Carlos, I did not mean to sound like I am trying to play down the role the Army had, I was just curious as to percentages because, as you said the Army did have so many more men. And not to say that the Marines fought harder or any other thing, to me, casualty rates are a more interesting statistic to look at and I believe can tell us some different things than strictly casualty numbers...if that makes sense?
Heck, if the original plan for the Palaus had gone on, I have little doubt the Army alone would have sustained as high of casualty rates by taking Babelthuap than both Marines and Army sustained on Peleliu.
If you do not have the statistic on Okinawa handy I do not mean for you to go look it up, I can do that over break. Though I understand A LOT of variables go into how many casualties and the rates (e.g. your enemy) I think they may have something to say about the leadership as well. I have not studied it enough to form a definitive conclusion so please do correct me if you think this is off base, but based off conversations I've had and the research I have done, it seems like in general (not always) the Marine leadership was more aggressive (arrogant may also be a word) than their Army counterparts in the Pacific. One specific example that comes to mind (and more of the arrogant attribute) is when Gen. Rupertus claimed that his 1st Division could take Peleliu in three days and then pushed his Marines in a manner as to complete that deadline, even after the battle had started.
I have only read one book on Okinawa, "The Ultimate Battle" by Bill Sloan, and that was many years ago. The theme that I remember is that after Army forces first came in to contact with the Japanese on the drive southward, it was a very bitter and hard fought battle until the end.
There's just so many things to read (and model) and so very little time to do it.