It is good to see someone addressing the subject of US Army amphibious doctrines. It is a adly underpublsihed subject, usualy mentioned in fragments in text covering other aspects of amphibious or littoral warfare.
I am guessing your definition of 'amphibious doctrine is to narrow. The Army tended to think about doctrine at the stratigic & operational levels & less at the tactical or technical level. Still there was intermittant participation in development at the lower levels.
There area wide variety of minor publications on the subject, mostly school papers. Here is one off the top of the pile.
>THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMPHIBIOUS DOCTRINE
A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History
by
David C. Emmel B.A., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1998<
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA524286
From page 15:
"The friction between the Army and the Navy highlighted during the execution of the Cuban and Philippine campaigns of the Spanish-American War eventually led to the formation of the Joint Army and Navy Board in 1903. The Joint Board was an advisory group composed of the military heads and key staff members of each service. The Joint Board was designed to foster cooperation and make recommendations to the two service secretaries on a variety of topics. Within its purview rested the development of war plans and doctrine, which it steadily addressed throughout its existence.22"
From page 16
"Since the Army maintained numerous ships of its own, used to move troops during exercises as well as for routine deployments and expeditionary duties, it published the United States Army Transport Service Regulations, 1905 which drew largely from the Field Service Regulations United States Army, 1905 issued a few weeks prior.25 These regulations included direction on the embarkation and debarkation of the troops and any animals, as well as guidance on the conduct of convoys. Additionally, within its pages, specific duties were listed for both the ships’ crews and the troops being transported. The commanding officer of the embarked troops and the ship were counseled to “work in harmony. . . . [and] on all occasions use their best endeavors in cooperating with each other in the execution of the duties respectively intrusted [sic] to them, in order that by their united exertions the service on which the ship is employed may be performed in the
16
most efficient and satisfactory manner possible.”26 For the Army, these regulations provided broad guidance designed more to facilitate movements of soldiers to foreign ports within a naval convoy--whether of a routine nature or in support of an expedition."
Further down:
"the Joint Board issued a complementary publication entitled Rules for Naval Convoy of Military Expeditions in 1906. These regulations described the details governing the roles of the Army and Navy commanders during joint convoy operations designating the authority of each service from embarkation to debarkation. The Navy appointed the convoy commander who was responsible for overall security of the convoy en route to its destination as well as supporting the landing with naval gunfire and landing boats. The Army commander determined the time of departure along with the time and place of landing."
This goes on a bit more. It is largely boilerplate operational doctrine for amphibious warfare. There are some other refrences to Army participation in doctrinal development at different levels further on in the text.
If you have not already done so following the names of the US Army officers who attended the Naval War College or taught there, like Walter Krueger, may be productive. Several of those officers were involved in US Army amphibious training & doctrinal development along the way.
..and let me know when you publish your paper, I'll want to see it.
I am guessing your definition of 'amphibious doctrine is to narrow. The Army tended to think about doctrine at the stratigic & operational levels & less at the tactical or technical level. Still there was intermittant participation in development at the lower levels.
There area wide variety of minor publications on the subject, mostly school papers. Here is one off the top of the pile.
>THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMPHIBIOUS DOCTRINE
A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History
by
David C. Emmel B.A., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1998<
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA524286
From page 15:
"The friction between the Army and the Navy highlighted during the execution of the Cuban and Philippine campaigns of the Spanish-American War eventually led to the formation of the Joint Army and Navy Board in 1903. The Joint Board was an advisory group composed of the military heads and key staff members of each service. The Joint Board was designed to foster cooperation and make recommendations to the two service secretaries on a variety of topics. Within its purview rested the development of war plans and doctrine, which it steadily addressed throughout its existence.22"
From page 16
"Since the Army maintained numerous ships of its own, used to move troops during exercises as well as for routine deployments and expeditionary duties, it published the United States Army Transport Service Regulations, 1905 which drew largely from the Field Service Regulations United States Army, 1905 issued a few weeks prior.25 These regulations included direction on the embarkation and debarkation of the troops and any animals, as well as guidance on the conduct of convoys. Additionally, within its pages, specific duties were listed for both the ships’ crews and the troops being transported. The commanding officer of the embarked troops and the ship were counseled to “work in harmony. . . . [and] on all occasions use their best endeavors in cooperating with each other in the execution of the duties respectively intrusted [sic] to them, in order that by their united exertions the service on which the ship is employed may be performed in the
16
most efficient and satisfactory manner possible.”26 For the Army, these regulations provided broad guidance designed more to facilitate movements of soldiers to foreign ports within a naval convoy--whether of a routine nature or in support of an expedition."
Further down:
"the Joint Board issued a complementary publication entitled Rules for Naval Convoy of Military Expeditions in 1906. These regulations described the details governing the roles of the Army and Navy commanders during joint convoy operations designating the authority of each service from embarkation to debarkation. The Navy appointed the convoy commander who was responsible for overall security of the convoy en route to its destination as well as supporting the landing with naval gunfire and landing boats. The Army commander determined the time of departure along with the time and place of landing."
This goes on a bit more. It is largely boilerplate operational doctrine for amphibious warfare. There are some other refrences to Army participation in doctrinal development at different levels further on in the text.
If you have not already done so following the names of the US Army officers who attended the Naval War College or taught there, like Walter Krueger, may be productive. Several of those officers were involved in US Army amphibious training & doctrinal development along the way.
..and let me know when you publish your paper, I'll want to see it.