Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just finished by third book on D-Day and Normandy in last month or two, and am surprised by the consistent poor marks given the strategic bombers in a tactical role during D-day itself. I have read many books on the subject over the years, it is interesting how different things jump off the page at different times.
I know the P-47, P-38 and, I think, the RAF Typhoon, were incredibly effective at interdiction, but it seems a real gap existed on delivering pin-point strikes on hardened bunkers, emplacements, guns, etc.
Were USN Dive bombers ever considered for such a role? It seems both the hardware and the expertise were available, but they seem to have been ignored.
I am certainly not Mr WWII, but have never come across anything. It seems, 70 years later, and with 20/20 hindsight the Helldiver, or even Dauntless would have been quite effective, given the air superiority, over the coast, at knocking out a myriad of D-day targets.
Anyone either know anything about this, or have any thoughts?
Strategic bombers were never intended for a tactical ground role and were not accurate enough to be used for such. The one exception, the attack that preceeded the final breakthrough in Normandy, was achieved by simply pouring overwhelming numbers of bombs into very limited areas against panzer lehr.
There were many reasons that naval dive bombers were never considered for such a role. They had a very weak bomb load (often a single 1,000 bomb) and had limited experience in June 1944 striking individual targets such as a pill box - their targets were either ships or geographic features. They obviously had poor effectiveness at Iwa Jima or Okinawa, given the difficulty in knocking out pillboxes from the air.
To be effective at specific targets like pillboxes you have to have extrmely effective ground and air coordination. Tactically and strategically this did not exist between the US navy and the US Army in Europe. The doctrine, experience, and equipment to do so did not exist there. Its generally agreed that marine corp aviation was far better than the USAA in the Pacific specifically because of such doctrine and cooperation issues.
I think a more interesting question is why no Marine units were utilized in any of the large allied landings in Europe. I assume it was either because of their lack of effective artillery against a much better equiped opponents than the Japanese, or conflict between the army and navy. Or possibly because their insistance on being all volunteer simply meant there were not enough marines.
The Dauntless and the Helldiver were specifically designed as carrier launched dive bombers and their inherent design made them more useful for use in the Pacific.
As far as the Marines, their lack of deployment to Europe was somewhat political. There was a significant resentment against the Marines by certain senior Army officers dating back to WWI when Marines were deployed in Europe as infantry and at least in the Army's mind they got to much attention in the press. When WWII came around it was to be an almost all Army operation.
Even after WWII the anti Marine Corps lobby continued to flourish with a failed attempt to abolish the Corps altogether.
Even after WWII the anti Marine Corps lobby continued to flourish with a failed attempt to abolish the Corps altogether.
Now we have Marines fighting in a landlocked nation and that makes no sense to me at all. Using the Marines as regular combat troops rather than as simply amphibious specialists must be costing the taxpayers billions.
I am sure jealousy and internal politics played a key role in the dispute. In both Vietnam and Korea the Army fought a war trying to gain control over Marine Aviation. During the horrific fighting in 1968 this issue took up a signficant portion of Westmoreland's attention.
The Marines are an elite force due to their training and history, one that the army has never successfully been able to copy. People ignore institutional realities in arguing that it makes no sense to have a marine corps fighting on land. If marine ground forces were abolished, the army could not replace them. Tradition matters and can not be easily created from scratch. Beyond that the marines have traditionally stressed personnel and better relations with the native public, while the Army has focused on technology and raw firepower for battles. They would not be willing to copy Marine values even if that was desirable.
They would not be willing to copy Marine values even if that was desirable.
That might be true; that the Army doesn't want to have units with certain values. Otherwise there's no reason they couldn't train certain units to have certain values; they do that anyways.
In any event The United States Army has defeated many formidable enemies without the help of the Marine Corps. The Army of Northern Virginia for instance.
I don't think the army could train people with the same values as the marine corp. Values can't just be manufactured, they form over centuries and are embedded in the organization itself. Efforts to deliberately change organizational culture nearly invariably fail. For one reason, the senior leadership is as influenced by the values as anyone else. Marines are not just soldiers with different training and indoctrination. They are the result of three centuries of events and behavior fundamentally different than that which formed the army.
I am reminded when (after hearing a reference to Grant taking Richmond) Granny on the Beverly Hillibillies chased a banker through the house with a shotgun
Now we have Marines fighting in a landlocked nation and that makes no sense to me at all. Using the Marines as regular combat troops rather than as simply amphibious specialists must be costing the taxpayers billions.
That's because today the USMC are really just elite assault infantry. Most nations use their marines/naval infantry as amphibious assault units or rapid reaction units.
I fail to see why we need a seperate military within the military. Either significantly downsize the USMC and limit them to rapid reaction forces or amphibious infantry or absorb them into the US Army and rename them to the Republican Guard or some name that would reflect their elite status.
Because the marine corps are fundamentally different than the army and provide land capacities the army can not. Its like asking why the military has helicopters or the marines aviation rather than let them be run by the air force.
Because the marine corps are fundamentally different than the army and provide land capacities the army can not. Its like asking why the military has helicopters or the marines aviation rather than let them be run by the air force.
US Marines is a name that reflects elite status.
If the taxpayers decide the Army should provide the capabilities the Marines do (and I'm not sure what those are now considering the Army is professional) then the Army will.
Traditions can be created quickly, especially a tradition of discipline and victory; the New Model Army and Marius's Mules come to mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
