If the roles were changed and the US Marines took on the German Army in the West, and the US Army took on the Japanese.
My question is, how would the Marines have coped on D-Day, and up against the best troops in the German Army, don't forget, the Marines were not used to Armoured Warfare, as they weren't trained for it. Would the German Army have made mince-meat out of them.
In the Pacific I think that the Army would have coped well, as they had their armour as well, and the war in the Pacific might have been shorter.
What are your opinions.
Scott
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
US Marines in WW2
SFraser
Member Since: May 21, 2007
entire network: 112 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 09:48 PM UTC
grom
Member Since: July 28, 2005
entire network: 214 Posts
KitMaker Network: 35 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 11:23 PM UTC
Hi Scott,
given that the role of all marines is waterborne assault the marines would probably have fared better in both campains if you take into account the limited amount of armour available on the initial assault or lack of at Omaha beach.On the other hand the army was not as well trained or familiar with tactics in beachhead assault as the marines.My opinion is only based on logic and doesnt reflect on the bravery and heroism of either marines or army personel.
Regards Phil
given that the role of all marines is waterborne assault the marines would probably have fared better in both campains if you take into account the limited amount of armour available on the initial assault or lack of at Omaha beach.On the other hand the army was not as well trained or familiar with tactics in beachhead assault as the marines.My opinion is only based on logic and doesnt reflect on the bravery and heroism of either marines or army personel.
Regards Phil
SFraser
Member Since: May 21, 2007
entire network: 112 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2007 - 08:37 AM UTC
How would Patton have done in the Pacific, same as Clark or Collins.
Scott
Scott
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2007 - 02:10 PM UTC
My opinion is that the Marines would probably have done better assaulting the beach itself, and not as well once it came exploiting the beachhead. This because of their lack of armor and support troops. I can see where it may have helped for there to have been Marine assault battalions actually making the initial landings, with follow up waves being Army troops.
Emeritus
Member Since: March 30, 2004
entire network: 2,845 Posts
KitMaker Network: 424 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2007 - 08:24 PM UTC
Quoted Text
My question is, how would the Marines have coped on D-Day, and up against the best troops in the German Army, don't forget, the Marines were not used to Armoured Warfare, as they weren't trained for it. Would the German Army have made mince-meat out of them.
Best of the German army? I thought there was mainly second-line troops deployed at Normandy, because the invasion wasn't expected there in the first place? But how the marinese could have managed a against German army, I can't tell, but I remember reading that the best armored reserves weren't even ordered to counter-attack the beaches at first, because Hitler thought the "real" invasion hadn't even started.
hellbent11
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 05:39 PM UTC
An interesting question. I agree that we would have fared better on the beaches IMHO, but that slugging it out over large continents of space is not what we were designed to do. We're much better as shock troops. Just find the enemy and back him into a corner then don't leave any alive! 
gunnytank
Member Since: February 24, 2006
entire network: 205 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 11:03 AM UTC
Scott,
The Marine Corps and the Army of WWII had two differant styes of fighting. Read about Saipan. The Marines move to contact then lay down fire and assualt the enemy positions. The Army would prep the area with fire then move in. The Marines would hold in place when night came. The Army would give up ground to get a better defense poistion before night fall. On Saipan the Marines style of fighting was a more rapid advance because of this and the fact the Army was stuck in the ridges in the center of the island. With this in mind, I believe that the beach and boucage fighting would have been accomplished faster than it was. As for the break out and dash to Paris. Marine close air support would have neutralized the German armor I believe a lot better than the USAAF in europe (not thier fault, they were busy with bombing German industry). The big problem with this is numbers. The Marines did not enough people, tanks and vehicles to do the job. But if they would have gotten the benefit of the "Germany first" policy, I think "Howling Mad" Smith and "Chesty" Puller would have taken Berlin and the whole Cold war would have been differant.
Don
Semper Fi Mac!!
The Marine Corps and the Army of WWII had two differant styes of fighting. Read about Saipan. The Marines move to contact then lay down fire and assualt the enemy positions. The Army would prep the area with fire then move in. The Marines would hold in place when night came. The Army would give up ground to get a better defense poistion before night fall. On Saipan the Marines style of fighting was a more rapid advance because of this and the fact the Army was stuck in the ridges in the center of the island. With this in mind, I believe that the beach and boucage fighting would have been accomplished faster than it was. As for the break out and dash to Paris. Marine close air support would have neutralized the German armor I believe a lot better than the USAAF in europe (not thier fault, they were busy with bombing German industry). The big problem with this is numbers. The Marines did not enough people, tanks and vehicles to do the job. But if they would have gotten the benefit of the "Germany first" policy, I think "Howling Mad" Smith and "Chesty" Puller would have taken Berlin and the whole Cold war would have been differant.
Don
Semper Fi Mac!!
Finch
Member Since: August 03, 2005
entire network: 411 Posts
KitMaker Network: 134 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 12:54 PM UTC
Tough to answer this question but looking at the facts, the Army did more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps. That's simply because the Army was so much bigger (89 Army divisions plus hundreds of combat and combat support battalions vs. about 6 USMC Divisions - the USMC Divs were much bigger than an Army Div however).
The Marines tended to push faster to take islands because they were part of the Navy, and the Navy did not want their ships exposed cruising around islands where they were vulnerable.
Army doctrine certainly was more methodical, call it slower if you want but I think the combined-arms doctrine was more advanced - again largely a matter of having the resources to do it with. I would of course be remiss not to quote that old joke, "The marines are the only force in the world that uses a rifle company to soften up a hill for an airstrike".
In Europe, The Marines simply would not have had the force structure to do anything beyond infantry fights in Normandy. They had no armored divisions or mechanized infantry. They could have marched across France but they could not have carried out things like the Falaise pocket encirclement, the dash across france, Patton's mech attacks across Lorriane, the ardennes counteroffensive, etc.
All of this is not a question of who is better or anything like that. They are two difference forces with different roles and doctrine. Both committed major f*ckups in WW2. Both had great successes. I have no doubt that we still would have cleaned the Germans' clocks.
The Marines tended to push faster to take islands because they were part of the Navy, and the Navy did not want their ships exposed cruising around islands where they were vulnerable.
Army doctrine certainly was more methodical, call it slower if you want but I think the combined-arms doctrine was more advanced - again largely a matter of having the resources to do it with. I would of course be remiss not to quote that old joke, "The marines are the only force in the world that uses a rifle company to soften up a hill for an airstrike".
In Europe, The Marines simply would not have had the force structure to do anything beyond infantry fights in Normandy. They had no armored divisions or mechanized infantry. They could have marched across France but they could not have carried out things like the Falaise pocket encirclement, the dash across france, Patton's mech attacks across Lorriane, the ardennes counteroffensive, etc.
All of this is not a question of who is better or anything like that. They are two difference forces with different roles and doctrine. Both committed major f*ckups in WW2. Both had great successes. I have no doubt that we still would have cleaned the Germans' clocks.
trickymissfit
Member Since: October 03, 2007
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts
entire network: 1,388 Posts
KitMaker Network: 31 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 04:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Tough to answer this question but looking at the facts, the Army did more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps. That's simply because the Army was so much bigger (89 Army divisions plus hundreds of combat and combat support battalions vs. about 6 USMC Divisions - the USMC Divs were much bigger than an Army Div however).
The Marines tended to push faster to take islands because they were part of the Navy, and the Navy did not want their ships exposed cruising around islands where they were vulnerable.
Army doctrine certainly was more methodical, call it slower if you want but I think the combined-arms doctrine was more advanced - again largely a matter of having the resources to do it with. I would of course be remiss not to quote that old joke, "The marines are the only force in the world that uses a rifle company to soften up a hill for an airstrike".
In Europe, The Marines simply would not have had the force structure to do anything beyond infantry fights in Normandy. They had no armored divisions or mechanized infantry. They could have marched across France but they could not have carried out things like the Falaise pocket encirclement, the dash across france, Patton's mech attacks across Lorriane, the ardennes counteroffensive, etc.
All of this is not a question of who is better or anything like that. They are two difference forces with different roles and doctrine. Both committed major f*ckups in WW2. Both had great successes. I have no doubt that we still would have cleaned the Germans' clocks.
I've seen a couple of flaws in thinking here:
* first the troops that the Allies met at Normandy were not even close to the so called crak German troops we often here of. They were on the Eastern front. The first time a crack German outfit was met on the Western front was at Market Garden.
* secondly; it would not have been a good thing for the Normandy invasion to have been a Marine invasion. I seriously doubt they'd have gotten off the beach head in any serious numbers, and those stuck on the beach would not have survived. You must look at the whole picture. An online assualt would have been suicidal, and that's exactly what the Marines would have done if they'd have gotten a beach head. Unlike the Japanese the Germans were far better equiped and trained. It'd been very ugly; not that it wasn't anyway. Most people have no idea just how close we came to being trapped on the beaches anyway, and it's often said that one batallion from the 101st was what actually kept the beach head open by bogging down a complete Panzer unit. I can't fathom the result of climbing those cliffs (I've heard first hand about the terror) without the airborne assualts to their rear. Remember Rommel's plan was to trap the invasion on the beaches in the first place. It was a completely different style of warfare.
* the so called "waves of Marines" would have been cannon fodder just like the Army guys were. A more interesting thought would have been; "what if Hitler had not invaded Russia, but taken Malta and swpt south thru Turkey to the Suez Canel?" He would have virtual control of N.Africa. All the oil he needed out of range of any bombing raids Europe would have sought peace at any cost. Once he had peace in the west, Russia was his. Or another thought would have been; What if Hitler had delayed all his expansionism for 18 months? The answer is "the atom bomb."
gary
jowady
Member Since: June 12, 2006
entire network: 1,027 Posts
KitMaker Network: 115 Posts
entire network: 1,027 Posts
KitMaker Network: 115 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 05:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
I've seen a couple of flaws in thinking here:
* first the troops that the Allies met at Normandy were not even close to the so called crak German troops we often here of. They were on the Eastern front. The first time a crack German outfit was met on the Western front was at Market Garden.
*gary
IIRC, the Allies ran into Panzer Lehr and 2nd SS Panzer in Normandy, well before Market Garden. They also ran into a Falshirmjager Division, as well as a few Tiger Battalions. Far from the "rabble" of legend.
Savage
Member Since: June 04, 2003
entire network: 1,405 Posts
KitMaker Network: 592 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 05, 2007 - 02:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I've seen a couple of flaws in thinking here:
* first the troops that the Allies met at Normandy were not even close to the so called crak German troops we often here of. They were on the Eastern front. The first time a crack German outfit was met on the Western front was at Market Garden.
As John has mentioned 'Das Reich', a few Falshirmjager and Panzer Lehr faced the Allies in Normandy, but also a few other German 'elite' units were engaged before Market Garden.
IIRC these were:
1st SS Panzer Division- Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler
9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen
10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg
12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitlerjugend'
Windhund (Greyhound) Divison
Oddly the 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen and 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg were the units faced in Market Garden where they were refitting when the paratroops 'dropped in'.
Also more than a few of the Elite Divisions were faced in Italy prior to Overlord- 1st Paratroop Panzer Division Hermann Goering etc.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.