Class 3 2007

MA154SPRING2007: 

M A 1 5 4 SPRING 2007 Littoral Warfare

The Great War: 

The Great War 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian war ends in a humiliating defeat for France and the unification of Germany. 1871 King Wilhelm I of Prussia crowned Emperor of Germany on French soil. 1888 After his father's untimely death, twenty-nine-year-old Wilhelm II becomes ruler of Germany. 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War results in disastrous defeat for Russia and major civil unrest at home. 1908 England, France, and Russia form Triple Entente.

The Schlieffen Plan: 

The Schlieffen Plan Hold Russians in the West Do a turning movement around French Forces Take Paris in a coup de main.

The Battle of the Marne: 

The Battle of the Marne German forces over extended BEF and French drove north to the Marne Fixed boundaries for 2-years

Strategic Choices: 

Strategic Choices Reinforce Western Front Launch campaign in the Baltics Launch campaign in the Balkans

The Constantinople Campaign: 

The Constantinople Campaign November 1914- January 1916

HISTORICAL SETTING: 

HISTORICAL SETTING Who were the Adversaries (Strategic) by the time of this campaign? Central Powers: Germany Austria – Hungary Empire Ottoman Empire Allied Powers: British Empire Russia France Belgium Montenegro Serbia

HISTORICAL SETTING: 

HISTORICAL SETTING What political, economic, religious, or other factors significantly influenced the campaign? Central Powers National Survival for Turkey Declared a “Holy War” Allied Powers Russian appeal for assistance Stalemate on the Western Front (Europe)

Four Phases of campaign: 

Four Phases of campaign February – 18 March: Naval phase attempt to force Dardenelles, reduce forts with naval power only 25 April – 5 August: Initial landings and subsequent tactical stalemate 6 August – 23 November: Second landings and subsequent tactical stalemate 23 November 1915 – 9 January 1916: Withdrawal

Slide10: 

What were the National Interests of the Participants? Germany: Hegemony Territorial gains Economic gains Austria – Hungary: Maintain the Empire Prevent minority group expansion Turkey Increase influence in the world Revenge against the Balkan states

Slide11: 

What were the National Interests of the Participants? Great Britain: Maintain the Empire against German hegemony Defend its allies France: Recover Alsace – Lorraine Restore international prestige Russia: Support Serbians, Balkan Slavs vs. Austria Gain control of the Dardanelles

Slide12: 

Which of their vital interests were threatened? Turkey: Survival of the state Russia: Survival of the state

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What was the geopolitical situation that led to this campaign? Stalemate in Europe Turkey joined Central Powers Russia nearing internal collapse

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What constituted the theater of war?

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What were the strategic political goals? Central Powers: Keep Turkey in the war Defeat Allied powers Balkan State neutrality / Join Central Powers

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What were the strategic political goals? Allied Powers Great Britain – Entice Balkan states to join the war Respond to plea from Russia Avoid stalemate in Europe / Improve home front morale Russia – Get relief but not at the expense of her claims on the Dardanelles France – Respond to plea from Russia

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What were the military goals of each side? Central Powers: Keep Turkey in the war Force Allies towards culmination Secure strategic LOCs Allied Powers: Relieve pressure on Russia Reopen strategic LOC Apply pressure (indirect) on Germany Defeat German ally

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING Did the goals support the national purpose and the vital interests? Central Powers: Yes, if defense of the Dardanelles was successful Impact on Turkey?, Austria-Hungary?, Russia? Allied Powers: Yes, if attack successful Impact on Turkey?, Austria-Hungary?, Russia?

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What was the correlation between political, economic, and the military instruments of power? Central Powers: Turkish Front seen as an economy of force, minimal assets to a theater that stretched the allies resources. Success keeps the Balkan states neutral Allied Powers: Churchill/Fisher want an indirect approach that would enhance political/domestic morale.

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING Did cultural or ideological factors play a part in the struggle? Allied Powers: Little regard for Turkey as a belligerent and the Turk soldier as a fighter. Believed that a simple show of force would drive Turks out of the war.

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What were the strategic centers of gravity for each side? Central Powers: German military forces Allied Powers: Alliance

STRATEGIC SETTING: 

STRATEGIC SETTING What were the weaknesses of the opposing sides? Central Powers: The Alliance itself Austrian military weakness Turkish isolation Allied Powers: Ill-equipped and untrained forces Amphibious operations doctrine/experience/material Senior leadership

Forces (Allied): 

Forces (Allied) 78,000 for initial landing 10,000 for Bulair feint 3,000 French for Kum Kale 30,000 ANZACs for Gaba Tepe 17,000 (29th Division) for Helles 120,000 by 6 August 200 Ships

Forces (German/Turkish): 

Forces (German/Turkish) 60,000 Troops 2 Divisions at Bulair 2 Divisions at Kum Kale 1 Division at Cape Helles 1 Division in reserve 115 Guns in 15 Forts from Cape Helles to Narrows

Estimate of the Situation: OCOKA: 

Estimate of the Situation: OCOKA Observation Cover and concealment Obstacles Key terrain Avenues of approach

Losses: 

Losses Allied: 256,000 (for the entire Dardenelles campaign) German/Turkish: 251,000 (21,000 to disease)

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What constituted the theater of operations? The Dardanelles connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Marmara The Gallipoli peninsula Aegean Sea Egypt The Bosporus and Black Sea

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What military operational events led to the campaign? What, if any was their significance? Stalemate on the Western Front Russian setbacks on the Eastern Front

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the operational objectives for the rival theater commanders? Central Powers: Secure the Dardanelles Defend Gallipoli Allied Powers: “conduct a naval expedition to bombard and take the Gallipoli peninsula with Constantinople as its objective.” (Jan ’15) complete destruction of the shore defense and secure the narrows ensuring safe passage of the fleet (Mar ’15)

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the operational centers of gravity for Central Powers ?

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the operational centers of gravity for Central Powers ? Decisive Points COG Key Terrain Minefields Fortifications Artillery 19th Division FIFTH TURKISH ARMY WEAKNESSES Lines of Operation Logistics/Supplies Heavy Weapons Fifth Turkish Army

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the operational centers of gravity for Allied Powers ?

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the operational centers of gravity for Allied Powers ? Decisive Points COG Initial Landing Sites Key Terrain Fleet FORCE PROJECTION WEAKNESSES Senior Leadership Resource Application Minesweeping Lack of Operational Design Force Projection

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the lines of operation for each belligerent? Central Powers (Interior) Constantinople (rail, sea, road, trail) to Gallipoli Allied Powers (External) MEF 300 mi. from home base 1300 mi. from Marseilles (ammo railhead) Intermediate bases on Greek islands of Limnos, Sykros, Tenedos, and Imbros

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Did objectives focus on opposing centers of gravity? Central Powers German submarines targeted British warships forcing the fleet to withdraw capital ships Diminished flow to Allied troops Defense forces a draw, affected Allied troop morale Allied Powers Campaign focused on COG but failed in execution.

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Did each rival’s operational objectives support obtaining his strategic objectives? Central Powers Allied Powers

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What kinds of plans had been developed in advance? Central Powers Strong coastal defense, reliance on mobile artillery Mined the narrows and built anti-submarine net Reorganized Fifth Army for more effective defense

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What kinds of planes had been developed in advance? Allied Powers Naval attack planned Land operation planned after failure of naval effort

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What kinds of plans had been developed in advance? Allied Powers Naval attack planned Land operation planned after failure of naval effort

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Were branches and sequels planned for or used? Central Powers – None Allied Powers Helles Landings and Breakout operations from ANZAC Cove

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Were alternative options available to theater commanders? Why were they not selected? No alternatives existed for the Turks. For the Allies the land action was the alternative

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the strengths and weaknesses of rival plans? Allied: First plan ignored previous General Staff studies Made assumption that mines could be easily cleared Underestimated Turkish Army Operational plans poorly understood by leaders

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Did one side have an apparent advantage over the other? Numbers: Allies Position: Central Powers Combat effectiveness: Central Powers Technology: Central Powers Leadership: Central Powers

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Did either side reach a culminating point during the campaign? Central Powers Coastal defenses on verge after naval attack British submarine attacks inhibited resupply Allied Powers After the initial landings

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Did opposing commanders attempt to bring the adversary to culmination? Not by design Was phasing used during the campaign? No How were resources applied during each phase? N/A

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS How did the use or the misuse of resources affect the outcome of the campaign? Allied Powers Piecemeal commitment Greek island used but not improved

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the limitations of logistics? Allied Powers Most of the force tied to transporting supplies Troops remained exposed to elements WIA evacuation poor Disease prevalent

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS How did actual execution compare to campaign plans?

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS How did the commanders attain/fail to attain synchronization of operational function? Allied Powers – Failed to sync C², Log, Intel with Mnvr, Protection and Fires Central Powers – Successful at sync C², Protection, Mnvr, Fires, and Intel. Difficulty in Log.

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Did either side achieve synchronization of joint and combined elements? How? Allied Powers Joint – No, Never attempted, each service responded to the requirements of the service Combined – Yes, integrated the forces and the command of the operations

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the effects of geography or terrain on the campaign? Fundamental to both planning and execution. Central Powers used it to their advantage, Allies did not fully appreciate its effects on their operations.

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What was each sides command structure within the theater? Allied Powers Established land and sea commands No supreme commander MEF dominated by British senior officers Central Powers Fifth Army dominated by German officers Kemal given command of army reserve

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the effects of the command structure on the campaign? Allied Powers Joint forces never synchronized Central Powers Fifth Army revitalized by the German officers

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS How did each sides senior leaders contribute to the outcome of the campaign? Central Powers Remained close to the action Issued clear guidance Allied Powers Remained far from the action Issued broad guidance

OPEATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPEATIONAL ANALYSIS Was the outcome of the campaign clear and decisive? YES Was the outcome in consonance with what either side wanted to achieve? Central Powers – YES Allied Powers – NO

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS: 

OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS What were the effects of the campaign on the remainder of the conflict? Central Powers Maintained strategic LOCs Knocked Russia out of the war Allied Powers Cabinet fell Churchill left government for the Army Admiral Fisher resigned

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS: 

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS What were the significant lessons to be learned from the campaign? Preparation Leadership Command structure Intelligence Logistics Primacy of the defense Amphibious war Piecemeal application of resources

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS: 

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS What lessons in operational level command can be derived from this campaign? Absence of joint commands and staffs compounded many of the operational and logistics problems How does the campaign relate to current US operational warfighting doctrine? Demonstrates the importance of the “end state” Validates importance of planning campaigns as a series of related joint operations

Conclusions: 

Conclusions Strategic potential squandered by incompetence and lack of leadership at all military levels Resulted in exactly the same stalemate that it was intended to solve Key leaders remain afloat, unable to communicate effectively with landing forces or get clear estimate of situation British conclude amphibious operations too difficult in face of modern defenses Disciplined troops a must for tenacious, aggressive operations Superb efforts by naval beach parties and landing craft operations Failure to exploit element of surprise again shown to be an important factor NGFS a deciding factor (and one still being debated regarding this operation)

Principles of War: 

Principles of War Mass Objective Offensive Surprise Economy of Force Movement Unity of Command Security Simplicity How can we relate The Principles of War To Gallipoli ??

The Banana Wars“War is a Racket!”: 

The Banana Wars “War is a Racket!” Maj Gen Smedley D. Butler Born 1881 Medals of honor Capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914 Capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917 Retired Oct. 1, 1931

Small Wars: 

Small Wars “Small wars are operations undertaken under executive authority, wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our Nation."

Small Wars: 

Small Wars Operations undertaken under executive authority Military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state Another state whose government is: Unstable Inadequate Unsatisfactory for the preservation of life Of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our Nation."

Small Wars: 

Small Wars "Between these extremes may be found an infinite number of forms of friendly assistance or intervention which it is almost impossible to classify under a limited number of individual types of operations." Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) Disaster relief Humanitarian assistance operations Peacemaking Peacekeeping operations Combating terrorism

Small Wars: 

Small Wars “Small Wars are conceived in uncertainty, are conducted often with precarious responsibility and doubtful authority, under indeterminate orders lacking specific instructions…the key actors involved…are highly eclectic, embracing the UN, local village leader, and many intervening governmental, NGO, military, and ad hoc organizations” Core Military Skills Specialized Tactical Skills Serious cultural and political understanding The highest type of leadership directed by intelligence, resourcefulness, and ingenuity.

Slide70: 

PHILIPPINES/l898-1910 /Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, U.S. troops kill 600,000 Filipinos. CUBA/l898-1902/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, U.S. still illegally holds Navy base there over Cuban objections. PANAMA/1901-03/Naval, troops/Broke off from Colombia in a U.S. organized 'rebellion', U.S. annexes Canal Zone. HONDURAS/l903/Troops/U.S. Marines intervene in revolution. DOMINICAN REP./1903-04/Troops/U.S. business interests protected in Revolution. KOREA/1904-05/Troops/U.S. Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA/1906-09/Troops/U.S. Marines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA/1907/Troops/"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate (psuedo- colony) set up. HONDURAS/l907/Troops/U.S. Marines land during war with Nicaragua. PANAMA/l908/Troops/U.S. Marines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA/l9l0/Troops/U.S. Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS/1911/Troops/U.S. business interests protected in civil war. CHINA/1911-41/Naval, troops/Continuous occupation with flare-ups CUBA/1912/Troops/U.S. business interests protected in Havana. PANAMA/l9l2/Troops/U.S. Marines land during heated election. HONDURAS/l9l2/Troops/Marines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA/1912-33/Troops, bombing/20-year occupation, fought guerrillas. MEXICO/l9l3/Naval/Americans evacuated during revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1914/Naval/Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo. MEXICO/1914-18/Naval, troops/Series of interventions against Mexican nationalists. HAITI/1914-34/Troops, bombing/19-year occupation after revolts. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1916-24/Troops/8-year U.S. Marine occupation. CUBA/1917-33/Troops/Military occupation, U.S. declares Cuba an economic protectorate (psuedo-colony). USSR/1918-22/Naval, troops/Five landings to fight Bolsheviks in effort to overthrow the fledgling socialist government. PANAMA/1918-20/Troops/"Police duty" during unrest after elections. HONDURAS/l9l9/Troops/U.S. Marines land during election campaign. GUATEMALA/1920/Troops/2-week intervention against unionists. TURKEY/1922/Troops/U.S. fought nationalists in Smyrna. CHINA/1922-27/Naval, troops/Deployment during nationalist revolt. HONDURAS/1924-25/Troops/Landed twice during election strife. PANAMA/1925/Troops/U.S. Marines suppress general strike. CHINA/l928-34/Troops/U.S. Marines stationed throughout the country. EL SALVADOR/l932/Naval/Warships sent during Marti revolt. LEBANON/l958/Troops, naval/U.S. Marine occupation against rebels. PANAMA/1958/Troops/Flag protests erupt into confrontation. PANAMA/l964/Troops/Panamanians shot for urging canal's return. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1965-66/Troops, bombing/U.S. Marines land during election campaign. IRAN/l980/Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing/Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. LIBYA/l981/Naval jets/Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. HONDURAS/l982-?/Troops/Maneuvers, help build bases near borders to intimidate Nicaragua. LEBANON/l982-84/Naval, bombing, troops/Marines expel PLO and back Christian Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. GRENADA/l983-84/Troops, bombing/Invasion four years after socialist revolution. U.S. installs puppet government. IRAN/l987-88/Naval, bombing/US intervenes on side of Iraq in Gulf War. LIBYA/1989/Naval jets/Two Libyan jets shot down. PANAMA/1989-?/Troops, bombing/Nationalist government ousted by invasion. U.S. installs puppet government and refuses to hold new elections. LIBERIA/1990-?/Troops/Foreigners evacuated during civil war; troops protect CIA communications/listening post.