Okinawa

[dafydd]

Did you know that the Americans lost more ships at Okinawa than they did at Pearl Harbor? Yet Pearl Harbor is remembered as the biggest American naval disaster of WWII. Perhaps because Pearl Harbor was unexpected.

[crimresearch]

All smaller vessels, IIRC.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Did you know that the Americans lost more ships at Okinawa than they did at Pearl Harbor? Yet Pearl Harbor is remembered as the biggest American naval disaster of WWII. Perhaps because Pearl Harbor was unexpected.

Perhaps because the US "lost" at Pearl Harbor whereas Okinawa was a victory, however bloody.

Also, the Fall of Singapore has been called the darkest day of the British Army and yet the losses at Operation Overlord were far greater.

[Tiktaalik]

I visited War in the Pacific NP (at Pearl Harbor) about a month ago. Very moving and interesting. I spent quite a bit of time out at the USS Arizona memorial. Those are some big ships, and it's pretty amazing to look at the photos and compare them to the actual ships in front of you.

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Did you know that the Americans lost more ships at Okinawa than they did at Pearl Harbor? Yet Pearl Harbor is remembered as the biggest American naval disaster of WWII. Perhaps because Pearl Harbor was unexpected.

The US Navy only LOST (permanently) two capital ships (Arizona & Oklahoma), two destroyers (Downes and Cassin), and an old battleship (Utah) used as a target ship for pilot training. And as has been said, most ships lost at Okinawa were picket destroyers, or even smaller.

[dafydd]

It was a remark made by an American historian in the BBC series ''The Last Days Of WW2''

[Mark6]

How many sailors died in Pearl Harbor attack, and how many sailors (not Marines ashore) died at Okinawa?

Just the number of ships lost does not make "biggest naval disaster". Losing one aircraft carrier is easily a bigger disaster than losing ten cutters.

Yes, I know US Navy lost more than that at Okinawa -- I was making a point.

[catsmate1]

The casualties at Okinawa were one of the factors against implementing Downfall and in favour of the nuclear option. Though I wonder what the casualties, on both sides, would have been had FDR not blocked the requests by MacArthur, Stillwell, Arnold and Marshall to use chemical weapons.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Did you know that the Americans lost more ships at Okinawa than they did at Pearl Harbor?

I did not. It makes sense, though: Larger battles incur more losses by their very nature. And since US naval production was ramping up throughout the war, later battles would tend to involve more ships than earlier battles.

... Not that Pearl Harbor was much of a "battle".

Quote:

Yet Pearl Harbor is remembered as the biggest American naval disaster of WWII.

It is? I suspect that Pearl Harbor is remembered more for being a unique element in the category "Pearl Harbor" than for being an element in "American naval disasters which are variously bigger or smaller than other American naval disasters".

Of course, Pearl Harbor was a disaster, though it didn't prove to be as disastrous as intended or expected. I'm not sure anybody really remembers it in terms of naval disasters, though.

And of course Okinawa wasn't a disaster at all--just a hard-fought and costly victory. So it's no surprise that it doesn't come up much when talking about Pearl Harbor and naval disasters.

Quote:

Perhaps because Pearl Harbor was unexpected.

And perhaps also because it was a historic turning point, and a treacherous act, etc... Pearl Harbor is memorable for several reasons, probably the least of which are the actual number of ships lost or the overall magnitude of the disaster incurred.

Just like Okinawa is memorable for several reasons, probably the least of which are the actual number of ships lost or the magnitude of the disaster incurred relative to Pearl Harbor.

Frankly, it seems like a facile comparison. Doesn't do the historian much credit, nor bring the audience much insight.

Anyway, it just goes to show that the importance of battles is not measured solely by the count of forces lost. Raw numbers matter, but context matters more.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Also, the Fall of Singapore has been called the darkest day of the British Army and yet the losses at Operation Overlord were far greater.

I don't want a long discussion to derail, but this doesn't ring true. I don't have my normal sources to hand so I'm settling for some quick Googling, the results of which jibe with my memory:

The UK lost between 100,000 and 130,000 total at Singapore, about 65,000 or 75,000 were Indian, but still part of the Empire. That campaign lasted 55 days.

For Overlord, if you extend past D-Day itself and run to late August about the time the Falaise Pocket was closed, the Brits and Canadians had a combined total of nearly 85,000. I'm not sure what the number would be if you extended Overlord to the end of August when the Germans crossed the Seine, but probably a few thousand more.

In both Singapore and Overlord, the opposing forces suffered fewer casualties, but at Singapore the Japanese casualty list was relatively negligible, and since that was a Japanese win while Overlord was an Allied victory, I can agree with the idea of Singapore as the worst disaster of British arms.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Also, the Fall of Singapore has been called the darkest day of the British Army and yet the losses at Operation Overlord were far greater.

You have to remember the fall of Singapore was more to do with the emotional impact rather than tactical. My father has mentioned a few times the mood in Sydney when the news broke. Basically it was if the war had just been lost

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Tiktaalik

I visited War in the Pacific NP (at Pearl Harbor) about a month ago. Very moving and interesting. I spent quite a bit of time out at the USS Arizona memorial. Those are some big ships, and it's pretty amazing to look at the photos and compare them to the actual ships in front of you.

I recently watched the new movie "Battleship" which covers some of the same ground, I can't but help think you got the better end of the bargain

come back "Tora Tora Tora" all is forgiven

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I recently watched the new movie "Battleship" which covers some of the same ground, I can't but help think you got the better end of the bargain

come back "Tora Tora Tora" all is forgiven

I actually had the extreme pleasure of walking the decks of the Mighty Mo when she was still in commission - I got to chat with the gunnery captain of Y turret who very proudly told me he was in charge of the Qaddafi Gun lol

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I don't want a long discussion to derail, but this doesn't ring true. I don't have my normal sources to hand so I'm settling for some quick Googling, the results of which jibe with my memory:

The UK lost between 100,000 and 130,000 total at Singapore, about 65,000 or 75,000 were Indian, but still part of the Empire. That campaign lasted 55 days.

....

In both Singapore and Overlord, the opposing forces suffered fewer casualties, but at Singapore the Japanese casualty list was relatively negligible, and since that was a Japanese win while Overlord was an Allied victory, I can agree with the idea of Singapore as the worst disaster of British arms.

I think the figures you are giving are for those captured. And yes, Overlord was a victory and Singapore was a defeat which is why I was comparing it to Okinawa, which was a victory, to Pearl Harbor which was a defeat. Similarly the number of Japanese casualties for Pearl Harbor was fairly low compared to Okinawa.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by MG1962

You have to remember the fall of Singapore was more to do with the emotional impact rather than tactical. My father has mentioned a few times the mood in Sydney when the news broke. Basically it was if the war had just been lost

Yes, and I expect the emotional impact is what a lot of Americans think when they compare Pearl Harbor and Okinawa, hence my comparison of the Fall of Singapore with Overlord.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, and I expect the emotional impact is what a lot of Americans think when they compare Pearl Harbor and Okinawa, hence my comparison of the Fall of Singapore with Overlord.

Still not sure I agree unless you confine it to non-military types.

I react emotionally to Pearl Harbor, but in the context of military analysis I give it very little weight (setting aside its importance in solidifying American will).

Singapore is different. It's loss was militarily far more significant than the losses during Overlord, and it carried emotional impact as previously mentioned.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think the figures you are giving are for those captured. And yes, Overlord was a victory and Singapore was a defeat which is why I was comparing it to Okinawa, which was a victory, to Pearl Harbor which was a defeat. Similarly the number of Japanese casualties for Pearl Harbor was fairly low compared to Okinawa.

My figures for Singapore are the captured numbers because that is the bulk. My figure for Overlord is total for the Anglo-Canadian forces through 21 August.

I understand that you were comparing Pearl to Singapore and Overlord to Okinawa, but I also understood that you were saying that calling Singapore the darkest day in British military history was a mistake given greater casualties in Overlord. It is that last bit that I object to given that there were not greater casualties in Overlord and that Overlord was a victory.

Or am I misunderstanding your position?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Garrette

My figures for Singapore are the captured numbers because that is the bulk. My figure for Overlord is total for the Anglo-Canadian forces through 21 August.

I understand that you were comparing Pearl to Singapore and Overlord to Okinawa, but I also understood that you were saying that calling Singapore the darkest day in British military history was a mistake given greater casualties in Overlord. It is that last bit that I object to given that there were not greater casualties in Overlord and that Overlord was a victory.

Or am I misunderstanding your position?

Maybe this is where we are at cross-purposes.

I was responding to the idea that Okinawa should be seen as worse than Pearl Harbor on the basis of sheer numbers.

I was saying that by that metric the Fall of Singapore should be considered worse than Operation Overlord with my point being that obviously that is absurd. Sheer numbers of ships or even of personnel is not what constitutes defeat or victory.

I think you will agree with me on that and perhaps we've been splitting hairs.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Maybe this is where we are at cross-purposes.

I was responding to the idea that Okinawa should be seen as worse than Pearl Harbor on the basis of sheer numbers.

I was saying that by that metric the Fall of Singapore should be considered worse than Operation Overlord with my point being that obviously that is absurd. Sheer numbers of ships or even of personnel is not what constitutes defeat or victory.

I think you will agree with me on that and perhaps we've been splitting hairs.

Hmmm. I think I get what you're saying, but it still seems that you're saying that Singapore was not worse than Overlord, whereas I am saying it in fact was worse, in just about every metric.

But I really am not looking for an argument and concede that I too easily misconstrue the position of others, so I'll let it go.

Thanks for the sidebar, though; I enjoy them.

[rcfieldz]

D day has the most lives lost.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by rcfieldz

D day has the most lives lost.

No.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Garrette

No.

Yeah it was really when the allies started pushing up through the hedgerows that things started to get real ugly fast

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Yeah it was really when the allies started pushing up through the hedgerows that things started to get real ugly fast

Yep, and that could be blamed on British failure to take Caen on D-Day, though I don't want to get into arguments about whether it was doable or not (I'm not fully decided on the issue myself, though I lean toward the position that it was).

Then the 3rd Army drive across France followed by the next set of bloody stalemates and slogs...

Not as horrible a place to fight as the Eastern front or the jungles, but I still wouldn't want to have been there.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Not as horrible a place to fight as the Eastern front or the jungles, but I still wouldn't want to have been there.

I read an anecdote once that local Frenchmen would guide the soldiers as they advanced to try and limit damage in the wine country to areas where only low quality grapes were grown

[The Don]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I read an anecdote once that local Frenchmen would guide the soldiers as they advanced to try and limit damage in the wine country to areas where only low quality grapes were grown

Doubtful in Northern France unless it's around the Champagne region.

Doubly doubtful in Normandy - that's cider country mmmmmmm!

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I don't want a long discussion to derail, but this doesn't ring true. I don't have my normal sources to hand so I'm settling for some quick Googling, the results of which jibe with my memory:

The UK lost between 100,000 and 130,000 total at Singapore, about 65,000 or 75,000 were Indian, but still part of the Empire. That campaign lasted 55 days.

For Overlord, if you extend past D-Day itself and run to late August about the time the Falaise Pocket was closed, the Brits and Canadians had a combined total of nearly 85,000. I'm not sure what the number would be if you extended Overlord to the end of August when the Germans crossed the Seine, but probably a few thousand more.

In both Singapore and Overlord, the opposing forces suffered fewer casualties, but at Singapore the Japanese casualty list was relatively negligible, and since that was a Japanese win while Overlord was an Allied victory, I can agree with the idea of Singapore as the worst disaster of British arms.

Why are you including Canadian casualties with British casualties? Two different countries - two different armies.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Why are you including Canadian casualties with British casualties? Two different countries - two different armies.

Short answer: Those were the easily accessible figures -- combined, not separated.

Longer answer: There were two Army Corps created for D-Day and beyond, one American and one "British." The British Corps included the Canadians until early July when the II Canadian Corps was formed, followed soon after by the First Canadian Army.

[Jarlaxle]

I would probably call Savo the worst US Naval disaster of WW2.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

I would probably call Savo the worst US Naval disaster of WW2.

Depending how such things would be calculated, Mother nature might come in a close second

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-4.htm

[Gawdzilla]

Remember that all the ships at Oki were not lost in one morning.