100% Success Rate for Amphibious Invasions?

[CombinedArms]

This may be way off topic for a forum focused on a game that doesn't do amphibious assaults, but I've got no one else to talk to about it, so here goes.

I've been musing recently on a fact that--I think--is true, but that I've never seen discussed: that WWII produced a 100% success rate for amphibious invasions. By an invasion I mean a large scale attack that was meant to come in and conquer, not a small-scale commando escapade or a half-baked raid like Dieppe. So, my first question is, am I forgetting anything?

If I'm not forgetting any examples, it's a pretty astonishing fact, given the number of amphibious operations carried out in the war, and the obvious riskiness of the whole proceeding. The vast majority were carried out by the Allies--American operations in the Pacific, and American/British/Canadian, et al operations, in Europe, but Hitler's and Tojo's forces succeeded, too, whenever they attempted one. Sometimes the attacking forces got pretty darned battered--e.g. Crete, Tarawa, Salerno, Omaha Beach--but they always (I think) managed to prevail. Here are some thoughts on why:

1. The obvious riskiness of the operation ruled out rash attempts. Assailants tended to come in with overwhelming force or not at all (hence the folly of Dieppe.)

2. To be assured of overwhelming force, assaillants cancelled operations where naval and air superiority were not assured: e.g. Hitler called off Sealion--the invasion of Britain-- when he failed to knock out the RAF; the Japanese cancelled the Port Morseby invasion after the drawn battle of the Coral Sea left their command of air and sea in doubt; ditto for the defeat at Midway; Hitler would never risk an amphibious assault on Malta, even though he absolutely HAD to have it (one of his big mistakes IMHO--he should have taken that risk); the Allies waited to invade France until they could do so in great force.

3. The Allies practiced amphibious invasions a lot and got pretty darn good at them.

4. WWII naval gunfire was awfully effective. Except when mishandled (as at Omaha--until the destroyers waded in and saved the day) it provided an artillery barrage on a scale that land-based artillerymen might only dream of. Those old WWI-era battleships were terrific gun platforms.

5. Air support (again, except when mishandled, as at Omaha) was awfully effective, too.

6. Fixed defenses--such as those along the "Atlantic Wall"-- generally tended to loses to mobile combined arms assaults in the WWII combat environment--the attack might be costly, but it generally prevailed.

7. The amphibious invader could chose the place and time of the assault, often achieving either tactical or strategic surprise, and frequently both, even when the defender had reason to expect an attack somewhere.

--So, maybe that 100% success rate isn't so surprising after all?

[dalem]

I can't bothered to go look it up right now (too lazy ), but I know of at least one Japanese invasion force early in the war that turned back because of heavy casualties suffered by their escort force.

Whether that meets your criteria, I don't know, and one example out of many doesn't alter the fact that the majority seem to have been successful.

-dale

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[JonS]

Dalem, I IIRC, the one you're thinking of is Wake Island. First up, the Marines gave the Japanes invasion force a jolly good spanking. Unfortunately the Japs came back a few days latter and the paddle was in the other hand. So to speak.

Be cool

Jon

[mglsharkson]

Japs had a hard time on Corrieder, those cheap tanks save the day for them. But outside that the attacker did always seem to win!

MGL

[LimShady]

Does Dieppe count?

LimShady

[russellmz]

thje thing is, you almost never see amphib charges when the two sides are evenly matched...

the attacker usually has naval and air superiority before they even think about starting one.

ike said he would not have planned? the d-day invasion unless he had air superiority.

jap islands were isolated, with heavy battleships and carriers blowing away any island defenders above ground.

napoleon + hitler could not breach the channel because of the naval superiority of the brits, despite better land forces...

[Tanks a Lot]

Dieppe should count.

[LimShady]

Granted, this is just speculation, but if we had implemented the Operation Downfall for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, I could one of the three landing on Kyushu being defeated.

LimShady

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Dalem, I IIRC, the one you're thinking of is Wake Island. First up, the Marines gave the Japanes invasion force a jolly good spanking. Unfortunately the Japs came back a few days latter and the paddle was in the other hand. So to speak.

Be cool

Jon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's it, Jon! Thanks!

-dale

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LimShady:

Does Dieppe count?

LimShady<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dieppe wasn't an invasion. It was a raid

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanks a Lot:

Dieppe should count.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Go read a book on it.

[MrSpkr]

No, Dieppe was an invasion. It was not a raid (at least, as originally planned). However, Lord Mountbatten (and others) decided to call it a "raid" to try an salvage something out of the farce that resulted in thousands of Canadian troops being slaughtered.

I've read the military history books. You should read the political histories.

MrSpkr

[Ellros]

I may be wrong, but didn't the Russians attempt an amphib assault somewhere on the Black Sea, and get pushed back? I seem to recall reading something about it a long time ago, and noticed that they used Lend-Lease Shermans and M3 Lees (or Grants) for armor support. Was kind of early I think... 1942 maybe, 43 at the latest.

[Vitalis]

Japs also got turned back at Midway before the amphib assault even started. Lost the naval battle, turned the invastion force around and went home.

Vitalis

[Schrullenhaft]

I wouldn't quite rate Anzio a success. While the Allies weren't pushed off the beaches, they did fail to make it to Rome as was intended. I believe that they couldn't breakout until the forces from the south had finally broken the German defensive line (I forget its name).

In general however, most amphibious invasions seemed to have succeeded. Most probably due to the mass, firepower and timing that you stated earlier.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

No, Dieppe was an invasion

I've read the military history books. You should read the political histories.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which books?

Certainly nothing reputable. Try Brian Loring-Villa's excellent MOUNTBATTEN AND THE DIEPPE RAID.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

I wouldn't quite rate Anzio a success. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The invasion force at Anzio floundered on the beach for weeks, mostly because the US commander was too timid to exploit the initial success of the landings. By the time he was ready to move, the scanty German forces in the area had been reinforced.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

out of the farce that resulted in thousands of Canadian troops being slaughtered.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less than a thousand Canadians were killed, in actual fact. About as many as died on D-Day. While tragic, it is hardly "thousands".

[CombinedArms]

Well, as I stated in my original post, I don't think Dieppe should count, but I do think Anzio should--that seems to me to qualify as an "amphibious invasion" that had a real objective inland. It's sort of an ambiguous case--they weren't pushed off the beach into the sea, but they couldn't break out of their initial landing zones. 'When the rest of the German line collapsed, it did provide a good launching point for further exploitation.

In a sense, Anzio's quasi-failure was a result of its not having sufficient resources to back it (the troops and LSTs that might have made it a success, through overwhelming force, were siphoned off for Overlord), so it illustrates the general principles I was stating as reasons for (near) 100% success for amphibious landings.

Wake Island actually illustrates the point that even fiercely resisted landings are hard to stop if the opponent commands the sea and air & is determined to push toward victory.

I covered Midway and the Port Morseby invasion that resulted in the Battle of the Coral Sea. In both cases, the Japanese withdrew when they lost air/sea command. I hope I made clear that what I was thinking of were amphibious invasions that were actually launched--troops actually sent toward shore in landing craft to invade and conquer. I'd forgotten, but various posts have reminded me, how many successful amphibious assaults the Japanese launched early in the war.

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Canuck]

Perhaps the fact that there is no retreat for the attacker also helps to explain why amphibious assaults are often successful

[Schrullenhaft]

Another interesting case was Salerno, Italy (south of Naples). The initial waves almost completely failed. It was a strange case of reinforcing failure that finally won the day, but it was almost a defeat.

[Gyrene]

The fierce resistance at Wake came from only 400 Marines and 800 civilian personnel, the fact that this very small force turned back the 20,000 strong invasion force, sinking a destroyer and some landing craft was both a shock and a humiliation for the Japanese, their next attempt was more serious, and there was no way the small garrison could hold out.

The key to sucessful amphibious landings, probably more important than pre-bombardment (Which was virtually useless late in the Pacific campaign, if you don't agree read about Tarawa, Peleliu and Iwo Jima) was the preservation of the momentum of the attack, which was lacking at Anzio, and at the biggest Amphibious fiasco of this century, Galipoli.

Galipoli almost removed the term Amphibious Assault from the military jargon.

The Japanese didn't do many opposed landings, but often would land in a safer location and march to the battle attacking from inland.

The US did not have the luxury of being able to do that from most of the Pacific War.

Gyrene

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I've been musing recently on a fact that--I think--is true, but that I've never seen discussed: that WWII produced a 100% success rate for amphibious invasions. By an invasion I mean a large scale attack that was meant to come in and conquer, not a small-scale commando escapade or a half-baked raid like Dieppe. So, my first question is, am I forgetting anything?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there was Dakar, where the British attempted to take over using some of DeGaull's Free French forces but got rebuffed. Although the size of the forces committed was a bit smaller AIR than the Dieppe raid, they did come to stay.

I think another reason for the success rate that you cite is that the invading powers were willing to spill enough of their own blood to win the fight. I wonder how many nations today would be willing to pay the same butcher's bill. One of the reasons given for the Marines not landing on the beaches of Kuwait during Desert Storm was that it was anticipated to be very costly. And of course it wasn't needed. One wonders if it would have gone in if that were the only way to get troops into Kuwait or if the Coalition would have just sat back and continued to drop bombs on the Iraqis until they decided to go back home.

Michael

[KLilly]

I don't have anything to support this except (aging) memory, but I recall reading that the only unsuccesful amphibious landings during the war (or ever) were two that were attempted by the Japanese during the invasion of the Phillipine Islands during the opening weeks following Pearl Harbor.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Less than a thousand Canadians were killed, in actual fact. About as many as died on D-Day. While tragic, it is hardly "thousands".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are, of course, correct, strictly speaking. I should have stated "casualties" rather than "killed." Of the 5,000 or so Canadian troops landed, around 900 were killed, and about 1950 were captured. So, over 50% of the troops were removed from the force pool. About 500 others who were wounded managed to make it back to England.

In sheer numbers, yes, more troops were lost on D-Day. However, as a percentage of the invasion force, the losses were MUCH lower on D-Day. At Dieppe, nearly one in five Canadian troops were killed, and nearly two in three were a casualty of one sort or another. The figures I have seen for D-Day indicate that only one in sixty were killed, and about one in fifteen were casualties of one sort or another. The point is that Dieppe was a disaster, by any measure.

I will endeavor to get some of those titles for you. Don't disregard a source as "not reputable" Michael, until you have perused it. I am willing to examine your history, though I suspect it is based upon the same politicized histories I mentioned in my earlier post.

On other matters, I would agree that Anzio is another troublesome invasion. The German's referred to it as "the world's largest self-sustaining prison camp."

MrSpkr