Egorka, have you dropped this line of inquiry. Or is it continued elsewhere?
No, you can find it here and at Armchair General forum only.
I do not have eniugh time for that. 
But the range of the result we have so far is close to reality, IMHO.
It seems to me you have just touched the surface of this subject. But then I suspose these forums are not the best venue for investigation with real depth. I hope you will eventually bring other data or items of interest on the subject here or elsewhere.
You are very welcome to continue. It would be really great.
I do not have time for this unfortunately.
Guys,
Is the following correct?
Can some present KIA, POW for Italia in Africa.
[b]Losses for Italy[/b]
[u] KIA [/u] [u] POW [/u] [u] Total [/u] [u]Share[/u]
by USSR: 30.000 64.000 94.000 22%
by Others: 168.000 170.000 338.000 78%
I’ll look some numbers up. Like yourself I am busy with other things, so time for these little projects is rare.
I recall the Axis loss in Tunisia was over 250,000. But that is rather vague & lack specific number for Italy. Will see what I can find on my shelf here.
Atkinson (Army At Dawn) provides the following concerning the Tunisian campaign:
“Ambiguity also shrouded the numer of German and Italian prisoners of war. Allied records in late May (1943) listed 238,243 unwounded prisoners in custody, including 102,000 Germans. Arnim (last German comander of the Axis armys in Tunisia) thought the total prisoner count closer to 300,000-he of course amoung them-while Rommels former chief of staff (of Panzer Army Africa) put the German figure alone at 166,000. A quarter million appears to be a reasonable estimate.”
Atkinson comments that while the number of ‘divisions’ taken is smaller than the bag in the Stalingrad pocket, the total includes many more support service soldiers. This may be particularly true for the Italians as Tunisia was to be administrated by Italy and portion of the Italians soldiers sent to support some sort of colonial administration.
Part of the difference between the Allied records number of 238,243 and Arnims estimate is Arnim was including wounded. Also Atkinson comments on the poor care of the Axis prisoners. The Allies esitmated 150,000 prisoners would be taken and prepared for that number. with 100,000 to 150,000 extra - rations, shelter and medical care were short. Also Atkinson remarks on the abusive nature of the many of the guards, particularly the French. A portion of the prisoners taken in March and April may not be included in the May count as they had already died. Prisoners already removed to ships for North America would not have been counted in the May records.
Atkinson gives a estimate from Allied & German records for 8,500 German dead for the Tunisian campaign and 3,700 Italian dead. Total Axis wounded are estimated as between 40,000 & 50,000. No detail of the numbers of the wounded removed to Axis controled Europe, or the numbers permanetly maimed & unfit for service are available.
The Tunisian campaign is counted from 6 November 1942 to 13 May 1943. This overlaps the ‘Western Desert’ or Lybian’ Campaign by a month or two, until the Axis army in Lybia retreated into Tunisia. However the Western Desert battle had become a pursit with realatively few losses.
Anyway from the number Atkinson provides the Italians lost at least 140,000 soldiers as prisoners or dead, and a unknown number of wounded as prisoners or unfit for service from November thru May. The total may be as high as 160,000 Italian soldiers.
Note that these numbers probablly do not include italian aircrew and seamen who were based in Sicilly & Italy but who were killed, maimed, or captured in operations supporting the Tunisian campaign.
Unfortunatly I have nothing here indicating the Italian losses in the Western Desert campaigns, previous to November 1942.
By contrast the Allied losses for the Tunisian campaign are estimated as at 70,000 men. This apparently excludes prisoners who were released when the Axis surrendered.
Should the Italian soldiers killed and taken prisoner after the surrender of September 1943 be counted? And how can they be credited? For instance Both the Allies and Germans took Italian soldiers into POW camps, but others were simply allowed to return to civilian life. A few Italians still fought the Alls for some weeks after the surrender, and a Italian Facist army was formed under German subsidy. Some Italian soldiers fought the Germans for several days after the surrender, one garrison posted in Greece suffered some 8,000 killed resisting the Germans. This is all very confusing…
Technically I suspose the Brit/US can claim credit for the elimination of the remaining Italian soldiers on captulation in September 1943. But, after some thought the Facist Grand Counsel may have a claim as it was their decision which took over one million uniformed Italians out of the war.
On a more serious note I am also pondering the status of the Japanese island garrisons that were bypassed. Rabul is one large example. There some 110,000 Japanese soldiers and naval personel were trapped. They had no aircraft or ships, so they were completely unable to strike at the Allies in any way. There were many island garrisons like this, isolated by the defeat of the Japanese Navy. Occasionally a submarine or a daring longrange transport crew would bring some small quantity of essintial supplies, or Remove a high ranking officer. The US confined itself to observing these trapped garrisons with patrols and outposts.
Since these garrisons were still under arms they technically were not lost. But, they were unable to strike against the Allies in any way so should the be counted amoung the lost?
Carl, many good points! I will have to think about that all…
But there is another intresting point: Is it true that UK destrouyed more Japanese ground forces than USA?
So far we have 0,20 for USA and o,30 for UK.
An interesting website with a two page account on:
Operation Hailstone, the attack on Truk Atoll: the Japanese “Pearl Harbor” of the Pacific.
February 16-17, 1944
by Rear Admiral James D. Ramage (USN, ret.),
Executive Officer of Bombing 10 during the February 1944 Truk attack.
Links to article:
http://www.cv6.org/1944/truk/default.htm
http://www.cv6.org/1944/truk/truk_2.htm
Truk had a magnificent harbor and contained four airfields. Carrier aircraft alone would take on this large land-based air defense. The atoll was the major Japanese fleet base in the Pacific and was the anchorage of the Japanese Combined Fleet…
…In addition to destroying or heavily damaging all installations in the second of the raids on Truk that had not been moved underground, the force shot down 59 aircraft and destroyed another 34 on the ground. Only 12 Japanese aircraft were serviceable when the task force left on 1 May. Our losses were 26 aircraft lost in combat. More than half of the 46 airmen shot down were rescued, some inside the lagoon.
That was the end of Truk. Its large garrison that survived the raids was left to starve as we took the war farther west to the Marianas.
“The Pacific Fleet has returned at Truk the visit made by the Japanese Fleet at Pearl Harbor…”
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz
SEE ALSO:
Truk Lagoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truk_Lagoon
Operation Hailstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hailstone
MODERN CHUUK ATOLL (FORMERLY TRUK ATOLL)
TRUK ATOLL IN WORLD WAR II
Map showing the main features of the Japanese base at Truk Atoll, based on US Navy intelligence at the time of the attack.
Additional background information on Truk Atoll.
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3973.htm
From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, by Samuel Eliot Morison, Volume VII: Aleutians, Gilberts and Marshalls, June 1942 - April 1944, p 318:
The larger islands of Truk Lagoon, with installations and facilities as of 17 February 1944:
*Moen (Haru Shima “Spring”) - Bomber strip 3340 ft., combined seaplane base and fighter strip, with 68 planes, coast defense and anti-aircraft guns, radar, torpedo storage, torpedo boat base.
*Dublon (Natsu Shima “Summer”) - Main town and docks, main seaplane base with 27 planes, submarine base, naval HQ, 2500-ton floating drydock, oil and torpedo storage, magazines, coast defense and anti-aircraft guns, aviation repair and supply station.
*Fefan (Aki Shima “Autumn”) - The supply center, with pier, warehouses, ammunition dumps, search radar, two 5-inch dual-purpose guns.
*Uman (Fuyu Shima “Winter”) - Search radar, torpedo boat base.
*Eten (Take Jima “Bamboo”) - Airstrip 3340 x 270 ft., revetments, 20 planes fully equipped; 180 planes awaiting pilots or repairs.
*Param (Kaide Jima “Maple”) - Airstrip 3900 x 335 ft., with 40 planes, eight 5-inch, four 80-mm dual-purpose, three medium anti-aircraft guns.
*Ulalu (Nichiyo To “Sunday”) - Radio direction finder station.
*Udot (Getsuyo To “Monday”) - Three 8-inch dual-purpose guns.
*Tol (Suiyo To “Wednesday”) - Four 6-inch coast defense guns and a battery of anti-aircraft guns, radar, torpedo boat base.
From pp 316-317:
For Truk, capital of the Carolines under German and Japanese rule, is situated almost in the geographical center of Micronesia. Possessing the best fleet anchorage anywhere in the Mandates, it was very valuable to Japan during the first two years of the war. Indeed, the main motive of Imperial Headquarters in taking Rabaul, Lae and Salamaua early in the war was to protect Truk from Allied air attack and reconnaissance. Important as it was to the Japanese, Americans were inclined to overemphasize its strength, as is evident by such deceptive phrases as “Japanese Pearl Harbor,” and “Gibraltar of the Pacific.”
The combined area of all the islands is not equal to that of Oahu; the largest town, Dublon, never had more than 1200 buildings or facilities for more than temporary repairs to naval vessels. But the Combined Fleet was based on Truk Lagoon from July 1942, and its flagship, super-battleship Musashi, was generally stationed there. Commander Sixth Fleet ( submarines ) kept his headquarters on Dublon Island during the same period. In addition, Truk was an important air base and staging point for planes between Japan and the South Pacific. Fortifications were started as early as 1940, and all defensive works were speeded up in January 1944; but Truk was weakly defended, by American standards. Some 7500 Army troops and 3000 to 4000 sailors and aviation personnel were stationed there in mid-February 1944; but there were only 40 anti-aircraft guns in the archipelago, and all fire control radar had been lost when the ship bringing it thither was sunk by a United States submarine.
Geographically, Truk resembled nothing that American forces had yet encountered; it was a drowned mountain range inside a coral ring. Take a coral atoll of the type already familiar in the Marshalls, the reef shaped like a rounded equilateral triangle with 35-mile legs; dump into the lagoon a dozen volcanic islands rising to 1500 feet above sea level; scatter about the lagoon 30 or more islets; and you have Truk. The Japanese named the islands after the four seasons, trees, and the days of the week.
These wooded islands, standing out prominently and easy to identify, may be approached by anyone of four passes through the reef, all of which were defended by coast defense guns on their flanking islets. The Northeast Pass, nearest entrance ( 10 miles ) to Dublon and to the Eten airfield, also had been mined. Any surface attack on Truk, therefore, would first have to break a passage through one of these strongly defended passes and then assault through, well fortified positions inside, island by island. The Japanese atoll commander, Rear Admiral Chuichi Hara, remarked after the war that when hearing American radio broadcasts refer to his bailiwick as “The Gibraltar of the Pacific” he only feared lest the Americans discover how weak it was. Its essential strength was given by nature. Naval gunfire from outside the reef could reach neither the islands nor the fleet anchorage in the lagoon. But air power could.
Also:
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3974.htm
(CONTINUED BELOW)
(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
More background information on Truk Atoll:
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3977.htm
Truk Atoll from PacificWrecks.com:
This webpage contains links to specific islands in the Truk Atoll which contain photographs and descriptions of airstrips, defenses, facilities, etc.:
Truk (Chuuk) Federated States of Micronesia
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/truk.html
According to one of those webpages, the Megeson fighter airstrip was under construction at the end of the war, but was never completed.
http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/3978.htm
More info on Truk airfields from the PacificWrecks.com website
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/truk.html
*Dublon Airbase
The main seaplane base of the 902nd Kokutai, Naval Air Corps, was constructed on the Southern shore. The base had three seaplane ramps and a “T” shaped service area. A hammerhead crane and 5,000 feet of waterfront allowed easy serving of seaplanes.
*Etan Airfield
Portions of the abandoned Japanese fighter airstrip still remain, where the jungle has not reclaimed them. Construction began in 1934 and required the leveling of half the island. After the expiration of the Washington Naval treaty in 1937, more construction begain with help of the Japanese Navy and South Seas Government. In 1939 work intensified, with conscripted labor, Koreans, and Japanese prisoners.
Eten’s fighter field was the best and the islands principal field. Its concrete 270 x 3,440 foot runway had lights for night flights. It was begun in August 1941 and completed late in 1943. Support buildings for repair, HQ, power plant and a two story reinforced concrete administration, radio and control tower still exists today.
At one time 1,200 personnel had lived and worked here. 40 fighters and 7 double bomber revetments were adjacent to the runway along the hillside. Major repairs were done to Dublon. Eten was the temporary home for the 21st, 22nd, 25th 26th and Koku Sentani, Air Flotillas during the war.
The 104th Naval Air Arsenal was attached to the base, and had repair shops for engine, structural, propeller, welding, carpentry, electrical, oxygen generation, welding, smelting and weapons storage. Five barracks, three warehouses and a power plant. Reportedly, the facility could overhaul 15 airplane engines a month at its height
*Megeson Airstrip (never completed)
Megeson fighter airstrip was under construction at the end of the war, but was never completed.
*Moen 1
The northwestern side was constructed between November 1942 and December 1942 It is the site of today’s airport. Originally, its runway was 300 by 3,750 feet for fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. About 80 support buildings were nearby and taxiways, 10 85 foot square bomber revetments and a large hanger.
East of the airfield was an extensive underground storage facility for ammunition and fuel. Gun positions, storage areas, barracks, shops, garages and a power plant existed.
*Moen 2
A seaplane base begun on November 1941 and completed April 1943 on the Southern end of the island. It had a concrete ramp, and apron 200 x 1,500 feet and a secondary ramp 240 x 400 feet. Hangers, torpedo storage, a radio shack, munitions storehouses and AA positions existed around the base. A fighter strip 175 x 3,450 long was begun with taxiways that connected it to Moen 2.
*Parman Airfield
On the southern coast was a 335 x 3,900 foot airfield built in June of 1943 primarily a bomber base. 15 revetments and barracks existed for about 50 aircraft. There were no repair facilities because the field was hastily built. The aerodrome and AA positions were manned by the 48th Naval Guard.
I’m unsure, but it is possible. In Burma Britian fought a continual series of land campaigns from early 1942 to the surrender in 1945. In this the Japanese suffered horrible losses due to starvation, tropical disease, and trapped in the end by the British. Also in the New Guinea in a companion battle to the Guadacannal fight the Australians destroyed a Japanese corps, later the Australians destroyed some other Japanese enclaves in the SW Pacific.
In the Phillpines the US 6th & 8th Armys fought Japanese armys in large scale battles, which might balance the losses in Burma
There are some complications in this. In the SW Pacific some US units fought along side the Australians and the logistics support was intertwined, as well as the air support. Looking at the Alled SW Pacific forces as a coherent army or army group one realizes it was a mixed international force with combat & support units mixed.
A similar situation existed in Burma where US logistics units were present. Also there was a corps of Chinese soldiers, led by the US General Stillwell and equipped with US equipment and supported by US logistics & support units, but fighting in the British territory according to a British strategy.
To sort out numerical credit one has to delve into which specific corps/divsion or regiment killed which Japanese.
The Pacific theatre also illustrates the limits of counting bodies as a measure. The large naval battles were actually small in terms of men killed or maimed, but had stratigic consequences equivalent to the great land battles of Europe. ie: the naval battles in the Indonesian water in early 1942 hardly involved ten thousand men on each side. The result of Japanese victory there was the transfer of a continents worth of oil, rubber, tin, and other raw materials to the Japanese. The US naval victorys of 1944 reversed this, cutting off a large part of the raw materials and fuel needed by Japans industry. Although not even twenty thousand Japanese died in the naval battles. Conversely millions of pople died in Chins with negligable impact on any stratigic measure.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=65
This discussion board may lead to more precise information on where the Japanese losses occured.
This thread has been dormant for a long time, but I really like it…
So just in case anybody´s still interested…
Japanese losses in China…
1050000 stated by a Chinese in this forum (1937-45)
1770000 common Chinese claim
200000 official Japanese claim
800000 (as 1,7mill total Japanese losses of which 0,9mill in the Pacific; commonly stated in the west)
388600 dead and 1060 POW´ed says “The World War Two Databook”, for the Japanese army alone in China. The losses suffered by the AF and Navy were probably very small in comparison?
(And I thought I had something on what damage the British inflicted on the Japanese Navy and merchant fleets, but I didn´t and it´s maddeningly difficult to find on the net. 4 cruisers and 8 submarines should be the only larger warships, I found, and from memory: RN subs claimed many 100000´s tons of japanese merchant shipping)
It’s interesting trying to nail down casualty stats for WW2, but definitive numbers will probably never be known.
This is said to be the official data by Japanese Government.
厚生省援護局 昭和３９年３月
本表数字には、朝鮮人、台湾人、軍属、支那事変戦没者／陸軍181000人 海軍7700人を含む。
陸 軍 海 軍 総 計
終戦時
残存兵員数 S12.7.7～
戦没者数 終戦時
残存兵員数 S12.7.7～
戦没者数 終戦時
残存兵員数 S12.7.7～
戦没者数
日本本土（含周辺） 2,372,700 58,100 1,962,800 45,800 4,335,500 103,900
小笠原諸島 15,000 2,700 8,600 12,500 23,600 15,200
沖縄諸島 40,900 67,900 11,200 21,500 52,100 89,400
台 湾 128,100 28,500 62,400 10,600 190,500 39,100
朝 鮮 294,200 19,600 41,700 6,900 335,900 26,500
樺太・千島 88,000 8,200 3,000 3,200 91,000 11,400
満州 664,000 45,900 1,500 800 665,500 46,700
中国本土（含香港） 1,055,700 435,600 69,200 20,100 1,124,900 ‘‘455,700’’
シベリア 0 52,300 0 400 0 52,700
中部太平洋諸島 48,600 95,800 58,300 151,400 106,900 ‘‘247,200’’
フィリピン 97,300 377,500 29,900 121,100 127,200 ‘‘498,600’’
仏領インドシナ 90,400 7,900 7,800 4,500 98,200 12,400
タイ 106,000 6,900 1,500 100 107,500 7,000
ビルマ・インド 70,400 163,000 1,100 1,500 71,500 ‘‘164,500’’
マレー・シンガポール 84,800 8,500 49,900 2,900 134,700 11,400
ニューギニア 30,200 112,400 3,600 15,200 33,800 127,600
その他 286,100 156,400 104,200 55,300 390,300 211,700
合 計 5,472,400 1,647,200 2,416,700 473,800 7,889,100 2,121,000
Which the main casualty numbers translates into China, 455,000, Philippines, 498,600, Pacific ocean, 247,200, Burma and India, 164,500.
Out of a total 2,121,000 killed.
If you add Philippines and Pacific ocean, it seems the Americans caused the majority of casualties.
Think total Axis losses in North Africa was over 600,000.
Does that 600,000 include Itlaians lost or captured in Abysinia? Also does it include any lost to disease? I have here a brief study on German losses in Africa due to disease and was suprised by the numbers. Apparently they were not able to control that problem as effciently as the British.
Yep, includes Italian losses in Abyssinia.
Haven’t got the breakdown of casualty causes at hand, but would probably be all causes, including disease.
Reminds me of the Italian 8th Army in the Soviet Union, suffering major losses from severe frost bite.
The document I have is ‘FMFMRP 12-96-1 German Experinces in Desert Warfare in WWII’. The section titled ‘Acclimatization of the Troops’ (page 10) notes that German units which had long periods “acclimatization” and hot weather training had non combat casualty rates little different from those that were sent with only a few days or weeks of preperation. The high casualty rate from disease seems to have been due to bad water and food. Vitamin defficiencys in the canned or dried food and a high mineral/salt content in the drinking water contributed to poor immune system function. the parachute brigade sent in July 1942 is used as a example. Within a few weeks 50% of the battalions were combat ineffective from disease. Dystentery, jaundice, and skin sores are cited as the most common illnesses. The section also refers to German medical reports showing 80-90% of personnel would be combat inefective by 18 months of desert service, and a judgement or recomendation that individuals be withdrawn from desert climates after 12 months of duty there. Its not clear if this last relates just to disease or if other hot climate problems influence it.
It looks like ‘General Weather’ fought the Germans in Africa as well as in the East.