Marine Corps Gazette Article

[Claymores]

All,

Within the past year there was an article in the Gazette that mentioned the 5 biggest tactical "inventions" of the 20th century. Vertical envelopment and paratroopers were included, however I cannot remember the other 3. Any help is appreciated.

S/F

Claymores

[Silento]

crossposted to another forum, here the result:

I logged onto my account at mca-marines.com and searched the Marine Corps Gazette archives back to January 1, 2006 with no luck.

However, if your buddy can come up with anything else as criteria to refine
the search, aside for various combinations of "tactical inventions,
innovations, 20th century, vertical envelopment, and paratroopers" I will
try further

Ball in your field,

Silento

[Claymores]

Silento,

Thanks for trying. I just can't find it.

S/F

Claymores

[mmx1]

I am unable to login to the archives right now (I can search but not view the articles), but I believe it's in the Nov 2006 "Where is Pete Ellis" article. My hard copy seems to have vanished; I'll try again later to get the online version.

Edit: Nope, that's not it. I know of what you speak but can't recall where it appeared.

[mmx1]

Aha! April 2007, "For what are we ready?", by Capt William Birdzell.

In the conclusion, he notes the five great improvements of the 20th century as amphibious assault, close air support, vertical envelopment, tank blitz, and parachute operations. He credits the Marine Corps with the first three and the Germans with the rest.

Pays off to have hard copies.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by mmx1

In the conclusion, he notes the five great improvements of the 20th century as amphibious assault, close air support, vertical envelopment, tank blitz, and parachute operations. He credits the Marine Corps with the first three and the Germans with the rest.

Not read the article, but let me get this right,

The USMC developed amphibious operations prior to Galipoli? Close air support , before the RAF in Palestine in 1918, - or the Luftwaffe in 1939? Dunno what "vertical envelopment is", but was it before the Royal Navy used Helicopters to land a Commando Battle Group in the 1956 Suez operation?

And the Germans developed tank operations, before 1916, and Parachute operations before the Russians in 1932-36 IIRC?

I could be wrong, and maybe I have not understood the meaning of the word "developed."

[Germ]

The trophies for first combat employment of these concepts? That's one issue. The trophies for taking them from infant concept and making them a permanent part of the organization? That's another. In the former, the Marine Corps has frequently been an imitator. But like Japanese industry took a reject Swiss concept called quartz watches and made a new international standard for timekeeping, the Marine Corps advanced some pretty new concepts and made them packaged, finished doctrine.

Amphibious ops is closer to home. The US Army rightly claims to have used it on its biggest scale ever, but their procedures were taken right from the USMC's Tentative Landing Operations Manual of 1935. You say Gallipoli was first? It was an attempt, but not a good one and certainly not first. You'd have to look closer to Philip of Macedonia or the assault on Troy for the trophy on that one.

If I remember right, the author was asking if the Marine Corps was losing its bent for innovation. His attribution of credit for development "copyrights" was incidental.

[TT]

Wilf posted:

Not read the article, but let me get this right,

The USMC developed amphibious operations prior to Galipoli?

And after that debacle everyone said that amphibious operations against defended shores was not possible. Except the Marine Corps, which spent the interwar years developing concepts, equipment and their Tentative Manual, and then refined it all after the first few amphib landings in the early island hopping Pacific Campaign. The Marine Corps, some Marines claim, have a 'mystical competence' in amphib ops.

In passing, though, I believe I am correct in saying that the US Army has conducted more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps – at least up to Vietnam at any rate.

Wilf posted:
Close air support , before the RAF in Palestine in 1918,

No, they did not. This is a Marine Corps myth.

Wilf posted: ...or the Luftwaffe in 1939?

Marine aviators dropped bombs in support of Marines fighing on the ground during their Banana Wars days (1930s – can’t remember date off the top of my absent head). Through the Pacific campaign they did seriously work to develop CAS, including flying parallel to lines to target closer to their own Marines.

Wilf posted: Dunno what "vertical envelopment is", but was it before the Royal Navy used Helicopters to land a Commando Battle Group in the 1956 Suez operation?

Yes, the Marine Corps started working with very early ‘banana shaped’ helicopters for ship to shore verticial envelopment at the start of the 1950s, and maybe a bit earlier (again, can't remember off the top of my head). Having just ‘perfected’ amphib landings, the advent of nukes strongly suggested that mass assaults against a beach might much more risky with nukes about. Early efforts were only so-so effective, as these early helicopters had no major carrying capacity.

Wilf posted: And the Germans developed tank operations, before 1916, and Parachute operations before the Russians in 1932-36 IIRC?

I do not believe that he or the article was claiming that the Marines developed these.

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by mmx1

Aha! April 2007, "For what are we ready?", by Capt William Birdzell.

In the conclusion, he notes the five great improvements of the 20th century as amphibious assault, close air support, vertical envelopment, tank blitz, and parachute operations. He credits the Marine Corps with the first three and the Germans with the rest.

Pays off to have hard copies.

Thank you sir, that's it!

S/F

Claymores

[Ken White]

At least as best I can recall with my empty head...

Originally Posted by TT

...
...Except the Marine Corps, which spent the interwar years developing concepts, equipment and their Tentative Manual, and then refined it all after the first few amphib landings in the early island hopping Pacific Campaign. The Marine Corps, some Marines claim, have a 'mystical competence' in amphib ops.
...
Marine aviators dropped bombs in support of Marines fighing on the ground during their Banana Wars days (1930s – can’t remember date off the top of my absent head). Through the Pacific campaign they did seriously work to develop CAS, including flying parallel to lines to target closer to their own Marines.

And as the recipient of such support from them and others, they still do it better than anyone else...

...Yes, the Marine Corps started working with very early ‘banana shaped’ helicopters for ship to shore verticial envelopment at the start of the 1950s, and maybe a bit earlier (again, can't remember off the top of my head). Having just ‘perfected’ amphib landings, the advent of nukes strongly suggested that mass assaults against a beach might much more risky with nukes about. Early efforts were only so-so effective, as these early helicopters had no major carrying capacity.[

Even before that:

"HMR-161 transported over 200 Marines and 18,000 pounds of cargo in the first combat helicopter air assault in history in Operation Summit in September 1951. The first battalion-sized combat helicopter air assault was that of the 3rd Battalion 7th Marines in October 1951 in Operation Bumblebee."

LINK

That using Sikorsky S-55s with even less capacity than the H-21 banana...

Also agree that he wasn't necessarily claiming that the Marines developed the techniques.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by TT

I do not believe that he or the article was claiming that the Marines developed these.

I understood he claimed these for the Germans. - where as I submit that, the British developed "tank operations", and the Soviets the military use of paratroops.

"Deep Operations" as in so-called Blitzkrieg, I suggest was first usefully formulated by Triandafillov, in 1925. Fuller's "Plan 1919" was not "deep battle".

[marct]

Originally Posted by TT

Wilf posted:

And after that debacle everyone said that amphibious operations against defended shores was not possible. Except the Marine Corps, which spent the interwar years developing concepts, equipment and their Tentative Manual, and then refined it all after the first few amphib landings in the early island hopping Pacific Campaign. The Marine Corps, some Marines claim, have a 'mystical competence' in amphib ops.

What about the operations in the St. Lawrence River in 1759? Lord Keyes uses that as an example in his Amphibious Warfare and Combined Operations (OUP, 1943). I would also add in some of the earlier operations in the region. This is well before both Galipoli and the USMC.

[clayton]

As a former U.S. Navy amphib guy, it's nice to find a conversation where I can use my experience. Now if we only had more threads about dough nuts, smut, or avoiding physical training, then we'd have increased US Navy participation on the board.

As far as amphibious innovation goes, the Brits, Japanese, and Marines all took shots at it after WWI. In fact, Japan had a fairly capable amphibious force at the beginning of WW II. The Japanese conducted amphibious operations in China, Malaya, and the Philippines. The influence of the Japanese can be seen today in the LPD and LSD class of ships. They're based on a concept (the well-deck) first seen in the Japanese amphib Shinsu-maru. For the Brits, even after Gallipoli, they still worked on their amphibious operations. In the late 1930s, they created the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre (spelled that way just for you Brits) to research amphibious operations. The Brits were responsible for developing the Landing Ship Tank (LST) that saw extensive service in WWII and is still around today.

The Marines get the credit for amphibious operations because they created the most successful and capable amphibious force of the war (with some help from the Navy, but not that much). The Japanese amphib force could not actually conduct frontal assault operations (look at what happened with Wake Island, though the Japanese actually took it) and was very limited in its applicability and the Brits never really developed a capable force. Only the Americans (with the USMC leading) created a force that could successfully conduct the full range of amphibious operations. The US took these operations to a different level than everyone else and so amphibious operations are associated with us (I know the Soviets conducted plenty of amphib operations but it's tough to compare a desant with the operations at Iwo Jima and Okinawa).

R/Clayton

PS I know the US Army conducted plenty of amphib ops in WWII (as pointed out earlier on this board) but it was with USMC doctrine and not quite to the level of USMC amphib operations. The Navy-Marine Corps Task Forces in the Pacific reached a level of competence that was unmatched in the war (please don't mistake that as American chest-beating but they were doing some great work in the Pacific theater in terms of amphib operations).

Marct: Amphib operations go way back in history, so all sorts examples abound of amphibious operations before Galipoli (what about Caesar and the invasion of Britain). In this case, we're talking about the capability (doctrine, equipment, personnel) to seize a fortified lodgment held by a modern military force. It's a crap definition but I'm watching basketball right now and am distracted.

[slapout9]

On another thread we are talking Katrina and some other things which made me think of this. The USMC may have developed it but it was Donald Robling that invented it...primarily as a vehicle to rescue people trapped in Hurricanes.

Link to the history of the vehicle http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id..._alligator.php

[Van]

Tactical inventions of the XXth Century? I think he is thinking too big.

An article I've enjoyed greatly on the same theme offers a different perspective;

StrategyPage's "Top Ten Little Known 20th Century Developments that Changed Warfare".

1. The modern rifle.
2. Wrist watch. (allows synchronized ops w/out pyro, trumpets, etc)
3. Military sanitation.
4. Sportswear. (source of materials and ideas for better field gear)
5. Industrial training.
6. Commercial logistics.
7. Kleptocracy. (as a source of employment)
8. Laser tag. (a.k.a. MILES)
9. The Baby Boom. (larger population allowed the services to raise the entry standards)
10. The infantry squad.

I would argue that industrial training models and commercial logistics have been generally good, but have had some ugly blowback, and I would have put push-to-talk voice comms in there.

The underlying theme is enablers for the 'big' things CPT Birdzell wrote about. I don't know where you, Claymores, are taking this, but I hope this might have some value for you.

[TT]

Ken posted: That using Sikorsky S-55s with even less capacity than the H-21 banana...

Your memory is obviously superior to mine! I could not remember the designation (or exact date) and was heading out for dinner so did not look it up.

Ken Posted: Even before that:
Quote:
"HMR-161 transported over 200 Marines and 18,000 pounds of cargo in the first combat helicopter air assault in history in Operation Summit in September 1951. The first battalion-sized combat helicopter air assault was that of the 3rd Battalion 7th Marines in October 1951 in Operation Bumblebee."

Again, well remembered. To repeat myself, I cannot remember the exact dates (and as it is just past midnight, I am not about to dig around to find them) but the Corps perceived the problems posed by nukes to massed amphibious assaults by ’47-48, which started them considering methods to address this possible problem. Which led them to helos. The general concept of ‘vertical envelopment’ has since that time become a passion of the Corps (Harriers, Osprey, Operational Maneuver from the Sea, etc).

Clayton posted: Marct: Amphib operations go way back in history, so all sorts examples abound of amphibious operations before Gallipoli (what about Caesar and the invasion of Britain).

Mark, what the debacle at Gallipoli raised questions about was landing into the face of fortified lodgments, particularly given the advances in weaponry. Clayton is correct to note that other services in other nations did not abandon the idea entirely but it was the Corps which worked assiduously through the 1920s and 1930s to develop a viable amphibious capability against a dug-in, well armed enemy.

As Slapout rightly points out, they saw the possibilities of Roeblng’s Alligator and moreover, borrowed from the Japanese (as Clayton correctly notes). The person who saw the Japanese vehicles was Victor Krulak and he brought the basic designs or ideas behind the designs back to the Corps.

Clayton posted: PS I know the US Army conducted plenty of amphib ops in WWII (as pointed out earlier on this board) but it was with USMC doctrine and not quite to the level of USMC amphib operations. The Navy-Marine Corps Task Forces in the Pacific reached a level of competence that was unmatched in the war (please don't mistake that as American chest-beating but they were doing some great work in the Pacific theater in terms of amphib operations).

I did say ‘more’, not better. And yes, the Army borrowed from USMC Amphibious doctrine.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by marct

What about the operations in the St. Lawrence River in 1759? Lord Keyes uses that as an example in his Amphibious Warfare and Combined Operations (OUP, 1943). I would also add in some of the earlier operations in the region. This is well before both Galipoli and the USMC.

I was at School with Lord Keyes's grandson, and got to listened the only recorded account of the Zeebrugge Raid by Lord Keyes himself. Visionary chap, and way ahead of his time.

[davidbfpo]

From R/Clayton's comment: (I know the Soviets conducted plenty of amphib operations but it's tough to compare a desant with the operations at Iwo Jima and Okinawa).

From my dry armchair and only based on a tour of the Crimea, in particular the Kerch peninsula - the Soviet landings and adapted from www.feldgrau.net:

• After 17 December 1941 - the attack on Sevastopol - the Soviet forces began the attacks across the Kerch Strait aganist the Germans at Kerch and Feodosia. This was an amphibious assault by both the Soviet 51. Army and elements of the 44. Army and they were able to gain a beachead.
• On 29 December 1941 23,000 more Soviet troops of the 44. Army landed in the Crimea near Feodosia and by 31 December 1941 the Soviets had already landed 40,500 troops, 236 artillery pieces and 43 tanks.
• On 5 January 1942 the Soviets tried new landings at Sudak and Evpatoriya but these were repelled by the Germans.
• On 27 February 1942 the Soviets again launched attacks aganist the german forces in the Kerch peninsula but were defeated quickly by German artillery and air strikes.
This campaign had cost the Soviets 162,282 men killed or captured or missing, 14,284 wounded and 1100 artillery pieces, 260 tanks and 3800 vehicles lost to the Germans. Also over 300 Sovit aircraft had been lost. The German casualities for the campaign totaled ony 7,500.

I acknowledge the Black Sea / Sea of Azov is a small pond compared to the Pacific and one feldgrau writer suggests the later landings were made across the forozen sea.

When I was there (ten years ago) there was a fascinating small museum dedicated to the landings, in true Soviet style, on the beachead just otside Kerch.

davidbfpo

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Van

8. Laser tag. (a.k.a. MILES)

10. The infantry squad.

8. MILES/TES has had no provable benefit, despite what some claim. In fact it has even corrupted tactical doctrine.

10. The Infantry Squad as an independent grouping, is merely a training and money saving device. I submit that, it may have had an impact, but it was almost entirely negative, and led to the corruption of Platoon tactics, and training as a whole. - certainly in the British Army.