American losses on Leyte

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: American losses on Leyte

#16

Post by RichTO90 » 29 May 2014, 16:04

Eugen Pinak wrote:The second link also shows, that during 3 months of operations on Iwojima not a single US soldier become ill. Sorry - but I don't believe in fairy tales ;)
Minor misunderstanding here I'm afraid Eugen. The reports show battle casualties - in the five weeks of operations, not "3 months" - and so do not record illness. It is not that no U.S. Marine or sailor became ill on Iwo Jima, it is that the document you refer to does not record illness. In fact, "On 24 March (D-day-plus-33), there had been a total of 24,244 casualties (20,950 incident to battle), including 4,893 deaths. Of these casualties, 17,677 had been evacuated." (U.S. Navy Medical Department Battle Experiences at Iwo Jima, pp. 103-104). In other words, there were 3,294 "non-battle casualties".

So no "fairy tales", just a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology used. I'm afraid I would hesitate to use a generic Wiki definition rather than the definition the recorder actually used.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: American losses on Leyte

#17

Post by RichTO90 » 29 May 2014, 16:27

Eugen Pinak wrote:First of all, total US-Filippino losses during operations on Leyte were probably around 50000 men, though majority were non-combat losses.
The breakdown between combat and non combat losses was actually about 0.997:1.00. Total was 28,479.

Leyte-Samar Casualties Major Units under Sixth and Eighth Army Control (20 October 1944 to 8 May 1945)Total Battle Casualties, including the 1st Filipino regt, were 820 officers and 13,399 enlisted men, total of 14,219, broken down as:

KIA - 189/2,627
WIA - 569/9,674
IIA - 27/568
MIA - 8/72
DOW - 28/458

Non-battle casualties were (1st Fil Regt, 164th RCT, and 108th RCT no report) 573/14,260, total of 14,903, broken down as:

Sick - 545/13,383
Missing - 0/1
Deaths - 4/74
Other Causes - 24/872
Last edited by RichTO90 on 29 May 2014, 21:08, edited 3 times in total.


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: American losses on Leyte

#18

Post by LWD » 29 May 2014, 16:57

Eugen Pinak wrote: .. I've yet to see original Japanese data about losses of their own troops in official US sources.
How often are you looking at post war data? The US simply wouldn't have had much access to data concerning Japanese casualties due to disease. Indeed I'm not sure how good of information the Japanese had in that regard. Some post war accounts by IJA officers indicate that at higher levels they didn't have a very detailed account of even how many people they had on hand much less how many were sick.
BTW, all US casualties, mentioned on the same pages of this book, are combat losses, it can only further ensure reader, that author compares combat losses on both sides.
I disagree. The US had very good information on it's own combat losses in most cases Japanese losses were only estimates and the cause of loss may or may not have been determined.
So what? Information on it's own combat losses and attempt to deceive reader of the official history book are two different things.
You have jumped to the conclusion that there is an attempt to "deceive reader". It's at least as likely that the total Japanese casualties were the best estimate they had of battle casualties. Consider that they wouldn't have found all the Japanese dead and in some cases it would be difficult to tell just how they died. Then if you are getting reports from platoon level on up there's the chance of double counting as well as people just making SWAGS.
The second link also shows, that during 3 months of operations on Iwojima not a single US soldier become ill. Sorry - but I don't believe in fairy tales ;)
No it doesn't show that. It is a list of US combat losses and disease wasn't considered a combat loss at least if it was the only contributing factor.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/US ... a-III.html = Appendix III. Casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person) = A casualty in military usage is a person in military service, not necessarily a combatant, who becomes unavailable for duty due to death, injury, illness, capture, desertion, etc.
The tables however are quite clearly labeled with terms like KIA and WIA. They are quite obviously not daily hospital reports.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: American losses on Leyte

#19

Post by Eugen Pinak » 29 May 2014, 20:02

RichTO90
Minor misunderstanding here I'm afraid Eugen. The reports show battle casualties - in the five weeks of operations, not "3 months"
You're wrong here. Appendix III records losses of the units, simply not present on Iwo Jima during the first 5 weeks of combat. On the other hand, it doesn't record losses of units, that were present on the island during the campaign.
It is not that no U.S. Marine or sailor became ill on Iwo Jima, it is that the document you refer to does not record illness.
And that is the problem - because the word "battle" before "casualties" is somehow missing, everybody is free to believe, that that's the total number of US casualties on Iwo Jima. Which is certainly not the case.
So no "fairy tales", just a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology used.
My "fairy tale" remark was not about the data itself, but to the attempt of LWD to show this appendix as the total number of casualties.
Close, but the breakdown between combat and non combat losses was actually about 0.98:1.00, so a bare majority at best. Total was 27,629.
Let me guess - you haven't bothered to read the table and just summed the net results of battle and non-battle casualties? ;) If you'll read carefully data in your own post, you'll see, that only sick soldiers and officers alone amounted to over 30000.
And I'd like to add, that war on Philippine islands doesn't ended on 8 May 1945, as 8th Army report tries to imply ;)

LWD
How often are you looking at post war data?
As often, as it's necessary to find out the truth.
The US simply wouldn't have had much access to data concerning Japanese casualties due to disease.
Those poor, poor US! They forced Japanese Army to write hundreds of books, articles and so on about war, they had access to ALL surviving Japanese records, they collected and translated tenths of thousands Japanese documents, that were found in the field - but were unable to find even rough data on Japanese casualties due to disease ;)
Of course, taking into account, that "poor, poor" US Army historians were unable to find even the latest data on US casualties during Leyte battle, one can't help, but wonder - maybe they simply weren't interested to find out the truth? ;)
Some post war accounts by IJA officers indicate that at higher levels they didn't have a very detailed account of even how many people they had on hand much less how many were sick.
You're confusing post-war interrogations/reminiscences with daily strength/losses returns.
You have jumped to the conclusion that there is an attempt to "deceive reader". It's at least as likely that the total Japanese casualties were the best estimate they had of battle casualties. Consider that they wouldn't have found all the Japanese dead and in some cases it would be difficult to tell just how they died.
And using Japanese records is forbidden by American religion?
The tables however are quite clearly labeled with terms like KIA and WIA. They are quite obviously not daily hospital reports.
And yet it was you who tried to show them to me in contrast with TOTAL Japanese casualties:
"This one does list most of the Japanese casualties as KIA on the other hand most of the lists on US casualties on that site also are listed as MIA, KIA, WIA, etc as the second link shows:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Iwo/Casualties.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/US ... a-III.html"

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: American losses on Leyte

#20

Post by RichTO90 » 29 May 2014, 20:44

Eugen Pinak wrote:You're wrong here. Appendix III records losses of the units, simply not present on Iwo Jima during the first 5 weeks of combat. On the other hand, it doesn't record losses of units, that were present on the island during the campaign.
Um, sorry, but no. Killed in action, died of wounds, and wounded in action were specific USMC categorizations for battle casualties. Note that in Note 7 the USMC figures did not include missing, presumed dead or combat fatigue. The Navy figures are slightly different, but then are for differing periods of time. Note that the mention of combat fatigue is interesting, since in the Army Neuro-psychiatric Casualties were not usually counted as "battle casualties" but were categorized as "non-battle casualties. I suspect that the Leyte figures for "other causes" are in fact NPC.

What units were present on Iwo that you believe did not have losses recorded?
And that is the problem - because the word "battle" before "casualties" is somehow missing, everybody is free to believe, that that's the total number of US casualties on Iwo Jima. Which is certainly not the case.
It is not "missing"; it simply isn't always used when the context makes it obvious. Appendix III's table categorizations are all understood in the US military to be "battle casualties". The US Army usually made the categorization more explicit, but even then it didn't always. Further, the USMC was more assiduous than the Army when recording casualties for posterity, essentially, every man wounded, no matter how slight, was a "casualty", partly because in an island campaign they were able to enforce a 100% evacuation policy. In the US Army though, unless you were wounded seriously enough to be evacuated, you were only "Carded for Record" and unless a tabulation of "Lightly Wounded in Action" was included you would not be counted as "wounded".
My "fairy tale" remark was not about the data itself, but to the attempt of LWD to show this appendix as the total number of casualties.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Appendix III is a "battle casualty" accounting, but it is not a complete accounting of "casualties" as Note 7 and the context should tell you.
Let me guess - you haven't bothered to read the table and just summed the net results of battle and non-battle casualties?
Uh, no, in fact I was slipshod in using my calculator...and should have realized it when the battle versus non-battle casualties appeared to be so oddly skewed. Thanks for noticing, the post has been corrected.
And I'd like to add, that war on Philippine islands doesn't ended on 8 May 1945, as 8th Army report tries to imply ;)
It doesn't "imply" anything of the sort. It simply states what the period for accounting the casualties were in the Leyte-Samar operation, which closed 8 May 1945. When did "Leyte" suddenly become the entire Campaign in the Philippines?

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: American losses on Leyte

#21

Post by Eugen Pinak » 11 Jun 2014, 11:15

What units were present on Iwo that you believe did not have losses recorded?
147th US Army infantry regiment, for example, and there is no data on losses of USAAF units.
And that is the problem - because the word "battle" before "casualties" is somehow missing, everybody is free to believe, that that's the total number of US casualties on Iwo Jima. Which is certainly not the case.
It is not "missing"; it simply isn't always used when the context makes it obvious. Appendix III's table categorizations are all understood in the US military to be "battle casualties".
Shall we assume, then, that all US official histories were intended only for US military?
And I'd like to add, that war on Philippine islands doesn't ended on 8 May 1945, as 8th Army report tries to imply ;)
It doesn't "imply" anything of the sort. It simply states what the period for accounting the casualties were in the Leyte-Samar operation, which closed 8 May 1945.
Leyte operation was "closed" on 1st July 1945 - see here: http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/leyte/leyte.htm
And "corporate bookkeeping" aside, the battle for the island is over at least when all enemy units are destroyed - which was not the case until final surrender of the Japanese in August 1945.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: American losses on Leyte

#22

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Jun 2014, 15:51

Eugen Pinak wrote:147th US Army infantry regiment, for example, and there is no data on losses of USAAF units.
Army Garrison and support forces, including the Detachment, 147th Infantry, reported a total of 12 officers and 235 enlisted casualties in operations, which include all causes. Of those, the Detachment, 147th Infantry suffered 9 KIA and 28 WIA during its operations and the USAAF casualties in the final Japanese attack were reported as 44 killed and 88 wounded/injured. So about 53 KIA, 116 WIA/IIA, and 78 DNBI.

Does an additional 247 casualties significantly skew a casualty total of 28,659?
Shall we assume, then, that all US official histories were intended only for US military?
No, but we can assume they were written for an audience used to reading American English and at least reasonably familiar with the military terminology and its meaning or at least ready and willing to make an effort to understand those terms that are unfamiliar to them.
Leyte operation was "closed" on 1st July 1945 - see here: http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/leyte/leyte.htm
And "corporate bookkeeping" aside, the battle for the island is over at least when all enemy units are destroyed - which was not the case until final surrender of the Japanese in August 1945.
So just because the header reads "Leyte 17 October 1944 1 July 1945" you presume that active combat, involving apparently some thousands of unreported U.S. casualties, continued to 1 July 1945? :? And significant enemy units were destroyed - after the enemy evacuated the island?

"Elements of the 1st Cavalry Division reached the coast on the 28th [December], and two days later met patrols of the 32d Division. Also on the 28th, companies of the 34th Infantry, 24th Division, cleared the last enemy positions from the northwest corner of Leyte. On 26 December, as these sweeps continued3 General MacArthur transferred control of operations on Leyte and Samar to the Eighth Army. Although Japanese forces no longer posed a threat to American control there, the mop-up of stragglers continued until 8 May 1945. "

Or, instead of reading a precis, you could read the full history, specifically Chapter XXII, pp. 361-370 of Morton's Leyte: Return to the Philippines, which lays out the timing and circumstances of the Japanese decision to withdraw from Leyte to Cebu, Mindanao, Negros, and Visayan, and the final mop-up.

teg
Member
Posts: 340
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 10:51
Location: russia

Re: American losses on Leyte

#23

Post by teg » 23 May 2015, 19:36

Did the Americans have any high-ranked (colonels and generals) losses on Leyte?

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: American losses on Leyte

#24

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 25 May 2015, 14:20

The Lt. Colonel commanding the US Army's 767th Tank Battalion (sep) was killed in Leyte. Afterwards, MacArthur broke up the 767th Tank battalion for replacements for the Luzon Campaign. Adm Nimitz got back the "organizational flag" of the outfit minus all physical assets.

Nimitz then proceeded to have his Central Pacific Army theater commander General Richardson disband the two companies of the 763rd Tank battalion and two other independent tank companies to form a new 767th Tank battalion.

Why Nimitz and Richardson went to the trouble when simply adding the two independent companies to the existing 763rd would have also yielded a Tank battalion is one of those mysteries of dysfunctional WW2 inter-service politics in the Pacific Theater.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”