0
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 man
However, 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.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How many deaths were there in the Battle of Cambrai?
The British had more than 55,000 casualties, and German casualties are estimated at 45,000.
Can you Give two examples of how the fighting in the Pacific Theater was different than the fighting in the European Theater?
2. In Europe, the U.S. was fighting more than one country and had more Allies that they could rely on.
What was the greatest cause of casualties in World War?
In Japan the greatest cause of casualties was the atomic bombs and the napalm bombs (which did more damage and killed more people than the A bombs). In Germany and Europe the aerial bombing and the invasion of Europe by the Allied Forces use of Tanks and automatic machine guns caused the most casualties. In the Pacific the total combined use of planes, ships and infantry with all their weapons caused the most casualties on both sides. Torpedo use was another factor in the Pacific for many ship deaths. Another factor to consider is that casualties from the battles did not kill as many people as disease, exposure to the elements/climates, starvation, suicide and genocide, murders and mistreatment of the POWs did. In fact, the worldwide influenza killed more people worldwide than battle injuries.
Which axis country suffered the most casualties?
In World War 2, Germany suffered more casualties than either Italy or Japan. Only Russia and China suffered more casualties than Germany.
What killed more Aztecs than spanish weapons?
Many Aztec people were actually killed by the diseases that the European men brought over with them. Because the Aztecs had never been exposed to European diseases, they had no immunity to them. Many of the Aztecs contracted diseases like Smallpox from the European soldiers and died from illness as opposed to actually casualties of war.
Of the more than three hundred thousand American military deaths in World War 2 how many were in the Pacific Theater and how many in the European Theater?
It is HARD to find comparisons. But I recall 90k in Pacific, 300k WWII so 210K Europe. Seems Battle of Bulge had more casualties than the entire Pacific War
Is the book The Pacific written by Hugh Ambrose the same as the HBO miniseries The Pacific?
Yes, he's the son of the late writer Stephen Ambrose. Hugh should be writing about the NAVAL war in the Pacific! That's what the "Pacific" is...an ocean. The "Pacific" is not a continent like Europe is; nor was the "Pacific" a land war. The US Navy suffered more casualties in the PACIFIC than the US Marine Corps did in all of WWII.
How many deaths were there in the Battle of Cambrai?
The British had more than 55,000 casualties, and German casualties are estimated at 45,000.
Can you Give two examples of how the fighting in the Pacific Theater was different than the fighting in the European Theater?
2. In Europe, the U.S. was fighting more than one country and had more Allies that they could rely on.
What was the greatest cause of casualties in war?
In Japan the greatest cause of casualties was the atomic bombs and the napalm bombs (which did more damage and killed more people than the A bombs). In Germany and Europe the aerial bombing and the invasion of Europe by the Allied Forces use of Tanks and automatic machine guns caused the most casualties. In the Pacific the total combined use of planes, ships and infantry with all their weapons caused the most casualties on both sides. Torpedo use was another factor in the Pacific for many ship deaths. Another factor to consider is that casualties from the battles did not kill as many people as disease, exposure to the elements/climates, starvation, suicide and genocide, murders and mistreatment of the POWs did. In fact, the worldwide influenza killed more people worldwide than battle injuries.
What was the greatest cause of casualties in World War?
In Japan the greatest cause of casualties was the atomic bombs and the napalm bombs (which did more damage and killed more people than the A bombs). In Germany and Europe the aerial bombing and the invasion of Europe by the Allied Forces use of Tanks and automatic machine guns caused the most casualties. In the Pacific the total combined use of planes, ships and infantry with all their weapons caused the most casualties on both sides. Torpedo use was another factor in the Pacific for many ship deaths. Another factor to consider is that casualties from the battles did not kill as many people as disease, exposure to the elements/climates, starvation, suicide and genocide, murders and mistreatment of the POWs did. In fact, the worldwide influenza killed more people worldwide than battle injuries.
Which axis country suffered the most casualties?
In World War 2, Germany suffered more casualties than either Italy or Japan. Only Russia and China suffered more casualties than Germany.
Are Chinook the same as Pacific Northwestern people?
No, the Chinook are Pacific Northwestern people; however, the term Chinook refers to those Pacific Northwestern people who can claim a Pacific Northwestern heritage of more than 150 years. Most Pacific Northwestern people are of European heritage. Not everyone who lives in the Pacific Northwest is Chinook, and not all Chinook live in the Pacific Northwest.
What four month battle claimed more than million casualties?
The Somme
Which type of chemical agent when released can cause casualties for more than?
Persistent
What is and fact about the Pacific Ocean?
the pacific has more that 1,234,768 known species in the pacific ocean. There are more than 7,000 UNKNOWN SPECIES in just the pacific.
What was the biggest war with Mexico?
You mean with highest number of casualties? That would be the Mexican Revolution (1910 - 1921) with more than 1 million casualties.
