The Marine Corps And Amphibious Warfare

Since 1775, the United States Marine Corps has continuously dealt with irregular warfare in many conflicts around the globe. This irregular warfare has been fought via many activities, all of which involved our 14 leadership traits. The most prominent leadership traits used to combat irregular warfare are knowledge, judgement, and decisiveness, all of which are necessary for mission accomplishment.

The Marine Corps takes history very seriously. When asked, Marines can name battles most people have never heard of, such as the Battle of Chapultepec in Mexico in 1847. It is rumored that the Blood Stripe of a Marine Non-Commissioned Officer’s (NCO’s) trouser is based off the bloody Battle of Chapultepec. Marine NCO’s since then had created a tradition called “Blood Striping.” Blood striping is the act of literally inflicting a blood stripe on a newly promoted NCO’s legs through means of punching or kicking them. Blood striping a Marine is classified as hazing and is already prohibited under Marine Corps Order 1700.28B, but still happens to this day and is supported by most Marines. Blood striping is a tradition that should be changed or completely eliminated because it is based off false history, considered hazing, and does not support the Marine Corps goal in approaching professionalism. Marine NCO’s hold the title “keeper of traditions” not the “keeper of lies.”

The invasion of D-Day is the largest joint sea born invasion in the history of the world. Although very well planned, the amphibious landings were a gamble made by the Allied forces to gain foothold in Europe. Every American has heard about the Allied invasion of German-occupied Western Europe on D-Day. However, how many Americans stop and think about how much planning, preparation and luck that went into making it the success that it is remembered for? I will attempt to depict what it took to conquer the Normandy beaches using historical and military facts that make it such an iconic event in the world’s history still today.

The Marines are a highly mobile amphibious attack force. Marines are trained to attack from the water and establish a beach head, an area of control on foreign soil. After the Marines take territory, other armed forces such as the US Army move in to maintain control, while the Marines move on. Marines are mobile, lightweight, and very rapid. I would compare the Marines to the head of the spear, wedging in to get a foothold and racing ahead once the land has been secured. In addition to acting as a lightweight attack force from the ocean, Marines are also perfectly capable of taking territory on land. Marines are trained for rapid deployment, and are often the first US military personnel on site. Marines also guard American embassies overseas, providing embassy security and safety. In volatile areas, being a Marine embassy guard is a very risky job.

6a. With respect to the author’s conclusions (either specified or implied), I accept or agree with the following and why: His explanations of the struggle to keep the Marine Corps alive and the early development of amphibious doctrine make this book a great tool in understanding the modern Marine Corps.

The Marine Corps’ budget for the MOSs comes from the Navy. Contrary to popular belief the Marine Corps’ does not have their own funding from the U.S. Navy (Odom). When the U.S. Navy’s budget gets cut they do not

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Navy War College or the Department of the Navy

Amphibious landings have been around since the Revolutionary War. The main purpose has always been for landings; in order, to position soldiers for an assault on a city. Amphibious assaults, however, have never actually been executed until World War 1. During that time a need for a thorough amphibious assault doctrine was not needed because amphibious landings were not carried out to assault the enemy on the beachhead, and landings were usually met with little resistance. One of the first and foremost amphibious assaults occurred during World War 1. This amphibious operation is known as the Battle of Gallipoli, which ended as a major failure for the Australian and New Zealand Coalition forces, or ANZAC forces. The Battle of Gallipoli

The prospect of amphibious invasion has historical been one of the most logistically difficult to coordinate military operations. This can be clearly seen in the case of the Penobscot Expedition of 1779, which is recognized as the worst defeat of the U.S. preceding the Attack on Pearl Harbor. However, not thirty years later, combined American land and naval elements launched a success overland assault and coordinated naval bombardment on the fortress of Derne, protecting the city of Tripoli, forcing its capitulation on 27 April 1805. The difference between these two attacks stems not from major advancements in technology or ease of the assault on Derne, but from the underlying organization and coordination of the assaults.

The Normandy Invasion may have been the single most important battle on the Western Front of World War II. Much planning went into the siege of these beaches that ensured a tough, but inevitable victory, as well as other factors, such as the exploitation of the Germans’ ignorance of the attack.

First to Fight by Lieutenant General Victor H. Krulak is where the history, reputation, and truth about the United States Marine Corps meet. Within this 252-page book you will find a combination of historical fact, interesting background, and personal recollection from one of the men who helped shape what the Marines are today. The book is organized in seven different sections, each explaining a different facet of the Marine Corps. The first section explains in detail the struggle of the Marine Corps to survive as an entity over its long history. General Krulak explains how the Marine Corps had to fight for its current status as an equal organization with the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Even a series of Presidents were among those who tried

The purpose of this paper is to analyze an alternate outcome to the Omaha Beach landing in Normandy, France. On June 6, 1944, the U.S. conducted an assault into Nazi occupied France. The Nazi’s terrain advantage and overwhelming forces at Omaha Beach nearly defeated the assault. Applying SIGINT and HUMINT assets to discover the Nazi’s had reinforced the beach, the U.S. could have justified increased bombing runs and heavy naval gunfire prior to the assault. This would have increased U.S. lethality, decreased the loss of life and equipment, and decreased the time it took to advance through the objective.

Preparing to return to the mainland, the four Marine officers paid their parting respects to the division commander, Major General J.L. Collins and his chief of staff, Colonel William P. Bledsoe. To their surprise General Collins chose to speak to his staff on how the Army was resolved to eliminate forever its deficiencies in amphibious matters and its dependency on Marines for amphibious expertise.

One could imagine living in a world without the internet, whiffle ball, bubble wrap, or snowboarding. None of these twenty-first century items that are taken for granted today were around in 1944. Everything about normal life was changing in 1944 due to events happening across the world. Although most fighting from World War II was contained in Europe, its effects were certainly felt at home in the United States. Food and other necessities were rationed. Men were being drafted into the war. Families were being split apart. The Allied Forces fighting the war were losing strength, so in an attempt to regain strength and bring the war to an end, the Allied Forces launched the largest sea invasion ever. Nicknamed Operation Overlord, this invasion

British and American historians have covered the Normandy invasion extensively, and one therefore wonders if there is any need for another treatment of the campaign. In Normandy: The Landings to the Liberation of Paris, Olivier Wieviorka demonstrates that there is indeed room for new interpretations of this much-covered subject. Wieviorka, a professor of history at the École Normale Supérieure de Cachan, covers every aspect of the Normandy invasion: politics and grand strategy, economic production, the formation and training of military forces, air and naval power, intelligence, logistics, deception, tactical operations, the French resistance, the impact of the war on soldiers and civilians, and other topics all come under his penetrating analysis. Well researched from both primary and secondary sources and exceptionally well written (and translated, one might add), Normandy belongs on the bookshelves of all serious historians of World War II. Aside from its appeal to the serious scholar of military history, Wieviorka’s readable prose makes Normandy just as suitable to the general reader interested in the history of Operation Overlord and the momentous events that transpired in Great Britain and France in the spring and summer of 1944.