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

Jan 2015
3,195
Rupert's Land ;)
#11
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.
Sorry, what year are you quoting?

There are two books cited in the Wiki article for the Eastern Front:

48. Materialien zum Vortrag des Chefs des Wehrmachtführungsstabes vom 7.11.1943 "Die strategische Lage am Anfang des fünften Kriegsjahres", (referenced to KTB OKW, IV, S. 1534 ff.)
49.^ "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944", Jodl, Vortrag 5.5.1944. (referenced to BA-MA, N69/18.)
By July 1943, the Wehrmacht numbered 6,815,000 troops. Of these, 3,900,000 were deployed in eastern Europe, 180,000 in Finland, 315,000 in Norway, 110,000 in Denmark, 1,370,000 in western Europe, 330,000 in Italy, and 610,000 in the Balkans.[48] According to a presentation by Alfred Jodl, the Wehrmacht was up to 7,849,000 personnel in April 1944. 3,878,000 were deployed in eastern Europe, 311,000 in Norway/Denmark, 1,873,000 in western Europe, 961,000 in Italy, and 826,000 in the Balkans.[49]


So this would mean that in July 1943 only 57% of Wehrmacht troops are in the East (excluding SS presumably?)

By April 1944 only 49% of the Wehrmacht troops are in the East. (Heer)
Obviously the overwhelming majority of Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine are deployed in the West.

Müller-Hillebrand - Das Heer.jpg
 
Dec 2014
387
Wales
#12
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.
Not really. Obviously the fighting in the Pacific was particularly savage, but the massive casualties mainly come because the Japanese had nowhere to go. If you look at the Japanese Indian campaign, when the Battles of Kohima and Imphal went badly for the 15th Army they had the option to fall back into Burma (although many still died from illness and starvation). The same was true in China A successful Chinese attack simply forced a withdrawal. In the Pacific the Japanese were simply unable to retreat. When the Americans attacked, they died, virtually all of them.

Few Japanese troops surrendered before August 1945. As the Allied counteroffensive rolled forward, and Japanese garrisons were trapped on small islands from which there was no escape, Japanese garrisons literally fought to the death. Typically just 1 to 3 percent of a trapped garrison would surrender, while the remainder died in combat or committed suicide. The impression that the Japanese were more willing to surrender as the war became hopeless was largely an illusion. The Allies were taking more prisoners, but they were also fighting larger enemy forces, and the 1 to 3 percent figure held up to the end of hostilities.

In truth a significant number of those 'combat casualties' will have been Japanese soldiers who actually killed themselves rather than surrendered.

As far as casualties in China pre-war go, they were massive it's true:

Casualties in China were immense even before war broke out in the Pacific: The Japanese had suffered over 180,000 dead (including 48,344 dead from illness) and over 323,700 wounded (including 36,470 permanently disabled) by October 1941.

However compare this to Okinawa, where in one battle some 70,000 soldiers and anywhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Japanese civilians died.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Okinawa


But the real difference is that very early on the Japanese lost the ability to supply all their garrisons, and as a result more Japanese starved to death on those island garrisons then were ever killed by the allies. Hence my earlier post about some 60% of the Japanese casualties been from starvation.

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.

In short there were two sorts of Japanese in the Pacific - those who were killed in combat and those who starved to death, with the second group being the larger of the two.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,535
Dispargum
#13
I see no point in distinguishing between soldiers who are shot by bullets, blasted by artillery, bombed by aircraft, drowned, gassed, starved, or commit suicide if the two latter conditions were driven by enemy action, for instance, being cut off from sources of supply, being unable to retreat, or fear of being taken prisoner.

In the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets captured 91,000 Axis troops. Of these, 85,000 would die in Soviet prison camps. The 91,000 were captured because the Soviets surrounded and cut them off from retreat or resupply. Do we not count the 85,000 simply because they were not shot in battle? The bypassed and starved Japanese island garrisons were put in that condition by Allied action, just like the 85,000 dead PoWs from Stalingrad. To not count them simply because they were not shot in battle leaves us with a skewed statistic.
 
Likes: Menshevik

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,152
Spain
#15
About Italia I would said most of bloody casualties (KIA-MIA-WIA) was in Russian Front. The Italian Army sustained 80.079 deaths in Russia (1941-1943) and 18.041 deaths in North African campaign (1940-1943).

Russian Front caused most of casualties (KIA-WIA) in Axis Armies (Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland, Romania, Slovakia). Only Bulgaria had not casualties in Russian Front... fighting Soviets.

Source: Morti e dispersi per cause belliche negli annii 1940-1945. Repubblica Italiana. Istituto Centrale di Statistica.
 
Jan 2015
3,195
Rupert's Land ;)
#16
About Italia I would said most of bloody casualties (KIA-MIA-WIA) was in Russian Front. The Italian Army sustained 80.079 deaths in Russia (1941-1943) and 18.041 deaths in North African campaign (1940-1943).

.
The thread is about "military casualties", including captured, not just KIA/MIA/WIA.

If the Allies had taken their more than 400,000+ Italian prisoners and had them all shot (Or starved to death) then their KIA would be more than 5 times that of the Eastern front.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,152
Spain
#17
The thread is about "military casualties", including captured, not just KIA/MIA/WIA.

If the Allies had taken their more than 400,000+ Italian prisoners and had them all shot (Or starved to death) then their KIA would be more than 5 times that of the Eastern front.
The KIA-MIA-WIA (and not the POW) proved the real casualties in battles... which battles were tougher... and Italians lost more soldiers in action in Russia (Ukrainia-Southern Russia) than in Libya and Egypt....
In Asia... USSR took more Japanese POW than West allies but not more KIA-MIA-WIA... what´s worthy for USA in Asia it is worthy for USSR in Europe.. so easy.

And I repeat again... Germany, Italy, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania substained more casualites in Russian Front than in any other Front. It is not a matter of Opinion... I have not opinion... it is a Mathematical issue... so easy to be understood.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,970
here
#18
Is my Ford really an American-made car? "Automotive parts are often sourced throughout the world, making it difficult to ascertain what's truly made in the USA."

I think the above sentiment applies to what we're talking about. How many tanks kills did the Russians get while operating American Sherman tanks? Should these kills be credited entirely to the Russians, when the hardware was American?

And I think the the focus on "kills," is a bit myopic, this isn't Call of Duty Team Deathmatch, I think it's more Battle Field 4, where you can earn points and contribute to victory without necessarily shooting or killing enemy combatants directly. So, blockading Japanese ports or denying supplies to the Wehrmacht, or forcing the German war machine to keep hundreds of thousands of men employed in the air defense of the Reich (instead of fighting on the Eastern Front) are all contributions and should be taken into consideration when deciding who, "took out the most branches of the Axis."
 
Aug 2014
193
New York, USA
#19
I think the above sentiment applies to what we're talking about. How many tanks kills did the Russians get while operating American Sherman tanks? Should these kills be credited entirely to the Russians, when the hardware was American?
I believe the vast majority of Lend-Lease tanks in the Soviet Union were used for crew training purposes. There were exceptions of course, but those were the exceptions...
The thread is about "military casualties", including captured, not just KIA/MIA/WIA.

If the Allies had taken their more than 400,000+ Italian prisoners and had them all shot (Or starved to death) then their KIA would be more than 5 times that of the Eastern front.
Umm, in that case, Soviet Union contributed the most to the defeat of the Japanese.... Soviets had something like ~600,000 Japanese POWs.
 
Last edited:

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,970
here
#20
I believe the vast majority of Lend-Lease tanks in the Soviet Union were used for crew training purposes. There were exceptions of course, but those were the exceptions...
Interesting. I'll have to check that out.

But it makes one wonder: would training in a Sherman prepare a crew for service in a different type of tank, like a T-34 or something else?