3 ms·

I'm not disparaging any branch of the service, nor diminishing their contributions across the many fronts of WWII. I am saying that the Army wasn't organizatio

by ethbro 7y ago

I'm not disparaging any branch of the service, nor diminishing their contributions across the many fronts of WWII. I am saying that the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches. Those units that did were re-trained, co-mingled with Marine units, and typically under Marine command (e.g. what eventually became V Amphib). Marine units were built for that mission (i.e. by integrating air assets at a lower level). Army units were not. And I don't think anyone in service would argue you could transfer a unit to a different branch and expect everything to work normally. Military culture makes corporate culture look easy. But my original point was that diversity breeds strength. Army perspective may succeed where Marine perspective fails, or vice versa.

greedo 7y ago
You may say you're not disparaging other branches, but you are. "the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches." So Normandy wasn't defended? Normandy made Peleliu and Tarawa look like a piece of cake. The Army also developed amphibious doctrine and training on its own with the ATC. It could be argued that Marine doctrine was flawed; Marine units lacked the logistical support for longterm conflicts. Army units did a better job of sustained operations. Amphibious assaults involved more than seizing a beachhead, especially with well entrenched Japanese troops. And to be clear, Army units weren't "co-mingled" with Marine units, except at corp level. Army units operated in divisions. Fundamentally, the Army had more troops in the Pacific, did more amphibious landings, arguably against tougher defenses, yet the Corp PR machine would have you think the Marines did it all by themselves. How many people even know the Army fought on Guadalcanal?
- ethbro 7y ago
  If you want to debate that attacking along a ~50 km front is analogous to assaulting a 13 sq km island, then we're talking past each other. I'm also not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that Army doctrine was more effective for amphibious assaults?

by ethbro 7y ago

greedo 7y ago

You may say you're not disparaging other branches, but you are. "the Army wasn't organizationally crafted around or trained for amphibious assaults against defended beaches." So Normandy wasn't defended? Normandy made Peleliu and Tarawa look like a piece of cake. The Army also developed amphibious doctrine and training on its own with the ATC. It could be argued that Marine doctrine was flawed; Marine units lacked the logistical support for longterm conflicts. Army units did a better job of sustained operations. Amphibious assaults involved more than seizing a beachhead, especially with well entrenched Japanese troops. And to be clear, Army units weren't "co-mingled" with Marine units, except at corp level. Army units operated in divisions. Fundamentally, the Army had more troops in the Pacific, did more amphibious landings, arguably against tougher defenses, yet the Corp PR machine would have you think the Marines did it all by themselves. How many people even know the Army fought on Guadalcanal?

ethbro 7y ago
If you want to debate that attacking along a ~50 km front is analogous to assaulting a 13 sq km island, then we're talking past each other. I'm also not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that Army doctrine was more effective for amphibious assaults?