Posted on Jan 4, 2015
SSG(P) Instructor
85.1K
507
266
13
13
0
381d402fb171b4a1e9e74b7bfac4cf5b
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?
Posted in these groups: 6c6f69ba D-Day
Edited 11 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 131
SSG Leonard Johnson
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Stephen Caldonetti
0
0
0
The Marines were too busy in the Pacific Theater.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
0
0
0
As you said, without research, I'm guessing that there weren't enough of them and/or they were busy in the Pacific.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Dustin Adams
0
0
0
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Rob Cline
0
0
0
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)
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LCDR Vice President
0
0
0
Marines were tied up Island Hopping in the Pacific?
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Richard Martin
0
0
0
We were too busy kicking ass in the South Pacific!!!!!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Gerhard S.
0
0
0
Maybe because they were being better utilized in the Island- hopping campaign in the south Pacific with the bulk of our Naval assets?
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
COL Charles Williams
0
0
0
Edited 11 y ago
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL Charles Williams
>1 y
Hooah Sgt Richard Buckner. You have a Marine perspective, and I appreciate that. This is like a weekly discussion/argument where I work. While I understand my perspective is clear an Army one, I also spent some time in the military, and worked on more than one Joint operations. From a Soldiers perspective, it seems that Soldiers accept the fact that each component plays/played a role, whereas it seems Marines seem to have to always one up and explain how their contributions were most or more important. I prefer to focus on the fact that we have 4 branches a reason, and each one has unique skills and abilities, and missions. The US National Strategy in WWII was Germany First; I did not make that up. The bottomline is Marines were busy, very in of 1944.

6 June 1944 Normandy
1 April 1945 Okinawa
8 May 1945 VE Day
6-9 Aug Atomic Bombs
15 Aug VJ Day

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/GermanyFirst/GermanyFirst.html
(0)
Reply
(0)
Maj Chris Clark
Maj Chris Clark
>1 y
S/F Sgt Buckner, but you are incorrect on several points. Germany was absolutely the Number 1 Priority of the U.S. And Allies during the war. Okinawa was a USMC and U.S. Army landing. If my Memory serve me, there were two divisions of Marines and two divisions of soldiers and several in reserve. Guadalcanal was Also a "joint" battle eventually that is.
Col Williams, true Many times Marines focus on their contributions, but as you will remember, for much of Marine Corps history, the Army (and Navy and Air Force) were intent in disbanding, absorbing and/ or eliminating the Marine Corps so it is understandable that we Marines are a little paranoid about ensuring our contributions are well known.
S/F
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL Charles Williams
>1 y
Maj Chris Clark - Thanks Maj Chris Clark. I always appreciate perspectives and information, as this discussion continues today...
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG(P) First Sergeant
0
0
0
Edited 11 y ago
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
11 y
That was only the first wave. There were 3 more Inf Divisions behind the 29th, 4th and 1st waiting to land in subsequent waves.....and that was only on the first day....
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

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

close