About Marines in WW II
|February 22nd, 2007||#2|
| || |
Marines are tougher than the Army. Anyway, there were some Marines in Europe. Most likely to teach the Army for train on Higgins boats for June 6th, 1944, D-Day. Also, Some marines were part of the Operation Overlord for snipers from the ship to cover the US Army on the beach from German machine gunners. I heard.
And a lot of the US Navy were in the pacific theaters and Marines were under command of the Admiral Nimitz, I think. So, the Navy needs the infantry to attack the Japs island, such as Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Guadacanel, and more but Philipines as General MacArthur's promise to return. Of course, Marines are pretty well-trained and longer than the Army does. Japs were tougher than Germans, Italians. lol I hope you understand my explain. Please correct me if I'm mistake.
I shall return-
General Douglas MacArthur
Last edited by Fox; February 22nd, 2007 at 04:55..
|February 22nd, 2007||#3|
| || |
Marines were under Admiral Nimitz who controlled the Pacific Theater and Nimitz being the man he is (great man) didn't want to send the Marines over to Europe because he knew they could do there job but that he needed them all.
|March 9th, 2007||#4|
| || |
There are a number of reasons that the US Marines weren't used in the D-Day landings.
There's the fact that even in the Pacific, the largest landings were also done by the Army, the US Marine units were used for the smaller islands.
The USN was the junior partner in the D-Day landings, US warships only made up 16% of the total number of warships present.
US Marine units were light on armour compared with similar Army units, not helpful when facing panzers.
If in doubt...... Panic!!!!!!!!
|June 13th, 2007||#5|
| || |
|June 20th, 2007||#6|
| || |
D-Day Normandy was June 6th. D-Day Saipan was June 15th.
Saipan was the first of the islands that Japan claimed as "home territory".
The USMC was a small organization at the beginning of the war. The organization did expand and grow but never to the size of the US Army.
Also, as a former Marine myself, I tend to resent the idea that Marines are or were any tougher than US Army as individuals. American fighting men are American fighting men.
Where the USMC and the US Army differed (outside of the obvious TO%E) was that the USMC fighting SOP had to be much more aggressive than the US Army's due to the nasty nature of fighting a war where every battle starts with an amphibious landing on a confined and isolated geographical point where the enemy still has a presence in both air and naval power that can pose a real threat to the logistics tail of the force.
Battle islands had to be fought with such violent force because time was always of the essence and for every day the battle lasted, the fleet was in danger due to having to remain in a position of potential exposure to subsurface, surface or air attack.
Two cases bear this out.
1. Guadalcannal - the US Navy took a beating while supporting the operation.
2. Okinawa - largest US Navy casualty producing battle of the war. The Navy was taking such a horrendous pounding from the kamakazi attacks that it was seriously discussed whether the operation should be halted, the USMC and US Army forces pulled back onto the ships and the fleet sail away to safety.
It's common habit to laugh at the Japanese suicide attacks now days but at that time, there was real fear that the Navy force at Okinawa would be largely destroyed and the US forces on the ground be left to their own ends.
|June 21st, 2007||#8|
| || |
My grandpa was in the Army in the Pacific and one very telling comment he made once while telling me a story was about the real danger posed by the Japanese even when they were losing a battle and later when it was obvious they were losing the war.
"WE were fighting to stay alive. The Japs were fighting to die. Its a miracle we defeated an enemy who did not fear death but welcomed it."
Kamikaze strikes, insane battlefield charges, sticking it out in a position in the face of withering fire... the tenacity of the Japanese is something that still gives me pause when reading 60 years on. I'd give my left nut to field an entire Army, today, of men like this. TWAT would be but a rough 6 months. Release the hounds. We have units with this mentallity but they are restrained by ROEs and b******t political exigencies.
Massacres be damned this is war. When the politicians decide to initiate hostilities they need to let go the reins and reap both the consequences and the benefits. It is treasonous to do otherwise... ask a man to go to war with an arm tied behind his back.
Looking at TWAT today one thing is painfully clear- we learned NO lessons from Vietnam.
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|June 23rd, 2007||#9|
| || |
The only lesson we needed to learn from Vietnam and have failed to apply is that you can not keep a war effort going in the face of open treason and fully unconstrained enemy sympathizers perverting the homefront.
Our oath says death to all enemy, foreign and domestic.
|Marine Corps Knowledge|
|Marines Battle Their Past In An Iraqi City|
|U.S. Inquiry Backs Charges Of Killing By Marines In Iraq|
|4 Marines Charged In Haditha Killings|
|U.S. Marines seek to 'own the night' in battle for control of dangerous|