0
Buthead
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How many causalties did the US have in Vietnam?
Over 58,000 US servicemen were killed; over 1,900 MIA/POW, and over 300,000 wounded.
Were there more casualties in the pacific war than in the European war?
I felt compelled to correct the previos poster's answer here, which was inaccurate and veered off on a tangent. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to talk about this purely from the US perspective, and also use the word casualty as inclusive dead and wounded. (not that this argument would be void if it included everyone, but it would require more time to explain than I have right now)The question is whether you are referring the the NOMINAL causalty rate, which would refer to total actual number of causalties unadjusted for weight or the REAL casualty rate, which would refer to the causalties in regard to what percentage of troops deployed became casualties. Keep in mind the each theatre was very different: the European theatre was waged on a continuous fronline up and down the map, so there was always an engagement going on somewhere, which meant the causalties came in more fluidly and were harder to attribute to certain events than say the Pacific theatre, where single epic battles were always the main event and therefore easy to isolate and identify.As for NOMINAL casualty rate, the European theater would win. More total numbers of soldiers were deployed to Atlantic than the Pacific, and so unsurprisingly by pure population statistics, the ETO produced more numerical causualties than the the PTO, man for manHowever, as for the REAL casualty rate, the PTO trumps the ETO by far. Although the total number of men lost is generally regarded as smaller in number, when we look at the these in relation the number actually fighting, the casualty rate is much more horrific. For example, Okinawa had a 40+% causualty rate (90+% deadfor the Japanese!) versus 10-% for the Allies at the D-Day landings. So while less men were sent into combat in the PTO, resulting in fewer total deaths and woundings, a soldiers chances of surviving were acutally far less the Pacific than in Europe.Of course it all depends on how you look at it and which method suits your personal tastes. A historian would argue the ETO was worse while an economist would say the PTO was.No, lets be clear about this: there are far more casualties, never mind the percentages & wounded and this and that, in the European theatre in WW2 than there are in the Pacific. The Russians alone lost something in the region of 20,000 000 people in total & that dwarfs any other figures in the Pacific.
How many people died in civil war?
The battle of Antietam was a very bloody battle in the civil war. The confederates started out with 30,000 troops and the union had 56,000 troops. When the battle started it was very bloody. Every minute 10-20 soldiers died from each side because of cannon fire and the mass forces of men. Union deaths: 22,320 Confederate deaths: 19,865
What is animal causalties?
people
How many causalties in World War 1?
8 Million
What were japans causalties at the Battle of Midway?
See website: Battle of Midway
What beach suffered the most causalties on d-day?
I believe it was Omaha. if not, then Utah
How many us soiliers were causalties on d day?
I believe it was over 2,000
How many soviet union causalties were on D-day?
No Soviet forces were involved on D-day....
How many causalties did the US have in Vietnam?
Over 58,000 US servicemen were killed; over 1,900 MIA/POW, and over 300,000 wounded.
What is the battle that had no causalties?
A good one would be The Battle of Ft. Sumter. However, another would be the Battle of Polaczaki, in Northern Poland.Happy Warg Hunting!From, Cranford Coulterp.s. ask who I am.
How many causalties were at pear harbo?
There were 2,403 American casualties at Pearl Harbor, including 68 civilians. The wounded numbered 1,178. In addition, 65 Japanese servicemen were killed.
The total estimated causalties on World War I?
A frequently quoted figure for military dead in World War 1 is 10 million. The link below to a Wikipedia article gives 9.7 million.
How has the crossbow changed the world?
It changed the world by giving people ideas to make more long-ranged weapons instead of the short-ranged which causes more causalties, like sniper rifles.
Were there more casualties in the pacific war than in the European war?
I felt compelled to correct the previos poster's answer here, which was inaccurate and veered off on a tangent. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to talk about this purely from the US perspective, and also use the word casualty as inclusive dead and wounded. (not that this argument would be void if it included everyone, but it would require more time to explain than I have right now)The question is whether you are referring the the NOMINAL causalty rate, which would refer to total actual number of causalties unadjusted for weight or the REAL casualty rate, which would refer to the causalties in regard to what percentage of troops deployed became casualties. Keep in mind the each theatre was very different: the European theatre was waged on a continuous fronline up and down the map, so there was always an engagement going on somewhere, which meant the causalties came in more fluidly and were harder to attribute to certain events than say the Pacific theatre, where single epic battles were always the main event and therefore easy to isolate and identify.As for NOMINAL casualty rate, the European theater would win. More total numbers of soldiers were deployed to Atlantic than the Pacific, and so unsurprisingly by pure population statistics, the ETO produced more numerical causualties than the the PTO, man for manHowever, as for the REAL casualty rate, the PTO trumps the ETO by far. Although the total number of men lost is generally regarded as smaller in number, when we look at the these in relation the number actually fighting, the casualty rate is much more horrific. For example, Okinawa had a 40+% causualty rate (90+% deadfor the Japanese!) versus 10-% for the Allies at the D-Day landings. So while less men were sent into combat in the PTO, resulting in fewer total deaths and woundings, a soldiers chances of surviving were acutally far less the Pacific than in Europe.Of course it all depends on how you look at it and which method suits your personal tastes. A historian would argue the ETO was worse while an economist would say the PTO was.No, lets be clear about this: there are far more casualties, never mind the percentages & wounded and this and that, in the European theatre in WW2 than there are in the Pacific. The Russians alone lost something in the region of 20,000 000 people in total & that dwarfs any other figures in the Pacific.
