Why didn't they use US marines in the D-Day landings?

This

Also, didn't the Marine Corps send in some officers to advise? I figure they wouldn't need to, the Army had done plenty of amphibious landings at this point in the war

Why would they?

Because they had proper soldiers from Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only a minority of allied troops at D-Day were American. And they fucked up their landing

Utah went pretty smoothly

But yeah, Marines are fucking overrated as fuck because of that one photo at Iwo Jima.
Most of the fighting between USA and Japan was fought between Army units at Phillipines, New Guinea and Burma.

Americans formed the plurality of troops involved in Overlord.

Finally I see...

Actually half of the troops that landed were American in the initial invasion and a majority were once everything was all said and done.
Why peddle a historical lie?

>Australia and New Zealand
name one fucking regiment that participated in D-Day

My grandfather was at Sword Beach

That's not technically true. They were a plurality. Drawing from Victory in the West, Volume I: The Battle of Normandy., you had 15,500 paratroopers dropped in, + 57,500 landed on the beaches, for a total of 73,000 Americans of the total 156,000 landed. That's not quite a firm majority, but it's bigger than the next largest contingent, the British, who fielded 61,715 troops landed and another 7,900 airdropped, for just under 70,000. You only get to support a claim of "American minority" by lumping in all the various Commonwealth countries together as a single unit.

...

Fair, I was rounding up but yes they made up only 46% of troops not half in the initial landing.

You're old

Minority = less than 50%
Sorry if this triggers you. But D-Day can not be described as an American operation.

Incorrect.

Majority= More than 50%
Plurality= Largest contingent within a group that is still under 50%
Minority= A group in the set that is not the largest group.

The American contingent in D-Day is properly described as a plurality.

Nigga you suck at maths
1st Army (USA) 73,000
2nd Army (British Empire) 83,000

Yes, D-Day can be described as an American operation. Nobody else was needed, and nobody else could have done it.

Additionally, the invasion of Okinawa a few months later, an operation much LARGER than D-Day, originating not from nearby bases in US-occupied Bongistan, but from the other side of the planet, was an ENTIRELY American operation.

It is difficult for subhuman non-Americans to comprehend the warmaking power of the US in this era, but the world has never seen the like.

>Canadians are Britsh!
>Belgians are British!
>Polish are British!

There were 69,615 ACTUAL British troops landed at D-Day (interesting by the way, how none of these counts include naval or aerial personnel, which would of course be heavily in favor of the Americans). 73,000 is in fact more than 69,615.

But maybe that's just my defective American education. Can you confirm, 73,000 is more than 69,615, isn't it?

>Okinawa
>bigger than D-Day

>Most of the fighting between USA and Japan was fought between Army units at Phillipines, New Guinea and Burma.

Philippines and New Guinea were important, but Burma was a sideshow and the US never made a strong commitment there.

The US Marines launched the first Allied offensive of the war, at Guadalcanal. The bongs were being defeated, sitting on their asses or running for almost 3 years, and lobbied hard against an invasion in the Solomons, but it went through and turned out to be the anvil upon which Imperial Japan was turned back and smashed. The Marines had great understanding of combined arms warfare, and a conscript Army could not have executed this mission in August 1942. Army flailings in Burma were proof enough of this (the bongs take much of the blame for this of course).

>Can you confirm, 73,000 is more than 69,615, isn't it?
For Nigel it depends on the amount of hurt pride.

>>Canadians are Britsh!
Yes they were at that point - see diagram. Belgians and Polish irrelevant.
Britain also supplies 2/3 of the aircraft, and 892/1213 of the warships involved.

>Yes they were at that point - see diagram
Funny, you often see Canadians boasted about how they, not the British, are the ones who liberated the Netherlands. They seem to think that they were a separate contingent. They fought under their own commands. The 1931 Statute of Westminster made them a fully sovereign state.
>Britain also supplies 2/3 of the aircraft
[citation badly needed]

>and 892/1213 of the warships involved.
And America is supplying almost all of the 4,126 landing craft, 736 support ships, and 864 merchant ships. But we'll just ignore that, shall we? They don't have crews or anything.

Just a couple years later, the toothless bongs' "empire shipping" was being destroyed right on their front porch, by a few bedraggled das booters.

So much for the Bongistan rules the waves meme.

I'm 24 and my granddad fought in Burma

They were on ships headed to the Marianas is why. Cant be everywhere at once.

Britain is an island. You aren't British unless you live there. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa didn't even need to declare war on Germany when Britain did if they didn't want to.

They did.

There were also some Marines involved in a positively retarded plan to sabotage the french ships in Oran harbour that failed epically.

>land on easybbeaches against the worst soldiers in the Heer
>lol we're so great
>Yanks land on a high cliff beach with thebheaviest concentration of bunkers against the most veteran infantry division in Normandy
>wow theyre so terrible
Get fucked bong.

>tfw Canada only had 5 divisions but got their own army-level command withmost of the army being British Divisions
Why are Leafs so fucking special they get their own army again?

More Japanese were killed and captured in Burma by British and Indian troops than by the Americans in the whole Pacific front

War is about taking land not getting the highest kill count

>losses in the Burma campaign: just over 200000
>losses in the Pilippines alone: over 400000

Lol wut, shut up bong.

Sorry, but the bongs sat on their asses in India for years getting foot massages, until the US destroyed the Imperial Japanese Navy and all Japanese air power, then the bongs decided after the real work was finished and there would be no modern warfare possible from the Japanese, the bongs decided to attempt rebuilding their meme "empire", basically unopposed.

Why are bongs so retarded?

Everyone has to claim credit for more than they actually did in WW2.

China acted as a manpower sink, preventing the Japanese from swamping India with troops and diverting British resources away from Africa.

Britain "held the line" until everyome else was in play, and held key territory necessary for the war effort. They could never have won on their own, but without them, everyone else would not have the stage set for victory.

The US defeated Japan.

The Soviets defeated the Nazis.

But this isnt enough,apparently, so youll get Bongs claiming they won the war, Russians claiming they were the ones who actually defeated Japan, and Americans claiming they won the war by themselves.

Canada was a sovereign state of the British empire at the time. You can nit-pick all you want, but America, and Americans really need to stop acting like hot-shit, because you really aren't.

Don't forget.

>the US/UK prevented the Russians from "liberating" France, the low countries, Italy, Scandinavia and half of Germany

t. cuck from a long line of cucks, currently being recucked by invited guests

>Why are Leafs so fucking special they get their own army again?
Because the leafs learned in WW1 that the bongs were militarily incompetent.

Ungrateful colonial

Someone's overcompensating, are you sure you didn't escape from pol or something?

>Ungrateful colonial
t. subhuman non-American cuck, permitted today to speak English only by courtesy of the Americans, but soon to be speaking another language after invited guests complete final cucking.

I like how you think 'muricans haven't already murdered the English language, with all the half-arsed bastardisations and mispronunciations.
And that you don't know that English isn't in and of itself a highly evolved form of German.

I sure remember that faithful day...when the Orcs stormed Helm's Klamm

welfare

No, it was part of the Commonwealth, (and still is) which is distinct from the Empire.

t. subhuman cuck assblasted and sputtering wiki meme history deflections, just before invited guests shut down wiki for good

Er, no.

English is an old Germanic Language from northwest Germany and what is now the Netherlands (closest language is Frisian, from the northern Netherlands). It's not "highly evolved", it's just a different branch.

'murican supremacist

>ywn live in a timeline where a nine month pregnant Anne Frank hops on Eugene Sledge's green weenie as while he proofreads reads her diary

Canadians are pretty embarrassing with their WWI mythology but nothing matches the bullshit that a few aus and nz posters peddle

Besides massive inter-service rivalry not allowing them and there was never enough marines. The army relived the muhreens many times in the pacific and fought their own theaters with muhreens on the side and not the other way around.

on the other hand there's pajeets who don't even know they served in ww1/2

More Japanese we're killed in a few days of fire bombing or just TWO FUCKING BOMBS than Brits did in the whole theater.

lol come on now

>military forces = civilian casualties

After the bongs abandoned them at Singapore, lots of pajeets went over to the Japanese, and some even to the Shickelgruber mob.

>a few thousand go over.
>"fucking pajeet traitors"
>release them anyway

The marines were busy un-fucking the South Pacific.

Removing sushi takes a lot of work.

>deny the French influence on English
>Amerimutt education
Come on you making us look bad

The historiography of that is interesting. 2 million pajeets, fighting in every front of the war, and it's almost completely overlooked.
Bongs want to forget about Indian troops so they can pretend they won the war alone without help from brown people.
Pajeets want to forget about it so they can pretend they were all le plucky freedom fighters resisting British oppression, rather than volunteering in their millions to fight for the empire.

Fuck off Rohingya

uh, no we don't?
The indian army celebrates operational victories even now, and we were specifically taught in high school that large numbers of indians joined both the wars while there was mainstream opposition to the war itself because of the british rhetoric of fighting for freedom.

Rakhine is rightful bengali clay though

Who gives a shit. Muslims are in the wrong on principle.

>mainstream opposition to the war
>2 million volunteers
Doesn't sound very mainstream

It's like the French pretending they were all in the resistance instead of collaborating

>Doesn't sound very mainstream

You are aware there are hundreds of millions of people in the Indian Subcontinent? It's entirely feasible there was mainstream opposition to the war at the same time as 2 million volunteers.

over-the-alps-perhaps.jpg

>Okinawa
>250k combat troops

>D-Day
>156k combat troops

>D-Day: US pilots operating from US-occupied Bongistan, basically within eyesight of their targets, supported by massive stockpiles of materiel, and coming home every night to enjoy the nightlife and bang bong slooots every night
>Okinawa: US pilots operating from aircraft carriers on the other side of the world, with every bean and bullet lugged by massive and complex merchant shipping efforts, facing an enemy with very efficient guided missile technology creating mass carnage in the amphibious assault fleet

Who perform better at Guadalcanal? The marines or the army?It was tho

When the Marines left Guadalcanal, the issue was no longer in doubt, as the campaign had been decided during those first 3 months on "Starvation Island", as both antagonists nicknamed it. No offense to the Army intended, but the Marines only left after the job was basically done.

t. MacArthur

>805 of 4126
>almost all
You're a fucking retard

No, he's just been indoctrinated into thinking his country is the best in the world at everything, America does that to it's children.

Oh, sure, it was numerically bigger, but it was barely a blip on the radar by cultural/international comparison.

Quit moving the goalpost faggot. This is about which landing was actually bigger, not which one you think is more important.

Our government encourages that bullshit from primary school onwards.
Our greatest contributions of the war were north africa, holding new guinea and being flak sponges in europe.

Honestly, I would rate the actions of the ASW and merchant marine above all the ones you've mentioned combined. You guys put out a LOT of corvettes and ships to either lay and disarm mines.

>you're wrong about that word but your point is correct
please stop doing my job

>very efficient guided missiles
kek

>this whole thread
Nationalism was a mistake.

Honest question, when was it decided that all Marine units would be sent to the Pacific and Marines wouldn’t be used in any amphibious assault on Europe?

Don’t forget how the Frogs always glorify the “resistance” even though it accomplished jack shit. Look to the Balkans if you want to see what a real resistance looks like.

At the very start. Because the pacific would involve way more amphibious operations that Europe ever will.

In addition, because Muhreens at the time were always where the Navy was, and much of the Navy was in the Pacific.

what this dude sezthe marine corps operates under the Department of The Navy, they're very hard to seperate.

>and much of the Navy was in the Pacific

Another dumb question, but what percentage of the Navy was assigned to the Pacific, and what percentage was assigned to the Atlantic? If the Allies has decided for whatever reason to use Muhreens in an invasion of Europe, could US Navy ships which had previously been escorting convoys supported them?

You need at least one expendable branch.