Why were WWII Japanese Army losses so disproportionate?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
To those in this thread that have been critical of the conduct of American Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen during this war, I would like to ask this question:

How many of you have actually been in combat, in the field, in a hell hole like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa? If you have, then and ONLY THEN are you qualified to judge the actions of those men. To those that haven't, you owe those men your very existence AND your ability to sit at your computer and type up such disrespectful bilge. Consider that when forming your opinion.

WWII was one of the few times that mankind struggled against true evil. The Axis had to be destroyed, totally and utterly. The alternative was too terrible to comprehend.

To answer the other obvious question, no, despite 18 years of service in the United States Navy I have not seen combat either. But because of that I give those that have a great deal of credit and consideration before I begin to criticize.
Not at all sure I can agree here. Even in combat there are rules. Those rules are recognized by every civilized nation, and U.S. troops are specifically instructed on them (currently war crimes are covered under Article 134 of the UCMJ, along with specific elements of Articles 80-132 of the UCMJ).

It is very easy to defend American forces actions during WW II without implying that combat changes the basic rules of civilization (rules that, BTW, have been recognized and evolved since Feudal times). Mi Lai was a crime against AMERICAN law, it was also a war crime, but it was not necessary to have an international tribunal take action because AMERICAN law was properly applied (if the prosecution went far enough up the change of command is a potential discussion that has no place in this thread). The day we abandon our principals is the day we are done as a force for good in this world.
 
Not at all sure I can agree here. Even in combat there are rules. Those rules are recognized by every civilized nation, and U.S. troops are specifically instructed on them (currently war crimes are covered under Article 134 of the UCMJ, along with specific elements of Articles 80-132 of the UCMJ).

It is very easy to defend American forces actions during WW II without implying that combat changes the basic rules of civilization (rules that, BTW, have been recognized and evolved since Feudal times). Mi Lai was a crime against AMERICAN law, it was also a war crime, but it was not necessary to have an international tribunal take action because AMERICAN law was properly applied (if the prosecution went far enough up the change of command is a potential discussion that has no place in this thread). The day we abandon our principals is the day we are done as a force for good in this world.
Even the Reich obeyed most laws of war on the Western Front (there were several massacres of captured Allied troops and partisan reprisals against the French populace however) since they saw their enemies as racially similar unlike the "Subhuman" Slavs they fought in the East.
 
Which would be easily double the Reich's maximum.

And that's only one figure (taken from the contemporary "Industrial Incentive" poster 'Your Enemy the Jap'). According to some other sources, such as Eri Hotta's "Pan-Asianism in the Co-Prosperity Sphere" the Japanese advance had absorbed 500 million people by March 1942, bringing the Empire's total population to nearly 600M or a solid 25% of all humanity at the time.
 
And that's only one figure (taken from the contemporary "Industrial Incentive" poster 'Your Enemy the Jap'). According to some other sources, such as Eri Hotta's "Pan-Asianism in the Co-Prosperity Sphere" the Japanese advance had absorbed 500 million people by March 1942, bringing the Empire's total population to nearly 600M or a solid 25% of all humanity at the time.
Imagine what life would be like for those hundreds of millions of people if the Japanese won.

Talk about nightmarish.
 
Even the Reich obeyed most laws of war on the Western Front (there were several massacres of captured Allied troops and partisan reprisals against the French populace however) since they saw their enemies as racially similar unlike the "Subhuman" Slavs they fought in the East.

I have a bone to pick for that. You left out all the stuff they did in the Benelux countries like the bombing of Rotterdam and numerous massacres, the deportation of Jews and other "untermenschen" (the Holocaust in France and the Benelux countries), mass looting and rape, kidnapping/deporting tons of citizens of those countries into what amounted to slavery, etc.

It was a cleaner war than the Ostfront, yes, but talk about not saying much.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It was a cleaner war than the Ostfront, yes, but talk about not saying much.
Don't forget what happened to units like the tiralleurs senegalaise. Both SS units and regular Heer units, AIUI, were not without the occasional massacre of surrendered infantry.
 
So of all of the possibilities of being captured by the Axis military, what was best in terms of being treated properly as a POW? I'm *guessing* US or UK Pilot going down in Southern Italy or Libya.
 
Hmmm... three pages here & I'm missing seeing any actual numbers presented. ....

On the OP's subject, in terms of raw data the Japanese were considerably more successful in land warfare against US forces than the Germans were, doubtlessly due to a combination of the geography of the Pacific Theater and the brutal, merciless character of the fighting. According to the calculations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, during the fighting in Europe casualties accumulated at an average rate of 0.42 dead/missing and 1.74 wounded per 1,000 men/day, whereas in the Pacific the rate was 1.95 dead/missing and 5.5 wounded.

In other words, the Japanese were approximately three and a half times more efficient at inflicting losses on American soldiers and Marines than the German Heer, and more than four and a half times more efficient at killing them outright.
 
So of all of the possibilities of being captured by the Axis military, what was best in terms of being treated properly as a POW? I'm *guessing* US or UK Pilot going down in Southern Italy or Libya.
The best option would be a US/British soldier captured by Germany.

According to Wiki there were 8,300 deaths out of 231,000 British and U.S. prisoners held in Europe or a death rate of 3.6%. Soviet POWs held by the Reich had a death rate of 57% in comparison.
 
On the OP's subject, in terms of raw data the Japanese were considerably more successful in land warfare against US forces than the Germans were, doubtlessly due to a combination of the geography of the Pacific Theater and the brutal, merciless character of the fighting. According to the calculations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, during the fighting in Europe casualties accumulated at an average rate of 0.42 dead/missing and 1.74 wounded per 1,000 men/day, whereas in the Pacific the rate was 1.95 dead/missing and 5.5 wounded.

In other words, the Japanese were approximately three and a half times more efficient at inflicting losses on American soldiers and Marines than the German Heer.

I wonder if that is not statistical deceit - I'm not having a pop - hear me out

The US was engaged with the Japanese for far longer than they were with the Germans (okay a relatively small number of troops in NA and then slightly more in Italy) - effectively the bulk of the US army was not decisively engaged with the Germans until D-Day+ so 11 Months in total and many units did not arrive till well after D-Day

Also the US Army in Europe had a larger tail to teeth organisation than in the Pacific where it was largely Navy providing the logistics - and in the pacific they were able to rotate units - so losses were spread across a larger pool of troops in the ETO

Units fighting the Japanese in the Pacific tended to engage them until the Japanese were destroyed/defeated - so casualties were sustained by a relatively smaller pool of troops

Of the 90 odd US Divisions that Saw combat in WW2 - only 1 'Cavalry' Division, 18 Infantry divisions and 6 USMC Divisions were in the Pacific (the 12th Division Twice - the original being the only US Division to be destroyed in WW2) - the remainder - including all of the Armour units went to Europe.

So it was upon these relative handful of units (many of which did not arrive until late 44/45) that the burden of combat fell - and many of the actions were effectively frontal assaults on fortified islands

In Europe relatively few of the divisions were involved in the meat grinder that was typical of D-Day, the Normandy campaign and the Ardennes.

So basically in the Pacific as a member of the Divisions fighting in the Pacific you had a higher average chance of being in combat on any given day than a member of a Division in Europe.

That being said if I compare 2 Army divisions casualties in WW2 - the 23rd 'Americal' Division - which of the Army divisions probably fought for the longest period of time in the pacific and the 29th Division and 1st Divisions both of which fought for relatively long periods in the ETO (the First from Torch) then its quickly apparent that the Germans were quite good at inflicting casualties

23rd Division - in theatre for most of the Pacific war

Casualties
  • Total battle casualties: 4,050
  • Killed in action: 981
  • Wounded in action: 3,052
  • Missing in action: 16
  • Prisoner of war: 1
29th Division - in theatre for 11 months

Casualties
  • Total battle casualties: 20,620
  • Killed in action: 3,887
  • Wounded in action: 15,541
  • Missing in action: 347
  • Prisoner of war: 845

1st Division

Casualties
  • Total battle casualties: 20,659
  • Killed in action: 3,616
  • Wounded in action: 15,208
  • Missing in action: 499
  • Prisoner of war: 1,336
 
The reason the casualty rates for the US forces in the Pacific included the following:
1. Amphibious assaults against an organized resistance are costly
2. The environment in most of the Pacific theater was much worse for disease than the ETO, so more casualties from disease and/or made worse by disease
3. Fanatical resistance by the Japanese - in situations where German forces would surrender, the Japanese fought to the death which caused casualties
4. The death rate for Allied POWs was much larger in the Pacific. This was both those who died from poor conditions and those killed deliberately either right away or to prevent liberation.

Allied pilots, especially those captured where there were bombing campaigns that killed civilians, did worse than others - this was usually because civilians or local militia would kill or injure them in rage.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wonder if that is not statistical deceit - I'm not having a pop - hear me out

The US was engaged with the Japanese for far longer than they were with the Germans (okay a relatively small number of troops in NA and then slightly more in Italy) - effectively the bulk of the US army was not decisively engaged with the Germans until D-Day+ so 11 Months in total and many units did not arrive till well after D-Day

Also the US Army in Europe had a larger tail to teeth organisation than in the Pacific where it was largely Navy providing the logistics - and in the pacific they were able to rotate units - so losses were spread across a larger pool of troops in the ETO

Units fighting the Japanese in the Pacific tended to engage them until the Japanese were destroyed/defeated - so casualties were sustained by a relatively smaller pool of troops

Of the 90 odd US Divisions that Saw combat in WW2 - only 1 'Cavalry' Division, 18 Infantry divisions and 6 USMC Divisions were in the Pacific (the 12th Division Twice - the original being the only US Division to be destroyed in WW2) - the remainder - including all of the Armour units went to Europe.

So it was upon these relative handful of units (many of which did not arrive until late 44/45) that the burden of combat fell - and many of the actions were effectively frontal assaults on fortified islands

In Europe relatively few of the divisions were involved in the meat grinder that was typical of D-Day, the Normandy campaign and the Ardennes.

So basically in the Pacific as a member of the Divisions fighting in the Pacific you had a higher average chance of being in combat on any given day than a member of a Division in Europe.

That being said if I compare 2 Army divisions casualties in WW2 - the 23rd 'Americal' Division - which of the Army divisions probably fought for the longest period of time in the pacific and the 29th Division and 1st Divisions both of which fought for relatively long periods in the ETO (the First from Torch) then its quickly apparent that the Germans were quite good at inflicting casualties

23rd Division - in theatre for most of the Pacific war

Casualties
  • Total battle casualties: 4,050
  • Killed in action: 981
  • Wounded in action: 3,052
  • Missing in action: 16
  • Prisoner of war: 1
29th Division - in theatre for 11 months

Casualties
  • Total battle casualties: 20,620
  • Killed in action: 3,887
  • Wounded in action: 15,541
  • Missing in action: 347
  • Prisoner of war: 845
1st Division

Casualties
  • Total battle casualties: 20,659
  • Killed in action: 3,616
  • Wounded in action: 15,208
  • Missing in action: 499
  • Prisoner of war: 1,336
The critical thing to keep in mind, in both theaters, but especially in the Pacific, is that overwhelming majority of casualties were taken in the last year of the war. Total USMC fatal casualties (including MIA/presumed KIA, and DoW) were 19,277. Losses on Peleliu (1,252), Iwo Jima (5,885), and Okinawa (3,376) totaled 10,513. If this is stretched to include the Marianas (or the last 14 months of the war) that total jumps to 15,532. 80% of the USMC losses were in the final 14 months of the war.

USN KIA in 1945 totaled 11,446 (the TOTAL for all of 1943 and 1944 was 12,209, in all theaters).
 
The best option would be a US/British soldier captured by Germany.

According to Wiki there were 8,300 deaths out of 231,000 British and U.S. prisoners held in Europe or a death rate of 3.6%. Soviet POWs held by the Reich had a death rate of 57% in comparison.

How were Italian POW camps?
 
Top