LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteGettysburg.
In your opinion, what was the worst battle in history to participate in as a soldier?
My vote goes to Stalingrad...
"By and by when each nation has 20,000 battleships and 5,000,000 soldiers we shall all be safe and the wisdom of statesmanship will stand confirmed."
-- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1902
Gettysburg.
Any battle if your a god fearing man.
The Somme. I think that's the worst by such a long margin, that I'd really have to be convinced of another one that was worse.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Battle of the Network Stars.
-dale
Reminds me of an observation someone made that "There are no Aetheists in fox holes".Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Any battle if your a god fearing man.
Then again artilliary shells, bombs and mortars know no religion.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 15 Feb 06, at 21:11.
Guadal Canal - same kind of conditions as the Somme but you're now cut off and pretty well both sides degenerated into battles between death squads and not armies.
Chimo
Somme, Guadal Canal, Stalingrad, Kursk, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chosin Resevoir, Battle of the Bulge, Omaha beach....pick one.
Guadal canal was worse in some ways, Utah beach was worse in some ways, Antietam, really....all the battles i named.
If you want an ABSOLUTE worst of all time, how'd you like to have been one of Leonidas' 300 Spartans at Thermopolyae as you faced down an army of Persians that numbered well over 300,000 men?
Being a Roman at Cannae would've been no fun either. Nor a Carthaginian at the second fall of Carthage. Nor a Trojan when the Greeks burst forth from the Trojan Horse, etc, etc.
Hell, perhaps someone can tell me what a 'pleasant' battle is like. I doubt ANYONE here has ever heard a word about the terrain features i fought for, but i can assure you, the men who fell in those places are everybit as dead as the men that fought at The Somme.
Not being military but being a bit of an historian, I'd say any battle where your commanding officers can't give you a clear objective.
How about
Can't win
Can't surrender
and Can't leave the battlefield
... for both sides.
Chimo
Well, when I consider how bad a battle is, I consider what the weather was like, whether or not poison gas was used (nasty stuff) if the soldiers were well supplied, the psychological factors (including the inability to retreat, or officers who'd shoot you for deserting) and all that. Being outnumbered is pretty bad, but if it's quick...
I think the average survival time for a soldier entering Stalingrad was less than 24 hours...
"By and by when each nation has 20,000 battleships and 5,000,000 soldiers we shall all be safe and the wisdom of statesmanship will stand confirmed."
-- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1902
Yep, definitely sucks but it could lead to a Mexican standoff, where nobody makes a move.
In my 'clear objective' category, I'd have to vote Passchendaele
A non-military laymans opinion:
Being a Russian soldier during the WWII!
Charging the German lines, while having the NKVD behind you shooting anyone who falters!
Talk about being between the rock and the hard place.
Maybe being one of Pickett’s Virginians walking that bloody mile on Cemetery Hill and into the mouths of the Union cannons!
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: