Okay, so I was reading through this thread, which asks what the role of the U.S. Marines are. I took the gist of the thread to be that they are used for amphibious deployment.
Well, this begs the question – why was the Army used instead of the Marines in the Normandy landing? They were, after all, securing a beachhead. Something which the Marines are more duly trained for, more so than the Army anyway.
I think it was just a question of resource allocation.
Marines were used in the Pacific in smaller-unit, time-limited operations. Guadalcanal was an exception, but even in the Pacific they are not used in extended campaign. New Guinea, the Philippines and Okinawa (after a Marine assault) were mostly army operations/
I don’t think they were big enough to make big contributions to both theatres.
D-Day wasn’t just an amphibious invasion, it was the amphibious invasion. Like, of all world history. It was too immense for just the guys specially trained for that sort of thing.
Because the allies didn’t have enough of them . And the US president decided to show filmed pictures of dead marines on beaches they fought for , which reduced their application numbers heavily ,but increased warbond sales significantly.
In order to avoid having the U.S. military tripping over each other during WWII, the Army and Navy were each given what amounted to spheres of influence. The Navy, not surprisingly, got the Central and South Pacific (where there is a lot of water) and the Army got Europe and Asia (where there is a lot of land).
(There were, obviously, places where the missions overlapped–the Normandy beachhead was not defended by Army battleships, but generally the two services conducted their advances separately.)
The Marines went ashore where the Navy needed to acquire dry property: Guadalcanal and the Solomons, Tarawa, Kwajalein, Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and all the others.
The Army went ashore where the basic battle was over land: North Africa, Sicily, Palermo, Anzio, Normandy, and, in the Pacific, the Philipines. (The Philipines was an Army show, *partly[/] because it was considered “Asia” and partly because MacArthur insisted on “returning.”)
(There were Marine units involved in several Army invasions and the Army was present at several Navy battles, but the bulk of the forces were organized as noted.)
Since tomndebb managed to so succinctly nail the big picture to the wall, a little schmo like me can come along and name the unusual exceptions. While numerically insignificant, Marines did play some role in the war in Europe.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, Marines garrisoned Iceland, along with the British forces stationed there.
Marines, being the amphibious folks that they are, helped materially in the planning for the Torch landings in North Africa, and also helped as trainers for the Army units which landed there. A small detachment of Marines also landed during the Torch landings.
If I may be permitted a generalization, Army and Marine units did not work very well together in the Pacific. Oftentimes, landings were in the overall command of the Navy, which compounded the problem. One only needs to look at the lessons of the Gilbert Islands campaign to see what happened when you had three services with more ego than experience all trying to work together.
What the heck are you talking about?
Another factor was that a typical Marine division, while well suited to amphibious assault, was not intended for regular warfare. Marine divisions were equipped much lighter than Army infantry divisions in areas like anti-tank weapons and a Marine division would have had a hard time advancing against the German Panzer divisions that were sent in to attack the Normandy beachhead.
In the Pacific, follow-through wasn’t really a factor; on a ten mile wide island, capturing the beachhead virtually was the battle. But in Europe capturing the beachhead was just the first step in the campaign, and SHAEF would have had to clog up their transport lines by withdrawing the Marines from Normandy and replacing them with infantry units in the midst of battle.
Why not ON D-Day. D-day was a time (well, is a time, it is the designation for the day an attack will take place, H-Hour for the hour, D-Day +4 for four days after, etc) not a place.
I’m really not a grammer nazi, as my spelling will show, it’s just a useless bit of information.
**
What the heck are you talking about? **
Roosevelt made a decision to show the US public short films of dead American marines on beaches , which wasn’t done those days to keep morale up. This caused enrolment to the Marine corps to drop , but in turn it made people buy more war bonds instead.
I recall this from BBCs world at war series.
geepee, your statement may be 100% factual (I remember the uproar over the beach shots; I don’t remember Roosevelt’s involvement one way or another).
Lower enlistments, however, had nothing to do with not using Marines to take the beaches in North Africa, Italy, Southern France, Northern France, or Philipines. That decision was based on the separation of theatres of operation between Army control and Navy control.
As to falling enlistments: during WWII, the Marines took draftees, same as the other services.
Tomndebb
In “the big deuce” the corps was an all volunteer outfit until late 43/44.
At least that’s when I came across my first draftee marine.
But----draftee or volunteer----regular or reserve----they were all good marines.
I had thought it was early '43, but I’ll accept your correction. (Anyone have an actual date?) That, of course, still leaves the “sphere of influence” statement as the most important aspect of which group hit which beach.
On geepee’s point: I had thought that the first showing of casualties on the beaches occurred at Tarawa (at least there is a rather famous photo from that battle in a lot of history books). What was the time-line for showing casualties and how much did recruitment fall off following that film?
The popular[?] belief was that most of the marines,except for trainees,trainers,casualties and staff were all over seas in the pacific and that there just weren’t that many of us available to create a European beach action group.
AGain,popularly,we were a “first-in,first-out” outfit but theCanal,Tulagi,Tanambogo,Peleliu,Bougainville,Guam,Saipan,Tinian ,vella la vella proved otherwise.
As for the drafting of marines-the belief then was that such a large majority of available men were enlisting in the Corps it became necessary to bring Marine membership under the control of the draft.
This may,or may not,have been true, but that’s what the scuttlebutt was.
This old “jarhead” is outa here!
Ezstrete
Ok, a zombie, but…
In WW2, the US Marines were not yet a pale imitation of the Army, they were actual marines, sailors trained to fight on land, which is why they were used to assault islands, but not used to start invasions of continents. Different roles.
When did the US Marines become Army-lite, as they are today?
I disagree with #1. The marines then were trained much like the marines are now. They were not trained as sailors or to be on ships only. In WWI they fought without an ocean anywhere in sight.
The answer to this old OP remains that the Marine Corps was and is much smaller than the Army and they were completely engaged in the Pacific. Contrary to conventional wisdom they were not even the majority of troops in the Pacific. The Army had more casualties in that campaign. The Marines have better PR.
Not an actual date, but this site mentions that Marines were a volunteer force until 1944, with the first drafted Marines entering combat in 1945:
The site also mentions that in December 1942, Roosevelt ordered an end to recruitment efforts, presumably in favor of draftee manpower. Why bother asking people to join when you can require them to?
I know it’s a zombie question, but still… 