- 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: WWII: Would You Choose the Pacific or Europe?
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:28 pm to Spaceman Spiff
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:28 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
What were the numbers of our soldiers/Marines in each? Too lazy to look, but it would be surprised if the total numbers at Iwo matched the others...
Haven't looked up D-Day or Battle of Bulge yet, but a little less than 70,000 Marines landed on Iwo. There were over 26,000 casualties of which 6,800 were killed in action. It was the only battle in which the Japanese inflicted more casualties than they took.
quote:
Of the 22,060 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island, 18,844 died either from fighting or by ritual suicide. Only 216 were captured during the course of battle.
Crazy frickers
1
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:29 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
667 KIA for 39 days in a row in less than 15 square miles, yep, give that one to me
Those were total casualties and included wounded. Still the size of the battle field is not as important as the number of men being killed & maimed. And the numbers don't lie, the ETO was a meat grinder on a scale that dwarfed the Pacific.
And it was not just Normany and the Ardennes. Hell most people unless they're history buffs have never heard of campaigns like the Battle of Hurtgen Forest which saw heavier casualties than Iwo Jima. Then there was also Operation Nordwind which also saw more American casualties than Iwo Jima as well.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:30 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Thanks for sharing. I think we have a troll in our midst...
They follow me daily.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:31 pm to Darth_Vader
You've got to look at the percentages though dude.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:31 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
I haven't read much on his interpretation of things... What was his reasoning?
However, half an hour later MacArthur received a cable from Washington with directions to implement the Rainbow 5 War Plan at once.[47] This should have made it clear to MacArthur that his duty was to attack the Japanese, and General Brereton's B-17s were MacArthur's means of doing so. But Brereton's request was refused. As Major John Mamerow of the Adjutant General's Office, Philippine Department, recalls:
Major General Brereton arrived from MacArthur's headquarters and gave us as much of the story about the bombing at Pearl Harbor as he knew….The next thing I knew we got a call from General Sutherland,…saying the Formosa plan had been disapproved, but to make sure our airplanes were secure.[48]
Meanwhile, the Japanese Navy's 11th Air Fleet and Army's 5th Air Group aircraft, which were planned to have been striking MacArthur's air force, were grounded on Formosa due to ground fog.[49]
Brereton, however, did not give up. According to Morris, at approximately 7:15 a.m., after two hours of waiting for MacArthur to order the attack, Brerenton again went to General Sutherland's office with a prepared strike mission. "After a few minutes, the Chief of Staff came out of the general's office [MacArthur's], shut the door quietly behind him, and turned toward Brereton. ‘The general says "No,"' he said. ‘We must not make the first overt act.'"[50] Apparently, MacArthur's state of shock and cataleptic condition hampered him from realizing that the Japanese had already made the first overt act when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:32 pm to undecided
quote:
? Thanks for sharing. This thread isn't meant to be offensive, just a way to open discussion and hear other people views of the War
Oh I didn't take it as offensive in any way. I gave my opinion as well. I don't think anyone wanted to be in either and both were bad. I guess than my choice would be wherever they sent me.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:32 pm to Darth_Vader
Oh I don't doubt it one bit. I think that the likes of Iwo, Tarawa, etc., were no easier than in the ETO. shite, I wouldn't want a piece of either.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:34 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
You've got to look at the percentages though dude.
If we do that then 8th Air Force trumps both the Army & Marine ground ponders.
I've got to hit the sack. I'll check back in here tomorrow. Thanks for a great debate & discussion to all who have contributed. As for my downvote stalker, you can go back to the your friends in the IM thread now. I'll see you tomorrow as well.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:34 pm to asurob1
Damn, what a clusterfrick...
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:35 pm to Darth_Vader
Same here. O'dark thirty comes way too early.
Oh, and Darth, you need to start a petition to get a regular board!
Oh, and Darth, you need to start a petition to get a regular board!
This post was edited on 7/8/14 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:35 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
If we do that then 8th Air Force trumps both the Army & Marine ground ponders.
Oh no doubt they took it on the chin. But at least they got come back and get drunk and bang British hoes in between missions.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:36 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
you are obviously more studied up on this, and I'm too lazy to do the math, but I was making a per capita reference to the number of people killed per square mile of the battle area, don't know if it correlates, none of it was fun, I'm sure
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:38 pm to asurob1
quote:
your humble opinion would be wrong.
he was easily the worst and should have been sacked after leaving all our B-17s on the run way to be bombed....after pearl harbor...he should have been sacked for all his glowing reports of how the Philippines was going. And he should have never been allowed to reinvade the Philippines costing the lives of countless American soldiers all to assuage his ego.
he was a terrible commander.
The B-17 issue was catastrophic, but it was a moot point anyway without P-40's. Every great general has had poor decisions...Lee at Gettysburg, Napoleon at Waterloo, etc, etc.
You are flat out wrong on his "glowing reports", at least to Washington. He was begging, scrapping, pleading for anything to come his way. Washington had more or less written the Philippines off.
What is the issue with invading the Philippines? It was either there or Taiwan. Either would have been bloody as hell. We had significant friendly guerillas in the Philippines as well.
You discount his accomplishments far too easily.
His time as the Rainbow commander. His time as commandant of West Point (basically bringing it into the 20th century by himself). His decision to leap far ahead in New Guinea. His early recognition of the value of air power. On and on and on.
He was also a visionary into the role of the soldier as part diplomat, part Peace Corps, and part fighting man that was to become the model in the late 20th century (not that he necessarily agreed with it). He also had the correct opinion on Korea (and later, Vietnam). Either fight to win it outright or don't fight at all.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:42 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
h no doubt they took it on the chin. But at least they got come back and get drunk and bang British hoes in between missions.
when they came back....the odds of surviving as a B-17 bomber crew...scary low....especially in 42 and 43.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:46 pm to asurob1
quote:
when they came back....the odds of surviving as a B-17 bomber crew...scary low....especially in 42 and 43.
I think their casualty rate was over 50%. That's insane.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:49 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Europe
Couldn't handle the bugs in the pacific
Couldn't handle the bugs in the pacific
Posted on 7/8/14 at 10:52 pm to undecided
FWIW, the 8th AF in Europe suffered more casualties than any other unit by far. Europe was no piece of cake. And MacArthur,s troops in the Pacific suffered the fewest casualties. You can,t generalize I've which theater was worse.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 11:02 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I think their casualty rate was over 50%. That's insane.
yeah i recently completed reading the 8th Air Force. I had no idea how high the losses were for airmen over Europe.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 11:10 pm to undecided
Europe, easily.
The Germans, while they initially had some fierce fighters, gave up en masse when they knew they were beaten.
The Japanese probably still have a few holdouts, even today.
The Germans, while they initially had some fierce fighters, gave up en masse when they knew they were beaten.
The Japanese probably still have a few holdouts, even today.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 11:13 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Macarthur was incompetent or brilliant, there was no in between. Woefully inept in the Philippines, then stopped the Japanese cold in New Guinea and saved Australia. Masterful at iInchon, then nearly let the Chinese overrun him.
Page 10 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News