It is a fact that there were no Marines involved in the Normandy invasion. Did you know that SHAEF did not even consult the Marine Corp after they had 2 years of island hopping experience? Imagine LVT-(A) Alligators and Amtracs at Omaha beach. Why weren’t they there? Any thoughts?

I cannot back this up, but I would guess it was politics. The ETO was an Army theater, the Pacific belonged to the Navy. Marines (my alma mater) are a part of the Navy department, and were heavily engaged in the PTO. Because of the huge area the PTO covered, I would bet the Navy (and Marines) had a priority on LVT's and Alligators, because every campaign was, by geography, an amphibious operation.

As for not consulting the Marines, well...even if my bias requires me to say they were and are the finest amphibious strike force ever conceived, let's not forget that the Army by this time had the North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and Anzio operations under their belts, and were very well versed in amphibious landings. In fact, I would make a motion that the 1st Inf. Division be made an honorary Marine outfit - I think they made every one of those landings, plus D-Day.

Mike

MJ,
How much actual resistance did the Army meet hitting the beaches in any of those assaults? The Marines got pounded at Tarawa at least 12 months before the Normandy invasion. They learned their lesson. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 but I would have thought someone would have had sense enough to at least ask the guys in the PTO how to hit a well defended beach. I realize, as you do, that most of it had to be political. I just wonder some days what Omaha Beach would have looked like if the Marines would have hit it first.

Thanks for the comments...

Resistance, well, I don't think North Africa was too hard. It was a bit of a surprise. Sicily was a bear. The men who made that landing had a hell of a fight on their hands. The initial Italian landings, I really am not sure about. But Anzio, well - that gave new meaning to SNAFU and FUBAR, no doubt.

The Marines were hit hard on every landing after Guadalcanal. The Japanese learned what Rommel surmised - hit them on the beaches. If you let them get ashore, you've lost. Tarawa, Peleliu (there was a bloody mess), Iwo Jima, Okinawa...the Pacific cost the Marines a pretty price.

Would it have made a difference if Marines landed at Omaha? That is an interesting question, as Marines are trained to take the initiative, but I'm not sure. Landing conditions being equal, lack of real naval support, no armor, no or ineffective air support...I really don't think it would have made a difference. Lets give credit to the Army on this one. They came ashore, got hit hard, hitched up their pants, and got the job done. What more can you ask of them?

I think Omaha was just a damn tough target, that didn't get nearly the pre-invasion prep it deserved. Just my opinion.

Mike

The idea of interservice rivalry is probably closer to the truth. Normandy was Ike's and the Army's show and no Marine was going to tell them different. I cannot recall ever reading an account where the Army asked about amphibious landings from the guys who made a living on these landings.

Also, the Army had sucessful? landings in Sicily, and North Africa so why did they need the Marines.

Finally, it was a logistics problem. There simply was not enough amtracks to go around. Marine amphib landings was a whole lot smaller than Normandy. I doubt there would have been enough tracks to go around. Also, the LVT was designed for sandy terrain, I wonder how their tracks would have been mangled on the shingle on Normandy.

Technology, and hubris, played a key part in Normandy. There was a recent documentary on the Discovery Channel about the Sherman tanks modified for amphibious operations (canvas leak-proof 'skirt', raised exhaust vents, etc.) and how all but 2 or 3 were lost when water swamped them; it appears their approach to the landing beaches was off the mark and the waves crested over them. If the Army had Amtracs or Alligators in larger numbers, then perhaps more lives would have been saved from the killing zone that was Omaha Beach - the experience at Dieppe two years earlier showed how poor planning and execution could lead to disaster. This time, luck and courage carried the day.

You kind of imply that the Allies in Europe didn't have any beach-landing experience. Don't forget the Torch landings in North Africa.

IIRC, the War Dept. decided early on to keep the Marines in the Pacific. Eisenhower didn't really need them -- he had the Commandos, the Rangers, the Airborne divisions. Also remember that the Pacific was a series of island landings, while in Europe, it was basically establishing a bridgehead, then pushing inland for extended ground operations. The Marines weren't organized or equipped for this sort of warfare. Even on the big islands of the Pacific war, often the Marines would establish the beachhead, then turn over operations to the Army for the extended battle inland.

BTW, there were a few Marines at Normandy. According to Jonathan Gawne's "Spearheading D-Day," a single Marine colonel landed on D-Day as a liaison officer. Also, there were Marines on the ships offshore. Gawne has photos in his book of German POWs being brought on board a ship and being turned over to Marine guards. Apparently, the Germans were surprised that the Marines were on the ship, but not on the shore.

I did not imply anything. I simply stated the fact the Army did not consult the Marines after the Marines had been bloodied in the Pacific. I know all about Dieppe, Anzio, Salerno, Kasserine, etc. My only question was whether or not things might have been easier in Normandy had someone asked somebody about what happened at Tarawa. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference after the Marines made it ashore since the whole force was held up in the bocade for two months but I think the landing might have been easier if they had at least consulted the Marines. Close air support, ship to shore arty, etc. Amtracs, etc.

That's all...

Interesting observations. I read a book recently, in which the author placed forth the view that the Normandy invasion plan was largely a British undertaking. It makes sense. The British formed and led the planning cell that selected the Normandy beach area and the invasion process. We came into the planning cycle rather late. Bradley is not designated and sent to England to command the American forces until January of 1944 and is given a plan that is already move towards a climax. We reconfigure basic infantry units to perform the assault, we forego a prolonged bombardment, and we destroy the French rail and road systems. This is pretty much the British plan of attack. I fault the plan for several reasons. One, the reconfiguration of assault units was uneceesary. We should have stuck to the standard organization to preclude the confusion it caused during the landing and afterwards. It took a while to put the 1st Infantry Division and the 29th Infantry Division back together again and the configuration did not allow them to continue the attack when the Germans were penetrated that morning. Second, the failure to bombard allowed the guns and soldiers occupying the Omaha Beach area to escape relatively unscathed and offer the stoutest resistence of the invasion. The British plan substituted deceit for firepower while amazing accurate, we could have done better. The amphibious techniques of the Marines in the Paciifc were transferred to the Normandy invasion via MG Corlett. He commanded the 7th Infantry Division in the Pacific during several invasions and was sent to command a Corps in Europe. Unfortuneatly, he like Bradley arrived so late in the process as to be ineffective. .
DJ

All,

1. The USMC were, by far, not the only amphibious ops experts - see other forum on amphib ops in the Pacific. The Army conducted more amphib landings in the Pacific than did the Marines!

2. As stated earlier AMTRACs were in short supply with Pacific having priority. They were used in large numbers later in the ETO, particuarly by the Canadians in securing the Schedlt and in Rhine River crossings. But where would AMTRACs have gone on Omaha? There were no exits cleared and AMTRACs were lightly armored and would not have survived long out of the water. Also the Higgins boats were faster for turning around and actually do better in heavy seas, something rarely encountered when landing on a lagoon-side beach in the Pacific. The Higgins boats also can carry more personnel.

3. The British beaches and UTAH went relatively well, OMAHA was a problem for a number of reasons:

a - the allied bombing missed their targets and bombing moved inland as followup bombers could not recognize targets from previous smoke, and to avoid bombs falling on landing craft, etc.

b - the same smoke from the bombers affected accuracy of bombardment by BBs and CAs that were trying to hit pinpoint targets. Luckily the destroyers came in close, several actually scrapped their keels on the sea floor! The DDs could see targets being in close and they were able to silence several German batteries and stopped several counterattacks against the Rangers at Pont du Hoe.

c - The smoke and dedris, darkness and foul weather further haunted the landing craft crews, as they could not see their reference points along the beach and the strong currents pushed the vessels to the east. In some cases the currents saved soldiers by pushing them into weak spots in the defenses, but others like the 116th INF from the 29th ID were pushed into kill zones that had not been targeted by naval gunfire (no troops were to land in these areas)

d - Several LST captains carrying duplex drive Shermans launched their charges too early in too rough seas and those sunk. More than two or three reached the beach as at least one LST captain saw it was too rough and took his ship onto the beach and discharged the tanks onto the beach. The British canceled the sea launch of their DD Shermans and took them straight in.

4. Why not use Marines in ETO? Several have already mentioned the priority was in teh Pacific where they worked primarily under Navy control, except on Okinanwa, where US Sixth Army was in command, and a few smaller landings in the Solomons ehre Marine Raiders were attached to Army landings. The Army also worked under command of III Amphib Corps - especially the 27th ID. The Army units trained for months in the UK prior to the landing. Both the 29th and 4th ID were used in the assault force at Normandy specifically because they had not conducted a beach assault before. Studies and experience had shown that troops get less aggressive the more amphibious assualts they make - the "I want to live " feelings take over. The 1st ID was, of course, an exception to this, although their ranks had been severely rebuilt after fighting in Tunisa and Sicily.

5. The 1st, 4th & 29th ID were all reorganized into boat teams to fit the Higgins boats and to ensure the right mixture of troops were in each boat. There were two basic combat teams, Assault and Support and a command boat team.

Each Assualt Team was comprised of:
a. Boat team leader - and Officer
b. 5-man rifle team
c. 4-man wire cutting team
d. 4-man BAR team
e. 4-man 60mm mortar team
f. 4-man bazooka team
g. 2-man flame thrower team.

Each Support Team was comprised of:
a. Boat team leader - Officer
b. 5-man rifle team
c. 6-man heavy MG team
d. 4-man wire cutting team
e. 8-man 81mm mortar team
f. 5-man demo team

As 210 Cav stated this did cause trouble after the units were ashore and were attempting to go back to TOE organization.

A bigger problem was that the assault teams trained only to get off teh beach and through the beach defences, they were not trained to carry the battle inland. Even though their was plenty of intel on the headgerow country to include French and British military personnel who had either lived in Normandy or had taken "holiday" in Normandy, there was no training to fight in the hedgerows. The US army had to learn on-the-job. That was probably the biggest failure of OVERLORD.

Hollwopoint listed what I believe to be teh one best reference on the planning, training and execution of the UTAH and OMAHA beaches: "Spearheading D-Day, American Special Units in Normandy", Gawne, Jonathan, Historie & Collections Publications, 2000. If you can locate a copy, buy it It will cover the rather large part the Navy played on teh beach and the small part played by the Marines.

Remember, this occurred prior to the USMC being given the sole task of amphibious operations. Our Army was just as versed in amphibious operations as was the Marines. The need for an amphibious landing in western Europe was realized way back when we first entered the war.

Disclaimer: If this question was answered in error, or an answer not required/expected/wanted, please notify me and I will delete the post. This post is not intended as an attack on any persons posting prior to or after this post. Please feel free to disregard/disbelieve/discount any information contained in the post.

Great disclaimer. Can I use it. Having worked for the Army/Army Reserve for 26+ years, I have learned to not reinvent anything, if someone else has already done all of the nug work Now if I could just convince the higher-ups of the same idea Why is it the higher we go, the more we forget what is happening at the bottom of the food-chain

Disclaimer: If this question was answered in error, or an answer not required/expected/wanted, please notify me and I will delete the post. This post is not intended as an attack on any persons posting prior to or after this post. Please feel free to disregard/disbelieve/discount any information contained in the post.

Ranger out

Jeff--very nice run down as always. The under appreciated fact surrounding the American participation lies in the failure (in my humble opinion) to allow Gerow of V Corps and Huebner of the 1st Infantry Division to configure their forces as they deemed appropriate for the mission. Instead, they were told in no uncertain terms by Bradley (who I do not think was the genius he is often painted to be) to follow the structured lay out you posted. I believe that screwed up things more than it should have. Right on about the employment of the DD's. Dear Lord, didn't anyone see the first batch sink? Why the heck continue to launch from afar in rough waters?
DJ

Thanks for all the well thought out and pleasant posts. I don't get to chat history much and I really enjoy it. Thanks again.

ranger74 said...



now when you said the army conducted more amphibious landings.....are you sure about that......i mean, yes, i love the marines so i wont be biased here, but if you could send me something saying that the army did more amphib. operations in the pacific than the marines, could you do that........personally, i think that is kinda farfetched......

-Mech

Mech-maniac,

I published a list of US Army and USMC amphib operations in this forum about a year ago, but it will take a while to find it, but for example:

The USA (Army) conducted a number of landings on Guadalcanal after they relived the Marines. While the Marines landed on Tarawa, the Army landed, at same time on Makin, in same island group. Okinawa was a joint Army/Marine operation, as was the Marianas (Guam, Saipan, Tinian), in fact an Army tank battalion in which I served, and now have regimental association, traces its lineage to an Army amphibious tractor battalion that received a Navy Presidental Unit Citation carrying Marines during the Marianas Campaign!! (Go Joint early) The capture of the Solomons was also an Army/Marine operation. New Guinea, the Bismarks, and the entire Philippine chain were all Army operations with dozens of landings, including the two largest all-American landings in the war - Leyte and Luzon - landing four US Army divisions (in two separate corps) in one wave on each landing!!

What you have to remember, the Marines were in the Pacific early, but by 1944 there were more Army divisions in the Pacific than there were Marine. There were only six USMC divisions and a number of separate speciality battalions for an offensive force. The Army used more than that for just the Philippines.

Just as a note, at Inchon, Korea, not only the USMC was in the first wave, but the Army's 7th Infantry Division was also there, both forming part of X Corps.

I am not in any way down playing the Marines role in WW2, not by any means. Today they are the amphibious experts!!!!!! In fact, I believe that the Army and the Marines get along better than the Navy and the Marines! HOOAH!!!

yes yes 'i see said the blind man' alright, i just figured since most of the army was in europe at the time, or getting ready to go, that the marines, would have pacific under wraps, but hey, i learn something new everyday!

James, I must agree with you on this one. I definitely think that Marines had too many things to worry about with the Japs in the Pacific. Regardless of the politics I think that the Army knew that and opted no to get them (Marines) involved in the Normandy landings. Just my $0.02.

I enjoyed reading everyones posts and pretty much agree with the group as to why there were no Marines on the invasion beaches (the one liason Col excluded). While I would tend to agree with the group here as well, can anyone offer proof that the Marines were not consulted prior to the invasion. Also for anyones reference, the US Army assualted OKinawa and the Phillipines in the Pacific...it was not a sole Marine Corp show.

One reason for no marines in Europe is the mission of the marines is primarily expenditionary and related to naval operations. ETO was primarily a land campiagn, once the troops landed, the navy part was mostly over.

The Pacific was a naval theater with a lot of small targets, many needed for harbors and airfields. Perfect for the marines type of operations.

The Marines were not originally designed for sustained land combat, they have to rely on the Army's supply chain in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are getting more sustained land combat action primarily because the Army is so small, in relation to 15 years ago.

wow u learn something new every day,
but where the army in the paffic?
the old guy that lives next 2me told me he was in guam
and he was in the army??
or may be he was in the marines. i have 2 ask him agian