The Development of a Modern Amphibious Warfare Capability - Essay Example

? The Development of a Modern Amphibious Warfare Capability September 7, The Development of a Modern Amphibious Warfare Capability RESPONSE 1 I think that the 1915 Dardanelles campaign was destined to fail and attracted a lot of controversy from the beginning. Notably, the army, army commanders, fleets, and other personnel lacked cooperation in carrying out their operations and hence the inevitable failure of the Dardanelles campaign. Indeed, if there were unity of purpose, the operation would have succeeded. Notably, the lack of sea control by the Navy on the Straits and U-boats jeopardized the success of the attack on the peninsula.1 Ideally, sea control is very fundamental in any military operation. In addition, the failure by the staff to design an efficient landing area with good landing terrain adversely affected the Dardanelles campaign since the army lacked a better landing area for the operation. Fisher, who was commanding the military forces at that time, sent a second rate naval forces incapable for the operation and which reflected his distrust on the operation.2 Indeed, Churchill and Fisher constantly disagreed throughout the operation, thus, discrediting the planning and execution of the campaign that resulted in its failure. As such, the lack of commitment, poor planning, logistical problems, and poor execution of the battle led to the failure of the Dardanelles campaign. Additionally, the landing forces received inadequate training and the naval forces failed to use specialized amphibious technology or doctrine thus undermining the success of the campaign. RESPONSE 2 There were significant principal developments in amphibious warfare capability between the Wars. These developments enhanced the capacity of the amphibious warfare to carryout successful attacks like the Dardanelles campaign. The developments include advancement in military technology, which reinforced the strategic utility of amphibious operations.3 This emanated from the innovation of the large modern sailing warship that enabled the amphibious warships to carry all relevant weapons across the ocean. Indeed, the advancement of large and naval vessels, which would carry guns, reinforced the capacity of the amphibious warfare.4 More so, there has been increased knowledge on the use and significance of amphibious warfare, which boosted its capacity since, naval forces were willing and able to participate in amphibious warfare. In addition, there was development in planning processes and emergence of beaches to support amphibious warfare operations.5 At the same time, the growth in marine landing was a principal development in amphibious warfare capability that occurred between the wars. At the same time, the emergence of more ports and the improvement of the foundries reflected development in amphibious warfare capacity. More so, the improvements in the foundries and the emergence of ports manifest development in amphibious warfare. Ultimately, the development of steam power and explosive shells improved the capacity of amphibious warfare, as naval forces would attack their enemies from a greater distance across the globe. RESPONSE 3 Notably, different powers approached the problem of the failure of the major amphibious operation, Dardanelles. The mode of approach was mostly reliant on the distinct strategic contexts that influenced various powers. Generally, all powers discussed and developed the amphibious capability between the Wars. However, this took place amidst the background of innovations in amphibious warfare. Japan, United States, and Britain were members of the Washington Treaty of 1922 who took concern of the amphibious warfare. Notably, Japan, and United States of America took time to study the dynamics of the Dardanelles campaign, related issues, and the factors that would influence the success of the amphibious warfare in the future.6 On the other hand, Britain waited up to when the Second World War came for it to think critically about the aspects of the amphibious warfare and the factors that led to the failure of the Dardanelles campaign.7 RESPONSE 4 Assuredly, strategic, financial, and political factors played various roles in the amphibious warfare. Indeed, discussions and development of amphibious capability between the Wars relied on new operational factors, which included air power and armored warfare. Moreover, the strategic contexts of various powers affected their approach to amphibious capability. Additionally, factors like poor living conditions, poor health conditions, and poor living conditions reduced the number of available troops thus demeaning the strength of the Dardanelles campaign.8 More so, the British used a flawed strategy and poorly executed the attack where they underrated their resistance thus the failure of the attack. At the same time, Churchill under estimated the required number of troops thus their enemies at Peninsula outnumbered the British troops and hence the failure of the campaign.9 Other factors like low supplies, ships, troops, arms, difficult terrain, and poor training undermined the success of amphibious warfare. The short notice given to the troops also denied the troops enough time to prepare for the attack and hence the failure. More so, budgetary constraints and tactical discussion influenced the planning and execution of amphibious warfare. The lack of commitment and internal rivalries between the commanders and between the navy and the army reduced the cooperation needed for the success of an amphibious warfare. Similarly, political leaders were also part of the campaign. Churchill and fisher played critical roles in the campaign. For instance, Fisher affected the operation by sending a second rate naval force to the campaign thus leading to its failure.10 Moreover, the inter-war years politics and financial constraints hindered the development of the capabilities of amphibious warfare. As such, strategic, financial, and political factors played various roles in the amphibious warfare. RESPONSE 5 Notably, amphibious developments were essential functions of military power on land and at sea. For example, the development of large ships and naval transportation enhanced the strategic potential of amphibious warfare as it had the capacity to carry all weapons across the ocean. The development of the amphibious vehicles, which included buses, cars, and military vehicles, was fundamental in providing viable transport on land and at the sea during this period. More so, the new ship had the potential of navigating all waters, could carry more food and troops, and, thus, sustained an attack for a long time.11 This enhanced the effectiveness of amphibious warfare both on land and in the sea. At the same time, the amphibious developments boosted the strength of warfare to carry all ships, aircrafts, troops, and weapons to ensure the success of a combat. Furthermore, the amphibious developments, which entailed the discovery of long-range guns, explosive shells, steam power, and gun powder also played a very significant role in strengthening military power on land and at sea. Indeed, through these developments in the amphibious warfare, the troops were able to attack their enemies from far and for a longer time. The amphibious warfare design also reinforced the military capabilities of the troops. Additionally, the design and development of the armored landing craft was significant in launching seaborne assaults as well as providing a detachable landing ramp for the operation. The amphibious craft was equally essential in transporting troops or supplies offshore. At the same time, the development of the amphibious assault ship would land and reinforce ground forces on an enemy’s territory during an amphibious operation. Bibliography Grove, MJ, ‘The Development of Japanese Amphibious Warfare, 1874 to 1942’ in G.Till, T. Farrell and M.J.Grove, Amphibious Operations: A Collection of Papers (Camberley, 1997), pp.22-42 Millett, AR, ‘Assault from the Sea: The Development of Amphibious Warfare Between the Wars – the American, British, and Japanese Experiences’ in W.Murray and A.R.Millett (eds), Military Innovation in the Interwar Period (Cambridge, 1996), pp.50-95. Speelman, JL, ‘The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815 (review),’The Journal of Military History, vol. 70, no. 3, 2006, pp. 824-825. Syrett, D, ‘The Methodology of British Amphibious Operations during the Seven Years and American Wars’, Mariner’s Mirror, vol. 58, no. 3, 1972, pp. 269-280. Wernham, R, ‘Amphibious Operations and the Elizabethan Assault on the Spanish Atlantic Economy 1585-1598’ in M.C. Fissel and D.Trim (eds), Amphibious warfare 1000-1700 (Leiden, 2005), pp.181-215. Read More