Talk:List of battles with most United States military fatalities

Battle of Normandy
Sorry dude, but the Battle of Normandy doesn't just include the initial invasion phase that lasted from June to July, but includes the entirety of Operation Overlord (June 6 to August 30, 1944) in which 29,204 Americans died from all causes -- Roddy the roadkill 23:34, 11 November 2017‎
 * Yeah but the source for that battle says 18,627 killed. If you can find a citation for the 29,204 number it can be changed. -- Esemono (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I was not the one who cited the source nor originally put 29,204 killed, and I am extremely new to Wikipedia. However, "Operation Overlord|Battle of Normandy" is different than "Invasion of Normandy". The former includes Operation Cobra and the Falaise Pocket, which were both inside the boundaries of Normandy and subordinate to Operation Overlord, and Overlord did not end until the final German forces fled across the Seine river in very late August, while the latter ends just before the Allied breakout in the Bocage. Considering that this page still calls it the "Battle of Normandy" and links it to the Operation Overlord page, the number of killed should remain what it was, though I didn't come to that number myself, and the end date should not be July 24. All that said, I strongly disagree with the idea that the definition of the battle should be narrowed anyways. --Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (Again, the battle of Normandy(Operation Overlord) is universally regarded as lasting to August 30 when the final German forces retreated across the Seine. Source lumps Falaise,Cobra etc under "Northern France" but both took place within Normandy. -- 17:09, 12 November 2017‎ Roddy the roadkill
 * OK. Following your advice I looked to the source and added Battle of Normandy (June 6 - July 24, 1944) and "Northern France (July 25 - September 14, 1944) together. In the source KIA numbers are: Normandy KIA 13,959 + Northern France 15,239 = 29,198. Then as per your suggestion, we have to use the Battle of Normandy and "Northern France" dates so :(June 6 - September 14, 1944). Remember that Wikipedia can only publish the numbers that can be confirmed from a reliable source. -- Esemono (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reasonable conclusion, thank you. Shouldn't the number include US military deaths from all causes, not just KIA, though?--Roddy the roadkill (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and added it for you.--72.26.11.38 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

29,204 number for Normandy
Nowhere on the Operation Overlord is the number 29,204 used. I don't know why you keep saying that. The Overlord sources say, "Total deaths among battle casualties (including accidental deaths, disease, etc) for Normandy (June 6 – July 24, 1944) were 16,293 and in Northern France (July 25 – September 14, 1944) were 17,844, for a total of 34,137 (US Army 1953, p. 92)."-- Esemono (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK looking through the edit war on the Overlord page it seems you're using the 20,668 Army dead number from this source. Then you're adding 8,536 USAAF casualties from this source. The quotes from these sources are:
 * "Cumulative casualties since D Day (not including 6th Army Group figures) were over 200,000 (124,394 for the U.S. forces as of 30 August ... With the exception of 36,486 dead (20,668 American and 15,818 British and Canadian)"
 * "Allies Air Forces, between June 6 and August 31 flew nearly half a million sorties ... aircrew casualties were RAF, 8,177;  USAAF, 8536."

So the Army source, from "G-3 War Room Summary 91, dated 5 September 1944," cuts off on August 30th and doesn't include the dead from Aug 31. Also, does it include those killed by accidental deaths, disease, etc? Your USAAF, 8536 number seems to be casualties not KIA. Is that right? -- Esemono (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I assumed that it referred to US airmen killed because I've seen another source, page 177 of "Myths, Amnesia and Reality in Military Conflicts, 1935-1945", state that a total of 16,714 air men allied airmen were killed in Operation Overlord, the same number of the combined RAF and USAAF losses given on the wiki article -- 107.77.219.219 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does "Myths, Amnesia and Reality in Military Conflicts, 1935-1945" use Wikipedia as its source? What about the other questions? Were you able to find the missing deaths on August 31? Do they include those killed by accidental deaths, disease, etc? -- Esemono (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, and multiple other books also say 16,714 allied airmen killed, as can be seen by simply searching thru google books. As for the Army losses, based on the use of the word "dead" rather than "killed in action" or even just "killed" it can be concluded that it includes death from all causes. The only thing I can't find is the missing number for August 31st, unfortunately. I think a more typical definition of the Battle of Normandy lasting thru to the end of August is preferable to lumping it together with all of Northern France, considering that there are now sources for the former, much the same way the Battle of Hurtgen Forest shouldn't be lumped together with the entire Siegfried Line campaign. I'm assuming the earlier thirty-four thousand number includes the fighting in Brittany. -- 107.77.219.219 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking through the google book results I get. Remember to not use sources that use wikipedia as the source. I know you tried to do this before when you claimed this was a reputable source. Also remember casualties doesn't mean dead as shown by the google book results that show 8,536 number includes MIA - Esemono (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC):
 * "16,714 crewmen killed or missing (8,178 RAF, 8,536 USAAF)" Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed
 * "Aircrews killed or missing—8,536 US Army Air Forces (USAAF) and 8,178 RAF" Military Review - Volume 66 - Page 52


 * I'm sorry, but where did I ever use that blog post as a source? I've never even seen that before. I'm also well aware that casualties doesn't equal dead, but there are several other google books results that also list 16,714 *killed*, without mentioning missing, tho perhaps those authors were confused and simply left out that the number included missing. -- 107.77.217.40 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't leave this post with the blog on my talk page? I was just looking at the books that were first in the google results. What books are you using? Here is another book that uses the killed and missing and this one uses the "aircrew casualties were: RAF, 8,178; USAAF, 8,536" language -- Esemono (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Passport Not Required: U.S. Volunteers in the Royal Navy, 1939-1941","Eisenhower And Manstein: Operational Leadership Lessons Of The Past For Today's Commanders" and a couple others, but I haven't cited them yet because for some reason the previews on google books won't show me the page number. No, I am not the person who left that on your talk page, that's the person who wants Meuse-Argonne to be considered the bloodiest battle in US military history. -- 76.164.94.71 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK I think in tables and lists so let's map it out. Also maybe, and  might be able to help. I believe the issue is: To find the number of those killed during Normandy you are adding 20,668 Army dead plus 8,536 USAAF killed for a total of 29,204 Americans dead. The problem seems to be is the 8,536 number total. Is it 8,536 KIA OR 8,536 KIA and MIA together.  -- Esemono (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it say anywhere that the missing included are presumed dead? If that's the case then multiple other battles on this list already include missing that are presumed dead. In the case of the article on Battle of Okinawa, no missing is shown in the infobox altogether, and in the casualties section it says the number of missing (without even mentioning "presumed dead") is included in the 12,520 number that is used for only Killed in Action in the infobox. -- 76.164.94.71 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is more likely the missing are POW - Esemono (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is what the American Green Book (Official History) has to say on the subject:

"In contrast, the Allies had landed more than 2,100,000 men and 460,000 vehicles on the Continent by 11 September, a combat force of forty-nine divisions. Excluding the forces in southern France, where losses were light, Allied casualties from 6 June to 11 September numbered almost 40,000 killed, 164,000 wounded, and 20,000 missing-a total of 224,000, which was less than half the German casualties in the west."

- Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 700


 * I am aware that Blumenson's figures include the pursuit phase, and is not strictly Normandy only. Will see what else I can dig-up later on.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget the US navy, which undoubtedly suffered casualties in Operation Neptune and in general support of the invasion, though I haven't found a reliable source yet for US naval losses as a result of Operation Overlord. -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Roddy the roadkill, please re-read the article on the Normandy landings and the associated naval activities. It does mention casualties:
 * "The invasion fleet was drawn from eight different navies, comprising 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 landing craft of various types, 736 ancillary craft, and 864 merchant vessels. The majority of the fleet was supplied by the UK, which provided 892 warships and 3,261 landing craft. There were 195,700 naval personnel involved."
 * "At 05:10, four German torpedo boats reached the Eastern Task Force and launched fifteen torpedoes, sinking the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner off Sword beach but missing the battleships HMS Warspite and Ramillies. After attacking, the German vessels turned away and fled east into a smoke screen that had been laid by the RAF to shield the fleet from the long-range battery at Le Havre. Allied losses to mines included USS Corry off Utah and USS PC-1261, a 173-foot patrol craft. In addition, many landing craft were lost."

The article on the sunken USS Corry (DD-463) mentions relatively few casualties: "Of her crew, 24 were killed and 60 were wounded." The survivors of the crew were rescued by "USS Fitch (DD-462), USS Hobson (DD-464), USS Butler (DD-636), and PT-199."

The article on the sunken USS PC-1261 is a stub, and does not mention if the crew survived the sinking or not. Dimadick (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m talking about collective naval casualties as a result of Overlord, not individual examples -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Battle of Normandy / Northern France and changing the name for Battle of Côte d’Azur / Southern France
The fighting in Normandy has caused some confusion on this article in the past, as most writers define the battle as including all the fighting in Normandy including Operation Cobra and the Falaise Pocket up until the last Germans retreated across the Seine. The US military on the other hand defines the battle as lasting up to Late July and then from Op. Cobra onward it becomes considered part of the larger Northern France Campaign. The solution was to combine the two stats and names together as part of a single campaign, but that seemed like a temporary solution to me until either someone found the entirety of US losses in Normandy up to and including Falaise or the two were listed separately. Seeing as the former hasn’t happened, the US military’s own defenition should be taken and I’m separating the two battles as “Invasion of Normandy” (“Battle of Normandy” wouldn’t be appropriate in this context, as that’s often used as an alternative for the entire Overlord Operation. Whereas “Invasion of Normandy” is used to describe the fighting in Normandy before the breakout with Cobra) and “Northern France Campaign”.

In addition, “Battle of Côte d’Azure / Southern France” is similarly confusing. However, it is not a combination of two different battles. It’s being used to refer to “Operation Dragoon”, and thus I’m renaming it “Operation Dragoon”.

Also, having originally added the New Guinea Campaign, I now feel it’s inclusion is inappropriate as it covers too large of a timeframe and too many subsidiary battles, whereas the other campaigns listed lasted a much briefer period. It would be like adding the Italian Campaign for its inclusion to continue. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding "Alsace Campaign"
So the 7,000 killed figure for Operation Nordwind and Colmar Pocket combined apparently applies to the entire clearing of the Alsace from November 13 1944 to February 19 1945. There is no wikipedia article for Allied operations in the Vosgues Mountains and the entire Alsace (not to be confused with the Ardennes-Alsace Campaign that includes only Nordwind) so I'm linking it to the Colmar Pocket Article. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We are using the same word for two very different things, and its not helpful to the reader IMO
You're mixing up two entirely different things here: battles and campaigns. It's a little complicated, because of terminology. Lots if things are called "battles" nowadays, including campaigns (and other things). However, from antiquity until quite recently (100 years ago) a "battle" was a clash of armies in a fairly constrained space, lasting usually a day or two, or at any rate not much longer. We don't want to get this kind of "battle" mixed up with whole wars or whole campaigns.

The "Battle of Britain" was not a battle in this established sense, it was an entire campaign. (Adlertag on 13 August 1940 was an aerial battle battle I suppose; really each day was a battle). The "Battle of the Atlantic" lasted for several years and covered thousands of square miles. It was called a battle but it was a campaign, and to include it in list of naval battles with Trafalgar would be... not helpful to the reader.

OK, I get that these are called battles. That matters -- some. A little bit. Not much, really.

Here's what he we have to say for the Battle of Lexington: "Although often styled a battle, in reality the engagement at Lexington was a minor brush or skirmish". Here, we flat refuse to lie to the reader and tell her that it was a "battle" in the common dictionary meaning of battle. (There is a ref saying this, to be fair.) The Bridge Battle of the Century was not an actual battle with army units maneuvering and fighting. It would not be included in a list of American battles. And so forth.

We don't include both the Colorado River and River of January in our list of largest rivers, even tho the River of January is very large (almost seven million). Nor do we include the River of Woe even tho it is very long: thousands of years. Nor the Great River of Wilderland, altho it is 1,388 miles long. The River of Doubt is also long (416 pages) but is also not included. And so on.

Lots of words have two or more meanings. So in the name of common sense, I suggest that the "battles" be be separated from the campaigns. Either with two articles, or two sections, with this article being renamed "List of battles and campaigns with most United States military fatalities".

I propose that this be done presently, assuming of course that people are on board with this. Herostratus (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection or other comment after a month, I have gone ahead and made this change. I also added some supporting texts. I didn't add new refs for this new material yet, but they're findable.


 * This is a pretty significant change in this article.


 * To my mind, it's a big advantage to the reader to no longer mix up the North Apennines Campaign etc. with the Battle of Gettysburg and so forth. Two entirely different things.


 * The problem is that with two list, you have the question of margins. Obviously Gettysburg is a battle and Northern France is a campaign, but where do you put Cold Harbor or St Mihel? They're kind of in the middle. I don't think it's a huge problem for the reader (the current split is an improvement, and adding a third list is not a good idea), but I can see editors arguing over this. Oh well. I wouldn't overly worry about it. If anyone wants to move anything from one list to the other, for my part I don't care. Herostratus (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Added some, but have a ref problem
Added these, but have reference problems. I put "citation needed" as appropriate.

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal -- 1,732 killed (according to that article) -- the ref for that is "Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 490; and Lundstrom, Guadalcanal Campaign, p. 523". I don't have access to those books so I can't use the ref (an editor is not allowed to use refs she can't actually see, and properly so since otherwise errors could propagate).

Battle of Savo Island -- 1,077 killed according to the article -- ref is "Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 121". Ditto. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and contradictions
The 2nd paragraph of the Introduction states: "'The bloodiest single day battle in American history was the Battle of Antietam, with a total of 22,717 dead, wounded, or missing Union and Confederate soldiers killed or wounded... However, specifically for the US military, the bloodiest single day was June 6, 1944, with 2,500 soldiers killed during the Invasion of Normandy on D-Day.'"


 * This is an incongruous comparison as the first sentence is talking about casualties, while the second is talking about deaths.


 * "The bloodiest single day battle in American history" is a bit unclear - does it include both sides or just the American side(s). For example, if battle A has 5,000 American deaths and 1,000 non-American deaths, while battle B has 1,000 American deaths and 10,000 non-American deaths, which is "bloodier"? Technically, I think B should be bloodier, but I'm not sure that that is how it is being used.


 * On a related note, is "bloodiest" dependent on deaths or casualties? (The first sentence seems to count casualties, while the second seems to count both.)


 * According to the chart, the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge was the deadliest with ~5,000 that is more than not only D-Day's 2,500, but also the Battle of Antietam's 3,654 (and others also have more).Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Battle of Elsenborn Ridge was not a single day. The Antietam figure includes both armies (in the lists, we only give Union figures). This article only uses killed or died by wounds in the lists. We can talk about casualties (unavailable for combat) in the text I suppose, but let's minimize that, and be super clear when we do. According to our refs 3,155 Union soldiers were killed at Gettysburg, and 2,500 at D-Day, so that passage was just wrong (I guess). I'll fix it. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)