its 2:17 AM...i'm thinkin...maybe not straight, but thinking none the less




why weren't Marines sent to the European front? they seemed to have proved their ferociousness against the German army in ww1? after all, it is where they coined the term "Devil Dog" ( teufel hunden)



bed time

IIRC There were Marines in the ETO, just not in force. The Marines, for the most part, handled the Pacific theatre.

During Overlord USMC Riflemen kept floating mines at bay. They also had a small part in Operation Dragoon (invasion of southern France).

If memory serves me right, and it comes and goes :-) . The Marines were so effective in WWI that General Black Jack Pershing issued a standing order that the Marines were never to serve in Europe again. Seems they sort of embarrassed the Army.
Jerry

I've heard the Pershing story before and frankly it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest...

I do tend to think that the real reason for the vast majority of U.S.M.C. units being sent to the Pacific Theater, was the nature of the combat - Forced Assault, i.e. Amphibious warfare. They were simply the best at it...Jim

Just finished Max Hastings' "Armageddon" about the war in Europe from the breakout in Normandy to the fall of Berlin. Highly recommended. Anyway, according to the book Eisenhower requesed 100,000 Marines at the beginning of the BotB and was turned down. I bet the had to swallow hard to even ask.
It is a good question though. I always wondered why there weren't masses of AMTRACs at Normandy...

Shaun

Pershing in WWI never liked the Marines. He believed that if they fought on the ground, they should be in the Army. This was essentially a turf war. He usually assigned the units to guard duty or outposts. When he sent them into Belleau Wood (sp?), an area that if I recall correctly had no military significance, they were slaughtered. This was not because of a lack of action or training, but because of the tenacity of the Marines and the terrain they were fighting in. It was the Germans that nicknamed them the Devil Dogs, but Pershing still never was convinced.

I don't know about the standing order against Marines in the ETO ever again, but that wouldn't suprise me.

In WWII, Marshall did not want the Marines in the ETO. Their knowledge and development of amphibious warfare, the one thing that kept the Marines alive after WWI was needed in the Pacific for the taking of islands. This was just as well for Marshall as many later believed that some of Pershing's ideals rubbed off on Marshall in certain areas.

Jeff

I knew most of them went to the pacific, but w/ the impending invasions at Normandy, you'd think that the marines would have been called in for such a large invasion, and the army could handle the island hopping, guess it could work either way?

From what I have read, and I can't site a source on this, high ranking Naval and Marine officers in the Pacific were shocked that were not even asked for input before the Normandy invasion. Granted, they had enough on their plates but they were experienced at landing troops against heavy enemy resistance by 1944. The Army wasn't. I don't think the beaches in the Med, Sicily, Italy ,etc. were nearly as heavily defended as say Omaha...

Shaun

Another possible solution would be 'Empire-Building' within the various arms of service (in every defense department of every country)... The U.S. Army may have seen the Marine Corps as an irritaion or a threat. Looking at the expansion the U.S.M.C. experienced from the 1930s until the end of WW2, it was certainly going to put a few 'noses out of joint' - in recent history (with the formation of CentCom) similar manouevering took place. Every service wanting a bigger slice of the pie... Army Aviation in the 1950s/60s?...Jim

Also don't forget that there were plenty of people who wanted to see the Marine Corps disbanded, they felt it served no purpose. WWII proved that idea wrong and showed there was a great need for the Marine Corps. As always, there's major turf battles that were waged too which didn't help the matter.

Shain

In terms of their experience, the Marines were not needed for the assualts in Normandy. The US Army, along with the British Army, had gained enough experience in the amphibious operations conducted in the Med. Also by the time of D-Day the majority of ampihibious ops in the Pacific were too small in scale when compared to maost that had taken place in the med. Also, the main units to gain experience in the major style of operation that took place in Normandy, the Engineer Assualt Brigade, had as I say gained more valuable experience in the Med.

As a comparison, despite the numerous reports which flowed between the PTO and ETO, the British took more notice of their own experience in the Med and at Dieppe, and this was to have such an influence as to see the formation of the 79th Armoured Division, a unit that Bradley refused to use, despite being offered its use. This refusal, along with the misuse of the DD Tanks, are among the main reason for the failure at Omaha.

The ops in the med were more akin to D-Day, thus them being used as the basis for Normandy, and not the experience in the PTO. It was not till about the same time that the PTO started mounting anything as large as ETO ops. Thus, not the main reaon the Marines, and their experience, being used in the ETO.

Ross

P.S. That bit bout Pershing sounds interesting and quite in character.

This subject is by no means my forte, but I always just thought that the reason the Marines weren't deployed in Europe was be cause the USN was predominantly deployed in the Pacific, and as a division of USN they were deployed where the bulk of the Navy was...

I'm obviously wrong, but that's just my 2 ZAR cents worth... (which BTW is worth 1/7th of 2 USD cents LOL :-) )

Rudi

Rudi

You bring up n interestng issue. As a division of the USN, it wasn't Marshall but King who controlled the deployment of the Marines. As a convinced Pacific first supporter, it is arguably possible that despite other needs King restricted their use as he di believed the PTO ops should take precedent over the ETO. An interesting thought, I wonder if there is any documentary evidence to bask it up. Hmm...

Ross

Keeping in mind that the Marines were a small fighting force attached to the Navy. Not an expert, but I don't think there were more than 6 total Marine Divisions (someone please correct if this is wrong). Their forte was landing on the beach securing it, and in the vast majority of their battles the Army came in (Iwo and Tarawa excepted)to finish the battle up, (Guadalcanal, Pelilu, Saipan) Okinawa was planned as a joint operation with the majority of the nasty work going to the Army. Thier mission was not conducive to military ops in the ETO. Iknow the Espirit de Corp of the Marines, and their great "Public affairs" machinery, but the US Army has done the vast majority of the fighting for this country. From 1776 to date, they have carried the brunt of the fighting and always will.

Steven M. Joyce
Armor MAJ

I have been reading "Master of Sea Power" a biography of Admiral Ernest King. Even with the Germany First decision, Admiral King was determined to go on the offensive in the Pacific using mainly his assets. In WWII the Marine Corps was subordinate to the Navy. Admiral King decided where the Marine Divisions would be deployed. There was no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who could have overruled him.

By the time for Overlord had begun and prior to June 6, 1944, Marine Divisions wer committed to the Pacific offensives, first in the SW Pacific and then in the Central Pacific. Immediately prior to Overlord, the 2nd 3rd and 4th Marine Divisions, as well as the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade had all been committed to the Operation Forager, the invasion of the Marianas.

The only way the Marines could have had an impact on Normandy would have been to make the assault landings. That would have taken 3 Marine Divisions. Those Divisions would have had to come from the Pacific. The Marine Corps at the time did not have the capability of putting three additional divisions into the field. Taking 3 Marine divisions from the Pacific would have put the Central Pacific on hold. Admiral King would not have countenanced that.

Look at the situation this way. The Marines were the best amphibious troops in the world. The largest, most difficult amphibious assault landings would be taking place in Europe. Admiral King wanted to keep his Marines out of Europe so he could use them for the smaller landings in the Pacific. Main responsibility for keeping the Marines out of Europe rests with Admiral King.

The beaches at Salerno were defended, mainly by the 16th Panzer Division.

In any event, the first corps sized assault in Marine Corps history was the invasion of Saipan which took place 9 days after Normandy. Prior to Normandy, US Army troops conducted Corps sized landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. It is not entirely true that the Army had no experience.

Further, in spite of their training, the Marine Corps did not prove very effective in assaulting fortified beaches. Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu and Iwo Jima were expected to be quick operations. In each case the Marines relied on Naval gunfire and Naval Air support to knock out Japanese fortifications and degrade the ability of the Japanese to defend. In none of those assaults was that successful. On each island, the Japanese defended fiercely and inflicted heavy casualties on the Marine landing forces.

The Marine Corps did field a total of 6 Divisions in WWII. Two of them did not come into being until 1945.

The Battles for Saipan, Guam and Peleliu all followed the same pattern, Marines land, Japanse stop the Marines, and Army Division is committed to the fighting. The battle ends with a US victory.

That is absurd. General Pershing, even with the rank of General of the Armies, would not have had the authority to issue such an order.

I think you will find that the Marines were more widely used in the PTO, because it was desided early on that (at least in the early stages) the PTO was a Navy operation (remember the Marines are part of the Navy, of course you are never supposed to tell a Marine that). There was a need for two fighting forces one for ETO and one for PTO, we did have two at the time, so we divided our forces as history has documented.
God bless all those who served regardless of the Service they were in !!

I think the main reason is really an organisational one. USMC units were organised along the lines of combined arms battle groups where as the US Army units were designed to operate within a larger Corps framework.

The nature of the Pacific island hopping mean that each engagement needed a combined arms task group rather than an entire corps/army/army group like in the ETO. The smaller self contained units of the USMC were well suited to these operations.

As the Pacific Campaign operations grew in size more and more US Army units were involved such as Leyte and Okinawa. In many cases the Army units formed the follow on reserve to exploit the UMSC lodgement and establishment of the beachhead, as in Siapan the landed 2 days after the USMC, Peleliu about a week and on Guam they landed on the same day, in the afternoon but as they were not equipped as well as the Marines for amphibious assault they did have some difficulties ties before gaining a foothold, perhaps reinforcing the notion that the specialists should go first.

Once ashore of course the Army and Marine units generally advanced side by side, as on Guam where a complex pivot was carried out to roll up the island from South to North.

As much as we might like to think it was another conspiracy theory or turf war I think you'll find that, as in all things, it was simply a logical employment of a specialist force.

Why no Amtracs? Initially the Amtrac was not conceived as an assault craft, it was for ship to shore supplies, so that heavy stuff could get across the beach and into the hinterland.

Amtracs were very slow (6knts), very small (24 troops max) and very un-armoured. They were great for being able to drive over a reef and continue to the beach as they did at Tarawa but they were then shot to bits as they crawled along and had no armour. The Higgins boat were much larger and could carry a full platoon, could make 12knts and were armoured so were far better when there was no reef.

Later the Amtrac did get amour and were used in a number of operations in the ETO, Scheldt, Rhine and in Italy.

I don't think Nimitz would or could have spared any Marine divisions for European operations. Landing in Normandy was not just a beach landing, but a long term commitment to fight all the way to Germany. The nature of the fighting in the Pacific was not as long term in relation to each campaign. The Marines and Army divisions fighting there would assault an island, and upon it's capture would retrain, refit, and then prepare for the next operation. Only the units fighting in New Guinea were involved in the fighting for extended periods of time-longer than 4-5 months. The Marines were trained as assault troops, hitting quick but not geared for extended fighting. Their replacement system was slower as their recruiting numbers were lower, and they couldn't afford an extended campaign.

The plan that Nimitz and MacArthur "agreed" upon was that each would march up his side of the Pacific island chains to cut the Japanese off. Nimitz started with only two Marine divisions, and gradually built up the other four over the course of the war. His resources were limited and carefully deployed. His targets were generally more suited to smaller operations. Even after 1944, Saipan was a three division operation (one Army), Peleliu 1+1 and Iwo Jima 3 divisions.

The Army had a large number of highly skilled and well trained units involved in amphibious operations, from North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and in the PTO numerous operations in New Guinea, the Solomons, Marshalls, Carolines and Philippines. Almost anywhere the Marines landed, there was another island in the same chain being invaded by US Army infantry at the same time. Both fought with credibility and courage.

As for the amtracs, they were used where they were most needed. Their main purpose was in getting over the reefs. They could have been useful at Normandy, but they were needed much more in the Pacific. After Tarawa, no one could get enough of them.

There was significant animosity from Army commanders against the Marines due to publicity issues in WWI. The issues continued through the course of WWII, which Holland Smith helped to inflame. They didn't have anything to do with keeping Marines out of the ETO.

since the PTO was mainly spearheaded by the navy, why would you split a naval unit from its only ground capability.
the navy can launch planes and fight an air war. they can most definately fight the sea war. But, without the marines, they cant achieve objectives. you can sit all day long firing on an island with a battle ship or bombing it from the air, but you cannot secure it without forces on the ground.
with all of the possibilities of what the reason "could be", it may be something as easy as the navy needing them in the pacific.
could it be any of the other ideas...absolutely, but it is probably something simple.

There were marines in the ETO, but they were soviets. They fought equally if not better then their American counterparts. Unfortunately, most of their heroic struggles, beach landings and defence to the last man have been lost in history.

Oh wait....*Looks throught other posts*

I Supose also that the army had its Rangers for difficult ops and also used its Airborne as its elite when on the ground. Like what has already been said the Allieds had massive experance at large scale landing by D Day from all its earlier opps. Great Question

Problem is that they didn't really.

The USMC had only just suffered the harrowing experience of Tarawa their first taste of real resistance to a landing but it wasn't of the scale of Normandy, the Torch landings hadn't encountered serious resistance, neither did the Sicilian landings.

The only experience the Allies had at attacking a heavily fortified coastline was Dieppe and that was more a lesson of how not to do it.