Talk:Amphibious warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Amphibious warfare as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Norwegian (nynorsk) language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Types of Amphibious operations

I know there are different types of amphibious operations (Assaults, Demonstrations, Raids and Withdrawals); however, I don't have an accessible source for this information, does anybody with more expertise know where to look? The fact this article dosn't discuss the strategic concept of amphibious warfare (only the highlights, 'First', 'Biggest' etc.) is a major weakness. Inane Imp 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First?

What was the first modern assault? Beanbatch 22:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably Gallipoli; after the disasters at some of the first landings, a new armoured amphibious vessel - known as the Beetle - was employed at Suvla in August 1915, making it, probably, the first modern amphibious vessel.
By the way, it would be cool if someone with knowledge of ancient history could add text on amphibious warfare during those times. SoLando 03:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest?

Some claim Sicily, others Normandy. I guess it depends on what and who you count.Beanbatch 22:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Some sources say the biggest was the Mongolian Assult on Kyushu Japan. Many sources do not mention this one at all.

[edit] Cleanup

This article looks much better now, thanks for help. Beanbatch 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This artcile still needs alot more text:
  • ancient history
  • Succession Wars, French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars
  • WWI - tactics, type of troops used during this period
  • WWII needs ALOT - especially the development of commandos and raiding tactics.
  • Post-WWII - needs alot more on everything.
There needs to be alot on how tactics, equipment, troops, etc, have developed and evolved, culminating in what exists today. SoLando 22:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bockspur 27th of feb 2006

helpful

  • someone with a background on viking amphibious warfare that could help iluminate more modern tactics as employed by marine raiders, seals etc..
  • someone with knowledge of warefare in far east eurasia i.e japanese invasion of korea, okinawa , formosa/taiwan, pre-dutch indonesian unification,
  • someone with a more indepth knowledge of the employment of marine infantry by the far west eurasian mercantile empires.
  • anyone with knowledge of maori amphibious warfare
  • and if anyone has any knowledge of west african maritime raiding

(note since I'm interested in only in the methodology of marathon as opposed to the effect it had on hellenic culture I use the more universal term iranian instead of persian which should only be used when discussing iran with respect to greece, parthia which should be used with respect to most of the era of the roman republic/empire etc.. )

[edit] Siege of Veracruz

If I remember my American Military Experience course from last fall right, the Siege of Veracruz led by General Winfield Scott during the Mexican-American War was the first major joint amphibious operation between the US Navy and US Army. I don't have my copy of my textbook (For the Common Defense - ISBN 0029215978) on me to expand upon this any further than memory, but perhaps someone else can add it to this article?

Also, I was planning on trying to write an article on littoral warfare, but maybe that's really just another name for this subject. If so, this link might be of some use. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 10:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

15000 = fifteen hundred??

Fixed. CeeWhy2 11:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger to landing operation

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result - No clear consensus, little discussion, and too wordy to even decipher which way the consensus was leaning, no discussion here since November. - BillCJ (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


No. A landing operation is only a sub part of an amphibious assault, they are not the same, modern amphibious operations are combined arms affairs. A hypothetical large scale operation will include naval diver/special forces teams scouting out landing sites and calling in naval fire support (the traditional naval gunnery and with cruise missiles etc) and air support, to allow, two types of landing operations, helicopter borne forces to seize the flanks and choke points leading out of the beach head, and the traditional amphibious landing of troops onto the beach head, these initial operations will than be supported by follow on landings of heavy support weapons and ressuply of the initial assault wave.

Since the landing operation article includes airmobile operations, it should not be merged to this article.

On the topic of airmobile operations, I would dispute the fact that airmobile operations has replaced amphibious operations as the prime means of power projection and that aircraft can land any where whilst amphibious landings need an ocean facing beach. Even the USA and USSR at the height of their airlift strength could only make large scale operations with difficulty, and against contested landings major operations would be impossible. Modern amphibious forces have integrated helicopters as hovercraft into their repertoire and are no longer limited to suitable beaches. KTo288 03:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Those claims about the primacy of airlift were bugging me so have removed them from intro and moved to a comparison section. Kept the claims about the displacement by airmobilty as the prime means of projecting power, but have added a context to these claims. Might be useful to think in terms of air assault operations (against a hostile landing zone) and airbridge operations (reinforcement into a friendly airfield), and equally of amphibious assault, and amphibious reinforcement. KTo288 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.