Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MoMoney on August 06, 2003, 08:29:52 AM
-
Ok- out of these theaters/wars ..how would you rate them in terms of the ferocity of fighting? I am talking infantry experience. I’m really not talking about the conditions either ..heat or snow etc. I’m talking about a fight that was personal- fight to the last man kind of stuff. Here’s the list:
1) West Front WWI
2) West Front WWII
3) East Front WWII
4) Pacific Front WWII
5) Korea (American Experience)
6) Vietnam (American Experience)
7) Falklands (British Experience)
8) Afgan War (Russian Experience)
9) Gulf War I (American Experience)
10) Gulf War II (American Experience)
Ok..the list in order:
1) East Front WWII
2) Pacific Front WWII
3) West Front WWI
4) Korea (American Experience)
5) Vietnam (American Experience)
6) West Front WWII
7) Afgan War (Russian Experience)
8) Gulf War II (American Experience)
9) Falklands (British Experience)
10) Gulf War I (American Experience)
-
You forgot Americas Afghan war...
-
Guadacanal or Iwo Jima gets my vote from the books I've read (Pacific)
-
The Battle of Vienna: September 12, 1683. The Muslims kept trying to mine under the walls to plant explosives. The Christians would dig counter-mines. Sometimes the tunnels would meet and in a space a few feet in diameter, in total darkness, the two sides would fight with picks, shovels and hands.
-
i agree with your list but i'll make a few changes:
1) East Front WWII
2) West Front WWI (up one)
3) Pacific Front WWII
4) Korea (U.N. Experience)
5) Vietnam (American Experience)
6) West Front WWII from US perspective, meant more to Polish, French (and all other occupied countries)+ British[/size]
7) Afgan War (Russian Experience)
8) Falklands (British Experience) (up one)
9) Gulf War II (Coalition Experience)
10) Gulf War I (Coalition Experience)
-
Originally posted by Dune
The Battle of Vienna: September 12, 1683. The Muslims kept trying to mine under the walls to plant explosives. The Christians would dig counter-mines. Sometimes the tunnels would meet and in a space a few feet in diameter, in total darkness, the two sides would fight with picks, shovels and hands.
I think you missed his sentence "Out of these theaters/wars"
-
Lone Pine - Gallipoli 1915
Passchendale - 1917
Kapyong Valley 24/25th April - 1951
Battles rather than theatres would seem more appropiate for your original question.
However:
1) West Front WWI (including East + Turkish otherwise probably 2nd place)
2) Pacific Front WWII
3) Korea (UN Experience)
4) East Front WWII
5) West Front WWII
6) Vietnam
7) Falklands (British Experience)
8) Afgan War (Russian Experience)
9) Gulf War I (Coalition Experience)
10) Gulf War II (Coalition Experience)
Tronsky
-
Verdun was probably the worst - 1st day of the Somme pretty awful.
-
If you guys want to go back into pre-20th century then I think the American Civil war would beat just about any. More Americans-for example- died in ONE DAY in a large Civil war battle than the entire 10 yr Vietnam war. I think I remember reading that 30k died just in the morning on the first day of Shilo..I think...
-
The war the Marines fought in the Pacific was, according to veterans who were on both fronts, far worse than the European theater.
-
The back seat of my 65 Tempest saw a lot of fighting in the campaigns of 1981 to 1983. What made it so noteworth was that it was localized hand-to-bra engagements that met with extremely fierce resistance.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
The back seat of my 65 Tempest saw a lot of fighting in the campaigns of 1981 to 1983. What made it so noteworth was that it was localized hand-to-bra engagements that met with extremely fierce resistance.
Yeah, I have read about your tragic campaigns. Some of the worst failures, even rivaling those of France.
-
Fortunately, I made it big on the Chippendale's circuit later and all those honeys ended up slipping cashola in my pants when they could've gotten my good luvin' for free!
(http://www.tvdance.com/chrisfarley/images/4a.gif)
-
Shilo was a two day battle with 27,000 fatalities for both sides combined.
The first day of the Somme was pretty nasty by all accounts. 57,000 British casualties of which 20,000 were fatalities.
The assault of Badajoz by the British took 40 attempts and cost 3500 men dead in one morning. The 48th Regiment only had 35 men and a couple of officers left. The victorious British then went beserk killing anybody in sight. I'd say that was pretty 'intense'.
But to be honest, the pre-gun powder, hand to hand combat of the dark and middle ages would probably be the most intense fights you could find. But I think most battles anywhere at anytime would be pretty intense if you are actually on the sharp end.
-
nothing on earth beats being under explosive artillery.
whenever the big stuff got really going is beyond anything swords and spears can cause. even more than a nuke due to the capricious nature of artillery damage. in ww1 guys totaly unprepaired for it litteraly just lost their minds. ( and the concept of shell shock was unknown to them so alot were shot as cowards great fun !)
and gas makes that look like a picknick.
they had it all blister,burn and choke.
my vote is for eastern ww1 all otherst save hiroshima and nagasaki beeing alsorans.
dulce et decorum est.
-
Pozieres.
-
Since everyone has pretty much derailed the list.
My vote is Thermopyle
-
From what I've read, Betio (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Betio.html) and Tarawa (http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/)
-
If you read personal accounts of combat they are all pretty much the same. When people are fighting for survival they are ruthless.
If I had to pick one I would have to go with Nazis vs. Soviets, because it was basically a war of extermination for the Nazis and a war for national survival for the Soviets.
-
#1) - Waco, Texas (Branch Davidians' Experience)
-
those crazy nuts in waco always holding themselves up in strongholds filled with guns!
-
Well, since I didn't give a correct answer the first time ;), out of the list I'll choose a tie between the Eastern Front and the Pacific Island campaign. With an honorable mention for the Chosin fighting.
BTW: There is this 5'7", 70 year old guy who is a balif in the courhouse next door. And he's also the toughest SOB in there. He joined the USMC at 18 and fought on Tarawa, Iwo Jima and most of the other islands, was stationed in China (He has a "China Marine" badge) and fought in the Chosin Resevior.
-
Tarawa was the most aggressive battle fought in the Pacific. I have no exact numbers, but would dare to say it cost more lives per square foot (excluding civilians) than any other battle fought in modern warfare.
-
American Civil War?
-
WW1 for France britian and germany was far worse then the civil war. but if your talking about american deaths. the civil war has no equal in our history.
-
no id have to say (chit wtf was that place on black hawk down i forget) was the fiercest i think even though some of the other port here been pretty rough
skull12
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
no id have to say (chit wtf was that place on black hawk down i forget)
Mogadishu, Somalia
-
From the original list the Eastern front and the Pacific front would easily qualify as the most intense and personal infantry battles. The rest are arguable except:
The Falklands hardly qualifies as it was fought by British professionals on the one hand and confused conscripts on the other. The was really only one instance of hand to hand combat at the point of the bayonet in that war.
The Russian Afghan experience was mostly hit and run guerrilla warfare with the Russians standing off as much as possible.
Neither Gulf war I and II qualifies as close up and personal. Not the way they were fought. But one war not listed definitely qualifies and is up there with the Eastern front or Pacific theatre.
That's the original Gulf war in the eighties between Iran and Iraq. Trench warfare, fanatical human wave attacks, chemical and biological warfare. It was vicious, long lasting and had enormous casualties. That qualifies by any standard.
-
Civil War no doubt, most other battles/wars someone had a superiority - except in the middle ages, but in the middle ages you weren't getting your bellybutton shot at while you were swinging your mace around.
In the Civil War, everyone lined up, fired at the enemy who was also lined up, then someone advanced. Many dropped on both sides, reload as fast as possible, then get another shot off. After that, bayonett time with people still being shot at. This was close quarters combat.
In an open field, one sided advanced with canon balls and a wall of shot coming at them.
Maybe there was something in europe equivelant to this? French Revolution?
WWI had trench warfare, while it was brutal, they still had trenches. Prior to that, all projectile armed warfare was out in the open.
-SW
-
The largest battle ever in the western hemisphere took place in Pennsylvania for three days in July 1863.
60,000 casualties
-
For heavens sake AKSW...what you described is warfare from the 16th century up to late 1800:s. Not to piss on your parade or anything, but I'd say the 30 yrs wars here in Euroland was more brutal, more fierce, took more lives, and generally were in an order of magnitude worse than the ACW.
-
No Hortlund, no way no how.
The European wars from the 15th to 18th century were fought with 15th to 18th century weapons using 15th to 18th century tactics.
There is a REASON the soldiers practiced drill and stood in long lines- they couldnt hit a whoopee thing if they didn't.
The American Civil War introduced much more lethal weapons. The muskets reloaded faster than the older ones, and furthermore muskets were phased out in favor of rifles, which were far more accurate. I believe grapeshot was used for the first time in the Civil War, I could be wrong on that though. In spite of the fact that the weapons were more accurate thus lethal, the generals on BOTH sides (but particularly the Union side) persisted in using older, European tactics that were well suited to the more inaccurate weapons that the tactics were made up for. So when two musket units in one of the myriad wars of the 15th-18th centuries lined up and faced off against eachother to fire a few volleys, you might only get 5-6 casualties per volley at 100 yards. When two rifle units went head to head and traded volleys, you could lose 30-40% of the unit in 2 minutes.
Now of course on the scale of 300 years of European conflict, the American Civil War doesn't count for much. But, in my opinion it ushered in the more "brutal" type of war we had right up through WW2.
-
Civil War no doubt, most other battles/wars someone had a superiority - except in the middle ages, but in the middle ages you weren't getting your bellybutton shot at while you were swinging your mace around.
In the Civil War, everyone lined up, fired at the enemy who was also lined up, then someone advanced. Many dropped on both sides, reload as fast as possible, then get another shot off. After that, bayonett time with people still being shot at. This was close quarters combat.
In an open field, one sided advanced with canon balls and a wall of shot coming at them.
Maybe there was something in europe equivelant to this? French Revolution?
Study your history. Perhaps many Americans are not aware of it, but I suggest you look at the Napoleonic wars and in particular the battles in Flanders, Portugal and Spain between the British (+ allies) and the French (+ allies). The warfare you decribed above was not an American invention - it was a European method honed to deadly efficiency by centuries of practice.
Have you forgotten Waterloo? Even just taking into account the 10 hour battle itself and excluding Quatre Bras and the other preliminaries, there were 64,000 casualties on both sides.
At Borodino there were 74,000 casualties.
The muskets reloaded faster than the older ones, and furthermore muskets were phased out in favor of rifles, which were far more accurate.
Rifles were in use in the British army in 1806 I believe, when green coated skirmish regiments like the 60th and 95th would harry the enemy at long distance, as they attacked.
While the ACW saw widespread use of rifles, whose accuracy was greater than the smooth-bore musket carried by line infantry 60 years earlier, the rate of fire was not. Breech loading weapons were a relative rarity and were out-numbered by the traditional muzzle loading type. An average British red coat battalion of the Napoleonic era could fire 4 shots a minute - and at the ranges they engaged accuracy was irrelevant. A few devastating volleys of battalion fire would kill an attack dead - as the French columns learned time and time again. In attack, a volley would be fired before closing with the bayonet.
I believe grapeshot was used for the first time in the Civil War, I could be wrong on that though
Wrong, I'm afraid. Grapeshot had been around for a hundred years or more before the ACW - primarily used on ships although not always so. Other methods had been developed for land. The British army used case shot (hollow cannon balls filled with musketballs around a charge), cannister (thin walled cannisters filled with musket balls which would split apart at the cannon muzzle), howitzers etc. Artillery was very advanced.
The ACW did not see large cavalry actions to the extent that the Napoleonic wars did. Cavalry was losing its influence as a major battlefield force, but back in Wellington's and Napoleon's day, the cavalry were a superlative killing machine and could decimate broken or exposed troops in short order.
Overall, the ACW did see the introduction of more lethal weapons but I wouldn't say it was the final word in pre-20th century warfare.
I'd say a later battle was pretty intense too - Rourke's Drift. To be in those British soldier's shoes must have been terrible. Didn't they award a bucket load of Victoria Crosses afterwards?
-
The American Civil War started with Napoleonis tactics, and ended in trench warfare. The early tactics were due to inertia in military thinking. When repeater rifles came out, the tactics changed.
The siege of Richmond looked similar to northern France 50 years later: Men dug in in trenches, awaiting the next artillery barrage.
-
Yes, alot changed during the American Civil War. We had numerous foreign visitors coming to see what the future of war would look like.
Rapid fire guns, trench warfare, more extensive use of aviation for scouting (balloons), snipers using scoped rifles, first ironclad ship engagement (as well as the gun turret mounted on a ship, more extensive use of trains and telegraph for orders and resupply.
Back to the orginal discussion, I'd have to vote for the Eastern front WWII. Not only for the numbers of dead combatants, but also for the number of civilians killed- including the indivduals gassed by the Nazis.
-
Yeah, the seiges of Stalingrad and Leningrad are probably tied for the most casualties, although the rape of Nanking may be close.
-
What about the seige of Vicksberg ?? You Euro's should read about that one.
Also, I seem to remember that the worst seige ever was Gangus Khan's seige of Kiev. I think he was outraged that they didn't surrender and once he took the city he killed every living person they he could find. Days and days of mass executions with primitive weapons...I think they executed like a million people?
-
Kokoda 1942
A vicous running battle across the Owen Stanley ranges with 2 Australian Battalions defeating a 6,000 strong Japanese force which resulted in the first defeat of the Japanese army in the pacific theatre.
Tronsky
-
I don't know, I wasn't there for any of them.
-
My parade Hortlund? Ummmm, yeah... I forgot, anytime anyone says something about what America went through they must be tooting their own horn.
Originally posted by Dowding
Study your history.
What you posted is actually European history, and thusly not "my" history.
Its in the history books, but doesn't qualify as "American" history.
Sorry that you have to get your panties in a bunch over something I said about the Civil War, hell I thought this thread was about America because it's labelled "Where did we see the fiercest fighting ever?" With several wars listing "American experience".
Must be my poor comprehension skills coming into play here.
-SW
-
The streets of ciudad Acuna. A maglite-wielding federale missed my head by a couple of inches.
-
My panties aren't in a bunch. Although evidentally answering your question has in some way offended you. Chill.
"Where did we see the fiercest fighting ever?" With several wars listing "American experience".
And several that didn't. This thread didn't just talk about American history - there are conflicts up there that didn't involve any Americans. And I would have thought the phrase 'your history' can understandably be taken in the same context as 'your maths' or 'your English'. In future, I'll make sure I qualify every statement just so not to confuse you. Maybe I'll throw in a few foot notes - how's that grab ya?
-
Oh please, you weren't just going the route of informing me of what had slipped my mind, the first two sentences in your post say it all.
Then there's "Have you forgotten Waterloo?", well I obviously have if I didn't post about it.
The whole reply is more reminiscient of implicating I'm a dumb American than an actual informative post.
-SW
-
where did we see the fiercest fighting ever?
On this message board.
(although the http://www.avp.com forum can get quite fierce at times, too.)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Guadacanal or Iwo Jima gets my vote from the books I've read (Pacific)
My vote too.
-
the fight in my house for the remote control
-
1) East Front WWII
2) Pacific Front WWII
3) West Front WWI
4) West Front WWII
5) Korea (American Experience)
6) Vietnam (American Experience)
7) Afgan War (Russian Experience)
8) Gulf War II (American Experience)
9) Falklands (British Experience)
10) Gulf War I (American Experience)
East Front WWII MUST be at the top of the list from what I have read.
Stalingrad? Kursk?
I'm not trying to take anything away from the Pacific Front, which is my #2, but from what I have read there isn't any comparison. Just the sheer numbers involved in the fierce fighting makes it so.
-
Yes but the Russians(or the Germans) weren't even close to the Japanese in fanaticism.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Yes but the Russians(or the Germans) weren't even close to the Japanese in fanaticism.
They made up for that and more in sheer numbers and the fact that it was a war of extermination on a scale never seen in history before...and, thank goodness, since.
Read Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" and then decide.
I'd be happy to read any recommendations you might have...always looking for a good read.
-
I'd have to say Rorkes Drift in the Zulu wars.
-
If the Napoleonic Wars (Peninsula War) were listed I'd go for that. A musket could only fire 3 rounds a minute and the Baker rifle only 2. Lines of soldiers just firing at each other, no ducking or moving, just standing taking hits - simply sitting ducks. Then the dredded Cavalry slicing through columns and rows of soldiers which would then make them go into the defensive box formation (so out wall would only be hit and inner wall would be safe). This would then allow the enemy artillery to aim at the box and virtually blow the whole lot up! Medication was crap and many would die through infection. As Dowding mentioned it also saw the first use of camoflage (wearing green rather than regimental colours - rifle sharpshooter regiments only) and the sharpshooter using rifles (60th Regiment of Foot (5th battlion) and the 95th Regiment of Foot (95th Rifles)).
Rourkes Drift must also be very high; totally amazing how that Welsh regiment defended against such odds.
Of course the question you answered....
1) West Front WWI
2) East Front WWII
3) West Front WWII
4) Pacific Front WWII
5) Korea (American Experience)
6) Vietnam (American Experience)
7) Afghan War (Russian Experience)
8) Falklands (British Experience)
9) Gulf War I (American Experience)
10) Gulf War II (American Experience)
The reason I put Gulf War II in last place is because most deaths have been since the war finished and are similar to counter terrorist skirmishes ala Northern Ireland.
-
Bruce Lee, Enter the dragon
-
some of you are naming fronts (eastern front), others name battles, (stalinegrad, waterloo) and how do you define "fiercest fighting"? number dead,length of fighting,how hard the fighting was?
ACW saw many new things , percussian cap ( more reliable than flintlock), rifled musket that used the "mini"ball, they loaded as fast as a musket but had the range and accuracy of a rifle, mulitable shot pistols, and some units had brass cartridge weapons near the end,and the gatling gun.
i think it's a hard choice, but a interesting discussion.
-
http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/WE/Casualties.html
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm
So what can be seen by this, humans can be a murderously cruel race pretty much, and I am very disappointed that we americans didn't live up to the brutality of the europeans.
Think about what you guys are arguing about and the deaths that are involved. It's like being proud of being from NY or LA because they have the highest gang deaths or something.
Both time periods were bloody as all others listed here, take a moment and reflect on it, and hope it never has to happen again.
-
ACW saw many new things , percussian cap ( more reliable than flintlock), rifled musket that used the "mini"ball, they loaded as fast as a musket but had the range and accuracy of a rifle
thats for sure,,and remmeber the black powdr centerfire rifles made today,,are the most accurate firearms in the world,,knight arms makes a centerfire blackpower gun that is illegal to hunt with in some states because of its accuracy,,black powder burns so evenly over the bullet compared to a cartrage,, more accurate close and long range
acw was ugly just like any war,,,and ranks up with the bloodest fighting in history,,and did send war into another era,, first hand granads were produced in civil war,,and the first ship sunk by a submarine too,,and first battle wagons to fight too,,days of ship to ship fighting would never be the same,,i dont think there is one battle in the civil war that didnt cause mass deaths,,battle of the wilderness was bad,,same with little known battles like wilson creek
-
1) The American Civil War
2) West Front WW1(trench warfare)
3) East Front WWII (massive front)
4) Pacific Front WWII (fortress europe)
5) West Front WWII
6) Korea (similar to #1 on occasions, just smaller scale)
7) Vietnam (very long campaign)
Dont know enough about the below to comment..
8) Russian Afgan War (CIA was in this war)
9) Gulf War I (lotsa Iraqi died)
10) Gulf War II (ongoing...)
11) Bosnia? (took out Falklands war)
I think civil wars are the most bloody because both sides are situated localy. Then its the technological modern wars.
-
Originally posted by narsus
[BThink about what you guys are arguing about and the deaths that are involved. It's like being proud of being from NY or LA because they have the highest gang deaths or something. [/B]
It's not arguing, it is called discussing.
When we talk about such things we learn.
Isn't that what the O'Club is all about?
..and while I would agree that the Civil war and Napoleaonic wars were fierce, they weren't on the list.;) Nice US vs European jab though re: the casulaty list...clap clap. No comparing "d*ck size" in those links.
:D
-
Originally posted by john9001
some of you are naming fronts (eastern front), others name battles, (stalinegrad, waterloo) and how do you define "fiercest fighting"? number dead,length of fighting,how hard the fighting was?
Exactly!
Under my completely arbitrary definition of "Fiercest" I'll go with the Battle of the Somme. And it gives me a chance to toot by countries horn. :)
"There were no further advances that year. The autumn rains turned the battlefield into a bog and the offensive staggered to a halt. The line had been moved forward only six miles; the Allies had suffered 600,000 casualties, and 236,000 Germans were killed. Well might the Germans refer to the Battle of the Somme as das Blutbad - the blood bath.
The Somme had cost Canada 24,029 casualties, but it was here that the Canadians confirmed their reputation as hard-hitting shock troops. "The Canadians", wrote Lloyd George, "played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as storm troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst.""
-
Originally posted by type_char
4) Pacific Front WWII (fortress europe)
It would seem your knowledge in military history is only superseded by your knowledge in geography.
-
Meant to imply that Europe was mostly an air compaign until Dday, except for S Italy and N Africa but that wasnt part of the original list.
-
lol...Hortlund's comment stands.:p
-
Originally posted by type_char
Meant to imply that Europe was mostly an air compaign until Dday, except for S Italy and N Africa but that wasnt part of the original list.
(http://www.alienvisuals.com/daedalus/WTF2.jpg)
-
Creamo vs Ripsnort
-
Originally posted by Animal
(http://www.alienvisuals.com/daedalus/WTF2.jpg)
Bahahaha!!! Good one, humor is most important.
:D
-
animal, pedazo de mamon, entre tu contestacion a Gofaster, y la imagen esa, he despertado a mis padres con mis risas....y son casi las cuatro de la mañana!!.....no veas el cirio que me han armado :D
Esta me la pagas...... :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by RRAM
animal, pedazo de mamon, entre tu contestacion a Gofaster, y la imagen esa, he despertado a mis padres con mis risas....y son casi las cuatro de la mañana!!.....no veas el cirio que me han armado :D
Esta me la pagas...... :D :D :D
Ram, tanto tiempo. Me alegra verte :)
-
The whole reply is more reminiscient of implicating I'm a dumb American than an actual informative post.
As they say, YMMV.
first hand granads were produced in civil war,,and the first ship sunk by a submarine too,,and first battle wagons to fight too,
Hand grenades were not 'invented' during the civil war - they had been around for a long time before - hence the name 'Grenadiers'. Each line battalion had a compliment of grenadiers, although their use had phased out by the Napoleonics and the Grenadiers became the elite of each battalion - the strongest, tallest men usually, deployed opposite the light infantry (the other elite part) in line so the flanks were secure.
I don't know what you mean by 'Battlewagon'. The use of horse drawn vehicles in combat is well documented through the milennia.
The ACW did usher in a new era in terms of naval combat, however. I watched a prgoram about the raising of the Monitor's turret the other day - very interesting.
-
I think Einstien would have to raise his hand in the middle of this discussion and say......
It's all relative of your view point at the time...
-
Hand grenades were not 'invented' during the civil war
well the first patent grenads were made in civil war,,this is from ehistory.com
***************** THE FIRST HAND GRENADES *********************
During the Civil War, two kinds of hand grenades were made, but they saw little use in combat. One of them, patented in August 1861, carried a percussion cap and an activating "plunger" that was not inserted until it was about to be thrown. Rated as effective at a distance of about twenty-six yards, this explosive piece was known by the name of its inventor, Ketchum.
A more sophisticated grenade, "the Excelsior," was developed in 1862 by W. W. Hanes. Its cast-iron shell held fourteen nipples, to each of which a percussion cap was attached before it was thrown. Hanes insisted, correctly, that at least one cap was sure to trigger an explosion. In practice, men trying to use his device often hit a cap accidentally and had a hand or arm blown off. As a result, it seems never to have been used in battle.
Soldiers who may or may not have heard of the Ketchum grenade or the Excelsior sometimes improvised similar weapons. At Vicksburg, Confederates in Louisiana units stuck short, lighted fuses into 6 and 12-pounder shells, then rolled them into ranks of Union sappers.
One demonstration of this weapon was enough to make believers of opponents. Confederate Captain John M. Hickey said that when one of the city's forts was stormed, "the air was made black with hand grenades which were thrown at us by every Federal soldier who got inside the works." Similar explosive devices were made on the spot by Federals at Knoxville.
Describing some of the action near Chattanooga, Union Colonel P. C. Hayes said an assault by troops under Confederate Lieutenant General James Longstreet reached a deep ditch dug by Federals. Confederates, he said, jumped into the ditch in order to raise scaling ladders. According to him, "This action was fatal to them. Our men, being unable to reach them with their heavy guns, lit the fuse of the shells, which they threw by hand into the ditch, where they exploded, slaughtering the helpless occupants by the wholesale."
Records do not indicate the number of engagements in which improvised explosives were rolled or thrown against foes. Nevertheless, they were employed frequently enough to show that although technology to produce suitable hand grenades did not yet exist, the concept behind these weapons was fully developed by men in both gray and blue.
and by battlewagons,,i was meaning iron clads,,lol battleships,,armord ships,,not wagons,,lol,,,never heard anyone call a battleship a battlewagon before?<~~my family all in the navy,,im just use to calling them battle wagons,i been on the missouri before they tore off the old super structure,,and runing around bremerton navy yards,,im just use to calling them by slang names,,lol
but your right there were earler grenadiers,,but i guess they wernt very effective and got soaked back up in there military,,way ahead of there time i guess,,same in civil war just wasnt anuff tech for the idea to be much help
The ACW did usher in a new era in terms of naval combat, however. I watched a prgoram about the raising of the Monitor's turret the other day - very interesting.
i seen that too,,very good show!! did ya see the hunley special too? they found it will all crew still at there post,,poor guys,,but they did there duty,,even found the gold coin that saved there comanders life at the battle of shilo i guess
-
the fiercest fight eh?
..I'd say in my room between my computer and me...
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Guadacanal or Iwo Jima gets my vote from the books I've read (Pacific)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that and I'd add Wake isl to that list if you want a feirce fight against impossable odds.
-
I think a good gauge of "fierce" would be the death rate as a % of total combatants. Dead by way of combat not disease. I know the American Civil war was like some insane number like 30%. Vietnam I think was like 1%. The total number of Russians lost in the Afgan war was 10,000...Vietnam was 50,000. That puts the Afgan war in proper context.
Furball how can you put the Falklins ahead of Gufwar II? Many Iraqies fought to the death this time around. Except for the Argintine pilots (who fought with great valor)...the average Argintine soldier was a conscript that didn't want to be there. I guess though the Brits lost quite a few men when those ships were hit................