Longest battle during world war2 [Archive]

jpyle

12-20-2004, 01:35 PM

Yeah but the longest battle that i thought was probably the battle of Foy.....well no nevermind not that but Carentan was a long battle too. Well i have to agree with EasyRed506 because they dide have the long, long battles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

o0MattE0o

12-21-2004, 03:38 PM

longest thats easy

ENGLAND Vs GERMANY 1939 - 1946

Akfierate

12-21-2004, 06:31 PM

its 1945* and i mean not a campaign , an individual battle. If it is a campaign i guess the longest one is the japan fighting against china 1937-1945

Gryf-

12-24-2004, 03:34 PM

Many historians consider the Battle for the Atlantic the longest single action of the war. While not fast or glorious every ship in the North Atlantic was on combat patrol with no stand down until in port. I don't know if I consider that a single battle or a campaign broken into individual battles becasue I can see arguments for either side of the coin.

The battle for Stalingrad ran from early September 1942 until Feb 2, 1943; 5 months of constant fighting with between 1 and 2 million casualties. While perhaps not the longest, it certainly was one of the longest and bloodiest battles in history.

I'd have to give Leningrad the tops for longest single action. The Siege of Leningrad lasted from September 8, 1941, to January 18, 1944. It was roughly 870 days long but they call the seige the 900 day seige. After day 850 passed you might as well round it up to 900.

Akfierate

12-24-2004, 05:11 PM

Woah thanks for sharing

greenlionhaert

12-26-2004, 12:58 AM

the battle of Stalingrad, seriously, was a big "bloodbath". I think about 250.000 dead german soldiers or was it "250.000 casualties"?

nova006

12-29-2004, 06:32 PM

i think thats total dead altho i know the russians lost about double the men germany did

greenlionhaert

12-30-2004, 01:58 AM

You can say that. When the Russians wanted to retake a hill in Stalingrad, they lost a hole division in 1 day (that's about 10,000 men). But that's Russia, attack was the spirit.

Kraktognix

12-30-2004, 03:52 AM

Only if you see it over one day but there were campaings who have taken longer then this one
like the battle of the bulge it has taken 3 months to take over the Ardens

nova006

12-30-2004, 08:48 AM

i strongly disagree with the russians tactics altho they worked there had to be another way then throwing wave after wave at the germans

Tycho_lives

12-31-2004, 05:35 PM

stalingrad's final tally was 800,000 dead Germany, 900,000 dead Russia. I don't know of any numbers for the Rumanians (but they weren't actually in stalingrad anyway). It's possible that those numbers are casualties instead, but I seem to remember hearing them called deaths.

Akfierate

12-31-2004, 06:21 PM

Well i got it from a website but i'm not totally sure.
Red Army 500.000
Germans 147.000

nova006

12-31-2004, 09:21 PM

that dosent seem right its to low http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

greenlionhaert

01-01-2005, 02:07 AM

The only reason why Russia won teh battle near Kursk was because the germans were outnumbered and the russians could send waves and waves of troops into germans lines when they finally stopt the germans near Kursk... it's more like cavalery charging http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Akfierate

01-01-2005, 05:01 AM

Yes and the russians didn't mind how many men died , the main thing they wanted was victory.

Kirov419

01-03-2005, 07:14 PM

Leningrad was the longest, but not the hardest
Stalingrad was the bloodies and fierced of all battles
1.1 million Soviet Casualties, 100000 Civil Casualties. 500.000 Axis Casualties INCLUDING allies of the Axis. Hun, Ita.
Germany lost there best army at Stalingrad
6th Army.

KG2323

01-04-2005, 01:39 PM

i think it might have been the seige of Leningrad.

greenlionhaert

01-04-2005, 02:32 PM

About the what somebody said about the 6th army: I thought the Berlin division was the best, not the greatest but they were fanatic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kirov419

01-04-2005, 04:00 PM

6th Wehrmacht Army was the best germany had the whole war Veterans from Africa etc etc they were top of the notch! well they all died at stalingrad

Akfierate

01-04-2005, 10:16 PM

They were all totally wiped out ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Luftwaffe_109

01-05-2005, 11:35 PM

Ok, firstly, the 6.Armee was never in Africa, unlike what Kirov419 suggests.

The 6.Armee was established on 10 October 1939. It was stationed on the Western frontier near the area of Kleve as security forces from 10 October 1939 through 9 May 1940. They were involved in the Western Campaign from 10 may 1940 through 19 June 1940 in Belgium, Holland and then France. From 26 June 1940 they were stationed along the Demarcation Line in France until 2 July 1940 and then on the Canal Coast in Normandy until 15 April 1941. From the end of April 1941 through 21 June 1941 they were relocated to the Eastern Frontier in Galicia. The 6. Armee then fought in the East until surrendering at Stalingrad on 2 February 1943.

Now, to the issues of losses at Stalingrad pocket:

The number of German soldiers lost in the Stalingrad pocket was probably below 200,000.

Only 13,000 Romanian soldiers and a few Croatian and Italian soldiers and others were traped in the pocket.

Finally, Stalingrad was by no means the most bloody battle of the war. One of the most bloody I would say was Operation Bagration (June 22 1944) with:

German total casualties: 399,000
Soviet casualties: 770,888

Resulting in the annialation of the German Army Group Centre.

greenlionhaert

01-06-2005, 12:53 AM

your bodycount is more realistic than those 800.000 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but I'm alomost sure it was almost 250.000 casualties, not only deaths.

greetz

Luftwaffe_109

01-06-2005, 07:00 PM

greenlionhaert,

If by 250,000 you refer to German soldiers at Stalingrad then, indeed, then number of soldiers trapped in the pocket was slightly less than 200,000.

However, doubtless there were casualties incured by Sixth Army and elements of Fourth Panzer in the fighting for this city, and these I haven't included (I specifically stated soldiers lost in the pocket, not the fighting for the city) but of course they can be found.

Losses before the fighting for the city aren't very relevant as they more accurately come under Operation Blu (the drive to the Volga) than the battle for Stalingrad.

Best Regards

Panzer_007

01-08-2005, 10:04 PM

Hmm, I wouldnt say, Stalingrad was more decisive, because in 1944 it was already clear that Germany would loose. In Stalingrad two armies where fighting to reach the very limits to comply in their masters wishes. To add, that Stalingrad was imo the most instens and longest battle. It wasnt some fronteer fighting or ravages by recongroups..it was a titans clash.
You're right, the 6th army never was in Afrika, but knowing Kirov(and i do) he meant the four "pioniere batalionen" that where send to Paulus in October. I know at least some of them just returned from Afrika.
The combined losses of the 6th army and the 4th panzerarmy raise over 300.000 during the battle.
(incl 130.000 prisoners), their allies lost tremendous amounts of men and material as well...:
2nd Hongarian army: 143.000 men
8th Italian army: 114.520 men
3th and 5th Rumenian army: 158.854 men
these losses are not in the city alone, but the battle of Stalingrad also took place in the surounding areas.
So this takes the axis loses for the battle of Stalingrad way over 800.000 men.
While Russian loses there count over 1.1 milion.
**I must add: dont be confused, these numbers are loses, wich means it includes: woundeds, deads, missings, pow's and such. In the Russian case we can easely asume militia as well.
All these numbers..and we havent even started on the lost equipment yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

greenlionhaert

01-09-2005, 01:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
greenlionhaert,

If by 250,000 you refer to German soldiers at Stalingrad then, indeed, then number of soldiers trapped in the pocket was slightly less than 200,000.

However, doubtless there were casualties incured by Sixth Army and elements of Fourth Panzer in the fighting for this city, and these I haven't included (I specifically stated soldiers lost in the pocket, not the fighting for the city) but of course they can be found.

Losses _before_ the fighting for the city aren't very relevant as they more accurately come under Operation Blu (the drive to the Volga) than the battle for Stalingrad.

Best Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're right, it's about 2 years ago when I read about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I should read again the books before I lose every date or number. I'm very interested in Operation Barbarossa and Operation little saturn and I cannot believe that I'm forgetting those details. And I think I can believe Panzer's to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I never guessed how many POW were taken.

Luftwaffe_109

01-09-2005, 10:16 PM

Panzer_007

Firstly, let me say that your numbers refer to casualties, not losses. Losses are dead and missing, while casualties are of course, wounded, dead and missing.

Now, Stalingrad was not the longest battle, that is if you differentiate between the different phases of it (ie. the Russian strategic defensive campaign, German Operation Blau, from Jul-Nov 42 (125 days) and the Russian strategic offensive campaign Nov-Feb 43 (76 days)).

Certainly, a contender for longest battle with this method would then be the North Caucasus battles, which went for 160 days (not even counting their evacuation after Stalingrad, from Jan-Feb 43 which would add a further 35 days).

However, as you know, the 900 day seige of Leningrad was a battle that went for longer that all of them by far.

Finally, I never said that Operation Bagration was more decisive (I agree that the war had already turned decisivly against the axis by this time) than Stalingrad, only that far more catastrophic losses were incured by the Germans in it.
It was also a much larger battle in terms of numbers involved (for example, on the Russian side were involved 2,411,600 men at the begining of the battle compared with 1,143,500 men before the start of the Stalingrad Strategic Offensive operation, Operation Uranus, in November 43 or the 547,000 strength of the Red Army in the Don and Stalingrad region in July at the start of Blau).

Best Regards

Panzer_007

01-10-2005, 04:08 AM

Luftwaffe_109, you are correct one the durance of the Leningrad battle, but I still siad Stalingrad, because after '41, it really became a "static" front(beside the artillery), while staligrad was the center of non-stop action.
But yeah..In theoretical terms, Leningrad lasted way longer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
As for the actual duration of Stalingrad, I would start from the first attack on the city
(14 september? slap me if im wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif), till the end on 3 february. Not looking to the rest of operation Blau, just on what had direct impact on the battle in and around Stalingrad.
So It would nearly include entirely armeegruppe B.
And..imo i think losses are the dead, wounded, and missing, while casualties are only the dead and wounded. I mean, losses, you know those are the seize of the gaps in your formations now, right? But you dont know where they all went, while casualties are numbered by those that are acounted for as death and wounded. Because..you dont want to count the missing as a casualty of war yet? they might not even be prisoner or deserted (or death) they might have accidentaly wandered of(got seperated, pinned down, chased away,..) the battle in the heat and show up again once the battle comes to ease.
Just my wiew on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Greetz

Kirov419

01-10-2005, 12:05 PM

My numbers include all other things like KiA Incapable of fighting Desertion Capture etc etc.

But i forgot my . at the Veteran sorry they had Veterans from Africa Pioneers they were good!

njcl

01-11-2005, 08:44 AM

i think russia lost around 6 million soldiers but dont quote me,anyway what about the battle of el alamein for longest,stalemate for a long time until monty took command and defeated rommel

winters506_101

01-12-2005, 02:30 PM

STALINGRAD DEF. WHOEVER PUT CARENTAN AND MARKETGARDEN IS STRAIGHT DUMB. STALINGRAD LASTED FOR A FEW YEARS

Luftwaffe_109

01-12-2005, 06:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by winters506_101:
STALINGRAD DEF. WHOEVER PUT CARENTAN AND MARKETGARDEN IS STRAIGHT DUMB. STALINGRAD LASTED FOR A FEW YEARS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The battle of Stalingrad did not last "a few years", even if you include Operation Blau. If you do include Operation Blau it lasted 201 days, but not several years. Still, it was a long battle.

Panzer_007

01-13-2005, 08:09 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by winters506_101:
STALINGRAD DEF. WHOEVER PUT CARENTAN AND MARKETGARDEN IS STRAIGHT DUMB. STALINGRAD LASTED FOR A FEW YEARS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks for sharing my point, but..a few years??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif "...IS STRAIGHT DUMB"

Silliam

01-13-2005, 08:31 AM

www.stalingrad.net (http://www.stalingrad.net)

this site has almost everything about stalingrad. on of my fav. ww2 sites.

greenlionhaert

01-13-2005, 10:48 AM

Calling me dumb for posting Market garden? I only thougt of battle with 24/24 battle duration

And about the site: I like this one to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but Rottiers should try to put the "dutch" maps into english. I was really surprised to see that one of the best WW2 sites was from belgium http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ryan_v

02-07-2005, 11:25 AM

Battles on the Western front were sorts of vacations compared to the Eastern Front battles. We already have the correct answer of Leningrad being the longest. The longest battle in the West was Monte Cassino I believe. That raged for 6 months and cost 350,000 casualties on both sides.

HailWillE

02-07-2005, 04:34 PM

Battle of the atlantic. Coast guard kicked *** there...

red_dog006

02-09-2005, 04:57 PM

From what I have seen and read, the Germans lost 850,000 troops and the Russians lost 1,500,000 troops. When Germany was taking the city they were attacking with 250,000 troops and almost took the city. The Russians had 40,000 in the city and they need to be reinforced so Stalin ordered 10,000 troops to cross the river. In COD the beginning of the Russian campaign, that is the 10,000 troops reinforcing the city. When the Russians attacked with full force, they attaced with 750,000 troops. Germans didnt see it coming and the main reason for the colaps of the city is because a Romanian division retreated when ordered to stay. That was the main cause for the lose of the city. Then 180,000 Germans were surrounded within the city and were never recused even when Hitler order them to be recused. The German lines could never push forward again and just went backward. Plus the troops within the City did not have any winter clothing so many died due to the cold and frost bite.

The__Fury

02-10-2005, 02:27 PM

you have to remember when you read cashualties does it sposificly say soldier because that probly inclueds cavilian too but that would not have a huge huge impact i would say that some of the bloodyest battles were acctualy fought in ww1

in russia, the Czar gained a temporary stay of his doom thourgh the june offensive launched by the capable general aleksei brusilov.the brusilov offence nearly punched through the carpathian passes into austria. the fighting cost germany and austria six hundred thousand, no less than four hundred thousand austrians falling captive. but the brusilov offence also tore apart more strands in the Czarist fabric. one million russians were lost. the Czarist army was no longer a military force but a seedbed for revolution.

i am not even going to start about the battle of the somme and verdun

red_dog006

02-12-2005, 11:57 AM

lol, in casulties lists, they never include civilians. If you do get to see the civilian casulties list, they say it seperate, but they try to keep those lists in the down-low Plus I am sure that there were also not a single German civilain living in or around Stalingrad

El_Core

02-19-2005, 08:10 AM

The reason the Russians lost so many men at Stalingrad was because Stalin's tactic was to send as many men into the enemy as possible. Stalin was a dictator, don't forget, so he had a lot of power over his many millions of Russian citizens, the majority of whom were peasant farmers.

There were literally millions, so equipment became a problem. At Stalingrad, the Russians were in some cases sharing a rifle between two or three men. Stalin's tactic was to simply to send in men to house-to-house or street-to-street battles in small groups. As one man fell, another would have to pick up his weapon and continue the fighting.

Scary but true. That's why the Germans lost so few men compared to the Bolsheviks at Stalingrad. The Russians couldn't kill them all so the frost did that winter.

greenlionhaert

02-19-2005, 08:36 AM

This is a fact and can also be seen in COD in which a sergeatn with a megaphone repaets: "first man gets a rifle, second gets ammo. If the first man dies the second takes his rifle!"

Lt.Jones2005

03-05-2005, 09:30 PM

im not sure but i think i read somewhere that iwo jima was in monardment for 4 months (that counts right) and then the fighting lasted for about another 3 clearing out the tunnels (some were 8 stories deep)fire fights still broke out in the tunnels while supplies were being landed on the beaches

terryewalker

03-06-2005, 04:48 AM

CAEN 6th June 9th July 44.

LtBen

03-08-2005, 05:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thunderpants1:
The battle of the Atlantic was really a campaign to rid the Atlantic waters of German U-Boats. The longest single battle, Id say would have to be the siege of Leningrad. Constant, unending fighting for over 100 days, I believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
700 days actually. But it was a seige, so it wasn't all combat.

My candidate would have to go to Stalingrad. 6 months of combat in both the city and the steppe, never stopping once.

*edit*
HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD HISTORY! WOOO!!

Let's get one thing clear, the Russians never, EVER had a doctrine for rifle sharing. This is completely and totally classic Hollywood bull****. The ONLY case of men in Stalingrad EVER not being issued weapons was from a GUARDS division very early in the battle. They were mobilized so quickly and sent across the river into the combat zone that 1,000 of the division's 10,000 soldiers hadn't been issued rifles. This was a combat zone, NOT combat. By the time these men actually saw combat a great deal of them had been issued their rifles on the other side of the river.