Posted on Apr 7, 2015
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
0
0
0
Enhanced buzz wide 28632 1353103917 7 1
Us sw pacific compare 1947 1
It was another post that picked my curiosity.
The post was about why didn't the Marines took part in the Normandy Landings.

The answers and reasons were all accurate, chief among them, the MArines were spread thin fighting the Pacific War.

And so this past weekend while visiting a WWII Aviation Museum, they showed us two sobering size comparison maps to illustrate the vast size of area that either branch was fighting in.

It all boiled down to the Army was fighting roughly in the State of Texas, while the Marines where fighting in what could have been the USA.

According to National WWII Museum, by the time Normandy took place, the Army had roughly 7.9 million soldiers versus only 475,000 Marines, yet the Marines had almost 11 times more area to cover, move around and fight in than the Army.

Very sobering.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html
Avatar feed
Responses: 3
CW3 Kevin Storm
0
0
0
Great point except...the Army was also in the Pacific.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Contracting Officer
0
0
0
Why the small sections, what about Africa, and the Italian campaigns.

And who led the Marines, right the Army. (Gen McArthur) And even at that most of the engagements were decided by the Navy, ground troops were just the mop up operations once Japan lost their carrier aircraft.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Corey Franks
0
0
0
Interesting read and cool pictures. Texas is huge!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

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

close