British have a Better Amphibious Warfare Doctrine 1914

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.
 
That implies there was thought about some or much of the other 98% of combined naval/ground force operations along a coast. Does Evans remark on what date this occured?


Any expansion on this by Evans? In the late 19th & early 20th Century there was a long running debate on the same subject in the USN. It extended to the question of if traditional Marines were needed at all by a modern navy.

It is of tangental interest. I've seen mention of this elsewhere

No, unfortunately that's all Evans says on both subjects and i've not been able to find out any more.

Do you remember where you saw the mention of the WW1 conversion proposal?
 
I'll dig about a bit. I seem to remember the source/s are in either a discussion board post, or a PM on some discussion board.

On a related note I'm asking about for sources on the development of the Japanese Daihatsu landing craft. Those were clearly in use in 1938 & I got a bit curious as to when they were designed/developed. Will let you know if that turns up anything.
 
Operation Hush, Operation Albion

Here is a web link. No idea how accurate it is.

http://www.1914-1918.net/hush.htm

Apparently the Germans were thinking about this as well post 1914

http://www.ndu.edu/press/operation-albion.html

then there is this recommendation:
" 'Strategy and War Planning in the British Navy, 1887-1918' by Shawn T. Grimes. He gives a lot of coverage to amphibious planning of the British prior to World War I. You can find a fairly reasonable preview over at Google Books."

Next is the Wiki offering on Fishers Baltic Project. A tease :mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Project

But, there may be satisfaction in this, refered to in the British National Archives

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...ID=5144932&CATLN=6&accessmethod=5&j=1#summary
 
Looks like the Japanese were a step ahead in landing craft development. Note the clamshell bow doors of the SS prototype ship.




[Quote/]Re: Daihatsu Barges First Built/Used
by hisashi on 07 Jan 2013 18:28

Shinshu Maru was firstly used in Daku with Daihatsu, to transport 10th division personnel to secured shore. An enthusiast summarized mobile transport company (with SS and SB landing ships) and he briefly mentioned on this operation, though he states the date Shinshu Maru operated in Daku as 13 Aug.

http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~surplus/tokushu39.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_class_landing_ship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.101_class_landing_ship


According to various Japanese web sources, Daihatsu's development path was as follows.
Requirement fized in 1924. Prototype finished in 1925 (without stepboard). Stepboard type appeared in 1930. Type D (1932) became a standard design for WWII, though new Diesel engine finished in 1933.

We often consult to 陸軍船舶戦争 on this issue published in 1996.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4795246335


hisashi
Forum Staff[Quote/]
 
Top