Especially on Omaha Beach, or Normandy?\n\nIt seems like they might have been better suited for the amphibious assault...just wondering...this seems like a great question to ask...
136746
In theory I agree but in fact the Marines fight where the Navy is ordered to deploy. The bulk of our Navy was based in the Pacific. After Pearl Harbor the Navy and Marine commanders knew and decided that Japan would have to maintain air superiority and keep their fleets supplied. In addition the island hopping campaign to the Japan home islands. The bulk of  marine divisions ship stationed, the amphibious attacks could not occurred and the war might been lost.
358155
Yes they did.\n\nJealousy perhaps.
375999
I think they'd like to, but recognize that Bush put them into a hole that isn't so easy to climb out of. They'll definately do a better job managing the war, however. They'll let dissenting voices in the Pentagon have their say, and let the strategy be dictated by the facts on the ground and not idealogical wishful thinking.
620766
The Yamato had thicker armour, but the Iowa class ships had better fire control due to superior gunsights etc. It's pretty much a toss-up IMHO.
160658
Matter a fact I am pretty sure the U.S.Navy has an installation there anyway. Mass could fight back! There are several submarines at port there.
573000
they will send some "front men" to enlist so they can get the uniforms and replenish the supply for the village people...\n\nother than that..we might as well write off the bay area from the rest of the country .......\n\n\ni love a person like PM ....the military exists to make it so you can say what you just said without being hung ......
652705
The correct answer is: it depends on the conditions.  Each tank was designed for a particular type of battle - on its own 'turf' each tank would defeat the other.
314232
They should stay here especially if they went over sea's\n\n\n------Fought------
510465
how about 5000 americans in some buildings is better than 3000 soldiers and marines who volunteer and fight for their freedom.\n5 times as many soldiers died in normandy on d-day.\n\nis losing a life bad yes, but is it worth what we are fighting for, yes yes yes.
592440
look at Rwanda.  it is in a terrible place:  a landlocked country in central Africa and is so small.  it is in no way a tactical place to be.  it has no shore to dock ships and no oil or mineral reserves.  unfortunately, helping them would have been a waste of time and funds (military and tactically speaking).  \n\nso, on to Hitlers genocide.  Hitler was a very clear threat and was more than capable of taking over all of mainland Europe during the beginning of the war.  thats why we stopped Hitler.  \n\nalso, Clinton tried helping an African country back in 1993.  remember Somalia and Black Hawk Down?  Clinton didnt help Rwanda in '94 because he wanted to avoid a similar incident.
559172
Your report should include the fact that the three most important ships in the U.S. Pacific fleet at the time, the air craft carriers, were all luckily out at sea at the time of the attack. A mere coincidence? I don't think so.
379422
I have a copy of a Navy report (very technical though) that argues we should activate them.  The reasons vary but mainly the argument is that a carrier and the battle group usually consisting of 9 to 11 ships cost a great deal of money to build and operate.  I believe the actual figures are that a battleships guns could strike 90 something percent of targets and more accurately.  That with modernization the crew could be reduced and the room given over to a floating barrack for a Marine detachment.\n\nIn fact, the opinion from the paper follows and duplicates some of what I have given, there is one thing that is contained in another paper and that is the Navy has no gun platforms.  That there have been causalities from that problem but no steps have been taken to correct the situation.  What that basically means is the Navy lacks the fire power to support ground operation.\n\nIf you want a copy of either copy provide me an e-mail address and which paper or if both papers that you want.\n\nSTATEMENT: "In 1941-42 there was serious opposition to the Carrier replacing the battleship today there is the same opposition for recommissioning the battleship.  Let me interject a short argument for them reentering the fleet.  Money, in this day of budget conscience items the ships could be redeployed for considerable less than adding a new ship and/ or another air wing.  Safety these ships were designed to take abuse incidents like that which happened to the Cole would hardly faze them.  With today’s technology the crew could be shrunk considerably and Marines added for a comfortable floating base.  They don’t need a fleet of ships and can even travel alone.  One important fact the Carrier Navy and supporting politicians don’t want known is the battleships big guns can reach 87% of all the targets that have been targeted by the air power in the last 40 years.  They seem to want the Carrier for the extra positions it provides John Holland the inventor of the first seller of a submarine to the US Navy stated that the “Navy did not seem to like the submarine as there was no place for them to strut”.  There are many more arguments for the ships being reactivated than the, not, a further recommendation is made for GAO to follow-up with their own investigation".\n\nGod Bless You and The Southern People.
220666
With operated-gun turrets and man held machine guns like on the deck sort of like the ones in the movie Pearl Harbor that the African American used. You know, that guy who did the Radio movie as well. There should be at least two air craft even though its not a carrier and a battleship. Two mini man subs.... Sonar, radar, everything. missiles but why do you want to know? Hmm? I looked at your answering history and you're obsessed with war man. Of course the above is just something I made up.
548211
Those fighter pilots(with the help of radar)might, just might, have been a turning point in WWII. The Germans could not neutralize Britain before attacking Russia. Did this keep German troops and air-power, needed on the Eastern Front, facing West, in the wrong direction?. Maybe?
210655
Leonidas and his Spartans have been a blazing example that will never dim throughout human history of men giving their lives in the name of civilisation. (But don't forget the Thespians and Locrians who fought and died in their rearguard.)\n     But my vote is for the few men of the British regiments that held their positions on Garrison hill during the battle of Kohima, in India, in April, 1944.  Their\npositions were overwhelmed continuously by waves of Japanese troops, the dead fell in piles on both sides of their hastily dug trenches, but by morning the\nhandful of troops of the Royal West Kents, Royal Berkshires, and Durham Light Infantry had killed thousands of determined Japanese, and the to that point\nunstoppable advance of the Japanese armies in Southeast Asia came to an end.\n     What I do not understand, efw, is how you can elsewhere state that war somehow has a positive evolutionary effect on man...in nearly every war with\nheavy casualties, and certainly in WWII where the loss of pilots and commandoes were so heavy, it seems a better argument to say that Europe, at least, \nwas bled dry of its finest men. The cowards and the weak stay home and have children, while brave men die as youths and have none.  In the British army the loss of young lieutenants and other junior officers was intense, and the japanese targeted any officer and/or squad leader, who were very capable men who came up from the ranks.  In the case of France, Britain, Russia, Yugoslavia, Poland the last two wars have greatly weakened the quality of the populations. \n     Mankind would do very well to have the offspring of Leonidas' 300 among us.\n     I hope you follow my argument. \n                          my regards.
24403
An incredible story was during WWII and the 442nd regiment from Hawaii.  They were Japanese Americans who were sent in to France to liberate a bunch of cornered American soldiers.  It was a sucicide mission, but since they were of Japanese descent, no one cared.  (Remember we were fighting the Japanese).  The story is incredible.  Here's a good place to start.  http://www.scu.edu/SCU/Programs/Diversity/442nd.html
229507
Ampibious is to narrow of a term.  Now Expeditionary menas you will do amphibious among any other types of assaults.\nMarines still train for ampibious assaults.  In the Mid 90's they landed on Haiti via ampibious assault style.  They did it in Somalia.\nDuring Desert Storm I was preparing to do an amphbious assualt on Kuwait.  We found out at the last minute that this was just a ploy.  Many high ranking Marine Generals was pushing hard in Washington to let the Marines assault this way.\nThe Marine Corps is preparing to put into active duty a new high tech Armored ampibious tracked vehicle to replace the current ones.\nIts not obsolete because the majority of any major city in the world is very close to some shoreline.