Which Allied Nation took out most of different branches Axis Armed Forces during World War 2 ?

Apr 2014
318
Istanbul Turkey
#1
Inspired by "which Allied nation did most" threads I have another idea. Which Allied country did most of the fighting in defeating different seperate branches of Axis Sea , Air and Land Powers during WWII ?

Germany :
Wehrmacht (German Army): No doubt that Russian Red Army did most of the fighting , dying , killing , taking German Armies out of action and gaining territory. Almost %80 of German army casaulties in dead or wounded during entire war were suffered in Eastern Front. After June 1941 at least %65 of German Army had always been deployed in East. At the other hand during last year of war in Europe between June 1944- May 1945 Germans preferred to surrender to Western Allies rather than the Russians. (just two million German soldiers gave up arms between 2-4 May 1945 and surrendered to Western Armies. That is more than %60 of German land forces on field both East and West )

Luftwaffe: (German Air Force)
Their first big failure in Battle of Britain (and even during invasion of Western Europe) in 1940 then slow bleeding in Eastern Front and Mediterranean Theater (1941-1943) took out some of their best units and aircrews and replacements were not in same quality. Strategic Air Bombing of Germany , destruction of aircraft factories and oil plants / refineries in Germany by Allied Air Forces further crippled German Air Force. On top of that further disasterous attrition of Luftwaffe fighter arms to repel daylight American bombing with long range fighter escorts and night time RAF raids in 1943 - 1944 eliminated most of their best fighter pilots. So destruction of Luftwaffe owes to %65 to Western Allied effort and maybe %35 Russian effort ? Would that be accurate ?

Kriegsmarine (German Navy)
No doubt that maybe a rough estimate %95 of all German naval casaulties were suffered while fighting against Western Allies in various parts of globe from Atlantic to Mediterranean to Indian Ocean to German coastal waters.

Italy
Italian Army: While most of the army was deployed in Mediterranean Front and destroyed there from Greece to North Africa to East Africa by Western Allies , one or two Italian army were also deployed to aid Germans during Operatrion Barbarossa and Eastern Front between 1941-1942. Maybe %70 of Italian army casaulties (including surrendered ones) were sufferred while fighting against Western Allies (mostly against British Empire and Greeks) and %30 against Russians ? Would that be accurate ?

Italian Navy : Mostly no almost all of Italian Navy was deployed against Western Allies (mostly British) in Mediterranean , fought mostly against British Mediterranran Fleet , suffered maybe %90 of its naval losses against British Royal Navy and surrendered to West in 1943 and taken to RN base in Malta .

Italian Air Force : As an independent air arm it was not very distinguished despite some very good high performance aircraft. They were acting as dependent to army and navy. Still mostly taken out by Western Allies probably

Japan
Japanese Imperial Navy : %90 of Japanese Navy was destroyed by US Navy and Air Force no doubt. In merchant marine casaulties percentage of Japanese merchants sunk by US is even higher probably.

Japanese Imperial Army : Here is things get tricky. Despite all huge valorous and tough island hopping campaigns , liberating New Guinea and Phillipinnes , Burma by US Navy / Marines and Army and British / Australian and Commonwealth efforts , it was a suprise for me to discover between 1939-45 at least %60 of Japanese Army had always been deployed either in China (fighting against Chinese Nationalists) , Korea , IndoChina or Manchuria (where Japanese Kwangtung Army was wiped out in 1945 by Red Army) They were tied down as an army in being either for occupation in South East Asia or fighting against Nationalist Chinese armies and insurection in rear. (actually Nationalist Chine were fighting bulk of Japanese Army since 1937 ) And Chinese Nationalists were constantly receiving US and British aid thanks to either Burma Road or Allied air bridge from India (under British rule) to Chinese provinces. After repulsing Japanese invasion attempts of New Guinea and Guadalcanal-Solomons in South East Pacific (therefore starving off any Japanese threat to Australia) in 1942-1943 , wouldn't that make South West Asia Campaign and China-Burma-India Theater most vital for Allied strategy against Japan ? Without Allies holding on India and recapturing Burma , they couldn't supply Nationalist China and without Chinese (Generalissimo Chang Hai Cheng made it clear that without supllies he would enter somekind of understanding with Japanese) most of Japanese army would be free to march either Russian Far East via Manchuria or transported back to Japanese Home Islands or Central Pacific / South West Pacific Islands to block US advance despite US submarine interdiction.

It seems like while Western Allies (US and British Empire) took over most of air and naval efforts against Axis in geopolitical sense , they shifted the main burden and heavy casaulty rate of land fighting against Axis mostly to Russians or Chinese. (that does not take any thing out of valour , courage , effort etc of Allied servicemen fought on D-Day , Europe , Pacific , Africa , Italy , Phillipinnes , Burma etc. This is just an observati─▒on of mine) What do you think ? Discuss.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
374
Wales
#2
As far as the Japanese army goes the largest portion of their forces died from starvation:

Stavation. Deaths from starvation were not unknown among the Americans during the Bataan campaign, but the great majority of armed soldiers who died of starvation were Japanese or Chinese. The Allied strategy of leapfrogging strong Japanese garrisons left these isolated from resupply, and since surrender was unthinkable to their commanders, these garrisons were forced into a Stone Age existence of trying to grow sufficient food for survival in the jungle. It is likely that most of Adachi's 18 Army, cut off in New Guinea, died of starvation. Hyakutake's 17 Army in Bougainville suffered a similar fate. Overall, an appalling 60% of Japan's military dead were lost to starvation.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Casualties

So technically the largest killer of Japanese soldiers would be Japan.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
4,862
#3
As far as the Japanese army goes the largest portion of their forces died from starvation:

Stavation. Deaths from starvation were not unknown among the Americans during the Bataan campaign, but the great majority of armed soldiers who died of starvation were Japanese or Chinese. The Allied strategy of leapfrogging strong Japanese garrisons left these isolated from resupply, and since surrender was unthinkable to their commanders, these garrisons were forced into a Stone Age existence of trying to grow sufficient food for survival in the jungle. It is likely that most of Adachi's 18 Army, cut off in New Guinea, died of starvation. Hyakutake's 17 Army in Bougainville suffered a similar fate. Overall, an appalling 60% of Japan's military dead were lost to starvation.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Casualties

So technically the largest killer of Japanese soldiers would be Japan.
Well, that's in relation to the fighting involved in the US island-hopping campaign.

Japan eventually ended up (if I've counted this right) 28 "Area Armies". Only the Eight (Solomon islands, New Guinea etc.) and the Fourteenth (Phillipines) were involved in that fighting afaict. The Burma Area Army late in the war clearly also had a miserable time, and might be included.

But a full 10 area armies were maintained in the Japanese home islands. 3 were in Manchukuo. 5 were in China proper. To complete the list Taiwan, Korea, Thailand and Indonesia entertained an area army each as well. (These were in turn comprised of some 60+ "armies", something more like army corps in western terminology.)

Most of the Japanese army was not directly involved in the fighting. That was kind of the point of island-hopping, to just bypass most of the actual Japanese armed forces.

Most of the actual fighting of the IJA arguably fell to the Chinese.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,387
Dispargum
#4
Do we have troop figures for how many Japanese soldiers were deployed in the Pacific, Burma, China, and Manchuria? I suspect the percentage of Japanese soldiers fighting Americans, British, and Commonwealth was very small. Most of the Japanese Army was in China and Manchuria.

One of the factors influencing the US decision to use the A-bomb was the fact that much of the Japanese Army was still intact and would have to be fought and destroyed during any invasion of Japan.

Those Japanese troops that were cut off and starved by the island hopping campaign should be credited to whoever cut them off.
 
Likes: Menshevik
Jul 2017
43
France
#5
Do we have troop figures for how many Japanese soldiers were deployed in the Pacific, Burma, China, and Manchuria? I suspect the percentage of Japanese soldiers fighting Americans, British, and Commonwealth was very small. Most of the Japanese Army was in China and Manchuria.

One of the factors influencing the US decision to use the A-bomb was the fact that much of the Japanese Army was still intact and would have to be fought and destroyed during any invasion of Japan.

Those Japanese troops that were cut off and starved by the island hopping campaign should be credited to whoever cut them off.
Before launching the bomb, Truman knew very well that the Red Army was going to launch an offensive in Manchuria Soviet invasion of Manchuria - Wikipedia
 
Jul 2017
43
France
#6
Niklas Zetterling and Anders Franksson, in their JSMS article "Analysing WW II EF battles" quoted the following figures, from a corrected Army quartermaster general report (which goes through December 1944):

Army+W-SS: 6,874,207 of whom in the East 5,551,276, equals 80.8%
Luftwaffe: 565,914 of whom in the East 216,485, equals 38%
Kriegsmarine: 94,652 of whom in the East 22,308, equals 23.6%
Total: 7,534,773 of whom in the East 5,790,069, equals 77.6%>>

But this leaves 1945 to one side.
 
Oct 2013
12,960
Europix
#7
they shifted the main burden and heavy casaulty rate of land fighting against Axis mostly to Russians or Chinese.
I wouldn't formulate it as "they shifted to .." as it wasn't them deciding, but the war itself: none was land attacked, none had opponent's armies on their territory.
 
Dec 2014
374
Wales
#8
Do we have troop figures for how many Japanese soldiers were deployed in the Pacific, Burma, China, and Manchuria? I suspect the percentage of Japanese soldiers fighting Americans, British, and Commonwealth was very small. Most of the Japanese Army was in China and Manchuria.

One of the factors influencing the US decision to use the A-bomb was the fact that much of the Japanese Army was still intact and would have to be fought and destroyed during any invasion of Japan.

Those Japanese troops that were cut off and starved by the island hopping campaign should be credited to whoever cut them off.
The figures quoted by the 'Pacific War Encyclopedia' (which I have always found fairly reliable were as follows:


Japanese military casualties from 1937-1945 have been estimated at 1,834,000, of which 1,740,000 were killed or missing. Some 388,600 of these were incurred in China, another 210,830 in southeast Asia, and the rest in the Pacific. Of these, some 300,386 were naval fatalities, and some 334 Japanese warships were sunk during the war.


The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Casualties

Again many of the casualties in the Pacific ( would would include Australian forces in New Guinea) were down to starvation rather than combat.
 
Jun 2011
286
The Old Dominion
#9
Before launching the bomb, Truman knew very well that the Red Army was going to launch an offensive in Manchuria Soviet invasion of Manchuria - Wikipedia
The Soviets agreed to enter the war against the Japanese 90 days after the German capitulation, so their doing so was no surprise to the US. Pretty much made the mark. Chatter on the CinCPac radio circuits was addressing coordination with the Soviets as early as July 1945. But the US had already dropped one bomb before and then the second as the Soviets entered the war. The Soviets could and did roll over Manchuria and Korea, but this surprised not the Japanese. Their strategy was to hope for the best against the Soviets when they came (and if they did not "know" the Soviets were coming, they certainly suspected and expected it) and center their focus on the approaching US and Commonwealth forces. The Japanese, as well as the US, were well aware that the Soviets had not the sea-lift capability to endanger the Japanese home islands.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,387
Dispargum
#10
The figures quoted by the 'Pacific War Encyclopedia' (which I have always found fairly reliable were as follows:
Japanese military casualties from 1937-1945 have been estimated at 1,834,000, of which 1,740,000 were killed or missing. Some 388,600 of these were incurred in China, another 210,830 in southeast Asia, and the rest in the Pacific. Of these, some 300,386 were naval fatalities, and some 334 Japanese warships were sunk during the war.
1,834,000
- 388,600
- 210,830
1,236,470 in the Pacific including 300,386 naval casualties leaving over 900,000 Japanese Army and air force casualties in the Pacific. The Japanese Army in August 1945 still numbered more than five million. So the US, Australia, and a few other allies killed more than the Chinese.
 
Last edited: