bloodiest battle of the pacific?

people have been telling me that the school answer is okinawa some say iwo jima and my personal opinion is guadacanal:chainsaw:

 

Welcome Aboard!

I can appreciate your confusion please take a moment and explain your position. It is also helpful if you cite sources.

I look forward to hearing your opinion

 

There are several ways to look at the question also. For example, most casualties incurred as opposed to total amount of troops involved, smaller actions with higher percentages of casualties, smaller actions within the theatre of operations, etc.

Yes, the question should be fleshed out a bit more so a definite answer can be given.

 

Bloodiest as in number of total casualties, or deadliest?

 

Okinawa.....for severity,....and time endurance cycle.
In the case of the USN, some 90% [net ref] of destroyers in and around
Okinawa were either damaged of sunk.
Many.....putting into the Kerama Retto for supplies and re arm would see
the twisted and charred hulks of former sisters in combat in the anchorage,
these ships knew via TBS and other communications that their sister cans
were getting mauled by Kamikaze attack,
some saw them being towed by as they moved to new stations such as RP
[radar picket] or pingline [antisub]....or screening movement tasking.
many cans watched their sisters and DE's come apart from secondary
explosions as internal ammo stores or boilers let go....sending ships
superstructure up into the air hundeds of feet.
smaller assigned ships to RP and ping line[known as pall bearers]
had to fight themselves,...in some instances ,their anti air fire saved
some
damaged cans from the final death blow as the last Kamikazes/Kamikaze
was shotdown/driven off.
Kerama anchorage TBS circuit name was /Wisemans cove/
USN Bluejackets in dark humor called it wisemans junkyard.
[excerpt : The final campaign]
Tenth Army operations ashore was the sinking on 6 April of the
ammunition ships /Logan Victory/ and /Hobbs Victory./ The subsequent
shortage of 105mm and 155mm artillery ammunition delayed General
Buckner's first great offensive against the outer Shuri defenses by
about three days. In all respects, the Fifth Fleet deserved its media
sobriquet as "The Fleet That Came to Stay." But as April dragged into
May, and the Tenth Army seemed bogged down in unimaginative frontal
attacks along the Shuri line, Admirals Spruance and Turner began to
press General Buckner to accelerate his tactics in order to decrease the
vulnerability of the fleet. Admiral Nimitz, quite concerned, flew to
Okinawa to counsel Buckner. "I'm losing a ship and a half each day out
here," Nimitz said, "You've got to get this thing moving." [ex end]

The above is a small kodak of the Navy's part at Okinawa,
further posting would reveal more defined facts concerning US Army,
Naval aircap....Naval air ground attack.

then there is the Japanese accounts.

 

Yes, and Okinawa was probably their bloodiest battle of the Pacific. I have read that their losses were in the neighborhood of 5,000+ KIA's, and for awhile, their losses exceeded the army and marines ashore.

 

I would also say Okinawa.

 

yup me too okinawa

 

I think the reason Okinawa does not garner as much attention as Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan or Iwo Jima is because it took place so late in the war. Okinawa was the last stepping stone to Tokyo, it was a meat grinder.

 

I'd say Iwo Jima, in terms of the fighting, also US losses were higher than the Japanese losses

 

I'd say Peleliu...for me anyway...the descriptions of battle made me cringe for the first time...
1000 dead per square mile...11000 Japanese, only 202 taken alive...

‘Peleliu is a horrible place. The heat is stifling and rain falls intermittently — the muggy rain that brings no relief, only greater misery. The coral rocks soak up the heat during the day and it is only slightly cooler at night… Peleliu is incomparably worse than Guam in its bloodiness, terror, climate and the incomprehensible tenacity of the Japs. For sheer brutality and fatigue, I think it surpasses anything yet seen in the Pacific, certainly from the standpoint of numbers of troops involved and the time taken to make the island secure.’
​

 

The bloodiest battle could be the Battle of Buna–Gona where according to Wikipedia the casualty percentage rates was three times that of Guadalcanal. The soldiers were virtually fighting in a swamp so disease contributed to the casualties too.

I quote: "
After almost three months of fighting, the Japanese had lost 1,500 men, the Australians 2,700 and the Americans 798.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP]:276[/SUP] The Japanese forces had been cut off from resupply during the second week of January and their food had already run out by 2 January. Allied troops found evidence of cannibalism of both Japanese and Allied soldiers in captured Japanese
positions. "

It seems that MacArther's "attack at all costs" mantra produced these unacceptable casualty rates and this lead to the concept of "island hopping".

 

Well done son!
I was going to mention Buna and Gona myself (Nothern lip of Papua New Guinea - The end of the Kokoda line)...but thought it too small to mention ...but, because the Japanese had their backs to the sea and had no where to go...they fought to the last...The Aussies had to go in with Bayonets...most kills 6 feet or less...About as bloody as ive heard anywhere, any time...
Thankyou for mentioning our Aussie sons.
God Bless them all.

 

Okinawa and Iwo Jima were the bloodiest, hands down. Peleliu had some nasty surprises for the Marines. But as mentioned below, Buna and Gona was a light infantry affair, with little air or sea support. It was about as brutal and savage as can be found in the whole war. Almost like a throwback to an earlier era.

 

Iwo Jima

 

That's fine, but the thread is titled "bloodiest battle of the pacific", not "bloodiest battle of the pacific w/air and sea support and those w/out said support need not be considered". When talking "bloodiest" here, does that also mean the "biggest" as in size of the battlefield/island, largest amount of troops involved, casualties taken in consideration of amounts of men involved, percentages, etc? To not consider the combat on New Guinea and elsewhere just because the media hype did not play it up in the newreels, Hollywood didn't make any movies about it and did not have the above mentioned sea/air support should not disqualify them from consideration, but that's just me. The fighting in New Guinea was miserable and bloody, and didn't make many (if any) headlines at home in the USA.

 

Looking at wikipedia ( I know its not a source for great information but it's a start) the campaign on Papua was far more bloody casualty wise then that of Guadalcanal. Looking at there section on the Battle of Buna-Gona I checked the section on 'Allied casualty rate exceeds Gaudalcanal'

In fact going by deaths per the amount of troops involve the Papua campaign even comes out in front of Okinawa.

 

It depends entirely, when you tag the beginning of "The Pacific War".

If you see it, as I do, beginning with Japanese expansion into China, then, many Sino-Japanese clashes were much more 'bloody'. Nanking would be a good example, or Marco Polo Bridge. Not sure of the figures, but the length of these engagements, and the numbers involved, would cancel out all of the American/Allied involvements as mere skirmishes.

Furthermore, the aftermath of Nanking saw Japanese troops engaged in wholesale slaughter of Chinese civilians and soldiers for days on end. Only the Russian front was on a larger scale.

 

When discussing the Pacific Theater I think China can be firmly left out. I understand your point as to the inclusion of the Sino-Japanese war into the overall conflict of WWII and its "Start Date". While literature is severely lacking on the war in China, It fits quite well in the CBI theater and should not be considered in respect to the scope of the intended question.

 

The CBI as described in wiki was not an separate and independent theater of operations, rather it can be compared to combat operations on North Africa as being part of the ETO. So, the CBI would be classified as a subsidiary of the PTO in that role. That opens up the "real" discussion quite a bit now.