffered 60,000 casuaties, of which 20,000 were killed.

At the end of the 4 months long Battle of Somme, the Entente lost 650,000 men, while the Germans lost 450,000.

As a comparison, the total number of combatants at Gettysburg was around 200,000.

AnnC · April 5, 2003, 02:26

Hmm ok, I did a Google search. According to PBS, the Battle of the Bulge is the largest every fought by the US Army. source

MrFun · April 5, 2003, 02:32

AnnC -- I said human history, not American history. From the ancient era, to today, in any part of the world.

AnnC · April 5, 2003, 02:34

Hey, I'm a Southerner. History begins and ends with the War Between the States, doesn't it?

Ok, back to Google...

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:38

Either the Somme or Verdun for sure.

Lord Merciless · April 5, 2003, 02:39

But I think Verdun might have seen the most number of combatants. This battle lasted from February 1916 until almost October, and more than 2/3 (!) of the French army had served in Verdun through a rotational system. In the end, the British Somme offensive and the Russian Brusilov offensive relieved the French.

MrFun · April 5, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by AnnC
Hey, I'm a Southerner. History begins and ends with the War Between the States, doesn't it?

Ok, back to Google...

Does it always go back to that issue?

Anyway, I do remember a book that I'm reading for my American Military Experience course about World War II.

The book's title is "A War to Be Won" by Allan R. Millett. In Chapter 11 somewhere, he discusses a particular battle between Soviet Union and Germany, at the time that the Soviets have begun their massive counter-offensive on the Eastern front.

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.

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:45

Given time involved, I would say Verdun probably had the most people involved.

notyoueither · April 5, 2003, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
But I think Verdun might have seen the most number of combatants. This battle lasted from February 1916 until almost October, and more than 2/3 (!) of the French army had served in Verdun through a rotational system. In the end, the British Somme offensive and the Russian Brusilov offensive relieved the French.

Beaten to the punch.

Unfortunately, it also broke their will. The German's very nearly gained their goal, Pyrrhic though it would have been.

Lord Merciless · April 5, 2003, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Beaten to the punch.

Unfortunately, it also broke their will. The German's very nearly gained their goal, Pyrrhic though it would have been.

That also reflected in their 'dreaded' Maginot Line.

AnnC · April 5, 2003, 02:49

Does it always go back to that issue? If you grow up in South Carolina it does. One of these days, when I have time, I'll post my father's (long and elaborate) taxonomy of Yankees.

And Google never fails me... (drum roll) the largest and bloodiest battle in history was the Battle of Stalingrad where 1,109,000 soldiers died and 650,800 Russian soldiers were wounded but survived - no numbers for non-fatal casualties on the German side.

Source: Guiness Book of World Records

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Unless someone else might know which battle I'm alluding to.

I think you're alluding to Kursk, otherwise known as Operation Citadel. I have "A War to Be Won" here; if you are a little more specific I could probably find the line you are remembering...

Lord Merciless · April 5, 2003, 03:13

The largest tank war was actually the Gulf War 1, with 4000 allied tanks facing 3000 Iraqi tanks. In the Operation Zitadelle, the German side had only about 2000 tanks at the start of the offensive, the Russian side had even less. Also, there were far more APC, IFV, SP Artilleries, and other motorized vehicles involved in Gulf War 1.

The honor of the largest single tank engagement happened indeed during the Operation Zitadelle, at Prokhorovka on July 12 1943, where 1000 tanks from sides collided near that tiny village...

MrFun · April 5, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Unless someone else might know which battle I'm alluding to.

I think you're alluding to Kursk, otherwise known as Operation Citadel. I have "A War to Be Won" here; if you are a little more specific I could probably find the line you are remembering...

I will let you know if I get the urge to look it up again.

Bosh · April 5, 2003, 13:31

What about the biggest battle in Asia?
I can't think of anything that beats the fighting around Shanghai in August of 1937. About 250K Chinese casualties and 40K Japanese if you add in the civilian casualties and strech for the Rape on Nanjiang its definately up there.
Also Verdun and Somme shouldn't really count, a battle that last most of the year is a series of battles....

Drogue · April 5, 2003, 13:55

Depends on what you mean by largest. In terms of casualties, it would have to be Stalingrad, in terms of overall impact on the world, I'd say the Somme. However, since a battle is fought in one place, I think the 'largest' might not be the right phrase. If it is, maybe the Battle of Britain. That was over much or England, and parts of France/Germany.

Quote:

Originally posted by Boshko
What about the biggest battle in Asia?
I can't think of anything that beats the fighting around Shanghai in August of 1937. About 250K Chinese casualties and 40K Japanese if you add in the civilian casualties and strech for the Rape on Nanjiang its definately up there.
Also Verdun and Somme shouldn't really count, a battle that last most of the year is a series of battles....

Yes, but I think battles can last any length of time, but are continuous in one particular location. I could be wrong though

Lord Merciless · April 5, 2003, 13:57

The biggest battles in Asia occured between forces of Chinese Communists and Nationalists. The "Battle of Huai-Hai" saw the destruction of several Nationalist armies with up to 600,000 men.

Az · April 5, 2003, 14:02

Gettysburg was the largest battle fought in the western peninsula?

bah, Roman armies had largest battles millenia ago.

Bosh · April 5, 2003, 14:05

Quote:

The biggest battles in Asia occured between forces of Chinese Communists and Nationalists. The "Battle of Huai-Hai" saw the destruction of several Nationalist armies with up to 600,000 men.

Ah ok, don't know Chinese Civil War history as well as I should.

Quote:

in terms of overall impact on the world, I'd say the Somme

Nah, if you're going by that standard everything from Yarmuk to Manzikert beat the Somme.

Boris Godunov · April 5, 2003, 14:19

The Somme changed little in the war, so I can't see it being considered one of huge impact, other than the massive casualties. I believe, to this day, it has the distinction of having the most dead per acre, but it didn't shake up anything in the war. It was just a huge, disgusting slaughter.

AnnC · April 5, 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Gettysburg was the largest battle fought in the western peninsula?

bah, Roman armies had largest battles millenia ago.

Uhmm, Rome is in the eastern hemisphere.

korn469 · April 5, 2003, 15:08

i wonder which single battle involved the largest percentage of the entire's world population since 1492

see if you history people can find that one out

Lord Merciless · April 5, 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
i wonder which single battle involved the largest percentage of the entire's world population since 1492

see if you history people can find that one out

Somme is still the winner. Assuming a KIA rate of 20% (very high already), a total of 4.5 million men would have participated. Given the population to be around 2 billion in 1916, it means 0.225% of the world population had fought in this battle.

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

I will let you know if I get the urge to look it up again.

I found it for you. On page 295 of "A War to Be Won", Murray and Millett say that "both sides marshaled massive forces for this climactic battle of World War II - the largest battle in human history." They are referring to Operation Zitadelle.

Chalk a point up for me...