Aacooper Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 What if Marines weren't needed to fight the Japanese, and instead landed in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France? Would the presence of Marines (as opposed to the lack of second front - bigger topic) have made much of a difference? Although a volunteer group of elite infantry would have made SOME difference, I don't think it would have made a big one. Let's compare -- Iwo Jima, toughest battle in Pacific, about 66% casualties in about a month. 29th ID in Normandy, 44 days to St. Lo, about 100% casualties. Both groups of soldiers suffered terribly in attrition warfare, but stayed on the offensive and reached their objectives. Would a more gung-ho group with maybe less tactical subtlety made a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 Well, some were close. There were Marine detachments in Iceland and Londonderry Ireland...... And, of course, the ship's detachments on all US Navy ships.... Yeah. I know, not exactly what you mean, but some people don't know that there were marines in Europe.......... -Ski ------------------ "The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 They would have made a difference on the beaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 ...and they would have marched into Berlin in July of 44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattus Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 Perhaps with no PTO the marines would never have been expanded beyond a brigade or division? Also if they had operated predominantly as land forces their TO&E might have developed very differently. Maybe CM6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted September 10, 2000 Author Share Posted September 10, 2000 I agree that they would have made a difference on the beaches (Omaha, really), but mostly if LVT's (alligators) were used instead of LCVP's and LCA's. Of course, no PTO, and maybe not much more development of amphibious technology. LVT's made 5 knots on water, and 18mph on land. A little more protection would have gone a long way on Omaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Gavin 82nd AB Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: What if Marines weren't needed to fight the Japanese, and instead landed in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All I can tell you is that there would have been alot of unhappy sheep in N. Africa, Italy, Sicily n France! ------------------ Give me hamsters or give me night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>- Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 hahaha good one Gavin. You were reading my mind Aacooper, I was just thinking about how cool it would be to have some Marine formations in CM a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 The Marines were a relatively light force and would not have made a good match against a Panzer division. Good infantry, however, was always appreciated, and, as someone pointed out earlier, they certainly would have been nice to have at Normandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 Whats the deal with sending guys directly at MGs on the beach? Getting out the rear of the vehicles that is right up in front of a bunker and running for cover makes more sense than offloading troops into the jaws of the enemy. I'm reading D-Day by Ambrose right now, but I cant find the reasoning for sluaghtering guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 ntg84 wrote: > I cant find the reasoning for sluaghtering guys? Well, what are the chances of tracked landing craft making it up the beach without being picked off by mines or artillery? A lot of men, vulnerable as they may be, stand a much better chance spread out in the open, than packed together in a sitting duck of a target. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 In the big scheme of things, I don't think Marines would have made that much of a difference in the ETO. There were only a total of 6 Marine divisions that actively participated in the Pacific War. As for them being amphibious landing specialists, yes, that's mainly what they did, but there were several Army divisions that did that job just as well. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 It's my opinion that had there been Marines at Omaha beach, there would have been just so many more dead Marines at Omaha. That place was a killing zone like Betio in the Pacific and the Marines could have made little difference. Don't get me wrong. I have the highest respect and admiration for the Marine Corp, but Omaha Beach was so bad that nothing could have helped. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: ntg84 wrote: > I cant find the reasoning for sluaghtering guys? Well, what are the chances of tracked landing craft making it up the beach without being picked off by mines or artillery? A lot of men, vulnerable as they may be, stand a much better chance spread out in the open, than packed together in a sitting duck of a target. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess it is the wrong choice between having infantry or mounted infantry. The real problem at Omaha was that the US turned down the idea of using the 'Funnies' that helped keep casualties down on the Commonwealth beaches. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airborne Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: As for them being amphibious landing specialists, yes, that's mainly what they did, but there were several Army divisions that did that job just as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And, actually, the US Army made more amph assaults than the USMC. Plus, the doctrines were different. The Marines would typically assault an island and engage in fierce combat for relatively short periods of time. Then they would be withdrawn for sometimes up to a year to refit, and retrain. The US Army infantry divisions were not afforded this time off. Many were kept in combat continuously. Of course, both suffered heavy losses and the Army replacement system was pathetic.. ------------------ Land Soft--Kill Quiet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fd ski Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 Something i read while back comparing Marines and Army as far as tactical doctrine goes didn't shed a good light on USMC at all. The theory was that Army usually used it's 3 unit doctrine - 1 unit ties enemy down, other flanks it, third in reserve. Marines were far more fond of frontal assults types of operations. While man for man Marines were probably better infantry then Army, their tactics would have hurt them a lot. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mensch Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: They would have made a difference on the beaches<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> what just filling up the empty spaces where the riflemen didn't fall..hur hur.. jk.. MARINE CORPS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fd ski: Something i read while back comparing Marines and Army as far as tactical doctrine goes didn't shed a good light on USMC at all. The theory was that Army usually used it's 3 unit doctrine - 1 unit ties enemy down, other flanks it, third in reserve. Marines were far more fond of frontal assults types of operations. While man for man Marines were probably better infantry then Army, their tactics would have hurt them a lot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are some interesting comparisions of Army and Marine tactics and strategy in the Pacific. Looking at the island fighting where both the Army and Marines fought you can see those differances. IIRC, a Marine sacked an Army General because he didn't like the "speed" at which the Army was advancing compared to the Marine divison(s)... nevermind the gross differance in casulties. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeWary Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: The real problem at Omaha was that the US turned down the idea of using the 'Funnies' that helped keep casualties down on the Commonwealth beaches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse my ignorance, but what are "Funnies"? Thanks! BeWary ------------------ "Liberty or Death?" Make it "Victory or Pretty Damned Badly Wounded", and I'm yours. - a prospective recruit during the American Revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 BeWary wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, but what are "Funnies"? Tanks with flails for cutting a path through minefields, or spindles with rolls of wooden matting for crossing soft ground, or bundles of wood for bridging trenches - that kind of thing. In other words, specialised armoured vehicles for negotiating obstacles while under fire. The Americans landing in Normandy relied on infantry engineers to clear paths for their armour, which was rather difficult when the Germans were making every effort to kill them in imaginative ways. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Any difference the Marines would have made inthe ETO would have been a very small, local contribution, though it most likely would have been dramatic. Such as the Battle of Belleau wood during the First world war. Insignificant in the big picture, but mesmorizing in detail. Somebody else said it quite right, 6 Divisions of infantry wouldn't have been that major of a contribution. On the other hand, I'm sure if they had been there "Howlin' Mad" Smith would have had "Chesty" Puller knocking on the Reichstag door in Jan. '44!!! Semper Fi! Finess? Who needs finess? Fix Bayonets! Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts