- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Military Campaigns by Casualties
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:51 am to Buryl
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:51 am to Buryl
quote:
The Russians made things incalculably worse for themselves when they killed millions of their own during the purges. Many of their competent military commanders were killed, which left poor leadership, and caused higher than necessary casualties. Their military structure was also rigid and inflexible (a problem that persists today) which contributed as well
And the Germans did worse by purging a whole group of people that they could’ve benefited from especially in atom science and starting WW2 in general.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:53 am to jlovel7
quote:
holy shite did the Russians throw their people into a meat grinder.
That's what you have to do when the war comes to your front door.
Americans are lucky to have never had to experience that side of war.
Yet.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:55 am to Palmetto98
quote:
And the Germans did worse by purging a whole group of people that they could’ve benefited from especially in atom science and starting WW2 in general.
Massive amounts of amphetamines taking over long periods of time will lead to really bad decisions/hallucinations. Not only did they purge an entire population of people that could of benefitted them, they also turned on their biggest ally and started an entire new front
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:56 am to Snipe
quote:
Americans are lucky to have never had to experience that side of war.
Yet.
I dont think the mexican or canadian military are planning on invading the US anytime soon
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:57 am to CrownTownHalo
quote:
Scroll up to battles. WBTS battles dominate. Crazy numbers
Half of the deadliest battles for the United States were vs. The Confederate States of America.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:58 am to CrownTownHalo
quote:
The Somme- 141 days, 1 million killed or wounded
The Newfoundland Regiment suffered 93% casualty rate in 15 minutes, and none reached their actual firing trench.
The Brits suffered 57k casualties at the Somme on the first day.
This post was edited on 9/12/22 at 11:02 am
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:59 am to Snipe
quote:
That's what you have to do when the war comes to your front door.
Russians literally worked their people to death in the factories.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:05 am to Palmetto98
quote:
The Germans didn’t mess around at all lol.
MG42 nests massacred people. Incredible rate of fire
LINK
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:10 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
they also turned on their biggest ally
Are you talking about Italy or Russia?
Italy: Germans were already involved in Africa/Italian colonies and Italy. After Italy surrendered, the Germans sent more troops in, but only because they didn't want the Allies to have a foothold on the Austrian border.
Russia: They were never "allies" with Germany. The non-agression pact in Poland only lasted a month or two. Bolshevism was Hitler's hot button.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:38 am to White Roach
quote:
Darth Vader has discussed this before. ETO was much more dangerous than the Pacific for the American fighting man. I think the 8th AF's KIA rate, not casualty rate, was something over 20%.
I was just about to post this again. Don’t get me wrong, the Pacific was an unrelenting hell. But the battles of the Pacific, while brutal, tended to be short sharp engagements where units, both Marine & Army, had only brief periods of high casualty rates compared to infantry divisions in Europe.
European campaigns, instead of being short sharp engagements were longer in duration where active combat was always On-going. European battles tended to be more of a long drawn out meat grinder while battles in the Pacific tended to be over relatively quickly, usually, with a few notable exceptions, a matter of days or a few weeks. Really the only Pacific campaigns that can be compared to those in Europe from a size and duration standpoint would be the Philippines and perhaps Okinawa.
I can’t remember where I found it, but of there is a chart online that shows total casualties and casualty rates for all US divisions, both Army & Marine in both Europe and the Pacific during WWII. The castrates are not close. I believe something like 7 or 8 of the top 10 highest casualty rates were US Army infantry divisions in Europe. The highest casualty rate in the Pacific, if I remember correctly, was the 1st Marine Div. And they were not even in the top five of the overall list.
But again, as bad as the grunts and tankers on the ground had it, the bomber crews of the 8th Air Force suffered a casualty rate higher than any US ground division in either theater.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:40 am to White Roach
quote:
Russia: They were never "allies" with Germany. The non-agression pact in Poland only lasted a month or two. Bolshevism was Hitler's hot button.
I think Stalin reached out to join the axis. A German Soviet alliance would’ve probably been unstoppable but fascism doesn’t operate on logical reasoning so no lol.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:03 pm to Darth_Vader
American casualty rates in WW2 were lower relative to other countries because of American doctrine and resources. America favored firepower over sheer numbers of troops. German soldiers called the American style of fighting "a rich man's way of war". Make contact; use artillery, airpower, and other support weapons (tanks, assault guns, etc) to neutralize the opposition. Other countries used combined arms, obviously, but not to the scale and lethality of the US.
Another factor that reduced American losses was the resources the US put in battlefield medicine and trauma facilities. Within days of the Normandy landings there were already small planes landing on the bluffs above Omaha and ferrying wounded troops back to England.
The US military in WW2 was simply the best equipped, best fed and best cared for the world had ever seen. All those things lent itself to improved survivability rates.
Another factor that reduced American losses was the resources the US put in battlefield medicine and trauma facilities. Within days of the Normandy landings there were already small planes landing on the bluffs above Omaha and ferrying wounded troops back to England.
The US military in WW2 was simply the best equipped, best fed and best cared for the world had ever seen. All those things lent itself to improved survivability rates.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:08 pm to Palmetto98
quote:
seems like the Western Front was more dangerous than the Pacific contrary to popular opinion.
Per capita no way.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:11 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
The US military in WW2 was simply the best equipped, best fed and best cared for the world had ever seen. All those things lent itself to improved survivability rates.
The allies also had a shite ton of oil. Germany effectively ran out of oil to power their blitzkrieg and resorted to synthetically creating oil from coal
quote:
Wartime Needs Spur Interest in Coal-to-Oil Processes
In 1944 General George S. Patton's Third Army was racing across southern France. In his haste to be the first U.S. commander to cross into Germany, however, Patton overextended his supply lines. His armored columns ground to a dead stop. Faced the choice of waiting until he could be resupplied or draining the fuel of captured German vehicles, Patton chose the latter. His tanks and armored personnel carriers continued to steamroll toward Germany, powered by the German's own ersatz gasoline – synthetic fuel manufactured from coal.
The leaders of World War II, on both sides, knew that an army's lifeblood was petroleum. Ironically, before the War, experts had scoffed at Adolph Hitler's idea that he could conquer the world largely because Germany had almost no indigenous supplies of petroleum. Hitler, however, had begun assembling a large industrial complex to manufacture synthetic petroleum from Germany's abundant coal supplies.
When Allied bombing of the German synfuels plants began taking its toll in late 1944 and early 1945, the entire Nazi war machine began grinding to a halt. More than 92 percent of Germany's aviation gasoline and half its total petroleum during World War II had come from synthetic fuel plants. At its peak in early 1944, the German synfuels effort produced more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants. In February 1945, one month after Allied forces turned back the Hitler's troops at the Battle of the Bulge, German production of synthetic aviation gasoline amounted to just a thousand tons – one half of one percent of the level of the first four months of 1944. None was to be produced afterwards. Lack of petrol meant the end of the war and the end of the Third Reich.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:27 pm to lowspark12
quote:
seems like the Western Front was more dangerous than the Pacific contrary to popular opinion.
quote:
Per capita no way.
I’ve researched it and it’s true. See my post a few posts up from yours.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:57 pm to teke184
quote:
I don’t think they lost too many big boats besides the Indianapolis after Pearl Harbor.
The US didn’t lose a battleship the whole war, but they lost a lot of carriers. Off Guadalcanal, the cruiser Juneau lost almost her whole crew from a sun torpedo. Besides Guadalcanal and kamakaze attacks, the US really didn’t lose a ton of ships.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 1:30 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Anyone interested in WW1 might want to listen to the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. The one on WW1 is very good. Blueprint for Armageddon…it’s probably around 15 hours of content.
Ed: damn, it’s not on Apple any longer. Appears you have to pay for it.
Dan Carlin
Ed: damn, it’s not on Apple any longer. Appears you have to pay for it.
Dan Carlin
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News