Who had it harder during WWII?

2015-07-10T07:41:08-04:00

I recently re-watched HBO's 2010 miniseries, "The Pacific". I'm sure we have all seen both "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific"; both are compelling miniseries giving the viewer a very raw look at combat on both fronts.

While watching the last part of "The Pacific" last night, I got to thinking. Did one front have it worse than the other? Were the challenges faced by one side greater than the other? And lastly, knowing what I know, which side would I prefer to fight on?

I think it is very hard to say that one side had it harder than the other but I think the challenges differed greatly. In Europe, the fighting was in the fields, in the cities, in the air. In the Pacific, the fighting was on little rocks that dot the region. Both sides faced a well armed and trained enemy; both with years of combat experience, weapons, and knowledgeable leaders. However, I think the Japanese military had a slight edge in the fight or die category. We have all seen the stories of Japanese Soldiers killing themselves rather than surrendering to the United States or one our allies. Both sides had numerous bloody battles that claimed thousands of lives.

So RP, what say you? I'm not asking which branch is better. I think either branch would have been just as successful in either theater of action. The question is which one do you think had it harder? Did any one side face a larger challenge to seek out and destroy the enemy of the United States based on the location of that fight?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 10 at 2015 7:43 AM

2015-07-10T07:43:59-04:00

I would have to say the Army/European Theater mostly because they suffered heavier casualties.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 10 at 2015 7:45 AM

2015-07-10T07:45:27-04:00

I think "different" is probably the most correct answer. All things considered, I just don't think there is any way we can make a valid comparison between the two.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 8:54 AM

2015-07-10T08:54:38-04:00

It's strange how history gets wiped away with one really good, iconic picture. The Army had just as much of a presence in the Pacific theater. For instance, in the battle of Okinawa, one of the deadliest and longest battles of WW2, was fought by 4 Army divisions and 2 Marine Divisions.

For the record, I would say the Pacific theater was worse because of the malaria, disease, and hand to hand combat experienced in the thick jungle.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 10 at 2015 11:38 AM

2015-07-10T11:38:23-04:00

The Army was in the Pacific too, remember, and experienced the same suck as the Marines......

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2015 12:03 PM

2015-07-10T12:03:35-04:00

It's hard to say, and very close, IMO. Against the Japanese, you had to contend with naval battles, which were largely wrapped up in the Atlantic by the time the US got into the war (except for U-Boats). And even when it was a cohesive threat, the German navy was individually tough but never as big as the Japanese had (aircraft carriers, for example). Getting everyone on a ship and moving them around is a vulnerability, too, and that was what the Pacific war was all about.

In the Pacific you had tropical diseases, but in Europe you had blistering cold winters. The Germans also had the policy to oppose landings on beachheads, whereas the Japanese would sometimes let people land unopposed and then draw them into guerrilla war... but it's too late if the enemy has an established beachhead and can bring in supplies at leisure (of course, jungle warfare negated our advantages in tanks, so there's that)

Overall I think the European theater was nastier, but it is a close one. The Germans were at least partially mechanized and knew how to use those mechanized forces to maximize their effects, and they had a rail logistics & air drop system that allowed them to keep fights going. Their ability to bring serious tanks to the fight is decisive, IMO.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jul 10 at 2015 12:24 PM

2015-07-10T12:24:36-04:00

Interesting question and one that has been debated since World War II. It's all a matter of perspective. People and units in both theaters experienced intense and brutal combat. Both the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese were ruthless enemies. I don't think it's possible to come up with the conclusive answer to this question. It's like asking which war was the toughest for the American soldier World War I World War II, the Korean War or Vietnam? I've had World War II combat veterans tell me gee you guys in Vietnam had a much tougher than we did. I just scratched my head thinking just the opposite. In the end, all American combat veterans, especially those who experienced intense combat, share something that defies description. The article at the link, which I've shared before on RP, sums up how I feel about all this. http://ewross.com/A_Soldiers_Journey.htm

A SOLDIER'S JOURNEY TO AN UNKNOWN DESTINATION - EWRoss.com

Forty-three Memorial Days ago—four wars ago now—I was a second lieutenant artillery observer with the 9th Infantry Division’s Mobile Riverine Force in the Mekong Delta of South Vietnam.The day I set out for that incredible combat zone five months earlier, I began a journey to an unknown destination, a place inside myself I had not yet discovered.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 10 at 2015 5:43 PM

2015-07-10T17:43:21-04:00

I think I will go with the top of my head and say a soldiers had higher percentage of losses in Europe. I could be wrong. There were Army Divisions in Asia fighting as well.

Response by Capt Michael Halpin made Jul 17 at 2015 10:44 PM

2015-07-17T22:44:03-04:00

The Pacific had a tougher enemy. The Japanese fought to the death. Compared to Europe very few POWs were captured in the Pacific. The Marines learn this at Guadalcanal in 1942 and it never changed.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Oct 2 at 2015 12:41 PM

2015-10-02T12:41:05-04:00

The Army fought in Africa, Europe, India, China, Burma, and Much of the Pacific. They made landings in Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, & Southern France. They fought an enemy that had taken mobile warfare and rewrote the book. The Japanese, fought a ruthless form of warfare, and I am sure landing after landing reduced your chances of surviving. While the Japanese Armor forces were not similar to the German one, the terrain would not have supported Panzer Mark IV, let alone anything larger. I think to say they were different is the best way to go about this.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 3:42 PM

2016-01-12T15:42:00-05:00

I would say the Pacific Theater. The jungle is a beast. Constant heat and humidity. Not to mention the Japanese were ruthless and fought till the last man, literally. If I was a soldier back then and I had the choice I would've picked Europe.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2016 3:59 PM

2016-01-12T15:59:14-05:00

The combat was brutal in Europe and the Pacific. In the Pacific, the fighting was against an enemy that fought to the death. Additionally, the jungle was also an enemy because of the heat and diseases that the men encountered. A slight edge for the Pacific being a tougher theater of combat.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 12 at 2016 4:38 PM

2016-01-12T16:38:43-05:00

The families at home. sigh

Response by Sgt Joe LaBranche made Jan 13 at 2016 11:09 PM

2016-01-13T23:09:46-05:00

How can you compare one man's experience to another? Every experience is different and personal. A bullet, whether in the Pacific or anywhere else, is a bullet or bomb. Bullets and bombs don't different between one or the other. War is hell whether you are in the Army or Marines. Seeing your buddies shot or killed, the destruction of war, the killing of innocent people is equal no matter where the battle is or who is doing the fighting!

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 14 at 2016 12:14 AM

2016-01-14T00:14:55-05:00

Neither had it easy, BUT the Army in Europe did not get pulled out for the next island. They were in it from D-Day til the end. But that's just a thought. I am sure the Marines will bust my chops for that.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jan 14 at 2016 12:57 AM

2016-01-14T00:57:25-05:00

SGT Ben Keen Please read "Neptune's Inferno". The Navy took more casualties NW of the "Canal", than the USMC on Guadacanal!

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 14 at 2016 7:20 AM

2016-01-14T07:20:14-05:00

My father was a Seabee in the Pacific Theater with 4 campaign stars and the Phillipine Liberation

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jan 14 at 2016 9:37 AM

2016-01-14T09:37:06-05:00

Kinda thinking that the Russians and Germans on the Eastern/Russian front had it worst of all given the casualties taken there. I know that's not American but I'll stand by it.

Response by Cpl Brent Saravia made Jan 16 at 2016 7:21 PM

2016-01-16T19:21:20-05:00

Both sides had men and women who have suffered the supreme sacrifice for their country.......what's harder than that?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 11:37 PM

2016-01-16T23:37:38-05:00

SGT Ben Keen, My answer would be the females back home who worked for the success of WWII, while their men were fighting. They did the jobs men usually did while raising their kids on their own. I have tremendous respect for those women and kids who helped make America as great as it is.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 11:49 PM

2016-01-16T23:49:42-05:00

Much has been mentioned about the jungle war fare being tough, but don't forget about the terrible winters in Germany and throughout Europe.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 17 at 2016 12:49 AM

2016-01-17T00:49:11-05:00

Is misleading to label the Pacific as a "Marine's War" there were many more Soldiers and Army Division in the Pacific Theatre. The huge difference is that the same units in the Marines were thrown into the grinder for 3 campaigns. The Smaller Island Battles the Marines (sometimes with Army units) fought were shorter and more intense. Marine rifle Companies on Iwo Jima had more Casualties and a higher rate of losses than Co E 2/506 had during their entire war. There was at least one company on Iwo Jima that was completely wiped out. including their initial numbers and replacements during the fighting they had over 250 men. During the last days they had only 8 men standing and a single mortar round killed or wounded every one.
The Marines were assault troops, trained to overwhem fortifications with Close Air, Naval Gunfire and Artillery Support. They were trained in the use of satchel charges to blast pillboxes, and used machine guns and flame throwers to good effect. Our forces in Europe did a lot of manuever warfare, and had to deal with enemy armor more. Marines were aggressive brawlers who excelled at head on assaults against determined enemy. I think a Marine Division would have performed well in the Hurtegen Forest.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Jan 17 at 2016 1:36 PM

2016-01-17T13:36:50-05:00

Tough question having not been there to witness either. I know Europe had some of the coldest winters on record but the jungle heat.... I think we all owe our grand fathers a debt of gratitude than can only be repaid by remembering their sacrifices and not letting it all be for nothing.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 17 at 2016 8:52 PM

2016-01-17T20:52:24-05:00

It took a tremendous amount of strength and courage to rise above the harsh climatic and weather conditions faced in both WWII theaters to sufficiently focus on meeting well trained, well led and motivated enemy. The best training can do is approximate weather conditions, harsh terrain, prolonged periods without sleep, etc, but we can't replicate the constant pressure of being at risk of death every second of the day and night. Troops in Europe, the Pacific, Korea and RVN suffered tremendously from the jungle, extreme heat and cold, impossible terrain etc. As others have stated we need to give each SM of every era in each theater equal credit for rising above impossible conditions to meet and defeat the enemy when the chips were down.