Started By
Message

re: US Military Campaigns by Casualties

Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:51 am to
Posted by Palmetto98
Where the stars are big and bright
Member since Nov 2021
2145 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:51 am to
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 by Snipe
Member since Nov 2015
10945 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:53 am to
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 by hubertcumberdale
Member since Nov 2009
6523 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:55 am to
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 by hubertcumberdale
Member since Nov 2009
6523 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:56 am to
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 by Don Johnson
Member since Dec 2010
521 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:57 am to
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 by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260947 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:58 am to
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 by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260947 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 10:59 am to
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 by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90732 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:05 am to
quote:

The Germans didn’t mess around at all lol.


MG42 nests massacred people. Incredible rate of fire

LINK
Posted by White Roach
Member since Apr 2009
9457 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:10 am to
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 by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
64652 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:38 am to
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 by Palmetto98
Where the stars are big and bright
Member since Nov 2021
2145 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 11:40 am to
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 by SoFla Tideroller
South Florida
Member since Apr 2010
30175 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:03 pm to
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.
Posted by lowspark12
nashville, tn
Member since Aug 2009
22370 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:08 pm to
quote:

seems like the Western Front was more dangerous than the Pacific contrary to popular opinion.


Per capita no way.
Posted by hubertcumberdale
Member since Nov 2009
6523 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:11 pm to
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 by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
64652 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:27 pm to
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 by cattus
Member since Jan 2009
13449 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:49 pm to
Posted by sledgehammer
SWLA
Member since Oct 2020
3390 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 12:57 pm to
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 by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
140462 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 1:00 pm to
<3
Posted by Warfox
B.R. Native (now in MA)
Member since Apr 2017
3150 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 1:07 pm to
Posted by CrownTownHalo
CrownTown, NC
Member since Sep 2011
2948 posts
Posted on 9/12/22 at 1:30 pm to
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
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram