- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gen. Douglas MacArthur "dug out dug"
Posted on 6/16/15 at 11:32 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 6/16/15 at 11:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Audie Murphy is probably the greatest "man-at-arms" we've ever produced - because he so routinely demonstrated courage under fire, I believe his awards are actually understated (despite being the most decorated U.S. soldier of WWII) - he should have received 2 CMH, 1 DSC and 1 SS, as opposed to 1 CMH, 1 DSC and 2 SS - but when we're making that distinction, it's hard to argue against his courage and capability under fire.
I would most certainly agree with that, sir.
1
Posted on 6/16/15 at 11:39 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Yeah - Darth - you were spot on - XXIV Corps (U.S. Army) was the 7th, 27th, 77th and 96th divisions, while the III Amphibious Corps (USMC) was the 1st, 2nd and 6th Marine Divisions.
To give some perspective on the overall difference in size of the two forces, army and marine, in the Pacific. The III Amphibious Corps was just under one half of one Army, the 10th Army to be exact. And yes the 10th was under the command of an Army General.
But on top of that, the US Army in the Pacific also had the 6th Army & 8th Army which both were made up solely of army formations. And after the fall of Germany in May 1945, the Army started shipping the 1st Army from Europe to the Pacific to get ready for the invasion of Japan.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 11:42 am
Posted on 6/16/15 at 11:47 am to RickyDonSkaggs
quote:
The Phillipinnes you commy bitch
I won't respond to the "substance" of this, to the extent that there is any, because it has already been refuted by others.
As to the tone, my response is that you should climb your hillbilly inbred cracker arse down off of your girlfriend/sister, climb into your 1983 model pickup truck with mud flaps and trashy bumper stickers, and take a ride down to what you would call the "liberry."
Don't stop for scratch off lottery tickets. Don't stop at Wal-Mart for new clothes. Don't stop for Schaefer Light. Go directly to the library and seek out a reference librarian. If one is not immediately available, go to the children's section and see if a fourth grader can help you improve your spelling while you wait. I realize that you started this thread after watching the History Channel, but if you try getting history from this thing called A BOOK you might learn something that is actually correct.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 12:56 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
from Europe to the Pacific to get ready for the invasion of Japan.
That would have been quite, quite messy to say the least...
Posted on 6/16/15 at 12:58 pm to Spaceman Spiff
Why do the Marines get all the credit for the Pacific war?
Posted on 6/16/15 at 1:03 pm to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
That would have been quite, quite messy to say the least...
Something along the lines of half a million to 750,000 casualties depending on how long Operation Downfall would take.
Although there was a study done by the War Department which factored in potential total civilian + military defense of Japan that was a real nightmare scenario, something like 2-4 million American casualties and maybe double Japanese casualities. Seems pretty high. But McCullough mentioned the 750,000 number as a rationale for Truman when he routinely approved the bomb.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 1:19 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:The Marines were used in the advance through the Central Pacific that was the main axis of approach in obtaining bases from which to strategically bombard the Japanese Home Islands. Thus, the Marines were the main participants in the majority of high profile amphibious invasions.
Why do the Marines get all the credit for the Pacific war?
MacArthur's primary task as commander of the Southwest Pacific Theater was to advance and secure bases from which to interrupt Japanese lines of communications between the Dutch East Indies and Japan. Attacking supply lines isn't quite as glamorous as striking for the heart of the enemy.
Also, the HQ from which operations in the Southwest Pacific Theater were conducted was in Brisbane, Australia. The HQ from which operations in the Central Pacific were conducted was at Pearl Harbor. Which do you think had better press access?
Posted on 6/16/15 at 1:38 pm to RickyDonSkaggs
OP is an idiot and so are the simpletons who gave his post a thumbs up. Dumbest and most simple minded depiction of a complex historical figure like MacArthur I've ever heard. What is it that's truly motivating the OP's less than even tempered assessment of MacArthur?
Posted on 6/16/15 at 1:47 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
The Marines were used in the advance through the Central Pacific that was the main axis of approach in obtaining bases from which to strategically bombard the Japanese Home Islands. Thus, the Marines were the main participants in the majority of high profile amphibious invasions.
MacArthur's primary task as commander of the Southwest Pacific Theater was to advance and secure bases from which to interrupt Japanese lines of communications between the Dutch East Indies and Japan. Attacking supply lines isn't quite as glamorous as striking for the heart of the enemy.
Also, the HQ from which operations in the Southwest Pacific Theater were conducted was in Brisbane, Australia. The HQ from which operations in the Central Pacific were conducted was at Pearl Harbor. Which do you think had better press access?
You could have just saved yourself the headache and said the Marines are awesomer.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 2:40 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point. During WWII the Marines suffered a 2.9% KIA rate while the Army suffered a 2.0% KIA rate. For non-lethal wounds the stats are even worse. The Marines suffered slightly over 10.0% casualty rate while the Army's was only slightly over 5.0%. If you do the same analysis you will find that Marines suffered higher casualty rates in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm.
To quote Dick Vitale, "that's awesome baby."
To quote Dick Vitale, "that's awesome baby."
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:15 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point.
I think I can defend the marines on this point. The problem is one of perspective and combat philosophy. The U.S. Army, and it's offspring, USAF think in terms of achieving tactical and operational objectives, while minimizing casualties - whether it be traditional doctrine or the evolution of that (i.e. the Powell doctrine, Shock and Awe). The USN and USMC strive to minimize casualties, of course, but this is also tempered by the need for speed - capital ships make fat, juicy targets. USN doctrine seeks to achieve objectives, particularly amphibious assaults and island seizing operations, very quickly to minimize the risk to capital ships - it takes months or years to replace those ships, while replacement sailors and marines are generally flowing at a steady rate.
It's callous, but it is logical and makes a certain degree of sense. Marines are more aggressive, by design. More aggression almost always results in more casualties in the initial phases of any operation. If you face a stubborn opponent like the Japanese, this can yield significantly more casualties over time than a more cautious approach - particularly if you have intact supply lines, air and naval superiority over the stubborn foe.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:49 pm to Ace Midnight
Dug Out Dug is still a piece of shite
Posted on 6/16/15 at 3:59 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
If you consider having a higher casualty rate to be awesome, then I'll concede your point. During WWII the Marines suffered a 2.9% KIA rate while the Army suffered a 2.0% KIA rate. For non-lethal wounds the stats are even worse. The Marines suffered slightly over 10.0% casualty rate while the Army's was only slightly over 5.0%.
If we're talking casualty rates then the US Army Air Force's 8th Air Force had the highest casualty rate of any US formation of the war.
LINK
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:03 pm to Ace Midnight
Mission Accomplishment takes priority to Troop Welfare
Posted on 6/16/15 at 4:28 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Mission Accomplishment takes priority to Troop Welfare
If you look at the casualty rates of Marine & Army infantry divisions in the PTO (Pacific Theater of Operation) and compare them to the Army infantry divisions in the ETO (European Theater of Operation), you'll see that Europe was a whole lot more bloody than anything in the Pacific. And it's not really even close....
quote:
Casualties
The ten divisions with the most battle casualties are presented below. Casualties are defined as killed in action, wounded in action, captured and interned, and missing in action.
Casualties Division Theater
25,977 3rd Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
23,277 9th Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
22,660 4th Infantry Division European
20,993 45th Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
20,659 1st Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
20,620 29th Infantry Division European
19,466 36th Infantry Division Mediterranean & European
19,200 90th Infantry Division European
18,446 30th Infantry Division European
17,087 80th Infantry Division European
quote:
The five divisions with the most battle casualties in the Pacific Theater are provided below. Casualties are defined as killed in action, wounded in action, captured and interned, and missing in action.
Casualties Division Theater
9,212 7th Infantry Division Pacific
8,812 96th Infantry Division Pacific
7,461 77th Infantry Division Pacific
7,268 32nd Infantry Division Pacific
7,012 24th Infantry Division Pacific
I cannot find a table showing the 6 numbered Marine division that fought in World War II individual casualty rates. I did find this link that shows between the 6 marine divisions a total of 19,733 were killed and another 67,207 were wounded in World War II. That averages out to about 14,490 killed, wounded and missing per Marine Div, which puts them a bit higher than their US Army counterparts in the PTO from a causality standpoint but far below the top ten US Army infantry divisions in the ETO.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:23 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
my uncle served in the 3rd Army under Patton and wasn't to thrilled with him, either.
It's funny that someone recently posted in a military thread (the gay General and his husband) that Patton couldn't serve in today's Army of pussies. I wanted to retort that Patton, great field commander as he was, barely made it in the Army of the day. Ike promoted at least one subordinate over him (Bradley), removed from command, and almost sent him home a couple of times.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:29 pm to Spaceman Spiff
My dad went to school with Audie Murphy. He was a year younger than my dad in school. Dad said everyone was broke because of the depression, but Murphy's family really had nothing.
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:35 pm to RickyDonSkaggs
Why are you angry bro, he's already gone
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:40 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
If we're talking casualty rates then the US Army Air Force's 8th Air Force had the highest casualty rate of any US formation of the war.
Fair enough - and the submariners also fared poorly in all theaters.
But, those are not directly comparable to ground combat. U.S. Army ground troops suffer fewer casualties than USMC ground troops (all things considered) - and it is a function of operational priorities.
This post was edited on 6/16/15 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 6/16/15 at 5:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
you'll see that Europe was a whole lot more bloody than anything in the Pacific. And it's not really even close....
Of course, Darth - but that is a function of the battlefield - a continuous linear battlefield, with large tank battles, prolonged artillery bombardment and some units had 60, 90 days in the line before a few weeks (maybe less) of R&R, then back in the line.
In the Pacific, your key Army and Marine regiments were at the front of the spear, but the island campaign would be a couple of weeks - maybe a month - then you'd be on a ship or a staging base for a month or more, rinse repeat.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News