First to fight!

@aequitas:

I was wondering were you would have sent the USMC in the European Theatre to Support the troops the most and bringing a quick relief in those Battles.

Just to make sure I understand: are you talking about sending US Marines to reinforce US Army troops who are already engaged in combat, and who by implication are facing an objective they’re having trouble taking on their own?  If so, I suspect that the GIs would interpret such a move as an implied criticism of their competence, topped off with the additional insult of having guys from a different service being brought up in a reserve role to save their hindquarters.  I also suspect that the Leathernecks would be equally insulted at the idea of being sent in to back up the Army, rather than being assigned to spearhead an attack on their own against a fresh objective.  Traditionally, the USMC is regarded as an elite force which is given very tough assignements and which is expected as a matter of course to achieve them successfully.  I can certainly see the Marines handling independently some of the jobs on your list (storming Ohama Beach would be one example), but not as second-wave support troops for first-wave Army soldiers.  As I recall from the Pacific Theatre, interservice rivalry between the US Army and the US Marine Corps remained alive and well, including at the very top.  I have a vague recollection that in one particular campaign a US Army general and his troops fought under the operational command of a USMC general (possibly Holland M. “Howling Mad” Smith), and the Army general later swore that he’d never participate in that kind of nonsense again.

Hi Aequitas.
I say throw them into Anzio. Let them fight battle hardened Germans under good commanders and equipped with the latest tanks, including Ferdinands, Tigers and Panthers.

Keep the USMC fighting the Japanese, Give me the Army Rangers.

I agree with Wittman, Anzio seems a logical place.

D-Day, Anzio and the Rhine Crossings.

@aequitas:

To me the USMC is an Elite Unit and I thought about who they could have eased situations. I wasn’t that aware of such rivaly between the forces.

The annual Army-Navy Football Game is a good non-battlefield example of how traditional – you can even how say institutionalized – the rivalry between the two services is.  I once attended a reception at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, where one of the evening’s events was a musical interlude in which a group of midshipmen sang a couple of songs in the reception hall.  (They were quite good.)  I can’t recall what the songs were, but I remember that the last one was a low-key, serious piece (possibly a hymn).  The midshipmen reached the conclusion of the song, then waited a couple of seconds as the audience members stood quietly in respectful appreciation of the concluding notes.  Then, just before the audience started clapping, the midshipmen in the choir all punched the air with their right arm and, in perfect unison, enthusiastically cheered “BEAT ARMY!”

@aequitas:

Where would you have sent them in first wave then CWOMarc fighting as independantly as possible?

In Normandy, I’d pick Omaha Beach – though of course there was no way for the Overlord planners to know that Omaha was going to turn into such a bloodbath (which was the result of a combination of factors).  I don’t think Falaise would have particularly benefited from the USMC’s skill at assaulting heavily defensed positions, since the primary Allied aim of the operation was to close the Falaise Gap and trap the German force inside it.  The Anzio case mentioned by Wittman is interesting: as I recall, the initial landing went well but the Allied commander on the spot wasted valuable time consolidating his position rather than breaking out, which gave the Germans time to react and bottle up the landing force.  Bastogne was a defensive operation, and the guys from the 101st Airborne did a good job of handling it: their aim wasn’t to push the Germans back but to prevent them from capturing this important multi-road junction and thereby slow the Germans down in a drive that placed a high importance on speed.  A Rhine crossing in assault boats would have been a good application of the USMC’s expertise in amphibious operations (on a much smaller scale than was the case in the Pacific), so they’d have been my choice for any spots along the Rhine that were high-priority and well defended.  Breaking through the Gustav Line at a particularly vital point also sounds like a job that would be up their alley, but I don’t know enough about the details of that front to be sure about where and why I’d specifically use the Marines.  One general type of objective where I might send them in would be to the Channel ports in the weeks and months following D-Day – places like Cherbourg and Brest.  These were very heavily fortified by the Germans, who like the Allies realized the vital importance they would have in providing logistical support to the Allied armies in France if the British or the Americans could get their hands on them.  The fighting for these ports was ferocious, and many had been reduced to piles of rubble by the time the Allies captured them.

As and aside there is only one  surviving Elefant(in Virginia at Camp Lee). It was  captured in Italy and a Ferdinand in Russia, near Moscow. That one was captured at Kursk.

It would seem I also mixed them up in my first post (horror of horrors!). The upgraded Panzerjager was the Elefant and it  was the version present in Italy, not the Ferdinand, as I said.

In WWI many US Army divisions had Marine units attached.

@aequitas:

The USMC has/had so much to offer during WW II. so that I think it could have been sent to one or even more of the above mentioned objectives in strenght of two Battalions.

No they are not only supposed to conduct amphibious assaults against fortified targets, they are also regarded as an elite force for very tough assignments, which they are expected to achieve successfully as mentioned before.

_“On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the resolution to establish two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore. This date marks the official formation of the Continental Marines.”

1st Commandant: Major Samuel Nicholas (1775-1783)_

Just give them a Target, they will take care of it!

Like Pelelieu right?

Pretty sure they fought side by side with the US Army throughout most of the Pacific theater. There was VERY few solo jarhead operations in the Pacific. Not to mention the US Army shouldered fully about 2/3 of the groundpounder requirements for the entirety of the Pacific theater. The Army too, was conducting amphib operations simultaneously and in more frequent numbers ON TOP OF ALL the amphip landings in the ETO.

I love jarheads, worked heavily with them on my 1st and 2nd combat tours in Iraq in and around Fallujah/Ramadi back in 03-04-05. Even occasionally wear a 1st MAR Div combat patch on my right shoulder to pay homage to the times I was attached to some of their formations. At the same time, they have VERY GOOD PR and if there were Marines present, you can be assured they got a majority of the press out of it.

Landing on Omaha was about as bloody of an amphibious landing as one could expect and the Army still accomplished the mission. I’m not sure the Marines would have much more to add than what was already accomplished by 1 ID and 29 ID on that beach head.

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

@Redleg13A:

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Here’s an anecdote along the same lines that I mentioned in an earlier discussion:

Back during the First Gulf War, I saw a news item on television in which a reporter spoke (on separate occasions) to a guy from the US Marines and a guy from the US Army.  When he asked the leatherneck why he was in the USMC rather than the Army, the guy answered (as I recall) “Well, I think the Army is kind of ordinary, and I think of myself as somebody who’s more than just ordinary.”  When he later asked the GI why he was in the Army rather than the Marines, the soldier answered, “I know some guys who are in the Marines and they’re all crazy.”

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Here’s an anecdote along the same lines that I mentioned in an earlier discussion:

Back during the First Gulf War, I saw a news item on television in which a reporter spoke (on separate occasions) to a guy from the US Marines and a guy from the US Army.  When he asked the leatherneck why he was in the USMC rather than the Army, the guy answered (as I recall) “Well, I think the Army is kind of ordinary, and I think of myself as somebody who’s more than just ordinary.”  When he later asked the GI why he was in the Army rather than the Marines, the soldier answered, “I know some guys who are in the Marines and they’re all crazy.”

LOL, and that’s basically the crux of it. Marines revolve their lives around their Marine identities it seems. For instance, you’ll see MANY more Marines/former Marines wearing their respective Marine shirts, hats, jackets, license plates, etc than you will for soldiers. I think it is great that devil dogs are proud of their service and want everyone to know it. At the same time, I believe soldiers are just as proud, they just don’t feel the compulsion to let everyone around them know how proud they are. I think soldiers simply prefer the quiet professionals approach.

@Redleg13A:

@aequitas:

The USMC has/had so much to offer during WW II. so that I think it could have been sent to one or even more of the above mentioned objectives in strenght of two Battalions.

No they are not only supposed to conduct amphibious assaults against fortified targets, they are also regarded as an elite force for very tough assignments, which they are expected to achieve successfully as mentioned before.

_“On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the resolution to establish two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore. This date marks the official formation of the Continental Marines.”

1st Commandant: Major Samuel Nicholas (1775-1783)_

Just give them a Target, they will take care of it!

Like Pelelieu right?

Pretty sure they fought side by side with the US Army throughout most of the Pacific theater. There was VERY few solo jarhead operations in the Pacific. Not to mention the US Army shouldered fully about 2/3 of the groundpounder requirements for the entirety of the Pacific theater. The Army too, was conducting amphib operations simultaneously and in more frequent numbers ON TOP OF ALL the amphip landings in the ETO.

I love jarheads, worked heavily with them on my 1st and 2nd combat tours in Iraq in and around Fallujah/Ramadi back in 03-04-05. Even occasionally where a 1st MAR Div combat patch on my right shoulder to pay homage to the times I was attached to some of their formations. At the same time, they have VERY GOOD PR and if there were Marines present, you can be assured they got a majority of the press out of it.

Landing on Omaha was about as bloody of an amphibious landing as one could expect and the Army still accomplished the mission. I’m not sure the Marines would have much more to add than what was already accomplished by 1 ID and 29 ID on that beach head.

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Well said. And thank you for your service.

@Redleg13A:

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Here’s an anecdote along the same lines that I mentioned in an earlier discussion:

Back during the First Gulf War, I saw a news item on television in which a reporter spoke (on separate occasions) to a guy from the US Marines and a guy from the US Army.  When he asked the leatherneck why he was in the USMC rather than the Army, the guy answered (as I recall) “Well, I think the Army is kind of ordinary, and I think of myself as somebody who’s more than just ordinary.”  When he later asked the GI why he was in the Army rather than the Marines, the soldier answered, “I know some guys who are in the Marines and they’re all crazy.”

LOL, and that’s basically the crux of it. Marines revolve their lives around their Marine identities it seems. For instance, you’ll see MANY more Marines/former Marines wearing their respective Marine shirts, hats, jackets, license plates, etc than you will for soldiers. I think it is great that devil dogs are proud of their service and want everyone to know it. At the same time, I believe soldiers are just as proud, they just don’t feel the compulsion to let everyone around them know how proud they are. I think soldiers simply prefer the quiet professionals approach.

When I got out of the Marines my office was in an old WW2 barracks. The building across the street was being demolished so was used by Force recon for a live fire urban assault excercise.
We are rah rah about being Marines because we have the scraps of the navy budget and at the time of my exit, deployable Marines were expected to deploy 7 months out of each year and that was a peacetime commitment. We’re good cause we have to be to crack the defenses. There are not many of us so once we’ve made the hole, the army with more and heavier equipment takes over for the long haul. Combined with the Navy’s air assets and our rides, our mission is offensive power projection. We were tasked with attacking the the Iraqis head on to fix their units in Kuwait during the 1990 gulf war. We attacked exactly where they were expecting us to attack so the rest of the coalition could take them from behind. Out of ~500k US troops in theatre, there were 80k of us. That head on attack was however helped by the Army’s Tiger brigade since our armour assets were not enough and the original British armored division allocated to us were reassigned for the encirclement. Hell even our armored battalions had to borrow Abrams from Army units since we took M60A3 tanks with us to war. ( Not to mention the vehicles we unofficially borrowed from the army)

I’m proud of what we did since we did it with with what we had. That was just an example of why we are so proud. We do a lot with less. Pride is the only that drives us since we get the scraps of the military budget. If you want to mention Peleliu then let me bring your attention to Kasserine. By the way the officers and Staff NCOs from my unit went to war with .45s since we hadn’t been issued the Berrettas yet.

Also on topic, There were Marine contingents in Normandy in the Battlewagons. The were scraped together as a secondary assault force for the point du Hoc attack since the rangers were getting splattered. However the assault succeeded so the Marines were never used in Normandie and why we don’t have that Battle honor.

If you want to know if I am talking out of my ass or from experience, check out my thread here and make your own opinions.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28013.0
page 3

Semper Fi and Hoorah

@sgtwiltan:

We were tasked with attacking the the Iraqis head on to fix their units in Kuwait during the 1990 gulf war. We attacked exactly where they were expecting us to attack so the rest of the coalition could take them from behind.

And if I’m not mistaken (I’m quoting from a documentary whose accuracy I can’t verify), the Marine head-on advance into Kuwait progressed faster than had been planned for in the timetable for the overall ground war – so much so, in fact, that senior commanders started to worry that the Iraqi forces in Kuwait City might bolt north for the border before the enveloping Coalition forces could complete their right hook and bag the whole lot.  The Marines also helped the operation in the weeks prior to its start by conducting amphibious landing exercises which were meant to give the Iraqis the impression that the USMC was going to storm shore in the Kuwait City region; this helped draw Iraqi defending forces in that direction, and thus away from the actual locations chosen for the real attacks.

As a footnote, I still remember a TV story in which CBS News anchorman Dan Rather – garbed in a flak jacket, and giving the impression that he’d personally led the Marines into Kuwait City to liberate it – walking around inside an Iraqi coastal bunker with his cameraman.  He picked up a shell from a box of ammunition (it looked about 40mm in size), inspected it, commented “They were really loaded for bear here” and tossed the shell back into the box.  I thought I was going to see him blow himself up on live television, but such was not the case.

@sgtwiltan:

@Redleg13A:

@CWO:

@Redleg13A:

I have a lot of devil dog buddies and whenever they start talking “hoorah” and patting each other on the back with how great they are I like to point out that the Marine Corps may win battles…but the Army wins wars!

Here’s an anecdote along the same lines that I mentioned in an earlier discussion:

Back during the First Gulf War, I saw a news item on television in which a reporter spoke (on separate occasions) to a guy from the US Marines and a guy from the US Army.  When he asked the leatherneck why he was in the USMC rather than the Army, the guy answered (as I recall) “Well, I think the Army is kind of ordinary, and I think of myself as somebody who’s more than just ordinary.”  When he later asked the GI why he was in the Army rather than the Marines, the soldier answered, “I know some guys who are in the Marines and they’re all crazy.”

LOL, and that’s basically the crux of it. Marines revolve their lives around their Marine identities it seems. For instance, you’ll see MANY more Marines/former Marines wearing their respective Marine shirts, hats, jackets, license plates, etc than you will for soldiers. I think it is great that devil dogs are proud of their service and want everyone to know it. At the same time, I believe soldiers are just as proud, they just don’t feel the compulsion to let everyone around them know how proud they are. I think soldiers simply prefer the quiet professionals approach.

When I got out of the Marines my office was in an old WW2 barracks. The building across the street was being demolished so was used by Force recon for a live fire urban assault excercise.
We are rah rah about being Marines because we have the scraps of the navy budget and at the time of my exit, deployable Marines were expected to deploy 7 months out of each year and that was a peacetime commitment. We’re good cause we have to be to crack the defenses. There are not many of us so once we’ve made the hole, the army with more and heavier equipment takes over for the long haul. Combined with the Navy’s air assets and our rides, our mission is offensive power projection. We were tasked with attacking the the Iraqis head on to fix their units in Kuwait during the 1990 gulf war. We attacked exactly where they were expecting us to attack so the rest of the coalition could take them from behind. Out of ~500k US troops in theatre, there were 80k of us. That head on attack was however helped by the Army’s Tiger brigade since our armour assets were not enough and the original British armored division allocated to us were reassigned for the encirclement. Hell even our armored battalions had to borrow Abrams from Army units since we took M60A3 tanks with us to war. ( Not to mention the vehicles we unofficially borrowed from the army)

I’m proud of what we did since we did it with with what we had. That was just an example of why we are so proud. We do a lot with less. Pride is the only that drives us since we get the scraps of the military budget. If you want to mention Peleliu then let me bring your attention to Kasserine. By the way the officers and Staff NCOs from my unit went to war with .45s since we hadn’t been issued the Berrettas yet.

Also on topic, There were Marine contingents in Normandy in the Battlewagons. The were scraped together as a secondary assault force for the point du Hoc attack since the rangers were getting splattered. However the assault succeeded so the Marines were never used in Normandie and why we don’t have that Battle honor.

If you want to know if I am talking out of my ass or from experience, check out my thread here and make your own opinions.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28013.0
page 3

Semper Fi and Hoorah

The point about Pelelieu was that outside of military historians, few know about it. Kasserine Pass is well documented and everyone seems to know about it. The Brits even coined the Americans as their “Italians” because of the cluster f*ck of that battle. It was also the US Army’s first major battle against the Germans. The 1st MAR Div had already experienced Guadalcanal and Gloucester by the time they hit Pelelieu. I’m not taking anything away from the valor of the Marines that participated in that battle, what I am pointing out is that the Army was there too and in many cases had to take over where the Marines simply could not overcome the Japanese forces.

I think there is a modern perception that the Navy and Marine Corps won the war in the Pacific largely on their own…This is simply not the case.