9
9
0
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?
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?
WWII World War Two
Military History
Marines
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT Ben Keen Concur. I tried to do an optempo analysis, but they both ahd HUGE tempos, but in different ways. As PO1 John Miller said casualties were higher on Europe, but I think that may have been because of "population density" (islands reduce that). Taking islands is arguably more difficult, because of the constant foothold, but you don't run into the same city defensive issue. Add in "shipboard" issues and it gets so convoluted, and this gets back to a Subjective argument again.
I can't think of any single thing that would sway it one way or the other.
I can't think of any single thing that would sway it one way or the other.
(4)
(0)
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google