The Marines' War in the Pacific

[Titanwarrior89]

Cpl. E.B. Sledge USMC. Look how young he looks.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.
There was computer ambush I think that had a board and grease pencil. You typed in orders and plotted the results. It was kinda fun.

Great call Jeffrey, that is the game I remembered. Did a little search and found a screenshot of the game and contents. I’m amazed you remembered the name, my old grey matter no longer does well recalling facts past a few years lol.



Jim

[nicwb]

They're re-showing The Pacific on my local TV network.

I saw it first time around and must admit I had a great deal of difficulty enjoying it. For me I think the problem was a lack of cohesion - they were trying to encapsulate the Pacific Theatre of Operation in the experiences of just a few individuals. The companion piece Band of Brothers had an easier task of it simply because it was the same men and faces all the way through. But to try and do the same justice Pacific has to jump about the place - one episode you're watching Sledge struggle with the savagery of Peleliu, the next its a different issue of Basilone's restlessness as a War Bond poster boy. All important but a bit disjointed to follow easily.

I've found it better the second time about though. I got the HBO companion book - it had a lot of good background inforrmation that never made it into the series.

Interestingly enough the original plan for the series was to feature the accounts of two other men, a Lt Shofner, who was a marine captured at Corrigedor, escaped and joined Filipino guerillas and Ens Michael who flew diver bombers off the USS Enterprise and with the "Cactus Airforce" - pity they lost those stories but I guess keeping them would have thrown cohesion totally out the door.

[KG Erwin]

I bought the Pacific DVD set and it's an excellent companion piece to Band of Brothers. I won't get into the argument about "which is better". They are both good, but I'm predisposed to liking anything that involves the USMC in WWII. The Pacific's extra features DVD is very good, and for the regular episodes, one can choose whether or not to show the brief historical introductory sequences.

[nicwb]

Sorry KG Erwin - I wasn't intending a "one is better than the other" debate. (I think that's been endlessly vented elsewhere) - its more of an observation about the difficulty I had following the accounts in the Pacific as opposed to the only other point of comparison I had.

I found the companion book good as it was by the author and followed the same order as the series - the extra info made everything more coherent.

[KG Erwin]

No need for you to apologize, but thanks anyway. The fact remains that the PTO was a huge theater of war, which started in 1931, but it is not yet completely understood, as it was arguably a second war which needs to be separated from the war in Europe. The simple vastness of the theater is somewhat overwhelming, and many nations were involved. This is why I focused on one element of the whole in my original post.

[wg335910]

HPS has a company level game for all the USMC battles in the Pacific. I think it's called "the Proud and the Few". For myself, I'm just looking for a game that deals with only Gudalcanal ground campaign.

[Gunhawk]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

To set the record straight, the US Army had more amphibious landings than the USMC in the Pacific. However, the toughest assaults, such as Iwo Jima and Peleliu, were undertaken by the USMC, with some support by the army on both landings. In the case of Iwo Jima, the USMC was supported by flame tanks of the US Army. No USA infantry took part. I have no intention of denigrating the Army's part in winning the Pacific War, OK? However, the Marines had six divisions fighting in the PTO, and their losses were the equivalent of one entire division.

Now, as far as launching the first US ground offensive of WWII, the 1st Marine Division holds that distinction, landing on Florida Island and Guadalcanal nine months to the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Army units landed on Guadalcanal in October 1942, two months after the Marines.

I have no particular agenda here as I my father and four uncles fought in WWII in three different branches, but I don't see why the USMC should be singled out as being in any way better or more interesting than the USN or USA. My father was wounded and MIA during the Battle of the Bulge. My uncle Andrew, who was in the US Army Signal Corp was killed in France. My uncle Paul, who was in the USMC, fought at Iwo Jima. My uncle Walter, who was in the USN on the Destroyer Ault, was at the naval battle of Okinawa. His DD was hit by a Kamikazi. You can read about that if you wiki the DD Ault. My uncle Earl lost his thumb on a carrier in the Pacific. If you're keeping count here that's one dead and two wounded out of five, and only one was a Marine, and he came through it without a wound. So the USMC certainly were not exclusive when it came to heavy fighting and casualties.

[Gunhawk]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I've often wondered why the USMC campaigns in WWII receive such little attention from gamers. Their battles, arguably, were amongst the toughest of the war, and certainly were bloody affairs. In SPWaW, they are featured prominently, but there's little else to choose from in the tactical sense. One reason, I suppose, is that apart from Guadalcanal and New Britain, there was little room for grand strategic maneuvers. In most of the island invasions, it was simply a bloody slugfest, in which the Marines and Army literally had to kill every last Japanese defender. It turned into a medieval type war of hatred and total destruction using then-modern weapons. Does this factor turn off some gamers? Maybe.

There are many board wargames that cover the Pacific wars. Aside from the previously mentioned "Advanced Squad Leader - Gung Ho module", there is also "Combat Commander - Pacific", "Memoir 44", "Axis & Allies - Pacific", "Axis & Allies - Guadalcanal" and the soon to be released "Conflict of Heroes - Guadalcanal".

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk

I have no particular agenda here as I my father and four uncles fought in WWII in three different branches, but I don't see why the USMC should be singled out as being in any way better or more interesting than the USN or USA.

I don't have any agenda, either. Like yourself, my family contributed a lot of manhood to the war effort, eight in total, if I include my father. However, I really do believe that the USMC has a special place in American history. And their finest hour probably didn't come in WW2, but in Korea, while fighting their way out of Chinese encirclement at the Chosin Reservoir. In contrast to the USA divisions that essentially disintegrated, the Marines soldiered-on. And not only did they bring their wounded out, they brought the dead as well. The 1st Marine Division suffered 6,000 dead and 9,000 wounded in the battle. When the Marines were finally evacuated from Hungnam, they brought close to 90,000 Korean civilians with them. There's a moving documentary about the fighting that you might want to check out. But be advised, it's pretty raw stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd8LDdbfIFY

[doomtrader]

It would be great to make the Marine Corps Pacific game.

[berto]

• MacArthur's/The Army's Papua/New Guinea Campaign, 1942-1944.
• MacArthur's/The Army's Return to the Philippines, 1944-1945 (including the Leyte landings, but also the Battle for Luzon, and the reconquest of Mindanao and the Visayas).
• The Australian reconquest of the DEI (Dutch East Indies).
• Australian "mopping up" operations in Papua/New Guinea and the Southwest Pacific.
• The Burma Campaign, 1942, and 1944-45.
• The Japanese conquest of Malaysia, 1942.
• The Japanese conquest of Luzon, 1942.
• The Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945.
• And others, already mentioned or not.

What any of these have to do with small-scale island invasions, lack of maneuver, "slugfest", "attrition warfare" etc. -- it escapes me.

In the Pacific War, there is plenty of larger-scale operational land warfare involving maneuver and quick, lightning strikes (e.g., invasions and paratroop drops and infiltrations behind enemy lines), etc. It is just sadly neglected.

I don't think there is too little attention paid to the Marines. Quite the opposite in fact.

Disclaimer: I am the proud father of a son 15 years into this Marine Corps service, now a staff sergeant, with three combat tours (2X Iraq, 1X Afghanistan) under his belt. Also, as a former U.S. Peace Corps Volunteer and thereafter as private citizen, I've lived and worked in the Philippines for 6+ years, my wife is a Filipina, etc., so I have a special interest in Southeast Asia.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Gunhawk

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

To set the record straight, the US Army had more amphibious landings than the USMC in the Pacific. However, the toughest assaults, such as Iwo Jima and Peleliu, were undertaken by the USMC, with some support by the army on both landings. In the case of Iwo Jima, the USMC was supported by flame tanks of the US Army. No USA infantry took part. I have no intention of denigrating the Army's part in winning the Pacific War, OK? However, the Marines had six divisions fighting in the PTO, and their losses were the equivalent of one entire division.

Now, as far as launching the first US ground offensive of WWII, the 1st Marine Division holds that distinction, landing on Florida Island and Guadalcanal nine months to the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Army units landed on Guadalcanal in October 1942, two months after the Marines.

I have no particular agenda here as I my father and four uncles fought in WWII in three different branches, but I don't see why the USMC should be singled out as being in any way better or more interesting than the USN or USA. My father was wounded and MIA during the Battle of the Bulge. My uncle Andrew, who was in the US Army Signal Corp was killed in France. My uncle Paul, who was in the USMC, fought at Iwo Jima. My uncle Walter, who was in the USN on the Destroyer Ault, was at the naval battle of Okinawa. His DD was hit by a Kamikazi. You can read about that if you wiki the DD Ault. My uncle Earl lost his thumb on a carrier in the Pacific. If you're keeping count here that's one dead and two wounded out of five, and only one was a Marine, and he came through it without a wound. So the USMC certainly were not exclusive when it came to heavy fighting and casualties.

In my experience, this is a minefield of a subject, since the USMC evokes particular attachment and fondness from its veterans and/or "Fanboys" (in the nicest possible sense of the word).

However, I would concur with your point of view. The USMC has been somewhat lionised post war, but I've never seen the experiences of men on Guadalcanal as being worse than those of the men in the Hurtgen. I've never seen Pelieu as intrinsically worse than conditions around Bastogne or parts of Italy.

Tarawa was carnage, but was it really worse than sections of Omaha beach? Marine units often performed well when hit hard, but was their performance any better than the airborne units who fought a thousand ad hoc actions in small groups all over Normandy in 1944 after a series of mis drops?

The Japanese were tough and generally fought to the last man. However, they were not nearly as tactically skilled or well armed as the Wehrmacht and outside of a handful of men who reached Okinawa, and the reinforcements that reached Guadalcanal, Japanese forces assaulted by Marines hardly ever received reinforcements or possessed the strength to launch divisional sized counter strokes.

Jungle terrain was ideal for defence, but then so was the Bocage and the mountains of Italy, and the Japanese didn't have MG42s, large artillery parks or much in the way of automatic weaponry or tanks.

The reason the Pacific seems ill served for land warfare games is that it was largely a martime theatre, where land operations were generally subordinate to Naval or air operations. It was the opposite in the west.

I'd argue it's also because there's only so much fun to be had blowing up bunkers and killing all the inhabitants. The small size of the battlefields together with the huge amounts of ordnance the Americans generally employed meant it simply wouldn't be as much fun tactically as a western meeting engagement, and no fun at all operationally (from a land perspective).

None of this is designed to detract from the bravery of those who served against the Japanese, but merely restore to its rightful place, the bravery of those who faced the Wehrmacht.

Regards,
ID

[Gunhawk]

IronDuke

I couldn't have said it better myself. Very well thought out and very true.

Thanks.

[warspite1]

Yes, I agree. A very good post Iron Duke.

[berto]

Read

Touched with Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific, by Eric Bergerud

on why land warfare in the Southwest Pacific was worse than in any other combat theater of WWII.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: berto


Read

Touched with Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific, by Eric Bergerud

on why land warfare in the Southwest Pacific was worse than in any other combat theater of WWII.

Warspite1

What was the conclusion - what made it worse?

[berto]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: berto

Read

Touched with Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific, by Eric Bergerud

on why land warfare in the Southwest Pacific was worse than in any other combat theater of WWII.

Warspite1

What was the conclusion - what made it worse?

• Tropical diseases, including malaria, dengue fever, and a host of others (e.g., ~90+% combatants at Guadalcanal fought with chronic malarial fevers; soldiers were taken out of the line only if their fevers exceeded 101 degrees Fahrenheit, IIRC).
• Intense heat & humidity; daily torrential rains, followed by insufferable dust; and the debilitating effects thereof (see the above; imagine fighting with 100+ degree fever in natural temps of 100 and above; dead bodies decomposing to a maggoty liquid "stew" within hours; etc.).
• Insects (myriads of flies by day, mosquitoes by night, giant beetles & cockroaches, etc.), blood sucking leeches, land crabs (will try to nibble at your toes while you sleep), crocodiles (stories of troops accidentally falling into the swamp water and being eaten by crocs!), poisonous snakes, etc.
• Bad water, bad food, even worse than elsewhere because often at the end of a very long and tenuous supply chain (e.g., literally having nothing but orange marmalade and Australian tinned "bully beef" to eat).
• An especially ferocious enemy (the Japanese) who didn't "play by the usual rules of war" (preferred night attacks, so the front-line Allied troops had to keep awake all night, or try to; took no prisoners; banzai charges; beheadings; etc.).
• Native head hunters!
• Isolation and boredom; far, far from "culture" and the "civilized world", with no towns, much less cities, nearby for rear area R&R (for example: no cafes, no cinemas, no brothels (don't laugh!), etc.).
• Low morale from being ignored and forgotten (operations in the European theater got much more attention and hoopla; no cheering crowds welcoming liberation; etc.).

It's been a while since I last read the book (have read it twice), but those are just some of things I recollect.

[Gunhawk]

Berto

Being a Marine in the Pacific during WW II would have been damned uncomfortable. No doubt about it. But you know what might have been just as uncomfortable...maybe even more so? Living in a WW II submarine or flying daylight bombing missions over Germany knowing that the odds of completing 50 missions were terrible!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: berto

Read

Touched with Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific, by Eric Bergerud

on why land warfare in the Southwest Pacific was worse than in any other combat theater of WWII.

Warspite1

What was the conclusion - what made it worse?

• Tropical diseases, including malaria, dengue fever, and a host of others (e.g., ~90+% combatants at Guadalcanal fought with chronic malarial fevers; soldiers were taken out of the line only if their fevers exceeded 101 degrees Fahrenheit, IIRC).
• Intense heat & humidity; daily torrential rains, followed by insufferable dust; and the
  debilitating effects thereof (see the above; imagine fighting with 100+ degree fever in natural temps of 100 and above; dead bodies decomposing to a maggoty liquid "stew" within hours; etc.).
• Insects (myriads of flies by day, mosquitoes by night, giant beetles & cockroaches, etc.), blood sucking leeches, land crabs (will try to nibble at your toes while you sleep), crocodiles (stories of troops accidentally falling into the swamp water and being eaten by crocs!), poisonous snakes, etc.
• Bad water, bad food, even worse than elsewhere because often at the end of a very long and tenuous supply chain (e.g., literally having nothing but orange marmalade and Australian tinned "bully beef" to eat).
• An especially ferocious enemy (the Japanese) who didn't "play by the usual rules of war" (preferred night attacks, so the front-line Allied troops had to keep awake all night, or try to; took no prisoners; banzai charges; beheadings; etc.).
• Native head hunters!
• Isolation and boredom; far, far from "culture" and the "civilized world", with no towns, much less cities, nearby for rear area R&R (for example: no cafes, no cinemas, no
  brothels (don't laugh!), etc.).
• Low morale from being ignored and forgotten (operations in the European theater got much more attention and hoopla; no cheering crowds welcoming liberation; etc.).

It's been a while since I last read the book (have read it twice), but those are just some of things I recollect.

Warspite1

Sounds like the 14th Army fighting in Burma too.