| Part of a series on |
| War (outline) |
|---|
.jpg) |
Amphibious warfare is a type ofoffensivemilitary operation that today usesnaval ships to project ground andair power onto a hostile or potentially hostile shore at a designatedlanding beach.[1] Through history the operations were conducted usingship's boats as the primary method of delivering troops to shore. Since theGallipoli Campaign, specialisedwatercraft were increasingly designed for landing troops, material and vehicles, including bylanding craft and for insertion ofcommandos, by fastpatrol boats,zodiacs (rigid inflatable boats) and frommini-submersibles. The termamphibious first emerged in the United Kingdom and the United States during the 1930s with introduction of vehicles such asVickers-Carden-Loyd Light Amphibious Tank or theLanding Vehicle Tracked.[note 1]
Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In theBritish Empire at the time these were calledcombined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object."[2] All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition. Since the 20th century an amphibious landing of troops on abeachhead is acknowledged as the most complex of all military maneuvers. The undertaking requires an intricate coordination of numerous military specialties, includingair power,naval gunfire,naval transport,logistical planning, specialized equipment,land warfare,tactics, and extensive training in the nuances of this maneuver for all personnel involved.
In essence, amphibious operations consist of the phases of strategic planning and preparation, operational transit to the intendedtheatre of operations, pre-landingrehearsal and disembarkation, troop landings,beachhead consolidation and conducting inland ground and air operations. Historically, within the scope of these phases a vital part of success was often based on themilitary logistics,naval gunfire andclose air support. Another factor is the variety and quantity of specialised vehicles and equipment used by the landing force that are designed for the specific needs of this type of operation. Amphibious operations can be classified as tactical oroperationalraids such as theDieppe Raid, operational landings in support of a larger land strategy such as theKerch–Eltigen Operation, and a strategic opening of a new Theatre of Operations, for example theOperation Avalanche. The purpose of amphibious operations is usually offensive, except in cases of amphibious withdrawals, but is limited by the plan and terrain. Landings on islands less than 5,000 km2 (1,900 sq mi) in size are tactical, usually with the limited objectives of neutralising enemy defenders and obtaining a new base of operation. Such an operation may be prepared and planned in days or weeks, and would employ a navaltask force to land less than adivision of troops.
The intent of operational landings is usually to exploit the shore as a vulnerability in the enemy's overall position, forcingredeployment of forces, premature use ofreserves, and aiding a larger allied offensive effort elsewhere. Such an operation requiring weeks to months of preparation and planning, would use multiple task forces, or even anaval fleet to landcorps-size forces, including on large islands, for exampleOperation Chromite. A strategiclanding operation requires a major commitment of forces to invade a national territory in thearchipelagic, such as theBattle of Leyte, or continental, such asOperation Neptune. Such an operation may require multiple naval and air fleets to support the landings, and extensive intelligence gathering and planning of over a year. Although most amphibious operations are thought of primarily as beach landings, they can exploit available shore infrastructure to land troops directly into an urban environment if unopposed. In this case non-specialised ships can offload troops, vehicles and cargo using organic or facility wharf-side equipment. Tactical landings in the past have utilisedsmall boats,small craft, small ships andcivilian vessels converted for the mission to deliver troops to the water's edge.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
A navallanding operation requires vessels to troops and equipment and might includeamphibious reconnaissance. Military intelligence services obtain information on the opponent. Amphibious warfare goes back to ancient times. TheSea Peoples menaced theEgyptians from the reign ofAkhenaten as captured on the reliefs atMedinet Habu andKarnak. TheHellenic city states routinely resorted to amphibious assaults upon each other's shores, which they reflected upon in their plays and other art. The landing atMarathon by thePersians on 9 September 490 BC was the largest amphibious operation until the landings at theBattle of Gallipoli.
In 1537Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor andKing of Spain, decided to train and assign amphibious-assault skilled units to the Royal Armada specifically for fighting on and from ships. TheSpanish Marines were born under the nameCompañías Viejas del Mar de Nápoles ("All-Spanish Sea Companies ofNaples"). The idea was to set up a permanent assignation of land troops to the Royal Spanish Navy that would be available for the Crown.
The first "professional" marine units were already task-trained amphibious troops, but instead of being disbanded, they were kept for the Spanish Crown's needs. Their first actions took place all along the Mediterranean Sea, where the Turks andpirate settlements were risks for commerce and navigation:Algiers, Malta andGelves.
In 1565, the island ofMalta was invaded by theOttoman Turks during theGreat Siege of Malta, forcing its defenders to retreat to the fortified cities. A strategic choke point in theMediterranean Sea, its loss would have been so menacing for the kingdoms ofWestern Europe that forces were urgently raised to relieve the island. It took four months to train, arm and move a 5,500-man amphibious force to lift the siege.
Other countries adopted the idea and subsequently raised their own earlymarine forces as well.
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
From the 15th to the 20th centuries, several European countries established and expanded overseascolonies. Amphibious operations mostly aimed to settle colonies and to secure strong points along navigational routes. Amphibious forces were fully organized and devoted to this mission,[citation needed] although the troops not only fought ashore, but on board ships.
By their nature amphibious assaults involve highly complex operations, demanding the coordination of disparate elements; when accomplished properly a paralyzing surprise to the enemy can be achieved. However, when there is a lack of preparation and/or coordination, often because of hubris, disastrous results can ensue.
During theOttoman–Habsburg wars, all sides employed numerous and well-trainedmarine infantry and a combination of naval and land force. However, where Ottomans would favor disembarking their troops aside from their targets and initiating land attacks, Spanish and Genoese fleets made a breakthrough by investing in quick, direct disembarks protected by artillery, which often startled their enemies.Andrea Doria andAlfonso d'Avalos performed one such assault to relieve theSiege of Nice, surprising the French and Ottoman troops by bombarding the shore and landing the Spanishtercios directly. During theCapture of Mahdia, the Ottoman approach proved its whenDragut landed a relief army away from the imperial position and was cut short by their contravallation.[3]
Álvaro de Bazán, Marquis of Santa Cruz, was an early developer of amphibious warfare.[4] The "Terceras Landing" in theAzores Islands on 25 May 1583, was a military feat as Bazán and the rest of commanders decided to make a fake landing to distract the defending forces (5,000Portuguese,English andFrench soldiers). Special seagoingbarges were also arranged to unloadcavalryhorses and 700artillery pieces on the beach; specialrowing boats were armed with smallcannons to support the landing boats; special supplies were readied to be unloaded and support the 11,000-man landing force strength. The total strength of the amphibious force was 15,000 men, including an armada of 90 ships. The operation resulted in complete victory.
A superb example of successful combined operations, of both military branches and different imperial units, is theSiege of Port Royal (1710). The siege was a combined arms, British/Colonial American amphibious assault upon the Acadian Provincial capitalPort-Royal (Acadia) of French Canada, duringQueen Anne's War (the name of the American theater of theWar of the Spanish Succession). The battle is known as the seminal moment in the conquest ofAcadia. The siege resulted in the British imperial Force conquering French Arcadia and renaming Port Royal,Annapolis Royal.
One famous instance of a failed amphibious assault was in 1741 at theBattle of Cartagena de Indias inNew Granada, when a large British amphibious assault force commanded by AdmiralEdward Vernon, and including a contingent of 200 Virginia "Marines"(not originally meant to be so) commanded byLawrence Washington (older half brother ofGeorge Washington), failed to overcome a much smaller, but very heavily fortified Spanish defence force and were forced to retreat back to the ships and call off the operation.
TheSiege of Louisbourg (1745) took place in 1745 when aNew England colonial force aided by a smallBritish fleet capturedLouisbourg, the capital of theFrench province ofÎle-Royale (present-dayCape Breton Island) during theWar of the Austrian Succession, known asKing George's War in theBritish colonies.
The northern British colonies regarded Louisbourg as a menacers, calling it the "AmericanDunkirk" due to its use as a base forprivateers. There was regular, intermittent warfare between the French and theWabanaki Confederacy on one side and the northern New England colonies on the other (See the Northeast Coast Campaigns of1688,1703,1723,1724). For the French, theFortress of Louisbourg also protected the chief entrance toCanada, as well as the nearby French fisheries. The French government had spent 25 years in fortifying it, and the cost of its defenses was reckoned at thirty million livres.[5]Although the fortress's construction and layout was acknowledged as having superior seaward defences, a series of low rises behind them made it vulnerable to a land attack. The low rises provided attackers places to erect siege batteries. The fort'sgarrison was poorly paid and supplied, and its inexperienced leaders mistrusted them. The colonial attackers were also lacking in experience, but ultimately succeeded in gaining control of the surrounding defences. The defenders surrendered in the face of an imminent assault.
Louisbourg was an important bargaining chip in the peace negotiations to end the war, since it represented a major British success. Factions within the British government were opposed to returning it to the French as part of any peace agreement, but these were eventually overruled, and Louisbourg was returned, over the objections of the victorious British North Americans, to French control after the 1748Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, in return for French concessions elsewhere.
TheSiege of Louisbourg (1758) was a pivotal operation of the British military in 1758 (which included Colonial American Provincial and Ranger units) during theSeven Years' War (known in the United States as theFrench and Indian War), a war that ended the French colonial era inAtlantic Canada and led to the subsequent British campaign to capture all ofFrench North America by the war's end.[6]
Another major amphibious landing took place during theSeven Years' War, theSiege of Quebec in 1759. The British, in addition to colonial American Ranger units, had raised experimental light infantry units to integrate aspects of the ranger ideal into the regular army. They also produced the first specially designed landing-craft in order to enable their troops to cross theSaint Lawrence River in force. After considering and rejecting a number of plans for landings on the north shore of the river, Major GeneralJames Wolfe and his brigadiers decided in late August to land upriver of the city.[7]
The British prepared for their risky deployment upstream. Troops had already been aboard landing ships and drifting up and down the river for several days when on 12 September Wolfe made a final decision on the British landing site, selecting L'Anse-au-Foulon. Wolfe's plan of attack depended on secrecy and surprise—a key element of a successful amphibious operation—a small party of men would land by night on the north shore, climb the tall cliff, seize a small road, and overpower the garrison that protected it, allowing the bulk of his army (5,000 men) to ascend the cliff by the small road and then deploy for battle on the plateau.[8] The operation proved a success, leading to the surrender of the city, and heavily influenced subsequent engagements.
In 1762 a British force, with a small colonial American ranger contingent, successfully landed atHavana in Cuba,besieged the city and captured it after a two-month campaign thanks to improved coordination of land and sea forces.[citation needed]In the same year, 1762, BritishRoyal Navy sailors and marines succeed in taking the capital of theEast Indies:Manila in the Philippines as well.
In 1776Samuel Nicholas and theContinental Marines, the "progenitor" of theUnited States Marine Corps, made a first successful landing in theRaid of Nassau in the Bahamas.In 1782 The British rebuffed a long Franco-Spanish attempt toseize Gibraltar by water-borne forces. In 1783 a Franco-Spanish force invaded the British-held island ofMinorca.
In 1798 Minorca experienced yet another of its many changes of sovereignty whencaptured by a British landing.
As the British Empire expanded worldwide, four colonies (Halifax, inNova Scotia;Bermuda;Gibraltar; andMalta) were designatedImperial fortresses,[9][10][11][12][13][14] from which Britain's domination of the oceans and theMediterranean andCaribbean seas was maintained, including its ability to deny safe passage to enemy naval and merchant vessels while protecting its own merchant trade, as well as to its ability to project superior naval and military force anywhere on the planet.
This was demonstrated during theAmerican War of 1812, when the ships of theNorth America Station of the Royal Navy and military forces of the British Army, Board of Ordnance, and Royal Marines, maintained a blockade of much of theAtlantic seaboard of theUnited States of America, carried out amphibious raids such as the 22 June 1813Battle of Craney Island,[15] and then launched theChesapeake Campaign (defeating American forces in theBattle of Bladensburg, capturing andburning Washington, DC, andraiding Alexandria, Virginia),[16][17] from Bermuda.
The point is further reinforced by Britain's poor showing during the war in the battles upon the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Without great naval fortresses or forward reinforced ports the Royal Navy was unable to hold and command the lakes, or stop amphibious raiding into Canada, such as the many raids on York (nowToronto) during the conflict. However, the strategic situation changed with the construction of HMS St Lawrence which was manned by Royal Navy sailors, rather than thelandsman that had hitherto been used to complement the somewhat ad hoc flottilas used in the skirmishes on the lakes. Concurrently, the British would inflict the single biggest maritime loss of either side during the war by landing a force of 136 Royal Marines and sailors at the privateer base in Pettipaug, Connecticut. In this amphibious action, more akin to a "Commando" raid, they destroyed 26 vessels, capturing 2 and blowing up warehouses storing ammunition and supplies; under the noses of the American regulars and militia tasked with guarding the important base.
In theMexican–American War, US forces underWinfield Scott launched the first major amphibious assault in US history, and its largest amphibious assault until WWII, in the 1847Siege of Veracruz.
During theCrimean War of 1853–1856 the anti-Russian alliance launched an Anglo-French amphibious operation against Russia atBomarsund,Finland on 8 August 1854.
During theAmerican Civil War of 1861–1865 theUnited States made several amphibious assaults along the coastlines of theConfederate States. Actions atHatteras Inlet (August 1861) and at Port Royal,South Carolina were the first of many attacks, others occurring onRoanoke Island, NC;Galveston, TX;Fort Sumter,Morris Island andJames Island, SC; and several more. The largest such clash happened in January 1865 atFort Fisher—the largest and most powerful fort in the world at the time—which protected the entrance ofWilmington, North Carolina. The assaulting force consisted of over 15,000 men and 70 warships with over 600 guns.
During theAmerican Civil War, theMississippi Marine Brigade was established to act swiftly againstConfederate forces operating near the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The unit consisted of artillery, cavalry and infantry with theUnited States Ram Fleet used as transportation.[18]
Amphibious warfare during theWar of the Pacific of 1879 to 1883 saw coordination of army, navy and specialized units. The first amphibious assault of this war took place during theBattle of Pisagua when 2,100Chilean troops successfully tookPisagua from 1,200Peruvian andBolivian defenders on 2 November 1879.Chilean Navy ships bombarded beach defenses for several hours at dawn,[citation needed] followed by open, oared boats landing armyinfantry andsapper units into waist-deep water, under enemy fire. An outnumbered first landing-wave fought at the beach; the second and third waves in the following hours succeeded in overcoming resistance and moving inland. By the end of the day, an expeditionary army of 10,000 had disembarked at the captured port.
In 1881 Chilean ships transported approximately 30,000 men, along with their mounts and equipment, 500 miles (800 km) in order to attack Lima.[19] Chilean commanders commissioned purpose-built, flat-bottomed landing craft that would deliver troops in shallow water closer to the beach, possibly[original research?] the first purpose-built amphibious landing-craft in history:[20] "These [36 shallow draft, flat-bottomed] boats would be able to land three thousand men and twelve guns in a single wave".
Neutral military observers closely studied landing tactics and operations during the War of the Pacific: twoRoyal Navy ships monitored theBattle of Pisagua;United States Navy observer Lt.Theodorus B. M. Mason included an account in his reportThe War on the Pacific Coast of South America. TheUSS Wachusett withAlfred Thayer Mahan in command, was stationed at Callao, Peru, protecting American interests during the final stages of the War of the Pacific. He formulated his concept of sea power while reading a history book in an Englishgentleman's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebratedThe Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890).[21][22]
An amphibious assault took place on the beaches ofVeracruz, Mexico in 1914, when theUnited States Navyattacked and occupied the city as result of theTampico Affair.
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
World War I marked the beginning of the first modern amphibious warfare operations. However, tactics and equipment were still rudimentary and required much improvisation.
At the time, BritishRoyal Marine Light Infantry (merged with theRoyal Marine Artillery in the 1920s to form theRoyal Marines) were used primarily as naval parties onboardRoyal Navy warships to maintain discipline and man ships' guns. The RMLI joined a newRoyal Navy division, theRoyal Naval Division, formed in 1914 (out of those not needed on ships) to fight on land; however, throughout the conflict, army units were depended upon to provide the bulk, if not all, of troops used in amphibious landings.
The first amphibious assault of the war was theBattle of Bita Paka (11 September 1914) was fought south of Kabakaul, on the island ofNew Britain, and was a part of the invasion and subsequent occupation ofGerman New Guinea by theAustralian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) shortly after the outbreak of theFirst World War.[23] The first British amphibious assault of the war ended in disaster in November 1914. A largeBritish Indian Army force was directed to launch an amphibious assault onTanga,German East Africa. British actions prior to the assault, however, alerted the Germans to prepare to repel an invasion. The Indian forces suffered heavy casualties when theyadvanced on the city, forcing them to withdraw back to their boats, leaving much of their equipment behind.[24]
A plan was devised to landBritish heavy tanks frompontoons in support of theThird Battle of Ypres, but this was abandoned.[25]
The Imperial RussianArmy andNavy also grew adept to amphibious warfare in theBlack Sea, conducting many raids and bombardments on Ottoman positions.[26]
On 11 October 1917, German land and naval forces launched an amphibious assault, code namedOperation Albion, on the islands ofSaaremaa (Ösel),Hiiumaa (Dagö) andMuhu (Moon); they controlled the entrance to theGulf of Riga. By the end of the month German forces had successfully overrun the islands forcing the Russians to abandon them with the loss of some 20,000 troops, 100 guns and thepre-dreadnought battleshipSlava. The capture of the islands opened a route for German naval forces into theGulf of Finland threatening the city ofPetrograd, a fact that contributed to the cessation of hostilities on theEastern front.
The first large scale amphibious operations, ones that were to heavily influence theorists in the decades to come, were conducted as part of theBattle of Gallipoli in 1915 against theOttoman Empire duringWorld War I. TheGallipoli peninsula forms the northern bank of theDardanelles, astrait that provided a sea route to what was then theRussian Empire, one of theAllied powers during the war. Intending to secure it, Russia's allies Britain and France launched a naval attack followed by anamphibious landing on the peninsula with the eventual aim of capturing the Ottoman capital ofConstantinople (modern-dayIstanbul). Although the naval attack was repelled and the land campaign failed, the campaign was the first modern amphibious landing, and featured air support, specialized landing craft and anaval bombardment.
The seaplane tenderHMS Ark Royal supported the landings under the command ofCommanderRobert Clark-Hall. Seaplanes were used foraerial reconnaissance, ground support for the troopslanding at Anzac Cove and the bombing of fortifications.Ark Royal was augmented by a squadron from theNo. 3 Squadron of theRoyal Naval Air Service, operating from a nearby island.
Initial landings, starting on 25 April, took place in unmodified rowing boats that were extremely vulnerable to attack from the shore defences. The first purpose-built landing craft were built for the campaign.SSRiver Clyde, built as acollier, was adapted to be alanding ship for theLanding at Cape Helles. Openings were cut in her steel hull as sally ports from which troops would emerge onto gangways and then to a bridge of smaller boats from the ship to the beach.Boiler plate and sandbags were mounted on her bow, and behind them a battery of 11 machine guns was installed. The machine gun battery was manned byRoyal Naval Air Service men. Work began on paintingRiver Clyde's hull sandy yellow ascamouflage, but this was incomplete by the time of the landing.[27]
It was soon clear that the Turkish defence was equipped with rapid-fire weapons, which meant that ordinary landing boats were inadequate for the task. In February 1915, orders had been placed for the design of purpose built landing craft. A design was created in four days resulting in an order for 200 'X'Lighters (or X-lighters)[28] with aspoon-shaped bow to take shelving beaches and a drop down frontal ramp.
The first use took place after they had been towed to theAegean and performed successfully in the 6 Augustlanding at Suvla Bay ofIX Corps, commanded byCommanderEdward Unwin.
'X'Lighters, known to the soldiers as 'Beetles', carried about 500 men, displaced 200 tons (or 160 tons according to some sources)[29] and were based on London barges being 105 feet 6 inches long, 21 feet wide, and 7 feet 6 inches deep. The engines mainly ran on heavy oil and ran at a maximal speed of approximately 8 knots (9.2 mph). The sides of the ships were bullet proof, and was designed with a ramp on the bow for disembarkation.[30]
The lessons of the Gallipoli campaign had a significant impact upon the development of amphibious operational planning,[31] and have since been studied by military planners prior to operations such as theNormandy Landings in 1944 and during theFalklands War in 1982.[32] The campaign also influencedUS Marine Corps amphibious operations during thePacific War, and continues to influence US amphibious doctrine.
During theinterwar period the campaign "became a focal point for the study of amphibious warfare" in the United Kingdom and United States,[33] because it involved the four types of amphibious operations: the raid, demonstration, assault and withdrawal.[31] Analysis of the campaign beforeWorld War II led to a belief among manyarmed forces that amphibious assaults could not succeed against modern defences. The perception continued until theNormandy Landings in June 1944, despite some successful examples of amphibious operations earlier in the war, such as those inItaly, and atTarawa and in theGilbert Islands in the Pacific.[34] Although the negative perception prevailed among Allied planners in the interwar years, the war situation after 1940 meant that such operations had to be considered. However, despite early successes in North Africa and Italy, it was not until Normandy that the belief that opposed landings could not succeed was completely excised.
One of the first amphibious landings involving armour was conducted by theIrish National Army in 1922, during theIrish Civil War. Landings against Republican rebels atWestport,Fenit andCork all involved armour cars. The Westport and Fenit landings involved light armoured cars and18-pounder artillery guns being hoisted off the ships by crane. Heavier armoured cars were used at Cork, resulting in some difficulty. While Irish troops could reach the coast in small boats from naval vessels offshore, the ships had to dock to unload the heavy vehicles and artillery guns. These operations were a major success for the Irish government forces, mainly due to the element of surprise and the use of armoured vehicles and artillery. Government forces were able to capture all the major towns and cities in southernIreland.[35]
TheAlhucemas landing on 8 September 1925, performed by a Spanish-French coalition against rebel Berber tribesmen in the north ofMorocco, was an amphibious landing where tanks were used for the first time and massive aerial andnaval gunfire support was employed by the landing forces, directed by spotting personnel with communication devices.
Floating depots were organized with medical, water, ammunition and food supplies, to be dispatched ashore when needed. The barges used in this landing were the surviving "K" boats fromGallipoli, upgraded in Spanish shipyards.
In 1938, Japanese forces attacked Chinese defenders over theYangtze River at theBattle of Wuhan. Soon, the Japanese would later further improve its techniques upon seaborne assaults by theSecond Sino-Japanese War. By World War II, marines such as theSpecial Naval Landing Force used amphibious landings to attack and sweep across territories in South East Asia. Their technique of surprise landings with naval support inspired the British and American landings in World War II such asD-Day and thePacific Campaign.[36][37]
.jpg)
During theinter-war period, the combination of the negative experience atGallipoli and economic stringency contributed to the delay in procuring equipment and adopting a universal doctrine for amphibious operations in theRoyal Navy.
The costly failure of theGallipoli campaign coupled with the emerging potential ofairpower satisfied many in naval and military circles that the age of amphibious operations had come to a close.[38] Still, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, animated discussion inStaff Colleges in Britain and theIndian Army Staff College atQuetta surrounded the strategic potential of theDardanelles campaign compared with the strategic stalemate of theWestern Front. The economic austerity of the worldwideeconomic depression and the government's adoption of theTen Year Rule assured that such theoretical talk would not result in the procurement of any large scale equipment.
Despite this outlook, the British produced theMotor Landing Craft in 1920, based on their experience with the early 'Beetle' armoured transport. The craft could put a medium tank directly onto a beach. From 1924, it was used with landing boats in annual exercises in amphibious landings. It was later calledLanding Craft, Mechanized (LCM) and was the predecessor of allAlliedlanding craft mechanised (LCM).[39]
TheArmy andRoyal Navy formed a landing craft committee to "recommend... the design of landing craft".[38] A prototype motor landing craft, designed byJ. Samuel White ofCowes, was built and first sailed in 1926.[40] It weighed 16 tons and had a box-like appearance, having a square bow and stern. To prevent fouling of the propellers in a craft destined to spend time in surf and possibly be beached, a crudewaterjet propulsion system was devised by White's designers. AHotchkiss petrol engine drove a centrifugal pump which produced a jet of water, pushing the craft ahead or astern, and steering it, according to how the jet was directed. Speed was 5–6knots and its beaching capacity was good.[41] By 1930, three MLC were operated by the Royal Navy.
For a short journey, from shore to shore, the cargo could be rolled or carried into the boat over its ramp. On longer journeys, ship to shore, a derrick would lower the MLC into the sea from the transporting vessel. The derrick would then lower the vehicle or cargo load. Upon touching down on shore, soldiers or vehicles exited by thebow ramp.
Although there was much official apathy toward amphibious operations, this began to change in the late 1930s. TheRoyal Naval Staff College at Greenwich, drafted a document detailing combined operations requirements and submitted it to theChiefs of Staff in 1936. The document recommended the establishment of an inter-service 'Training and Development Centre', with a permanent force ofRoyal Marines attached to it. Its functions were to "train in all methods for the seizure of defended beaches; develop the materiel necessary for such methods, with special regard to protection of troops, speed of landing, and the attainment of surprise; and develop methods and materiel for the destruction or neutralization of enemy defenses, including bombardment and aircraft co-operation.[41]
TheInter-Service Training and Development Centre was established atFort Cumberland, nearPortsmouth in 1938,[42] and brought together representatives from theRoyal Navy,Army, andRoyal Air Force convened with the portfolio of developing methods and equipment to use inCombined Operations.
The Centre examined certain specific problems, including craft for landing tanks, beach organisation, floating piers, headquarters ships, amphibian tanks, underwater obstacles, the landing of water and petrol and the use of small craft in amphibious raids[41] By the end of 1939 the ISTDC had codified a policy for landings, and defended it at Staff College discussions. Operational experience during theSecond World War introduced modifications to this landing policy, but it was essentially the policy used in theTorch andHusky landings four years later.[38]
The essential shape of this landing policy is described by Bernard Fergusson inThe Watery Maze,
The system provided for an approach under cover of darkness in fast ships carrying special craft; the craft being sent ashore while the ships lay out of sight of land; small-craft smoke and gun protection while the beachhead was seized; the landing of a reserve; the capture of a covering position far enough inland to secure the beach and anchorage from enemy fire; the bringing in of ships carrying the main body; and finally the discharge of vehicles and stores by other craft specially designed to do so directly on to beaches. And in all this it was important to achieve tactical surprise.[41]
Among the many tactical innovations introduced by the centre, codified in theManual on Combined Operations and theStandard Naval Bombardment Code, was the use of Floating Piers (pontoons) to bridge the water gap, the creation of Smoke Generating devices to obscure the assault and the use ofinfrared directional beacons for landing accuracy. The centre also played a role in the development of the first specialized landing crafts, including theAssault Landing Craft, theMechanized Landing Craft (LCM(1)), theLanding Craft Tank (Mk. 1), Support Landing Craft LCS(1), LCS(2) andLanding Ship Infantry.[43]
Divisional-sized amphibious landing exercises were carried out by theBritish Army in the 1930s.[44][45]
In contrast to the British attitude, the U.S. military, especially theMarine Corps remained enthusiastic at the possibilities of amphibious warfare. The Marine Corps was searching for an expanded mission afterWorld War I, during which it had merely been used as a junior version of the Armyinfantry. During the 1920s, it found a new mission—to be afast-reacting, light infantry fighting force carried rapidly to far off locations by theUS Navy. Its special role would be amphibious landings on enemy-held islands, but it took years to figure out how to do that. TheMahanian notion of a decisive fleet battle requiredforward bases for the Navy close to the enemy. After theSpanish–American War the Marines gained the mission of occupying and defending those forward bases, and began a training program onCulebra Island,Puerto Rico.[46]
As early as 1900 theGeneral Board of the United States Navy considered building advance bases for naval operations in thePacific and theCaribbean. The Marine Corps was given this mission in 1920, but the challenge was to avoid another disaster likeGallipoli. The conceptual breakthrough came in 1921 whenMajor "Pete" Ellis wroteAdvanced Base Operations in Micronesia a secret 30,000-word manifesto that proved inspirational to Marine strategists and highly prophetic.[47][48] To win a war in the Pacific, the Navy would have to fight its way through thousands of miles of ocean controlled by the Japanese—including theMarshall,Caroline,Marianas andRyukyu island chains. If the Navy could land Marines to seize selected islands, they could become forward bases.
Ellis argued that with an enemy prepared to defend the beaches, success depended on high-speed movement of waves ofassault craft, covered by heavynaval gunfire andattack from the air. He predicted that the decisive action would take place on the beach itself, so the assault teams would need not just infantry but alsomachine gun units,light artillery,light tanks, andcombat engineers to defeat beach obstacles and defenses. Assuming the enemy had its own artillery, the landing craft would have to be specially built to protect the landing force. The failure at Gallipoli came because theTurks could easily reinforce the specific landing sites. The Japanese would be unable to land new forces on the islands under attack.[49]
Not knowing which of the many islands would be the American target, the Japanese would have to disperse their strength by garrisoning many islands that would never be attacked. An island likeEniwetok in theMarshall Islands, would, Ellis estimated, require two regiments, or 4,000 Marines. Guided by Marineobserver aircraft, and supplemented by Marinelight bombers, warships would provide enough firepower so that Marines would not need anyheavy artillery (in contrast to the Army, which relied heavily on its artillery). Shelling defended islands was a new mission for warships. The Ellis model was officially endorsed in 1927 by the Joint Board of the Army and Navy (a forerunner of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).[46]
However, actual implementation of the new mission took another decade because theMarine Corps was preoccupied inCentral America and the Navy was slow to start training in how to support the landings. The prototypeadvanced base force officially evolved into theFleet Marine Force (FMF) in 1933.[50] In 1939, during the annualFleet Landing Exercises, the FMF became interested in the military potential ofAndrew Higgins's design of a powered, shallow-draught boat. TheseLCVPs, dubbed the 'Higgins Boats', were reviewed and passed by the U.S. NavalBureau of Construction and Repair. Soon, the Higgins boats were developed to a final design with a ramp, and were produced in large numbers.
By theSecond World War tactics and equipment had moved on. The first use of British landing craft in an opposed landing in the Second World War, saw the disembarkation ofFrench Foreign Legionnaires of the13th Demi-Brigade and supporting FrenchHotchkiss H39 tanks on the beach atBjerkvik,eight miles (13 km) above Narvik, on 13 May during the Norwegian campaign.[51][52]
The first major and successful amphibious operation wasOperation Ironclad, a British campaign to captureVichy French-controlledMadagascar. The naval contingent consisted of over 50 vessels, drawn fromForce H, theBritish Home Fleet and the BritishEastern Fleet, commanded by Rear AdmiralEdward Neville Syfret.
The fleet included the aircraft carrierIllustrious, her sister shipIndomitable and the aging battleshipRamillies to cover the landings. The first wave of theBritish 29th Infantry Brigade andNo. 5 Commando landed inassault craft on 5 May 1942, follow-up waves were by two brigades of the5th Infantry Division and Royal Marines. Air cover was provided mainly byFairey Albacore andFairey Swordfishtorpedo bombers which attacked Vichy shipping.
Purpose-builtlanding craft were among the vessels used at the evacuation fromDunkirk (Operation Dynamo)[53] and an amphibious operation was tried out atDieppe in 1942. The operation proved a costly failure, but the lessons, hard learned, were used later. Many small-scale operations were conducted by the Allies on the Axis-held coast of Europe, including raids on theLofoten Islands,St Nazaire andBruneval.
In the run up toWorld War II, many specialized landing craft, both for infantry and vehicles, were developed. In November 1938, theInter-Service Training and Development Centre proposed a new type oflanding craft.[38] Its specifications were to weigh less than tenlong tons, to be able to carry the thirty-one men of a British Armyplatoon and fiveassault engineers orsignallers, and to be so shallow drafted as to be able to land them, wet only up to their knees, in eighteen inches of water.[38] All of these specifications made theLanding Craft Assault; a separate set of requirements were laid down for a vehicle and supplies carrier, although previously the two roles had been combined in theMotor Landing Craft.
J. S. White of Cowes built a prototype to the Fleming design.[54] Eight weeks later the craft was doing trials on the Clyde. All landing craft designs must find a compromise between two divergent priorities; the qualities that make a good sea boat are opposite those that make a craft suitable for beaching.[55]The craft had a hull built of double-diagonalmahogany planking. The sides were plated with "10lb. DIHT" armour, a heat treated steel based on D1 steel,[56] in this caseHadfield's Resista1⁄4".[57]
TheLanding Craft Assault remained the most common British andCommonwealth landing craft of World War II, and the humblest vessel admitted to the books of theRoyal Navy onD-Day. Prior to July 1942, these craft were referred to as "Assault Landing Craft" (ALC), but "Landing Craft; Assault" (LCA) was used thereafter to conform with the joint US–UK nomenclature system.[58]
TheLanding Craft Infantry was a stepped upamphibious assault ship, developed in response to a British request for a vessel capable of carrying and landing substantially more troops than the smallerLanding Craft Assault (LCA). The result was a small steel ship that could land 200 troops, traveling from rear bases on its own bottom at a speed of up to 15 knots. The original British design was envisioned as being a "one time use" vessel which would simply ferry the troops across theEnglish Channel, and were considered an expendable vessel. As such, no troop sleeping accommodations were placed in the original design. This was changed shortly after initial use of these ships, when it was discovered that many missions would require overnight accommodations.
The first LCI(L)s entered service in 1943 chiefly with the Royal Navy (RN) and United States Navy. Some 923 LCI were built in ten American shipyards and 211 provided under lend-lease to the Royal Navy.
Following theInter-Service Training and Development Centre's (ISTDC) successful development of the infantry carryingLCA, attention turned to the means of efficiently delivering a tank to a beach in 1938. Inquires were made of the army as to the heaviest tank that might be employed in a landing operation. The army wanted to be able to land a 12-ton tank, but the ISTDC, anticipating weight increases in future tank models specified 16tons burthen for Mechanised Landing Craft designs.[38] Another governor on any design was the need to land tanks and other vehicles in less than approximately2+1⁄2 feet of water.[59]
Design work began atJohn I. Thornycroft Ltd. in May 1938 with trials completing in February 1940.[41] Although early LCM(1)s were powered by two Thornycroft 60 bhp petrol engines, the majority were powered by Chrysler, in-line, 6-cylinder Crown petrol engines. Constructed ofsteel and selectively clad with armour plate, this shallow-draft,barge-like boat with a crew of 6, could ferry a tank of 16 long tons to shore at 7knots (13 km/h). Depending on the weight of the tank to be transported the craft might be lowered into the water by its davits already loaded or could have the tank placed in it after being lowered into the water.
Although the Royal Navy had theLanding Craft Mechanised at its disposal, in 1940, Prime MinisterWinston Churchill demanded an amphibious vessel capable of landing at least three 36-tonheavy tanks directly onto a beach, able to sustain itself at sea for at least a week, and inexpensive and easy to build.Admiral Maund, Director of theInter-Service Training and Development Centre (which had developed theLanding Craft Assault[citation needed]), gave the job to naval architect Sir Roland Baker, who within three days completed initial drawings for a 152-foot (46 m) landing craft with a 29-foot (8.8 m) beam and a shallow draft. Ship buildersFairfields andJohn Brown agreed to work out details for the design under the guidance of the Admiralty Experimental Works atHaslar. Tank tests with models soon determined the characteristics of the craft, indicating that it would make 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) on engines delivering about 700 hp (520 kW).[60] Designated the LCT Mark 1, 20 were ordered in July 1940 and a further 10 in October 1940.[citation needed]
The first LCT Mark 1 was launched byHawthorn Leslie in November 1940. It was an all-welded 372-ton steel-hulled vessel that drew only 3 feet (0.91 m) of water at the bow. Sea trials soon proved the Mark 1 to be difficult to handle and almost unmanageable in some sea conditions. The designers set about correcting the faults of the Mark 1 in the LCT Mark 2. Longer and wider, three Paxman diesel orNapier Lion petrol engines replaced the Hall-Scotts, and 15 and 20 lb. armoured shielding was added to the wheelhouse and gun tubs.
The Mark 3 had an additional 32-foot (9.8 m) midsection that gave it a length of 192 feet (59 m) and a displacement of 640 tons. Even with this extra weight, the vessel was slightly faster than the Mark 1. The Mk.3 was accepted on 8 April 1941, and was prefabricated in five sections. The Mark 4 was slightly shorter and lighter than the Mk.3, but had a much wider beam (38 ft 9 in (11.81 m)) and was intended for cross channel operations as opposed to seagoing use. When tested in early assault operations, like the ill-fated Canadian commando raid onDieppe in 1942, the lack of manoeuvring ability led to the preference for a shorter overall length in future variants, most of which were built in the United States.
When the United States entered the war in December 1941, the U.S. Navy had no amphibious vessels at all, and found itself obliged to consider British designs already in existence. One of these, advanced by K.C. Barnaby ofThornycroft, was for a double-ended LCT to work with landing ships. TheBureau of Ships quickly set about drawing up plans for landing craft based on Barnaby's suggestions, although with only one ramp. The result, in early 1942, was the LCT Mark 5, a 117-foot craft with a beam of 32 feet that could accommodate five 30-ton or four 40-ton tanks or 150 tons of cargo. With a crew of twelve men and one officer, this 286 ton landing craft had the merit of being able to be shipped to combat areas in three separate water-tight sections aboard a cargo ship or carried pre-assembled on the flat deck of anLST. The Mk.5 would be launched by heeling the LST on its beam to let the craft slide off its chocks into the sea, or cargo ships could lower each of the three sections into the sea where they were joined.[60]
A further development was theLanding Ship, Tank designation, built to support amphibious operations by carrying significant quantities of vehicles, cargo, andlanding troops directly onto an unimproved shore. The Britishevacuation from Dunkirk in 1940 demonstrated to theAdmiralty that the Allies needed relatively large, ocean-going ships capable of shore-to-shore delivery oftanks and other vehicles inamphibious assaults upon the continent of Europe. The first purpose-built LST design wasHMS Boxer. To carry 13Churchillinfantry tanks, 27 vehicles and nearly 200 men (in addition to the crew) at a speed of 18 knots, it could not have the shallow draught that would have made for easy unloading. As a result, each of the three (Boxer,Bruiser, andThruster) ordered in March 1941 had a very long ramp stowed behind the bow doors.
In November 1941, a small delegation from the British Admiralty arrived in the United States to pool ideas with theUnited States Navy'sBureau of Ships with regard to development of ships and also including the possibility of building furtherBoxers in the US.[61] During this meeting, it was decided that the Bureau of Ships would design these vessels. The LST(2) design incorporated elements of the first British LCTs from their designer, Sir Rowland Baker, who was part of the British delegation. This included sufficient buoyancy in the ships' sidewalls that they would float even with the tank deck flooded.[62] The LST(2) gave up the speed of HMSBoxer at only 10 knots but had a similar load while drawing only 3 feet forward when beaching.
In three separate acts dated 6 February 1942, 26 May 1943, and 17 December 1943, Congress provided the authority for the construction of LSTs along with a host of other auxiliaries,destroyer escorts, and assortedlanding craft. The enormous building program quickly gathered momentum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the previously laid keel of anaircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid down on 10 June 1942 atNewport News, Va., and the first standardized LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. Twenty-three were in commission by the end of 1942. Lightly armored, they could steam cross the ocean with a full load on their own power, carrying infantry, tanks and supplies directly onto the beaches. Together with 2,000 other landing craft, the LSTs gave the troops a protected, quick way to make combat landings, beginning in summer 1943.[63]
The most famous amphibious assaults of the war, and of all time, were the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944, in which British, Canadian, and US forces landed atUtah,Omaha,Gold,Juno andSword beaches in the largest amphibious operation in history.
The organizational planning of the landings (Operation Neptune) was in the hands ofAdmiralBertram Ramsay. It covered the landing of the troops and their re-supply. Many innovative elements were included in the operation to ensure its success.
Operation Pluto was a scheme developed byArthur Hartley, chief engineer with theAnglo-Iranian Oil Company, to construct an underseaoil pipeline under theEnglish Channel betweenEngland andFrance to provide logistical support to the landed armies. Allied forces on the European continent required a tremendous amount of fuel. Pipelines were considered necessary to relieve dependence on oil tankers, which could be slowed by bad weather, were susceptible toGermansubmarines, and were also needed in thePacific War.Geoffrey William Lloyd, the Minister for Petroleum gained the support ofAdmiral Mountbatten, Chief ofCombined Operations for the operation.[64]
Two types of pipeline were developed. The first type was the flexibleHAIS pipe with a3 inch (75 mm) diameter lead core, weighing around 55long tons pernautical mile (30t/km), was essentially a development bySiemens Brothers (in conjunction with theNational Physical Laboratory) of their existingundersea telegraph cables, and known as HAIS (from Hartley-Anglo-Iranian-Siemens). The second type was a less flexible steel pipe of similar diameter, developed by engineers from theIraq Petroleum Company and theBurmah Oil Company.[65]
In June 1942 the Post Office cable shipIris laid lengths of both Siemens' and Henleys' cable in the Clyde. The pipeline was completely successful and PLUTO was formally brought into the plans for the invasion of Europe. The project was deemed "strategically important, tactically adventurous, and, from the industrial point of view, strenuous"[citation needed]. After full-scale testing of an 83 km (45 nautical mile) HAIS pipe across the Bristol Channel betweenSwansea inWales andWatermouth inNorth Devon, the first line to France was laid on 12 August 1944, over the 130 km (70 nautical miles) fromShanklin Chine on theIsle of Wight across the English Channel toCherbourg Naval Base. A further HAIS pipe and two HAMELs followed. As the fighting moved closer to Germany, 17 other lines (11 HAIS and 6 HAMEL) were laid fromDungeness toAmbleteuse in thePas-de-Calais.
In January 1945, 305 tonnes (300 long tons) of fuel was pumped to France per day, which increased tenfold to 3,048 tonnes (3,000 long tons) per day in March, and eventually to 4,000 tons (almost 1,000,000 Imperial gallons) per day. In total, over 781 000 m3 (equal to a cube with 92 metre long sides or over 172 million imperial gallons) ofgasoline had been pumped to theAllied forces in Europe byVE day, providing a critical supply of fuel until a more permanent arrangement was made, although the pipeline remained in operation for some time after.[when?]
Portable harbours were also prefabricated as temporary facilities to allow rapid offloading of cargo onto the beaches during theAllied invasion of Normandy. TheDieppe Raid of 1942 had shown that theAllies could not rely on being able to penetrate theAtlantic Wall to capture a port on the north French coast. The problem was that large ocean-going ships of the type needed to transport heavy and bulky cargoes and stores neededsufficient depth of water under theirkeels, together withdockside cranes, to off-load their cargo and this was not available except at the already heavily defended French harbours. Thus, the Mulberries were created to provide the port facilities necessary to offload the thousands of men and vehicles, and tons of supplies necessary to sustainOperation Overlord and theBattle of Normandy. The harbours were made up of all the elements one would expect of any harbour:breakwater,piers, roadways etc.
At a meeting following theDieppe Raid, Vice-AdmiralJohn Hughes-Hallett declared that if a port could not be captured, then one should be taken across theChannel.[66] The concept of Mulberry harbours began to take shape when Hughes-Hallett moved to be Naval Chief of Staff to theOverlord planners.
The proposed harbours called for many hugecaissons of various sorts to build breakwaters and piers and connecting structures to provide the roadways. The caissons were built at a number of locations, mainly existing ship building facilities or large beaches like Conwy Morfa around the British coast. The works were let out to commercial construction firms includingBalfour Beatty,Costain,Nuttall,Henry Boot,Sir Robert McAlpine andPeter Lind & Company, who all still operate today, andCubitts,Holloway Brothers,Mowlem andTaylor Woodrow, who all have since been absorbed into other businesses that are still operating.[67] On completion they were towed across the English Channel bytugs[68] to the Normandy coast at only 4.3 Knots (8 km/h or 5 mph), built, operated and maintained by the Corps of Royal Engineers, under the guidance of Reginald D. Gwyther, who was appointed CBE for his efforts.
By 9 June, just 3 days after D-Day, two harbours codenamed Mulberry "A" and "B" were constructed atOmaha Beach andArromanches, respectively. However, a large storm on 19 June destroyed the American harbour at Omaha, leaving only the British harbour still intact but damaged, which included damage to the 'Swiss Roll' which had been deployed as the most western floating roadway had to be taken out of service. The surviving Mulberry "B" came to be known asPort Winston at Arromanches. While the harbour at Omaha was destroyed sooner than expected, Port Winston saw heavy use for 8 months—despite being designed to last only 3 months. In the 10 months after D-Day, it was used to land over 2.5 million men, 500,000 vehicles, and 4 million tonnes of supplies providing much needed reinforcements in France.[69][70]
Other large amphibious operations in theEuropean theatre of World War II and thewar in the Pacific include:
Europe:
| Location | Operation | Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norway | Operation Weserübung (German:Unternehmen Weserübung) | 9 April 1940 | German attack on Norway and Denmark |
| Cross English Channel | Operation Sea Lion (German:Unternehmen Seelöwe) | planned 20 September 1940 | Not carried out after Germany failed to gain air supremacy, postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 |
| East Africa | Operation Appearance | 16 March 1941 | Beach landing atBerbera |
| Battle of Crete | Operation Mercury (German:Unternehmen Merkur) | 20 May 1941 | Axis invasion of Crete. Primarily anairborne assault. The battle lasted about 10 days |
| Crimea | Feodosia Landing | December 1941 | Soviet forces established a bridgehead on theKerch Peninsula which they maintained until May 1942, but failed to prevent thefall of Sevastopol. |
| Crimea | Yevpatoria assault | January 1942 | Stormy weather prevented the reinforcement of Soviet troops fromSevastopol who landed atYevpatoria and occupied part of the town for 4 days. |
| North Africa campaign | Operation Torch | 8 November 1942 | Three Allied task-forces covering the coasts ofFrench Morocco and Algeria |
| Sicily | Operation Husky | 9 July 1943 | Largest amphibious operation of World War II in terms of size of landing-zone and number of divisions put ashore on the first day; see alsoOperation Mincemeat (disinformation),Operation Ladbroke (glider landings) andOperation Fustian (parachute brigade, with glider-borne forces in support) |
| Salerno | Operation Avalanche | 9 September 1943 | Also involved two supporting operations: in Calabria (Operation Baytown, 3 Sept) and Taranto (Operation Slapstick, 9 September). |
| Crimea | Kerch-Eltigen Operation | November 1943 | Soviet landings preceding the recapture of theCrimean Peninsula from German and Romanian forces. |
| Anzio | Operation Shingle | 22 January 1944 | Bridgehead pinned down until 23 May 1944, when a breakout (Operation Diadem) allowed a move on Rome |
| Southern France | Operation Dragoon | 15 August 1944 | Operation Dragoon forced a German retreat and accelerated the liberation of France. See also preliminary effort (Operation Sitka), diversion (Operation Span), airborne operations (1st Airborne Task Force) |
Pacific:
| Location | Operation | Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malaya | Battle of Kota Bharu | 8 December 1941 | Following failure to implementOperation Matador (1941), ~5,200 Japanese troops landed on beaches atKota Bharu |
| Philippines | Philippines campaign (1941–1942) | 8 December 1941 | Preliminary landings onBatan Island thenCamiguin Island, north of Luzon, and atVigan,Aparri, andGonzaga (northern Luzon) were followed by main attack—43,110 men, supported by artillery and approximately 90 tanks, landed at three points along the east coast ofLingayen Gulf |
| Guadalcanal | Guadalcanal Campaign | 7 August 1942 | |
| Tarawa | Battle of Tarawa | 20 November 1943 | |
| Makin atoll | Battle of Makin | 20 November 1943 | |
| Philippines | Philippines Campaign (1944–45) | 20 October 1944 | After capture of theGilbert Islands, some of theMarshall Islands, and most of theMarianas Islands, landings onLeyte andMindoro allowed some 175,000 men to cross the broad beachhead and participate in theBattle of Luzon within a few days |
| Iwo Jima | Battle of Iwo Jima | 19 February 1945 | As part of the American invasion of the island ofIwo Jima, designated Operation Detachment, during theBattle of Iwo Jima theU.S. Marines landed on and eventually captured the island of Iwo Jima. |
| Okinawa | Battle of Okinawa | 1 April 1945 | The series of battles fought in theRyukyu Islands, centered on the island ofOkinawa, included the largest amphibious assault in thePacific War duringWorld War II, the 1 April 1945 invasion of the island of Okinawa itself.[71] |
| Korea | Seishin Landing Operation | 13 August 1945 | Three Soviet amphibious landings in northernKorea in the rear of the JapaneseKwantung Army |
| Malaya | Operation Zipper | planned 9 September 1945 | British-plannedIndian Ocean amphibious assault to capturePort Swettenham as a staging area for a later invasion ofSingapore. Cancelled after theSurrender of Japan, replaced by the unopposedOperation Jurist andOperation Mailfist on 28 August 1945. |
| Japanese home islands | Operation Downfall | planned 1 November 1945 | MassiveAllied invasion planned forKyushu andHonshu, would have been the largest amphibious invasion in history. Canceled after the Surrender of Japan, US troopsoccupy Tokyo unopposed on 28 August 1945 instead |
.jpg)
During theKorean War the U.S.X Corps, consisting of the1st Marine Division and7th Infantry Divisionlanded at Inchon. Conceived of and commanded by U.S.General Douglas MacArthur, this landing is considered by many military historians to have been a tactical jewel, one of the most brilliant amphibious maneuvers in history[72] (Seeanalysis in main article).
The success of this battle eventually resulted in link up with U.S. Army forces that broke out of the Pusan perimeter, and led by the 1st Cavalry Division and its Task Force Lynch, cleared much of South Korea. A second landing by the Tenth Corps on the east coast approached the Chosin Reservoir and hydroelectric plants that powered much of Communist China's heavy industry, and led to intervention byChinese forces on behalf ofNorth Korea. Amphibious landings also took place during theFirst Indochina War, notably duringOperation Camargue, one of the largest of the conflict.[73]
The BritishRoyal Marines made their first post-World War II amphibious assault during theSuez Crisis of 1956 when they successfully landed atSuez on 6 November as part of a joint seaborne/airborne operation code-named MUSKETEER.
Despite all the progress that was seen duringWorld War II, there were still fundamental limitations in the types of coastline that were suitable for assault. Beaches had to be relatively free of obstacles, and have the righttidal conditions and the correct slope. However, the development of the helicopter fundamentally changed the equation.
The first use of helicopters in an amphibious assault came during the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 (theSuez War). Two British light fleet carriers were pressed into service to carry helicopters, and abattalion-sized airborne assault was made. Two of the other carriers involved,HMS Bulwark (R08) andHMS Albion, were converted in the late 1950s into dedicated "commandocarriers."
Nearly 30 years later in theFalklands War, the 1st Marines Brigade of theArgentine Marine Corps along withNavy's Special Forces performedOperation Rosario landing atMullet Creek nearStanley on 2 April 1982, while later the Royal Marines'3 Commando Brigade, (augmented by theBritish Army'sParachute Regiment) landed atPort San Carlos on 21 May 1982 duringOperation Sutton.
TheTurkish Armed Forces launched an amphibious assault on 20 July 1974, onKyrenia, following the1974 Cypriot coup d'état. TheTurkish naval force provided naval gunfire support during the landing operation and transported the amphibious forces from the port ofMersin to the island. The Turkish landing forces consisted of around 3,000 troops, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces.[citation needed]
During theIran–Iraq War, the Iranians launched Operation Dawn 8 (Persian: عملیات والفجر ۸), in which 100,000 troops comprising 5 Army divisions and 50,000 men from theIRGC and the Basij advanced in a two-pronged offensive into southern Iraq. Taking place between 9 and 25 February, the assault across the Shatt al-Arab achieved significant tactical and operational surprise. The Iranians launched their assault on the peninsula at night, their men arriving on rubber boats. Iranian Navy SEALs spearheaded the offensive despite a shortage of gear. Prior to this action Iranian Naval Commandos performed reconnaissance of the Faw Peninsula. The Iranian SEALs penetrated an obstacle belt and isolated Iraqi bunkers whose troops had taken cover from the heavy rains inside or were sleeping. Iranian demolition teams detonated charges on the obstacles to create a path for the Iranian infantry waiting to begin their assault.
Not only did the amphibious landings provide a significant lodgement behind Iraq's tactical front, but they also created a psychological shock wave throughout thePersian Gulf region. Soon after the initial landings, Iranian combat engineers were able to construct bridges to improve the flow of ground troops into the lodgement area. Iran managed to maintain their foothold in Al-Faw against several Iraqi counter-offensives and chemical attacks for another month despite heavy casualties until a stalemate was reached. The Faw Peninsula was laterrecaptured by Iraqi forces, by the massive and illegaluse of chemical weapons, the same day as the US launchedOperation Praying Mantis on Iran, destroying their navy.
During thePersian Gulf War,Assault Craft Unit 5 was able to position U.S. Marine and naval support off the coast ofKuwait andSaudi Arabia. This force was composed of 40amphibious assault ships, the largest such force to be assembled since theBattle of Inchon.[74] The objective was to fix the six Iraqi divisions deployed along the Kuwaiti coast. The purpose behind this amphibious maneuver (known as an amphibious demonstration) was to prevent 6 Iraqi divisions poised for the defense of the littorals from being able to actively engage in combat at the real front. The operation was extremely successful in keeping more than 41,000 Iraqi forces from repositioning to the main battlefield. As a result, the Marines maneuvered through the Iraq defense of southern Kuwait and outflanked the Iraqi coastal defense forces.
During theSri Lankan civil war theLTTE used amphibious warfare in some of their successful battles such asBattle of Pooneryn in 1992 andSecond Battle of Elephant Pass in 2000 to overrun and capture Sri Lankan Army bases.
An amphibious assault was carried out byRoyal Marines,U.S. Marines and units of the Polishspecial forces when theylanded at theAl-Faw Peninsula on 20 March 2003 during theIraq War.
On 25 March 2008,Operation Democracy in Comoros was launched in theComoros by government and African Union troops. The amphibious assault led to the ousting of Colonel Bacar's government, which had taken over the autonomous state of Adjouan.
From 28 September to 1 October 2012, theSomali National Army launched an assault in conjuncture with allied militia led byKenya Defense Forces to liberate the city of Kismayo from insurgent control in a first of its kind by an African military. The operation, known asOperation Sledge Hammer, started with the landing of Somali and Kenyan troops outside the city ofKismayo. By 1 October, the coalition forces were able to pushAl-Shabaab out of the city.
Besides the Imperial fortress of Malta, Gibraltar, Halifax and Bermuda it has to maintain and arm coaling stations and forts at Siena Leone, St. Helena, Simons Bay (at the Cape of Good Hope), Trincomalee, Jamaica and Port Castries (in the island of Santa Lucia).
As a fortress, Bermuda is of the first importance. It is situated almost exactly half-way between the northern and the southern naval stations; while nature has made it practically impregnable. The only approach lies through that labyrinth of reefs and narrow channels which Captain Kennedy has described. The local pilots are sworn to secrecy ; and, what is more reassuring, by lifting buoys and laying down torpedoes, hostile vessels trying to thread the passage must come to inevitable grief, So far Bermuda may be considered safe, whatever may be the condition of the fortifications and the cannon in the batteries. Yet the universal neglect of our colonial defences is apparent in the fact that no telegraphic communication has hitherto been established with the West Indies on the one side, or with the Dominion of Canada on the other.
The objectives for America are clearly marked,—Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Prescott, Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. Halifax and Vancouver are certain to be most energetically attacked, for they will be the naval bases, besides Bermuda, from which England would carry on her naval attack on the American coasts and commerce.
There is a strongly fortified dockyard, and the defensive works, together with the intricate character of the approaches to the harbour, render the islands an almost impregnable fortress. Bermuda is governed as a Crown colony by a Governor who is also Commander-in-Chief, assisted by an appointed Executive Council and a representative House of Assembly.
Bermuda is still an Imperial fortress
In the North American and West Indian station the naval base is at the Imperial fortress of Bermuda, with a garrison numbering 3068 men, of whom 1011 are Colonials; while at Halifax, Nova Scotia, we have another naval base of the first importance which is to be classed amongst our Imperial fortresses, and has a garrison of 1783 men.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)What was at hand, in the library of the English Club in Lima, wasTheodore Mommsen'sHistory of Rome. Mahan began to envision the sea as both a commercial highway and an avenue for one power to launch an attack upon another. He next began to consider sources of 'maritime power or weakness': material, personnel, national aptitude, harbors, coastlines, control of commercial routes.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Media related toAmphibious warfare at Wikimedia Commons
| National | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
