How was it similar, how was it different? The problem with examples which are too different is that the comparison is meaningless.
The answer is well known, so it should be straightforward.
Actually, you haven’t pointed out loads of contested landings. There is one deeply flawed example, which can be shown why, but that particular landing isn’t really comparable. I’ll leave aside the Philippines landings for a minute, but we can come back to them if you can give any specific reasons to compare them.
The greater flaw in your logic is not understanding the numbers.
This was an atoll with dug-in troops, with an insane number of weapons. Look at the weapons quoted above: five 5" guns, four 3" guns, twelve 3" AA guns, forty-eight .50 cal guns, thirty-six .30 cal guns.
If you do the math, 2,500 attacking Japanese troops are facing 84 machine guns, or IOW, each machine gun is responsible for shooting 30 troops. That’s not even counting the heavier artillery.
The Marine commander was a veteran of WWI, and knew how to slaughter. Nimitz had personally gone to Midway to inspect the defense one month prior. He told the local commanders that they were expecting an attack from carriers and promised to supply whatever was required.
Make no mistake. This argument does not dependent on any inherent weakness of the Japanese. If the situation were identical but completely reversed, with the Japanese defending the island and the US attacking, and having the same numbers of men but just reversed, I would say with as much confidence that the Japanese would slaughter those poor leathernecks before their boots hit dry sand.
The only difference is that the US commanders simply would have refused this suicide mission.
There isn’t any way for 2,500 troops, of any nation, to land on a reef a couple hundred meters away from the beach, make it through all the obstacles, mines, artillery, and machine guns. And then be ready to face tanks.
You wanted numbers, you’ve got them now.
How do they do it?