Battle of the Bulge, German casualties 100, 000
Battle of Stalingrad, German casualties 800, 000
MrMalachiCrunch, I don´t know where you get your nbrs from, but I have to say they are totally off.
Casualties included wounded and missing in action not just dead.
For Stalingrad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Casualties
For the Bulge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge#Aftermath
I look forward to reviewing your citations that differ widely :wink:
My point being that somebody in command of an entire theater of battle for a partial period of time that saw 30, 000 dead ought not to be in the same league as commanders of geographically small areas in which larger numbers of dead occurred in mere days for a losing battle or campaign.
but the answer would also depend on what “best” means in this
Good point, I initially read this as meaning the best tactician or battlefield commander who lost. Now I am thinking most gracious loser? That opens up the door to a whole different selection. General Lee perhaps? Most French generals? :-P
„Die U-Boote wurden „Eiserne Särge“ genannt. Was man damals als „Blutzoll“ bezeichnete, _**die Verlustquote also, war bei den U-Boot-Männern so hoch wie bei keiner anderen Waffe. Von den 40.000 U-Boot-Männern sind 30.000 im Atlantik geblieben. Viele von ihnen waren noch nicht einmal Männer – in Wirklichkeit waren es halbe Kinder: Der gesamte U-Boot-Orlog war ein riesiger Kinderkreuzzug. Wir hatten 16jährige an Bord, gegen Kriegsende gab es 19jährige Leitende Ingenieure und 20jährige Kommandanten, in einer Art Schnellbrütverfahren frontreif gemacht, um auf eine der fürchterlichsten Weisen vom Leben zum Tode befördert zu werden. Ich habe mich immer dagegen gewehrt, daß es in Todesnachrichten von U-Boot-Fahrern hieß, sie seien gefallen. Sie sind abgesoffen, ersäuft wie überzählige Katzen im Sack.“
– Lothar-Günther Buchheim
RED Highlighted Meaning: the total numbers of lost men on a “SINGLE WEAPON” was higher then on any other WEAPON.
I chosed the word Battlefield , since the Ocean`s had been their place they fought.
According to Stalingrad the numbers are probably way more higher but Historicans still fighting over it.
Anyway, since the Majority died because of the cold and starvation and not by Enemy fire , I would not consider it as a military history best loser.
Battle of the Bulge Casualties:
Die Verluste auf beiden Seiten waren enorm:
( German side) Die deutschen Verluste der Ardennenoffensive betrafen über 68.000 Mann. Die 5. PzArmee, 6. PzArmee, 7. Armee erlitten insgesamt 10.749 Tote (K.I.A.), 22.388 Vermisste**(M.I.A.),** 35.169 Verwundete (Wounded).
(Allied side) Demgegenüber betrugen die alliierten Verluste über 77.000 Mann. Die 1. US Armee verzeichnete 4.629 Tote**(K.I.A.),** 12.176 Vermisste (M.I.A), 23.152 Verwundete ( Wounded), die 3. US Armee 3.778 Tote (K.I.A.), 8.729 Vermisste (M.I.A.), 23.017 Verwundete (Wounded)und das im Norden tangierte XXX. Brit. Korps 200 Tote(K.I.A.), 239 Vermisste (M.I.A.), 969 Verwundete (Wounded).
I accept your opinion MrMalachiCrunch and we agree to disagree.**_
@wittmann:
@Herr:
Anyway, it may please you to know that in earlier topic (not sure whether it was a poll) on who was the greatest general ever, my choice was Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington.
i have never studied any of his battles or campaigns. I would probably lean towards his being lucky to meet lesser opponents(the Peninsular) or Napoleon, when he was past his best.
Am I too harsh?
Nelson is another matter! He was in a league of his own
I have to concede that I’m not much of an expert myself. But Wellington’s overall battle record is very good, and well, “lesser opponents”, I don’t know…. it’s rare for truly great generals to meet in battle anyway.
I’ve since been searching the web for a bit, and maybe I have to revise my opinion. Perhaps Khalid ibn al-Walid was the greatest, or perhaps Tran Hung Dao. But it’s extremely difficult, and probably not particularly useful, to try and make such comparisons anyway.
@aequitas:
Groß Admiral Karl Dönitz for loosing the most men on one Battlefield then any other in any other Battlefield during WW II. Worldwide.
And
General Lord Cornwallis for loosing a whole Continent.
You’re wrong on 2 counts Aequitas.
Canada exists today. It’s more than HALF of the North American Continent, that Cornwallis ‘didn’t’ lose.
yea but it’s the wrong half. The half where its’ always cold, few resources, French, and full of complainers…
So Cornwallis did lose.
I stand erected Herr KaLeun
had always heard 5’2" however with a little research I now see that 5’2" in french is not the same as english
wonder if that’s why they switched to the metric system? well that is another research project that I will have to remain ignorant of for now
Napoleon would be my choice for “best” loser. How about Chingis Khan for best winner? Not only did he get involved in a land war in Asia he conquered most of it.
Best beer around and ice wine for those who like it sweet. But first and foremost is Canadian Rye, best resource around. Oh yeah, and only one of two industrialized nations with a triple A credit rating. The other one lost two world wars and still kicks ass on the world scene economically.
Garg, congratulations on becoming a Liaison! I have a feeling you will do GREAT things for the community! It will be such a joy to see your brand of humour, but now you will have to be more …… nuanced with your differing opinions vis-a-vis mine. Who am I kidding! Have at it! En garde!
@Imperious:
yea but it’s the wrong half. The half where its’ always cold, few resources, French, and full of complainers…
So Cornwallis did lose.
I think you mean it’s the YOUR WRONG half.
What am I saying half for? More like Quarter. Either way you’ve got your facts wrong again, and your culpability is on file with public record F O R E V E R.
AND LOL AT FEW RESOURCES! Your state buys 80% of it’s electricty from my province which has 1/10th of the population LOLOLOL!
You spanish speaking Yankee glutton!
If anything, Canada’s problem is too much resources. Makes us lazy as it’s too easy to sell raw materials versus actually making stuff with it. Ship iron to Japan to purchase it back in the form of a lexus….
Garg, can you convince the natives over there to allow the pipeline through? A few of my buddies make pipes out east here and are laid off for a spell. We have some diamonds, nice and shiny just in case a bit of bribery is required….!
I think you mean it’s the YOUR WRONG half.
What am I saying half for? More like Quarter. Either way you’ve got your facts wrong again, and your culpability is on file with public record F O R E V E R.
Nope. The “half” which represents USA allowed that part of the world to be the dominant power since 1900. Canada on the other hand concentrated on heating and blankets, as well as bad hockey teams and Canada Dry……
Yea we got the much better deal, so own up to it.
This “My country is better than your country” smacks of playground antics.
This “My country is better than your country” smacks of playground antics.
USA was always more dominant than Canada. Simple fact. Always was, always will be. It’s just too cold for people.
LOL
for 15 trillion more dollars of debt. I’m sure we could do better.
Lets see here… in a fact regarding which power is the most dominant…of which Canada is not even in the top 10 since 1900…
Somebody decides they can’t refute that claim [edited by GG], and come up with debt comparisons?
Major LOL…
If you really want to start your losing battle, maybe you should make a new thread?
[edited by GG]
LOL…If you can’t refute, i guess that is what you might post.
[edited by GG]
We were having a nice little chat until somebody decided to start slagging one country in order to make their country look better. IL, you want to argue that the US is more dominant well nobody is arguing against that, in fact, that is not part of the thread. But BULLY for the US of A, #1 soon to be #2 GDP, #1 military soon to be bankrupt. Bully for good ole uncle sam!
Now can ya quite hijacking this thread with your anti-Canadian sentiment?
Garg, IL is arguing that the US is more dominant than Canada, he might as well argue that hot is warmer than cold. I think we can both agree they have a larger military and GDP, one would hope with 10 times the population. I like the US of A just where it is, below us……on the map of course.
