|
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1796
Location: Albany, GA. | Subject: Question
Somewhere in the back reaches of my mind I remember reading that US Submarines accounted for the deaths of more Japanese Army and Marine troops than the US Marine Corps. I haven't been able to locate where this came from. Any help would be appreciated. I also remember the article also addressed the Wahoo and the of running down survivors. |
|
| |
|
Old Salt
Posts: 272
Location: Vista, Ca. | Subject: RE: Question
I can't specifically answer your question but I can suggest "Silent Victory" by Clay Blair, Jr. I believe he is one of the most exhaustive authors of submarine warfare during WWII. |
|
| |
|
Plankowner
Posts: 9164
Location: Upper lefthand corner of the map. | Subject: RE: Question
Interesting question. I had never heard this before but it would be very informative to know what the total crew and troops losses were for sub sunk and damaged ships. Would have to be well into the tens of thousands.
1,178 Merchant Ships
214 naval ships and submarines
---------------------------------------
1,392 ships
|
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1576
Location: Wollongong, NSW | Subject: RE: Question
I would not think that the casualty lists would be as high as those inflicted at Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa where thousands perished. |
|
| |
|
COMSUBBBS
Posts: 3667
Location: Kansas City Missouri | Subject: RE: Question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_submarines_in_the_Pacific_War |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1796
Location: Albany, GA. | Subject: RE: Question
By following KC's lead I found this: http://www.wrecksite.eu/casualty-list.aspx#&&aj=mLsyl5%2f4%2b55gCmJgtj5RSs%2fo4AobtHBz%2fQ7cXa0PT40%3d
It looks like they probably did kill that many if you start adding the numbers, never mind the artillery, guns and tanks that never made it to reinforce Japanese forces. Just the number of allied prisoner casualties due to this friendly fire in imminence. So I tend to believe the statement. |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1890
Location: Patterson, New York | Subject: RE: Question
Walt,
That wreck site is good. I have used it before tracking down information on WWI submarine activity.
Tom |
|
| |
|
Plankowner
Posts: 9164
Location: Upper lefthand corner of the map. | Subject: RE: Question
Thanks, great site. |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1576
Location: Wollongong, NSW | Subject: RE: Question
Had a look at total numbers of Japanese military casualties and after removing the China and SE Asia stations (Chinese and British areas), that still leaves over 1.2 million killed in the Pacific and Phillipines areas. I think the land losses would be higher than those inflicted by the US Submarine Fleet. The denial of war materials and the ship losses had a massive impact - that cannot be denied. |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1796
Location: Albany, GA. | Subject: RE: Question
The original question was Submarine versus Marine. I wear a "T" shirt that proclaims "The Best Marine is a Submarine" every now and again. The casualties attributed to each is the question. Now the Marines are great, and they handled the landings. However, one thing that is downplayed is the fact that the Army also contributed in many of these Pacific land actions. Even Iwo Jima, and Guadalcanal had Army involvement. Albany Georgia appears to have more Marines than any other service represented, and I use the argument that the Submarines prevented reinforcements reaching many areas. With unrestricted warfare many enemy combatants did not make it to the fight. If you add up the numbers attributed to the ship losses, it does seem the Subs outdid the Marines. Fear of Allied Air Power and Subs is to blame for the withdrawal of the victorious Japanese Task Forces that had won the night actions in the Slot. So maybe the Best Marine is really the Submarine. At least when it comes to preventing Japanese reinforcements from reaching many embattled Marine Landings. |
|
| |
Question
