Battle of Luzon
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 09 Jun 2015, 08:40
- Location: United States
Battle of Luzon
Are the official casualty rates (205,530 dead Japanese for total American casualties of 14,889) considered reliable? I am asking because during the same period the US Army and Marines suffered casualties much closer to the Japanese elsewhere, and it was also a lot less one sided earlier in the war. Was it malnutrition or did the Japanese just not fight as well?
Re: Battle of Luzon
Luzon was actually a campaign rather than a single battle. It commenced in January 1945 and continued until the end of the war. The Japanese forces were dispersed throughout the island and had limited mobility. This allowed the U.S. to use its advantage in maneuver to bring overwhelming force against individual pockets of Japanese resistance permitting them to be eliminated one by one. The U.S. also had almost total command of the air and its ground forces were motorized. The Japanese were cut off from reinforcements and supplies and were hampered by problems with communications, command, and control. Given these circumstances, the lop sided casualties do not seem remarkable. A large number of the Japanese casualties were due to malnutrition, disease, and inadequate combat medical care.
γνώθι σαυτόν
-
- Member
- Posts: 154
- Joined: 18 Nov 2015, 03:44
- Location: USA
Re: Battle of Luzon
According to the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare, approximately 80% of their losses in the Philippines were from starvation or disease. Under that ratio the number actually lost from combat was roughly 40,000, or somewhat less than the 47,000-odd US combat casualties there (when disease is factored in US losses actually add up to about 150,000). Ronald Spector considered Yamashita's defense of Luzon to be (with the possible exception of Kuribayashi on Iwo Jima) to be the most skillfully fought of the entire war.
The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: https://web.archive.org/web/20060831022 ... tents.html
Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/16/23 https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message
Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/16/23 https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message
-
- Member
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- Contact:
Re: Battle of Luzon
Official US combat casualty rates during Battle of Luzon are 8310 against 205535 Japanese - see here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... mph-H.htmlMagnusStultus wrote:Are the official casualty rates (205,530 dead Japanese for total American casualties of 14,889) considered reliable? I am asking because during the same period the US Army and Marines suffered casualties much closer to the Japanese elsewhere, and it was also a lot less one sided earlier in the war. Was it malnutrition or did the Japanese just not fight as well?
HOWEVER, even basic research shows both numbers are not quite related to reality.
1) US numbers given for battle casualties only, while Japanese numbers show casualties from all cases. So Japanese, who died in the hospital from malnutrition, is included in above number, while American, who died in hospital from Japanese bullet, is not. Strange, I'd say.
2) US numbers given for the US ground combat units and attached service personnel - no losses among Filipino allies, rear area units and air forces are included. On the other hand, Japanese numbers show among casualties losses among Japanese civilians as well as well as number of Japanese, safely evacuated from Luzon during the campaign
3) Both US and Japanese sets of numbers are ending with 0 or 5 - which means they are not exact numbers, but rounded numbers.
4) How much those numbers are rounded? - Partial answer can be seen from Chapter 18, which gives US combat casualties during the seizure of Corregidor by the 4th March 1945 as 1005 men, of them 210 KIA. But general count of battle casualties in for the same area by the 15th August 1945 in Appendix H gives us only 915 men, of them 240 KIA. Interesting "rounding", don't you think? Add to this explicit statement of the authors of US official history, that numbers of Japanese casualties for Corregidor are false, and their own words, that "the table represents deliberate approximations" will look like very big understatement
Compare casualties from Official history here: http://corregidor.org/BEA503/Reports/Co ... rt_04.html
with casualties from USAFE Board Report: http://corregidor.org/BEA503/Reports/Co ... rt_04.html
to see the difference.
To sum it up - I've yet to see reliable data on both US and Japanese casualties.
Re: Battle of Luzon
Two different references but same url.Eugen Pinak wrote: Compare casualties from Official history here: http://corregidor.org/BEA503/Reports/Co ... rt_04.html
with casualties from USAFE Board Report: http://corregidor.org/BEA503/Reports/Co ... rt_04.html
to see the difference.
γνώθι σαυτόν
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 09 Jun 2015, 08:40
- Location: United States
Re: Battle of Luzon
I am very grateful for the answers; I openly admit I have a great deal more to learn about the Pacific War. I am however somewhat disappointed (but not surprised knowing Mac Arthur's reputation for ego) by the way the US Army seems to have erased tens of thousands of men who became casualties from the campaign through clever accounting techniques.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Battle of Luzon
They are not erased, just different tricks to put them in places
Re: Battle of Luzon
Japanese Casualties
It is impossible to determine with any certainty the exact number of Japanese casualties which occurred on Luzon. The loss and destruction of Japanese reports during the fighting and later withdrawals combined with the failure to compile records once military authority and discipline had disintegrated leave us with a murky picture. Reading the notes accompanying the table in http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... mph-H.html is instructive as to why this is so. From the report: “The table is based upon all relevant Japanese and American sources cited in the text. Since virtually all sets of figures employed are mutually irreconciliable, the table represents deliberate approximations.” This is the best we are going to find. The Japanese official history, Senshi Sosho, Volume 60: Sho-go Ground Operations – The Decisive Battle of Luzon (2) provides casualty figures. I’ll see if I can find a copy to provide a comparison with U.S. data.
U.S. Casualties
There is nothing sinister in the fact that there are differences in various U.S. casualty accounts. Once again, reading the notes in http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... mph-H.html Is revealing. You have different organizations using different criteria and methodology covering different locations, different types of units, and different time periods. Typically, after action reports are filed soon after the reported battle/action in order to provide a quick summary of events, problems and lessons learned to decision makers. Casualty figures in these reports are a snapshot only and are submitted before the dust has settled and more accurate information has emerged. The gold standard for U.S. Army casualties in World War II is Army Battle Casualties and Non-Battle Deaths in World War II 7 December 1941- 31 December 1946, Final Report dated 1 June 1953. This 118 page document lists casualties in the following categories:
Deaths among battle casualties
---Killed in action
---Died of wounds and injuries
---Declared dead
---Died of other causes (non-battle)
---Other battle casualties
Wounded and injured in action
---Died of wounds and injuries overseas
---Returned to duty overseas
Evacuated to the United States
---Died of wounds and injuries
---Returned to duty, discharged, etc.
Captured and interned
---Killed in action
---Died of wounds and injuries
---Returned to military control
Missing in Action
---Declared dead
---Died of other causes (non-battle)
---Returned to duty
The data is presented in a number of formats such as by date, rank, type of unit, geographic location and several others.
Unfortunately for our purposes, the figures are presented for the entire Philippine Campaign (Leyte, Luzon, and Southern Philippines - 17 October 1944 to 4 July 1945). Total deaths among battle casualties were given as 16, 233 (Combat Divisions 12,679, Air Force Units 1,539, and Other Units 2,015). Detailed numbers are also given for the other categories listed above.
The idea that General MacArthur or any other component of the U.S. Government or Army “cooked the books” or attempted to hide casualties is ludicrous and is totally unsupported by any evidence. The U.S. was never reticent in accurately and honestly reporting casualties even when faced with a negative public reaction. A case in point is the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943.
Casualty data was reported by grave registration teams, medical units, and other units involved directly to the Adjutant General with copies only to parent units and higher headquarters. It was a very transparent process.
It is impossible to determine with any certainty the exact number of Japanese casualties which occurred on Luzon. The loss and destruction of Japanese reports during the fighting and later withdrawals combined with the failure to compile records once military authority and discipline had disintegrated leave us with a murky picture. Reading the notes accompanying the table in http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... mph-H.html is instructive as to why this is so. From the report: “The table is based upon all relevant Japanese and American sources cited in the text. Since virtually all sets of figures employed are mutually irreconciliable, the table represents deliberate approximations.” This is the best we are going to find. The Japanese official history, Senshi Sosho, Volume 60: Sho-go Ground Operations – The Decisive Battle of Luzon (2) provides casualty figures. I’ll see if I can find a copy to provide a comparison with U.S. data.
U.S. Casualties
There is nothing sinister in the fact that there are differences in various U.S. casualty accounts. Once again, reading the notes in http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... mph-H.html Is revealing. You have different organizations using different criteria and methodology covering different locations, different types of units, and different time periods. Typically, after action reports are filed soon after the reported battle/action in order to provide a quick summary of events, problems and lessons learned to decision makers. Casualty figures in these reports are a snapshot only and are submitted before the dust has settled and more accurate information has emerged. The gold standard for U.S. Army casualties in World War II is Army Battle Casualties and Non-Battle Deaths in World War II 7 December 1941- 31 December 1946, Final Report dated 1 June 1953. This 118 page document lists casualties in the following categories:
Deaths among battle casualties
---Killed in action
---Died of wounds and injuries
---Declared dead
---Died of other causes (non-battle)
---Other battle casualties
Wounded and injured in action
---Died of wounds and injuries overseas
---Returned to duty overseas
Evacuated to the United States
---Died of wounds and injuries
---Returned to duty, discharged, etc.
Captured and interned
---Killed in action
---Died of wounds and injuries
---Returned to military control
Missing in Action
---Declared dead
---Died of other causes (non-battle)
---Returned to duty
The data is presented in a number of formats such as by date, rank, type of unit, geographic location and several others.
Unfortunately for our purposes, the figures are presented for the entire Philippine Campaign (Leyte, Luzon, and Southern Philippines - 17 October 1944 to 4 July 1945). Total deaths among battle casualties were given as 16, 233 (Combat Divisions 12,679, Air Force Units 1,539, and Other Units 2,015). Detailed numbers are also given for the other categories listed above.
The idea that General MacArthur or any other component of the U.S. Government or Army “cooked the books” or attempted to hide casualties is ludicrous and is totally unsupported by any evidence. The U.S. was never reticent in accurately and honestly reporting casualties even when faced with a negative public reaction. A case in point is the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943.
Casualty data was reported by grave registration teams, medical units, and other units involved directly to the Adjutant General with copies only to parent units and higher headquarters. It was a very transparent process.
γνώθι σαυτόν
-
- Member
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- Contact:
Re: Battle of Luzon
Sorry, first time I meant this URL: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... mph-H.htmlWellgunde wrote:Two different references but same url.Eugen Pinak wrote: Compare casualties from Official history here: http://corregidor.org/BEA503/Reports/Co ... rt_04.html
with casualties from USAFE Board Report: http://corregidor.org/BEA503/Reports/Co ... rt_04.html
to see the difference.
I don't think US Army accounting techniques are to blame here. After all, it is really hard to track deaths of the unit's soldiers in the hospitals and so on.MagnusStultus wrote: I am very grateful for the answers; I openly admit I have a great deal more to learn about the Pacific War. I am however somewhat disappointed (but not surprised knowing Mac Arthur's reputation for ego) by the way the US Army seems to have erased tens of thousands of men who became casualties from the campaign through clever accounting techniques.
"Techniques" of the authors of US Army Official histories are another matter. They could have had access to both detailed US and detailed Japanese casualties reports - but they weren't interested. Instead they chose to repeat US wartime propaganda, adding clarifications "in small print".
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 09 Jun 2015, 08:40
- Location: United States
Re: Battle of Luzon
It is a relief to see a better explanation to what I initially thought.
Re: Battle of Luzon
The kill ratio on Okinawa was about 10-1 and the same ratio applied New Guainía, Guadalcanal, and in the Marianas campaign. The excess over that Ratio was due to starvation and disease. Yamashita decided to string out the campaign by fighting in the jungles and mountains of Luzon. The Downside of that is death due to lack of food and malaria.MagnusStultus wrote:Are the official casualty rates (205,530 dead Japanese for total American casualties of 14,889) considered reliable? I am asking because during the same period the US Army and Marines suffered casualties much closer to the Japanese elsewhere, and it was also a lot less one sided earlier in the war.
The same is true of the Leyte campaign where the Japanese lost half their men in the "Mop-up" phase since they retreated into the Leyte hills/mountains.
-
- Member
- Posts: 897
- Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 01:08
- Location: Texas
Re: Battle of Luzon
There were many Phillipinos that fought against the Japanese on Luzon and elsewhere. Their casualties need to be mentioned.
Re: Battle of Luzon
The US Army history estimates the Filipino Guerrillas and semi-Regulars lost about 3,000 men KIA in the Luzon campaign.James A Pratt III wrote:There were many Phillipinos that fought against the Japanese on Luzon and elsewhere. Their casualties need to be mentioned.
-
- Member
- Posts: 154
- Joined: 18 Nov 2015, 03:44
- Location: USA
Re: Battle of Luzon
The actual 'kill ratio,' that is, Japanese to Americans killed in combat, was nowhere near 10 to 1. Generally speaking, when casualties from disease and starvation are eliminated the overall loss ratio was roughly 1 to 1 with some minor deviation here and there. Having said that, given the nature of their situation (island garrisons) the Japanese suffered proportionately many more dead owing to their unwillingness to surrender and evacuate the wounded or sick.rcocean wrote: The kill ratio on Okinawa was about 10-1 and the same ratio applied New Guainía, Guadalcanal, and in the Marianas campaign.
According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, fully two thirds of all Japanese deaths in WWII were from noncombat causes, and combat deaths in the Philippines in particular only made up 20% of IJA losses.
The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: https://web.archive.org/web/20060831022 ... tents.html
Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/16/23 https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message
Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/16/23 https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message
Re: Battle of Luzon
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you mean number of Japanese killed in combat vs. US the ratio was much higher than 1:1 and probably not less than 10-1. The number of Japanese killed On Okinawa or Leyte or the Marianas due to disease or starvation was minimal.BobTheBarbarian wrote:The actual 'kill ratio,' that is, Japanese to Americans killed in combat, was nowhere near 10 to 1. Generally speaking, when casualties from disease and starvation are eliminated the overall loss ratio was roughly 1 to 1 with some minor deviation here and therercocean wrote: The kill ratio on Okinawa was about 10-1 and the same ratio applied New Guainía, Guadalcanal, and in the Marianas campaign.
On Luzon, the US official history shows 8200 US KIA/DOW. Japanese losses are estimated at 200,000. Even if you assume 120,000 deaths due to disease/starvation that's still 10-1.
Where your statement of a 1-1 ratio comes from is a mystery.