no marines were involved when they stormed Normandy?

[Broheim]

Links to that media, be it print or online?
Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

I was stationed at the 1 MarDiv HQ, where Recon (not Force, the step prior to Force) was stationed. Having to see what those Marines went through during indoctrination and on a daily basis makes me strongly disagree with you.

the only one I can find right now is behind a pay wall.

http://sofrep.com/1439/ranger-school-from-a-recon-marines-perspective/

 

[Exterous]

Lmao. This thread keeps getting worse and worse. The Germans, especially in the western front, were not very mechanized. They used horses right up till the end.

WTF are you talking about? I said against mechanized forces - I never said how mechanized they were. The Germans were far more mechanized than the Japanese (even including fuel and transport shortages) with 9 Panzer divisions just in the West at the time of the invasion. How many tank divisions did Japan have? 4 total?. So - again - why put Marines in a situation where they would likely have to fight German Panzer divisions (mechanized forces) when you had islands to take?

The thread might be getting worse and worse but only because you suck at reading comprehension.

 

[Arkaign]

It's even more simple than that. The Pacific war was a Naval war. It was fought in the ocean. The Marines serve aboard ships and support the Navy with troops to take beachheads and airstrips. Unless the entirety of the US navy was getting moved to the European theater there was never going to be a move to put the US Marines over there.

Europe was a large scale, mechanized ground war across a continent. That's what the Army did back then and there was little use of a Navy so little use for Marines.

This is one of the best answers in the thread.

I'd also add that if they had Marines available nearby, particularly if they had some combat experience, they almost certainly would have added them to the mix. I don't believe that WW2 had quite the degree of hostility between the services that we see today, or at least not as common. I have my grandfather and father's journals and letters (all scanned thanks to my brother's extensive genealogy work), and there are frequent friendly nods to other branches throughout.

My great-grandfather served in both WW1 and WW2, and his son served in WW2. Notably, my great-grandfather suffered blindness and coughing from a gas attack in WW1, but still signed up for duties stateside in WW2. He would have gladly been on that beach had they let him. His son, my grandfather, came through mostly unscathed physically, but emotionally was never quite the same. He drank heavily after the war, and died a decade before his father did, he died on my birthday so I never got to meet him. He was remembered as a very kind but sad person, with a penchant for practical jokes that were a rare opportunity to see him smile. He also took fierce pride in his 6 children, and when the Vietnam conflict came to pass was really skeptical of the leadership. He saved newspaper clippings of every KIA/MIA from his hometown, and pressed all of his children to study hard, get into college, and avoid the 'tragic waste of precious young people' that he saw that conflict to be. He understood why Hitler and Hirohito had to be halted. He didn't understand why we should get involved in a SE Asian political conflict, not a fan of 'domino theory' I guess.

Anyway, why I think they would have added Marines :

http://www.worldthroughthelens.com/d-day.php

The UK did in fact throw their Marines into the mix. One might argue in some sense of patriotism or bravado that the USMC is superior, I can't really agree, in point of fact at Normandy they gave just as much as everyone else. In fact, the thing I learned most about all of those letters is just how much we will never personally understand, those of us who were never there. It was a different era entirely, and before long, WW2 will have it's own 'Harry Patch' moment, and there will forever be silence from those voices. Only the dusty books, flickering documentaries, and countless gravesites will testify for those who gave so much.

 

[Scarpozzi]

CG-4A gliders were also used in the invasion of Normandy. They were part of the air offensive and not talked about much. A lot of their success was that they flew at night and provided Jeeps, a pilot/copilot, and additional supplies.

They also made advances from North Africa and the invasion of Sicily. When fighting a land war, they were excellent transport platforms because they could be released at a high altitude away from the coast anti-aircraft gun range. This allowed for the planes with engines to be spared to fetch and deliver more gliders.

 

[Train]

umm, short answer is the Marines were already busy.

Started taking islands in the pacific 2 YEARS before D-Day.

"First To Fight" was a common Marine recruiting slogan in several wars.

 

[Eureka]

This is one of the best answers in the thread.

I'd also add that if they had Marines available nearby, particularly if they had some combat experience, they almost certainly would have added them to the mix. I don't believe that WW2 had quite the degree of hostility between the services that we see today, or at least not as common. I have my grandfather and father's journals and letters (all scanned thanks to my brother's extensive genealogy work), and there are frequent friendly nods to other branches throughout.

My great-grandfather served in both WW1 and WW2, and his son served in WW2. Notably, my great-grandfather suffered blindness and coughing from a gas attack in WW1, but still signed up for duties stateside in WW2. He would have gladly been on that beach had they let him. His son, my grandfather, came through mostly unscathed physically, but emotionally was never quite the same. He drank heavily after the war, and died a decade before his father did, he died on my birthday so I never got to meet him. He was remembered as a very kind but sad person, with a penchant for practical jokes that were a rare opportunity to see him smile. He also took fierce pride in his 6 children, and when the Vietnam conflict came to pass was really skeptical of the leadership. He saved newspaper clippings of every KIA/MIA from his hometown, and pressed all of his children to study hard, get into college, and avoid the 'tragic waste of precious young people' that he saw that conflict to be. He understood why Hitler and Hirohito had to be halted. He didn't understand why we should get involved in a SE Asian political conflict, not a fan of 'domino theory' I guess.

Anyway, why I think they would have added Marines :

http://www.worldthroughthelens.com/d-day.php

The UK did in fact throw their Marines into the mix. One might argue in some sense of patriotism or bravado that the USMC is superior, I can't really agree, in point of fact at Normandy they gave just as much as everyone else. In fact, the thing I learned most about all of those letters is just how much we will never personally understand, those of us who were never there. It was a different era entirely, and before long, WW2 will have it's own 'Harry Patch' moment, and there will forever be silence from those voices. Only the dusty books, flickering documentaries, and countless gravesites will testify for those who gave so much.

One of the better answers for this. There's so many replies in this thread about eliteness or spearheads, none of that really mattered in WW2.

"Elite" forces, as we think of them today, didn't exist in WW2. It particularly didn't matter where your fighting power was coming from, WW2 was a full-on, brutal war and anyone who could fight was going to fight.

The difference is that, Marines actually did what they were supposed to do and traveled with the Navy. And the European front (for the US anyway) was mostly a ground war with a bit of littoral action.

In a crisis like WW2, it didn't matter what branch you were from. Everyone got their equal share of pounding.

Even today, this poll is stupid. There is no such thing as a "superior" branch. Everyone has their duty.

 

[Train]

"Elite" forces, as we think of them today, didn't exist in WW2. It particularly didn't matter where your fighting power was coming from, WW2 was a full-on, brutal war and anyone who could fight was going to fight.

Well, there sorta was. Marines created the Raider Battalions, which were a way to inflict damage on Japanese forces before the bulk of US forces could mobilize in the pacific. Units were given the best officers, who then were allowed to hand pick the best troops from across the corps. They pulled off some pretty kick ass missions, as well as pioneered the amphibious landing style of the era.

Read about bloody ridge (aka Henderson Ridge, aka Henderson field) on Guadalcanal, 1st Marine Raider battalion was heavily outnumbered by the elite Rikusentai (sp?) and held on to the field by the skin of their teeth. The battle was effing epic and produced quite a few MOH winners.

The Raiders were disbanded after WWII, their purpose being gone. There was also a lot of animosity toward them from other units, Marines didn't like "elites" in their corps. When a specific unit always gets the cool new gear first (Raiders were the only ones with actual camouflage to start WWII), other units didn't like that.

 

[Gibsons]

Read about bloody ridge (aka Henderson Ridge, aka Henderson field) on Guadalcanal, 1st Marine Raider battalion was heavily outnumbered by the elite Rikusentai (sp?) and held on to the field by the skin of their teeth. The battle was effing epic and produced quite a few MOH winners.

Edson's Ridge!!!

 

[Train]

Edson's Ridge!!!

lol, I meant to add "Edson's Ridge" to the list of AKA's

I think "Henderson Field" is probably the most widely used term when describing that battle.

"Edson's Raiders" is still one of my favorite books in my collection.

 

[Agent11]

Marines are part of the Navy.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I'm convinced the OP is a troll! Look around at his other posts, many of them being similar idiotic polls. Then, the poll itself, ignores the USAF and the Coasties. While the USAF didn't exist as a separate entity until 1947 they did serve in WWII as the Army Aircorp and had a terrible survival rate flying missions over europe.

A thread like this is designed to flair into inter-service rivalry and for that the OP can smoke a turd!


Brian

 

[Arkaign]

Marines are part of the Navy.

I've heard it described as 'The men's department', lol.

No offense to USN personnel, but that quote always makes me laugh.

 

[TallBill]

WTF are you talking about? I said against mechanized forces - I never said how mechanized they were. The Germans were far more mechanized than the Japanese (even including fuel and transport shortages) with 9 Panzer divisions just in the West at the time of the invasion. How many tank divisions did Japan have? 4 total?. So - again - why put Marines in a situation where they would likely have to fight German Panzer divisions (mechanized forces) when you had islands to take?

The thread might be getting worse and worse but only because you suck at reading comprehension.

I'm not gonna follow the sources back, but I've read it in plenty of books myself.

When one thinks about the German Army during World War II, one usually imagines blitzkrieg assaults by highly mechanized forces, spearheaded by tanks and mobile infantry riding on halftracks. While the German Army of World War II certainly developed revolutionary tactics that depended on lighting assaults and mobility, it was not the grand mechanized force that one imagines in the movies. In fact in terms of transportation the Wehrmacht had more in common with Napoleon’s Grande Armee than it did with modern military forces today.

The German Army in World War II had a whole slew of motor vehicles to aid it in warfare including tanks, armored cars, halftracks, trucks, and motorcycles. However the backbone of the German transportation and logistical system relied on the tried and true horse, the main mode of transportation for armies going back thousands of years. During World War II, only 1/5 of the German Army was mechanized or motorized with the bulk of the army relying on horse drawn carriages and artillery. While newsreels showed German Panzers storming across Europe the truth is that most German soldiers were literally “hoofing it" across Europe. In 1943 a typical infantry division of the Wehrmacht had only 256 trucks for logistics but relied upon 2,652 horses. One division even made use of 6,000 horses, mainly using them to transport supplies and tow artillery. As the war progressed and the tide turned against Germany, the use of horses increased due to shortages of gasoline and vehicles.

While today we often scoff at the Polish Army in World War II and how it sported the best cavalry units in the world, the cavalry of the Wehrmacht has been forgotten to most. As the shortage of fuel and vehicles became more profound, the German Army turned to the cavalry to make up for the loss of mobility. At the beginning of the war the German Army had only 1 cavalry division. However when the war started to turn against Germany in 1942, this was increased to 6 cavalry divisions. Even the feared elite SS created their own cavalry division, called the 8th SS Cavalry. Unlike their counterparts during the Napoleonic Wars, the Cavalry of the Wehrmacht did not charge into battle but acted as mounted infantry, riding to the battlefield on horseback but dismounting and fighting as infantry once in combat.

Overall the German Army utilized over 2.75 Million horses during World War II, as well as thousands of other pack animals such as donkeys, mules, and oxen. They were second only to the Soviet Union, who used 3.5 million horses during the war.

Rather than the German Army being the great mechanized force of World War II, it was the Americans and the British who mastered the science of mechanized warfare. When both powers entered the war they sported armies that were almost 100% mechanized. Horses and cavalry were rarely used, and usually only used on terrain that could not support vehicles, such as in the jungles of Burma and New Guinea. While the United States had 14 million horses in 1940, it was due to the efforts of military men such as Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Gen. George S. Patton that the US Army would become the most mechanized force in WWII. Under direction of the the War Production Board, all automobile companies were ordered to produce only military vehicles, not a single civilian automobile was produced from 1942 to 1945. As a result the United States produced 2,381,311 military trucks as well as 640,000 jeeps and thousands of other military vehicles. While many vehicles were used by the US Army, many more were exported to allies such as Britain, the Soviet Union, and China. By comparison Germany only managed to produce 345,914 military trucks. The German Wehrmacht could not stand against the might of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler.

I never said anything about Germany being less mechanized than Japan. I was just stating that US transportation crushed the Germans. We built 3million vehicles while Germany built 345k.

As for why we didn't use Marines, they were already busy. Simple as that, not because Europe was "mechanized". By D-day it didn't matter who was the best fit, what mattered was who was the best fit from who was available. I guarantee the Corps would have jumped all over the opportunity.

It wouldn't have mattered anyways, with the Luftwaffe on the serious decline. But whatever, my reading comprehension sucks and I'm a fucking idiot.

 

[Ackmed]

Marines are part of the Navy.

The men's department.

edit, dammit someone beat me to it.

 

[Remobz]

This is one of the best answers in the thread.

I'd also add that if they had Marines available nearby, particularly if they had some combat experience, they almost certainly would have added them to the mix. I don't believe that WW2 had quite the degree of hostility between the services that we see today, or at least not as common. I have my grandfather and father's journals and letters (all scanned thanks to my brother's extensive genealogy work), and there are frequent friendly nods to other branches throughout.

My great-grandfather served in both WW1 and WW2, and his son served in WW2. Notably, my great-grandfather suffered blindness and coughing from a gas attack in WW1, but still signed up for duties stateside in WW2. He would have gladly been on that beach had they let him. His son, my grandfather, came through mostly unscathed physically, but emotionally was never quite the same. He drank heavily after the war, and died a decade before his father did, he died on my birthday so I never got to meet him. He was remembered as a very kind but sad person, with a penchant for practical jokes that were a rare opportunity to see him smile. He also took fierce pride in his 6 children, and when the Vietnam conflict came to pass was really skeptical of the leadership. He saved newspaper clippings of every KIA/MIA from his hometown, and pressed all of his children to study hard, get into college, and avoid the 'tragic waste of precious young people' that he saw that conflict to be. He understood why Hitler and Hirohito had to be halted. He didn't understand why we should get involved in a SE Asian political conflict, not a fan of 'domino theory' I guess.

Anyway, why I think they would have added Marines :

http://www.worldthroughthelens.com/d-day.php

The UK did in fact throw their Marines into the mix. One might argue in some sense of patriotism or bravado that the USMC is superior, I can't really agree, in point of fact at Normandy they gave just as much as everyone else. In fact, the thing I learned most about all of those letters is just how much we will never personally understand, those of us who were never there. It was a different era entirely, and before long, WW2 will have it's own 'Harry Patch' moment, and there will forever be silence from those voices. Only the dusty books, flickering documentaries, and countless gravesites will testify for those who gave so much.

here here.....well said!

 

[Remobz]

I'm not gonna follow the sources back, but I've read it in plenty of books myself.



I never said anything about Germany being less mechanized than Japan. I was just stating that US transportation crushed the Germans. We built 3million vehicles while Germany built 345k.

As for why we didn't use Marines, they were already busy. Simple as that, not because Europe was "mechanized". By D-day it didn't matter who was the best fit, what mattered was who was the best fit from who was available. I guarantee the Corps would have jumped all over the opportunity.

It wouldn't have mattered anyways, with the Luftwaffe on the serious decline. But whatever, my reading comprehension sucks and I'm a fucking idiot.

I read somewhere that the Marines consulted and had lots of input in the planning phases of the Normandy invasion.

Makes sense to have the Marines consult while the Army...practices...practices..practices... to get it right

 

[Scotteq]

I've heard it described as 'The men's department', lol.

No offense to USN personnel, but that quote always makes me laugh.

No worries - It's a good natured rivalry... for the most part 😛

 

[NTMBK]

I'm not gonna follow the sources back, but I've read it in plenty of books myself.



I never said anything about Germany being less mechanized than Japan. I was just stating that US transportation crushed the Germans. We built 3million vehicles while Germany built 345k.

As for why we didn't use Marines, they were already busy. Simple as that, not because Europe was "mechanized". By D-day it didn't matter who was the best fit, what mattered was who was the best fit from who was available. I guarantee the Corps would have jumped all over the opportunity.

It wouldn't have mattered anyways, with the Luftwaffe on the serious decline. But whatever, my reading comprehension sucks and I'm a fucking idiot.

The German "cavalry" you mention there sound more like dragoons.

 

[Nintendesert]

I'm not gonna follow the sources back, but I've read it in plenty of books myself.



I never said anything about Germany being less mechanized than Japan. I was just stating that US transportation crushed the Germans. We built 3million vehicles while Germany built 345k.

As for why we didn't use Marines, they were already busy. Simple as that, not because Europe was "mechanized". By D-day it didn't matter who was the best fit, what mattered was who was the best fit from who was available. I guarantee the Corps would have jumped all over the opportunity.

It wouldn't have mattered anyways, with the Luftwaffe on the serious decline. But whatever, my reading comprehension sucks and I'm a fucking idiot.

The race across Europe by Patton wasn't something the Marines were suited for, that was for mechanized units and the armored divisions. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. 😕

 

[Gibsons]

The race across Europe by Patton wasn't something the Marines were suited for, that was for mechanized units and the armored divisions. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. 😕

Marines can ride in trucks too.

 

[brainhulk]

Marine pfc vs Army pfc - who has more training?

 

[TallBill]

The race across Europe by Patton wasn't something the Marines were suited for, that was for mechanized units and the armored divisions. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. 😕

Dunno where you got that from, the US Army was highly mechanized and supported with Air Superiority. That's kind of exactly what my post just said.

 

[rudeguy]

The race across Europe by Patton wasn't something the Marines were suited for, that was for mechanized units and the armored divisions. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. 😕

I thought we were talking about the landing, not the whole war?

From my understanding it came down to 2 things:

1) The Marines were already a little bit busy.
2) The numbers of soldiers planned to be used in the invasion were not something the Marines possessed.

Its not a prestige issue, its a logistics issue.

 

[Broheim]

Marine pfc vs Army pfc - who has more training?

depends...

but probably the marine, thanks to fucked up cutting scores.*





*funny answer

 

[Ackmed]

The Marine by far. Just because of Marines boot camp versus Army basic training. It's longer, tougher, and much less forgiving. There are no off days, iphones, etc in Marine Corps boot camp.