Class 2 2007

MA154SPRING2007: 

M A 1 5 4 SPRING 2007 Littoral Warfare

Military Terms: 

Military Terms Delay– A retrograde operation whose purpose is to gain time for friendly forces to reestablish the defense, cover a defending or withdrawing unit, protect a friendly unit’s flank, or to participate in an economy of force effort. Withdrawal – A retrograde operation the purpose of which is to remove subordinate units from combat, adjust defensive positions, or relocate an entire force.

Military Terms: 

Military Terms Retirement – A rearward movement away from the enemy by a force not in contact. Retreat – A forced movement away from the enemy, often characterized by a high degree of disorder. Rout – A retreat in which the Commander loses control and his force disintegrates.

Military Terms: 

Military Terms Main Attack – An offensive action constituting the commander’s principle effort to achieve his purpose. Supporting Attack – An offensive action, separate from the main attack, intended by the commander to facilitate the success of the main attack.

Military Term for Discussion:: 

Military Term for Discussion: OCOKA – A way to effectively analyze the terrain of the battlefield Observation and Fields of Fire Key or Decisive Terrain Cover and Concealment Obstacles Avenues of Approach

Types of Amphib Operations: 

Types of Amphib Operations Assault Inchon Raid Makin Grenada Demonstration Desert Storm Withdrawal Hungnam

Initiating Directive: 

Initiating Directive Mission Designate Commanders Command Relationships Designation of the AOA Code Name and Limiting Dates Specific Instructions Termination Criteria Supporting Forces/Operations

Phases of an Amphibious Operation: 

Phases of an Amphibious Operation Planning Embarkation Rehearsal Movement Action Embarkation Planning Rehearsal Movement Action

Slide9: 

Command Relations

Slide10: 

B A C K G R O U N D

Greeks and Persians at War (c. 492-480 B.C.): 

Greeks and Persians at War (c. 492-480 B.C.) By 5th century B.C., Greeks dominated Black and Aegean Seas and held trading monopoly on eastern Mediterranean. Exported olive, wine, and products of their gifted artisans and craftsmen; Established settlements and colonies as far away as the north shore of the Black Sea and Spain. Chronically weakened by divisions into warring city-states.

Persian Empire: 

Persian Empire

Battle of Marathon: 

Battle of Marathon

Slide16: 

The Battle of Marathon CASUALTIES: * Athenians = 192 * Persians = 6,400 Athenians capture 7 ships! * Athenians countermarch to Athens before Persians arrive

Slide17: 

CONCLUSIONS: * This is an interesting attempt by Persians to use Amphibious Operation to Maneuver Greeks out of position and Envelop Athens --- BUT it was figured out by Miltiades * Persian command structure earliest example of split nature of command in Amphibious Operations * Persian failure to seize beachhead suitable for cavalry operations negated Persian strength * Persian failure to move off the beach allowed Greeks to seize the initiative, block exits, and choose the battlefield

Slide18: 

CONCLUSIONS: * Tactical handling of battle by Miltiades negated strengths of Persian system, maximized strength of phalanx, and compensated for its weaknesses * Excellent example of the difficulty of an Amphibious Withdrawal * No consideration given to development of specialized Amphibious equipment

PresidentThomas Jefferson1801-1809: 

President Thomas Jefferson 1801-1809

Burning of the Philadelphia: 

“The most heroic and bold act of the age.” - Admiral Horatio Nelson Burning of the Philadelphia The Barbary Wars 1801-1805

Barbary Wars: 

Barbary Wars

Landing Area Selection: 

Landing Area Selection

Slide24: 

RED GREEN 1 GREEN 2 LANDING BEACHES X III

Amphibious Operation Timeline: 

Amphibious Operation Timeline Enabling Operations Advance Force Operations Preparatory Operations Movement of Assault Echelon Movement of AFOE Supporting Operations

Supporting Operations: 

Supporting Operations Deception Operations Battlespace dominance operations Interdiction operations Reconnaissance and surveillance Special operations Mine countermeasures operations

Advance Force Operations: 

Advance Force Operations Deception Operations Mine countermeasures operations Battlespace dominance operations Reconnaissance and surveillance Interdiction operations Special operations

Preparatory Operations: 

Preparatory Operations Shore Bombardment Lane Clearing Counterfire Breaching

Slide29: 

Monterey Veracruz Tampico Taylor 1846

Political Considerations: 

Political Considerations Manifest destiny! border vs. regaining Texas Scott and Taylor are Whigs which threaten Democrat Pres. Polk, but Scott wins the interview game Military commanders trusted to carry out commander’s intent SecNav undercuts/relieves Cdre. Connor US uses war to take California

Strategic: 

Strategic Taylor unable to gain Mexican surrender from Monterey (distance too great for overland campaign) U.S. needs to strike decisive blow at heart of Mexico- Veracruz picked as the jump-off place to threaten Mexico City US opts for amphibious landing while Mexican Army remains engaged with Taylor in the North

Operational: 

Operational Scott overall commander, coordinates well with Conner (is this CATF/CLF?) Conner blockading for a long time before Scott arrives Scott accepts Conner’s recommendation on rendezvous area landing beach fire support plan control of shipping

Operational: 

Operational Landing forces drawn from Taylor via Tampico Nearest Naval Base is Pensacola timing to avoid disease season, willing to deal with seasonal storms and bad weather.

Tactical: 

Tactical Landing site: Callados Beach 3 mi south of Veracruz out of enemy gun range personal reconnaissance NGFS ships on flanks to drive off enemy Landing unopposed Siege instead of Assault Veracruz surrenders on 29 March

Technical: 

Technical Landing organization 6 waves/ 10 boats wide NGFS on flanks 8,000 men ashore in 5 hours w/ no casualties Specially designed landing craft designed by Naval Officer 40 troop capacity crew of 8: 2 coxswains, 6 oarsmen 3 different sizes shallow draft

Significance: 

Significance success due to thorough planning cooperation between Army and Navy clear delineation of responsibilities Amphibious envelopment Largest US Amphibious Operation to date First US joint overseas expedition party politics influencing military action

Slide38: 

LOGISTICS: The bridge between the national economy and the nation’s combat forces. The science of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of forces. Design and development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel Movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel Acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities Acquisition or furnishing of services

Logistics Principles: 

Logistics Principles Responsiveness Simplicity Flexibility Economy Attainability Sustainability Survivability

LEVELS OF LOGISTICS: 

LEVELS OF LOGISTICS

Slide41: 

MATERIEL PEOPLE FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT SERVICES SUPPLY HEALTH SERVICES TRANSPORTATION MISC. SERVICES C2 C2 USMC LOGISTICS SYSTEM Maneuver Fires Intel Force Protection C2 provides supports MAINTENANCE GENERAL ENGINEERING

Policy Considerations: 

Policy Considerations Russia is after a warm water port Russian desire to take advantage of Ottoman Empire’s declining power English desire to preserve overland routes to India Telegraph, newspapers, and more educated public greatly swayed public opinion against Russians; Turks were just as bad but nobody knew

Key Players: 

Key Players Lord Raglan English and overall commander Not part of any military organization since Waterloo 1815 Calls French allies “our enemy”, and Turks “bandits” Does not take overall control Dies before the end of the campaign.

Key Players: 

Key Players Marshall de Saint-Arnaud Recent military experience fighting irregulars in Algeria Succumbs to cholera 10 days after the landing Does not coordinate with Raglan France makes up for casualties to illness. His prompting?

Key Players: 

Key Players Menshikov The original Russian commander opposing landings Makes several attacks, but not driven home Does not seriously threaten the operation Prince Michael Gorchakov Takes over for Menshikov Conducts the battle of Balaklava In the end, he too, cannot break through, and Sevastopol is lost.

Chronology: 

Chronology 13-18 September Unopposed Landing takes place at Calamita Bay misplaced buoy has French and Turks on one section of beach, separated from English Flanks are not supported for either force Interrupted by a storm, landings take five days English land without tents - weather takes toll Cholera appears on the beach No fresh water; one brackish well dug by British Not a good start

Chronology: 

Chronology 19 September 30 mile march to Sevastopol finally begins Weak troops can only move 5 - 6 miles a day Russians make several attempts to stop, but they seem as confused as the allies Allies reach Sevastopol around the 1 Oct, but march around the strong Western defenses of city arriving on East side 6 Oct Allies skip opportunity to attack weakly defended East approach to city which probably would have been successful Siege begins

Chronology: 

Chronology 8 September 1855 Sevastopol finally capitulates Siege is long and hard, marked by mismanagement English at one time had 50% of their force unfit for duty due to sickness and disease, mainly cholera Poor supply plans, lack of transport, and generally poor leadership caused these problems

Listed Casualties: 

Listed Casualties Allies Total 253,000 70,000 Battle Remainder: 72% From Disease Poor Leadership Russian Total 256,000 129,000 Battle Remainder: 50% From Disease

Strategic Considerations: 

Strategic Considerations British line of communication to India could be blocked. British army had deteriorated since Napoleonic wars; not ready with troops training or leadership Perceived threat as Russia seeks to expand into Europe Russians withdraw from Wallachia and Moldavia; but must still be “taught a lesson”.

Operational Considerations: 

Operational Considerations Why land in the Crimea, Why land at all? Sevastopol is largest Russian Black Sea Port Attacks in the Baltic at Kronstadt and St Petersburg offer little as they are well fortified Political decision made with little thought, in a bow to public pressure

Operational Considerations: 

Operational Considerations Where to land in Crimea? Kaffa, too far, 100 miles E of Sevastopol Balaklava, too close (later taken as a supply port) Katcha, beach was too small Calamita Bay, about 30 miles away, decent beach, decent size, protected by two salt lakes, easy routes inland Lord Raglan chooses Calamita with virtually no consultation

Operational Considerations: 

Operational Considerations Poor communications between Lord Raglan and Marshall St Arnaud Allies under estimate the requirements for navy, landing operation, and support ashore Hygiene ashore - Big killer was cholera Florence Nightingale - exposed conditions Logistics support cobbled together after landing; collected; 350 wagons, 67 camels, 253 horses, 45 cartloads of farm supplies, and 1,000 cattle

Tactical Considerations: 

Tactical Considerations Landing at Calamita totally mismanaged Took almost five days to get ashore No combat loading Men ashore without necessary gear No scheme of maneuver once ashore Russians did not challenge the landing or counter attack at vulnerable moment. Lacked for the proper supplies once ashore. Russians fortify Sevastopol, and repair fortifications; hold out for 11 months.

Technical Considerations: 

Technical Considerations Russian use of mines to defend Sevastopol One of the first uses of iron warships Early use of shell cannon, vice solid shot Markers to identify beach locations; put in wrong places, but at least they had plan Landing craft not specialized to the degree that Gen Scott had for Vera Cruz Assault on Malakoff strong-point coordinated by synchronized watches; audible signal not feasible because of proximity of trenches

Conclusions: 

Conclusions Lack of clear objectives Incompetent leadership at numerous levels Civilians that launched the effort Older military leaders selected Complete lack of planning Poor logistics Timeline for before, during, and after the landing NO REHERSAL OR SPECIALIZED TRAINING WHILE AT VARNA; A COMPLETE LEADERSHIP FAILURE

Significance: 

Significance Provides an interesting comparison of two successive attempts at essentially the same landing and the lessons learned from one to the next Excellent example of the necessity for good command relations in an amphibious operation, and aggressiveness of landing force commanders Several innovations or improvements in the use of communications and NGFS

Landing Area Selection: 

Landing Area Selection

Current Naval Gunfire Capabilites: 

Current Naval Gunfire Capabilites Limited by Number of tubes Flat trajectory High Muzzle Velocity

Future Naval Gunfire Capabilites: 

Future Naval Gunfire Capabilites Limited by ?