American casualties in World War II

[Lorderon]

Hi,
in which theater did the Americans suffer more casualties in World War II - in Europe or the Pacific? If you have numbers for troop deployments, as well as casualties (killed, wounded, missing), I would appreciate it.
I can't seem to find a good answer for this on the Internet.

thanks..

 

[BCLG100]

Wiki says 416,800 American military deaths, they're not specific about the theatres though.

If i had to guess then i'd say the Pacific.

 

[Ambidexter]

I would say the European theater, since more American troops served in Europe and North Africa than in the Pacific. In June 1944, the U.S. had 26 divisions in Europe and 14 in the Pacific.

 

[cFccFc]

This might be interresting if someone would find out.

 

[Cutlass]

World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 3,242,000


What was the total number of American casualties in the Pacific theater in World War 2?

Answer

According to The USS Arizona by Jasper/Delgado/Adams We lost 90,000 Soldiers in the Pacific arena

Answer

This is one that I've been trying to find for some time. After all my research I have seen references of slightly over 100k ( stated just like that too). My main question is how many were from each of the branches of the military. I have found that the Marines took 19k battle deaths with 23k total and the Navy took almost twice that but, no specific statistics for the Army.

Answer

You're right. just over 100 thousand U.S miltary casualties. except I have 17 thousand for the marines and just about 30 thousand for the navy. If you do the math, that leaves 53 thousand for the army.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_...ualties_in_the_Pacific_theater_in_World_War_2


So no hard numbers but if that's accurate then approximately 1/2 as many in the Pacific as in the European theater.

 

[Kadazzle]

Kind of makes sense, considering Europe was arguably a bigger front.

 

[rilnator]

Kind of makes sense, considering Europe was arguably a bigger front.

And the fact they were fighting a worthier foe.

 

[Evie]

And the fact they were fighting a worthier foe.

Even more so, the allies by and large enjoyed MUCH larger number advantages in the Pacific than in Europe - campaigns on the European theater were the allies enjoyed even a 2 to 1 advantage were rare ; conversedly in the Pacific very few campaigns were fought without at least that much of an advantage, and some with much larger advantages, all the way to 10 to 1 and 12 to 1 battles.

Remember, much of the Pacific strategy consisted of bypassing enemy strongholds and leaving tens of thousands of Japanese troops - often some of the best - to rot behind the battle lines. It's something that couldn't effectively be done in Germany.

Add in that many of the islands that were being fought on in the Pacific had limited to no industrial capacity, and Japan didn,t have much either, which would have made installing the sort of shore defenses the German had in Europe impossible, and you get a picture where it's not so much about the worthiness of the foe - it's just plain about the sort of situation they were in.

 

[Cutlass]

The Japanese had extremely formidable defenses on many of the islands we took. But once we launched an invasion they were unable to reinforce or resupply their forces.

 

[Evie]

The really formidable japanesse defense had a lot more to do with skillful use of the terrain (particularly caves et al) than with built defenses, as Germany had.

 

[rilnator]

Even more so, the allies by and large enjoyed MUCH larger number advantages in the Pacific than in Europe - campaigns on the European theater were the allies enjoyed even a 2 to 1 advantage were rare ; conversedly in the Pacific very few campaigns were fought without at least that much of an advantage, and some with much larger advantages, all the way to 10 to 1 and 12 to 1 battles.

Numerical advantages of soldiers on the ground mean nothing when you take into account the dominance the allies had over Germany with tanks and planes. Of all the divisions the Germans had in France only a handful were of high quality. There was a lot of sub standard divisions there, some even had Russian turncoats.

The Germans did have a lot of man made defences but the Atlantic wall was quickly overrun (coutesy of enemy air and naval forces) and the Sigfreid line even quicker.

Couldn't bypass large numbers of German troops? The war in the west was over when the Germans were surrounded at Falaise.

The Germans got their hands on experience fighting the Russians, the Japanese fighting the Chinese. Banzia charges belonged to WW1.

 

[Stapel]

I think 70-80% of all American war efforts (measured in dollars) was meant for the European front. It makes sense to assume most casualties fell in Europe too. I don't know any major battle in the pacific where the Americans had a huge losses of men, when compared to most Western European and/or African campaigns.

 

[Evie]

Numerical advantages of soldiers on the ground mean nothing when you take into account the dominance the allies had over Germany with tanks and planes.

Which they also enjoyed over Japan for pretty much everything after Guadalcanal. AND add in the naval dominance the allies also had post-Guadalcanal, particularly in submarine. The number of japanese troops that went down to the bottom of the Pacific isn't exactly low.

Of all the divisions the Germans had in France only a handful were of high quality. There was a lot of sub standard divisions there, some even had Russian turncoats.

Again, not particularly different from the situation in the Pacific - most of the elite Japanese troops were off in China, not garrisoning puny little Pacific islands.

The Germans did have a lot of man made defences but the Atlantic wall was quickly overrun (coutesy of enemy air and naval forces) and the Sigfreid line even quicker.

Even so, overrunning them would have been harder than overruning (also with naval and air advantage) the Japanese man-made defenses

Couldn't bypass large numbers of German troops? The war in the west was over when the Germans were surrounded at Falaise.

Which isn't bypassing; it's encirclement and elimination. Bypassing means leaving them to rot behind you - which was not done at Falaise (and it would have been incredibly stupid to do it)

The Germans got their hands on experience fighting the Russians, the Japanese fighting the Chinese. Banzia charges belonged to WW1.

Which would be a more relevant comment if banzai charge wasn't a catch-all term the western troops had devised for every last occasion the Japanesse tried to charge American lines, whatever the cause, aim or motivation. While a few of these were poor strategizing, by and large the majority of banzai charges were simple case of Japanese commanders and troops wanting to go down fighting, when defeat was pretty much already the only option.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think 70-80% of all American war efforts (measured in dollars) was meant for the European front. It makes sense to assume most casualties fell in Europe too. I don't know any major battle in the pacific where the Americans had a huge losses of men, when compared to most Western European and/or African campaigns.

Iwo Jima and Okinawa immediately come to mind. I recall Saipan and Tarawa Atoll were some other brutal battles, especially Tarawa, because the landing happened at low tide so the landers got caught on the reef.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Guadalcanal wasn't exactly a cake walk either. I wouldn't be surprised if the casualties per unit suffered in the Pacific was higher than in Europe, just due to the difficulty of the island-fighting. Could be wrong though.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As I recall, though the fighting on Guadalcanal was incredibly fierce and personal, the numbers of troops invovled were relatively small. For some reason the figure of 3,000 casualties comes to mind for all of Guadalcanal, which, as I again recall, was the losses of the first day of Iwo Jima alone.

 

[Evie]

Wiki doesn't have the numbers of wounded for Guadalcanal, but in terms of dead people, it was 1768 on Guad against 6821 (total) on Iwo and 12 000-odd (but that includes some sailors on the ships out at sea ; it's about 8000 for army troops alone) on Okinawa

It is worth noting that this means Okinawa (4%) and Iwo Jima (6.2%) had a higher death-to-troops ratio than Normandy (2%) and the Bulge (3.8%). This despite the Bulge having the highest death count of American troops in any WW II battle (19 000 deaths out of 500 000-ish troops). Other Pacific battles are in the same range - Tarawa saw 2.8% deaths, Saipan 4.1%, Guam 8.3% ; I can't find the number of troops engaged at Peleliu, but it is reputed to have the highest casualties rate of the Pacific.

(Of cours, all this make the assumption the numbers on wiki are correct)

Guadalcanal was a Japanesse disaster, but they certainly learned for it, and by 1944, when most of the American landings occured, they switched to a nasty form of defense in depth.

 

[rilnator]

[

QUOTE=Oda Nobunaga;6614208]Which they also enjoyed over Japan for pretty much everything after Guadalcanal. AND add in the naval dominance the allies also had post-Guadalcanal, particularly in submarine. The number of japanese troops that went down to the bottom of the Pacific isn't exactly low.

I don't deny any of this, all I said was a simple troop ratio tells you nothing when it comes to opposing armies.

Again, not particularly different from the situation in the Pacific - most of the elite Japanese troops were off in China, not garrisoning puny little Pacific islands.

German troops were still far superior. The Panzer, SS and Fallschirmjager divisions were the best in the world. The Japanese fought against under equiped Chinese peasants.Not quite the Red Army.

Which isn't bypassing; it's encirclement and elimination. Bypassing means leaving them to rot behind you - which was not done at Falaise (and it would have been incredibly stupid to do it)

Same basic principle. Bypassing large number of enemy troops rather than engaging them. Anyway, some of those Channel ports, and islands were left occupied by the Germans until the end of the war. They were cut off and posed no threat.

 

[rilnator]

Guadalcanal Aug 1942- Feb 1943.

Stalingrad Aud 1942- Jan 1943.

Both turning points in their respective theatres. The 2nd El Alamein was also fought during this time.

 

[Cutlass]

The Japanese troops by the middle of the war were digging in hard on islands that were coral and volcanic and a lot of hard rock. Also, while the Germans were known for being tenacious defenders, they didn't fight to the death of the last man. You could get German troops to surrender if you cut off their supplies and and when they ran out of food or ammo they would surrender while they could still walk. Japanese troops on the other hand would often fight to the death or when they simply didn't have any ability to even lift a knife any longer.

Also in terms of rates of casualties, MacAurthur had a reputation of wanting battles won immediately even at the cost of higher casualties. Where some of the generals in Europe by the later part of the war would send artillery shells in place of infantry. And had the opportunity and resources to do so.