Hi guys and girls, Probably a daft. question ,but were there specific differences between U.S.Divisions that fought in the E.T.O.and the P.T.O.?cheers.
I guess it depends on what "differences" you are looking for. The divisions in the Pacific were considerably leaner and fought in a more remote battlespace. Instead of an entire division wading ashore most often in the Pacific you would find only regimental sized intial operations with naval gunfire in support instead of divisional artillery. The Pacific just did not offer the vast expanses of land that are required to field and entire division.
More Arty eg,because of the rugged,mountainous terrain.?Were the T.O.E,s different in any way,?serious question mind.! Cheers fjh.
As far as Arty I would suspect that it was of different size more 105's instead of 155's. Why take something with a range of 8 miles and weighs 6 1/2 tons when you can take something with a range of 7 miles and only weighs 2 1/2 tons, especially if you are on an island 3 miles wide and 4 miles long? The Marines and Glider Regiments were even using 75MM Pak howitzers to get the job done, depending on the TOE schedule that was prevailing. Another aspect to consider would be: why schlep a 155MM to the top of a hill when you are fighting on an island when it is just as easy to call for Naval gunfire.
By and large there were very little difference between divisions, except, as Brad mentioned, how they were used. The TO&E for each was the same. ETO division usually had one or two tank or TD detroyer battalions that were often missed in the PTO, but this was not a hard and fast rule. And, since the IJAF was less of a factore, there were less attached AAA battalions, also.
The system developed by Army Ground Forces, largely under the leadership of Leslie McNair, was to keep the infantry divisions standardized and with a minimum of 'extras'. Supporting units like tanks, tank destroyers, AAA, etc. were attached as needed, although attachments sometimes became semi-permanent, especially in Europe. Infantry (or airborne) divisions could also have truck companies attached if they needed to move rapidly; their normal TO&E included only enough vehicles to tow guns and carry equipment. In TD's example, the divisions which landed at Lingayen Gulf and advanced across Luzon probably had more attachments than when they fought on some jungle island. There were experiments with both motorized and light infantry divisions, but they were reconverted to standard before deploying overseas. AFAIK the five airborne and one mountain divisions were the only ones to have lighter organic artillery, 75/105mm vice 105/155. Additional artillery battalions were usually under corps control. The 1st Cavalry Division, which fought in the Pacific, was unique in retaining the 'square' organization - two brigades, each with two regiments, each with two squadrons (cavalry term, comparable to infantry battalions). It also had only three artillery battalions, presumably one attached to each brigade and one in a general support role, would be interesting to know what caliber guns they had - anyone? That is to say 8 line and 3 artillery battalions compared to 9 and 4 in the standard infantry division, so perhaps we could call it a light division. It would have been lighter without the brigade headquarters; they made a total of 6 HQs to run 8 battalions, which seems a bit excessive; you would think division could directly command four regiments.
I am going to say yes, with the caveat, Luzon was really the exception to the rule. Generally speaking, however, Regiments were left to their own leadership and given less specific operations orders which allowed commanders more lattitude for independant actions; much the same as Marine and Airborne units operated throughout the war.
Here's what Stanton has to say about the 1st Cavalry Division at the time of the Luzon Campaign (combat units only of course); TO & E (1944-45) 1st Cavalry Bde 5th Cav Regt 12th Cav Regt 2nd Cavalry Bde 7th Cav Regt 8th Cav Regt 61st FA Bn (105mm) 82nd FA Bn (105mm) 99th FA Bn (105mm) 271st FA Bn (105mm) 302nd Recon Troop (Mech) 603rd Medium Tank Co Also according to Stanton, the 1st Cavalry Division (Special) as it was officially designated was re-organized along the standard infantry division line in the Philippines in July of 1945, while retaining the "cavalry" designations for historical considerations. It doesn't say if it converted to 3 regiments of 3 battalions as the standard infantry division or stayed with 2 brigades of 2 regiments of 2 battalions each of the old cavalry division TO & E.
I've been looking at what difference may have existed between ETO and PTO US Inf Divs myself a bit recently. As alluded to, the US Army opted to field the minimum number of formation types, and then organise them on a standard basis. For the Inf Div that meant it was built around the basics of three Inf Regts, an Arty Regt, plus supporting Engr and Rcn units, and a streamlined tail. Additional combat and/or service support units would be added as required from Corps/Army level for specific operations. The key differences I've been able to find references to between ETO and PTO Inf Divs concern atk and cannon support. The 27th and 77th Divs are both referred to as having 37-mm atk guns for Op Forager in mid 1944, rather than the 57-mm guns used in the ETO. Likewise there are several descriptions of Inf Regtl Cannon Coys deploying SP M7 105-mm equipments (Priest) in the PTO, rather than the towed 105-mm weapons used in the ETO. I've not been able to get an idea of how many Regts were so equipped. I've not seen any indication yet that Div Arty was reduced in size/strength in the PTO. The USMC had begun the war still relying on 75-mm pack weapons as mentioned above, but their arty gradually got heavier as the war progressed. They were impressed enough by the 155-mm guns and howitzers to form non-Div Bns with these weapons, and had the G-Series Mar Inf Div seen use in Japan they would've have had the same arty firepower as an Army Inf Div (three 105-mm and one 155-mm howitzer Bns). Gary
They didn't "Do Away" with the 155 Bns, they just didn't need them in the intial phase especially on the smaller islands.
Prhaps the 2 divisions above using 37mm a/t guns,thought it's guns quite capable of dealing with a Japanese tank,and therefore never changed them.cheers
That's part of it I think. Also, the 37-mm was physically smaller and somewhat easier to manhandle when required than the 57-mm (British 6-pr) gun. Another consideration is that cannister was available as a round for the 37-mm gun, and was used devastatingly against massed attacks. The Marines retained the 37-mm towed gun throughout the war. The details for I mentioned for Op Forager can be found here - HyperWar: USMC Staff Officer's Field Manual for Amphibious Operations [Chapter 1] The figure of thirty 37-mm guns for 77th Div is lower than their authorised strength of 57 atk guns. The high total of 73 weapons for 27th Div is probably based on the earlier 1942 T/O strength of 109, with 36 guns deleted. That suggests both Divs had deactivated some atk units, but given the numbers it could be either the Atk Pl in each Inf Bn, or the full Atk Coy in each Regt. My guess would be the Inf Bn guns were deleted, but it's difficult to get to the bottom of some of these types of theatre modifications, shame really as they can be quite interesting!
Hi,one would assume that the naval gunfire support on operation forager would have had a devastating effect on the Japanese positions too,so perhaps that was another reason why there were some differences.Cheers,Lee.
