Europe or the Pacific in WWII?

[RogueIce]

If I was gonna be a ground pounder, and had no other choice... USMC all the way!

But, I'd rather take Navy myself. I know how shocking that is to all of you.

Either way, it's the Pacific for me.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, he gets KMS Bismarck, he has a 5% chance of surviving

Or zero percent if he works in the engine rooms or many other spaces under the armored deck. But there where a couple KM surface ships that never suffered a single casualty from enemy action, two of the armed merchant cruisers even, IIRC

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd have to go with europe, its a shorter commute for me anyway

[Nova Andromeda]

--I'm assumming by front line soldier you mean ground pounder. In this case I would rather be in the pacific where the battles were so one sided (after that damn fortress island where the Japanese killed only slightly more troops than they lost) that they are remenicent of the Iraq wars. The germans had decent ground equipment and inflicted significant casualties on the allies and weren't spread out on isolated islands.

You've got to be kidding me. Look that the figures for Tarawa or Iwo Jima or Okinawa. One sided push over my ass. It was a US victory but the Japanese made us pay for every last inch of ground in blood. You've clearly got no idea the hell that was the pacific theater.

--Iwo Jima: 20k U.S. to 23k Japanese (this was the fotress island I mentioned, strategic defeat since Japan is smaller than the U.S.)
-Tarawa: 1.1k U.S. to 4.6k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan)
-Okinawa: 12k U.S. to 107k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan and doesn't include civilian casualties either)
-Care to reassess your position. Only Iwo Jima comes close to a draw for the Japanese. The other two battles you mention are utter routes. To make things worse I'm betting these battles you mention are the worst for the U.S. What about all the rest?

[Shaidar Haran]

--Iwo Jima: 20k U.S. to 23k Japanese (this was the fotress island I mentioned, strategic defeat since Japan is smaller than the U.S.)
-Tarawa: 1.1k U.S. to 4.6k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan)
-Okinawa: 12k U.S. to 107k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan and doesn't include civilian casualties either)
-Care to reassess your position. Only Iwo Jima comes close to a draw for the Japanese. The other two battles you mention are utter routes. To make things worse I'm betting these battles you mention are the worst for the U.S. What about all the rest?

I didn't say they were a draw or anywhere close when it came to casualty counts. I said the Japanese fought hard and lots and lots of American servicemen died taking each and every one of thos rocks. This was no Gulf War-esque pushover like you said. It was a bloody, nasty war.

[Nova Andromeda]

--It was far better than thing in Germany IIRC.

[Shaidar Haran]

--It was far better than thing in Germany IIRC.

Depends how you exactly you mean better.


But either way your talk of a "massacre" is nonsense given the staggering casualties that American personel took against the Japanese. The casualties might well have favored the allies but it was not the kind of push over offensive that the Gulf War was.

[Nova Andromeda]

--It was far better than thing in Germany IIRC.

Depends how you exactly you mean better.


But either way your talk of a "massacre" is nonsense given the staggering casualties that American personel took against the Japanese. The casualties might well have favored the allies but it was not the kind of push over offensive that the Gulf War was.

--I mean the casualty ratios in Germany were far worse for the U.S. and especially the U.S.S.R.
-Losses greater than 2:1 are a massacre!
-BTW, I said the one sidedness reminded me of the Iraq wars. I didn't say it was just as one sided.

[Sea Skimmer]

--Iwo Jima: 20k U.S. to 23k Japanese (this was the fotress island I mentioned, strategic defeat since Japan is smaller than the U.S.)
-Tarawa: 1.1k U.S. to 4.6k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan)
-Okinawa: 12k U.S. to 107k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan and doesn't include civilian casualties either)
-Care to reassess your position. Only Iwo Jima comes close to a draw for the Japanese. The other two battles you mention are utter routes. To make things worse I'm betting these battles you mention are the worst for the U.S. What about all the rest?

You numbers consider only KIA's, not all casualties.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

For all those who chose Europe, how about the Eastern Front?

[Nova Andromeda]

--Iwo Jima: 20k U.S. to 23k Japanese (this was the fotress island I mentioned, strategic defeat since Japan is smaller than the U.S.)
-Tarawa: 1.1k U.S. to 4.6k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan)
-Okinawa: 12k U.S. to 107k Japanese (crushing defeat for Japan and doesn't include civilian casualties either)
-Care to reassess your position. Only Iwo Jima comes close to a draw for the Japanese. The other two battles you mention are utter routes. To make things worse I'm betting these battles you mention are the worst for the U.S. What about all the rest?

You numbers consider only KIA's, not all casualties.

--KIA and missing persons are the numbers that count. The other number that counts are loses in equipment (but getting those numbers is very hard). Wounded includes everyone that was grazed by a bullet to those who lost all four limbs. In addition, it is hard to match up wounded numbers from both sides....

[Slayen]

Europe if i had a choice. I always like to have nice solid land under my feet and i am not a fan of heat and incects by any stretch of the definition.

[Trytostaydead]

--KIA and missing persons are the numbers that count.

I'm sure those people who spent agonizing time in rehabilitation, laid screaming on the battlefield, lost limbs and possibly more, had their life ruined would probably appreciate that since they're not dead they don't count.

I guess a lot also counts on the caliber and the amount of lead flying at any one moment plus the ability to cope with large casualties (wounded). A k98 throws out one slug at a time.. while let's say someone with an m1 starts plugging a poor Wermacht with multiple shots. Or a poor German is firing a 9mm as opposed to a .45.

There is no doubt that the Germans were fearsome adversaries. But they spread themselves too thin, were disadvantaged with their standard infantry weapons, lacked resources and just about everything.

[Sea Skimmer]

--KIA and missing persons are the numbers that count.

Way to be fucking stupid. So much for your position as you've now backtracked massively.

[Howedar]

Someone is pretty fucking misinformed or stupid.

We'll call him Nova A. No, thats too obvious. N. Andromeda.

[Raptor 597]

For all those who chose Europe, how about the Eastern Front?

Hey, man better than Italia atleast thats what the Germans thought.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Since my last post all I see is an appeal to emotion, an unsupported claim, and a couple ad hominem attacks. Pathetic ... probably not even worth this reply...
-BTW, aren't one liners that do nothing, but attack someone banned? Especially, when said person is out numbered.

[Trytostaydead]

--Since my last post all I see is an appeal to emotion, an unsupported claim, and a couple ad hominem attacks. Pathetic ... probably not even worth this reply...
-BTW, aren't one liners that do nothing, but attack someone banned? Especially, when said person is out numbered.

Your problem is you're just looking at raw numbers. And even then, you're only looking at one select group of numbers. Wounded in action, missing in action are all very important demographics as well. Not to mention how and WHEN and WHY they occured.

It's kind of like saying, "We nuked their ass which means we're the better soldiers because we killed more!"

[Nova Andromeda]

--Since my last post all I see is an appeal to emotion, an unsupported claim, and a couple ad hominem attacks. Pathetic ... probably not even worth this reply...
-BTW, aren't one liners that do nothing, but attack someone banned? Especially, when said person is out numbered.

Your problem is you're just looking at raw numbers. And even then, you're only looking at one select group of numbers. Wounded in action, missing in action are all very important demographics as well. Not to mention how and WHEN and WHY they occured.

It's kind of like saying, "We nuked their ass which means we're the better soldiers because we killed more!"

--I've included missing in action and already explained why I have not included wounded. The numbers for wounded are hard to evaluate since they consist of both light wounds (not even close to comparable to death) and severe wounds (some of which are comparable to death). However, who knows how the distribution looks for both sides. Due to this problem I'm only considering KIA and MIA to determine whether I would want to fight in the Pacific or in Europe.
-You know there is a better number to answer the question that I couldn't find. How likely are you to be killed (numbers on chance of being wounded would be nice too) in each of the two arenas? Nevertheless, I settled for going to the Pacific where the battles were mostly one sided routes by the U.S. on the assumption that fighting on winning side of a one sided route means I have less of a chance of being killed.