Why weren't Marines chosen for Normandy?

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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!

They needed the AIRBORNE!