Insane Amphibious Invasions

What was the most poorly planned/executed amphibious operation of the 20th century?

  • Tanga (November 1914, German East Africa)

    Votes: 7 4.0%
  • Gallipoli (1915)

    Votes: 54 30.5%
  • Sealion (1940)

    Votes: 70 39.5%
  • Dieppe (1942)

    Votes: 14 7.9%
  • Kerch (January 1942, Crimea)

    Votes: 11 6.2%
  • Tarawa (1944)

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Anzio (1944)

    Votes: 8 4.5%
  • Olympic/Coronet (1945/1946)

    Votes: 10 5.6%
  • Grenada (1980)

    Votes: 2 1.1%

  • Total voters
    177
As usual, Sealion takes the cake. Kerch was the most insane one that was actually carried out, and is actually probably a good model of what would have happened had Sealion actually been attempted. Gallipoli is probably second due to its poor planning and even worse execution.
 
As usual, Sealion takes the cake. Kerch was the most insane one that was actually carried out, and is actually probably a good model of what would have happened had Sealion actually been attempted. Gallipoli is probably second due to its poor planning and even worse execution.

the actual plan for sealion wasn't insane and the KM made a set of preconditions that where common sense before the op would be considered; and when those where not met, they advised their plan couldn't be launched; that is sober analysis

kerch had NO preconditions for success even considered, they just flung the men into the peninsula for Manstein to crush them with artillery and air strikes

if the germans could land a field army in the UK, that field army would be stronger than any force they would encounter so once established they could realisticly expect to win so long as they could supply

kerch was landing men to face a numericaly superior force which enjoyed vastly superior air and artillery support

it was BY far more insane than the KM's staff study and subsequent recommendation against sealion; sealion proved to be a mental exercise that the Germans thought better of; Kerch sent 100k men to pow cages or their death
 
Dieppe was a bad idea from inception; even if it had been competently executed, it would have all been for show rather than achieving any substantive gains, and would have alerted the Germans to any defects in their defenses.

At least Gallipoli and Tarawa made sense strategically, and those attacks ran into opposition that fought much harder than expected. Kerch was ultimately a disaster, but it started well and Russia was understandably desperate to attack somewhere to take pressure from other parts of the front. Anzio was poorly executed at the start, but some good came out of it later when the allied forces were able to break out.
 
The mammal takes the cake.
honorable mention-Moon Sound, 1917
by some accounts, the entire op (a flanking attack in the Baltic) was justified as a way to forestall a mutiny by the landlocked High Seas fleet.
Why? Wasn't the operation a success?
 
Yes, a complete success. The practical effect was minimal; the Russians were already in the process of collapsing and could just as well have been left in possession of the islands.

Successful but not all that strategically decisive is fairly good compared to the rest of the operations listed here.

I would also second (third/fourth/whatever) the people who say that Sealion and Olympic/Coronet don't really belong on the list. Hypothetical operations are hard to compare to ones that actually happened, and on paper both of the operations weren't particularly terrible, Even Sealion, as a couple people mentioned, was a decent overall plan on paper, it was just utterly outside of Germany's ability to execute in any realistic timescale since Germany never came close to meeting any of the prerequisites listed in the operational plan.
 
Last edited:
Top