Which was the tougher theater - Europe or the Pacific?

No problem Lou, I'll be watching this, if it goes bananas I'll be happy to grant your wish and close it

 

i would probally choose europe as most of the intence fighting went on there

 

Aside from that statement being ludicrous, this is not a poll. I believe Lou posted this article up in hopes of seeing ractions to the article, as stated previously

You can't possibly choose between the two.

 

Well when you present an article talking about a comparison about the theaters, you'd think you'd get responses that would compare them too....

Ya sure both theaters were hell, but if you had the choice where you could fight, Pacific or ETO(not russian front) what would you choose.

 

"From the purely physical standpoint the Pacific campaigns have been infinitely worse for the private soldier. There he's had to live in the heat and filth of the jungle, worrying about malaria and the fact that a scratch may develop into a tropical ulcer. . . .


"In the Pacific we're fighting the toughest kind of warfare—amphibious warfare.


"The Jap is a helluva sight tougher. . . . On Guadalcanal we counted 2,300 Japs lying out in front of the division; we captured 22. But we've captured Germans by the thousands . . . probably captured ten to every one we've killed.
-TIME


[SIZE=-1]Fighting in the Pacific was unlike fighting in Europe. The campaigns in Europe were characterized by huge ground forces driving overland into the heart of the enemy's country. Both in MacArthur's SWPA and Nimitz's POA, the Pacific war was a seemingly endless series of amphibious landings and island-hopping campaigns where naval power, air power, and shipping, rather than large and heavy ground forces, were of paramount importance. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Yet for the soldiers and marines who assaulted the countless beaches, the Pacific war was even more brutal and deadly than the war in Europe. Japanese defenders always dug in, reinforced their bunkers with coconut logs, and fought until they were killed. They almost never surrendered. On Betio in the Tarawa Atoll in November 1943 the marines suffered 3,301 casualties, including 900 killed in action, for a bit of coral 3 miles long and 800 yards wide. At Iwo Jima in February and March 1945 the marines lost almost 6,000 dead and over 17,000 wounded and fought for five weeks to take an island less than five miles long. At Iwo no battalion suffered fewer than 50 percent casualties, and many sustained even higher losses. In the southwest Pacific, MacArthur's casualties were proportionately fewer. Fighting on the larger land masses of New Guinea and the Philippines, he had more room to maneuver, and he could almost always "hit 'em where they ain't."
[/SIZE]
-http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/Pacific.html

 

Lou, this is at least spurring much interesting discussion.

Camaro:
On Germans surrendering en masse:
That is not an accurate statement. Sure if you look at Tunis; many soldiers surrendered there, but that wasnt as overly common as you may think.

Look at Normandy for example, near the end of June the Germans fought furiously for every kilometer with extreme determination; in fact there was more and more Germans mobilized every day from the 1Million man French Theatre.

In the Falaise gap, it is well known that the Germans put every effort into escaping until the point were they literally were stuck. Their lives mattered more to them then losing face did(Japanese) so they lived to tell the tale.

My point that in numerous occaisons, Germany resistance was stiff until they knew there was no chance for victory. Look at the Italian campaign and you will get what I mean.

 

The surrender of Gen. Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps in April 1943, followed by an average of 20,000 new POWs a month. From the Normandy invasion in June 1944 through December 30,000 prisoners a month arrived; for the last few months of the war 60,000 were arriving each month. When the war was over, there were 425,000 enemy prisoners in 511 main and branch camps throughout the United States.

Plus the 3.3 million POWs in Russia.

 

Life Magazine:

The battalion was trying to take some hills and we were getting no place... Mollie stands right up... 'I bet those Italians would surrender if somebody asked them to. What the hell do they want to fight for?' he says. So he walks across the minefield and up the hill to the Italians, waving his arms and making funny motions, and they shoot at him for a while and then stop, thinking he is crazy... When he gets to the Italians eh finds a soldier who was a barber in Astoria but went home on a visit and got drafted in the Italian Army, so the barber translates for him and the Italians say sure, they would like to surrender, and Mollie comes back to the lines with 568 prisoners.

-A.J. Liebling, The New Yorker, June 2, 1945

 

Numbers wise, didnt the Americans suffer more casualties in Europe rather than the Pacific?

Could the number of casualties sustained in both theatres be a determining factor of which enemy was a tougher nut to crack?

 

i really dont want to start an argument but i was only giving my opinion

 

So your opinion is that there was no intense fighting in the Pacific?

 

Not necessarily. We're talking about the whole invasion of Europe, compared to taking mile long islands. In Europe you had hundreds of thousands of troops, so of course more will die cause there's more people and land mass. But the % of casualties is bigger in the Pacific I think. Percentage wise if you're an American you'll have a far greater chance of getting killed over there than in Europe. Battle of the Bulge you've got about 90,000 casualties, on a huge front, against Germany's last elite troops and tanks. Okinawa you've got about 80,000 casualties, on HALF of a tiny island, against Japanese with no where to run. D-day- ~1500 Americans give the supreme sacrifice. Peliliu is 3588 dead, on a tiny island, not the shores of Normandy against the Atlantic wall. You're chances fighting in Europe seem a lot better than in the Pacific, unless you're fighting in Italy or something.

 

no,no i personally think the most intence fightin was in europe but i know very intence fighting happend in the pacific. (When i got my degree we had to decide something like this)

 

Im not familiar with the %'s of either front when it came to allied casualties, so I can not comment. However, could this be attributed to the number of American boys being present in the pacific?

Lets also not forget that the German foes which America faced were not the same men which conquered mainland Europe. It took America, GB, France, Canada etc. to beat an already beaten force and still taking larger casualties than when facing the best of what Japan had to offer....

 

Not a fair topic, I think you look at them as 2 different wars.

But..... I would have loved to hear my one uncle that served in the 36th Division, 141st Regiment.......and my oldest cousin 5th Marine Division, 26th Marines..... discuss The Rapido Crossing and Cassino verses the Iwo Jima invasion and battle!

They were there...... Best Regards

 

Right, so in Europe everything didn't rely on the American soldier, he had UK, France, n' Canada to take a lot of the brunt. Pacific is mainly American boys getting killed, coupled with Australians and New Zealanders, usually mopping up. My focus is on the American infantryman.

 

Why is Burma and China always forgotten?

 

guys are we talking land battle only or are we including air ?

 

Average casualty rates for U.S. units in combat are tabulated below, in rates per thousand men committed per day (ibid.)



Pacific Amphibious Campaigns Euopean Protracted Campaigns
Killed in action 1.78 .36
Wounded in action 5.50 1.74
Missing in action .17 .06
Total 7.45 2.16

It is notable that the fraction of fatal casualties in the more intense combat (24%) is significantly greater than in the more protracted combat (17%).