Which was the tougher theater - Europe or the Pacific?

Ugh sorry for the double post it won't show the table of numbers I showed above in the correct format, here's the website http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm

 

It is my opinion that while Pacific was a nightmare for grunts, the fight in Europe was a more challenging war for the generals.

The percentile casualties was significantly higher in PTO, but total casualties in Europe dwarfed that of the Pacific. This is because the smaller scale of the fighting in PTO. Although Pacific battles was extremely savage, in a typical PTO engagement units were no bigger than corp-sized. ETO was a clash of Army Groups.

The Japanese were militarily inept compared to the Germans. When brought to open battle in Manchuria, the Russians annihilated a Japanese Army in ten days.

The mobility, firepower and tempo of Japanese divisions were pathetic compared to any Western or Russian Army. If they did not have their jungle islands and fortified positions, they would be surrendering by the tens thousands, as they did in Manchuria.

That the Germans were able to fight as fanatically and skillfully as the IJA was demonstrated in the Huertgen Forest, the only battlefield in Europe where the density of foliage and vegitation was as bad as the Pacific. The Germans, besides retaining the forest for five months, also inflicted casualty rates over 100% on American rifle companies (one of the divisions, either the 4th or the 28th, suffered 98% total casualties).

Pacific battles were more gory and I agree it is a horrible war for the soldiers. I just don't rate the Japanese army very highly as they were, in terms of ground warfare, fighting a primitive war.

 

Hello Lou. I do not thinnk the article started off very well with a question like "Which is the tougher war." I think the article highlights the diffrences in each theater more than asking the question. Remember, at the time the article came out, the worlds focus was on Europe and the Allies there. It points out that even though the Japanese lack the superior equipment and tactics of the Germans they made up for it in fanatisicm. Apples and Oranges, but I think thats what the article was pointing out.

 

I recall reading an article where an Aussie soldier stated that after a few banzai charges they welcomed them. What was the American views on a Banzai charge ?

 

the item is too brief, no account of air or sea that needs to be inserted in the overall equation..........sorry it is not justifiable in either direction, argue as this forum may.

 

It was stupid. S. W. Pacific Vet has this nailed down in one of the two threads he started. The Japanese were slaughtered like sheep and it confounded the Americans that they would try to try to take the same positions they failed taking last night with the same frontal bayonet assault with less men than last night.

What was scary is that the Japanese took cadaver discipline a little too literally and brutalized their troops until they have no shred of independence thinking left and they would fight like automata when commanded in groups. This made quite an impression on the Allied troops as the Japanese soldiers seemed unfazed as his comrades were slaughtered by the droves all around him, but always advancing.

Given the superior alternative of having low ranking NCOs and the infantryman who could think for themselves and fight smart, as modern warfare demands, the command style and tactics were hopelessly obsolescent. Failure to disperse in an attack, relying on elan of the assault troops and the shock of massed bayonets was worse than WWII tactics. It's the Early ACW-Napoleonic Warfare.

On Infantry gave the Japanese a more favorable evaluation in infiltration skill and toughness in enduring jungle hardships, but their grasp on modern tactics was not sound. They could dig holes and fight in it until they die, but they didn't know how to fight a real battle against a continuous line defended by modern firepower positions in depth. I don't think the Japanese would have much luck breaking the trenches of WWI with their doctrine and contemporary weaponry.

The Japanese and the Russians were probably the most fanatical soldiers in WWII. Where the Russians had modern equipment, the Japanese had even more fanaticism, their jungles and superb fortification works. This concealed their weakness in maneuver warfare. With the kind of foot bound infantry, antique tanks and immobile artillery, they would have been slaughtered in a real mechanized battle as they were whenever there were any room for maneuver in the Pacific.

In the "tankable" Manchuria, August Storm shredded the vaunted Kwangtung Army into shreds and overran all Imperial Army HQs. The Japanese commander threw up his hands and ordered his troops to surrender, like encircled armies do in NA or WE.

I think the Japanese tailored their army to fight against the Chinese who sucked more then they and against the western armies they would button up and hope to outlast them.

 

Some rep for you!

 

So did the Japanese conduct more guerrilla warfare than the Germans? Because that seems like the best way to win, just look at Vietnam and both Afghanistan wars.

 

I too am at a complete and utter loss as to how the individual soldiers experiences in such two different theatres could be meaningfully compared. They were such totally different wars.

I do imagine the soldiers wintering over in frozen fox holes would have been flat out delighted to swap with their compatriots in the tropics - and vice-versa. Censorship meant that both groups had only minimal knowledge of the others' concurrent situation. I suspect a swap would have been a rude reality check for both participants.

Question:
1. Were there many US forces which transferred from the Pacific Theatre to the D Day invasion or to the European theatre well before VE day?

2. Were there many US forces which transferred from the D Day forces to the Pacific Theatre well before VE day?

They would be the ones to ask.
I wonder if there are any here on the forum that were participants in both theatres or are descendants of those that did.
(I've read of many who were sheduled to go, but all I've read so far were spared by an early end to the war.)

Aside:
In the "What if?" http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/12097-what-if-hitler-never-invaded-soviet-union-4.html#post431169
1. One has to wonder what the American force's experience would have been: had not the best of Japan's professional armies been wasted (1.1 to 1.9 million casualties) in the Sino-Japanese War (1937 on.)

2. Likewise what the western allies would have had to face if Germany and it's Axis allies had not spent itself out on the Soviet front.

 

Guerrilla warfare in the Second World War with force to space ratio typical of the allied armies? In Germany that would have been suicide.

A Nazi guerrilla force would not be able to survive two days in occupied Germany. Back in the days of total war, when you occupy a country, you occupy it. To put it simply, there were no ellipses in enemy observation for fighters to meld back into the population and there were no sanctuaries to hide in. Every German town was held at gun point by huge masses of troops.

A typical WWII battle for a German hamlet featured the complete destruction of the town by shellfire and the tanks and infantry would roll through the towns shooting anything on sight. This scene repeated in almost every township in Germany and the destruction was total.

The war against the Soviets and the Western Allies killed off, maimed or made captive all the German population who could fight. There was no one left to fight and nothing left to fight with.

The same way I don't really see how Japan could fight a "guerrilla war" as such, that they would attempt to conceal combatants amongst civilians and oust the occupation army by harassment. If that happened, they would just torch every village in Japan. There would be hit-and-run attacks, but no true guerrilla warfare.

 

the toughest theatre in my opinion was the european theatre of operations

 

I don't believe "If you had a choice" was ever the intention of the thread.
Unless I missed it in the original wording, it looked to me like two opinions of people who were there were stated in articles, and it was interesting to see their points of view. After reading those articles then we could make statements on what we thought of the eyewitness accounts.

Here is my response to what I think the post was started for:

I thought it interesting that one looked at it from a scared journalists view point, the other from a directly military view. Since one was a journalist, and the other a military man I understand the view points. I really think that both points of view are scewed by the fact that they were written by single individuals that experienced things that happened to them. The articles are accurate from the writers point of view, but to generalize a statement and say that the PTO was tougher than the ETO or vise versa would be criminal.
I read Brian's post from Normandy to Bremmen, and I read Jack's post from the PTO. Both are frightening and sobering accounts of the cruelty and indifference of the destruction of war. When read individually, I would have been terrified to be in either theatre. The fact is, the whole world was at war, and so in reality there was only one real theatre, it varied in climate, long-lat coordinates etc.
The fact that the idealogical differences belonging to the ruling parties of the oppressing nations caused them to treat other human beings in the manner in which they did goes to prove no theatre of the war would have been easier than the other.
Narrow this article town to a particular battle and you could use cassualty statistics and other details to make a point for the worst place to be.
Now ask any one of the veterans here if facing a German rifle or a Japonese rifle was scarier and I think you would find them saying your just as dead when either kills you.

I think I rambled on here, sorry.

 

In my opinion this debate is worthless. How can we say which places were tougher than others. No matter what the place were, it must have been the toughest place on earth to those men that were actually there. I don't want to go and say to the veterans from the Pacific that Europe was tougher and I don't want anyone saying to me or to my grandfather that there were tougher places than the place you were in. I bet, to every one of us the toughest theater was the one to which we have some kind of emotional binding (relatives taking part the fighting in some areas etc.) or just plain interest to certain battles etc.

My opinion is also very much related to the other thread about Pacific being a sideshow which I wanted to point out also. Some of us or most of us have grandfathers and other relatives who fought for their lives and our freedom during the WWII, so calling their fights a sideshow feels a little insulting to me. I bet most of you consider finnish wars against the soviets a sideshow, but to me it isn't a sideshow in any way.

So, this might got a little off topic and I really can't even remember what the original poster said, so it might be time to go to bed...

 

The war was hellish in different ways at different places.

 

Hello, yes I understand that and apologize if I was debating myself

 

i read a book that said the russians had on AVERAGE (this can change, some weeks worse, some weeks good) 119 500 dead every week from june 1941 to may 1945.
HOLY CRAP i reckon the russkis had the worst.
i mean the yanks had it well off in both theatres if my facts are true.

 

I agree that the Russians had it really bad, so did the Germans fighting the Russians. Imagine yourself a German conscripted to the war effort finding yourself at Stalingrad! On the other-hand, read about some of the Pacifc island battles and you see a lot of carnage for not much realestate. I read the post from our veteran friends, and I am greatful for their perspectives and their willingness to share those with us "youngsters". This is a good thread, and I would love to hear the views of people who were there and wether they think they had it worse, or some other guy across the world.
How about it vets?
I have heard it said ground pounders said the bomber crews had it bad and wouldn't want to be in the airplanes, and I've heard it said the aircrews thought the ground pounders had it bad and wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
Is this really true? Kind of looking for perspective hear.
Lou,
Is this still on topic in your opinion? I default to you.
John

 

I'd like to point out a couple of things I learned from reading all of these posts. First, if you disagree with someone's opinion or post...correct them, don't verbally abuse them. It's ridiculous and I am willing to bet none of us are 9 years old. The article was written in the standard propaganda style of the 40's...nothing new there. Anytime you post a subject like this you have to expect it to take a life of it's one. Aside from one or two off handed comments, I think we all behaved ourselves (haha). Best answer I'd say is the worst front was the one from which bullets were snapping over your head.