Invasion of Attu

ı think Attu was as bloody a battle as Iwo Jima was .

lol wut
____________________

To the OP:
If you haven't seen Red, White, Black and Blue, I suggest you do so. It's a good movie. Very interesting and touching.
 
yay , a lol and a wut .... Thanks a lot!

regarding the issue , ı believe the casualties match Iwo Jima on a percentage basis , possibly including the wounded .
 
yay , a lol and a wut .... Thanks a lot!

regarding the issue , ı believe the casualties match Iwo Jima on a percentage basis , possibly including the wounded .
You see, you got the lol wut because you said something that was complete nonsense.

Your clarification is much better, though I'm still not sure I believe it.

But saying Attu was a big/deadly/whatever metric as Iwo Jima is an lol wut statement.
 
Your clarification is much better, though I'm still not sure I believe it.
Although the initial invasion of Attu was unopposed, the US assault on the island resulted in 29 Japanese survivors out of about 2900 soldiers. Basically the casualty rate (99%) as Iwo Jima for the Japanese.

On the American side, not so much.
 
Although the initial invasion of Attu was unopposed, the US assault on the island resulted in 29 Japanese survivors out of about 2900 soldiers. Basically the casualty rate (99%) as Iwo Jima for the Japanese.

On the American side, not so much.
Forgive my American-centric POV.
 
regarding the issue , ı believe the casualties match Iwo Jima on a percentage basis , possibly including the wounded .

When we say something is "bloody", it means there's a lot of blood, not that there was a high percentage of casualties. I mean, say nine out of ten of my friends were killed in a terrible train collision; that would be 90% casualties, but nobody would say that it was bloodier than the majority of battles in World War II.
 
lol wuts are what ı attain to get and thanks to posters for the clarifications ; without slightest sarcasm .
 
Back
Top Bottom