Why were Japanese losses heavier during the Pacific island-hopping campaign?

It stands to reason that attackers will lose more than defenders, assuming the attackers were well-trained and equipped and prepared.

In the Pacific campaign of World War II, during the island-hopping phase, why were Japanese losses often higher, either significantly or close to equal to, than American ones, despite the fact that the Japanese were the defenders?
 
It stands to reason that attackers will lose more than defenders, assuming the attackers were well-trained and equipped and prepared.

In the Pacific campaign of World War II, during the island-hopping phase, why were Japanese losses often higher, either significantly or close to equal to, than American ones, despite the fact that the Japanese were the defenders?

The military doctrine of the Japanese Military Doctrine demanded sacrificial tactics, where Allied military tactics suggested otherwise, such as surrendering when cournered, or trapped. Japanese soldiers and naval personel were ordered to fight with little or no support, until death, under all circumstances, with no option such as surrender, as that was seen as even worse than death. As such, with the also important factor of supplies being denied to the Japanese, where the Allies did get these in great quantities, resulted in more Japanese deaths, most of them even not due to actual combat, but malnutricion, fatigue, or illnesses, since ther was no realisitc medical support, nor weas there an efficient supplysystem to feed and arm the men.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Because the Japanese fought to the last man - that is bound to give high casualties...

If the allies had chosen to counter that with massive frontal attacks that could very well have given very much higher casualties among the attackers, but the allies didn't. Rather you rolled up the enemy's positions one by one and utilising superior firepower. Meanwhile the Japanese were sitting in their bunkers and waiting to die honourably.
 
1. Refusal to surrender when trapped. ie: On Betio Island of slightly over 5000 Japanese naval soldiers and Korean laborers only 14 Japanese & 104 Koreans were captured alive. Most of those were wounded.

2. Not withdrawing of retreating when there was the option. Usually the Japanese would hold on to a position longer than any western army, including the German or Red Armies. ie: The decision to withdraw from Guadalcanal came after Over 12,000 soldiers had died from starvation.

3. Poor tactical choices. Most Japanese infantry units were tactically skilled. When they choose they were as good as any army in modern assault tactics, flanking attacks, infiltration, ect... Too often Japanese officers choose poorly prepared shock attacks, what they refered to as 'Bamboo Spear' tactics or what the US soldiers called "Banzai Charges". The Bamboo Spear techniques worked against poorly trained militias or green units with bad discipline. Against average or better the techniques fail with high casualties.

4. Logistic failure. Japan had a bout half the cargo ships it needed, before the Allied submarine offensive took effect in 1944. Many of their soldiers in the Pacific starved and died of malnutrition.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yes, it's essentially the square law - and remember, those laws apply on combat power not total capability. If (say) the average American soldier had four times the lethality output of a Japanese one, then 50 Americans fighting 100 Japanese is an even fight and 100 Americans fighting 100 Japanese is a rout for the Americans.
 
Also, the US had (naval) artillery support up the wazoo, and the Japanese defenders only had whatever organic units they had with them (which couldn't reach the battleships offshore, for instance).

Similarly, the US had air superiority, and that really helps.
 

Deleted member 1487

Too often Japanese officers choose poorly prepared shock attacks, what they refered to as 'Bamboo Spear' tactics or what the US soldiers called "Banzai Charges". The Bamboo Spear techniques worked against poorly trained militias or green units with bad discipline. Against average or better the techniques fail with high casualties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that specifically a choice to commit suicide to ensure they wouldn't be captured? I know that earlier in the conflict Banzai charges were still sometimes thought to be a viable method to shock/intimidate enemy soldiers and it worked fairly well in China where the morale and training of Chinese troops wasn't the highest in most cases. As the conflict got beyond 1942 though it was clear that against the US/UK/Commonwealth forces that didn't work, so instead it became a method of honorable suicide, effectively a military version of 'suicide by cop'. That way officers could ensure that their soldiers weren't 'dishonored' by capture, as they would be guaranteed to be slaughtered with such a tactic. There is a sick logic to it if you truly believe that capture is the worst thing that could happen to you.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that specifically a choice to commit suicide to ensure they wouldn't be captured? I know that earlier in the conflict Banzai charges were still sometimes thought to be a viable method to shock/intimidate enemy soldiers and it worked fairly well in China where the morale and training of Chinese troops wasn't the highest in most cases. As the conflict got beyond 1942 though it was clear that against the US/UK/Commonwealth forces that didn't work, so instead it became a method of honorable suicide, effectively a military version of 'suicide by cop'. That way officers could ensure that their soldiers weren't 'dishonored' by capture, as they would be guaranteed to be slaughtered with such a tactic. There is a sick logic to it if you truly believe that capture is the worst thing that could happen to you.

Yep, it was considered better than either surrendering or starving to death.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yep, it was considered better than either surrendering or starving to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai_charge
Yeah it seems it was officially sanctioned later in the war as an honorable method of suicide to avoid capture. The 1942 attempts were just bad tactics, but based on experiences of what worked in China; after the US troops proved that that they were not going to run away and would massacre such charges they were stopped except as a method of honorable suicide.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Outside of a few of the early battles, there was no order to retreat, and eventually, it became impossible to evacuate forces. That led to 100% casualties at times. The often futile banzai charges also stumped attempts to prolong battles and cause more US casualties the way the Japanese dud in later battles.

Also, American ground forces for much of the war were just qualitatively better, with better weapons, tactics, and training adaptable for modern warfare. The US went into battle with better tanks, artillery, mortars, machine guns, and infantry weapons. This was not the case in Europe all of the time, but it was so in the Pacific after Guadalcanal. Japanese forces overtime degraded in quality, being more and more the bottom of the barrel, and by the time of Okinawa, a sizable amount of the forces present were local Okinawan conscripts or Korean labourers. American forces on the other hand generally got better and better in quality due to better developed tactics (flamethrower squads, grenade cave teams, more machine guns per platoon) and better weaponry. This led to lopsided casualty counts in engagements, and the counts got even more lopsided when you combined the fact that Japanese troops were frequently cut off and malnourished without air or naval support.
 
Top