AHC: Expand the Army's amphibious warfare program

Titus_Pullo

Banned
Expand the US Army's role for amphibious operations so that the US Marines are rendered redundant that its eventually absorbed into the Army.

The US Army has conducted more amphibious operations in both theaters during the Second World War, why did the Army abandon it after 1945? What would need to happen that let's the US Army continue its amphibious role to the present?
 
You may want to explain why the US needs to keep doing seaborne invasions. And who's supplying all the ships to support them.
 
Expand the US Army's role for amphibious operations so that the US Marines are rendered redundant that its eventually absorbed into the Army.
Wouldn't it be easier to do it the other way around? Seems kinda like putting the cart before the horse here.
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
You may want to explain why the US needs to keep doing seaborne invasions. And who's supplying all the ships to support them.

Why? Because at some point, the army might have felt the need to create permanent seaborne divisions after its experiences in Operation Torch, Husky, Overlord, The leapfrog invasions of the Pacific Islands etc. Maybe creating a Seaborne Ranger Battalion to become the Army's Marine branch (which eventually comes to absorbe the Marine Corps).
As for who supplies the ships, why the Navy of course.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I have a number of gentlemen (and I use that term very loosely) who are graduate of somewhere called "The Island" who would very much desire a word...
 
Barring a total disgrace for the USMC (say, an utterly botched Tarawa), it's not gonna happen. And even then I highly doubt the Army would get its way.

Besides, you assume the Dog-Faces would pick up amphibious warfare duties, when the black-shoe Navy had its hand in that too, and usually didn't do too shabby at it (SOURCE).
 
Why? Because at some point, the army might have felt the need to create permanent seaborne divisions after its experiences in Operation Torch, Husky, Overlord, The leapfrog invasions of the Pacific Islands etc. Maybe creating a Seaborne Ranger Battalion to become the Army's Marine branch (which eventually comes to absorbe the Marine Corps).
The war is over, Korea is 5 years away, and you've already got an internal crisis with the Air Force pushing for separation, the chances of absorbing a force with only tenuous links is hot going to happen.

As for who supplies the ships, why the Navy of course.
The admirals will not be happy with being ordered around by a bunch of ground-pounders.
 
During the interwar period (1919-1941) the amphibious mission was given to the USMC which wanted it and under War Plan Orange was needed, and the Army most emphatically did not want anything to do with amphibious operations. The Army did not begin to train or have much interest in any amphibious operations until the very late 1930s, and their operations manual was basically a rewrite of the USN/USMC manual, and their trainers were trained by the Marines.

Tarawa was ugly as it was, but that was not an advertisement to give the job to the Army.

basically don't see this happening, because doing the amphib business takes lots of training/focus and the Army won't/does not want to make that effort at the expense of something else. Also, if the Army was the amphib service..imagine the fighting over Navy spending $$ for amphib ships rather than destroyers, cruisers, etc.
 
Too late

In a single word answer to your question NO! The Army's amphibious efforts were just taken from the Corps Playbook. WPO planning for the central pacific Drive was developed by one Earl Hancock Ellis for advanced base operations in the 20's/30's and in order to support the Naval Campaign, the FMF (Fleet Marine Force) was developed with this mission specifically. With all due respect to the Army TORCH landings did not face an opposed landing the Germans were not engaged until Tunisia. Sicily,Salerno, and Normandy were really Very Large river crossing ops.
 
Top