Biggest contributor view #1: "Losses inflicted to the Axis powers" [Archive]

Egorka

03-28-2007, 07:08 AM

Guys!!!

Important in order to keep this thread functioning and not to drown in off-topic.
I kindly ask you to keep your comments shot and straight to the point. No off-topic please. If you want to cretisice the numbers I give, You HAVE to propose your own with short, but reasonable explanation and sources. Remember that the scenario below is just one of the saveral and is not supposed to explain the Victory alone!

View #1:
In order to defeat Axis powers their forces had to be destroyed.
The forces consist of Ground force, Air force and Fleet.
The Axis powers are Germany including all of Europe but without Italy, Japan and Italy.

Since these country had invested different resources into the waging WW2 we split the importance of their destruction according to their war expences
(source: the book is at home right now. will be added later):
Importance of Destruction

Germany: 70%
Japan: 20%
Italy: 10%

Secondly, the importance of the destruction of sertain force type was diffent for different Axis powers. For example, the destruction of Japaneese Navy had much more severe implications for Japan, than destruction of German Navy for Germany. In this light I assigned the following weights:
Importance of the Force type Destruction

Ground Air Fleet
Germany: 0,60 0,26 0,14
Japan: 0,20 0,30 0,50
Italy: 0,34 0,33 0,33

Finaly the share of each main Allied country in the destruction per Axis power and per force type.
This data means, that I estimate USA had destroyed 20% of Japanese ground forces, 50% of Japanese airforces and 70% of Japanese fleet. The numbers are my estimates:

Share of Axis forces destroyed per Allied country

Germany
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,70 0,20 0,05 0,05
Air 0,33 0,22 0,35 0,10
Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,70 0,05

Japan
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,25 0,20 0,30 0,25
Air 0,05 0,50 0,30 0,15
Fleet 0,05 0,70 0,20 0,05

Italy
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,10
Air 0,35 0,25 0,35 0,05
Fleet 0,05 0,35 0,55 0,05

These are my assumptions. Some are more grounded than the others.
Do you agree? Any corrections? Please comment.

After we roughly agree on these assumptions I will calculate the share of the input for each main Allied country into the Victory, for this scenario #1.

Update: The latest result of the discussion in this thread:

Comment:
UK in this exercise consist of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The "Other" part consist of all the Allied countries except USA, USSR and UK. F.ex. France, India, Greece, ect.
Remaining uncertainties:

the losses inflicted to Japanees in China
The distribution of Italian losses may need refinement

Importance of Destruction
Germany Italy Japan
70% 10% 20%

Importance of the Force type Destruction
Ground Air Fleet
Germany 0,60 0,26 0,14
Japan 0,20 0,30 0,50
Italy 0,34 0,33 0,33

Germany: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,70 0,20 0,05 0,05
Air 0,30 0,22 0,40 0,08
Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,70 0,05

Italy: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,15 0,10 0,70 0,05
Air 0,05 0,25 0,68 0,02
Fleet 0,05 0,10 0,80 0,05

Japan: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,09 0,35 0,45 0,11
Air 0,01 0,60 0,37 0,02
Fleet 0,01 0,70 0,26 0,03

Final Result: the losses inflicted to the Axis powers
USSR USA UK Other
36,7% 27,9% 30,1% 5,3%

pdf27

03-28-2007, 01:44 PM

Share of Axis forces destroyed per Allied country

Germany
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,70 0,20 0,05 0,05
I think the USA is a bit high here, unless you're calculating the impact of lend-lease material on the Allied Armies - it isn't four times that of the UK. Overlord was pretty much evenly split between the US and UK, and by the end of the war the US wasn't much more than twice as powerful as the UK on the ground in Europe.
I suggest 0,75 0,15 0,10, and am counting Australians, Canadians, Indians etc. under Britain. The rest count for less than 1% of the total.

Air 0,33 0,22 0,35 0,10
I think you're somewhat overestimating the Soviet air force and very much overestimating the RAF here. While the USAAF took time to grow, by the end of the war it was by a massive margin the most powerful in the world. The RAF do well for being there from the start, while again the only significant contribution from "others" would be from the Australians and (particularly) Canadians flying for the RAF. These were so heavily integrated it makes sense to describe them as British.
I suggest 0,3 0,35 0,35

Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,70 0,05
Pretty much fair - assuming again that the Canadians were counted as British. If you count them seperately, then you have to allow for the fact that they had the third most powerful navy on earth by summer 1945, virtually all of it committed to the North Atlantic. If they are counted as British, then others pretty much sums up the contribution of the various "Free" navies plus the Italians after they changed sides.

Japan
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,25 0,20 0,30 0,25
Air 0,05 0,50 0,30 0,15
Fleet 0,05 0,70 0,20 0,05
This depends so much on who "Other" is - the British effort in the far east was overwhelmingly an Australian, Indian and West African one. I think the Soviet contribution is overblown though - the Kwantung army was largely a hollow force by the time the Soviets attacked, and couldn't really do anything useful given where it was anyway. The US ground fighting however is I think underrated - I would put it about the same level of importance as the British forces in Burma, with virtually all the other credit going to the Chinese. They were hardly effective, but tied down a hell of a lot of Japanese troops for a long time.

Italy
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,10
Air 0,35 0,25 0,35 0,05
Fleet 0,05 0,35 0,55 0,05
Way off - the US scarcely faced any Italian forces at all during the war, and the Soviets never even saw the Italian fleet. I would put the ground forces as 0,05 0,15 0,65 0,15. Italy sent roughly 200,000 men at peak against the Soviets for a relatively short period of time, losing about 20,000 dead and 60,000 captured. They lost three times as many dead against France in 1940! In comparison, the British captured around a quarter of a million Italians in North Africa in 1940/early 1941 alone.
Air is probably similar - again, it was overwhelmingly a British/Dominion/Empire campaign.
Fleet is probably 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 - the RN pretty much destroyed the RM, and I'm not aware of anybody else getting in on the action.

Cojimar 1945

03-28-2007, 02:51 PM

You seem to be underrating Japan quite a bit. The Japanese territories actually had a larger population than the reich.

Cojimar 1945

03-28-2007, 03:04 PM

Control of the air seems to be important for a successful ground campaign. Who controls the air may determine success on the ground.
Planes can be very effective against ground forces.

pdf27

03-28-2007, 05:12 PM

You seem to be underrating Japan quite a bit. The Japanese territories actually had a larger population than the reich.
WW2 was very much an industrial war, and Japan was very underdeveloped industrially despite their occasional obvious success. I suspect you'll probably find Italy had higher industrial production in WW2 than Japan.

Erik

03-28-2007, 05:55 PM

For example Japan was roughly 7 times larger [population wise] than Canada yet the industrial output wasn't even close in terms of per capita production and in some cases Canada produced more than Japan outright.

Artillery:
Japan = 13,350
Canada = 10,552

Tanks and self-propelled guns:
Canada = 5,678
Japan = 2,515

Military Trucks:
Canada = 815,729
Japan = 165,945

Military aircraft of all types:
Japan = 76,320
Canada = 16,431
^ Somewhat proportionate to population

Machine guns:
Japan = 380,000
Canada = 251,925

Again... considering Japan had a population of 73 million compared to Canada with 11 that alone shows that Japans war industry was lacking. Throw Great Britain [and the rest of the Commonwealth] aswell as the US into the picture and you can see Japans war industry was severely underdeveloped.

Edit:

Regarding Italy outperforming Japans industry... considering Italy had around 45 million people, in atleast one case they did outperform Japan:

Tanks and self-propelled guns:
Japan = 2,515
Italy = 2,473
^ Relative to population the Italian industry produced more tanks

Artillery:
Japan = 13,350
Italy = 7,200
^ Output is generally equal

Military trucks:
Japan = 165,945
Italy = 83,000
^ Japan slightly more, but generally equal

Military aircraft of all types:
Japan = 76,320
Italy = 11,122
^ Japan outdid Italy here by quite a bit

Egorka

03-28-2007, 06:19 PM

Share of Axis forces destroyed per Allied country

Germany
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,70 0,20 0,05 0,05
I think the USA is a bit high here, unless you're calculating the impact of lend-lease material on the Allied Armies - it isn't four times that of the UK.
The lend-lease is not inclded at all in this scenario #1. It is only about the losses inflicted to the enemy, both material and lifes. The lend-lease will be accounted in an other scenario for the economical side of the war.
Overlord was pretty much evenly split between the US and UK, and by the end of the war the US wasn't much more than twice as powerful as the UK on the ground in Europe.
I suggest 0,75 0,15 0,10, and am counting Australians, Canadians, Indians etc. under Britain. The rest count for less than 1% of the total.
I actually was thinking of "others" as any one exept USA, USSR, Britain. So that mainly would be other Common wealth countries. But may be we should include them into UK in our calculation. Right? Or maybe not? In the Pacific theater, as I understand, British did not play the main role.

What do you suggest?

Air 0,33 0,22 0,35 0,10
I think you're somewhat overestimating the Soviet air force and very much overestimating the RAF here. While the USAAF took time to grow, by the end of the war it was by a massive margin the most powerful in the world. The RAF do well for being there from the start, while again the only significant contribution from "others" would be from the Australians and (particularly) Canadians flying for the RAF. These were so heavily integrated it makes sense to describe them as British.
I suggest 0,3 0,35 0,35

It does not matter how strong the USAF got at the end of the war. The important how much losses was inflicted during 1939-1945.

We have to settle if "others" should mean all the common wealth countries excluding GB. It makes big difference in Pacific.

Can you recomend any further sources about the German airforce losses?

Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,70 0,05
Pretty much fair - assuming again that the Canadians were counted as British. If you count them seperately, then you have to allow for the fact that they had the third most powerful navy on earth by summer 1945, virtually all of it committed to the North Atlantic. If they are counted as British, then others pretty much sums up the contribution of the various "Free" navies plus the Italians after they changed sides.
Again, the size and importance of the Canadian navy does not count in here it self. How much losses did they make. I do not know. Please suggest.

And again lets deside if "others" and UK are kept separate. Maybe instead of UK I should have writen GB?

Japan
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,25 0,20 0,30 0,25
Air 0,05 0,50 0,30 0,15
Fleet 0,05 0,70 0,20 0,05
This depends so much on who "Other" is - the British effort in the far east was overwhelmingly an Australian, Indian and West African one. I think the Soviet contribution is overblown though - the Kwantung army was largely a hollow force by the time the Soviets attacked, and couldn't really do anything useful given where it was anyway. The US ground fighting however is I think underrated - I would put it about the same level of importance as the British forces in Burma, with virtually all the other credit going to the Chinese. They were hardly effective, but tied down a hell of a lot of Japanese troops for a long time.
You are right - 0,25 for ground forces by USSR is too much. Kwantung Army was app 11% of the Japanese ground strength in 1945 and not well equiped. So I suggest 9% for it.

Also note that I assigned 0,25 for the ground to "others". This is mainly due to Chineese and Australians.

Italy
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,30 0,30 0,30 0,10
Air 0,35 0,25 0,35 0,05
Fleet 0,05 0,35 0,55 0,05
Way off - the US scarcely faced any Italian forces at all during the war, and the Soviets never even saw the Italian fleet. I would put the ground forces as 0,05 0,15 0,65 0,15. Italy sent roughly 200,000 men at peak against the Soviets for a relatively short period of time, losing about 20,000 dead and 60,000 captured. They lost three times as many dead against France in 1940! In comparison, the British captured around a quarter of a million Italians in North Africa in 1940/early 1941 alone.
Air is probably similar - again, it was overwhelmingly a British/Dominion/Empire campaign.
Fleet is probably 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 - the RN pretty much destroyed the RM, and I'm not aware of anybody else getting in on the action.
I have to admit that the data for Italy is the most vague for me. So lets talk.

Soviets did see Italian fleet in both Black sea (6 subs and 6 torpedo boats) ans Baltic sea. Of course not near in the scale of actions in Miditarenians sea. I know for sure about the italian high speed torpedo boats (MAS) and their losses in the Baltic.

I agree USSR probably did not account for 0,30 of Italian ground losses. But I think it was higher than 0,05. WE need more data on the total size of the Italian army and number of Italian POW.

Yes, I remembered the France in 1940 but might have underestimated it.

Agree USSR did not destroy 35% of Italian air force. The Italian expeditionary force in Russia had app. 70 airplanes. Need more statistics on this. As well as for the fleet.

But thanks a lot, pdf27, for the very constructive input!!!
Lets continue.

Egorka

03-28-2007, 06:22 PM

WW2 was very much an industrial war, and Japan was very underdeveloped industrially despite their occasional obvious success. I suspect you'll probably find Italy had higher industrial production in WW2 than Japan.

Guys, I rated the coutries based on the amount resources/money they invested into the war. The numbers I have are from the 4 volume history of WW2 printed in Oslo, Sweden in 1948.

As you see it is an old book and not everything was clear back then. If you have better source please suggest.

Cojimar 1945

03-29-2007, 12:02 AM

The major combatants certainly don't seem to have thought much of the Italians. In any case I believe Italian production of armaments was below Japan's.

pdf27

03-29-2007, 01:38 PM

I actually was thinking of "others" as any one exept USA, USSR, Britain. So that mainly would be other Common wealth countries. But may be we should include them into UK in our calculation. Right? Or maybe not? In the Pacific theater, as I understand, British did not play the main role.

What do you suggest?

We have to settle if "others" should mean all the common wealth countries excluding GB. It makes big difference in Pacific.
My instinct is to group all the Commonwealth/Empire countries in the same pot. They were (with the exception of one Canadian brigade trained along US lines for use against Japan towards the end of the war) equipped and trained homogeneously, part of a unified military chain of command and entered and left the war as one. The air forces in particular were very heavily integrated - RAF Bomber Command was actually very heavily Canadian, but intermingled to the extent that it was not uncommon to have three or more nationalities on a single aircraft.
Thus, my opinion is that seperating them out isn't practical. However, we really need the opinion of some real life Australians/Canadians/Indians here (the Indian army was something like three million strong - all volunteers).

Again, the size and importance of the Canadian navy does not count in here it self. How much losses did they make. I do not know. Please suggest.
Tough one - I would say a quarter to a third of the Battle of the Atlantic would be attributable to the Canadians.

You are right - 0,25 for ground forces by USSR is too much. Kwantung Army was app 11% of the Japanese ground strength in 1945 and not well equiped. So I suggest 9% for it.
Sounds pretty much exactly right to me.

Egorka

03-29-2007, 05:29 PM

My instinct is to group all the Commonwealth/Empire countries in the same pot. They were (with the exception of one Canadian brigade trained along US lines for use against Japan towards the end of the war) equipped and trained homogeneously, part of a unified military chain of command and entered and left the war as one. The air forces in particular were very heavily integrated - RAF Bomber Command was actually very heavily Canadian, but intermingled to the extent that it was not uncommon to have three or more nationalities on a single aircraft.
Thus, my opinion is that seperating them out isn't practical. However, we really need the opinion of some real life Australians/Canadians/Indians here (the Indian army was something like three million strong - all volunteers).

The question is, did the commonwealth countries perceived themself as one with GB? Do they now? And you are right: do we add up the Indians to GB or to the other nations?

I can not be sure, but I doubt it. Though they intered the War almost simutaniously. Would be nice to find out more from the locals.

In my opinion we should keep them separate. That is what I did in my estimates.

pdf27

03-29-2007, 06:24 PM

The question is, did the commonwealth countries perceived themself as one with GB? Do they now? And you are right: do we add up the Indians to GB or to the other nations?
My understanding is that the "White" dominions - with the exception of South Africa - very much regarded the UK as part of the family. No longer quite the mother country, as their own sense of nationhood had grown up in the previous world war (at Gallipoli for the ANZACs, Vimy Ridge for the Canadians), but Britain certainly had an unequalled place in their national conciousness.

Rising Sun*

03-30-2007, 03:02 AM

My instinct is to group all the Commonwealth/Empire countries in the same pot.

I think this is the correct approach for the purposes of this thread. As you say, we all came in together and went out together, and had the same enemies in a common purpose.

It is also the most manageable approach. It would be too difficult to separate out the contribution of dominion personnel who served in various British forces, notably RAF and RN. The problem would be compounded by trying to deal with elements where there were combined but unequal British and Commonwealth national forces, such as in North Africa and Malaya, and campaigns where there were no British national forces but substantial Australian forces such as Papua-New Guinea, Borneo, and Balikpapan.

There is another and more compelling reason for this approach. The USSR was not, strictly, a country but a federation or commonwealth of independent republics, which pretty much covered the same elements as the old Russian Empire. Because of the centralised control of the USSR's forces and resources, it would be difficult to separate out the contribution of each republic. If we're comparing like with like, the British Commonwealth / Empire contribution should also be regarded as a single contribution.

Egorka

03-30-2007, 03:13 AM

I think this is the correct approach for the purposes of this thread. As you say, we all came in together and went out together, and had the same enemies in a common purpose.

It is also the most manageable approach. It would be too difficult to separate out the contribution of dominion personnel who served in various British forces, notably RAF and RN. The problem would be compounded by trying to deal with elements where there were combined but unequal British and Commonwealth national forces, such as in North Africa and Malaya, and campaigns where there were no British national forces but substantial Australian forces such as Papua-New Guinea, Borneo, and Balikpapan.

There is another and more compelling reason for this approach. The USSR was not, strictly, a country but a federation or commonwealth of independent republics, which pretty much covered the same elements as the old Russian Empire. Because of the centralised control of the USSR's forces and resources, it would be difficult to separate out the contribution of each republic. If we're comparing like with like, the British Commonwealth / Empire contribution should also be regarded as a single contribution.

Rising Sun*, do say that the Commonwealth economies were melted together just like the Soviet republics?

Do you agree that we add "white" commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) into "UK", whereas India, Crown Colonies and South Africa will belong to "Others"?
It is OK with me.

Just be prepared to take qualified guess about thier respective input.

Cuts

03-30-2007, 03:27 AM

The question is, did the commonwealth countries perceived themself as one with GB? Do they now? And you are right: do we add up the Indians to GB or to the other nations?

My understanding is that the "White" dominions - with the exception of South Africa - very much regarded the UK as part of the family. No longer quite the mother country, as their own sense of nationhood had grown up in the previous world war (at Gallipoli for the ANZACs, Vimy Ridge for the Canadians), but Britain certainly had an unequalled place in their national conciousness.

For exactly the same reasons I'd put ZA in that group - Delville Wood anyone ?

Egorka

03-30-2007, 04:47 AM

I will post later today the input with the modifications we discussed (UK = GB+canada+ANZAC; Others = SouthAfrica + India + Brasil + all_other_small_ones).

Right? Any comments? Corrections?

Rising Sun*

03-30-2007, 08:15 AM

Rising Sun*, do say that the Commonwealth economies were melted together just like the Soviet republics?

No.

I have no idea of the details of the economic arrangements and mutual trade of any of them, British Commonwealth or Soviet.

My suggestion was based on the idea that, unlike the US (ignoring the Philippines and some other possessions which - apart from Hawaii as a base - didn‘t contribute much to victory), Britain and Russia each stood at the head of a much larger group of states, republics, dominions, colonies or whatever which were under their control or owed them some form of allegiance, without which their industrial and military power would have been greatly reduced.

Do you agree that we add "white" commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) into "UK", whereas India, Crown Colonies and South Africa will belong to "Others"?

I think that, for consistency, India and the Crown Colonies should be included as "UK". The UK deployed significant forces to defend India and some colonies, most notably Malaya in 1941 (to which Australia committed about one quarter its overseas land forces at the time), from which the UK derived significant resources. While nothing much happened in India as a front, it was still a very important base for land and air operations and held a very large number of British (and some other Allied) troops against Japan.

South Africa isn’t an issue I know enough about to express any view, apart from the fact that it contributed forces to the “UK” effort which suggests that it should be included as “UK”.

pdf27

03-30-2007, 08:38 AM

For exactly the same reasons I'd put ZA in that group - Delville Wood anyone ?
Sorta-kinda. They were undoubtedly part of the British war effort, but were always a little bit less keen than the rest. I was trying to emphasise this, rather than saying that they should be regarded as a seperate belligerent - something I do not think they justify. Shades of the Boer war I guess...

Rising Sun*

03-30-2007, 11:04 AM

The question is, did the commonwealth countries perceived themself as one with GB?

WWII Australian forces overseas were always those of an independent nation, despite some being titled "2nd Australian Imperial Force" = 2nd AIF(1st AIF was WWI) (“Imperial” = British Empire) and serving under British and American command in various theatres.

There are some interesting connections between Australia and the USSR which affected Australia’s participation in WWII, due to significant communist influence in trade unions in Australia, and Australia’s participation as part of “GB” before Barbarossa.

There was widespread but by no means unanimous support in Australia for the war against the Nazis 1939-41, due in part to groups such as Irish Catholic and communist opponents of the war as, for different reasons in the minds of both opposing groups, they saw it as a British imperial and capitalist war in which Australia should not participate. A significant shift occurred in Australia after Barbarossa when the communist opponents of the war, who were strong in the trade unions which supported the Labor national government, dumped their support for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and, essentially under direction from or support for Moscow, switched to support fighting the Nazis. This had a useful impact in various war-related areas dominated by more or less communist trade unions, notably on the waterfront where ships could be loaded and handled much more quickly.

Up to late 1941 when Japan attacked, it was a distant war which didn't directly threaten Australia's mainland. From early 1942 when it became apparent to the Australian government and its military advisers, although perhaps not to the general public, that Britain could not and would not be able to discharge its obligations under the long-standing imperial defence policies based on Singapore and a British fleet coming to Australia‘s defence, Australia’s government certainly did not see Australia as entirely ‘one with GB’. To the contrary, Australia’s government switched its hopes for salvation from Japan’s advance, as distinct from its people’s’ dominant allegiance to Britain, to America in a famous but often misinterpreted statement by the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin,

Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

Most historians ignore the fact that this statement was quite consistent with the US / UK agreement that the US would be responsible for fighting Japan in the Pacific. They do not quote the immediately preceding statement which puts it in context:

The Australian Government, therefore, regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the democracies' fighting plan.

Contrary to the usual historians’ assertion that it was a general repudiation of Australia’s relationship with Britain, Curtin’s statement was a comment about the imminent realities of the war in the Pacific and who could fight it, being Australia and the US.

There is another dimension to this statement which fails to put it in the context relevant to this thread that Australia, along with the other non-USSR Allies, also expected the USSR to fight Japan in pursuit of Allied objectives, which the USSR never did until it had achieved its own objectives against the Nazis.

Now with equal realism, we take the view that, while the determination of military policy is the Soviet's business, we should be able to look forward with reason to aid from Russia against Japan.

The full article is here http://john.curtin.edu.au/pmportal/text/00468.html

These statements, and others in this oft-quoted but frequently misunderstood or misrepresented New Year article for 1942, are to some extent taken out of context and must be understood in the wider context that Australia was afraid that it had been or was about to be abandoned by the US and UK (which both powers certainly considered doing) as irrelevant to their main conflict with Germany. The Australian fears were well founded, although it was not until well into 1942 that Australia learned by accident that the US and UK had fastened on the ‘Germany First’ policy which justified its concerns.

Egorka

04-02-2007, 05:47 AM

Hello!

Sorry for the delay, I was not feeling well these days... tooth pain... Now I am back.

Here is the intermediate result. I tried to take into account the comments I received from you. If you have any comments regarding certain parameters please state your consern and suggest the value and provide the source of your information.
For me a bit open question is the Japanese losses from Chinese forces. Any ideas?

Comment:
UK in this exercise consist of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The "Other" part consist of all the Allied countries except USA, USSR and UK. F.ex. France, India, Greece, ect.
Remaining uncertainties:

the losses inflicted to Japanees in China
The distribution of Italian losses may need refinement

Importance of Destruction
Germany Italy Japan
70% 10% 20%

Importance of the Force type Destruction
Ground Air Fleet
Germany 0,60 0,26 0,14
Japan 0,20 0,30 0,50
Italy 0,34 0,33 0,33

Germany: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,70 0,20 0,05 0,05
Air 0,30 0,22 0,40 0,08
Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,70 0,05

Italy: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,15 0,10 0,70 0,05
Air 0,05 0,25 0,68 0,02
Fleet 0,05 0,10 0,80 0,05

Japan: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,09 0,35 0,45 0,11
Air 0,01 0,60 0,37 0,02
Fleet 0,01 0,70 0,26 0,03

Final Result: the losses inflicted to the Axis powers
USSR USA UK Other
36,7% 27,9% 30,1% 5,3%

pdf27

04-02-2007, 07:24 AM

Here is the intermediate result. I tried to take into account the comments I received from you. If you have any comments regarding certain parameters please state your consern and suggest the value and provide the source of your information.
The total contributions surprise me somewhat, but the raw data seems to be accurate and the methodology appears to be valid so they're probably right. The rating of the UK ahead of the US in particular is stunning - I had expected it to be something of a distant third. Still, there are other stages left to go which may redress this.

This is turning out to be a more interesting exercise than I expected.

Rising Sun*

04-02-2007, 07:48 AM

Hello!
For me a bit open question is the Japanese losses from Chinese forces. Any ideas?

Hope your tooth is better. One of the worst kinds of pain.

The China question occurred to me, but I have no idea what the figure might be. I've seen figures from about 200,000 to close to ten times that figure for China. I don't know whether they are just for Japanese killed by Chinese or including those killed by other forces, including USSR and US. Then there's the problem of Burma where the Nationalists also fought.

Unless someone can come up with a fairly reliable figure, I think they stay in 'other'. Even if they come out of 'other' it's not going to make any difference to the main players.

Rising Sun*

04-02-2007, 08:04 AM

The rating of the UK ahead of the US in particular is stunning - I had expected it to be something of a distant third.

The UK - US figures aren't all that surprising when we remember that we're including the dominions and colonies in the UK and that they were involved for longer and in more theatres than the US. In one sense the UK contribution reflects the power and resources of the British Empire just before it contracted its terminal illness.

This is turning out to be a more interesting exercise than I expected.

Definitely.

Egorka

04-02-2007, 09:13 AM

The total contributions surprise me somewhat, but the raw data seems to be accurate and the methodology appears to be valid so they're probably right. The rating of the UK ahead of the US in particular is stunning - I had expected it to be something of a distant third. Still, there are other stages left to go which may redress this.

This is turning out to be a more interesting exercise than I expected.

Of course my dear friend! :mrgreen: That is why I did not post the result until you more or less agreed on the parameter values. Because if I did it would have affected your judgment.

I think UK overtook USA because it was from the beginning of the war involved in actions. But if you look at money spend on war USA will overrun everyone, but it will be point of view number 2. Lets finish with this one first, shell we?

If you want me explain how it is calculated let me know.

Cojimar 1945

04-02-2007, 04:13 PM

Though the US was the most powerful combatant in the war in some areas it suffered far lower casualties than some of the other combatants which may indicate its contribution was not in proportion to its strength.

Cojimar 1945

04-04-2007, 03:20 AM

I still don’t see why Germany rates so highly. Japan even held out longer than Germany did. If someone claimed that for the axis destruction of the US counted for 90 % I suspect people would disagree.

Based on GDP the US was apparently more than 3 times stronger than the USSR yet people do not dismiss the USSR as irrelevant because its output was so much less.

Egorka

04-04-2007, 03:59 AM

I still don’t see why Germany rates so highly. Japan even held out longer than Germany did.
If you want to object the weight of Germany in the total Axis strength, then please open a new thread, propose a number and defend it. I will be glad to participate in the discussion. In this scenario the weight is by the amount of resources invested in the war - a very reasonable way to do it.

Japan did not hold longer. Firstly because Germany was longer in the war (68 months) than Japan (45 months). Secondly, and most importantly because Allied had policy: "Germany - first".

If someone claimed that for the axis destruction of the US counted for 90 % I suspect people would disagree.
I do not quite get your point here... Where is that 90% comes from? What does it have to do with our numbers?

Based on GDP the US was apparently more than 3 times stronger than the USSR yet people do not dismiss the USSR as irrelevant because its output was so much less.
Yes, the USA was economicaly 3 times stronger than USSR. USA invested into war more money than all of the other Allies combined. But it is NOT what we are talking about in this thread. This thread is about losses inflicted to Axis.

The economical point of view (i.e. #2) I will open as soon as we get some sort of conformation that the result are reasonable within the frame of this thread.

Chevan

04-06-2007, 03:40 AM

Egorka

04-10-2007, 05:32 AM

Andrey, a Russian member of another forum ( Armchair General (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=132) ) suggested the following.
He asked me to post it here on his behalf.

Importance of Destruction
Germany Italy Japan
65% 5% 30%
Importance of the Force type Destruction
Ground Air Fleet
Germany 0,60 0,30 0,10
Japan 0,30 0,20 0,50
Italy 0,40 0,15 0,45

Germany: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,73 0,10 0,15 0,02 (Yugoslavia)
Air 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00
Fleet 0,05 0,20 0,75 0,00

Italy: share of forces destroyed per Allied country
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,30 0,15 0,50 0,05 (Greece, Yugoslavia)
Air 0,00 0,30 0,70 0,00
Fleet 0,00 0,10 0,90 0,00

Japan: share of forces destroyed per Allied country Comments:Navy Air Units are considered a part of “Fleet”
USSR USA UK Other
Ground 0,15 0,30 0,40 0,15 (China)
Air 0,00 0,70 0,30 0,00
Fleet 0,00 0,90 0,10 0,00

Final Result: the losses inflicted to the Axis powers
USSR USA UK Other
40,5% 31,2% 26,1% 2,2%

Rising Sun*

04-11-2007, 06:35 AM

1. I think there is an unstated bias in the 'Importance of Destruction' allocation as it depends upon one's national standpoint. For Australians (well, this one at least) Japan rates about 90%, Germany 10% and Italy 0% on the basis of the threats posed to our nation by those nations. For Britons, I'd expect it's about 90% Germany, 5% Japan (being threat to imperial interests as distinct from homeland), and 5% Italy. For French people, I'd guess at Germany 100%. These biases inevitably influence our assessments of the importance of destruction, even allowing for attempts to try to view the Axis exercise as some sort of threat to the world at large and the importance of destroying its component forces.

2. I'm not sure about the allocations for Japanese air forces destroyed in either of the most recent tables posted.

I suspect that the USA was by far the main destroyer of Japanese air forces, especially carrier borne forces which were the most strategically important because of their ability to destroy US naval forces.

3. While this an interesting exercise, I still come back to the essential problem that there is no qualitative component in or deduction available from it.

For example, America single-handedly destroyed most of Japan's experienced carrier pilots in the early part of WWII. This was of much more value than Chennault's activities in China, other Allies' activities elsewhere, or the destruction of higher numbers of lesser Japanese pilots later in the war when they were easier to destroy and posed much less of a threat than earlier in the war. With the possible exception of the Kamikaze pilots whose creation demonstrated just how bad the remaining pilots were because they couldn't be relied upon to bomb as well as the earlier experienced ones.

Egorka

04-11-2007, 07:25 AM

1. I think there is an unstated bias in the 'Importance of Destruction' allocation as it depends upon one's national standpoint. For Australians (well, this one at least) Japan rates about 90%, Germany 10% and Italy 0% on the basis of the threats posed to our nation by those nations. For Britons, I'd expect it's about 90% Germany, 5% Japan (being threat to imperial interests as distinct from homeland), and 5% Italy. For French people, I'd guess at Germany 100%. These biases inevitably influence our assessments of the importance of destruction, even allowing for attempts to try to view the Axis exercise as some sort of threat to the world at large and the importance of destroying its component forces.

Remember this thread does not try to explain the WHOLE of the aspects of the "biggest contributor". Only the part describet in the name of the thread.

That is the main point to elliminate the bias aproach. We vew the Victory as a common victory of all of the Allies together. We do the same with the Axis, which had to be crushed together (though Germany was the strongest and the most capable of the all).

Do there is bias unless one introduces it on purpose. That is also the reason I chose to assign importance to the Axis powers based on something that does not depend on my or your personal point of view.

2. I'm not sure about the allocations for Japanese air forces destroyed in either of the most recent tables posted.

I suspect that the USA was by far the main destroyer of Japanese air forces, especially carrier borne forces which were the most strategically important because of their ability to destroy US naval forces.
We have now assigned 60% to the USA's share of Japanese airforce. That is "the main destroyer" to me. But you are very welcome to propose a new number and back it up with references.

3. While this an interesting exercise, I still come back to the essential problem that there is no qualitative component in or deduction available from it.
Again, this one does not (and can not) explain everuthing. That is why it is mostly about quantitative matters. These are also the the ones that are least dependant on the pesonal prefferences of me and you.

I will open a new thread in few days about the military expences of the Allied powers (that will be the view #2).

Cojimar 1945

04-16-2007, 04:19 AM

Japan was at war longer than Germany. The Japanese were heavily engaged in China before Germany attacked Poland.

pdf27

04-16-2007, 05:28 PM

Andrey, a Russian member of another forum ( Armchair General (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=132) ) suggested the following.
He asked me to post it here on his behalf.
It has to be said I'm highly dubious about his figures. Some of the numbers just don't ring true. The contribution of Russia to destroying the Luftwaffe seems to be rather overstated, while that of France in summer 1940 has been completely ignored. They were overrun fast, but the Germans took substantial casualties in doing so. More relevantly, they inflicted substantially higher casualties on the Italians in the process than the Soviets did throughout the war - yet he has the Soviet contribution to the destruction of Italian ground forces being six times that of the other minor powers (including the French) put together.
On the other hand, his figures for Japan do look pretty plausible.

All in all, I get the feeling that he's allowing his experience of history - which as a Russian will of course be heavily coloured by Russian experiences in WW2 - to cloud his judgement. That's something we are all prone to, myself included.

Egorka

04-17-2007, 02:55 AM

Pdf27,

Andrey just presented his input and asked me to post it here (he had problems registering in here). That is what I did. You may have noticed that I have not changed our final results because of his input. Andrey said him self, that he was particulary interested in the Pacific theater of war.

Yesterday I opened a thread on their forum, where Andrey and others will have opportunity to discuss this topic. Lets see if they will completely blow our numbers! ;)

pdf27

04-17-2007, 01:17 PM

Egorka

04-21-2007, 03:17 PM

Guys,

I have heard on an other forum that we undemine the USA impact on the Japanese navy and blow up the UK impact on it.

What is your comment? HAve UK casued 26% of the Japanese navy damages?

pdf27

04-22-2007, 03:40 AM

Unlikely. There were occasions when we contributed a large fraction of the naval effort against the Japanese, notably when Somerville was lurking in the Indian ocean acting as a "fleet in being" to tie the IJN down without having the strength to get into a fight. The naval effort in the Pacific - and in this context Marines really do have to be counted as part of the naval effort - was overwhelmingly American.

Egorka

04-22-2007, 03:48 PM

Rising Sun*

04-22-2007, 11:10 PM

These gross figures from the US Strategic Bombing Survey may help calculate the percentage of shipping sunk by the US on a tonnage basis, although not by numbers and type of ship.

Unfortunately there is no distinction between the nationality of the submarines and surface ships, so we don't know what proportion were US. I take it that references to "Navy", "Army" and "Marine" are to those US forces.

Japan began the war with 381 warships aggregating approximately 1,271,000 tons. An additional 816 combat ships totaling 1,048,000 tons were constructed during the war. Five hundred and forty-nine ships of all types and sizes, totaling 1,744,000 tons were sunk. Approximately 1,300,000 tons of Japanese warships in the carrier, battleship, cruiser and destroyer categories were included in the aggregate tonnage sunk. Of this total roughly 625,000 tons were sunk by Navy and Marine aircraft, 375,000 tons by submarines, 183,000 tons by surface vessels, 55,000 tons by Army aircraft, and 65,000 tons by various agents. Only 196,000 tons in these categories remained afloat at the end of the war. The tonnage sunk by surface ships was principally in night actions. A shortage of Japanese destroyers after 1943 and inadequate Japanese air antisubmarine measures contributed to the successes of United States submarines against the Japanese fleethttp://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Summary.html at p.11

Japan entered the war with some 6,000,000 tons of merchant shipping of over 500 tons gross weight. During the war an additional 4,100,000 tons were constructed, captured or requisitioned. Sufficient information was secured by the Survey in Japan concerning this 10,100,000 tons to tabulate ship by ship, (a) the name end tonnage, (b>) the date, location; and agent of sinking or damage, and (c) the present condition and location of such ships as survived. The sources from which evidence was obtained were in some respects conflicting. Where possible these conflicts have been resolved. The Joint Army and Navy Assessment Committee has tentatively arrived at similar results and is continuing its efforts further to refine the evidence. The Survey believes that the figures included in the following breakdown will not differ significantly from the final evaluation of the Joint Army and Navy Assessment Committee.

Eight million nine hundred thousand tons of this shipping were sunk or so seriously damaged as to be out of action at the end of the war. Fifty-four and seven-tenths percent of this total was attributable to submarines, 16.3 percent to carrier based planes, 10.2 percent to Army land-based planes and 4.3 percent to Navy and Marine land-based planes, 9.3 percent to mines (largely dropped by B-29s), less than 1 percent to surface gunfire, and the balance of 4 percent to marine accidents.

Due to their ability to penetrate deeply into enemy-controlled waters, submarines accounted for approximately 60 percent of sinkings up until the final months of the war. During 1941, carrier task forces made deep sweeps which accounted for large numbers of ships. After April, 1945, when Japanese shipping was restricted to the Korean and Manchurian runs and to shallow inland waters, mines dropped by B-29s in Japanese harbors and inland waterways accounted for 50 percent of all ships sunk or damaged. In isolating areas of combat from ship-borne reinforcements land-based aircraft also sank large numbers of barges and vessels smaller than 500 tons gross weight, not included in the tabulation prepared by the Survey.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Summary.html at p.11

Carl Schwamberger

08-06-2007, 07:17 AM

Fianlly made time to read this version of Egorkas analysis. Seems a bit better than the thread he started on the Armchair General Forum. Fewer inmature posts here. Am disappointed to see this discussion stps in April and will be searching for relted items elswhere.

Carl Schwamberger

10-21-2007, 02:10 PM

Egorka, have you dropped this line of inquiry. Or is it continued elsewhere?

Egorka

10-22-2007, 02:41 AM

Egorka, have you dropped this line of inquiry. Or is it continued elsewhere?

No, you can find it here and at Armchair General forum only.
I do not have eniugh time for that. :(
But the range of the result we have so far is close to reality, IMHO.

Carl Schwamberger

10-22-2007, 08:47 PM

It seems to me you have just touched the surface of this subject. But then I suspose these forums are not the best venue for investigation with real depth. I hope you will eventually bring other data or items of interest on the subject here or elsewhere.

Egorka

10-23-2007, 02:31 AM

You are very welcome to continue. It would be really great.
I do not have time for this unfortunately.

Egorka

10-26-2007, 06:14 PM

Guys,

Is the following correct?
Can some present KIA, POW for Italia in Africa.
Losses for Italy
KIA POW Total Share
by USSR: 30.000 64.000 94.000 22%
by Others: 168.000 170.000 338.000 78%

Carl Schwamberger

10-28-2007, 03:53 PM

I'll look some numbers up. Like yourself I am busy with other things, so time for these little projects is rare.

I recall the Axis loss in Tunisia was over 250,000. But that is rather vague & lack specific number for Italy. Will see what I can find on my shelf here.

Carl Schwamberger

10-28-2007, 09:17 PM

Atkinson (Army At Dawn) provides the following concerning the Tunisian campaign:

"Ambiguity also shrouded the numer of German and Italian prisoners of war. Allied records in late May (1943) listed 238,243 unwounded prisoners in custody, including 102,000 Germans. Arnim (last German comander of the Axis armys in Tunisia) thought the total prisoner count closer to 300,000-he of course amoung them-while Rommels former chief of staff (of Panzer Army Africa) put the German figure alone at 166,000. A quarter million appears to be a reasonable estimate."

Atkinson comments that while the number of 'divisions' taken is smaller than the bag in the Stalingrad pocket, the total includes many more support service soldiers. This may be particularly true for the Italians as Tunisia was to be administrated by Italy and portion of the Italians soldiers sent to support some sort of colonial administration.

Part of the difference between the Allied records number of 238,243 and Arnims estimate is Arnim was including wounded. Also Atkinson comments on the poor care of the Axis prisoners. The Allies esitmated 150,000 prisoners would be taken and prepared for that number. with 100,000 to 150,000 extra - rations, shelter and medical care were short. Also Atkinson remarks on the abusive nature of the many of the guards, particularly the French. A portion of the prisoners taken in March and April may not be included in the May count as they had already died. Prisoners already removed to ships for North America would not have been counted in the May records.

Atkinson gives a estimate from Allied & German records for 8,500 German dead for the Tunisian campaign and 3,700 Italian dead. Total Axis wounded are estimated as between 40,000 & 50,000. No detail of the numbers of the wounded removed to Axis controled Europe, or the numbers permanetly maimed & unfit for service are available.

The Tunisian campaign is counted from 6 November 1942 to 13 May 1943. This overlaps the 'Western Desert' or Lybian' Campaign by a month or two, until the Axis army in Lybia retreated into Tunisia. However the Western Desert battle had become a pursit with realatively few losses.

Anyway from the number Atkinson provides the Italians lost at least 140,000 soldiers as prisoners or dead, and a unknown number of wounded as prisoners or unfit for service from November thru May. The total may be as high as 160,000 Italian soldiers.

Note that these numbers probablly do not include italian aircrew and seamen who were based in Sicilly & Italy but who were killed, maimed, or captured in operations supporting the Tunisian campaign.

Unfortunatly I have nothing here indicating the Italian losses in the Western Desert campaigns, previous to November 1942.

By contrast the Allied losses for the Tunisian campaign are estimated as at 70,000 men. This apparently excludes prisoners who were released when the Axis surrendered.

Carl Schwamberger

10-28-2007, 09:32 PM

Should the Italian soldiers killed and taken prisoner after the surrender of September 1943 be counted? And how can they be credited? For instance Both the Allies and Germans took Italian soldiers into POW camps, but others were simply allowed to return to civilian life. A few Italians still fought the Alls for some weeks after the surrender, and a Italian Facist army was formed under German subsidy. Some Italian soldiers fought the Germans for several days after the surrender, one garrison posted in Greece suffered some 8,000 killed resisting the Germans. This is all very confusing....

Technically I suspose the Brit/US can claim credit for the elimination of the remaining Italian soldiers on captulation in September 1943. But, after some thought the Facist Grand Counsel may have a claim as it was their decision which took over one million uniformed Italians out of the war.

Carl Schwamberger

10-28-2007, 09:40 PM

Egorka

10-30-2007, 07:35 PM

George Eller

10-31-2007, 02:25 AM

On a more serious note I am also pondering the status of the Japanese island garrisons that were bypassed. Rabul is one large example. There some 110,000 Japanese soldiers and naval personel were trapped. They had no aircraft or ships, so they were completely unable to strike at the Allies in any way. There were many island garrisons like this, isolated by the defeat of the Japanese Navy. Occasionally a submarine or a daring longrange transport crew would bring some small quantity of essintial supplies, or Remove a high ranking officer. The US confined itself to observing these trapped garrisons with patrols and outposts.

Since these garrisons were still under arms they technically were not lost. But, they were unable to strike against the Allies in any way so should the be counted amoung the lost?
-

An interesting website with a two page account on:

Operation Hailstone, the attack on Truk Atoll: the Japanese "Pearl Harbor" of the Pacific.
February 16-17, 1944
by Rear Admiral James D. Ramage (USN, ret.),
Executive Officer of Bombing 10 during the February 1944 Truk attack.

Links to article:

http://www.cv6.org/1944/truk/default.htm

http://www.cv6.org/1944/truk/truk_2.htm

Truk had a magnificent harbor and contained four airfields. Carrier aircraft alone would take on this large land-based air defense. The atoll was the major Japanese fleet base in the Pacific and was the anchorage of the Japanese Combined Fleet...

...In addition to destroying or heavily damaging all installations in the second of the raids on Truk that had not been moved underground, the force shot down 59 aircraft and destroyed another 34 on the ground. Only 12 Japanese aircraft were serviceable when the task force left on 1 May. Our losses were 26 aircraft lost in combat. More than half of the 46 airmen shot down were rescued, some inside the lagoon.

That was the end of Truk. Its large garrison that survived the raids was left to starve as we took the war farther west to the Marianas.

"The Pacific Fleet has returned at Truk the visit made by the Japanese Fleet at Pearl Harbor..."
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz

SEE ALSO:

Truk Lagoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truk_Lagoon

Operation Hailstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hailstone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MODERN CHUUK ATOLL (FORMERLY TRUK ATOLL)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Map_Chuuk_Islands1.png/758px-Map_Chuuk_Islands1.png

TRUK ATOLL IN WORLD WAR II
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Truk-Atoll.jpg/632px-Truk-Atoll.jpg

http://www.cv6.org/images/truk-map.gif
Map showing the main features of the Japanese base at Truk Atoll, based on US Navy intelligence at the time of the attack.

Additional background information on Truk Atoll.
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3973.htm

From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, by Samuel Eliot Morison, Volume VII: Aleutians, Gilberts and Marshalls, June 1942 - April 1944, p 318:

The larger islands of Truk Lagoon, with installations and facilities as of 17 February 1944:

*Moen (Haru Shima "Spring") - Bomber strip 3340 ft., combined seaplane base and fighter strip, with 68 planes, coast defense and anti-aircraft guns, radar, torpedo storage, torpedo boat base.

*Dublon (Natsu Shima "Summer") - Main town and docks, main seaplane base with 27 planes, submarine base, naval HQ, 2500-ton floating drydock, oil and torpedo storage, magazines, coast defense and anti-aircraft guns, aviation repair and supply station.

*Fefan (Aki Shima "Autumn") - The supply center, with pier, warehouses, ammunition dumps, search radar, two 5-inch dual-purpose guns.

*Uman (Fuyu Shima "Winter") - Search radar, torpedo boat base.

*Eten (Take Jima "Bamboo") - Airstrip 3340 x 270 ft., revetments, 20 planes fully equipped; 180 planes awaiting pilots or repairs.

*Param (Kaide Jima "Maple") - Airstrip 3900 x 335 ft., with 40 planes, eight 5-inch, four 80-mm dual-purpose, three medium anti-aircraft guns.

*Ulalu (Nichiyo To "Sunday") - Radio direction finder station.

*Udot (Getsuyo To "Monday") - Three 8-inch dual-purpose guns.

*Tol (Suiyo To "Wednesday") - Four 6-inch coast defense guns and a battery of anti-aircraft guns, radar, torpedo boat base.

From pp 316-317:

For Truk, capital of the Carolines under German and Japanese rule, is situated almost in the geographical center of Micronesia. Possessing the best fleet anchorage anywhere in the Mandates, it was very valuable to Japan during the first two years of the war. Indeed, the main motive of Imperial Headquarters in taking Rabaul, Lae and Salamaua early in the war was to protect Truk from Allied air attack and reconnaissance. Important as it was to the Japanese, Americans were inclined to overemphasize its strength, as is evident by such deceptive phrases as "Japanese Pearl Harbor," and "Gibraltar of the Pacific."

The combined area of all the islands is not equal to that of Oahu; the largest town, Dublon, never had more than 1200 buildings or facilities for more than temporary repairs to naval vessels. But the Combined Fleet was based on Truk Lagoon from July 1942, and its flagship, super-battleship Musashi, was generally stationed there. Commander Sixth Fleet ( submarines ) kept his headquarters on Dublon Island during the same period. In addition, Truk was an important air base and staging point for planes between Japan and the South Pacific. Fortifications were started as early as 1940, and all defensive works were speeded up in January 1944; but Truk was weakly defended, by American standards. Some 7500 Army troops and 3000 to 4000 sailors and aviation personnel were stationed there in mid-February 1944; but there were only 40 anti-aircraft guns in the archipelago, and all fire control radar had been lost when the ship bringing it thither was sunk by a United States submarine.

Geographically, Truk resembled nothing that American forces had yet encountered; it was a drowned mountain range inside a coral ring. Take a coral atoll of the type already familiar in the Marshalls, the reef shaped like a rounded equilateral triangle with 35-mile legs; dump into the lagoon a dozen volcanic islands rising to 1500 feet above sea level; scatter about the lagoon 30 or more islets; and you have Truk. The Japanese named the islands after the four seasons, trees, and the days of the week.

These wooded islands, standing out prominently and easy to identify, may be approached by anyone of four passes through the reef, all of which were defended by coast defense guns on their flanking islets. The Northeast Pass, nearest entrance ( 10 miles ) to Dublon and to the Eten airfield, also had been mined. Any surface attack on Truk, therefore, would first have to break a passage through one of these strongly defended passes and then assault through, well fortified positions inside, island by island. The Japanese atoll commander, Rear Admiral Chuichi Hara, remarked after the war that when hearing American radio broadcasts refer to his bailiwick as "The Gibraltar of the Pacific" he only feared lest the Americans discover how weak it was. Its essential strength was given by nature. Naval gunfire from outside the reef could reach neither the islands nor the fleet anchorage in the lagoon. But air power could.

Also:
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3974.htm

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller

10-31-2007, 02:28 AM

-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

More background information on Truk Atoll:

http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3977.htm

Truk Atoll from PacificWrecks.com:
This webpage contains links to specific islands in the Truk Atoll which contain photographs and descriptions of airstrips, defenses, facilities, etc.:

Truk (Chuuk) Federated States of Micronesia
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/truk.html

According to one of those webpages, the Megeson fighter airstrip was under construction at the end of the war, but was never completed.

-

http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3978.htm

More info on Truk airfields from the PacificWrecks.com website
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/truk.html

*Dublon Airbase
The main seaplane base of the 902nd Kokutai, Naval Air Corps, was constructed on the Southern shore. The base had three seaplane ramps and a "T" shaped service area. A hammerhead crane and 5,000 feet of waterfront allowed easy serving of seaplanes.

*Etan Airfield
Portions of the abandoned Japanese fighter airstrip still remain, where the jungle has not reclaimed them. Construction began in 1934 and required the leveling of half the island. After the expiration of the Washington Naval treaty in 1937, more construction begain with help of the Japanese Navy and South Seas Government. In 1939 work intensified, with conscripted labor, Koreans, and Japanese prisoners.

Eten's fighter field was the best and the islands principal field. Its concrete 270 x 3,440 foot runway had lights for night flights. It was begun in August 1941 and completed late in 1943. Support buildings for repair, HQ, power plant and a two story reinforced concrete administration, radio and control tower still exists today.

At one time 1,200 personnel had lived and worked here. 40 fighters and 7 double bomber revetments were adjacent to the runway along the hillside. Major repairs were done to Dublon. Eten was the temporary home for the 21st, 22nd, 25th 26th and Koku Sentani, Air Flotillas during the war.

The 104th Naval Air Arsenal was attached to the base, and had repair shops for engine, structural, propeller, welding, carpentry, electrical, oxygen generation, welding, smelting and weapons storage. Five barracks, three warehouses and a power plant. Reportedly, the facility could overhaul 15 airplane engines a month at its height

*Megeson Airstrip (never completed)
Megeson fighter airstrip was under construction at the end of the war, but was never completed.

*Moen 1
The northwestern side was constructed between November 1942 and December 1942 It is the site of today's airport. Originally, its runway was 300 by 3,750 feet for fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. About 80 support buildings were nearby and taxiways, 10 85 foot square bomber revetments and a large hanger.

East of the airfield was an extensive underground storage facility for ammunition and fuel. Gun positions, storage areas, barracks, shops, garages and a power plant existed.

*Moen 2
A seaplane base begun on November 1941 and completed April 1943 on the Southern end of the island. It had a concrete ramp, and apron 200 x 1,500 feet and a secondary ramp 240 x 400 feet. Hangers, torpedo storage, a radio shack, munitions storehouses and AA positions existed around the base. A fighter strip 175 x 3,450 long was begun with taxiways that connected it to Moen 2.

*Parman Airfield
On the southern coast was a 335 x 3,900 foot airfield built in June of 1943 primarily a bomber base. 15 revetments and barracks existed for about 50 aircraft. There were no repair facilities because the field was hastily built. The aerodrome and AA positions were manned by the 48th Naval Guard.

-

Carl Schwamberger

11-09-2007, 07:27 PM

Carl, many good points! I will have to think about that all...

But there is another intresting point: Is it true that UK destrouyed more Japanese ground forces than USA?
So far we have 0,20 for USA and o,30 for UK.

I'm unsure, but it is possible. In Burma Britian fought a continual series of land campaigns from early 1942 to the surrender in 1945. In this the Japanese suffered horrible losses due to starvation, tropical disease, and trapped in the end by the British. Also in the New Guinea in a companion battle to the Guadacannal fight the Australians destroyed a Japanese corps, later the Australians destroyed some other Japanese enclaves in the SW Pacific.

In the Phillpines the US 6th & 8th Armys fought Japanese armys in large scale battles, which might balance the losses in Burma

There are some complications in this. In the SW Pacific some US units fought along side the Australians and the logistics support was intertwined, as well as the air support. Looking at the Alled SW Pacific forces as a coherent army or army group one realizes it was a mixed international force with combat & support units mixed.

A similar situation existed in Burma where US logistics units were present. Also there was a corps of Chinese soldiers, led by the US General Stillwell and equipped with US equipment and supported by US logistics & support units, but fighting in the British territory according to a British strategy.

To sort out numerical credit one has to delve into which specific corps/divsion or regiment killed which Japanese.

The Pacific theatre also illustrates the limits of counting bodies as a measure. The large naval battles were actually small in terms of men killed or maimed, but had stratigic consequences equivalent to the great land battles of Europe. ie: the naval battles in the Indonesian water in early 1942 hardly involved ten thousand men on each side. The result of Japanese victory there was the transfer of a continents worth of oil, rubber, tin, and other raw materials to the Japanese. The US naval victorys of 1944 reversed this, cutting off a large part of the raw materials and fuel needed by Japans industry. Although not even twenty thousand Japanese died in the naval battles. Conversely millions of pople died in Chins with negligable impact on any stratigic measure.

Carl Schwamberger

11-11-2007, 12:50 AM

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=65

This discussion board may lead to more precise information on where the Japanese losses occured.

snebold

04-06-2008, 08:57 PM

This thread has been dormant for a long time, but I really like it...

So just in case anybody´s still interested...

Japanese losses in China...

1050000 stated by a Chinese in this forum (1937-45)
1770000 common Chinese claim
200000 official Japanese claim
800000 (as 1,7mill total Japanese losses of which 0,9mill in the Pacific; commonly stated in the west)
388600 dead and 1060 POW´ed says "The World War Two Databook", for the Japanese army alone in China. The losses suffered by the AF and Navy were probably very small in comparison?

(And I thought I had something on what damage the British inflicted on the Japanese Navy and merchant fleets, but I didn´t and it´s maddeningly difficult to find on the net. 4 cruisers and 8 submarines should be the only larger warships, I found, and from memory: RN subs claimed many 100000´s tons of japanese merchant shipping)

Ashes

04-08-2008, 03:55 AM

It's interesting trying to nail down casualty stats for WW2, but definitive numbers will probably never be known.

This is said to be the official data by Japanese Government.

厚生省援護局　昭和３９年３月
本表数字には、朝鮮人、台湾人、軍属、支那事変戦没者／陸軍181000人　海軍7700人を含む。

　　　　　陸　　軍　　　　海　　軍　　　　総　　計
　　終戦時
残存兵員数 S12.7.7～
戦没者数　終戦時
残存兵員数 S12.7.7～
戦没者数　終戦時
残存兵員数 S12.7.7～
戦没者数
日本本土（含周辺） 2,372,700 58,100 1,962,800 45,800 4,335,500 103,900
小笠原諸島 15,000 2,700 8,600 12,500 23,600 15,200
沖縄諸島 40,900 67,900 11,200 21,500 52,100 89,400
台　湾 128,100 28,500 62,400 10,600 190,500 39,100
朝　鮮 294,200 19,600 41,700 6,900 335,900 26,500
樺太・千島 88,000 8,200 3,000 3,200 91,000 11,400
満州 664,000 45,900 1,500 800 665,500 46,700
中国本土（含香港） 1,055,700 435,600 69,200 20,100 1,124,900 ''455,700''
シベリア 0 52,300 0 400 0 52,700
中部太平洋諸島 48,600 95,800 58,300 151,400 106,900 ''247,200''
フィリピン 97,300 377,500 29,900 121,100 127,200 ''498,600''
仏領インドシナ 90,400 7,900 7,800 4,500 98,200 12,400
タイ 106,000 6,900 1,500 100 107,500 7,000
ビルマ・インド 70,400 163,000 1,100 1,500 71,500 ''164,500''
マレー・シンガポール 84,800 8,500 49,900 2,900 134,700 11,400
ニューギニア 30,200 112,400 3,600 15,200 33,800 127,600
その他 286,100 156,400 104,200 55,300 390,300 211,700
合　計 5,472,400 1,647,,200 2,416,700 473,800 7,889,100 2,121,000

Which the main casualty numbers translates into China, 455,000, Philippines, 498,600, Pacific ocean, 247,200, Burma and India, 164,500.

Out of a total 2,121,000 killed.

If you add Philippines and Pacific ocean, it seems the Americans caused the majority of casualties.

Ashes

04-08-2008, 04:12 AM

Think total Axis losses in North Africa was over 600,000.

Carl Schwamberger

04-19-2008, 12:40 PM

Ashes

04-20-2008, 12:51 AM

Does that 600,000 include Itlaians lost or captured in Abysinia? Also does it include any lost to disease? I have here a brief study on German losses in Africa due to disease and was suprised by the numbers. Apparently they were not able to control that problem as effciently as the British.

Yep, includes Italian losses in Abyssinia.

Haven't got the breakdown of casualty causes at hand, but would probably be all causes, including disease.
Reminds me of the Italian 8th Army in the Soviet Union, suffering major losses from severe frost bite.

Carl Schwamberger

04-20-2008, 08:58 AM

The document I have is 'FMFMRP 12-96-1 German Experinces in Desert Warfare in WWII'. The section titled 'Acclimatization of the Troops' (page 10) notes that German units which had long periods "acclimatization" and hot weather training had non combat casualty rates little different from those that were sent with only a few days or weeks of preperation. The high casualty rate from disease seems to have been due to bad water and food. Vitamin defficiencys in the canned or dried food and a high mineral/salt content in the drinking water contributed to poor immune system function. the parachute brigade sent in July 1942 is used as a example. Within a few weeks 50% of the battalions were combat ineffective from disease. Dystentery, jaundice, and skin sores are cited as the most common illnesses. The section also refers to German medical reports showing 80-90% of personnel would be combat inefective by 18 months of desert service, and a judgement or recomendation that individuals be withdrawn from desert climates after 12 months of duty there. Its not clear if this last relates just to disease or if other hot climate problems influence it.

It looks like 'General Weather' fought the Germans in Africa as well as in the East.

Nickdfresh

04-20-2008, 04:38 PM

Rising Sun*

04-21-2008, 06:29 AM

Yes, I recall the Germans also having many problems on the Eastern Front as well. Beevor gives an interesting statistic that the German soldiers most susceptible to deaths attributable to a suppressed immune system due to malnutrition were actually the younger ones -- usually ages 17 to about 22...

Similar findings by British early in the war on shipwrecked sailors. Alas, I can't recall a source.

Young blokes in teens to early twenties had worse chance of survival in lifeboats / Carley floats / whatever in Atlantic.

I have a feeling that these findings led to some improvement or change in survival rations to try to increase energy for young blokes.

pdf27

04-21-2008, 08:15 AM

Rising Sun*

04-21-2008, 08:41 AM

From memory, a lot of the problem with younger sailors had more to do with them being fussy eaters (!) than the actual calorific content of the food. I think chocolate was added to make up the deficiency in absorbed nutrients.

High energy chocolate was at the back of my mind as one of the solutions when I wrote my last post, but I don't think it was fussy eating that was the cause of the young blokes dying.

I think it had more to do with them having less resistance to shock and exposure etc, which was a physiological consequence of not having matured fully.

I think the young blokes were dying in the first few hours and days after being sunk where endurance wasn't the issue but simple resistance which their bodies lacked.

I have a suspicion that blokes around their mid thirties were the median for best survival results.

Nickdfresh

04-21-2008, 08:45 AM

High energy chocolate was at the back of my mind as one of the solutions when I wrote my last post, but I don't think it was fussy eating that was the cause of the young blokes dying.

I think it had more to do with them having less resistance to shock and exposure etc, which was a physiological consequence of not having matured fully.

I think the young blokes were dying in the first few hours and days after being sunk where endurance wasn't the issue but simple resistance which their bodies lacked.

I have a suspicion that blokes around their mid thirties were the median for best survival results.

I think there's also something about their higher metabolism requiring more calories...

Rising Sun*

04-22-2008, 08:35 AM

I think there's also something about their higher metabolism requiring more calories...

A bit more recognising the problem of young sailors dying, but I still can't find the source which I think was in some rather more serious study than is referred to in the quote.

Founded in 1941 in the UK, Outward Bound has since spread to 30 schools in 6 continents with nearly 2 million people worldwide having completed an Outward Bound course.

Outward Bound's outdoor education courses are based on the principles learnt from training young British seamen to survive in the North Atlantic Ocean during the Second World War.
In 1941, the Blue Funnel Line was regularly losing merchant ships to German U-Boat torpedoes. The loss of life among thousands of seamen who went down with their ships was horrific. But there were also hundreds of preventable deaths among survivors in lifeboats.
Surprisingly it was discovered that the survival rate of young sailors in lifeboats was dramatically worse than that
of the older and presumably less fit men. Lawrence Holt, Chairman of the Blue Funnel Line sought help from Kurt Hahn, a noted academic and educationalist and founder of Gordonstoun School. Hahn recognised that the young men had not yet developed an understanding of their own physical, emotional and psychological resources.

The older men were able to draw on their life experiences and inner resources to survive the hardships of the Atlantic in an open lifeboat.

To address this tragic problem Hahn founded the first Outward Bound School to educate the young sailors of the Blue Funnel Line to better handle the hardships they might face.

His program of experiential outdoor education raised the self-confidence of participants who later, when put to the test, were successful in saving their own lives and those of others.

From these unique beginnings, Outward Bound has spread to 30 countries throughout the world. Outward Bound Australia was founded in 1956 and since then over 250,000 Australians aged between 13-75 have completed one of our many courses.

Outward Bound Australia provides the opportunity for all Australians to build self-confidence, self-awareness and resilience, not just physical fitness. It uses the outdoors as the classroom to allow each participant to reach their potential in a safe and managed environment. http://www.outwardbound.org.au/content/blogcategory/57/95/

herman2

05-01-2008, 01:38 PM

You seem to be underrating Japan quite a bit. The Japanese territories actually had a larger population than the reich.

Do you mean the Japanese territories that were invaded by the Japanese? The territories where the innocent island inhabitants were butchered and slaughtered by the ruthless Japanese so that Japan could conquer it and call it their territory? Japan was much smaller before the war fyi...

herman2

05-01-2008, 01:42 PM

The major combatants certainly don't seem to have thought much of the Italians. In any case I believe Italian production of armaments was below Japan's.

The Italians had the best production of armaments that you could imagine. Italy today is a superb example of the best that there is to offer.The Italian army was much more effective than the Japanese when considering the degree and type of battles the Italians fought in.

Rising Sun*

05-01-2008, 07:59 PM

The Italian army was much more effective than the Japanese when considering the degree and type of battles the Italians fought in.

Are you trying to be funny?

The Italian campaign against Greece and the Italians' experience in North Africa demonstrate that, overall, the Italians were very ineffective troops, although they had some effective units.

The Germans had to rescue the Italians in Greece because the Italians were getting beaten by the Greeks in a war the Italians started but couldn't finish.

As for being effective in North Africa, consider Tobruk where the Italians had excellent defences and plenty of artillery but still failed in quick time.

The Italian troops generally offered little resistance - large numbers surrendered without fighting. The Italian commander, General Petassi Manella surrendered himself after only 12 hours, but he had refused to order the surrender of his forces, which meant that it took a further day to clean up any resistance. Australian casualties were 49 dead and 306 wounded, while capturing 27,000 Italian POWs, 208 guns, 28 tanks, many good quality trucks and a large amount of supplies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tobruk

About the only time Italy was effective in a 20th century military campaign was in Abyssinia in 1935-36 when it used modern weapons, mustard gas, and air power against people armed largely with primitive weapons. That was Italy's only claim to a great military achievement, and it's not much of an achievement.

As for comparing the Italians to the Japanese, I'd back a brigade, maybe even a battalion, of Japanese troops of the calibre used in the invasion of Malaya against most Italian divisions.

gumalangi

05-01-2008, 08:03 PM

Talked about italy,. is it correct,.. one of the reason the Italian not really putting full effort to the war due to ,.. so called Freemason things?

Thanks
G

Rising Sun*

05-02-2008, 07:26 AM

Talked about italy,. is it correct,.. one of the reason the Italian not really putting full effort to the war due to ,.. so called Freemason things?

Thanks
G

I don't know anything about this.

Can you give more information?

gumalangi

05-02-2008, 05:18 PM

I don't know anything about this.

Can you give more information?

I read on one forum,.. one of the unwritten reason for Italian not to fully committed against Allies due to fact,.. that most of high-ranking italian officers are member of a high profile secret society - freemason- whereas,. in the society, the bond and commitment to the member are supposed to be stronger than to the country itself.

Am not familiar indeed with the society, however, according one source, the majority of its member are from US and UK alike, therefor, the italian counterparts are hesitant to commit the full strenght of the Italian force to the war, as they will also has to fight against their fellow society member.

This, one of the least know conspiracy theory on why italian performed, so-called, poorlu during the war.

Cheers
G

pdf27

05-02-2008, 07:19 PM

I think that's stretching an idea way too far. You could get the same effect with less effort by pointing out that Italy had only existed as a more or less recognisable state since 1871, and so was less than 70 years old when it joined WW2. How many of the soldiers would truly have felt Italian, and how many of those would be willing to fight to the death in a cause they had little interest in - after all, Mussolini only joined the war to get a "few thousand dead" to enable him to sit at the peace table as a belligerent. He misjudged the situation rather badly, as was usual for him!

Rising Sun*

05-03-2008, 12:48 AM

I read on one forum,.. one of the unwritten reason for Italian not to fully committed against Allies due to fact,.. that most of high-ranking italian officers are member of a high profile secret society - freemason- whereas,. in the society, the bond and commitment to the member are supposed to be stronger than to the country itself.

Am not familiar indeed with the society, however, according one source, the majority of its member are from US and UK alike, therefor, the italian counterparts are hesitant to commit the full strenght of the Italian force to the war, as they will also has to fight against their fellow society member.

This, one of the least know conspiracy theory on why italian performed, so-called, poorlu during the war.

Cheers
G

My instinct was to doubt it. The Freemasons at that time were rabidly anti-Catholic, and vice versa. I wouldn't have thought that the Freemasons could get much of a hold in a Catholic country like Italy. But I googled it and it turns out that my instinct was wrong. The Freemasons were well established in Italy before Mussolini and he was violently opposed to them.

Maybe there's something in what you said.

On February 23, 1923, Mussolini's Fascist Council decided that Fascists who were Freemasons had to choose between the two. The Grand Orient replied that Fascist Freemasons were at liberty to give up Masonry and that such action would be in accord with the love of country which is taught in the lodge. Many Masons then resigned, and there followed a period of violence against Masons and destruction of their property. Grand Master Torrigiani appealed to Mussolini about this violence, but the response was a declaration in August 1924 that Fascists must disclose the names of Masons who were not in sympathy with the Fascist government. Committees were appointed to collect information about Freemasonry. In 1925 Mussolini gave an interview in which he said that while Masonry in England, America, and Germany was a charitable and philanthropic institution, in Italy Freemasonry was a political organization that was subservient to the Grand Orient of France. Most lodges ceased meeting, but the Italian Grand Orient continued through 1925. Mussolini then charged Italian Freemasons with being agents for France and England and opponents of Italy's military actions. Persecution increased and prominent Freemasons were assassinated. In January 1926 the government appropriated the Grand Orient building, which had already been looted.
In 1924, General Cappello, one of the most prominent Fascists who had also been Deputy Grand Master of the Grande Orient, Italy's leading Grand Lodge, gave up membership in Fascism rather than Masonry. Less than a year later, he was charged, in a palpable frame-up, with complicity in an attempt on Mussolini's life and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. In 1925 Mussolini dissolved all Italian Freemasonry. The Grand Master of the Grande Orient, Comizio Torrigiani, had the courage to stand up for democracy and freedom of thought in an open letter to Mussolini. He was exiled to the Lipari Islands in August 1932 and died soon afterwards. Hundreds of other prominent Italian Masons shared exile there. In 1925-1927 Mussolini's black-shirts looted the homes of well known Masons in Milan, Florence, and other cities, and murdered at least 100 of them.
Giovanni Preziosi rose to political power with his attacks against Freemasonry, international socialism, and Jews. In 1943 Mussolini was a prisoner of the Allies and the Germans were looking for new leaders to raise support in Italy. Preziosi so impressed Alfred Rosenberg that he was his candidate to head the new government. When Mussolini was freed to continue for a while as head of the government in northern Italy, Preziosi made broadcasts from Germany to Italy blaming the "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy" and demanding a purge of Freemasonry, and sent letters to Mussolini and Hitler warning them of the consequences of failing to cope with this "conspiracy." In 1944 Mussolini appointed Preziosi Inspector General of Race, with the rank of Ambassador, and he continued to complain that Italy was in the hands of Freemasons acting for the Jews. Preziosi asked Mussolini to appoint him head of what would have been an Italian Gestapo, but the Fascist government of Italy had not acted on this when it was overthrown in 1945. Preziosi committed suicide to avoid being killed by the crowd. http://www.risingstar.co.za/percecution.html