13
13
0
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?
Let's keep this civil, because this is a topic that could easily go awry.
Thoughts?
Opinions?
Facts?
Insider information?
Posted in these groups: 
D-Day
D-Day
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 131
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SSgt William Parker
The USS Ranger CV-4 was the first Aircraft Carrier built from the keel up by the US. If memory serves she was the only US Fleet Carrier to see combat in the ETO when she supported the landings in Morocco. She was smaller than the Yorktown Class Carriers, Yorktown and Enterprise, that were built after her and also smaller than the Lexington and Saratoga, which were converted from partially built battlecruisers, that had preceded her. It was determined that she was too small to be effective in the Pacific and so she served in the ETO. She was used several times to ferry USAAC P-40s to Africa. She later joined the British Home Fleet in 1943 and participated in operations off of Norway. She finally made it to the Pacific in the Summer of 1944 where she served as a training Carrier operating off the California coast.
The only other Fleet Carrier to see service in the ETO was the USS Wasp CV-7, which served fro a time with the British Home Fleet and was used twice to ferry British fighter aircraft to Malta. She was transferred to the Pacific in June 1942 where she supported the landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi in August. While steaming as part of a convoy bringing the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal on September 15th she was torpedoed and sunk by the Japanese Submarine I-19.
The only other Fleet Carrier to see service in the ETO was the USS Wasp CV-7, which served fro a time with the British Home Fleet and was used twice to ferry British fighter aircraft to Malta. She was transferred to the Pacific in June 1942 where she supported the landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi in August. While steaming as part of a convoy bringing the 7th Marine Regiment to Guadalcanal on September 15th she was torpedoed and sunk by the Japanese Submarine I-19.
(0)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
That was really quite good, I'd heard of the Ranger and the Wasp of course, as I'd read what youd sent, I recalled nits and pieces, though I hadn't recalled all of that by any means, of course. That was quite worthwhile, many thanls.
(0)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
And of course, I'd meant bits and pieces, lol, sorry for that other typo, wow, that was bad..."nits"? Wow, was that embarrassing, lol....
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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."
"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."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google