Y'know what, I'm not quite sure I'm right but I'd say that would actually be the center of the island. I know it doesn't sound like it makes any sense, but when the entire coastline is considered the front then the center has to be the back.
On top of that, If you want to defend the island, you build defenses along the frontline AKA the coast. So by that logic, enemies popping up in the center (either through paratroopers or magic, whatever sounds more fun) would be an attack on the enemy's rear.
since the marines only lost 1000 men and the japanese lost 4500, it is undeniable that if there was an assfricking on betio, it was the japanese that were the catchers of a vigorous and unlubricated assfricking.
defense in depth was most famously employed by the Japanese at Iwo Jima, which would be the only major amphibious action where the Americans suffered higher casualties than the Japanese. Both Peleliu and Okinawa were tenaciously defended by the Japanese and the Americans would suffer high casualties, however the Japanese casualties in both battles were still greater than American casualties
>which would be the only major amphibious action where the Americans suffered higher casualties than the Japanese
if casualties before amphibious landings are discounted, this would be true for a lot more engagements.
no intel on enemy locations
exhausted
no artillery support
no air support
attrition eating through the ranks
swap sides and it won't look much different. in fact, if you look at the island battles where the Americans were the ones doing frontal assaults the casualties are still huge even after essentially leveling the enemy's defenses with naval gunfire and aerial attack.
Far as I member it was usually isolated garrisons choosing to banzai rather than starve themselves to death. Reading the pacific war really drills in how bad the Japs were at defense
>Reading the pacific war really drills in how bad the Japs were at defense
Weird, you must be really moronic to come to the opposite conclusion of most historians, people that were on the ground and even the official USMC and US Army histories.
What side of an island is the back?
both.
An Island only has one side
Y'know what, I'm not quite sure I'm right but I'd say that would actually be the center of the island. I know it doesn't sound like it makes any sense, but when the entire coastline is considered the front then the center has to be the back.
On top of that, If you want to defend the island, you build defenses along the frontline AKA the coast. So by that logic, enemies popping up in the center (either through paratroopers or magic, whatever sounds more fun) would be an attack on the enemy's rear.
Just swim under it and dig up idiot
The only time anyone tried attacking the 'back' of an island was when the Germans paradropped on Crete and it was a near disaster
windward
Mmm, roasted white piggu
since the marines only lost 1000 men and the japanese lost 4500, it is undeniable that if there was an assfricking on betio, it was the japanese that were the catchers of a vigorous and unlubricated assfricking.
Op’s photo is from Guadalcanal. Those are dead Japanese soldiers who attacked the US position during the Battle of the Tenaru.
the japs did this for a while, then changed tactics on Peleliu and then Okinawa to defence in depth and really mauled the yanks
i think US casualties may have outnumbered Japanese on both
defense in depth was most famously employed by the Japanese at Iwo Jima, which would be the only major amphibious action where the Americans suffered higher casualties than the Japanese. Both Peleliu and Okinawa were tenaciously defended by the Japanese and the Americans would suffer high casualties, however the Japanese casualties in both battles were still greater than American casualties
>which would be the only major amphibious action where the Americans suffered higher casualties than the Japanese
if casualties before amphibious landings are discounted, this would be true for a lot more engagements.
My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.
>Compared israelis to termites
>Fear of Guam tipping over
Based old Hank
no intel on enemy locations
exhausted
no artillery support
no air support
attrition eating through the ranks
swap sides and it won't look much different. in fact, if you look at the island battles where the Americans were the ones doing frontal assaults the casualties are still huge even after essentially leveling the enemy's defenses with naval gunfire and aerial attack.
Far as I member it was usually isolated garrisons choosing to banzai rather than starve themselves to death. Reading the pacific war really drills in how bad the Japs were at defense
>Reading the pacific war really drills in how bad the Japs were at defense
Weird, you must be really moronic to come to the opposite conclusion of most historians, people that were on the ground and even the official USMC and US Army histories.