6 ms·

> oil tanker losses by the US alone were staggering. "A total of 129 tankers were lost in American waters in the first five months of 1942." Of the U.S. servic

> oil tanker losses by the US alone were staggering. "A total of 129 tankers were lost in American waters in the first five months of 1942." Of the U.S. services, the U.S. Merchant Marine had the highest casualty rate in WWII of 4%, followed by the U.S. Marines at 2%. Attacking the supply lines is an important strategy in war. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/merchant-marine-world-war-ii https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/merchant-mari... http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html

KK7NIL 2y ago
Is the US Merchant Marine a "US service"? They aren't an officially recognized uniformed service [0] even though they do have uniforms, a paramilitary structure and (those which are US citizens) can be called for mandatory service [1]. Not taking away from their very real service and sacrifice, it's just an interesting question what we mean by "US service". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_Unit... [1] https://www.usmma.edu/admissions/service-obligation https://www.usmma.edu/admissions/service-obligation
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Is the US Merchant Marine a "US service"? They are (or have been) during wartime, attaching to the US Navy: During World War II the fleet was in effect nationalized; that is, the federal government controlled the cargo and the destinations, contracted with private companies to operate the ships, and put guns and Navy personnel, the Navy Armed Guard, on board. U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration FAQ <https://web.archive.org/web/20150411091000/http://www.marad.dot.gov/about_us_landing_page/marad_faq/FAQ.htm#q1 https://web.archive.org/web/20150411091000/http://www.marad....>
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
dredmorbius 2y ago
The US submarine warfare operation in the Pacific was also absolutely devastating to Japan, particularly as that country has virtually no indigenous mineral or energy resources. A large part of Japan's invasion of China (from whence it could reasonably readily ship resources) was China's own mineral supplies, particularly coal an iron. For petroleum though the nearest viable source was Indonesia (then the Dutch East Indies), and the US sank much of what moved from there. This fact, as well as my parent comment above about U.S. east-coast oil shipping and pipeline construction are quite well covered in Daniel Yergin's book The Prize. If you want an appreciation for just how much oil transformed the US and world, it is an absolutely excellent resource. And that's from someone who's not partial to Yergin's oil-industry boosterism.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  I was mind-blown by the fact that pearl-harbour (and the attack on Singapore) where planned by the Japanese with the main goal of getting to Dutch Indonesian oil reserves.
dugmartin 2y ago
And the crazy thing is they were denied access to the GI Bill after WW2 and didn’t get veteran status until 60 years later.
whartung 2y ago
> Of the U.S. services, the U.S. Merchant Marine had the highest casualty rate in WWII of 4% There was a Tom Hanks movie on Apple TV a couple years ago called "Greyhound", about a destroyer captain leading a convoy across the Atlantic in WWII. Just the very beginning, the banter about what they were about to encounter was pretty chilling.
opo 2y ago
There were certainly groups in the services in WW II who suffered much higher casualties. For example, flying in a bomber crew was very dangerous. I can't quickly find some complete stats, but for example in 1943: >During 1943, only about 25% of Eighth Air Force bomber crewmen completed their 25-mission tours—the other 75% were killed, severely wounded, or captured. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1519640/bigger-raids-bigger-losses-and-crisis/ https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...
- outop 2y ago
  But you're now talking about a much smaller group within the US Air Force. Obviously if you zoom in on any small unit of any force, you can find units with extremely high casualty rates.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    Posthumous Purple Heart awardees had a casualty rate of 100%!
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    See my comment above. Total air crew and merchant-marine sailor contingents were likely somewhat comparable. The US built ~35k bombers during WWII, generally with large crew sizes: 8 for the B-24 Liberator (18,118 built), 10 for the B-17 Flying Fortress (12,731), 11 for the B-29 (3,970). That's ~35k aircraft, which would have required at least 3,500 crew members, and probably a multiple of that (presuming several crews per aircraft to sustain multiple missions). That does make the bomber crew contingent itself smaller than the merchant marine, and air losses seemed to be concentrated among bomber crews, which were larger, slower, and generally more vulnerable than fighters or fighter-bombers.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      > presuming several crews per aircraft to sustain multiple missions Everything I have ever read suggests crews “owned” their bombers. This is how you see nose art. There weren’t multiple crews per aircraft although sometimes crews would share planes if their aircraft was damaged and the other crew suffered casualties but that wasn’t a daily thing. Certainly there weren’t multiple crews per aircraft. Wikipedia says 350,000 Americans served in the 8th air force alone. That’s larger than the 215,000 of the maritime service. Wiki says 3.4 million total in the Air force but most of that is not air crews. You need a literal army of mechanics, ground crews, and mission planners. I can’t find numbers to answer the “most dangerous job” question but everyone suffered greatly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force (Defeat of the Luftwaffe) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#military_casualties_by_branch_of_service https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#mili...
harimau777 2y ago
I'm actually surprised the losses were so low. Obviously 4% is dramatically higher than your chance of death in other jobs but it's still quite low (e.g. when I'm playing X-COM I feel like the computer is cheating when I miss a 96% shot). I would have thought that in going to war, especially one as deadly as WW2, you'd at least have a double digit chance of dying.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Convoys improved survival rates… my grand-uncle was sunk 6 times in 1942/3 and fished out. The army’s policy on leaving divisions on the line and replacing losses with replacements made those infantry jobs a death trap. 17% KIA is Europe.

KK7NIL 2y ago

Is the US Merchant Marine a "US service"? They aren't an officially recognized uniformed service [0] even though they do have uniforms, a paramilitary structure and (those which are US citizens) can be called for mandatory service [1]. Not taking away from their very real service and sacrifice, it's just an interesting question what we mean by "US service". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_Unit... [1] https://www.usmma.edu/admissions/service-obligation https://www.usmma.edu/admissions/service-obligation

dredmorbius 2y ago
Is the US Merchant Marine a "US service"? They are (or have been) during wartime, attaching to the US Navy: During World War II the fleet was in effect nationalized; that is, the federal government controlled the cargo and the destinations, contracted with private companies to operate the ships, and put guns and Navy personnel, the Navy Armed Guard, on board. U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration FAQ <https://web.archive.org/web/20150411091000/http://www.marad.dot.gov/about_us_landing_page/marad_faq/FAQ.htm#q1 https://web.archive.org/web/20150411091000/http://www.marad....>
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

dredmorbius 2y ago

The US submarine warfare operation in the Pacific was also absolutely devastating to Japan, particularly as that country has virtually no indigenous mineral or energy resources. A large part of Japan's invasion of China (from whence it could reasonably readily ship resources) was China's own mineral supplies, particularly coal an iron. For petroleum though the nearest viable source was Indonesia (then the Dutch East Indies), and the US sank much of what moved from there. This fact, as well as my parent comment above about U.S. east-coast oil shipping and pipeline construction are quite well covered in Daniel Yergin's book The Prize. If you want an appreciation for just how much oil transformed the US and world, it is an absolutely excellent resource. And that's from someone who's not partial to Yergin's oil-industry boosterism.

bboygravity 2y ago
I was mind-blown by the fact that pearl-harbour (and the attack on Singapore) where planned by the Japanese with the main goal of getting to Dutch Indonesian oil reserves.

dugmartin 2y ago

And the crazy thing is they were denied access to the GI Bill after WW2 and didn’t get veteran status until 60 years later.

whartung 2y ago

> Of the U.S. services, the U.S. Merchant Marine had the highest casualty rate in WWII of 4% There was a Tom Hanks movie on Apple TV a couple years ago called "Greyhound", about a destroyer captain leading a convoy across the Atlantic in WWII. Just the very beginning, the banter about what they were about to encounter was pretty chilling.

opo 2y ago

There were certainly groups in the services in WW II who suffered much higher casualties. For example, flying in a bomber crew was very dangerous. I can't quickly find some complete stats, but for example in 1943: >During 1943, only about 25% of Eighth Air Force bomber crewmen completed their 25-mission tours—the other 75% were killed, severely wounded, or captured. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1519640/bigger-raids-bigger-losses-and-crisis/ https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact...

outop 2y ago
But you're now talking about a much smaller group within the US Air Force. Obviously if you zoom in on any small unit of any force, you can find units with extremely high casualty rates.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Posthumous Purple Heart awardees had a casualty rate of 100%!
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  See my comment above. Total air crew and merchant-marine sailor contingents were likely somewhat comparable. The US built ~35k bombers during WWII, generally with large crew sizes: 8 for the B-24 Liberator (18,118 built), 10 for the B-17 Flying Fortress (12,731), 11 for the B-29 (3,970). That's ~35k aircraft, which would have required at least 3,500 crew members, and probably a multiple of that (presuming several crews per aircraft to sustain multiple missions). That does make the bomber crew contingent itself smaller than the merchant marine, and air losses seemed to be concentrated among bomber crews, which were larger, slower, and generally more vulnerable than fighters or fighter-bombers.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > presuming several crews per aircraft to sustain multiple missions Everything I have ever read suggests crews “owned” their bombers. This is how you see nose art. There weren’t multiple crews per aircraft although sometimes crews would share planes if their aircraft was damaged and the other crew suffered casualties but that wasn’t a daily thing. Certainly there weren’t multiple crews per aircraft. Wikipedia says 350,000 Americans served in the 8th air force alone. That’s larger than the 215,000 of the maritime service. Wiki says 3.4 million total in the Air force but most of that is not air crews. You need a literal army of mechanics, ground crews, and mission planners. I can’t find numbers to answer the “most dangerous job” question but everyone suffered greatly. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force (Defeat of the Luftwaffe) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#military_casualties_by_branch_of_service https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#mili...

harimau777 2y ago

I'm actually surprised the losses were so low. Obviously 4% is dramatically higher than your chance of death in other jobs but it's still quite low (e.g. when I'm playing X-COM I feel like the computer is cheating when I miss a 96% shot). I would have thought that in going to war, especially one as deadly as WW2, you'd at least have a double digit chance of dying.

Spooky23 2y ago
Convoys improved survival rates… my grand-uncle was sunk 6 times in 1942/3 and fished out. The army’s policy on leaving divisions on the line and replacing losses with replacements made those infantry jobs a death trap. 17% KIA is Europe.