Posted on Jan 7, 2015
Capt Richard I P.
29K
85
24
8
8
0
Screen shot 2015 04 13 at 5.39.11 pm
Inspired by discussions generated in the thread started by SSG(P) (Join to see):
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/why-weren-t-marines-chosen-for-normandy?urlhash=406436

Particularly some comments by LTC Paul Labrador pointing out that the Army really did execute significant numbers of complex amphibious landings. Given these facts, why did General McArthur, who commanded the campaign in the Philippines in WWII assign an amphibious landing of such critical importance nearly exclusively to Marines? (only involving Army SF and supporting arms, and some follow-on army Armor, and the overall command staff of the X Corps?)
Edited 11 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 11
LTC Paul Labrador
8
8
0
Edited 11 y ago
I think a big part of it was due to the state of the Post-WW2 Army and who was actually prepared and immediatley available to conduct an Amphibious assault and what else was going on in Korea at the time the landings were conducted. The post WW2 Army was severly gutted and readiness/training of remaining units was not in good repair (see Task Force Smith). Most available Army units in the Far East had already been committed to the Pusan Perimeter and were barely hanging on. If you study the operation, it is interesting that the Marines were not MacArthur's first choice of troops. The original plan was to use 1st Cav Div, the unit that MacArthur relied heavily upon during his landings in WW2, but they were rerouted to holdling the Perimeter. The same happened to 2ID and 7ID (which was in reserve status and would need significant rebuilding) would not be ready in time. Stateside Army units could not be mobilized, trained, equipped and moved fast enough to conduct the operation as the hold on Pusan was tenous and the forces fighting there needed to be relieved ASAP. So who was left that was not already engaged and could realistically pull off this operation on relatively short notice with a good chance of success? The Marines were. So I would hesitate to read into MacArthur's choice of using Marines at Inchon to infer that "it was a job only Marines could do." It is more accurate that MacArthur, begrudgingly because there was still a lot of interservice rivarly happening, used the Marines because that's all he had left available who had the training to conduct Operation Chromite within the time frame needed. This is not taking anything away from the Corps. I've visited the Inchon landing sites on a staff ride. The Marines did a brilliant job of overcoming not only the North Koreans, but the unique geographic challenges of Inchon.
(8)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
11 y
Another thing to bear in mind is the time frame of this part of history. The Korean War started on 25Jun50. Chromite landings commenced on 15Sep50. From the start of the war to the first Marines hitting the "beach" (there really isn't a beach in Inchon) was under 90 days. That is AMAZING. Chromite was a hastly thrown together, ad hoc operation. It is a wonder that MacArthur and his staff were able to pull this off. The only thing going for him was the vast experience his subordinate leaders had amassed during operations in the PTO.
(3)
Reply
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
11 y
BTW, if anyone ever goes to Korea (PCS or TDY) try to get out to Inchon. It is well worth it. There is also a statue recreating the famous Inchon Landing photo (featuring 1st Lt Lopez going over the sea wall) that Capt Porter posted. For you history buffs. Minutes after the photo was taken 1st Lt Lopez was killed when he jumped on a grenade to save his Marines. He was awarded a MoH for that act.
(5)
Reply
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Capt Richard I P.
11 y
LTC Paul Labrador, your history posts are always great. I think you make some awesome points about the realities of the situation. LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® also brought up the fact that MacArthur originally wanted soldiers doing the landing but couldn't afford to weaken the Pusan Perimeter that far. In the end, having a large, un-engaged force that spent the past 5 years doing repeated amphibious landings...it just made too much sense. Operational (deciding when and where to fight and with what units) brilliance on his part, tactical brilliance on that of the Marines.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
11 y
Capt Richard I P. thanks! I am a military history buff, so I enjoy these kinds of conversations. It was funny, back in ILE, I was having a discussion with our History instructor about something Napoleonic tactics or some such and the physician in my small group was like "how do you know this stuff?"
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Mark Merino
6
6
0
Edited >1 y ago
1 1
Because Doug was PISSED!
(6)
Comment
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
11 y
INCHON - OPERATION CHROMITE The amphibious landings of 15 September 1950 at Inchon were General MacArthur's masterstroke. As Eight Army struggled to maintain fighting room in the southeast of Korea, he had his thoughts fixed upon a possible landing in the enemies rear to reverse the war. The biggest logistical challenge was to have all units, their equipment and supplies, as well as transports, landing ships and craft, and other ships, ready in time for D-day.




http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/hermansen/6.html
(5)
Reply
(0)
SPC Nancy Greene
SPC Nancy Greene
6 y
Thank You for the excellent information !SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Cavalry Officer
6
6
0
David Habersham's book "The Coldest Winter; America and the Korean War" goes into this very well. He postulates it was a political move on McArthur's part to bring in support from the Marines, especially related to the Joint Chiefs.
Very complicated relationships and I would have to go back and re-read that section, but if I remember correctly, by bringing in a Marine Division, McArthur could effectively gain support for the mission from another branch (and therefore the Marine Commandant).
I highly recommend this book BTW.
(6)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
11 y
And if you thought interservice rivalries and politics are bad now, you should look how they were back then..... ;o)
(7)
Reply
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
>1 y
@LTC J KEITH P. Army Historian, General S L A Marshall’s book, The River and the Gauntlet was published earlier than Halberstam’s.

GEN Marshall told of Band members of the 2nd ID’s Band fought as Infantry Soldiers, during a retreat early in the Korean War. The problem of frozen M-1 Rifles was solved by urinating on the actions.

There are several copies available at Abebooks.com for less than $10 + shipping. (Sep 14, 2018)
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Avatar feed
Why were Marines chosen for Inchon?
LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU®
5
5
0
Much of the tactics involved depends on the availability of units. The US Army had unfortunately been ill-equipped to handle the beginning of the Korean conflict. Task Force Smith near Pusan was a disaster where our soldiers had machine guns against tanks.

As the Army massed at the Pusan Perimeter, MacArthur originally wanted the 1st Cav division and 2nd ID to spearhead the amphibious assault. But it was clear both units were needed at the Pusan Perimeter or else the North Koreans would have taken the peninsula.

The amphibious assault would not have worked if Pusan was lost. The marines were also short-handed. X Corps was a combination of forces with the 5th marines that landed at Inchon. Marines are primarily supposed to be used for amphibious assaults.

The second day the Army's 7th ID arrived and pushed through to Seoul. Other forces cleared the mines, weakened some of the NK defenses, and bombed the areas. What I see is that all branches were needed to make it successful.

It isn't a matter of one better than the other. They have different mission sets and each requires the help of the other.
(5)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
11 y
Yup. It was more a matter of who was not already engaged and available. For the most part, the Marines were not engaged and readily available.
(6)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Brad MarkW
4
4
0
It's been a while and I apologize for not remembering the source, but the author argued that it just came down to the cutbacks after WWII. The army (and the Navy who supported them) of 1950 no longer had the same capabilities as it did in Normandy. Remember also that the massive invasion of Normandy was staged in England, just a few miles away from Normandy. Inchon is on the eastern side of Korea and more or less surrounded by China. Not exactly friendly territory.


In 1950, the only force that was capable of conducting a self-supporting beach landing, in the time line needed, were the Marines. That may be an over simplification but that’s what really mattered to MacArthur. That it be done and that it be successful. Remember the 8th Army was desperate to get some relief.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Zachary Brooks
4
4
0
Edited 11 y ago
It appears from what I have reread (to recall the battle) that other forces from the UN and South Korea were also involved. Likely the best choice was that the Area of Operations was owned by the 5th Marine Regiment and their joint forces and was therefore given the mission to operate due to the land they commanded.

The beach heads (Red Blue and Green) appeared to also consist of a smaller amount of real estate than had the aforementioned Normandy. Marines are efficient in smaller groups, arguably more than any other normal force sans special forces, and therefore would be well chosen to dominate small areas of beach effectively.

And maybe in this case, they just wanted to end the battle as quickly as possible and make the North Korean generals crap themselves.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Capt Richard I P.
11 y
CPT Zachary Brooks I'm confused.... in the other thread it would imply the Marines would have finished Normandy too quickly, but here it would mean you think the Army would have finished it more quickly? Seems contradictory (and arguably impossible to finish Inchon any faster than it was).
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
CPT Zachary Brooks
11 y
Seems I misread the intent of the thread. I plan to reread and edit my comment. Thanks for pointing that out.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Kenneth Hunnell
2
2
0
If i had a crystal ball, i would all General MacArthur why he choose the Marines, maybe they were part of the department of the Navy
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LCpl Mark Williams
2
2
0
Because like the boxer rebalion, we are the most able to handle a hard situation and most prepared.
(2)
Comment
(0)
1LT William Clardy
1LT William Clardy
>1 y
Aw jeez, LCpl Mark Williams, and here I thought it was just like that Robert Redford line in "A Bridge Too Far" -- they needed somebody good enough to do it, but dumb enough to try doing it...
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT James Hastings
SGT James Hastings
>1 y
If my info is correct, when they jumped out of those landing craft and sunk up to their knees in mud because of lack of tide information they were lucky that the enemy thought no one would be dumb enough to land there!
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
TSgt Joshua Copeland
2
2
0
If I had to guess...(without my google fu or reading other's answers:

What is they were already in the AOR, Capt Richard I P.?
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC James Fie
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
"RallyPoint | Why weren't Marines chosen for Normandy?

Without using Google,Wiki, or any other search engine...using only what you know the second you read the question -- Give your opinion why Marines, trained in Amphibious landing, were not used at Normandy on D-Day. Let's keep this civil, because this is a topic that could easily go awry. Thoughts? Opinions? Facts? Insider information?"

Why weren't Marines used on D-Day. Hmm....

Because they were too busy running amphib landings from one ISLAND to the next, in the Pacific?

And yes, they'd had a lot more practice at it than the Army, even including North Africa, Sicily, Anzio and points north, AND Normandy. And the Army was indeed rather busy elsewhere at the time.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close