D-Day thread

[MrNubbz]

I know D Day is about as good as any event to point to to illustrate just how traumatic, heroic and horrible life can be (for countless reasons) but I simply cannot imagine the carnage of the Civil War no matter how many books I read, or shows I've seen.

Yup,same when reading about Market-Garden and the Netherlands.Because Montgomery had it in his head give me all the supplies I'll go to Berlin.Absolutely picturesque storybrook towns of Arnhem & Nimegen were burnt then leveled.Squads of NAZIs drove all of the livestock and looted everything of worth or use back to the Reich.That winter 20-22,000 Dutch citizens starved .Some paid a horrific price for a terribly long time

[medinabuckeye1]

I know D Day is about as good as any event to point to to illustrate just how traumatic, heroic and horrible life can be (for countless reasons) but I simply cannot imagine the carnage of the Civil War no matter how many books I read, or shows I've seen.

Agreed.  Two things to point out about that:

First, I once came across a book or maybe website (I don't remember) where they listed the % chance for a wounded soldier to survive IF they reached a field hospital alive.  In modern times (basically Korea -> present) it is almost 100%.  Basically, if a soldier's wounds don't kill him before he reaches a field hospital he'll almost always survive because the medicine/technology/doctors are SO GOOD that they can do amazing things.  Prior to that, wow.  Especially when you get back to the Civil War.  I get the impression that field hospitals may have done more harm than good.  They didn't understand germs, they didn't have antibiotics, they didn't wash medical implements or even their hands in between surgeries, etc.  

Second, the US had more deaths in the Civil War than in WWII.  Actually, the Civil War was so deadly that the US had more deaths in it than in all other wars combined up until fairly recently.  This, however, actually understates how deadly the Civil War was because the population was different.   Compare the Civil War to WWII:

• Civil War:  ~655,000 killed, 1860 US Population ~31M.  2% killed.  
• WWII:  ~405,000 killed, 1940 US Population ~132M.  0.3% killed.  

The Civil War "only" saw about 50% more US deaths than the US lost in WWII but in terms of percentage of population the Civil War was nearly seven times as deadly.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Second, the US had more deaths in the Civil War than in WWII.  Actually, the Civil War was so deadly that the US had more deaths in it than in all other wars combined up until fairly recently.  This, however, actually understates how deadly the Civil War was because the population was different.  Compare the Civil War to WWII:

• Civil War:  ~655,000 killed, 1860 US Population ~31M.  2% killed. 
• WWII:  ~405,000 killed, 1940 US Population ~132M.  0.3% killed. 

The Civil War "only" saw about 50% more US deaths than the US lost in WWII but in terms of percentage of population the Civil War was nearly seven times as deadly. 

Please allow me to add some perspective:
There were obviously some female casualties in both the Civil War (Jennie Wade at Gettysburg comes to mind) and in WWII as well but they were so few as to be statistically insignificant.  For example, Jennie Wade was the ONLY woman killed at Gettysburg where the combined Union and Confederate casualties were over 7K dead, 27K wounded (some would later succumb), and 11k missing or captured.  Thus, you can roughly double those percentages to say that in the Civil War and WWII approximately 4% and 0.6% of American Men were killed.  

Beyond that, while there were a few guys my age (over 45) killed in both wars, there weren't many.  Most guys that age are either high ranking enough not to be on the front line or else not in the military at all.  Most of the deaths come from an age-range that probably represents less than half of male population.  Thus, among "combat aged" men the numbers killed were probably about 8% and 1.2% in the Civil War and WWII respectively.  That is something like:

• Around 1 in 12 Civil War era "combat aged" guys killed.  
• Around 1 in 84 WWII era "combat aged" guys killed.  

To put that into perspective, I invite you to consider your HS class.  My HS class had ~400 people so ~200 guys.  If that class had graduated in 1860 then, on average, roughly 17 of us would have been killed in the civil War.  If that class had graduated in 1940 then, on average, a little over two of us would have been killed in WWII.  

[Geolion91]

Second, the US had more deaths in the Civil War than in WWII.  Actually, the Civil War was so deadly that the US had more deaths in it than in all other wars combined up until fairly recently.  This, however, actually understates how deadly the Civil War was because the population was different.  Compare the Civil War to WWII:

• Civil War:  ~655,000 killed, 1860 US Population ~31M.  2% killed. 
• WWII:  ~405,000 killed, 1940 US Population ~132M.  0.3% killed. 

The Civil War "only" saw about 50% more US deaths than the US lost in WWII but in terms of percentage of population the Civil War was nearly seven times as deadly. 

Lining up and shooting as a volley will do that, not to mention that charges across an open field were still a fairly common tactic.  I guess it wasn't until WWI that the use of cover and concealment became a normal tactic.

Another factor is that it was Americans on both sides of the conflict, still, eye popping statistics.

[MrNubbz]

• Civil War:  ~655,000 killed, 1860 US Population ~31M.  2% killed. 
• WWII:  ~405,000 killed, 1940 US Population ~132M.  0.3% killed. 

The Civil War "only" saw about 50% more US deaths than the US lost in WWII but in terms of percentage of population the Civil War was nearly seven times as deadly. 

Please allow me to add some perspective:

More like - "Please allow me to introduce myself,I'm a man of wealth and taste......"

[medinabuckeye1]

Lining up and shooting as a volley will do that, not to mention that charges across an open field were still a fairly common tactic.  I guess it wasn't until WWI that the use of cover and concealment became a normal tactic.

Another factor is that it was Americans on both sides of the conflict, still, eye popping statistics.

In your state, when you stand at "The Angle" on the Gettysburg Battlefield and look out across the vast open field between there and where the Confederate lines were located it is amazing that they even tried and absolutely astounding that a few of the Confederates actually got all the way across and penetrated the Union Lines.  Confederate General Lewis Armistead was mortally wounded behind the Union line while trying to turn a Union Cannon to use it against Union troops.  

For the inverse my 2great grandfather was wounded outside of Atlanta and I visited the battlefield where it happened.  I wasn't surprised that he was wounded, I was surprised that he or anybody from his unit actually managed to survive.  At that particular battle the Confederates were dug in atop a mountain with artillery support and the Union Troops charged up the mountain after them.  His unit started out in a tree-line, crossed a large (I'd guess 150-200 yards) open field while being shot at, then ran up the mountain while being shot at.  Then when the charge was unsuccessful the Union commanders' next bright idea was to get some Pennsylvanians who had experience as coal miners and have them dig a tunnel under the mountain top.  The plan was to pack the tunnel with explosives and blow the Confederates off the Mountain.  It didn't happen because the Confederates retreated while the tunnel was being dug because they were in danger of being surrounded.  The fact that the Confederates were in danger of being surrounded illustrates the futility of the entire operation.  If your enemy has a strong fortified position that is nearly impossible to assault and you have the option of simply surrounding them through easier terrain why would you order a frontal assault against such a position?   

[Cincydawg]

I presume that was Kennesaw Mountain.  Sherman had been flanking the entire campaign and Johnston had obliged, but the position on KM was substantial enough to make flanking somewhat difficult and risky.  The attack did result in the Federals gaining a position on the Confederate left that was dangerous to them.

Most Civil War deaths were nonbattle caused.  It is amazing how many survived the crude surgeries performed back then.

I had a friend in college who was big into military history.  We'd stay up all night playing boatd games that simulated various battles, and it got me interested.  One was about D-Day, a pretty decent game really.  The presence of the German 352nd division was unknown to the Allies above Omaha Beach and a real problem for them.  The other troops were mostly static "old men" troops and one Russian battalion behind the lines that did nothing.

The failure to take Caen was regrettable, and predictable really.

[medinabuckeye1]

I presume that was Kennesaw Mountain.  Sherman had been flanking the entire campaign and Johnston had obliged, but the position on KM was substantial enough to make flanking somewhat difficult and risky.  The attack did result in the Federals gaining a position on the Confederate left that was dangerous to them.

It was Kennesaw Mountain.  I've only read a bit about it but it seems to me that flanking the mountain can't possibly have been more difficult than a frontal assault against dug-in defenders on top of a freaking MOUNTAIN with cannons no less.  As I described upthread, what my 2-great grandfather and his companions were ordered to do was flat-out insane.  It is amazing that any of them survived.  

[Cincydawg]

The issue with Sherman's flanking was that Johnston COULD have attacked north while much of the Union army was to the west.  This was the fear, and in fact Johnston planned to do just that but was thwarted several times for various and sundry.  The KM position was more lengthy than the previous ones.

The attack succeeded strategically, but not tactically.  

Battle of Kennesaw Mountain - New Georgia Encyclopedia

It is an interesting place to visit on a clear day.  The mountain is easily visible from downtown Atlanta up a building, it's not far at all.  There are historical markers all around me now and more north around Peachtree Creek, which is a fairly significantly barrier even today.

But I digress.

[MrNubbz]

Crap of all things - we missed the Anniversery of the Battle of Midway - absolutely incredible achievement by all involved . 80 yrs ago June 4-7 1942. SALUTE


https://youtu.be/4qQim09n6mY



https://youtu.be/uZGGn2ZfGZo

[medinabuckeye1]

Crap of all things - we missed the Anniversery of the Battle of Midway - absolutely incredible achievement by all involved . 80 yrs ago June 4-7 1942. SALUTE


https://youtu.be/4qQim09n6mY



https://youtu.be/uZGGn2ZfGZo

If you want to know a lot more about Midway, I highly recommend Shattered Sword.


https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249/ref=asc_df_1574889249/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312090128763&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5639377584232327235&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9015378&hvtargid=pla-451142347916&psc=1

[Cincydawg]

The role of the Hornet air wing at Midway is often overlooked, for good reason.