Army in Europe; Marines in the Pacific (WW2)

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan? What was it that each branch of the US military had to do with each part of the war? And why was it better to fight both at the same time than focus all their military might on one enemy at a time?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Army did a ton of landings in the Pacific too.

[Alvecia]

Makes sense to have the amphibious troops do the island hopping, no?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Marines specialise in naval operations as well as land operations, and most of the ground battles that occurred in the pacific took the form of naval invasions on island chains, so it makes sense to deploy soldiers who are more dedicated and specialise in this kind of warfare to the pacific. You know its what they are for, Marines do naval invasions and island hopping, the Army fights on land continuously.

But im pretty certain the American Army also fought alongside the marines in the pacific theatre of the war too, and im certain there were some marines in the european and african theatres of the war at some stage.

[Grinning Dragon]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan? What was it that each branch of the US military had to do with each part of the war? And why was it better to fight both at the same time than focus all their military might on one enemy at a time?

Why wouldn't the US fight two theaters? The US had China as an ally in the Pacific, and in Europe the US had Britain and Russia, further stretching German forces and resources. The US had industrial capacity, population, and resources, making a two pronged approach possible.

Army and Marines worked side by side in both Europe and the Pacific.

[Frank Zipper]

So is this thread just based on a misunderstanding?

[Washington Resistance Army]

So is this thread just based on a misunderstanding?

Pretty much.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Because Marines are a branch if the navy.

[Saiwania]

What each branch of the US armed forces does is fairly straightforward.

The Army is infantry and vehicles which specialize in land warfare, they fight any opposing force on land, such as in the European theater.

The Marines are naval infantry which specialize in storming beaches and holding it, in other words establishing a beachhead. The island hopping that the Pacific theater had was what they more or less were always meant to do.

The Navy is ships and submarines which fight on or in the open sea against any opposing navy and provides coastal support.

The Air Force (was part of the Army during WW2, wasn't made into a separate branch until after) establishes air superiority, aircraft which bombs targets from above or engages enemy aircraft and maybe does reconnaissance and close air support.

To get decisive victory in modern warfare, tight coordination between all 3 aspects (land, air, sea) is usually needed. An air force and navy that dominates will heavily tilt the outcome in your favor, but a good infantry still has to take and hold ground.

[Gallia-]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Japan was the lesser threat.

Makes sense to have the amphibious troops do the island hopping, no?

Considering the largest and most successful amphibious assaults in history were done by the US Army, no. Not really.

The USMC's expansion was political, not practical. The Navy was trying to replace the Army and the Army was too busy fighting the Air Force to bother replacing the Navy.

Marines specialise in naval operations as well as land operations, and most of the ground battles that occurred in the pacific took the form of naval invasions on island chains, so it makes sense to deploy soldiers who are more dedicated and specialise in this kind of warfare to the pacific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anzio

Not a single Marine in sight. All successful amphibious assaults of titanic scale compared to what was done in the Pacific. Not that the USMC could even win the Pacific by itself, though, since their supreme commander was an Army general and pretty much every major amphibious landing in the Pacific was a 50/50 split between Marines and Army at best.

[Maichuko]

The marines were used for Amphibious landings, and the Japanese held A lot of Islands. The U.S army did contribute Several divisions to the New Guinea campaign. and several hundred thousand men from the Army fought in the liberation of the Philippines and on Okinawa.

[Uxupox]

What each branch of the US armed forces does is fairly straightforward.

To get decisive victory in modern warfare, tight coordination between all 3 aspects (land, air, sea) is usually needed. An air force and navy that dominates will heavily tilt the outcome in your favor, but a good infantry still has to take and hold ground.

This answer is so good that I'll baptize my 7th kid after you.

[Napkiraly]

There are a lot of reasons as to why the USMC was deployed to the Pacific Theater, one being disagreements over Europe first within the USN which due to Pearl Harbor was really wanting to focus on the Japanese. Ernest King, as COMINCH and CNO that transferred the USMC combat units to the Pacific Theater so as to give the Navy full land combat capabilities against the Japanese while the Army was split and primarily focused on Europe (though of course plenty within the US Army were opposed to Europe first and wanted to focus on the Japanese, the most well known being MacArthur). It helped of course that the USMC had a long history of combat deployments far from home and as naval infantry were primed to take part in the island hopping campaigns that would be a major feature of the Pacific Theater.

[Uxupox]

Because Marines are a branch if the navy.

We all know for a fact that the navy primary role is to serve as transportation for the marines.

[Thermodolia]

Makes sense to have the amphibious troops do the island hopping, no?

The USMC's expansion was political, not practical. The Navy was trying to replace the Army and the Army was too busy fighting the Air Force to bother replacing the Navy.

You do know that the Air Force didn't exist until 1947, right? Before that it was the Army Air Corps. It was apart of the army not its own branch. So I don't know how it was political but the Army being the largest force was mostly in Europe fighting Nazi germany so the marines and what ever was left of the army went to the pacific.

[Gallia-]

The USMC's expansion was political, not practical. The Navy was trying to replace the Army and the Army was too busy fighting the Air Force to bother replacing the Navy.

You do know that the Air Force didn't exist until 1947, right?

Literally irrelevant, unless you have literally no knowledge of the Doctrine Wars or the Rex Incident.

Creation of GHQ Air Force essentially made the independence of the Air Force in the legal sense more or less inevitable. It was already de facto independent in 1935, when development of the B-17 picked up in earnest. The Flying Fortress was one thing that the Army Ground Force kept trying to squash, along with basically anything else related to aircraft (like radars and fighters) which directly led to the Air Mail Incident. The Rex Incident made the Navy skittish, allegedly (Air Force historians are divided; Maurer Maurer says they didn't while Thomas Greer says they did) asking Malin Craig, CoS of Army, to restrict USAAC bombers out to 100 nautical miles from the US coast.

The idea that planes could find and sink ships effectively, hundreds of miles away from the US coast, put the Navy's entire existence in mortal danger. The idea that planes could find and destroy ground troops, demolish cities, and ruin economies without needing a land invasion put the Army's existence in mortal danger. They were both terrified they might be legislated out of existence by the air lords, like in H.G. Wells' book, so of course they fought the airplane.

Luckily for the Army, the Air Force's ability to destroy countries was greatly exaggerated. Unluckily for the Navy, the Air Force's ability to destroy ships was understated, but that took until the development of the atomic bomb to truly be realized. The guided missile restored the balance, somewhat, and it's been a tug of war between the Air Force and the Navy ever since, with the Navy gaining ground in the late industrial and early digital ages; but they can't fully replicate each other (the Air Force can attack things the Navy can't, and the Navy is immune to air attacks but can't beat an Air Force) so they stay for now.

Before that it was the Army Air Corps.

It had a different name. What is your point?

It was apart of the army not its own branch.

Nonsense. The USAAF Chief of Staff Henry Arnold (not USAAC, the USAAC disappeared before the USA even joined the war) was essentially equivalent to the Army Chief of Staff George Marshall. His role was much more than intended by the Army's attempts to keep the Air Force from becoming independent, because he was a chief player in the role of air power and its use. It's all very well documented that the War Department and Department of the Navy were essentially locked in civil war until 1947, as both were worried that the potential of airpower would render their services obsolete.

It came to a head in 1946 when the Army dropped an atomic bomb on some battleships and pretty much rendered the entire US Navy obsolete overnight. Four years of refined fleet defense tactics went down the tubes when planes could kill entire fleets a mile away with a single bomb.

Why do you think the DoD was made in the first place? For giggles? It was to keep the various branches of the US military from destroying themselves in a bureaucratic battle royale.

So I don't know how it was political

Because it means the Army can be kept out of the Pacific.

but the Army being the largest force was mostly in Europe fighting Nazi germany

And the Japanese in the Pacific.

so the marines and what ever was left of the army went to the pacific.

And, of course, it would be impossible to make the Marines' divisions into Army divisions instead.

The USMC is literally a historical accident. It's nothing more than an attempt by the Navy to grab turf from the Army in the expeditionary warfare role, disguised as a necessity. There was a big Doctrine War about the Navy's advanced basing concepts in the 1930s because it demanded that the Navy have an expansion of the Marine Corps. There's also really no need for it because the US Army has done bigger and more complex amphibious operations with greater success than the USMC.

The only reason the Army wasn't devoting resources to arguing against the advanced basing concept is because the Army and the Navy were threatened by the growing power of the airplane, which they made every attempt to limit. The Navy was the most successful while the Army lost the battle that it dug its heels into. It probably would have won a battle against the Marine Corps, though.

As a result, the US Navy has the weakest air force in the world, while the US Air Force is the strongest, because the former neuters its ability to use air power to its fullest extent (by buying nothing but helicopters and fighter-bombers), while the latter fully embraces air power's benefits and abilities (with its land-based ICBMs, stealth bombers, and massive tanker fleet).

[Uxupox]

You do know that the Air Force didn't exist until 1947, right?

Literally irrelevant, unless you have literally no knowledge of the Doctrine Wars or the Rex Incident.

Creation of GHQ Air Force essentially made the independence of the Air Force in the legal sense more or less inevitable. It was already de facto independent in 1935, when development of the B-17 picked up in earnest. The Flying Fortress was one thing that the Army Ground Force kept trying to squash, along with basically anything else related to aircraft (like radars and fighters) which directly led to the Air Mail Incident. The Rex Incident made the Navy skittish, allegedly (Air Force historians are divided; Maurer Maurer says they didn't while Thomas Greer says they did) asking Malin Craig, CoS of Army, to restrict USAAC bombers out to 100 nautical miles from the US coast.

The idea that planes could find and sink ships effectively, hundreds of miles away from the US coast, put the Navy's entire existence in mortal danger. The idea that planes could find and destroy ground troops, demolish cities, and ruin economies without needing a land invasion put the Army's existence in mortal danger. They were both terrified they might be legislated out of existence by the air lords, like in H.G. Wells' book, so of course they fought the airplane.

Luckily for the Army, the Air Force's ability to destroy countries was greatly exaggerated. Unluckily for the Navy, the Air Force's ability to destroy ships was understated, but that took until the development of the atomic bomb to truly be realized. The guided missile restored the balance, somewhat, and it's been a tug of war between the Air Force and the Navy ever since, with the Navy gaining ground in the late industrial and early digital ages; but they can't fully replicate each other (the Air Force can attack things the Navy can't, and the Navy is immune to air attacks but can't beat an Air Force) so they stay for now.

Before that it was the Army Air Corps.

It had a different name. What is your point?

It was apart of the army not its own branch.

Nonsense. The USAAF Chief of Staff Henry Arnold (not USAAC, the USAAC disappeared before the USA even joined the war) was essentially equivalent to the Army Chief of Staff George Marshall. His role was much more than intended by the Army's attempts to keep the Air Force from becoming independent, because he was a chief player in the role of air power and its use. It's all very well documented that the War Department and Department of the Navy were essentially locked in civil war until 1947, as both were worried that the potential of airpower would render their services obsolete.

It came to a head in 1946 when the Army dropped an atomic bomb on some battleships and pretty much rendered the entire US Navy obsolete overnight. Four years of refined fleet defense tactics went down the tubes when planes could kill entire fleets a mile away with a single bomb.

Why do you think the DoD was made in the first place? For giggles? It was to keep the various branches of the US military from destroying themselves in a bureaucratic battle royale.

So I don't know how it was political

Because it means the Army can be kept out of the Pacific.

but the Army being the largest force was mostly in Europe fighting Nazi germany

And the Japanese in the Pacific.

so the marines and what ever was left of the army went to the pacific.

And, of course, it would be impossible to make the Marines' divisions into Army divisions instead.

The USMC is literally a historical accident. It's nothing more than an attempt by the Navy to grab turf from the Army in the expeditionary warfare role, disguised as a necessity. There was a big Doctrine War about the Navy's advanced basing concepts in the 1930s because it demanded that the Navy have an expansion of the Marine Corps. There's also really no need for it because the US Army has done bigger and more complex amphibious operations with greater success than the USMC.

The only reason the Army wasn't devoting resources to arguing against the advanced basing concept is because the Army and the Navy were threatened by the growing power of the airplane, which they made every attempt to limit. The Navy was the most successful while the Army lost the battle that it dug its heels into. It probably would have won a battle against the Marine Corps, though.

As a result, the US Navy has the weakest air force in the world, while the US Air Force is the strongest, because the former neuters its ability to use air power to its fullest extent (by buying nothing but helicopters and fighter-bombers), while the latter fully embraces air power's benefits and abilities (with its land-based ICBMs, stealth bombers, and massive tanker fleet).

BRING BACK THE SECRETARY OF WAR!

[Napkiraly]

Sounds like somebody is taking the Army vs. Navy football rivalry a bit too seriously.

[Gallia-]

Sounds like somebody is taking the Army vs. Navy football rivalry a bit too seriously.

If I used a cliche quote would you be able to digest the knowledge better?

You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together—what do you get? The sum of their fears.

Annual funding and power politics is serious business.

[Bears Armed]

The Air Force (was part of the Army during WW2, wasn't made into a separate branch until after) establishes air superiority, aircraft which bombs targets from above or engages enemy aircraft and maybe does reconnaissance and close air support.

The USMC had its own [internal] squadrons of aircraft for the latter role.

[Thermodolia]

Sounds like somebody is taking the Army vs. Navy football rivalry a bit too seriously.

If I used a cliche quote would you be able to digest the knowledge better?

You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together—what do you get? The sum of their fears.

Annual funding and power politics is serious business.

Ok but that doesn't have anything to do with the Pacific theatre or the fact that the USMC still exists. Public perception matters and the Marines have definitely won that one.

Now as a soldier who has just defended the marines I'm going to go make a sacrifice to Patton

[NewLakotah]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan? What was it that each branch of the US military had to do with each part of the war? And why was it better to fight both at the same time than focus all their military might on one enemy at a time?

A large majority of the fighting was actually done by the Army in the Pacific, along with the large 14th Army of the British Army, who fought in Burma and the Mainland, and the US Army doing a lot of the amphibious and major operations in the Pacific as well as Europe. Mostly, however, is because Europe was the main priority since they were the biggest and largest threat. Hence, they would send the most and largest units into Europe to ensure an early victory by partnering with British Commonwealth Forces and French forces, and others Allied forces as well.

So in actuality, the Army fought both theatres of the war, and the Marines only the one. So to say that only the Marines fought in the Pacific would be belittling the US Army troops, not to mention the ANZAC, Indian and British Forces that fought there as well.

[Sovaal]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan? What was it that each branch of the US military had to do with each part of the war? And why was it better to fight both at the same time than focus all their military might on one enemy at a time?

Pretty sure the Liberation of the Philippines was a largely Army endeavor.

Also, if your at war with two different countries, it would be a bad idea to just focus on one at a time. The Germans probably lost the war because of that.

[Sovaal]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan? What was it that each branch of the US military had to do with each part of the war? And why was it better to fight both at the same time than focus all their military might on one enemy at a time?

A large majority of the fighting was actually done by the Army in the Pacific, along with the large 14th Army of the British Army, who fought in Burma and the Mainland, and the US Army doing a lot of the amphibious and major operations in the Pacific as well as Europe. Mostly, however, is because Europe was the main priority since they were the biggest and largest threat. Hence, they would send the most and largest units into Europe to ensure an early victory by partnering with British Commonwealth Forces and French forces, and others Allied forces as well.

So in actuality, the Army fought both theatres of the war, and the Marines only the one. So to say that only the Marines fought in the Pacific would be belittling the US Army troops, not to mention the ANZAC, Indian and British Forces that fought there as well.

Ah man, the Forgotten Army. I almost forgot about those guys.

[Thermodolia]

So this Pacific scene got me thinking; why was the Army sent to deal with the Nazis if the Marines were sent to deal with Japan? What was it that each branch of the US military had to do with each part of the war? And why was it better to fight both at the same time than focus all their military might on one enemy at a time?

Pretty sure the Liberation of the Philippines was a largely Army endeavor.

Also, if your at war with two different countries, it would be a bad idea to just focus on one at a time. The Germans probably lost the war because of that.

Yup. The marines got the little islands/made the way for the army to land.