Worst Military Loss in History

[Eclectic Dreck]

There is another, a battle between the Sots and the English, where the English Cavalry repeatedly charged to their own demise against the Scottish shiltroms, but I forget the name of the battle

Likely the battle of bannockburn that secured, for a short time at least, Scottish independence. It is depicted at the very end of the movie "Braveheart".

You are absolutely right, and that is because the US Army cant lose. They have some 3 milion troops and their budget is 650 BILLION, Compared to the runner up china at some 80 bilion, and i doubt anyone can match that, especially Vietnam. The problem i find here is that its a bit unfair that the US would invade and destroy a country that can do nothing against them, and the Americans should have won the war by a much larger margin, and that's where their failure is. BTW we are kinda derailing the thread, lets get back to the Finnish being super badass! :-D

The US was drawn into Vietnam because of France, or have we forgotten already? The truncated story was that Vietnam was actually a great ally to our cause in the pacific theater. Unfortunatly, after the war, many involved parties (such as France) tried to re-engage their colonial assets. The vietnamese didn't appreciate this much and appealed for US intervention. Assuming that France was a better ally to have on your side if the Russians tried anything, we opted instead to aid the French. Having literally nowhere else to turn, Vietnam was supported instead by the USSR. When the french inevitably decided that the country wasn't worth the effort after their shattering defeat at Dien Bein Phu, the war became a proxy war between the US and the USSR. Vietnam never actually entered into the equation as far as the US was concerned.

In the end, defining who wins and loses a war is tricky. When the last US forces left the war in 1973, the Republic of South Vietnam still stood. Unfortunately, in 1975 the conventional assault that the US was always assuming would come (but never did) arrived and the ARVN forces were pushed back with blinding speed. They finally managed to hold the last line of defense at Saigon long enough for foriegn heads of states and other agents to evacuate and the country was lost. In the end, the nation became communist which seems as though it was a defeat for the US. Since one of the justifications we clung to for continuing the war was the Domino theory which never amounted to anything, can we really say the US lost? The russians gained an ally for a time, but there was no net gain to be had for them either. Really, the only clear thing is that Vietnam was the loser in the war that had spanned more than a generation and had killed more than a million citizens and soldiers. The loser is always easy to find in a war - the winners are often more difficult to spot.

 

[lwm3398]

Battle Of Stalingrad.

Yes thats what screwed the Nazi's and made a momentum swing into the soviets favor.

More a swing to the whole of the allied nations, but yes, that got Germany straight out of Russia.

 

[lwm3398]

Yeah, the allies just had more men, tanks, fighters, bombers, ammo, fule, a navy, a working chain of command, a working supply line, the strategic initiative, and Churchill. How did they win at all?

I have some proof of how badass the allied leaders were. Well, at least Halsey. Here's one of my favorite quotes of all time: "When I'm done with this, the Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell."

I love Halsey...

 

[MercylessMing]

The Battle of Shiloh.

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

Because he wasn't french, he was Corsican. The best french army is a non-french army.

Yes, and Napoleon's entire army was Austrian-Polish-Spanish and didn't have a single Frenchman in it.

But I kid. I actually agree with the comment, especially when comparing the French Foreign Legion to the entire remainder of the French military.

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

Vietnam lost more people, more money, and more land (in the sense it has been poisoned) than the US.

Tactical losses do not necessarily mean a strategic loss. A hardened communist leadership that's been fighting nonstop for 30 years (against the French yes, but 30 years of nonstop fighting is still enough to harden someone up) and with an iron conviction to win or take as many invaders down with them as possible fought against a technically superior military whose leadership possessed less conviction to win, less of a viscerally emotional reason to win. Remember, the Communists fought with the justified belief that their state faced an existential crisis, while the US didn't have the political strength of will to even officially declare war through its own Congress.

Bear in mind that wars are not merely contests to see how much one can destroy and how thoroughly, wars are fought for distinct reasons. America, ultimately, did not succeed in achieving any of the aims it had hoped to achieve from its intervention in the war in Vietnam.

From a simple, strategic perspective, America lost. It underestimated a foe that was emotionally and politically stronger-nerved than its own political leadership (and population), overestimated the value of its allies on the ground, and fought with objectives that, in these circumstances, were extremely difficult to achieve.

Finally, note that the USA lost over a hundred billion dollars in the Vietnam War. I am fairly certain that Vietnam didn't lose nearly as much, nor did it have as much to begin with. Also, their land seems to be fine. In contrast, the American public's willingness to commit to war (any war) has been irrevocably damaged by the Vietnam fiasco, and the effects are still felt to this day. Especially to this day.

 

[lodo_bear]

I'm not saying Guerilla warfare is bad, I'm just saying you can't wina war against America with it, and America isn't going to lose to it. Vietnam lost more people, more money, and more land (in the sense it has been poisoned) than the US.

Good point. Yet somehow, in spite of all that, the US still lost the war.

To boot:
The Viet Cong lost over 2 million people, nearly all of its money, and a whole lot of once valuable land during the war.
The U.S. lost 50,000 men, millions of dollars, its dignity, and a lot of internal cohesion during the war.

The Vietnam war is as close as you get to a "rocks fall, everyone dies" situation in real life.

However, this is about battles, not wars. For a really bad battle, I submit the Battle of the Wilderness [http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_wilderness.html]. Union and Confederate forces try shooting each other in the middle of a dense, dry forest and are caught off guard when they shoot each other because the trees make it hard to see, and are caught off guard again with the woods start to catch fire.

 

[neoman10]

they're all drunk, trust me

Hey, at least they aren't drunk on some prissy wine and/or cosmo type of drink. They're on rum, whiskey, scotch, man drinks.

well that's true, they really like whiskey and vodka

 

[Archetypal_Maniac]

Operation Market Garden.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

I dont know if the greatest military loss, but surely very significant for South America, it happened during the triple alliance war, also known as the Paraguayan War (the war itself ended with the total destruction of Paraguay, which I am not proud of due to the part played by my country on that war)
4,000 Paraguayan against 20,000 troops of the alliance (some fonts say that they were near 30,000)
For a more detailed description see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Curupaity

doing a quick count, each dead Paraguayan soldier took 44 alliance soldiers

 

[Simalacrum]

Athens' Sicilian Expedition.

Allow me to explain: in the 5th century BC, Athens' empire was entirely based around its naval power: it controlled the trade routes in the Aegean sea, and thus controlled a hell of a lot of power. Now, during the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, Athens sent pretty much their whole fleet to Sicily to try and gain an advantage there - the whole thing was a massive disaster and they lost their fleet.

Soon after, they lost the entire empire and Democracy was crushed. "owned" is a good way to put it.

 

[Sheaphard117]

Assaye

Duke of wellington's finest (search it if you want to know what the british did, and by how much they won).

 

[HerrBobo]

WHen the Germans lost Normandy.

Don't get me wrong, the Nazi's were a bunch of fuckfaces that needed to die. But think about it. They have a cliff-fortress thing covered by 88's and machine guns gunning down on people with almost no cover, they have more soldiers, weapons, and advantages. They had fucking SNIPERS AND SHIT and they still lost.

Yeah, the allies just had more men, tanks, fighters, bombers, ammo, fule, a navy, a working chain of command, a working supply line, the strategic initiative, and Churchill. How did they win at all?

I specifically meant D-Day. Te Germans had bckup coming from everywere, tanks, planes, artillery, and basically CLIFF DOOMFORTRESS.

Ooooooh, just D-Day. I guess your right then, to a point. The Germans had more men, for sure and possibly more tanks, on the day. Allies had way more planes though, and they had more artillery. Dont forget there was a whole flotilla of ships just sitting off the coast bombing the crap out of the Germans with their 15inch guns.

 

[Agema]

French cant fight! :-D

Oh yes they can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bir_Hakeim

 

[Eliam_Dar]

French cant fight! :-D

Oh yes they can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bir_Hakeim

wasn't that the foreign legion?

 

[creatiwe]

persia versus sparta at the hot gates