Why weren't Marines chosen for Normandy?

2015-01-04T03:44:39-05:00

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?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 3:50 AM

2015-01-04T03:50:31-05:00

I'm going to wager that this decision was largely political and had nothing to do with ability. I often wondered if they solely used the Army to jump behind enemy lines and Marines to storm the beach, would it have changed the casualty numbers, or had a different impact on the war.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 4:43 AM

2015-01-04T04:43:42-05:00

The decision to use ALL the Marines in the Pacific was done at the White House level - though instigated by the Army (out of jealousy). During WWII the Marines expanded to only 6 Divisions - the Army had 89. The Army had been embarrassed in WWI by media improperly claiming that Marines had saved the day during one or more battles against the Germans - and the Army openly admitted they did not want a repeat in WWII. While there WERE Marines assigned to the invasion of Normandy - they were a small unit (84 personnel) assigned to the USS Texas (i believe) but they were never used. The entirety of the Marines were used in the Pacific.

Response by SSG Everett Wilson made Jan 4 at 2015 5:02 AM

2015-01-04T05:02:06-05:00

The reason being that the Marines were to busy in the Pacific, and were hopping from island to island.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 5:13 AM

2015-01-04T05:13:45-05:00

From what I understand the call came from the top. They were much better suited for the Pacific. The Army had more airborne and armor assets that did pay a pivotal role in Europe.

Although there were Army units in the Pacific that performed exceptionally, the Merrill Marauders. The Pacific was also a major battle field for the Navy. Island hopping was the tactic that was most often employed. This was a task for the Marines. And Aliens.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 5:41 AM

2015-01-04T05:41:25-05:00

All of the Marine Corps was tied up fighting in the Pacific. The Army was fighting on both fronts and were the only ones available for Normandy so they did it.

Plus they had already done their African and Italian amphibious assaults so they had experienced personnel.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 7:24 AM

2015-01-04T07:24:04-05:00

Because using both the Army and Marines against the Germans would have been far to cruel and against the Geneva Convention.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-01-04T11:39:23-05:00

I would say, not only because they serving in the Pacific; The invasion of Europe was going to be a long drawn out Ground battle; The Island hopping in the Pacific was more inline with their tactics and training during that time period.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 11:45 AM

2015-01-04T11:45:54-05:00

Because we were truly fighting a World War. Everyone had a job to do. Anything else I could say has already been said. Semper Fi Devel Dogs!!

Response by A1C Peter Anthony made Jan 4 at 2015 11:48 AM

2015-01-04T11:48:08-05:00

Just my immediate thought, the marines were already heavily entrenched in the pacific theater

Response by SFC Boots Attaway made Jan 4 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-01-04T12:01:08-05:00

They were to busy in the Pacific to go to Europe.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 4 at 2015 12:15 PM

2015-01-04T12:15:55-05:00

Why Marines not at Normandy (from a related 36 EN BDE LPD a few years ago).
- BLUF: It makes more strategic sense to mass a service (Marines vs Army) in a theater of operation as opposed to giving each theater a slice of each service. It therefore made more sense to mass Marines in the Pacific Theater of Operation (PTO) and mass the Army in the European Theater of Operation (ETO) based upon the below.
- There were seven major amphibious operations in the WWII ETO whereas there were about 40 major (Regimental size or larger) amphibious operations in the PTO. US World War II Amphibious Tactics: Army & Marine Corps, Pacific Theater and US World War II Amphibious Tactics: Mediterranean & European Theaters by Gordon Rottman
- PTO amphib operations were generally smaller. All of the islands in the Pacific add up to a land mass about the size of Ohio (42,000 mi2). The AO covered 9600 miles, 13 time zones with maps/intel of beaches that were not well charted and were lightly opposed. Their purpose was to secure small islands and were generally conducted during the day. ETO amphib operations, meanwhile, were generally larger in scale and their purpose was to secure lodgements and seaports. They were generally conducted at night on beaches that were well charted and heavily opposed.
- Marines rely upon Navy logistics within about 40 miles from a coastline and beyond that they rely upon Army logistics. Based upon the data above, using Marines in the PTO generally meant they did not have to transition from Navy to Army support.
- There are four basic defenses against an amphibious attack: preemptive (hit force at base), shoreline, mobile, and combination. Each has a different focus, advantages, and disadvantages. At the Water’s Edge: Defending against the Modern Amphibious Assault by Theodore L. Gatchel.
- Assault from the Sea: Essays on the History of Amphibious Warfare by LTC Merrill L. Bartlett, USMC

Response by SGT Justin Singleton made Jan 4 at 2015 12:23 PM

2015-01-04T12:23:46-05:00

Without reading other comments, I'm guessing: The large scale of the event?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jan 4 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-01-04T12:39:21-05:00

The invasion of Saipan going on at the same time. The invasion there by you badasses put the United States finally within B-29 range of Tokyo. The Seabees were rebuilding the airstrip still under fire.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 4 at 2015 12:43 PM

2015-01-04T12:43:54-05:00

We couldn't come fight the Battle of Normandy because we were too busy fighting the Pacific War.

Most of the comments here have given fair and valid reasons.

The Corps was heavily engaged beginning 7 Dec 1941 in the Pacific. By the Normandy landings in 1944 the Navy/Marine Corps team (with undeniable help from the Army especially in the Philippines) had been heavily at war for years with (strategically) minor battles beginning in 41 and the real campaign opening with Guadalcanal in 42. Truly, despite all the politics involved, the Corps could only operationally afford advisory detachments to the ETO, which were provided and mostly ignored. (The Army preferred "surprise" in the landings to the Marine doctrine of "shoot them with naval guns for a few days or weeks, then land." Arguments on both sides are very interesting.)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-01-04T13:04:04-05:00

Anyone at Point Du-Hoc could tell you why, because "Rangers lead the way!"

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 1:13 PM

2015-01-04T13:13:02-05:00

They needed the AIRBORNE!

Response by PO1 Chris Crawley made Jan 4 at 2015 2:00 PM

2015-01-04T14:00:31-05:00

The Marines got most of the credit for Belleau Wood, even though it was mostly an Army battle. That pissed off George Marshall. When he was head of the JCS, he forbid Marines from having ANY involvement in the European Theater. This included a Marine Corsair squadron that trained for a special mission against a high priority target (nuclear development site?) in Germany.

Response by CSM Christopher St. Cyr made Jan 4 at 2015 5:20 PM

2015-01-04T17:20:01-05:00

The few the proud were a bit busy in the Pacific. Just my thought without using Google or Yahoo. The Marines have always been a small contingent with a primary mission of protecting Naval assets such as ships and bases. Again without Googling, seems like there would be far more naval assets in the Pacific compared to Europe. The Army has been larger because its primary mission has been land combat. AMTRAKs were really not designed to travel to Berlin (or Baghdad) whereas half-tracks and tanks were. The mission statements are based on some reading I have done as I recall it now, not necessarily as it was written!

Response by Sgt Martin V. made Jan 4 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-01-04T19:33:06-05:00

My thoughts and what I know (or think I know) as I read the question and before I read other comments is that the Marines were busy fighting in the Pacific Theater and only had 4 or 5 divisions in the whole Corps and could not spare any to land in Normandy.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Jan 4 at 2015 8:46 PM

2015-01-04T20:46:08-05:00

Thats Easy, they where in the Pacific. Even in WW2, when the US military was at its largest, the Marines did not have the manpower to fight two wars. The marine core of WW2 was about the size of the current Active Duty Army, give or take, the Army of WW2 was about the size of our entire modern US military, including reserves. The Army fought in every theater of WW2, the Marines just weren't large enough to do the same.

It is the same reason why the the invasion plans for Japan called for about one Marine division for every 3-4 Army divisions that would be landing. When its time for the big, knock out, hold nothing back battle, it is going to be the Army leading the show, that's what we're made for.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Jan 4 at 2015 9:34 PM

2015-01-04T21:34:59-05:00

The reason is simple, the Marines were busy with Japan. You're not going to move all your forces out of a theater for one operation, besides they had a larger landing that they eventually launched into Okinawa, well larger in that more men were used in the landing and combat.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2015 11:55 PM

2015-01-04T23:55:39-05:00

I want to thank everyone for participating, we largely agreed on why Marines were not used at Normandy. Let now refer to a 2004 article titled 'Rivalry at Normandy', of which this rather larger excerpt comes from, read and post a secondary post to your first one...after reading...it's worth the read. Some of you will not like it nor agree, some of you will smile, while others will question bias. In either case, enjoy.

*Rivalry at Normandy*

Sixty-years-ago, along a 60-mile stretch of France’s Normandy coastline, a combined force of American, British, and Canadian soldiers began streaming ashore as German artillery, mortar, machine-gun, and rifle fire ripped into their ranks. The mission of the Allied force was to kick down the door of Nazi Germany’s Fortress Europe, and then launch a drive toward the heart of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.

Overseen by American Gen. Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, the operation was–and remains to this day–the largest amphibious assault in history.
Since then, the question has often been raised as to why the U.S. Marine Corps did not play a leading role in the landings. After all, the Corps’s raison d’être was amphibious warfare. Marines had been perfecting the art of the amphibious assault since the 1920’s, and between 1942 and 1944, they had put their skills to practical use at places like Guadalcanal, Makin, Bougainville, and Tarawa, in the Pacific.

In the Atlantic, Marines had trained Army forces for seaborne landings prior to the North African campaign in 1942, and then made landings during the same. Marines trained Army forces for the Sicilian-Italian landings in 1943. Marine Corps amphibious experts were on Ike’s staff. And most Normandy-bound Army units were in fact instructed by Marines prior to the 1944 invasion.

So why didn’t U.S. Marines storm the French coast with their Army counterparts?

First, the Marine Corps was then–as it has always been–much smaller than the Army. During World War II, the Corps swelled to a force comprising six divisions, whereas the Army expanded to 89 divisions. The Corps’ resources were stretched thin, and much of its efforts were focused on the fighting in the Pacific.

Second, a deep-seeded rivalry between the Army and Marines was in full bloom: Its origins stretching back to World War I; the defining period of the modern Marine Corps.

Following the 1918 Battle of Belleau Wood (France), in which Marines played a leading role, newspapers in the U.S. credited much of the success of the American Expeditionary Force to the Marines. This occurred at the expense of deserving Army units even when referring to actions in which Marines did not participate.

In one instance, a number of newspapers covering the fighting at the Marne River bridges at Chateau-Thierry (a few days prior to the Battle of Belleau Wood) published headlines that read “Germans stopped at Chateau-Thierry with help of God and a few Marines.” The headlines contributed to the Corps’ already legendary reputation, and the Army was justifiably incensed. The Germans in fact had been stopped at Chateau-Thierry by the U.S. Army’s 7th machinegun battalion.

Army leaders–including Generals George C. Marshall, Eisenhower, and Omar N. Bradley–were determined not to be upstaged by Marines, again. Thus, when America entered World War II in late 1941, the Marine Corps was deliberately excluded from large-scale participation in the European theater. And when the largest amphibious operation in history was launched, it was for all intents and purposes an Army show.

In the wee hours of June 6, 1944, paratroopers from the American 82nd, 101st, and British 6th Airborne divisions began jumping over France. Hours later, the first assault waves of the initial 175,000-man seaborne force began hitting the Normandy beaches at the Bay of Seine. Five beaches comprised the landing areas: Sword, Juno, and Gold Beaches were struck by Lt. Gen. Miles Christopher Dempsey’s Second British Army. Omaha and Utah Beaches were stormed by Gen. Bradley’s First U.S. Army.

Between Omaha and Utah, 225 men of the U.S. 2nd Ranger Battalion were tasked with scaling the 100-foot cliffs of Pointe du Hoc. There, five 155-millimeter guns were emplaced in reinforced concrete bunkers. As such the position encompassed “the most dangerous battery in France.” It had to be knocked out to protect the landings.

When the Rangers began suffering heavy losses, brief consideration was given to sending-in the Marines from one of the offshore ships’ detachments.

Those slated to go were leathernecks from the 84-man Marine Detachment aboard the battleship U.S.S. Texas. On the morning of June 7 (D-plus-one), the Texas’s Marines began making last minute preparations: Wiping down weapons, distributing grenades, waterproofing field packs, and sharpening K-Bar fighting knives. Others were on the mess decks eating the traditional pre-landing breakfast of steak and eggs: A fact that concerned the Navy’s medical corpsmen who feared they would be treating stomach wounds later in the day. Those anxious to go ashore, watched the ongoing action from the ship’s railings.

In his book, Spearheading D-Day, Jonathan Gawne writes, “Most of these Marines had no combat experience and had only been in the Corps for a few months [the same could have been said of many of the soldiers who had just landed]. One of them [the Marines] commented: ‘This is going to be the biggest slaughter since Custer got his at the Little Big Horn.’”

At the last minute, word was passed down through the Army chain of command that no Marines would be allowed to go ashore, not even riding shotgun on landing craft ferrying Army troops or supplies. Rumors quickly spread that the Army leadership feared a repeat of the media gaffes in 1918. They did not want to see headlines that read, Marines save Rangers at Normandy. Consequently, the Marines were ordered to “stand down.”

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-01-05T09:45:06-05:00

I suspect using Marines in the main at Normandy wasn't even considered as an option. During WWII the USMC was already doing great things in the Pacific Theater and was at its peak strength of six divisions. The American amphibious main effort at OVERLORD consisted of three infantry divisions, the 4th on UTAH and the 1st and 29th on OMAHA. There were additional Army units attached, most famously 2nd & 5th Ranger Battalions; and even a handful of Marines, SEABEES, and UDT predecessors. The math tells us if the USMC provided the main effort of the US amphibious landing force, it would've used practically half of the USMC's infantry for one operation. The 1st ID had in fact already conducted amphibious operations from the Mediterranean onto North Africa and Sicily. Some of the Rangers had also completed the British Army's Commando course in Scotland, a POI which placed great emphasis on amphibious raids. The first British Commandos were Army and they remained in the majority. It wasn't until after the war that Royal Marines became the sole custodians of that legacy.

Another perspective is this; to us as Americans, because we have the USMC, it seems logical to ask this question. But it's probably one no other military asks because most of our allies simply trained their Army for amphibious operations, they didn't have divisions of Marines as we do. The best example to our left flank on JUNO beach was the Canadian Army's 3rd Division. They had the most difficult landing other than OMAHA beach, and yet fielded the only Allied unit to reach its objective from the beaches on D-Day.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jan 5 at 2015 5:23 PM

2015-01-05T17:23:51-05:00

Easy: Size. The USMC was totally invested in the Pacific and they still didn't have enough troops to cover all of the amphibious assault requirements. Remember, the Marines weren't the only ground troops in the Pacific . They merely conducted one arm of the Pacific war advance (the nothern approach under Nimitz). The Army conducted the southern approach under MacArthur, which had just as many amphibious assaults as the northern route. That left absolutely ZERO Marines available for the amphibious assaults in Europe.

Response by Capt Leslie Keng made Jan 5 at 2015 5:51 PM

2015-01-05T17:51:15-05:00

Because the Corps was really busy kicking butt in the Pacific

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jan 5 at 2015 6:31 PM

2015-01-05T18:31:15-05:00

Without reading any other responses, I'm going to say that it's because they were already so heavily committed to the Pacific campaign.

Now I'll go read.....

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Jan 5 at 2015 6:34 PM

2015-01-05T18:34:55-05:00

The Marines were too busy helping the Army in the SW Pacific Theater and they had their own Central Pacific Theater. Only can stretch 6 Divisions so far.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jan 5 at 2015 11:13 PM

2015-01-05T23:13:12-05:00

to amplify some of the posts, particularly LTC Paul Labrador's, is the man power crunch in 1944. All the services were just scraping by. The Army Science Corps was even gutted, sending scientists and engineers forward as tankers and infantrymen. Earlier, the lack of divisions in the Pacific was a huge planning issue. It saw moves such as pressing the 1CD into service in amphib ops and creating a division out of orphan regiments, the Americal Division. Wasn't about good vs better. It was all about yelling right hand red and hoping there was a combat ready division to plop into the breach.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2015 11:35 PM

2015-01-05T23:35:08-05:00

The Army in that theater were no strangers at beach landings by the time D-day rolled around. Operation Torch in north Africa and Anzio just to name a few.

Response by SGT Charles Vernier made Jan 6 at 2015 1:08 AM

2015-01-06T01:08:18-05:00

Because the Marines were busy with repeated amphibious landings in the Pacific Theater.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jan 6 at 2015 8:06 AM

2015-01-06T08:06:07-05:00

Beyond the fact that the Marines were already involved in the Pacific; I think it also came down to numbers. Simply put, at the time, the Marines were the "newest" branch. Their numbers were small at the time when compared to the Army. The amount of people needed to take the beaches of Normandy were a lot higher than what the Marines could offer.

Not to say they couldn't do it, but I think the right call was made. Have the Marines stay and fight in the Pacific using their light and agile framework to jump from one little rock to the next in the middle of the Pacific while the Army could break into Europe and use their numbers to overwhelm the Axis Powers thus resulting in VE and shortly after VJ days.

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Jan 6 at 2015 8:16 AM

2015-01-06T08:16:05-05:00

Without googling - My thought is that we were already gearing up for war in the Pacific, many and major amphibious landings were anticipated, primarily a sea and air war and at the time, the Marines were the infantry of the Navy. Taking and occupying islands would need ground forces, hence Marines. The European theater was going to be primarily a ground and air war.

Just my assumptions.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 6 at 2015 11:07 AM

2015-01-06T11:07:52-05:00

We have to leave something for the Army. ;)

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Jan 6 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-01-06T20:20:02-05:00

Because we only had 6 Divisions compared to the Army's 89. We would be more useful in the Pacific campaign so it was there that we fought. However, Marines did train the Army for that landing, and there was a small force of Marines (I believe one company) that was in reserves for Omaha Beach, but they never got sent in for idiotic hubris-related reasons.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2015 2:07 PM

2015-01-07T14:07:05-05:00

The easy answer was that the Marines were in the Pacific and the Army in Europe. However the true answer is much more political and goes deeper than that. Following WWI, the Army attempted to kill the Marine Corps through Congressional funding. The Marines had to scratch and claw to even get involved in France, and were considered a second rate service by both the Army and Navy. With the Marines consisting of 1 brigade of 1 division of 60 American divisions in France, The Marine Corps emerged from the war as if they had one the war single handedly in the public's eyes. This was largely due to the publicity that the Marine Corps received following actions in Chateau Thiery in which they received accolades for actions they deserved and also for actions truely accomplished by the Army. With this as motivation, a two decade struggle ensued in Congress about whether the Marine Corps should even exist, largely instigated by Eisenhower and other leading Army generals. Once the World War II broke out, the Army had no intentions of allowing the Marines to be involved in Europe and wanted them to be relagated to the Pacific. A war against the japs was seen as less significant as a war against European powers. Prior to Normandy, a small contigent of Marines were brought in as advisors, and during D-Day a small company of 84 Marines were present and were in support of the Rangers at Point Du Hoc. The original reports received from Point Du Hoc was that the rangers were stranded and cut off and initially the Marines were ordered in. This was quickly cancelled by Eisenhower because he knew the political ramifications in headlines that would read "Marines save rangers." Hence, the marines were never actively involved at Normady on D-Day.

Response by Cpl Shawn Ashworth made Jan 7 at 2015 2:03 PM

2015-01-07T14:03:16-05:00

To busy in other parts of the war

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jan 7 at 2015 3:36 PM

2015-01-07T15:36:55-05:00

The chiefs of staff wanted there to be a fight, not a slaughter.

"It is the only way I can be satisfied, if I use my right...over too quickly." - Indigo Montoya

Response by SSgt Emilio Tambunga made Jan 7 at 2015 7:34 PM

2015-01-07T19:34:02-05:00

It was all political, between high ranking generals

Response by LCpl Dave Walter made Jan 7 at 2015 10:50 PM

2015-01-07T22:50:59-05:00

Because the Marine corps, which is a department of the Navy, was engaged in the Pacific Island hopping campaigns, and to stop without accomplishing the mission of securing the Pacific, would have led to disastrous consequences for America and ultimately the Allies in general.

Response by Cpl Brian Brewer made Jan 8 at 2015 12:06 PM

2015-01-08T12:06:08-05:00

Because the Marines were sent to those smaller hell hole islands because they were better suited to do the landings and spear head the war their. So the Army had to take the landing. The Marines are bad ass but they still didnt have enough to do all the landings.

Response by Cpl Rodger Clemons made Jan 8 at 2015 1:50 PM

2015-01-08T13:50:32-05:00

The US Marine Corps was tasked with the war in the Pacific. My father, a Pfc at the time, was captured on Corrigedor and spent the remainder of the war as a POW.

Response by SSgt Vincent C. Kurucz made Jan 8 at 2015 3:40 PM

2015-01-08T15:40:03-05:00

Marines were all on the west coast and in the pacific

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Jan 8 at 2015 4:01 PM

2015-01-08T16:01:01-05:00

Two things, 1) Army was also used extensively in the Pacific. My grandfather fought with one of the most used Divisions, the Sightseein' Sixth in New Guinea and the Philippines. 2) if I'm not mistaken, and I probably am, didn't the Army use Marine Advisors to help plan the Normandy invasion as well as landings elsewhere?

I think both branches did exceptionally well in the theaters and campaigns in which they were used.

Response by Cpl Justin Smoot made Jan 8 at 2015 5:17 PM

2015-01-08T17:17:07-05:00

Because the Marines operational theater was in the pacific the logistics of transferring them around the world for the Normandy invasion would have been to difficult, Also the army had been successful in other amphibious landings earlier in the war in North Africa and Italy.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Jan 8 at 2015 5:54 PM

2015-01-08T17:54:21-05:00

Response by PO1 Will Stricker made Jan 8 at 2015 7:50 PM

2015-01-08T19:50:16-05:00

Because they were needed to fight it out on the beach.

Response by LCpl Lonnie Lucas made Jan 9 at 2015 4:36 AM

2015-01-09T04:36:41-05:00

Because the marines were to bloody according to the Germans who faced us I the First World War.

Response by Sgt Jerred Adams made Jan 9 at 2015 8:44 AM

2015-01-09T08:44:27-05:00

Marines were fighting in the Pacific Along with the navy way before the invasion with Normandy. I think we were Invading Okinawa (not 100% sure) when D-Day happened.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 10:57 AM

2015-01-09T10:57:21-05:00

Marine Corps history. Army has despised the Marines Corps since 1777... Also Marines had a lot of success during WW1, overshadowing the army. Then, WW2 came around and the Army lobbied to keep the Marines out of Europe so to finish in Europe and then go win the war in the Pacific... So reason behind VE day prior to VA day. Just my opinion.

Response by Sgt Dale Doidge made Jan 9 at 2015 12:46 PM

2015-01-09T12:46:15-05:00

The reason was simple, two days after Normandy, Marines landed on Saipan, Marines were also, engaged in fighting in other parts of the world. It was simple Logistics. Pattons plan for the invasion did include marines. But he was not part of the planning.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 1:28 PM

2015-01-09T13:28:18-05:00

Army and the AAC were both under Eisenhower's charge, from how I understand it. It just wasn't the Corps' theatre. There WERE Marines involved in both the African and European theaters, just not nearly as much as with their brothers in the Pacific.

Response by Cpl David Daniels made Jan 9 at 2015 6:21 PM

2015-01-09T18:21:59-05:00

Because the Marines were being deploy on the Pacific front and remove the Marine and stag them off the Coast of Normandy would have alerted the German s.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Jan 9 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-01-09T18:29:05-05:00

The Marines had a specific mission to take and hold forward bases to support naval operations...which was key in the Pacific Theater of Operations where they had their hand quite full. Overlord was an amphibious operation, but the goal -- to place major land armies into the interior of Europe -- exceeded the scope of the Marines' mission.

Response by Sgt Jarred Boone made Jan 9 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-01-09T18:30:24-05:00

Well the corps was being used else where. Granted I can't say how it was during those times but from my experience they only call us in now to correct mess ups made by other branches and to do the really messy stuff that others are scared or feel incapable to do no offense meant just from what I seen on my deployments we were always out numbered and in a bind but we were always way more motivated and trained

Response by GySgt Roger Mooney made Jan 10 at 2015 5:10 PM

2015-01-10T17:10:13-05:00

The simple fact is there was not enough Marines for both fronts, either you stop the war in the pacific or you make the Marines larger, the Army was large enough and as the results show capable enough to acomplish the mission, as a career Marine I respect the Army and its ability, Marines may specialize in amphibious warfare but by now means do we have a monopoly on it. The army has shown its ability to assault beach heads as well, and those men that assaulted Normandy were all true American heros

Response by MSgt Jon Beeman made Jan 10 at 2015 7:07 PM

2015-01-10T19:07:03-05:00

1. It wasn't done in North Africa, Italy etc. Why do it for Normandy.

2. Just the nature of the job, the Marines do amphibious landing, secure the area and leave. Not much help if you plan to move across Europe after the landing.

3. We pretty much had our hands full in the Pacific at that time.

4. I believe there were Marines involved in certain jobs dealing with the landing.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jan 10 at 2015 7:34 PM

2015-01-10T19:34:41-05:00

Because they were all busy in the Pacific?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 10 at 2015 7:52 PM

2015-01-10T19:52:09-05:00

I suspect that it was a choice born of necessity. How many Marine divisions were there? How many of those committed to fighting in the South Pacific? How many were available in the ETO? I doubt there were many. Truthfully, I have no recollection of Marines fighting in North Africa, Italy, or on the road from Normandy to Berlin.

Seaborne assaults aren't the exclusive purview of the Marine Corps. The Army not only waded ashore on the beaches of Normandy during WWII, but also on the islands of the Mediterranean and South Pacific.

On a personal note, I served with the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam and often wondered why our 2nd Brigade provided the manpower for the Mobile Riverine Force that assaulted many "beaches" along the Mekong Delta while the Marines were dug in like grunts at Khe Sanh. Curious, isn't it?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 8:46 PM

2015-01-10T20:46:12-05:00

Actual historical answer Eisenhower did not want the marines to take the glory, I personally think he was still upset of the reputation marines earned in WWI

Response by Cpl Charles Thompson made Jan 11 at 2015 2:59 PM

2015-01-11T14:59:50-05:00

Marines had the Pacific to deal with The Japanese kept em busy.

Response by Cpl Charles Thompson made Jan 11 at 2015 3:21 PM

2015-01-11T15:21:56-05:00

It was possibly more because of who was where and how much time was needed. Marines had the Pacific the Army was already in Europe . practicality? !

Response by Cpl Jason Lickfeldt made Jan 12 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-01-12T09:28:15-05:00

The war effort was arguably far more arduous in the south pacific during the island hopping operations. The Marine Corps would have been spread far too thin if sent into Europe.

Response by LCpl Robert Batchelor made Jan 12 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-01-12T12:51:45-05:00

The Marines were too busy taken islands in the Pacific.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 6:50 PM

2015-02-25T18:50:44-05:00

Here we go:

1.) Personnel simply weren't there. The USMC was (and is) significantly smaller than the Army. Additionally, the bulk of the Marine Corps were busy spearheading island hopping campaigns.

2.) In the Normandy invasion, there were 5,606 ships. Of those, I cannot recall the exact number of Landing Craft Infantry (LCI) and Landing Ship Tank (LST), but I know that there were approximately 2,700 of the landing craft types involved in the invasion. This invasion was on such a scale that beaches were assigned by nations, with responsibility for landing forces falling on the United States, England, and Canada (with supporting units from other nations as well).

3.) Given the existing focus of amphibious training for the USMC, you have two choices: Attack using the Army (utilizing Rangers, mechanized infantry, and others as a spearhead) and let the Infantry units following on be the driving force to push beyond the beachheads, or you bring in the Marines, and then at some point you need to transition the Marines out and bring the Infantry on-line...a tactic which would leave crucial time in which the enemy could mount a counterattack.

4.) This could also serve the additional benefit of simplifying the chain of command and reporting information. Those that have participated in any sort of joint exercises know that information doesn't always get passed across "the Great Divide". Having one sole primary command responsible for developing the tactical situation can provide greater reaction time and save lives through the processing of this information and providing a tactical solution.

The fact that the Marines weren't used in the Normandy invasion does not in any way detract from their effectiveness as a fighting force, any more than it does pulling glory away from the Delta Force not being selected to kill Osama bin Ladin. We are all in this same fight, and if any one branch fails to perform it's mission, we are in grave jeopardy of losing the war as a whole.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 6:52 PM

2015-02-25T18:52:17-05:00

Sheer numbers...even in the Pacific, the Army was used in a similar role. The Marines are the smallest force.

Response by SFC Ken Heise made Mar 18 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-03-18T14:13:38-04:00

Because they were too busy fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!!!!!

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 4:17 PM

2015-03-18T16:17:36-04:00

1. In WWII, the army actually made more amphibious landings than the Marines did, so they knew what they were doing.

2. The Marines were sort of busy in the Pacific when Normandy went down.

3. The army landed a whomptillion soldiers on that beach, and there may not have been enough Marines to go around. In 1945, the Marine Corps had about 474,000 while the Army had more than 8.2 million.

Simple manpower and mission planning. The same army that landed in France began the long march to Berlin. The army is organized for sustained ground combat, the Marine Corps is not.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 6:18 PM

2015-03-18T18:18:13-04:00

The Marines were already involved with the landings in the Pacific theater and due to operational tempo, could not spare large units for the landings at Normandy and Anzio. Marine amphib doctrine, however, was utilized for planning the amphibious landings at Normandy and Anzio.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Mar 18 at 2015 9:06 PM

2015-03-18T21:06:30-04:00

They were busy in the Pacific Theater...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 11:40 PM

2015-03-18T23:40:26-04:00

Aside from ship duty and a brief assignment of the 6th marines to Iceland, the Marines were all assigned to the PTO.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 19 at 2015 12:59 AM

2015-03-19T00:59:08-04:00

Great Question!!!

The Marines were quite busy in the Pacific (6 Marine Divisions vs. 89 Army Divisions) were busy, with a lot of help from the Army I might add... and we clearly had two theaters in the Pacific and Europe. Germany first meant, for that period, the Pacific was not the main effort. It would have been near impossible to move the Marines from the Pacific theater.

There were also (are also) deep divides before the Marines and Army, which would not have made a for a good joint operation.

Europe was about taking and holding large land masses, and that is the mission of the U.S. Army.

It is somewhat interesting... The Marines still talk about Bellau Wood, but they don't mention that the Army conducted the largest amphibious assault ever (It was Normandy not Okinawa), and more of them than the Marines, or that even though the Pacific Theater was supposedly all theirs, there were many more Army Divisions than Marine.

This is very interesting question. I think it was part political, and part practicality.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 19 at 2015 1:30 PM

2015-03-19T13:30:06-04:00

Maybe because they were being better utilized in the Island- hopping campaign in the south Pacific with the bulk of our Naval assets?

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 19 at 2015 1:32 PM

2015-03-19T13:32:10-04:00

Japan. Pure and simple, the Marines were busy island hoping their way across the Pacific Theater. While true soldiers trained in amphibious assault would have been a better tool for the invasion of Normandy, they were a necessary tool for pushing the Japanese back in the Pacific.

Response by Sgt Richard Martin made Mar 19 at 2015 1:33 PM

2015-03-19T13:33:07-04:00

We were too busy kicking ass in the South Pacific!!!!!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-03-19T13:35:46-04:00

Marines were tied up Island Hopping in the Pacific?

Response by SSG Rob Cline made Mar 19 at 2015 1:50 PM

2015-03-19T13:50:14-04:00

Fighting in the Philippines and across the Pacific islands prior to D-Day kept the Marines busy. Additionally, the Marines didn't have the amount of Forces that were used for the Normandy assault, something like 400,000 (?)(I might be wrong on this)

Response by PO1 Dustin Adams made Mar 19 at 2015 1:55 PM

2015-03-19T13:55:48-04:00

Most of it is covered in other posts = Primarily that there were only 6 Marine divisions in WWII and they were heavily involved in island hopping in the Pacific. Europe was left primarily to the much larger army (almost 100 divisions overall) with their heavier armor and artillery.

One point I didn't see is that the landing in Normandy was only the initial push to get a beach head, the follow on fighting against an entrenched German army was not something the Marine Corps was equipped to do as an expeditionary force. Logistically it made no sense to take Marines out of the Pacific just to secure a beach head in Europe.

Response by Sgt Daniel V. made Mar 19 at 2015 3:35 PM

2015-03-19T15:35:15-04:00

if my history memory serves me well the Marine Corps was busy fighting off a fierce enemy, in the island hopping campaign against the Japanese and I think such a large movement of troops from the Pacific campaign to the European theater would have alerted Hitler that an invasion was coming and it would have basically eliminated the purpose of having the Army do it which was the element of surprise

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 1:44 AM

2015-03-23T01:44:26-04:00

See I knew it, if the Army and Marines consolidated, we wouldn't have this problem!

Just kidding. Based on all the facts and observations, I believe that the army was just more readily available at that time with greater numbers, force, and long-term impact at that geographic area. As Marines were busy in the Pacific region with its fewer numbers, the Army was just more readily dispensable at the European theater as I've learned over the years.

Great question nevertheless... made me ponder about our military history

Response by Sgt Frank Rinchich made Mar 25 at 2015 2:43 PM

2015-03-25T14:43:47-04:00

I hope this will answer your question as to why Marines were not used in Normandy

THE MARINE CORPS IN WORLD WAR II

The U. S. Marines Corps was America's amphibious spearhead of World War II. Its mission was to assault and capture enemy-held islands in the Pacific campaigns. At its peak strength in 1945, the Corps had over 485,000 Marines serving on active duty.

The 6 Marine divisions that served in the war fought, bled and died in some of the toughest battles in the long, brutal history of warfare. They won victories across the Pacific against a fanatical enemy, but at a terrible price; nearly 20,000 Marines died in World War II, and more than 67,000 were wounded.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 28 at 2015 12:50 PM

2015-03-28T12:50:06-04:00

As you said, without research, I'm guessing that there weren't enough of them and/or they were busy in the Pacific.

Response by PO1 Stephen Caldonetti made Apr 1 at 2015 3:07 PM

2015-04-01T15:07:11-04:00

The Marines were too busy in the Pacific Theater.

Response by CW4 Larry Curtis made Apr 5 at 2015 10:22 PM

2015-04-05T22:22:22-04:00

Ok here we go from the hip...I have not scrolled any further than this, either. The Marines were not chosen for Normandy because they were just a tad too busy to join the party in the European Theater of Operations because they were fighting the Japanese on the other side of the world in the Pacific Theater of Operations. How did I do? :D

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 1:28 AM

2015-04-06T01:28:38-04:00

They were otherwise indisposed at other island vacation destination locations

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Apr 6 at 2015 7:50 AM

2015-04-06T07:50:32-04:00

Word on the street, there was marines used on 1 of the flanks....I n at be wrong and thinking of Sisley though. which I'm a lot of times I am wrong :-) never did look at Google, would be interested in the answer.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 6 at 2015 8:56 AM

2015-04-06T08:56:39-04:00

Were there any Marines NOT in the Pacific?

Response by PO1 Jason Taylor made Apr 6 at 2015 9:22 AM

2015-04-06T09:22:53-04:00

Numbers/expected casualties army had more bodies. Look at numbers lost that day vs how many marines we had at the time.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Apr 6 at 2015 9:51 AM

2015-04-06T09:51:00-04:00

If I'm not mistaken they were busy in the Pacific theater during this time.

Response by 2LT Scott Armstrong made Apr 6 at 2015 11:48 AM

2015-04-06T11:48:30-04:00

Quite simply the USMC was committed in total to the Pacific theater of operations where the strategy of island hopping requires their unique training. Save for the one amphibious landing the Normandy assault was going to be an extended ground operation until the war's conclusion in Europe, more suited for the size, scope and location of U.S. Army forces.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Apr 6 at 2015 9:23 PM

2015-04-06T21:23:39-04:00

The Pacific theater was made of multiple amphibious actions involving relatively limited numbers of men and material in a somewhat restricted area. The Normandy landings were a major invasion, the success of which, in large part depended on massive infusions of men and material. Then to be followed by numerous major land engagements. The sheer scope of those engagements would have devastated the Marine Corps. On top of the rest of it, you have to divert men and material from the pacific theater to the Atlantic, and then mix the command structure into an already incredibly complex hodge-podge mixture of different allied free forces, resistance units and sundry other "feeders from the trough".
The Pacific landings were sharp limited engagements, after which the Army could land garrison forces while the Marines reconstituted and prepared for the next landing. If memory serves, the tentative plans for the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands called for a major commitment of Army troops for the main landings with the Marine Corps. to be making strategic supporting strikes rather than having our premier amphibious assault troops being ground up in a numbers match.
So to sum it up in a compact bundle, "The Marine Corps. was simply not the proper tool for that particular job."

Response by Sgt Lauren Weigand made Apr 7 at 2015 1:23 AM

2015-04-07T01:23:16-04:00

That is a really good question. I cannot say I know this answer, but I am very interested to know the answer.

Response by SGT Anthony Bussing made Apr 9 at 2015 3:35 PM

2015-04-09T15:35:53-04:00

probably for the same reason Army wasnt chosen for Iwo Jima...two different wars, two different styles...

Response by SSG Adam Reed made Apr 11 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-04-11T19:53:31-04:00

Ok. No Google search. Here goes. Maybe because the Marines are more focused on conquering smaller areas, I.E. islands, while the Army is designed to move across vast amounts of land, I.E. Europe. Or because the Marines were already allocated to fight the Pacific island battles. Or maybe because the Army had more troops which was needed for the European war.

Response by SFC Walt Littleton made Apr 12 at 2015 9:56 AM

2015-04-12T09:56:41-04:00

Tha Marines and Navy were fighting in the Pacific. The Army and Air Corp were fighting in other theaters.

A fact I learned while reading some on the history of wars.

The D Day invasion was planned and performed by 80% non-combat MOS related soldiers.

YES It was planned that these soldiers were made available with even though they were not infantry. They were mechanics, signal, cooks and other support event soldiers. They knew there would be many casualties and it would severely weaken the number of infantry and would hurt the over all plan.

Why? Because the leaders knew this would be a long faught war so, they reserved the combat soldiers to come in after the others had cleared, opened the supply lines and provide for supporting the fresh infantry which would be brought in later to provide fresh 2nd wave to come in and relieve the initial forces.

So for all you out there that are in non combat related MOS's you like the Marines say "First You Are a Rifleman".

I was a Signal soldier with a technical MOS working half of my career working along civilian government employees and the Defense Communications agency. My first duty station we didn't even have weapons, chemical suits, formations or PT. we worked for DOD civilians. Needless to say it wasn't bad at all. Thought I was in a civilian job. The hardest duty we had was shift work.

Well after being indoctrinated into the service with this duty the Army decided to send me to the 101st Airborne Division and as a Sergeant with no leadership training or an understanding of anything Army except what I learned in basic. My sponsor asked me if I had my TA-50 and I asked him "What Form is That". He had a good laugh about that.

My chain of command beginning with the 1SG in down took me under their wing and taught me the meaning of bending an NCO and the importance of leadership and saving your assigned soldiers lives.

I learned that even though you are a non-combat MOS soldier you must be ready as a combat fighter.

The 101st was the best 7 years of my life! It taught me Leadership, Duty, Honor and what it means to be a NCO. I WAS ASSIGNED THERE AND FROM THERE I WENT TO KOREA! I faught DA to please send me back to the 101st and they did. I left my brothers the last time in 1984 and retired in 1995. I still serve that Division to this day!

Why do I say all of this is give a different perspective on this question.

Finally, I answered the original question in my first statement. A another reason the marines were in the pacific was because they were trained to Island Hopping and fighting from amphibious operations.

Response by SSG Ike Phelan made Apr 12 at 2015 10:22 AM

2015-04-12T10:22:27-04:00

Well I think this is a fairly simple question to answer. First the Marines where still very heavly involved in clearing the islands near and around Japan. Second they were being utilized trained and used in island operation and France is clearly not an island. The amphibious assault was a very small and short part of the operation I would think they did however use lessons learned from the Marines operations while planning the envision. Last reason why is the military did not start conduction cross service missions till later on down the time line. The first joint operation was a complete disaster when they tried to rescue the hostages from the embassy in the 80's. Now of course I am not completely sure about the last statement but I am confident I am right. Oh and also the Marines are a fairly small orginazition compared to the army and the Navy the Air Force was the Army Air Corp. at the time so anyway on to my point if they pulled the Marines to support the invasion of France who would be left to hold and countinue to fight on the islands near and around Japan.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2015 6:35 AM

2015-04-13T06:35:25-04:00

Without proper research, as instructed, my best guess would be personnel numbers needed and the intent after the landing. Marines are a smaller force and heavily used in the Pacific theater which involved island hopping and successive amphibious landings that could use smaller groups to secure islands. The landing at normandy was a large scale assault for a on time landing with intent to occupy and secure a sight to keep bringing in troops and supplies in the event of a protracted conflict. The army is an occupying force and the marines are not. The goals of the two theaters saw a better fit for marine expertise in the repeated assaults in the Pacific.

Response by Cpl Jim Price made Apr 13 at 2015 8:04 AM

2015-04-13T08:04:54-04:00

Because we were fighting a two front war. The Army was fighting in Euorpe and the Marines were fighting in the Pacific. The Marines are obviously the small of the two branches so there wasn't enough to send over to Europe to help with the invasion.

Response by SPC Adriel Martinez made Apr 13 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-04-13T21:14:55-04:00

Because the army knows how to shoot back not just run towards the bullets lol

Response by SGT Casey Knighton made Apr 14 at 2015 7:12 PM

2015-04-14T19:12:05-04:00

That's a good question, not sure of the reasoning behind it.

Response by Amn Josh Calhoun made Apr 14 at 2015 9:09 PM

2015-04-14T21:09:44-04:00

Because the marines were fighting in the pacific theater.

Response by Sgt Ruben Navarro made Apr 15 at 2015 5:35 AM

2015-04-15T05:35:33-04:00

With the war in the Pacific, and given the Corps was the smallest of the services, I'd guess this has more to do with logistics and personnel versus anything else.

Response by Maj Chris Clark made Apr 15 at 2015 10:25 PM

2015-04-15T22:25:09-04:00

There were I am sure many reasons, not the least of which was there were no Marines available in the numbers required to make a difference. While that is the best, it may not be the only one. Politics and inter service rivalries were a very big factor. Roosevelt liked Marines, Eisenhower and Marshall were not fans.

They (our grandfathers) did not have the privilege of fighting next to each other for almost 15 years in the middle east. If they had, the D-Day landing may have had Marines involved.

In addition, the amphibious planning factors, tactics and equipment were in many cases developed in the Pacific theater; so in reality, the Marines were there in spirit if not person.
S/F

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Apr 15 at 2015 11:23 PM

2015-04-15T23:23:57-04:00

Jumpin jiminy cricket.

WWII was very good for one thing -- turning the Army loose on one target and the Navy loose on another.

The Marines were not used in France because that was US Army turf. The Navy supported ops against the Germans, but the Navy was very glad to have the IJN to defeat in the Pacific. It was all about turf.

Response by PFC Scott Edelman made Apr 17 at 2015 2:23 PM

2015-04-17T14:23:39-04:00

Fuck all that matters is the battle is over and done with carrying on the history of the men should be the main topic, who cares what branch was sent where, we're all American and patriots

Response by SSgt William Parker made Apr 18 at 2015 10:47 AM

2015-04-18T10:47:58-04:00

The US Marines were not chosen for Normandy or any other amphibious operation in the ETO/MTO as they were fully committed to the Pacific. Another big reason is that once firmly established ashore any landing force would be conducting land operations over great distances for which the US Army is more suited.

The Amphibious Doctrine used by all the US Armed Forces during WW II was based on what the US Marine Corps had developed between the WW I and WW II. The doctrine developed by the US Marines grew out of the Advanced Base concept where the US Marines would seize islands to be developed as bases for the advance of US Naval Forces. Looking at the World Situation well before WW II the US Navy and US Marine Corps saw that their war would be in the Pacific and most likely against Japan, the rising military and industrial power of East Asia.

There actually were US Marines at Normandy and every landing from North Africa to Southern France. They were serving in the Marine Detachments of the the US Battleships, Cruisers and Carriers that supported the landings in their traditional role as Soldiers of the Sea.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Apr 19 at 2015 8:59 PM

2015-04-19T20:59:55-04:00

I think because while we are outstanding at amphib landing, the size and scope of the landing and how far inland was needed to be pushed quickly was more of an army job, whereas the rapid island hooping was more marine also the Japanese put up a fight only marines could win. :P

Response by SGT John Wesley made Apr 19 at 2015 9:23 PM

2015-04-19T21:23:40-04:00

Main reason was they were fighting in the pacific.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 10:34 PM

2015-04-22T22:34:55-04:00

Simple answer: the Marines were engaged in the Pacific with the island-hopping campaign, while the Army handled the European and North African front. The War Department would have had to pull the Marines out of the Pacific and transport them halfway around the world in order to have them engage in the Normandy landing, and that just wasn't feasible.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2015 3:49 AM

2015-04-25T03:49:32-04:00

Makes sense, the USMC does specialize in amphibious landings and assaults as well as establishing beach heads. Maybe because they were not specialized in long time occupation like the Army is known for, and it would've been unnecessary to send the already overwhelmed Marines fighting in the Pacific theater at the time over to the European theater, so they just relied on a much larger Army to do the job.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2015 1:47 PM

2015-04-25T13:47:04-04:00

Because they where all in the Pacific, fighting a completely different battle.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made May 19 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-05-19T12:20:21-04:00

IMHO the Marine Corps had their hands full in the Pacific. We already had the resources available in Englad to use the Army. Also, the Marine Corps isn't best utilized as a garrison force.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 25 at 2015 11:13 PM

2015-05-25T23:13:09-04:00

They were busy killing Japanese in the Pacific. And if I am not mistaken, General Marshall didn't want Marines in the European Theater of Operations due to the planning timeline. After Mac Arthur evacuated to Australia the emphasis was a campaign of island hoping from New Guinea onward - which the USMC was well equipped to do. BTW - the Army had done amphib operations in N. Africa, Italy and Southern France. NO WIKI or GOOGLE USED

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 5:15 AM

2015-06-12T05:15:14-04:00

Because failure wasn't an option.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 12 at 2015 6:03 AM

2015-06-12T06:03:35-04:00

Perhaps because there were simply more Soldiers than Marines? I think it was just a matter of sheer numbers. After all, the Army is the largest branch of the US military.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 8 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-07-08T13:34:55-04:00

This is really simple, while the Marines were trained in Amphibious warfare, they were needed for the Pacific theater. Remember the Pacific theater was based around taking island and not taking countries. The large scale warfare that was happening in Europe was completely different than what was going on in the Pacific. Nimitz fleet of carriers easily would of rivaled anything out there, but was not needed in Europe. Armor was needed, and needed fast. combined with the logistics to follow on behind it. Also the Army had already hand some amphibious assaults under its belt with North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Anzio, Normandy and later Southern France. It was not like there wasn't any experience in those operations.

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 11 at 2015 9:51 AM

2015-07-11T09:51:20-04:00

The Marines were fully committed to the Pacific Theater, and adding Marine aviation to support Marines going ashore on D-Day might have been the straw that broke the logistics camel's back.

Response by Sgt Jerami Ballard made Jul 12 at 2015 7:15 PM

2015-07-12T19:15:34-04:00

Because Eisenhower and Patton wanted the Army to have the victory of taking down Hitler and ending the war. It's common knowledge that the two despised the Marine Corps.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jul 14 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-07-14T16:30:14-04:00

My guess is that they had their hands full in the Pacific. Large numbers of troops were necessary in Europe to hold the beach and sustain combat for months.

Response by LCpl Jason Ryan made Jul 15 at 2015 12:16 AM

2015-07-15T00:16:00-04:00

Because the Army generals didn't want the Marines any where near Europe

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 6:20 AM

2015-07-15T06:20:19-04:00

Well, the Marines were chosen for Normandy. Namely they were involved in training all forces involved, planning the operation itself, the equipment used was designed by the Corps and clearing mines in front of the invasion fleet via aimed rifle fire. Why not use them for the actual landing itself? Well they'd already divided up the response a couple yonks prior, and the sheer surface toneage require to move just a single full Marine division across the Pacific, then via rail across the U.S. then once more across the Atlantic, or moving all that tonnage through the Panama canal, which would then take that tonnage out of the Pacific where it was still needed, boggles the mind in it's scale.

Response by Cpl Robert Lehto made Jul 31 at 2015 1:27 PM

2015-07-31T13:27:57-04:00

It also has to do a lot with their primary mission. To support Naval Campaigns. The campaign in Europe was to be primarily a land based campaign.

"The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;
The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces in coordination with the Army and Air Force; and
Such other duties as the President may direct."

Response by SSgt Jeffrey Andrews made Aug 26 at 2015 2:57 AM

2015-08-26T02:57:49-04:00

Without using Google or Wiki or any other search engine I would respond that Marines were busy taking air fields in the Pacific to end the war with Japan as quickly as possible, and that is why they were not over in Europe participating in D-Day. Remember, Japan attacked the U.S. and we declared war on them by an act of Congress. Germany then declared war on the U.S. we did not declare war on them first.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Jul 7 at 2016 2:23 AM

2016-07-07T02:23:26-04:00

I understand the discussion, I think, I'd actually seen posed a coup!e of times either here or elsewhere the while question as to why carriers weren't used in Europe in the same fashion as in the Pacific. I'd read of so called "Jeep carriers" used in the Pacific, though, that I'd always wondered as to why they'd never been sent to Europe, even if larger capital ship carriers of the enterprise or forrestal class werent due to being used in the Pacific. I'd just be interested in any discussion on that aspect, though I realize the emphasis here is on ground amphib assault, of course, hope was of interest, many thanks.

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 8 at 2016 2:50 AM

2016-07-08T02:50:47-04:00

It was decided that the Pacific was a Navy show (Nimitz). Army units like my Grandpa's came in to relieve Marines as they island hopped.
Europe was an Army show. Much smaller naval assets employed. England and Italy became "Carriers".
Japan projected power through its navy and naval infantry. There was no German fleet to threaten us directly.
Maybe a bit of traditional vengeance? PH being a navy attack on our navy?

Response by SSG Jackie Osmon made Jul 13 at 2016 10:30 AM

2016-07-13T10:30:16-04:00

The different departments at the High Command in Washington thougt that Marines would be used only in the Pacific. The service group always found that a mix of Marines and Army personnel would create a problem for the commands of unit because of chain commands of different types of training.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jul 13 at 2016 10:48 AM

2016-07-13T10:48:02-04:00

Maybe because their plate was over full in the Pacific theater!

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jul 13 at 2016 10:59 AM

2016-07-13T10:59:36-04:00

Simple. The USMC was engaged in the Pacific Theater, and the majority of Army assets were deployed to the European Theater. Given the scale of the Utah and Omaha landings, there would not have been sufficient USMC assets available to be pulled from the Pacific and deployed to England. The Army already had more than enough amphibious landing experience with North Africa, Sicily, and Italy to carry out the Normandy Invasion.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2016 1:11 PM

2016-07-14T13:11:03-04:00

The Marines were chosen at Normandy. Marine officers did a lot of the planning for Overlord. The Marine Corps developed the Higgins Boat. Marines trained and prepped the Army units designated to go ashore in Amphibious assaults, and Marine riflemen cleared the path for the invasion fleet by detonating mines. No sense rotating 1st MarDiv out from the Pacific to go put a boot up Hitler's ass when the Army has plenty of units in place that can stick the pointy end in, so send the officers and enlisted men with the experience and know how needed to ensure they get the job done right.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Nov 1 at 2017 1:07 AM

2017-11-01T01:07:46-04:00

Other the Marines assigned to the Office of Strategic Services there were no Marines assigned to Europe!

Response by SGT(P) Joe Zitzelberger made Nov 1 at 2017 1:16 AM

2017-11-01T01:16:39-04:00

I've read as much of this thread while quietly screaming inside. There are many misconceptions and failures of historical accuracy going on. I'm just going to throw some random facts out and then duck.

Amphibious warfare doctrine was developed as a joint Department of War (Army)/Department of Navy (Marines) endeavor in the 1930s, when a future need was perceived. Each Amphibious Corps was to be composed of an Army division and a Marine division. You can even find the FM 34-something online if you look hard enough, but since the question says not to google, I can't get super accurate.

At the start of the war, there was the Pacific Amphibious Corps (2nd MarDiv and 3rd Infantry Division) and the Atlantic Amphibious Corps (1st MarDiv, 1st Infantry Division). Organized per the amphibious operation doctrine outlined in the 30s.

Some say it was an urgent need for manpower by the Navy in the Pacific, others say it was because Marshall didn't want any Marines in the ETO/MTO, but very quickly, the 1st MarDiv was transferred to the PAC, and the 3rd Infantry Division was sent to the AAC. Someone may or may not have recorded some Army General saying something to the effect of "if there is one Marine within a thousand miles of Berlin, all we will hear about is how the USMC singlehanded defeated Hitler". Given the USMCs proclivity for PR grandstanding, that might not have been an unreasonable assessment.

The 1930s Amphibious doctrine quickly broke down and the Army formed it's own school to train divisions in Amphibious warfare in Virginia. They moved about six divisions through them before closing it down in late 1943-ish.

It was not until 1957 that the Army stoped training units in amphibious warfare and ceded that mission the the USMC. In 1944, both branches were equally trained and able to conduct amphibious operations, and both did.

At the time of Normandy, there were only four Marine divisions -- the 5th Marines had been formed, but were not yet trained and would not be combat ready until 1945. The 6th Marines were formed three months after the Normandy invasion. All of those four divisions were assigned to the PTO. Only US Navy ships companies had any Marines in theater, who were neither trained to assault said beach, nor had equipment to assault said beach, and were very few in number.

Planning traffic to those five beaches had been painstakingly done over the previous two years. The US Army put in an Army -- three divisions on the beach, two Airborne. The British Army did the same. You had another almost Army sized force made up of Canadians, ANZAC, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Czech, Greek and French troops operating in the area as well. An extra platoon of Marines from the USS Texas is not going to make a difference if three Armies can't cope with it, all they are going to do is disrupt traffic going onto the beaches and get in the way. The only person that every seriously considered committing the ships company of the USS Texas was the ex-Marine that authored that article that was much cited throughout this thread. They were untrained, unequipped, and there was no reason to throw a wrench into a plan that was working.

I'm going to duck now, feeling like I've pissed off the Army and Marine readers alike. Cheers y'all.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Dec 27 at 2017 8:49 PM

2017-12-27T20:49:29-05:00

It may be a simple case that the Marine Corps Is in the department of the Navy.
The Navy got both the Army and Marines ashore. The Navy was the artillery and cover for both the Army and Marines
In Europe the naval guns could reach only so far.
In the Pacific, the Navy was continual artillery and cover.
Did i miss the part where the Marines are part of the Department of the Navy