Has any country, aside from the USA and Great Britain in WWII, ever launched a large scale amphibious assault? I like to think I know something about history but can't seem to find any good examples of another country even attempting it.

As we all know the largest amphibious assault of all time is Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily during WWII. In that operation 7 divisions (3 US and 4 Brit) were landed.

JAPAN of course. Their skill at it led the USA to get off their *** and build new equipment and create new tactics.

EXTREMELY broad question. How far afield in history do you wish to go? One word? Vikings. (Of course, if they like the place, often they would return to settle. CF. "Danelaw" of England.) Spanish Armada comes to mind. Of course the tactics broke down and the assault failed, but it was attempted. 1066. Wm. the bastard (of France) did o.k. at Hastings. The Romans were "at it" with the Carthegenians for several hundred years. ["Cartago delenda est!" Some old fool in the Roman Senate ended each of his speeches with this. Translation: "Carthage MUST BE destroyed." Finally was.] Chinese invasion of Japan, again ruined by the weather --"Divine Wind"-- that gave rise to the more recent Kamakazi attacks of WW II. Greeks were often "at it" with the Persians (now Turks) not to mention each other. Odessy after battle of Troy. US had a Great Lakes Navy a couple times against the Brits. Green wood ships and inexperienced sailors. Didn't amount to much.

This,of course, ignores the traditions of piracy thru the ages. "Shores of Tripoli..." U.S. Marines. Seems like Caesar got his beginnings with Pompey wiping out a large herd of pirates that were hurting Roman income...

Still, as technology goes, the WW II efforts are probably the biggest and most complicated ever to be seen. Most current technology of the times. Today hitting with air power... and subversion is more "in." Green Beretts. Rangers. Scouts. Blazing trail for ground forces, after much, much "softening up" by air attack. HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

The interesting question to me is the degree to which amphibious assaults are still viable, if at all.

Seems to me they are now not really cost effective (lost lives = cost) against any fully industrialized nations and their militaries. With modern technology, aren't large ships full of troops pretty much sitting ducks?

Ships are still pretty effective as launch platforms for aircraft and missiles, but for launching very large numbers of men? I doubt it.

Gallipoli was a amphibious assault against the Turks by British, Australia,New Zealand & France comes to mind in WW1 but if you mean after WW2 there is Korea by US at Inchon, Falklands by Argentina then the British against the Argentines, the Gulf War 1 & 2 , East Timor by Australia these come to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
The interesting question to me is the degree to which amphibious assaults are still viable, if at all.

Seems to me they are now not really cost effective (lost lives = cost) against any fully industrialized nations and their militaries. With modern technology, aren't large ships full of troops pretty much sitting ducks?

Ships are still pretty effective as launch platforms for aircraft and missiles, but for launching very large numbers of men? I doubt it.

It is still very much viable, the Marines in particular have agreat deal of time and money still invested in the capability. And the Navy still has the ability to put a substantial amount of men and matriel ashore.

Now, as in the later half of the last century, air supremacy is the cornerstone including good ABM capability.

1956, Suez.

The Soviets had a lot of troops trained for amphibious assault .

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
The interesting question to me is the degree to which amphibious assaults are still viable, if at all.

Seems to me they are now not really cost effective (lost lives = cost) against any fully industrialized nations and their militaries. With modern technology, aren't large ships full of troops pretty much sitting ducks?

Ships are still pretty effective as launch platforms for aircraft and missiles, but for launching very large numbers of men? I doubt it.

It is still very much viable, the Marines in particular have agreat deal of time and money still invested in the capability. And the Navy still has the ability to put a substantial amount of men and matriel ashore.

Now, as in the later half of the last century, air supremacy is the cornerstone including good ABM capability.

We had Saddam convinced that one was coming in Gulf War I. IIRC, he had all his troops massed along the gulf, convinced the amphibous assault was coming. This allowed US forces alrealy on the ground to effectively flank his ground troops. MHO is that the amphibious capabilities of the USA helped assure a swift victory, even though they were not deployed in a full frontal assault.

Iraq is not an industrialized modern nation equipped or trained with a truly modern anti-naval operations capability. Against 2nd and 3rd world countries, amphibious assaults are perhaps still viable. Not against a country such as England,
France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Korea, or even Sweden, however.


Tactical nuclear missiles, or even conventional missiles, espcecially fired while submerged from submarines would make life a no-no for 5,000 or so troops packaged on board a troop ship. Or 100,000 troops aboard 10-to-20 troop ships....

Likewise air-to-sea missiles fired from truly modern attack aircraft would be virtually impossible to mount a 100% effective defense against, and 100% effective is the kind of defense you need when you are esconced on a large floating (but all too sinkable ) "metal island".

You notice, our more or less successful invasions in recent years have all been either air drops into VERY small countries (Panama, Granada, etc., or land operations mobilized and supplied by air (Iraq twice, Af-stan once).

Any country with a modern electronics and missile equipped submarine navy, and/or anti-naval equipped air force, would be a horse of an entirely different colouration.

Even without subs, a country with a good modern air force, ballistic missiles, and modern bombs, torpedos, or particularly cruise missiles, would be very able to defend itself against a landing of large masses of men clumped onto targets such as ships.

A MAJOR world or regional war will NOT be fought successfully with equipment and or techniques from the last world war, I fear, if both sides are modern major nations.

Japan made several successful amphibious operations in the Philippines, Malaya, Andaman Islands, Dutch East Indies, Guam, and Wake Island(where the US was learning how to fight). They also made some bad moves that proved that you could not make a successful invasion without proper sea and air support, i.e., in New Guinea against the Australians with allied support.

No other serious set of amphibious operations has been pulled off by other than the USA, and the British Empire.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
The interesting question to me is the degree to which amphibious assaults are still viable, if at all.

Seems to me they are now not really cost effective (lost lives = cost) against any fully industrialized nations and their militaries. With modern technology, aren't large ships full of troops pretty much sitting ducks?

Ships are still pretty effective as launch platforms for aircraft and missiles, but for launching very large numbers of men? I doubt it.

Things haven't remained stagnant since 1944. Amphibious forces can be launched ship-to-shore from over the horizon. Helos, and now the V-22 Osprey, can move a large amount of men fast. So can LCACs. In addition to speed and distance, another advantage is access. In the 1940s only a small percentage of the world's beaches were suitable for an amphibious assault. Higgins boats had to be able to beach themselve, unload their cargo without broaching, and haul themselves out to sea. Not a lot of coast line was suitable. With helos, ospreys, and air cushioned vehicles we can now land troops at a lot more places. So presently the reverse is true. 60 years ago only a small percentage of beach was in play, and the defender knew where it was. Now only a small percentage of beach is out of bounds greatly compounding the problem for the defender.

Take Saipan, Betio in particular. The assault was timed to coincide with the best tide because of the barrier reef. Despite the planning the Higgins boats would run aground on a reef and have to disembark marines hundreds of yards from shore. Thousands of marines died as a result.

Today the reefs pose no barrier. Not to LCACs, and definitely not to aircraft. Consequently more of the shoreline is accessible.

Still, the objective is definitely NOT to force your way in. Just like it wasn't during WWII when relatively equal forces confronted each other via amphibious assault. Now it is somewhat easier, as technology has given the defender far more places that need defending.

China has a huge amphib force and regularly practice beach landings near Taiwan. They have recently done a gigantic modernization of their armed forces. They have beaucop amphib tanks and pc's.