Marines at Omaha

Marines at Omaha (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Dragoon 45 -> Marines at Omaha (10/21/2005 7:56:00 AM)
As I have stated in some previous threads, Eisenhower requested at least two Marine Divisions to spearhead the Normandy Invasion. His request was not granted due to the demands of the Pacific Theater. The Navy would not release any from the Pacific. In a large part this resulted in the formation of the Ranger Units in the Army as the Army saw a need for dedicated assault troops. I have been toying with the idea of developing a scenario, kind of a what if, about the Marines leading the assault on Omaha and/or Utah beaches. Has anyone done anything like this before. To the best of my knowledge I can't remember anything like this. Does anyone else?

m10bob -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/21/2005 11:25:15 AM)
Hi Dragoon.............. I have never heard of this before. I have had a lifetime to study this particular battle, as my father was a career officer, assigned to HHC 116th RCT, on Omaha, early that morning. It is possible this item may have been mentioned in a history book (which I may have missed seeing), but as for the Rangers, well, we all know they were an active component of the Army in late 1942. (In fact, a component of the 29th ID was called the 29th Rangers, and they had some men participate in landings with Brit commandoes in 1942 on France !) This would certainly preclude the notion of the "lack of Gyrenes" being considered a catalyst for a yet to be formulated Operation Overlord ?? I was a Ranger myself, and we try to be cognizant of Ranger history.[;)]

Dragoon 45 -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/21/2005 12:51:06 PM)
I believe I originally got the information on Eisenhower's request for Marines in Europe from Rick Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn", which deals with North Africa, but I will have to go back and check. Eisenhower requested two Marine Divisions to spearhead landings in the European Theater prior to Torch. In particular he wanted them for any invasion of France. The Navy denied the request as they wanted all available Marine Units in the Pacific. I was both a Marine and a Soldier. Went to Ranger school as a Marine while assigned to Force Recon. I attended what they called the Ranger Critical Leaders Course, which taught all the tactics and techniques but without the attendent harassment and sleep deprivation. Good Course! But from watching Ranger School and attending USMC Basic there was not a lot of difference between the two that I saw (late 70's). I meant no disparagement on the Rangers as they are a very good organization. But reading a biography of William Darby, the author stated that what tipped the balance for the formation of the Rangers in WW II was the unavailability of Marines for assault troops for the ETO. Army Commanders saw a need for assault troops in various types of operations especially amphibious operations and realized that they would have to supply their own in lieu of the Marines. "Omaha Beach, A Flawed Victory" by Adrian Lewis also backs up the Eisenhower request for Marines and the lack of assault troops in the Army prior to the formation of the Rangers. Lewis also in the book takes great pains in comparing amphibious operations in Europe and the Pacific. His contention is that the planning for Overlord was greatly flawed especially in the Naval Gunfire Plan and also in the CAS plan. Use of boat teams (about a platoon and a half in strength) because of landing craft shortages instead of organic platoons caused unnecessary confusion and led to breakdowns in the chain of command especially on Omaha. He also touches on the fact that the troops in the initial landings were not trained for anything after they had fought their way off the beaches, hence all the trouble they had with the bocage country. He dings Eisenhower, Montgomery, Bradley, and others hard for what he terms unrealistic planning and training. Although he does not come out and say so in the book I got the impression that he believes that the Marines would not have had as much trouble on Omaha as the 1st and 29th did taking the beach and continuing inland. This in no way is a criticism of the individual soldiers, but is a criticism of the commanders involved, which he believes poorly planned the Overlord Assault. He also points out that up till mid May Eisenhower had reservations in using the 29th for the initial assaults. He wanted to pull an experienced division from Italy to replace them, but in the end didn't. As far as my original post I am postulating a what if scenario with Marine Units replacing Army Units on D-Day as if Eisenhower's request had been granted by the Joint Chiefs. quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Hi Dragoon.............. I have never heard of this before. I have had a lifetime to study this particular battle, as my father was a career officer, assigned to HHC 116th RCT, on Omaha, early that morning. It is possible this item may have been mentioned in a history book (which I may have missed seeing), but as for the Rangers, well, we all know they were an active component of the Army in late 1942. (In fact, a component of the 29th ID was called the 29th Rangers, and they had some men participate in landings with Brit commandoes in 1942 on France !) This would certainly preclude the notion of the "lack of Gyrenes" being considered a catalyst for a yet to be formulated Operation Overlord ?? I was a Ranger myself, and we try to be cognizant of Ranger history.[;)]

Sturmpionier -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/21/2005 5:46:20 PM)
I am hesitant about any of the "good planning/bad planning on D-Day" ideas you mention the authors advancing. However, I think that a large Omaha scen would give a nice approximation of what a substitution of Marines vs. raw Army troops would have done on Omaha. The trick here (of many tricks) would be to bump the leathernecks experience up even higher than you normally might expect. Not to reflect "combat experience" but to reflect the experience of having conducted amphib landings already. Your idea would definitely be fun, and could prove educational.

KG Erwin -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/22/2005 1:03:10 AM)
I got a better idea. For a while, it was considered to use the Marines in the North African landing of November 1942. Many in the 1st and 2nd MarDivs fully expected this, as the "Germany First" policy was taken as gospel. This was taken as an assumption as far back as February 1941, when these Marine divisions were formed. They fully expected to return to Europe, as they had done in WWI.

Riun T -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/22/2005 11:36:31 PM)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the higherups where also worried about having a large number of of marines with european background and ancestry that was a concern for some troops to be expected to bear arms on folks whom might have been distant relitives in the theatre at the time.RT

KG Erwin -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/22/2005 11:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Riun T I seem to remember reading somewhere that the higherups where also worried about having a large number of of marines with european background and ancestry that was a concern for some troops to be expected to bear arms on folks whom might have been distant relitives in the theatre at the time.RT I'd like to find your source for that, Riun. This sounds like a smokescreen for some old-fashioned interservice rivalry & jealousy. It REALLY sounds odd coming from the office of a Supreme Commander with the distinctly Germanic-descended name of Eisenhower. [:D]

Randy -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/24/2005 7:18:43 AM)
I think that instead of having Marines at Normandy a better idea would have been to have had more naval gunfire support to support the operation. But this would have tipped off the location of the landing and pointed out that Normandy was the main beachhead. Instead of using Marines, how about using amtracs, and armored amtracs for fire support. The LVT(A)1 (with 37mm gun) was available at the time. The LVT (A) 4 was just becoming operational at this time, and went to the Pacific. In reality though, the Pacific had priority over the Marines as well as the amtracs.

Sturmpionier -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/24/2005 5:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Riun T I seem to remember reading somewhere that the higherups where also worried about having a large number of of marines with european background and ancestry that was a concern for some troops to be expected to bear arms on folks whom might have been distant relitives in the theatre at the time.RT That was actually a concern for all the armed forces, not just the Marines. It was not uncommon to have American units where at least one guy had thick Italian/German accent. Odds weren't bad that if you got drafted from Minnesoota or Wiscahnsin that the streetsigns in your town had been written in German in your lifetime. [sarcasm] Also, I have heard that there were large numbers of Italians in the NY area in the 1930's & 40's. I will do some more research & see if that was true. [/sarcasm]

m10bob -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/26/2005 4:03:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sturmpionier I am hesitant about any of the "good planning/bad planning on D-Day" ideas you mention the authors advancing. However, I think that a large Omaha scen would give a nice approximation of what a substitution of Marines vs. raw Army troops would have done on Omaha. The trick here (of many tricks) would be to bump the leathernecks experience up even higher than you normally might expect. Not to reflect "combat experience" but to reflect the experience of having conducted amphib landings already. Your idea would definitely be fun, and could prove educational. Just to keep the thread alive....These were not "raw" army troops at Omaha.. The Big Red One was the most combat experienced American army division on any front at this time, and had been in steady combat in North Africa and Sicily. The 115th and 116th RCT's of the 29th under "Chin Strap' Charlie Gerhardt had a reputation for being the most "strack and drilled" National Guard division of the entire army before Pearl Harbor..For this reason, these 2 RCT's were assigned that day (and only that day) to the 1st ID...........(The 175th RCT joined them on the following day with the other divisional units.)[8D] Please note, that while none of the units landed where they were supposed to, the units of the 29th were given the left flank, where enemy reinforcements were expected to hit the hardest. This would be some indication of Ike's confidence in the 29th. BTW, the 116th traces its' history directly to the old "Stonewall Brigade" of the ACW......... Thruout the war, the units of the 29th lived up to their ancestors reputation............

Dragoon 45 -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/26/2005 8:05:36 AM)
I agree they were not raw, but they were green. By that I mean they were well trained but had no combat experience in the case of the 29th. Which was probably a good thing. Experienced troops do not take the chances that green troops do. In this case being green was an advantage. I am not sure I would classify the 1st ID as the most experienced division in the US Army at that point. The 34th, 36th, and 45th ID's had all made at least three amphibious assaults by that time as had the 1st ID. 1st ID had been pulled out of Italy late in 43 if memory serves correctly and had been in training in England for at least 6 months prior to D-Day. Meanwhile units in Italy had been steadily catching up to them in experience and days in combat. I would agree that the 1st ID was one of the three or four most experienced divisions in the Army at that point. I can't find it right now, but a while back I found a web site that list days in combat for US Divisions in WW II. In the ETO the 45th ID (500 +) had the most days in combat of all deployed divisions including the 1st ID (400 +). In the Pacific the 1st Cav Div had the most days in combat and also the most days in combat of any theater IIRC 712 days. The 45th was second overall and the 1st ID was fourth or fifth. As soon as I find the site again I will post it. I question if the 1st Cav had that many days in combat in WW II, and therefore wonder if the site is correct. quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Just to keep the thread alive....These were not "raw" army troops at Omaha.. The Big Red One was the most combat experienced American army division on any front at this time, and had been in steady combat in North Africa and Sicily. The 115th and 116th RCT's of the 29th under "Chin Strap' Charlie Gerhardt had a reputation for being the most "strack and drilled" National Guard division of the entire army before Pearl Harbor..For this reason, these 2 RCT's were assigned that day (and only that day) to the 1st ID...........(The 175th RCT joined them on the following day with the other divisional units.)[8D] Please note, that while none of the units landed where they were supposed to, the units of the 29th were given the left flank, where enemy reinforcements were expected to hit the hardest. This would be some indication of Ike's confidence in the 29th. BTW, the 116th traces its' history directly to the old "Stonewall Brigade" of the ACW......... Thruout the war, the units of the 29th lived up to their ancestors reputation............

Dragoon 45 -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/26/2005 9:22:06 AM)
Here is a page that references days in combat for ETO US Divisions. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/eto-ob/etoob-toc.htm It is the not page I was referring to earlier and only counts days in combat in the ETO not Italy or North Africa.

m10bob -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/26/2005 12:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45 Here is a page that references days in combat for ETO US Divisions. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/eto-ob/etoob-toc.htm It is the not page I was referring to earlier and only counts days in combat in the ETO not Italy or North Africa. Very much like your site regarding OOB.. I use Shelby Stanton's book Order of Battle WW2 for my info, (which pretty much breaks it all down by dates, giving the Big Red One the honors on that particular date...).. The 29th DID have men with combat experience on June 6th..The 29th provisional Ranger bn was broken up in late 1943 and the men put into the 3 RCT's as cadre.. As for the notion of making a scenerio of Gyrenes at Omaha....why not ??[:)]

Dragoon 45 -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/27/2005 4:13:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Very much like your site regarding OOB.. I use Shelby Stanton's book Order of Battle WW2 for my info, (which pretty much breaks it all down by dates, giving the Big Red One the honors on that particular date...).. The 29th DID have men with combat experience on June 6th..The 29th provisional Ranger bn was broken up in late 1943 and the men put into the 3 RCT's as cadre.. As for the notion of making a scenerio of Gyrenes at Omaha....why not ??[:)] While I am not doubting your source on the 29th provisional Ranger Bn, I must ask were the troops in this unit Ranger Trained and Qualified? As far as I knew Ranger Units did not become part of an Infantry Division's MTOE until Korea. All Ranger Units were separate Battalions and were Corps or higher level assets. As best as I can remember there were only five or six Ranger Battalions formed in World War II; four fought in the ETO and two? in the Pacific. There were a lot of units called something that were not in actuality what their name implied. 1st Special Service Force implies a unit concerned with morale and troop welfare which is very far from the truth. I am working on the Marines at Omaha scenario, but it is kind of off and on due to college work. Kind of a shock going back to college at almost 50.

m10bob -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/27/2005 6:39:49 AM)
The 29th Rangers trained same place as the 1st special services, (as you mentioned). Your browser can find details, I got mine from books, and having known some of the veterans of the group. (One was Major Glover Johns, the technical advisor of the movie "Patton") http://www.tekawiz.com/WW2RangerCommando.html http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Raids/dance.html http://specialoperations.com/Schools/Army/Ranger_School/Rudder_Background.htm

Dragoon 45 -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/27/2005 8:45:21 AM)
From what I read on your cites, it appears some of the 29th Rangers (Prov) had some combat experience not the whole unit. They mention small groups of the 29th attached to British Commando's for raids into Norway. At that point any combat experience would have been very welcome in the 29th Division. While I am not an expert on Rangers and other SF type units in WW II, it appears that after D-Day the powers that be had little use for them, i.e. guarding POW cages, reserves against an attack from the Channel Islands, etc. Only Castle Hill seems like a legimate use for them and even then they were misused after taking the hill by having to defend it instead of an infantry battalion relieving them after the successful attack. quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob The 29th Rangers trained same place as the 1st special services, (as you mentioned). Your browser can find details, I got mine from books, and having known some of the veterans of the group. (One was Major Glover Johns, the technical advisor of the movie "Patton") http://www.tekawiz.com/WW2RangerCommando.html http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Raids/dance.html http://specialoperations.com/Schools/Army/Ranger_School/Rudder_Background.htm

m10bob -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/27/2005 8:59:52 AM)
Every European veteran I ever spoke to was kind of bitter and felt much "crapped-on" by the authorities. The debacle of Darby's Rangers in Italy was a real jolt and the weak sister REMF's back home did not have the "guts" for such losses. You were a Recon Ranger ?? I was at Bien Hoa.................

Dragoon 45 -> RE: Marines at Omaha (10/27/2005 3:01:51 PM)
I was in Force Recon and ANGLICO in the late 70's early 80's in the USMC. Joined the Army in 83 and spent almost all that time as light infantry with a couple of stints in the FA. Never had one of those cushy jobs like Public Affairs or anything like that. I had not quit 16 years active duty and 14 years of reserve time when I retired, spending the last five years or so on active duty. Last tour was in Afghanistan and three weeks after I got home they wanted me to go to Iraq. I told them I was retiring instead. quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Every European veteran I ever spoke to was kind of bitter and felt much "crapped-on" by the authorities. The debacle of Darby's Rangers in Italy was a real jolt and the weak sister REMF's back home did not have the "guts" for such losses. You were a Recon Ranger ?? I was at Bien Hoa.................

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625