M A 1 5 4 SPRING 2007 : 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.