Another US Marine WI- USMC in ETO, WWII

During WWII, the overwhelming bulk of the USMC were deployed to the Pacific theatre, conducting amphib assaults on heavily fortified Jap-held islands in the central Pacific from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, with only a very token few involved in ETO, as specialists attached to the OVERLORD invasion force or parachuted into France as OSS operatives to assist the French resistance. There was a Marine garrison on Iceland, the 1st Marine Provisional Bde from 1941-42 stationed alongside the British 49th West Riding (POLAR BEAR) Div, but after March 1942 the bde was withdrawn and sent back to NY, where it was disbanded and not reformed. AFAIK, a significant reason for Marines being absent on a largescale from ETO was due to Army rivalry, with Army commanders not wanting Marines and their flamboyant combat style present, based on the experiences of the Marine Bde in WWI.

What scenarios would've facilitated US Marines becoming involved in ETO at a substantial level such as the presence of a div and supporting elements ? Say an attempted German invasion of Iceland ? Would Nimitz' island-hopping campaign in PTO have been adversely affected by substantial nos. of Marines being involved in ETO instead ?

I'd think you'd have to go as far back as WWI or have to change US ARMY heirarchy to change this one. Army Brass was very jealous that the Marines got most if not all the credit for Belleau Wood. And in general the Army has tried to absorb or argue for the disbandment of the USMC. Wasn't it on Saipan where the ranking (Army) general was killed and the next in line was a Marine General; and the Army moved heaven and earth to fly in a replacement than have a Marine general in command of Army troops?

I think size here is the major issue. The Marine Corp in raised only 6 divisons in WWII, as opposed in 106 Infantry Divisons raised for the US Army during the war. I also don't think a Marine Divison would be geared for fighting in Europe too well, for each divison there was only a Battalion of armor.

All of these Divisons were heavily enaged in Nimitiz's Island hopping campaign. There weren't even enough Marines there, the Army provided several divisons to help out(Saipan being a good example, it was the 2nd and 4th MARDIV, working besides the 27th "NEW YORK" Infantry Divison). Hell, the Marines couldn't spare any ground units to help out with MacArthur's push towards the Phillipines(Though I think the 3rd MAW did provide air support).

I think to get Marine's in Europe you'd have to probably double the amount of divisions they raised. They can possibly do this by cutting down the number of personal is the Marine Air Wings, and support units. The Corp could rely more on the Navy to provide these. Also the Marines raised a large amount of Defense Battalions you esstentail did nothing the entire war.

Once the Marines are in Europe the question is now where to use them? The obvisous answer is where ever there is a need for an amphibious assault. Use them to replace whatever Army divisons would be used for the landing, and have them do all the inital work. This gives them a possibly large work load in the Italian Campaign(where their lack of armor also would be less of a disadvantage).

Of course having Marines there would complicate the logistics. Marines wore differnt uniforms, and of course are Marines. You couldn't use the existing replacement system for them. Soldiers can't be mixed with Marines. So you'd probably use em like they used the Airborne Divisons. Have them do their job, they replace em with heavier forces so they can rest and refit.

Its intersting to note the Marine Corps method for forming a new divison. They would take half the strength of an existing divison(preferably combat experance) and use that as the cadre for the new one. For example: the 3rd MARDIV was raised using vets of Guadalcanal from the 1st MARDIV.

Three things kept significant Marine involvment in ETO. One has already been discussed.

The Army brass was leery of Marines hogging glory like they did in WW1. The press pretty much ignored Army exploits if there was a USMC unit in sight. It was really the Army's fault. The Marines became very press saavy in the 20th Century while the Army didnt. Thats beside the point. The Army's solution was to keep Europe Army turf.

Another factor was the Navy. After 12/7/41 the Navy was into some serious payback. Marines were essential to revenge.

The most important factor though was US strategy. In 1941, Roosevelt decided we would concentrate on Europe first. In the way the US military is structured, the Army wins wars and the Marines win battles. Therefore, the Army went to Europe. When Europe was neutralized, the Army began redeployment to the Pacific to win Round 2.

How do we get the Marines in Europe? Two ways. First, have a US strategy focusing on Japan first. The Army will then deploy to the Pacific and the Marines will go to the European periphery. Next option is for there to be no Pacific war or a lesser threat in the Pacific.

On June 6, 1944 Marines almost directly participated in the D Day invasion. A Marine officer off Point Du Hoc saw at one point that the Rangers were floundering. He rallied a bunch of marines in the invasion force and they got so far as boarding landing craft until they were caught. The Army generals made them go back to guarding ships.

And wouldn't have the Army loved that headline: "US Marines Come to the Rescue of Foundering Elite Army Unit in Cross-Channel Invasion"

Mike Collins said:

The most important factor though was US strategy. In 1941, Roosevelt decided we would concentrate on Europe first. In the way the US military is structured, the Army wins wars and the Marines win battles.

Click to expand...

That's bogus, that's the kind of propaganda the Army use to recruit people away from the Marines even to this day. There's nobody that have more combat experience than the Marines when they fought the Banana Wars in South America in the 30s. I don't think anything could of made the Marines concentrate on Europe instead of the Pacific.

The Marines are under the Department of the Navy, so where ever the fleet goes to fight, they goes. There were Marines at ETO, they were stationed on board the ships that were firing at Normandy during Overlord. They just never landed. Who best to pull off the island hopping stratigy against a naval power such as Japan, than the Marines that wrote the book on amphibious assault and the "Small Wars Manual". Even if the US was to focus on Japan first, I have no doubt that, that will only increase the size of the USMC to fight in the Pacific than shifting the Corps to the ETO. As stated above, the Army had most of the tanks and equipments, so it's only fitting that they fight on the land war against Germany.

Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking, but I don't believe that the Army would of had as much success in the Pacific if they were to fight the Japanese by themselves.

knightyknight said:

That's bogus, that's the kind of propaganda the Army use to recruit people away from the Marines even to this day. There's nobody that have more combat experience than the Marines when they fought the Banana Wars in South America in the 30s. I don't think anything could of made the Marines concentrate on Europe instead of the Pacific.

(snip) Even if the US was to focus on Japan first, I have no doubt that, that will only increase the size of the USMC to fight in the Pacific than shifting the Corps to the ETO. As stated above, the Army had most of the tanks and equipments, so it's only fitting that they fight on the land war against Germany.

Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking, but I don't believe that the Army would of had as much success in the Pacific if they were to fight the Japanese by themselves.

Click to expand...

Thats a very good point. The Marines going into WW2 were the only ones with combat experance in the 1920s and 30s. The Banana Wars in Central America and the Carbiean validated many Marine docturines(particularly the MAGTF- Marine Air Ground Task Force, concept). These Marine's joined the 1st and 2nd MARDIV giving the US combat tested Marines to use on Guadalcanal.

If the Marine's had manage to field more divisons in the way I said before I don't think they would head to Europe. More likely they would allow those Army divisons that served in New Guinea, Sapian, and Okinawa to head to Europe themselves. If the Marines had any extra units then I would expect them to join MacArthur in his drive to the Phillipnes.

The Marines are battle winners, the Army war winners? By far the battles of the central Pacific offensive(who's ultimate goal was Japan) were fought by Marines. Tinian Atoll was captured by Marines.

Though the Marine inside of me does wonder how well 3rd MARDIV would of down at Normandy instead of the 3rd ID.

Maybe you could ask that on the ASB board and look for responses. Although I think you either meant the 1st/29th or 4th Div.

knightyknight said:

That's bogus, that's the kind of propaganda the Army use to recruit people away from the Marines even to this day........

Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking, but I don't believe that the Army would of had as much success in the Pacific if they were to fight the Japanese by themselves.

Click to expand...

Army propaganda? I got the quote from the current Commandant!

Look, Im not trying to take anything away from the Marines. You pretty much said it yourself though. The USMC has never had the heavy units or a robust logistical tail to take part in an extended fight by itself. I agree the Army by itself would probably have trouble in the Pacific. Im also certain there would be significant USMC participation given the terrain.

PSG479 said:

Maybe you could ask that on the ASB board and look for responses. Although I think you either meant the 1st/29th or 4th Div.

Click to expand...

Opps, I meant the 3rd MARDIV instead of the 1 ID. Too many numbers floating around.

Mike Collins said:

Army propaganda? I got the quote from the current Commandant!

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I've never served under the current commandant, I believe he took over the job at around the middle of last year. I was already honorably discharged at that time, but I can assure you, that saying have been going around for a while. I remember in boot camp (fond memories), the DI will be saying that quote and then proceed to tell us how many times the Marines had to saved the Army's butts.

Anyway, if Army win wars, can somebody tell me a war that the Army won by themselves without any assistance by the Marines in the 20th century?

MBarry829 said:

Though the Marine inside of me does wonder how well 3rd MARDIV would of down at Normandy instead of the 3rd ID.

Click to expand...

Here's the TL for you,

June 6, 1944 - D-Day on Normandy with Marines
June 7, 1944 - Marines in Berlin, war over. Hitler's head on a stick.

knightyknight said:

I'm not so sure about that. I've never served under the current commandant, I believe he took over the job at around the middle of last year. I was already honorably discharged at that time, but I can assure you, that saying have been going around for a while. I remember in boot camp (fond memories), the DI will be saying that quote and then proceed to tell us how many times the Marines had to saved the Army's butts.

Anyway, if Army win wars, can somebody tell me a war that the Army won by themselves without any assistance by the Marines in the 20th century?



Here's the TL for you,

June 6, 1944 - D-Day on Normandy with Marines
June 7, 1944 - Marines in Berlin, war over. Hitler's head on a stick.

Click to expand...

just out of curiousity, what unit you serve with?

MBarry829 said:

just out of curiousity, what unit you serve with?

Click to expand...

I wasn't attached to a unit. I was attached to a base. I was stationed at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center (in the middle of no where) at Bridgeport, California.

Well, here we go. Ulitmate thread necromancy, from one of my first threads.

Anyways, I'm doing research about the Marines, and reading the excellent Semper Fidelis: The History of the United States Marine Corp. I revising my previous believe in what the Marines can contribute to the ETO and Italian and Normandy landing in particular. During the Guadalcanal campaign, the JCS sat down and set policy for the US Armed Forces to follow vis-a-vee landing forces in Europe and the Pacific. I think at this point the JCS could actually make the decision that the Marine Corp would provide units to land and establish beachheads at this point.

I think the most practical solution to the probelm of Marines in the ETO is restricting them docturinally to making the landings and establishing the beach heads. I don't think it would be out of the question for the Marine Corp to raise 3 or 4 Brigades for this. Personal can be pulled from the Defense Battalions(who's purpose was fairly dubious by this point), and increasing the Marine Corps size in 43 instead of 44.

AAAHH!! Necromancers! BURN HIM!!! BURN THE APOSTATE!!

To get marines in ETO whe have to win the Pacific, VJ day before VE day.

Decembre 8th ~10th 1941, Phillipines
Due to a number of Butterflies the Jap landings are a failure. the FEAF, Suvives in Battered shape

Decembre 9th
Japan begins it's attack on Singapore

End of January 1942,
FEAF ceases to exsit as the Japanese in Formosa concentrate and Air Superority over the Phillipines.


Febuary 12 1942, Japan again launches an Amphipious Assault on the Phillipines. The US & Phillipino Forces have had a extra two months to prepare,

Febuary 15, Due to the Japanese moving planes and Troops to Prepare for the second assult on the Phillipines, Sinapore holds

March
Due to the British, still controling Sinapore, the Assualts In the Indonesian Islands are a Failure

Late April
It has been a hard 2 1/2 months of fighting retreat, but the US forces are forced into Corriegidor. here it is well stocked and Prepared.

With Indonesia still in Allies hands, the Japanese are begining to hurt.

Decembre 7th 1942
US forces in Corrigador surrender, after 8 months.

january 1943
US kicks off it's island hopping Campaign. Reports of very little Japanese Air Cover puzzle the War Department.

Febuary
A Japanese Airport is captured almost intact, including a few planes still in the Hangers.
Reports Surface about the Planes Fuel Tanks being Bone dry, as well as No fuel in the storage Tanks.

May
Intelligence learns that the Japanese, are evacuating all possible Aircraft back to the Home Islands

June
Invasion of the Phillipines,

August
US begins Bombing raids against Formosa and Okinawa. From the Phillipines

Septembre
Last japanese Combat Troops in the Phillipines surrender.

Novembre
Invasion Okinawa.

January 1944
First US Army Division arrive Okinawa, By June there will be 40.

April 1944
Operation Downfall Starts
http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion1.html
Marines invade Kuril Islands and Sahalikin.

July 17
D-Day Europe

August
Operation Coronet D-Day Japan
Marines invade Hakkiadao,
Japanese lauch all out attack with held back Planes and Fuel.

Novembre
Marines begin to be tranfered to England.

March 1945
Marines lauch Assault on German Forces Norway

The post-war consequences of this TL would be interesting.

Hey guys, jjust briefly- read in a book in Borders the other day about specialised units at D-Day: apparentlky, during the Pointe du Hoc landing, there were 84 US Marines aboard the USS TEXAS, who wanted to go ashore to help the 2nd Rangers after they'd such heavy losses from German fire goin upo the cliff, but were at the last minute over-ruled by higher-ups who didn't wana create the impression of Marines havin to go in and bail out the Army. Therefore, these leathernecks only got to shepherd the German POWs taken by the Rangers after the Pointe was secured. But WI there hadn't been such interservice rivalries, and the TEXAS Marines had been allowed to reinforce the Rangers ?

BTW, also any-1 familiar with Sven Hassel's books at all ? In his novel about the Italian campaign he (mistakenly) has US Marine vets from Guadalcanal leading the Allied landings at Anzio.

Melvin- I've heard of the Marines on the USS Texas before; certainly would have been intersting.

On the issue at hand, I don't think you need to prolong the Pacific War. In late 42 the JSC decided to let the Marine Corp stay in the Pacific. At the same time the Corp was authorize to grow to 250,000.... enough to raise a whole new division and air wing. At this same time, MacArthur was hoarding the 1st Marine Division in the South Pacific, despite not using them in any meaningful capacity in the later part of that campaign.

Furthermore the Marine Corp never recruited the full numbers of African Americans that they were authorized to.

So in this scenerio a serious of things would happen. In late 42, the JSC would order MacArthur to release the 1st Marine Division for the Central Pacific campaign due to start in 43, to be replaced in his command with an Army division as it was later IOTL. At the same time the JSC looks at the experence of the Guadalcanal campaign, and the Torch landings and decides that 2 Marine Divisions would be useful in the ETO for Operation Overlord.

The authorize strength of the Marine Corp is authorized at 300,000(this is still less then the max strength found later in OTL at 500,000), and approves the raising of 3 more Divisions and 2 Airwings. 4th and 5th Marine Division are earmarked for the European campaign, and the 6th for the Pacific capaign(which should be available by late '43). At the conclusion of the Overlord landings, the Marines whould be returned to the PTO, arriving at around the same time the Marine Corp raised it's last 2 divisions OTL.