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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
These were mentioned in the last article I posted...seems Marines were standing by and pride got in the way of deploying the Marines that were off shore
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would say that the 101st and the 82nd were tailored for the European theater. They were training to replicate what the germans were doing with their Blitzkrieg. The army armor was also better suited to the armor battles also.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I definitely agree regarding Armor...seems odd they pretty much sent the Marines as far away from the major push as possible...couldnt we have just bombed the islands to submission? Many islands had little value than a landing strips...otherwise held little strategic value. We could have gassed them. We could of held a supply embargo....the take by force seems like a waste of personnel.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG(P) (Join to see) Your questions about islands make some good points. The phrase "island hopping" arose because the Navy/Corps team did exactly as you suggest: bypassed islands that weren't needed and let the Japanese starve. The Navy did their best to starve them before Marines landed too. Most islands were taken as refuel points or emergency landing strips to allow bombing campaigns into Japan, some to secure Naval flanks for the sea lanes of communication and logistics for a final push into Japan. The most controversial of Marine battles was Peleliu precisely for the reasons you brought up, in retrospect (and some argue during the time) it didn't seem necessary for it to be seized for any operational reason, it is also regarded as one of the toughest next to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, largely because of the shift in tactics by the Japanese, intended no longer to halt landings at the water, but to delay and inflict maximum casualties throughout.
(4)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SSG(P) (Join to see), "bombing them into submission" only goes so far. The Japanese had very well built bunkers on the islands they occupied which could easily withstand even large caliber naval rifles shell hits. They pounded Tarawa and Iwo Jima, yet the Marines still had to dig them out with small arms. As Capt Richard I P. noted, strategic islands were taken for specific reasons (usually for an airfield).
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
We know this now, and actually, the Army sacrificed many non-infantry soldiers for this landing, only using the infantry after the landing was secured...otherwise they would have had no one to fight. Shitty plan...tough decisions had to be made.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
The Army was heavily involved in pacific theater as well, a lot of people tend to forget that.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google