Saturday, December 5, 2009

World War II?

Examples of how the fighting in the Pacific Theater was different than the fighting in the European Theater.



World War II?mr messed up



European Theater : Consisted of Germany, Italy, Russia, etc. and had triple the amount of deaths. Won victory in a fighting, soldier to soldier, type warfare. Also plans and sea battles.



Pacific: fought basically as a defense against pearl harbor, and was praticalyy ignored in the first half becuase of the situation in the other part of the world. Japanese sucked! That was until we bombed two of their cities to dust.



World War II?getting late opera theateramazing she got the points and never answered the question. Report It


terrain dictates how you fight. in the relative open country of france and russia, led to numerous tank-to-tank battles. in the pacific where you had very dense, thick jungle, tanks were not that appropriate for use. in the pacific, the infantry would storm the beaches and overwhelm the defenders and take the island, end of the battle. in europe, the frontline was continuous. you had to keep fighting to push back the enemy. in europe, you also had to deal with extreme cold whereas in the pacific you had extreme heat. this too dictates how you fight. the oils and fuels had to withstand the different climates in order for the vehicles and planes to keep working. in europe, it was the traditional land battle, two armies fighting for position. in the pacific, you had close to that but the terrain was different. you had sand, torrential rains, monsoons, snakes, insects, guerrilla warfare, and an enemy that didn't believe in surrendering at any cost. the germans were bad enough but the japs would rather die than surrender. at iwo jima, the japanese general informed his men that in before you die, you need to kill 10 marines. that was how the pacific was different than europe.
In Burma, Chindits fought using guerilla tactics behind the Japanese frontlines, the second-largest airborne attack (after Market Garden) delivered a large force, that operated against Japanese supply lines, air-supplied from India with casualty evacuation. Local populations were won over as scouts and intelligence gathering roles using the 鈥榟earts and minds鈥?principle. The terrain dictated that the formal warfare employed in the west could not be successfully pursued in the east. Many of these methods would be used in Vietnam and Malaysia.
Japanese heavily relied on geurilla warfare on the ground and surprise attacks from the air. While the U.S. Navy relied on constant bombardment (to no or minimal effect) and Marines to invade the island. It was extremely arduous against a very defensive, dug-in, well-trained, and suicidal enemy.



Germans and Italians, on the other hand, relied heavily on trenches (some new and some remaining from WW1), bunkers, trains, planes, and tanks. The Americans, British, and Russians fought likewise. At least this time they learned not to use poisonous gases.
and i should do your homework for you WHY?



look here: http://worldwar2history.info/Pacific/



and here: http://worldwar2history.info/Europe/



and see for yourself how they are different. you will notice the differences quite easily.



g
Fighting The Pacific was A Bit Hard cuz the Japs had traps and aggresive fighters and cool planes and defences but Fighting Europe was not much Hard cuz The Germans dont have much defences except D-Day cuz they knew

No comments:

Post a Comment

 
adware remover