Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
319
From:
United Kingdom
Registered:
10/3/05
|
|
(1 of 66)
Nov 16, 2005 9:13 PM
|
As a force who had gained a lot of expierence in the pacific, why did the US not use the marines at Normandy in 44, was it due to shortages of manpower, commitments etc, I would have thought there use as shock troops might have achieved better results or am I asking a stupid question? also another quick question, american japanese troops, how many and what major actions were they used in?
hope to read some interesting replies
thanks
Ding
|
|
|
Posts:
7
Registered:
11/16/05
|
|
(2 of 66)
Nov 16, 2005 10:10 PM
|
|
it is very true about the marines being in short supply,especially after iwo jima and okinawa.out of the six marine divisions,there was only enough men left to make one division.to read more about this,join my yahoo military group called alex_vandegrift.read the files section from my father-in-laws notes regarding "the purple project" in which i wrote in from his diary:years 1943 through 1947.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,623
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(3 of 66)
Nov 17, 2005 6:19 AM
|
Mainly because the Marines were fully committed in the Pacific. The invasion of Saipan by 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions occurred a week after D-Day, 1st was getting ready to invade Peleliu, and the Marines were expected to be fully employed for the foreseeable future.
One difference between Normandy and the Pacific is that the troops who landed in Normandy were going to go on to fight an extended land campaign. Only two of the six assault divisions (US 1st, British 50th) had conducted amphibious operations before, and of course none of them were going to do any more landings. The Marines, as well as the Army in the Pacific, fought a series of shorter (though still intense) campaigns advancing from island to island, so there was more need for a specialized amphibious force.
|
|
|
Posts:
241
Registered:
10/9/04
|
|
(4 of 66)
Uh, let me clue you in on something
Nov 17, 2005 1:05 PM
|
The invasion of Normandy was in June, 1944.
The invasion of Iwo Jima was in February of 45 and Okinawa was in April of 45.
Long after Normandy, so your theory of the Marines being in short supply for Normandy because of Iwo and Okinawa doesn't hold water.
--
John
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(5 of 66)
Nov 17, 2005 3:21 PM
|
Nasty...
>so your theory of the Marines being in short supply for Normandy because of Iwo and Okinawa doesn't hold water.
Saipan. 6/15/44
Then Guam..Tinian.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(6 of 66)
Re: Uh, let me clue you in on something
Nov 17, 2005 3:22 PM
|
Nasty..
Nasty...
>so your theory of the Marines being in short supply for Normandy because of Iwo and Okinawa doesn't hold water.
Saipan. 6/15/44
Then Guam..Tinian.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,045
Registered:
1/13/03
|
|
(7 of 66)
Re: US Marines--uncommon valor
Nov 17, 2005 3:57 PM
|
|
The uncommon valor of the Army at Normandy was second to none. Marines had lost Eighteen Thousand men wounded or killed on a tiny island in the Pacific two months before D-Day and there were a few more island landings anticipitated. There were no shock troops in WW2. The Army Rangers were well trained as were the Airborne units of the Army. It does everyone a disservice to pit services against each other.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(8 of 66)
Re: US Marines--uncommon valor
Nov 17, 2005 4:30 PM
|
*
Message was edited by historicus at Nov 17, 2005 4:30 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
11/17/05
|
|
(9 of 66)
Re: US Marines--uncommon valor
Nov 17, 2005 5:48 PM
|
The Marine's mission is to conduct amphibious operations and subsequent operations ashore. The Pacific theater was the perfect place to focus them. They not only got the job done but they developed amphibious assault tactics that are still used today.
I am guessing that the logistic required to move them to them in mass to the European theater may have been a consideration in not using them to the D-day assault. There were also inter-service politics jockeying for relevancy (dollars). Most importantly, let's not forget that they were still fighting a war in the pacific.
|
|
|
Posts:
319
From:
United Kingdom
Registered:
10/3/05
|
|
(10 of 66)
Nov 17, 2005 8:08 PM
|
thanks for the replies
I must say I was not trying to belittle the efforts of all the men in rangers, army, etc I was just trying to figure out the reasons behind not using troops who had been blooded and gained an awful lot of experience in assaults etc.
Ding
|
|
|
Posts:
1,171
From:
U S
Registered:
1/26/02
|
|
(11 of 66)
Nov 17, 2005 9:26 PM
|
There were a lot of Army troops who had amphibious assault training (early on from the USMC) by the time of D-Day.
Most of the landings in the New Guinea campaign involved mostly or all Army troops. Only the 1st Marine Division participated in that campaign which consisted of a series of assaults against Japanese bases along the north coast of the island.
During Operation Galvanic while the Marines assaulted Tarawa and Apamama (Abemama) Atolls, the Army's 27th Infantry Deivision took Makin (now Butaritari) Atoll to the north. They took about 250 casualties, about 66 of which were killed, and killed about 550 Japanese during the three days it took to secure the objective. As I recall, the only Marine presence at Makin was an artillery unit which took a nearby islant to provide fire support to the troops on Makin Island, itself.
The assaults on Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians were conducted by Army troops exclusively. The only Marine presence was H. M. Smith, who was invited to observe since he had commanded the base (San Diego) at which the Army troops received their amphibious training.
Because of the success of the Marine Corps' commitment to public relations, most Americans do not realize that there were far more Army personnel and landings than there were Marine personnel and landings in the Pacific. In all, the Marines only fielded six divisions (infantry), while the Army (including NG) fielded approximately 19 infantry divisions, an airborne division (plus the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion) and a cavalry division.
Personnel move from unit to unit as necessary to assure that new units (like some of those at Normandy) have many "combat hardened" officers and NCO's at their core. Thus, Marines were simply not needed at Normandy. I am very certain they were not wanted, either.
Tom
|
|
|
Posts:
65
Registered:
11/15/05
|
|
(12 of 66)
Nov 17, 2005 10:11 PM
|
There was no need for Marine troops, though lessons learned from previous amphibious assaults could have been put to better use, such as the use of AMTRAK.
The Army at the time had plenty of experience in amphibious assaults. Throughgout its history, the Army has conducted more amphibious operations than the Marine Corps. (The Marines may have gone to the Halls of Monteczuma, but it was over a beachhead secured by the Army).
As a previous poster pointed out, the Army in Europe had already conducted numerous amphibious operations (North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio).
|
|
|
Posts:
241
Registered:
10/9/04
|
|
(13 of 66)
Geez..another one who can't read
Nov 18, 2005 1:26 PM
|
Go back and read dans92647 post, would ya, please? That way you won't look stupid.
He said "
it is very true about the marines being in short supply,especially after iwo jima and okinawa.."
He's claiming that the Marines didn't participate in the Normandy invasion because of Iwo and Okinawa. I merely pointed out that Iwo Jima and Okinawa happened after Normandy.
--
John
Message was edited by Nasty_Attitude at Nov 18, 2005 1:26 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
4
From:
San Diego
Registered:
11/10/06
|
|
(14 of 66)
Nov 10, 2006 9:35 PM
|
|
The Pacific Theater of Operations was a Naval operation. The European Theater of Operations was an Army operation.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,024
From:
Houston
Registered:
4/2/06
|
|
(15 of 66)
Nov 11, 2006 6:11 AM
|
|
At the start of WW2 the Marine Corps was a tiny outfit. Its growth barely kept up with the needs of the Pacific theater.
|
|
|
|
|
