Datasets:

shearman96

/

tactics-documents

like 0

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

List of military tactics

General: Exploiting prevailing weather – the tactical use of weather as a force multiplier has influenced many important battles throughout history, such as the Battle of Waterloo. Fire attacks – reconnaissance by fire is used by apprehensive soldiers when they suspect the enemy is nearby. Force concentration – the practice of concentrating a military force against a portion of an enemy force. Night combat – combat that takes place at night. It often requires more preparation than combat during daylight and can provide significant tactical advantages and disadvantages to both the attacker and defender. Reconnaissance – a mission to obtain information by visual observation or other detection methods, about the activities and resources of the enemy or potential enemy, or about the meteorologic, hydrographic, or geographic characteristics of a particular area. Smoke screening – the practice of creating clouds of smoke positioned to provide concealment, allowing military forces to advance or retreat across open terrain without coming under direct fire from the enemy. Eight classic maneuvers of warfare: Penetration of the center: This involves exploiting a gap in the enemy line to drive directly to the enemy's command or base. Two ways of accomplishing this are separating enemy forces then using a reserve to exploit the gap (e.g., Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)) or having fast, elite forces smash at a weak spot (or an area where your elites are at their best in striking power) and using reserves to hold the line while the elite forces continue forward, exploiting the gap immediately (i.e., blitzkrieg). Attack from a defensive position: Establishing a strong defensive position from which to defend and attack your opponent (e.g., Siege of Alesia and the Battle of the Granicus). However, the defensive can become too passive and result in ultimate defeat. Single envelopment: A consolidated prong (flank) beating its opponent opposite end, and with the aid of holding attacks, attack an opponent in the rear. Sometimes, the establishment of a strong, hidden force behind a weak flank will prevent your opponent from carrying out their own single envelopment. (e.g., Battle of Rocroi). Double envelopment: Both flanks defeat their opponent opposite and launch a rear attack on the enemy center. Its most famous use was Hannibal's tactical masterpiece, the Battle of Cannae, and it was frequently used by the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front of World War II. It was also executed to perfection by Khalid ibn al-Walid in the decisive Battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD. Attack in oblique order: This involves placing your flanks in a slanted fashion (refusing one's flank) or giving a vast part of your force to a single flank (e.g., Battle of Leuthen). The latter can be disastrous, however, due to the imbalance of force. Feigned retreat: Having a frontal force fake a retreat, drawing the opponent in pursuit and then launching an assault with strong force held in reserve (such as the Battle of Maling and the Battle of Hastings). However, a feigned retreat may devolve into a real one, such as in the Battle of Grunwald. Indirect approach: Having a minority of your force demonstrate in front of your opponent while the majority of your force advance from a hidden area and attack the enemy in the rear or flank (e.g., Battle of Chancellorsville). Crossing the "T": a classic naval maneuver which maximizes one side's offensive firepower while minimizing that of the opposing force (e.g., Battle of Trafalgar). Tactics: Deception: In the 4th century BCE, Sun Tzu said "the Military is a Tao of deception". Diversionary attacks, feints, decoys; there are thousands of tricks that have been successfully used in warfare, and still have a role in the modern day. Perfidy: Combatants tend to have assumptions and ideas of rules and fair practices in combat. Those who raise surrender flags to lure their attackers in the open, or who act as stretcher bearers to deceive their targets, tend to get especially disliked. False flag: An ancient ruse de guerre – in the days of sail, it was permissible for a warship to fly the flag of an enemy power, so long as it properly hoisted its true colors before attacking. Wearing enemy uniforms and using enemy equipment to infiltrate or achieve surprise is also permissible though they can be punished as spies if caught behind enemy lines. Demoralization (warfare): A process in psychological warfare that can encourage them to retreat, surrender, or defect by deterioration of the opposite force's morale rather than defeating them in a regular warfare. Disinformation Military camouflage Stealth technology Feint Electronic countermeasures Electronic counter-countermeasures Radio silence – while traveling, a fleet will refrain from communicating by radio to avoid detection by enemy forces Holding attack Defensive: Electronic countermeasures Offensive: Use of a Kill zone Small unit: See also: List of established military terms List of military operations List of military strategies and concepts Military strategy Tactical formation References: Works cited: Glantz, David (November 2010). Barbarossa Derailed: The Battle for Smolensk, 10 July – 10 September 1941: The German Advance to Smolensk, the Encirclement Battle and the First and Second Soviet Counter-Offensives, 10 July – 24 August 1941. Vol. I. Solihull: Helion. ISBN 978-1-906033-72-9. External links: Tactical

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aerial bomb

Bomb types: Aerial bombs include a vast range and complexity of designs. These include unguided gravity bombs, guided bombs, bombs hand-tossed from a vehicle, bombs needing a large specially-built delivery-vehicle, bombs integrated with the vehicle itself (such as a glide bomb), instant-detonation bombs, or delay-action bombs. As with other types of explosive weapons, aerial bombs aim to kill and injure people or to destroy materiel through the projection of one or more of blast, fragmentation, radiation or fire outwards from the point of detonation. Early bombs: The first bombs delivered to their targets by air were single bombs carried on unmanned hot air balloons, launched by the Austrians against Venice in 1849 during the First Italian War of Independence. The first bombs dropped from a heavier-than-air aircraft were grenades or grenade-like devices. Historically, the first use was by Giulio Gavotti on 1 November 1911, during the Italo-Turkish War. In 1912, during the First Balkan War, Bulgarian Air Force pilot Christo Toprakchiev suggested the use of aircraft to drop "bombs" (called grenades in the Bulgarian army at this time) on Turkish positions. Captain Simeon Petrov developed the idea and created several prototypes by adapting different types of grenades and increasing their payload. On 16 October 1912, observer Prodan Tarakchiev dropped two of those bombs on the Turkish railway station of Karağaç (near the besieged Edirne) from an Albatros F.2 aircraft piloted by Radul Milkov, for the first time in this campaign. World War Two: Aerial bombing saw widespread use during World War Two. A precursor was the 1937 bombing of Guernica by the Nazi German Luftwaffe and the Fascist Italian Aviazione Legionaria at the behest of Francisco Franco. The bombs used were a mix of high-explosive bombs and 1 kg (2.2 lb) incendiaries, that Germany would later use also against the UK. As part of The Blitz Nazi-Germany's Coventry Blitz set a benchmark for destruction that caused Joseph Goebbels to later use the term coventriert ("coventried") to describe similar levels of destruction of enemy cities. While a single raid of the Coventry Blitz killed almost 600 people, later allied raids using conventional aerial bombs each killed up to tens of thousands of people, with the bombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hamburg as notable examples. The final stages of World War Two saw the most lethal air raid in history, the bombing of Tokyo where possibly 100,000 or more were killed primarily by incendiary bombs. The majority of these incendiary bombs were the 500-pound (230 kg) E-46 cluster bomb which released 38 M-69 oil-based incendiary bombs at an altitude of 2,500 ft (760 m). The end of World War Two was brought about with the aerial, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed between 150,000 and 246,000 people and which remain the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict. After World War Two: An example of extensive use of aerial bombs after World War Two is the U.S. aerial bombing during the Vietnam War, where the amount of bombs dropped was more than three times what the USA dropped during World War II in Europe and Asia. Technical description: Aerial bombs typically use a contact fuze to detonate the bomb upon impact, or a delayed-action fuze initiated by impact. Reliability: Not all bombs dropped detonate; failures are common. It was estimated that during the Second World War about 10% of German bombs failed to detonate, and that Allied bombs had a failure rate of 15% or 20%, especially if they hit soft soil and used a pistol-type detonating mechanism rather than fuzes. A great many bombs were dropped during the war; thousands of unexploded bombs which may be able to detonate are discovered every year, particularly in Germany, and have to be defused or detonated in a controlled explosion, in some cases requiring evacuation of thousands of people beforehand, see World War II bomb disposal in Europe. Old bombs occasionally detonate when disturbed, or when a faulty time fuze eventually functions, showing that precautions are still essential when dealing with them. See also: Aerial bombing of cities Area bombardment Bomber Explosive weapons Strategic bombing Tactical bombing Types of aerial bomb Cluster bomb Concrete bomb Earthquake bomb Incendiary bomb General-purpose bomb Gravity (dumb) bomb Guided (smart) bomb Nuclear bomb References: External links: "bomb" at Encyclopædia Britannica

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aerial warfare

History: The history of aerial warfare began in ancient times, with the use of man-carrying kites in Ancient China. In the third century it progressed to balloon warfare. Airships (notably zeppelins) served in military use in the early years of the 20th century. Heavier-than-air airplanes first went to war in the Italo-Turkish War in 1911, initially for aerial reconnaissance, and then for aerial combat to shoot down enemy reconnaissance planes. Aircraft continued to carry out these roles during World War I (1914-1918), where the use of planes and zeppelins for strategic bombing also emerged. The rise of fighter aircraft and of air-to-air combat led to a realisation of the desirability of achieving air superiority. Closer integration of attacking aircraft with ground operations ("battlefield support") also developed during World War I. During World War II (1939-1945), the use of strategic bombing increased, while airborne forces, missiles, and early precision-guided munitions were introduced. Aircraft carriers gained particular importance in the trans-oceanic projection of air power. Ballistic missiles became of key importance during the Cold War, were armed with nuclear warheads, and were stockpiled by the United States and the Soviet Union to deter each other from using them. Drone warfare using relatively cheap unmanned equipment proliferated in the 21st century, particularly after the start of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020. Aerial reconnaissance: Aerial reconnaissance is reconnaissance for a military or strategic purpose that is conducted using reconnaissance aircraft. This role can fulfil a variety of requirements, including the collection of imagery intelligence, observation of enemy maneuvers and artillery spotting. Air combat manoeuvring: Air combat manoeuvring (also known as ACM or dogfighting) is the tactical art of moving, turning and situating a fighter aircraft in order to attain a position from which an attack can be made on another aircraft. It relies on offensive and defensive basic fighter manoeuvring (BFM) to gain an advantage over an aerial opponent. Airborne forces: Airborne forces are military units, usually light infantry, set up to be moved by aircraft and "dropped" into battle, typically by parachute. Thus, they can be placed behind enemy lines, and have the capability to deploy almost anywhere with little warning. The formations are limited only by the number and size of their aircraft, so given enough capacity a huge force can appear "out of nowhere" in minutes, an action referred to as vertical envelopment. Conversely, airborne forces typically lack the supplies and equipment for prolonged combat operations, and are therefore more suited for airhead operations than for long-term occupation; furthermore, parachute operations are particularly sensitive to adverse weather conditions. Advances in helicopter technology since World War II have brought increased flexibility to the scope of airborne operations, and air assaults have largely replaced large-scale parachute operations, and (almost) completely replaced combat glider operations. Airstrike: An airstrike or air strike is an offensive operation carried out by attack aircraft. Air strikes are mostly delivered from aircraft such as fighters, bombers, ground attack aircraft, and attack helicopters. The official definition includes all sorts of targets, including enemy air targets, but in popular use the term is usually narrowed to a tactical (small-scale) attack on a ground or naval objective. Weapons used in an airstrike can range from machine gun bullets and missiles to various types of bombs. It is also commonly referred to as an air raid. In close air support, air strikes are usually controlled by trained observers for coordination with friendly ground troops in a manner derived from artillery tactics. Strategic bombing: Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating the enemy by destroying their morale or their economic ability to produce and transport materiel to the theatres of military operations, or both. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air which can utilize strategic bombers, long- or medium-range missiles, or nuclear-armed fighter-bomber aircraft to attack targets deemed vital to the enemy's war-making capability. Anti-aircraft warfare: Anti-aircraft warfare or counter-air defence is defined by NATO as "all measures designed to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of hostile air action." They include ground and air-based weapon systems, associated sensor systems, command and control arrangements and passive measures (e.g. barrage balloons). It may be used to protect naval, ground, and air forces in any location. However, for most countries the main effort has tended to be 'homeland defence'. NATO refers to airborne air defence as counter-air and naval air defence as anti-aircraft warfare. Missile defence is an extension of air defence as are initiatives to adapt air defence to the task of intercepting any projectile in flight. Missiles: In modern usage, a missile is a self-propelled precision-guided munition system, as opposed to an unguided self-propelled munition, referred to as a rocket (although these too can also be guided). Missiles have four system components: targeting and/or missile guidance, flight system, engine, and warhead. Missiles come in types adapted for different purposes: surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missiles (ballistic, cruise, anti-ship, anti-tank, etc.), surface-to-air missiles (and anti-ballistic), air-to-air missiles, and anti-satellite weapons. All known existing missiles are designed to be propelled during powered flight by chemical reactions inside a rocket engine, jet engine, or other type of engine. Non-self-propelled airborne explosive devices are generally referred to as shells and usually have a shorter range than missiles. In ordinary British-English usage predating guided weapons, a missile is "any thrown object", such as objects thrown at players by rowdy spectators at a sporting event. UAVs: The advent of the unmanned aerial vehicle has dramatically revolutionized aerial warfare with multiple nations developing and/or purchasing UAV fleets. Several benchmarks have already occurred, including a UAV-fighter jet dogfight, probes of adversary air defense with UAVs, replacement of an operational flight wing's aircraft with UAVs, control of UAVs qualifying the operator for 'combat' status, UAV-control from the other side of the world, jamming and/or data-hijacking of UAVs in flight, as well as proposals to transfer fire authority to AI aboard a UAV. UAVs have quickly evolved from surveillance to combat roles. The growing capability of UAVs has thrown into question the survivability and capability of manned fighter jets. See also: Aerial bombing of cities Air force Airlift Airstrike Dogfight Loss of Strength Gradient Timeline of military aviation Notes: References: Bibliography: Boyne, Walter J. (2003). The Influence of Air Power upon History. Pelican (www.pelicanpub.com). ISBN 1-58980-034-6. Buckley, John (1999). Air Power in the Age of Total War. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-33557-4. Budiansky, Stephen. Air Power: The Men, Machines, and Ideas That Revolutionized War, from Kitty Hawk to Iraq (2005) global coverage by journalist Collier, Basil (1974). A History of Air Power. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Cooksley, Peter G.; Bruce Robertson (1997). The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Conflict: Air Warfare. Arms and Armour. ISBN 1-85409-223-5. Corum, James S.; Johnson, Wray R. (2003). Airpower in Small Wars – Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1240-8. Glines, Carroll V. (1963). Compact History of the United States Air Force. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc. ISBN 0-405-12169-5. Gross, Charles J. (2002). American Military Aviation: The Indispensable Arm. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-215-1. Higham, Robin (2004). 100 Years of Air Power & Aviation. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-241-0. Lockee, Garette E. (April 1969), PIRAZ, United States Naval Institute Proceedings Olsen, John Andreas, ed. A History of Air Warfare (2010) 506 pp; 16 essays by experts provide global coverage Overy, Richard. Why the Allies Won (1997), ch 3, on bombing in World War II. Overy, Richard. The Air War – 1939–1945 (1980), global coverage of combat, strategy, technology and production Web External links: Middle Eastern Air Power 2009 Aerial Warfare Quotations Jones, Johnny R.: Air power, Air & Space Power Journal Historic films showing aerial warfare during World War I at europeanfilmgateway.eu

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air assault

Organization and employment: Air assault and air mobility are related concepts. However, air assault is distinctly a combat insertion rather than transportation to an area in the vicinity of combat. Air assault units can vary in organization; using helicopters not only in transport but also as close air fire support, medical evacuation helicopters and resupply missions. Airmobile artillery is often assigned to air assault deployments. Units vary in size, but are typically company to brigade sized units. Airmobile units are designed and trained for air insertion and vertical envelopment ("a maneuver in which troops, either air-dropped or air-landed, attack the rear and flanks of a force, in effect cutting off or encircling the force", air resupply, and if necessary air extraction. One specific type of air assault unit is the US Army air cavalry. It differs from regular air assault units only in fulfilling a traditional cavalry reconnaissance and short raids role. Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade was formed in 1999 following an amalgamation of elements of 5th Infantry Brigade (5 Airborne Brigade) and 24 Airmobile Brigade, bringing together the agility and reach of airborne forces with the potency of the attack helicopter. Similarly, the US 101st Airborne Division was originally classed as airborne, then airmobile and now air assault. History: Air mobility has been a key concept in offensive operations since the 1930s. Initial approaches to air mobility focused on parachutists and the use of military gliders. During World War II many assaults were done by military gliders. The World War Two era German Fallschirmjäger, Brandenburgers, and the 22nd Air Landing Division glider borne paras laid the foundation for modern day air assault operations. In 1941 the U.S. Army quickly adopted this concept of offensive operations initially utilizing wooden gliders before the development of helicopters. Following the war, faster aircraft led to the abandonment of the flimsy wooden gliders with the then new helicopters taking their place. Four YR-4B helicopters saw limited service in the China Burma India theatre with the 1st Air Commando Group In 1943 the Germans conducted the Gran Sasso raid which implemented many aspects of the air assault concept. Another example was the German Brandenburgers' glider borne operation at Ypenburg during World War Two. In 1946, U.S. Marine General Roy S. Geiger observed the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll and instantly recognized that atomic bombs could render amphibious landings difficult because of the dense concentrations of troops, ships and material at beachheads. During this time, The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Alexander Vandegrift, convened a special board known as the Hogaboom Board. This board recommended that the USMC develop transport helicopters in order to allow a diffused attack on enemy shores. It also recommended that the USMC form an experimental helicopter squadron. HMX-1 was commissioned in 1947 with Sikorsky HO3S-1s. In 1948 the Marine Corps Schools came out with Amphibious Operations—Employment of Helicopters (Tentative), or Phib-31, which was the first US manual for helicopter airmobile operations. The Marines used the term vertical envelopment instead of air mobility or air assault. HMX-1 performed its first vertical envelopment from the deck of an aircraft carrier in an exercise in 1949. American forces later used helicopters for support and transport to great effect during the Korean War showing that the helicopter could be a versatile and powerful military tool. First helicopter air assaults: The first helicopter airlift and helicopter sling load mission was conducted on September 13, 1951, during the Korean War. "Operation Windmill I" was conducted by the United States Marine Corps in support of a battalion clearing the enemy from a series of ridges around a basin called "The Punchbowl." In total seven HRS-1 Marine helicopters made 28 flights that delivered 8,550 kg (18,848 pounds) of supplies and evacuated 74 seriously wounded men. On November 5, 1956, the Royal Marines' 45 Commando performed the world's first combat helicopter insertion with air assault during an amphibious landing as part of Operation Musketeer, in Suez, Egypt. 650 marines and 23 tons of equipment were flown in ten Westland Whirlwind Mark 2s of 845 Naval Air Squadron from the deck of HMS Theseus, and six each Whirlwinds and Bristol Sycamore HC.12s and HC.14s off HMS Ocean's embarked Joint Experimental Helicopter Unit (JEHU) (Royal Air Force). The plan was to use the helicopters to drop No. 45 Commando at Raswa, to the south of Port Said, in order to secure two vital bridges. Last-minute concerns about their vulnerability to ground fire meant that they were replaced in this role by French paratroops who conducted a daring low-level drop on 5 November, securing one of the two bridges intact. Instead No. 45 Commando was landed the following day, disembarking close to the seafront in the aftermath of the seaborne landing that had secured the area. This first-ever operational use of helicopters to land troops during an amphibious assault proved successful. With their carriers lying nine miles offshore, the marines were landed far more quickly than could have been achieved using landing craft, and without the need to get their boots wet. However ... they landed the marines in much the same place that old style landing craft would have put them. In 1956, the United States Marine Corps executed the first Division-strength exercise of vertical envelopment when the 1st Marine Division was helicopter-lifted from converted WWII jeep carriers to landing sites at Camp Pendleton, CA, U.S. Marine Corps Base. One of the ships utilized for this exercise was the USS Thetis Bay. This exercise was the culmination of the Marines' developing strategy of vertical envelopment rather than amphibious assaults on heavily defended beaches. The maneuvers were well-covered by the media of the time, including LIFE Magazine. The Marine Corps subsequently adopted this method as standard operating procedure after proving that helicopters could be used to transport very large numbers of troops and large amounts of supplies in a timely fashion. Operation Deep Water was a 1957 NATO naval exercise held in the Mediterranean Sea that involved the first units of the United States Marine Corps to participate in a helicopter-borne vertical envelopment operation during an overseas deployment. During the Vietnam war the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division conducted the first large scale air assault operation in combat during the Battle of Ia Drang. Algerian War: The use of armed helicopters coupled with helicopter transport during the Algerian War for the French Army to drop troops into enemy territory gave birth to the tactics of airmobile warfare that continues today. The machines of the French Army Light Aviation carried out a considerable number of missions against Algerian insurgents between 1955, when the Groupe d’Hélicoptères No.2 (GH 2) was created, and 1962 when the French empire in Algeria finally came to an end. GH 2 was based at Sétif – Aïn Arnat in the east of the country, and it was equipped primarily with machines to undertake transport missions, though the Vertol H-21C, would soon join the unit owing to concerns about the lack of machines which could both defend themselves and carry out offensive missions against the insurgents. Acquiring these machines lay in the hands of the licensee Piasecki given France's urgent need to have them on account of the circumstances. Usually, the H-21 could carry up to 18 troops, yet local operating (as well as climatic) conditions decreed that the French army examples could carry only up to around 12 troops each. In two years, GH 2 received the vast majority of the H-21s acquired by ALAT, which consisted of five squadrons by the end of 1958. A sixth squadron from the French naval air arm, the Aéronautique navale, had operated with GH 2 for little more than a year. From 1955 to 1962, GH 2 took part in the major battles, which occurred near the frontier between Algeria and Tunisia, including the battle of Souk-Ahras in April 1958. The helicopters, including types such as the H-21, the Alouette II, the Sikorsky H-19 and Sikorsky H-34, together aggregated over 190,000 flying hours in Algeria (over 87,000 for the H-21 alone) and helped to evacuate over 20,000 French combatants from the combat area, including nearly 2,200 at night. By the time the war in Algeria had ended, eight officers and 23 non-commissioned officers from ALAT had died in the course of their duties. Vietnam War: U.S. Army CH-21 helicopter transports arrived in South Vietnam on 11 December 1961. Air assault operations using Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) troops began 12 days later in Operation Chopper. These were very successful at first but the Viet Cong (VC) began developing counter helicopter techniques, and at the Battle of Ap Bac in January 1963, 13 of 15 helicopters were hit and four shot down. The Army began adding machine guns and rockets to their smaller helicopters and developed the first purpose built gunship with the M-6E3 armament system. U.S.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air assault

By the time the war in Algeria had ended, eight officers and 23 non-commissioned officers from ALAT had died in the course of their duties. Vietnam War: U.S. Army CH-21 helicopter transports arrived in South Vietnam on 11 December 1961. Air assault operations using Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) troops began 12 days later in Operation Chopper. These were very successful at first but the Viet Cong (VC) began developing counter helicopter techniques, and at the Battle of Ap Bac in January 1963, 13 of 15 helicopters were hit and four shot down. The Army began adding machine guns and rockets to their smaller helicopters and developed the first purpose built gunship with the M-6E3 armament system. U.S. Marine helicopter squadrons began four-month rotations through Vietnam as part of Operation SHUFLY on 15 April 1962. Six days later, they performed the first helicopter assault using U.S. Marine helicopters and ARVN troops. After April 1963, as losses began to mount, U.S. Army UH-1 Huey gunships escorted the Marine transports. The VC again used effective counter landing techniques and in Operation Sure Wind 202 on 27 April 1964, 17 of 21 helicopters were hit and three shot down. The 2nd Battalion 3rd Marines made a night helicopter assault in the Elephant Valley south of Da Nang on 13 August 1965 shortly after Marine ground troops arrived in country. HMM-361 commanded by LtCol Tom Ross. On 17 August 1965 in Operation Starlite the 2nd Battalion 4th Marines landed in three helicopter landing zones (LZs) west of the 1st VC Regiment in the Van Tuong village complex, 12 miles (19 km) south of Chu Lai, while the 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines used seaborne landing craft on the beaches to the east. The transport helicopters were 24 UH-34s from HMM-361, HMM-261 and HMM-161 in relief, escorted by Marine and Army Hueys from VMO-2 and VMO-6 led by Maj Donald G. Radcliff, US Army who was killed in action. VC losses were 614 killed, Marine losses were 45 KIA and 203 WIA. The need for a new type of unit became apparent to the Tactical Mobility Requirements Board (normally referred to as the Howze Board) of the U.S. Army in 1962. The Board met at a difficult time; the bulk of the military hierarchy were focused primarily on the Soviet threat to Western Europe, and perceived as requiring heavy, conventional units. The creation of new, light airmobile units could only occur at the expense of heavier units. At the same time, the incoming Kennedy administration was placing a much greater emphasis on the need to fight 'small wars', or counter-insurgencies, and was strongly supportive of officers such as General Howze who were embracing new technologies. The Board concluded that a new form of unit would be required, and commissioned tests – but justified these at the time on the need to fight a conventional war in Europe. Initially a new experimental unit was formed at Fort Benning, Georgia, the 11th Air Assault Division on 11 February 1963, combining light infantry with integral helicopter transport and air support. Opinions vary as to the level of support for the concept within the Army; some have argued that the initial tests against the context of conventional warfare did not prove promising, and, despite opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it was primarily the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who pushed through the changes in 1965, drawing on support from within the Pentagon which had now begun to establish a counter-insurgency doctrine that would require just such a unit. Others have put more weight on the support of newly appointed senior Army commanders, including the new Chief of Staff General Wheeler, in driving through the changes. Nonetheless, the 11th Air Assault Division assets were merged with the co-located 2nd Infantry Division and reflagged as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), continuing the tradition of the 1st Cavalry Division. Within several months it was sent to Vietnam and the concept of air mobility became bound up with the challenges of that campaign, especially its varied terrain – the jungles, mountains, and rivers which complicated ground movement. The first unit of the new division to see major combat was the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, led by Lieutenant Colonel Harold G. Moore. The 7th Cavalry was the same regiment that Custer had commanded at the ill-fated Battle of the Little Bighorn. On November 14, 1965, Moore led his troops in the first large unit engagement of the Vietnam War, which took place near the Chu Pong massif near the Vietnam-Cambodia border. It is known today as the Battle of Ia Drang Valley, and is considered to be the first large scale helicopter air assault. This battalion (vice "squadron," which would have been its nomenclature had it actually been a cavalry organization) gave common currency, albeit incorrectly, to the U.S. term "Air Cavalry." However, 1-7 Cav was in actuality an infantry formation carrying a "Cavalry" designation purely for purposes of lineage and heraldry. (True air cavalry organizations are/were helicopter-mounted reconnaissance units.) Light infantry-centric organizations (battalions, brigades, or divisions) that are trained, organized, and equipped to operate with organic (i.e., owned by the joint parent headquarters of both the light infantry organization and the supporting aviation organization) are classified as "Air Assault," previously designated as "Airmobile." The Vietnam-era 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) was not an "air cavalry" division, per se, although it did contain air cavalry squadrons. The division was a new concept that probably was more akin to a modern version of "mounted rifles," owing to its helicopter "mounts," and, as did 1-7 Cav discussed above, carried the "Cavalry" designation primarily for purposes of lineage and heraldry, and not because of its then current mission or organizational structure. On a practical level, virtually any light infantry formation can instantly become "airmobile" simply by dividing the assault elements into "chalks" (aircraft load designations pertaining to order of loading and type of aircraft), embarking them on the aircraft, transporting them to the objective/assembly area, and inserting/disembarking them into a landing zone, etc. However, true "air assault" organizations are specialized light infantry (much like airborne troops), who are trained, organized, and equipped specifically to perform the complex, rapid, and dynamic tasks inherent in air assault vice simply being transported by aircraft. Perhaps a rough comparison can be made between "motorized" and "mechanized" infantry. Any light infantry unit can be transported by truck (viz., "motorized"), however, "mechanized" infantry are specifically trained, organized, and equipped to conduct operations in close-coordination with tanks. Southern African wars: The armed forces of Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa widely conducted airmobile warfare operations in Southern Africa, during the Portuguese Colonial War (1961–1974), the Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979) and the South African Border War (1966–1990). The airmobile warfare was part of the counter-insurgency actions made by the forces of the three countries against guerrilla forces in Angola, Portuguese Guinea, Rhodesia, Mozambique and South-West Africa. The airmobile warfare tactics used by Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa had many similar characteristics. The air forces of the three countries also used the same types of helicopters (mainly Alouette III and later, regarding Portugal and South Africa, SA 330 Puma), and there were military cooperation agreements and sharing of experience between the three powers, including the secret Alcora Exercise. Portuguese, Rhodesian and South African airmobile tactics often involved air assaults done by small units of special forces or light infantry, transported in four or five Alouette III helicopters. Assaults were often supported by an Alouette III armed with a side-mounted 20 mm MG 151 autocannon. This helicopter was nicknamed Helicanhão (heli-cannon) by the Portuguese and K-Car by the Rhodesians. Variants of the air mobile warfare tactics used in Africa included the Rhodesian Fireforce and the Portuguese heliborne-horseborne forces cooperation. Bangladesh Liberation War (1971): Meghna Heli Bridge was an aerial operation of Indian and Bangladeshi allied forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. It took place on 9 December, when the Indian Air Force airlifted the Mukti Bahini and the IV Corps of the Indian Army from Brahmanbaria to Raipura in Narsingdi over the River Meghna, bypassing the destroyed Meghna Bridge and Pakistani defences in Ashuganj. Post Cold War: In the United States Army, the air assault mission is the primary role of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). This unit is a division-sized helicopter-borne fighting force. 101st Airborne Division soldiers attend the Sabalauski Air Assault School.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air assault

Variants of the air mobile warfare tactics used in Africa included the Rhodesian Fireforce and the Portuguese heliborne-horseborne forces cooperation. Bangladesh Liberation War (1971): Meghna Heli Bridge was an aerial operation of Indian and Bangladeshi allied forces during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. It took place on 9 December, when the Indian Air Force airlifted the Mukti Bahini and the IV Corps of the Indian Army from Brahmanbaria to Raipura in Narsingdi over the River Meghna, bypassing the destroyed Meghna Bridge and Pakistani defences in Ashuganj. Post Cold War: In the United States Army, the air assault mission is the primary role of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). This unit is a division-sized helicopter-borne fighting force. 101st Airborne Division soldiers attend the Sabalauski Air Assault School. Graduates are qualified to insert and extract using fast rope and rappel means from a hover in addition to the ordinary walk on and off from an airlanded helicopter. In addition, all U.S. Marine Corps divisions are capable of, and routinely train for and perform, air assault operations. Forward-deployed Marine Corps infantry battalions/regiments (reinforced, organized, and designated as Battalion Landing Teams/Regimental Combat Teams, or BLTs and RCTs, respectively), form the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), or Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB). These MEUs and MEBs are capable of embarking aboard amphibious warships and include air assault as one of several means of conducting amphibious landing operations, supported by embarked Marine Corps tilt-rotor, helicopter, and STOVL fixed-wing strike aircraft. The 10th Mountain Division Light Infantry has a limited capability to perform air assault operations. On September 19, 1994, the 1st Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division conducted the Army's first air assault from an aircraft carrier, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, as part of Operation Uphold Democracy. This force consisted of 54 helicopters and almost 2,000 soldiers. This was the Army's largest operation from an aircraft carrier since the Doolittle Raid of World War II The 16th Air Assault Brigade of the British Army is the UK's main air assault body. It comprises units of paratroopers from the Parachute Regiment and light infantry units trained in helicopter insertion, as well as light tanks and artillery. Britain's 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines are also highly experienced in air assault, both for boarding ships and in land attacks, see article above. Russo-Ukrainian War: The Battle of Antonov Airport was an operation during the opening days of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine where the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) attempted an air assault in order to capture Hostomel Airport, in order to use the airport to airlift troops and heavy equipment directly into Kyiv. The VDV was initially able to capture the airport, but without artillery or armored support they were not able to handle a counter-attack started by local Ukrainian forces. The airport was captured only on the second day by a second air assault combined with an armored push from ground troops. A simultaneous air assault was attempted at Vasylkiv, where VDV paratroopers attempted to seize the Vasylkiv Air Base but the attack was repelled. List of air assault forces/units: Argentina 601 Assault Helicopter Battalion Brazil 12th Light Infantry Brigade (Airmobile) Colombia División de aviación asalto aéreo (DAVAA) Brigada de aviación 25 Brigada no. 32 de aviación ejercito Brigada contra el narcotrafico Brigada de fuerzas especiales Batallon de operaciones especiales de aviación France 4th Airmobile Brigade 11th Parachute Brigade Germany/ Netherlands Germany Rapid Forces Division Germany Air Assault Brigade 1 Netherlands 11 Luchtmobiele Brigade [Combined with the helicopters of the Royal Netherlands Air Force, they form the 11 Air Manoeuvre Brigade (11 AMB)] Greece 71st Airmobile Infantry Brigade 5th Airmobile Infantry Brigade Iran Nedsa marines Sepah Quds Italy Friuli Air Assault Brigade Folgore Parachute Brigade Indonesia Raider Infantry Battalions Paskhas Japan 12th Brigade (Air Assault) Kazakhstan Kazakh Air Assault Forces Lebanon Lebanese Air Assault Regiment (Lebanon) Malaysia 10th Parachute Brigade (Malaysia) Pakistan Light Commando Battalions (LCBs) Poland 25th Air Cavalry Brigade Portugal Rapid Reaction Brigade Romania 495th Paratrooper Battalion "Căpitan Ștefan Soverth" Russia 76th Guards Air Assault Division South Africa 44 Parachute Regiment (1999 to present) 6 South African Infantry Battalion People's Republic of China One brigade under each combined corps Republic of China (Taiwan) ROC Army Aviation and Special Forces Command (陸軍航空特戰指揮部) Special Operations Command (特戰指揮部 ) 1st Special Operations Battalion "Might" (特戰第一營 "威") 2nd Special Operations Battalion "Dare" (特戰第二營 "敢") 3rd Special Operations Battalion "Firm" (特戰第三營 "剛") 4th Special Operations Battalion "Fierce" (特戰第四營 "猛") 5th Special Operations Battalion "Strong" (特戰第五營 "強") 601st Aviation Brigade (航空六〇一旅) 602nd Aviation Brigade (航空六〇二旅) Aviation Training Command (飛行訓練指揮部) - 603rd Aviation Brigade (航空六〇三旅) Singapore Guards Spain 7th Light (Air-transportable) Infantry Brigade Sri Lanka Air Mobile Brigade Sri Lanka Commando Regiment Sweden 31st Airborne Battalion Syria 14th Special Forces Division 15th Special Forces Division Thailand 1st Special Forces Division (1st SFD) Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols Company (LRRP) Royal Thai Navy SEALs RECON Special Operations Regiment (SOR) Ukraine Ukrainian Air Assault Forces 95th Airmobile Brigade 79th Airmobile Brigade 80th Airmobile Regiment 28th Training Battalion United Kingdom 16 Air Assault Brigade 3 Commando Brigade United States 101st Airborne Division 1st Brigade Combat Team 2nd Brigade Combat Team 3rd Brigade Combat Team Republic of Korea 2nd Quick Response Division (South Korea) See also: References: Sources: Arthur, Max, There Shall Be Wings, Hodder and Stoughton, 1994, ISBN 0-340-60386-0 Scales, Robert H. & Scales Jr., Robert H., Certain Victory: The U.S. Army in the Gulf War, Brassey's, 1994 Ailsby, Christopher (2000). Hitler's Sky Warriors: German Paratroopers in Action, 1939–1945. Staplehurst, UK: Spellmount Limited. ISBN 1-86227-109-7. Screaming Eagles 101st Airborne Division by Russ & Susan Bryant Further reading: Burns, Richard R. Pathfinder: First In, Last Out. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002. ISBN 0804116024 External links: A 1989 Department of Defense news archive about Task Force Hawk air assault training, Panama. The short film STAFF FILM REPORT 66-20A (1966) is available for free viewing and download at the Internet Archive. Vietnam Studies: Airmobility 1961–1971 by Lieutenant General John J. Tolson, 1989 Archived 2010-06-12 at the Wayback Machine

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air combat manoeuvring

Historical overview: Military aviation originated in World War I when aircraft were initially used to spot enemy troop concentrations, field gun positions, and movements. Early aerial combat consisted of aviators shooting at one another with hand-held weapons. The first recorded aircraft to be shot down by another aircraft, which occurred on October 5, 1914, was a German Aviatik B.I. The pilot, Feldwebel Wilhelm Schlichting, was shot with a carbine wielded by observer Louis Quenault, who was riding in a French Voisin III piloted by Sergeant Joseph Frantz. The need to stop reconnaissance that was being conducted by enemy aircraft rapidly led to the development of fighter planes, a class of aircraft designed specifically to destroy other aircraft. Fixed, forward-firing guns were found to be the most effective armament for a majority of World War I era fighter planes, but it was nearly impossible to fire them through the spinning propeller of one's own aircraft without destroying one's own plane. Roland Garros, working with Morane Saulnier Aéroplanes, was the first to solve this problem by attaching steel deflector wedges to the propeller. He achieved three kills but was shot down by ground fire and landed behind German lines. Anthony Fokker inspected the plane's wreckage and learned to improve the design by connecting the firing mechanism of the gun to the timing of the engine, thus allowing the gun to fire through the propeller without making contact with the propeller. As technology rapidly advanced, new and young aviators began defining the realm of air-to-air combat, such as Max Immelmann, Oswald Boelcke, and Lanoe Hawker. One of the greatest of these "ace pilots" of World War I, Manfred von Richthofen (the Red Baron), wrote in his book The Red Fighter Pilot, "The great thing in air fighting is that the decisive factor does not lie in trick flying but solely in the personal ability and energy of the aviator. A flying man may be able to loop and do all the stunts imaginable and yet he may not succeed in shooting down a single enemy." Pilots soon learned to achieve a firing position (while avoiding the threat of enemy guns) by manoeuvring themselves behind an enemy aircraft; this is known as getting onto an aircraft's "six o'clock" or onto their "tail", plus a wide variety of other terms, usually coined by air crew. This type of combat became known as dogfighting. Oswald Boelcke, a German fighter ace during World War I, was the first to publish the basic rules for aerial combat manoeuvring in 1916, known as the Dicta Boelcke. He advised pilots to attack from the direction of the sun (toward which the defending pilot could not see), or to fly at a higher altitude than the opponent. Most of these rules are still as valuable today as they were a century ago. Today's air combat is much more complicated than that of older times, as air-to-air missiles, radar, and automatic cannons capable of high rates of fire are used on nearly all modern fighter aircraft. New and additional types of manoeuvres have emerged, intending to break radar lock by minimizing the Doppler signature of one's own aircraft ("keeping the enemy at 3 or 9 o'clock"), or to exhaust the kinetic energy of an incoming missile (by changing the aircraft's course from side to side, the missile, not flying directly at target but trying to forestall it, will make sharper turns and will eventually have to fly a longer path). However, close-range fighting with infrared guided missiles and aircraft cannons still obeys the same general rules laid down in the skies over Europe in the early 20th century. The master rule is still the same: get on the opponent's rear without allowing them to do the same. Close-range combat tactics vary considerably according to the type of aircraft being used and the number of aircraft involved. Tactics: There are five things a pilot must remain aware of when contemplating aerial engagement; of these, seeing and keeping sight of one's opponent are the most important. In Southeast Asia, over 85 percent of all kills are attributed to the attacker spotting and shooting the defender without ever being seen. Structural limitations of the attacking and defending fighters must be taken into account, such as thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, and the "corner speed" (the maximum or minimum speed at which the aircraft can attain the best turning performance). Variable limitations must also be considered, such as turn radius, turn rate and the specific energy of the aircraft. Position of aircraft must quickly be assessed, including direction, angle off tail (the angle between flight paths), and closing speed. Also, the pilot must be aware of his wingman's position and maintain good communication. A pilot in combat attempts to conserve his aircraft's energy through carefully timed and executed manoeuvres. By using such manoeuvres, a pilot will often make trade offs between the fighter's potential energy (altitude) and kinetic energy (airspeed), to maintain the energy-to-weight ratio of the aircraft, or the "specific energy". A manoeuvre such as the "low yo-yo" trades altitude for airspeed to close on an enemy and to decrease turn radius. The opposite manoeuvre, a "high yo-yo", trades speed for height, literally storing energy in "the altitude bank", which allows a fast moving attacker to slow his closing speed. An attacker is confronted with three possible ways to pursue an enemy, all of which are vital during chase. "Lag pursuit" happens in a turn when the nose of the attacker's aircraft points behind an enemy's tail. Lag pursuit allows an attacker to increase or maintain range without overshooting. "Lead pursuit" in a turn occurs when the nose of the attacking aircraft points ahead of the enemy. Lead pursuit is used to decrease the distance between aircraft, and during gun attacks when the cannons must be aimed, not at where the defender is, but where he will be when the bullets get there. "Pure pursuit" happens when the nose of the attacker points directly at the defender. Pure pursuit is when most missiles will be fired, and is the hardest position to maintain. These are known as pursuit curves. The turning battle of a dogfight can be executed in an infinite number of geometric planes. Pilots are encouraged to keep their manoeuvres out of the strictly vertical and horizontal planes, but to instead use the limitless number of oblique planes, which is much harder for an adversary to track. This infinite number of planes around a fixed point about which the aircraft turns is termed the "post and bubble". A fighter that can maintain position between an aircraft and its imaginary post cannot be attacked by that aircraft. The imaginary bubble, however, is misshapen by gravity, causing turns to be much tighter and slower at the top, and wider and faster at the bottom, and is sometimes referred to as a "tactical egg". The manoeuvres employed by the attacker can also be used by the defender to evade, or gain a tactical advantage over his opponent. Other components may also be employed to manoeuvre the aircraft, such as yaw, drag, lift, and thrust vectors. A key factor in all battles is that of "nose-tail separation". While getting close enough to fire a weapon, an attacker must keep his aircraft's nose far enough away from the tail of the defender to be able to get a good aim, and to prevent an overshoot. The defender, likewise, will use every manoeuvre available to encourage an overshoot, trying to change his own role to that of attacker. Example manoeuvring: Basic: Combat spread Pitchback Bell Tailslide Split S Immelmann turn Thach Weave Scissors Chandelle Complex: High Yo-Yo Low Yo-Yo Lag Displacement Roll (High-G Barrel Roll) Cobra Maneuver Cobra Turn Kulbit Herbst manoeuvre Hineri-komi See also: Index of aviation articles Basic fighter maneuvers References: == External links ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air force

History: Heavier-than-air military aircraft: The first aviation force in the world was the Aviation Militaire of the French Army formed in 1910, which eventually became l'Armée de l'Air. In 1911, during the Italo-Turkish War, Italy employed aircraft for the first time ever in the world for reconnaissance and bombing missions against Turkish positions on Libyan Territory. The Italian–Turkish war of 1911–1912 was the first in history that featured air attacks by airplanes and dirigible airships. During World War I France, Germany, Italy, the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire all possessed significant forces of bombers and fighters. World War I also saw the appearance of senior commanders who directed aerial warfare and numerous flying aces. Independent air forces: An independent air force is one which is a separate branch of a nation's armed forces and is, at least nominally, treated as a military service on par with that of older services like navies or armies. The British Royal Air Force was the first independent air force in the world. The RAF was founded on 1 April 1918 by amalgamation the British Army's Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. At its inception, the RAF comprised over 20,000 aircraft. It was commanded by a Chief of the Air Staff with the rank of major-general and was governed by its own government ministry (the Air Ministry). Arguably, the Finnish Air Force was the first independent air force in the world, formed on 6 March 1918, when the Swedish count, Eric von Rosen gave Finland the second aircraft, a Thulin Typ D. Some considered that the Finnish Air Force did not officially exist during the Finnish Civil War, and the Red Guards had its own air force. Over the following decades, most countries with substantial military capability established independent air forces. The South African Air Force was formed on 1 February 1920 and the Royal Australian Air Force was formed shortly thereafter, on 31 March 1921, although it was not until 1922 that the head of the Service was titled as Chief of the Air Staff, placing him on a par with his Australian Army and Navy counterparts. The Canadian Air Force was formed at the end of World War I and was abolished and reorganized several times between 1918 and 1924. It became the permanent Royal Canadian Air Force when it received the Royal title by royal proclamation on 1 April 1924. It did not however become independent of the Canadian Army until 1938, when its head was also designated as Chief of the Air Staff. Similarly, the Royal New Zealand Air Force was established in 1923 as the New Zealand Permanent Air Force, but did not become independent of the New Zealand Army until 1937. The Royal Indian Air Force was also formed on 8th october 1932. Other British-influenced countries also established independent air forces. For example, the Royal Egyptian Air Force was created in 1937, when Egyptian military aviation was separated from Army command. The Afghan Air Force was established on 22 August 1924, with support from the Soviet Union and Great Britain, but a civil war destroyed most of the planes and it was not reestablished until 1937, when King Mohammed Nadir Shah took power. Outside of the British Empire, the Italian Royal Air Force was founded in 1923, the Romanian Air Force was established as a force category on 1 January 1924, the Finnish Air Force was established as a separate service on 4 May 1928, the Chilean Air Force was founded in 1930 and the Brazilian Air Force was created in 1941. Both the United States Air Force and the Philippine Air Force were formed as a separate branches of their respective armed forces in 1947, as did the Argentine Air Force in 1945. The Israeli Air Force came into being with the State of Israel on 18 May 1948, but evolved from the pre-existing Sherut Avir (Air Service) of the Haganah paramilitary. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force was not established until 1954; in World War II Japanese military aviation had been carried out by the Army and Navy. Unlike all these countries, the Mexican Air Force remains an integral part of the Mexican Army. The world wars: World War I: Germany was the first country to organize regular air attacks on enemy infrastructure with the Luftstreitkräfte. In World War I, it used its zeppelins (airships) to drop bombs on British cities. At that time, Britain did have aircraft, though her airships were less advanced than the zeppelins and were very rarely used for attacking; instead, they were usually used to spy on German U-boats (submarines). Fixed-wing aircraft at the time were quite primitive, being able to achieve velocities comparable to that of modern automobiles and mounting minimal weaponry and equipment. Aerial services were still largely a new venture, and relatively unreliable machines and limited training resulted in stupendously low life expectancies for early military aviators. World War II: By the time World War II began, planes had become much safer, faster, and more reliable. They were adopted as standard for bombing raids and taking out other aircraft because they were much faster than airships. The world's largest military Air Force by the start of the Second World War in 1939 was the Soviet Red Air Force, and although much depleted, it would stage the largest air operations of WWII over the four years of combat with the German Luftwaffe. Arguably the war's most important air operation, known as the Battle of Britain, took place during 1940 over Britain and the English Channel between Britain's Royal Air Force and Germany's Luftwaffe over a period of several months. In the end Britain emerged victorious, and this caused Adolf Hitler to give up his plan to invade Britain. Other prominent air force operations during the Second World War include the Allied bombing of Germany during 1942–1944, and the Red Air Force operations in support of strategic ground offensives on the Eastern Front. The aerial warfare in Pacific Ocean theatre was of a comparable strategic significance to the Battle of Britain but was largely conducted by the US and Japanese naval aviation services and not by air forces. Strategic bombing: The air force's role of strategic bombing against enemy infrastructure was developed during the 1930s by the Japanese in China and by the Germans during the Spanish Civil War. This role for the bomber was perfected during World War II, during Allied "Thousand Bomber Raid" operations. The need to intercept these bombers, both during the day and at night, accelerated fighter aircraft developments. The war ended when United States Army Air Forces Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945. Post World War II: The United States Air Force became an independent service in 1947. As the Cold War began, both the USAF and the Soviet Air Force built up their nuclear-capable strategic bomber forces. Several technological advances were widely introduced during this time: the jet engine; the missile; the helicopter; and inflight refueling. In 1954 the Japan Air Self-Defense Force was founded as a separate service. Previously Japan had delivered its service aviation from within its Army and Navy. During the 1960s, Canada merged the Royal Canadian Air Force with the army and the navy to form the unified Canadian Forces, with air assets divided between several commands and a green uniform for everyone. This proved very unpopular, and in 1975 Canadian aviation units were reorganized under a single organization (Air Command) with a single commander. In 2011 the Canadian Forces Air Command reverted to its pre-1960s name, the Royal Canadian Air Force. Organization: The organizational structures of air forces vary between nations: some air forces (such as the United States Air Force, the Royal Air Force) are divided into commands, groups and squadrons; others (such as the Soviet Air Force) have an Army-style organizational structure. The modern Royal Canadian Air Force uses Air Division as the formation between wings and the entire air command. Like the RAF, Canadian wings consist of squadrons. In the case of China the Air Force headquarters consists of four departments: Command, Political, Logistic, and Equipment, which mirrors the four general departments of the People's Liberation Army. Below the headquarters, Military Region Air Forces (MRAF) direct divisions (Fighter, Attack, Bomber), which in turn direct regiments and squadrons. Infantry: Air assault and Airborne infantry, such as the Royal Air Force Regiment, Royal Australian Air Force Airfield Defense Guards, RNZAF Security Forces, and the US Air Force Security Forces, are used primarily for ground-based defence of air bases and other air force facilities. They also have a number of other specialist roles, including Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defense, offensive operations in defense of air force assets, and training other air force personnel in basic ground defence tactics. Special forces: Air Force Special Forces, such as US Air Force Special Tactics, Brazilian Para-SAR, Indian Garud Commando Force and Pakistani Special Service Wing are used in a variety of roles including combat search and rescue, special reconnaissance, direct action, counterinsurgency, intelligence operations, and serving as joint terminal attack controllers attached to ground and special operations forces.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air force

Infantry: Air assault and Airborne infantry, such as the Royal Air Force Regiment, Royal Australian Air Force Airfield Defense Guards, RNZAF Security Forces, and the US Air Force Security Forces, are used primarily for ground-based defence of air bases and other air force facilities. They also have a number of other specialist roles, including Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defense, offensive operations in defense of air force assets, and training other air force personnel in basic ground defence tactics. Special forces: Air Force Special Forces, such as US Air Force Special Tactics, Brazilian Para-SAR, Indian Garud Commando Force and Pakistani Special Service Wing are used in a variety of roles including combat search and rescue, special reconnaissance, direct action, counterinsurgency, intelligence operations, and serving as joint terminal attack controllers attached to ground and special operations forces. See also: Aerial warfare Airborne forces Air force academy List of air forces Military aircraft Security forces Space force Cyber force Notes: References: "AFPC – Air Force Personnel Center", Air Force Personnel Center, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, 2013, webpage: www.afpc.af.mil. "United States Air Force", U.S. Air Force, 2009, webpage (large): Airforce.com (Air Force recruiting site). "United States Air Force", U.S. Air Force, 2013, webpage (large): Official Site of the US Air Force (has subpages about the Air Force). "United States Air Force Fact Sheet", U.S. Air Force, 2013, webpage (large): US Air Force Fact Sheet. "United States Air Force Facebook Official External Presence", U.S. Air Force, 2013, webpage (large): Official US Air Force Facebook page. "United States Air Force blog", U.S. Air Force, 2013, webpage (large): Official US Air Force blog.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air interdiction

History: World War II: In the lead up to the invasion of France, the Allied strategic bomber force was switched from the destruction of the enemy air force and means of production to a destruction of the railway routes to the intended landing areas. Once the landings were underway, the Allied tactical and strategic air forces were used to prevent the German strategic armoured reserves from being brought up to the coast and reinforce the divisions there. Korean War: Cold War: During the Cold War, the NATO alliance leaned into the concept of air interdiction."Air interdiction...is essential to the overall effectiveness of the Allies' military forces. Their role in supporting operations, on land and at sea, will require appropriate long-distance airlift and air refuelling capabilities. " Vietnam War: Iran-Iraq War: Both the Iranian Air Force (IIAF) and the Iraqi Air Force (IQAF) made concerted efforts during the early days of the Iran-Iraq War to interdict the other side. For both sides this largely amounted to engaging in armed reconnaissance and attacking targets of opportunity, with few attacks on pre-planned targets. The IIAF did have the advantage of having superior munitions and tactical reconnaissance - possessing a squadron of RF-4E Phantoms and pre-revolution targeting intelligence - but their efforts largely mirrored that of the IQAF. The IQAF's interdiction efforts peaked during the first 45 days of the war, but later declined to more sporadic missions, increasing in conjunction with major offensives. Interdiction by the IIAF was more sustained through late 1980 but after mid-January 1981 also declined. While both sides caused considerable damage on the other, with the Iranians arguably achieving more, neither interdiction effort was particularly effective nor did they play a factor in the outcome of the war. Both sides pulled back their air forces to avoid mounting losses and with the reasoning that, while they might not play a role in winning the war, they could still be used to avoid defeat. Gulf War 1990-1991: 21st Century: See also: Blockade No-drive zone Ground attack aircraft Interdictor References: Bibliography: External links: Air Interdiction, by Clifford Krieger. Aerospace Power Journal, Spring 1989. DOD dictionary definition of air interdiction.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air supremacy

Levels: Air supremacy is the highest level, where a side holds complete control of the skies. It is defined by NATO and the United States Department of Defense as the "degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference". Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favorable position than the opponent. It is defined in the NATO glossary as the "degree of dominance in [an] air battle ... that permits the conduct of operations by [one side] and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces." Favorable air situation is defined as "an air situation in which the extent of air effort applied by the enemy air forces is insufficient to prejudice the success of friendly land, sea or air operations." Air parity is the lowest level of control, where no side holds any level of control of skies. Methods: Although the destruction of enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat is the most obvious aspect of air superiority, it is not the only method of obtaining air superiority. Historically, the most effective method of gaining air superiority is the destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground and the destruction of the means and infrastructure by which an opponent may mount air operations (such as destroying fuel supplies, cratering runways with anti-runway penetration bombs and the sowing of air-fields with area denial weapons). A historical example of this is Operation Focus in which the outnumbered Israeli Air Force dealt a crippling blow to the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian Air Forces and airfields at the start of the Six-Day War, achieving Israeli air supremacy. Disruption can be carried out through ground and air attack. The main role for which the British Special Air Service was formed was to conduct raids on German aircraft and airfields. During operations in the Western Desert the SAS are reckoned to have destroyed more than 400 enemy aircraft. On 6 December 1944, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force Raiding Group Teishin Shudan destroyed B-29 aircraft on Leyte. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union claimed it could achieve air superiority despite the inferiority of its fighters, by over-running NATO airfields and parking their tanks on the runways, similar to what they have done during Tatsinskaya Raid during the Battle of Stalingrad (note the Germans used parts of their autobahn motorways as airfields during the last war). The Soviet Union planned to use its Spetsnaz special forces in attacks on NATO airfields in the event of conflict. Attacks by special forces have been seen by some commanders as a way to level the playing field when faced by superior numbers or technology. Given the disparity in effectiveness between their own and South Korean and US fighters, North Korea maintains a large force of infiltration troops; in the event of a war, they would be tasked, among other missions, with attacking coalition airfields with mortar, machine gun and sniper fire, possibly after insertion by some 300 An-2 low radar-observable biplanes. This strategy has been practiced in active conflicts even in recent decades; during the asymmetrical warfare of the War in Afghanistan, 15 fedayeen destroyed or severely damaged eight United States Marine Corps Harrier jump jets in the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid, one result of which being pilots fighting as infantry for the first time in 70 years. Similarly, during the Iraqi War, four Apaches were destroyed on the ground in 2007 by insurgents armed with mortar, which were unintentionally aided by web-published geotagged photographs taken by coalition soldiers. History: First World War: The First World War saw many firsts in the field of aerial warfare, including the deployment of aircraft armed with machine guns, the first successful engagement involving synchronisation-gun-armed aircraft on the afternoon of 1 July 1915. Throughout the conflict, air superiority on the Western Front changed hands between the German Empire and the Allies several times. It became recognised that the worst losses was amongst new pilots, many of whom lasted just a day or two. The emergence of specialised fighter units, which were typically led by highly experienced pilots, some of them survivors of the Fokker Scourge period, greatly increased the effectiveness of fighter units. Early on, the Allies gained a lead over the Germans by introducing machine-gun armed types such as the Vickers F.B.5 Gunbus fighter and the Morane-Saulnier L. In response, Germany bolstered its own aerial development efforts; a major achievement of the era was the Stangensteuerung (push rod controller), a genuine synchronisation gear, developed by the Fokker company. The device was fitted to the most suitable Fokker type, the Fokker M.5K (military designation Fokker A.III), of which A.16/15, assigned to Otto Parschau, became the prototype of the Fokker Eindecker series of fighter designs. This subsequently contributed to a period of German air superiority known as the Fokker Scourge, lasting between late 1915 and early 1916. A briefer period of German aerial dominance occurred in the Bloody April of April 1917; paradoxically, the Germans were disadvantaged on paper during Bloody April in terms of numerical inferiority; their effectiveness was increased by confining themselves to mainly operating over friendly territory, both reducing the possibility of pilots being captured and increasing the amount of time they could stay in the air. Moreover, German pilots could choose when and how they would engage, effectively dictating the terms of combat. The Italian Corpo Aeronautico Militare established air superiority over the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Aviation Troops at the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in late October 1918. The Allies operated roughly 600 aircraft (93 Anglo-French, including four RAF squadrons) to gain complete air superiority in this final offensive. The defeat suffered by Austria-Hungary at Vittorio Veneto has been attributed with causing the dissolution of the empire. In turn, the surrender of Germany's primary ally was another major factor in the German Empire's decision that the conflict was no longer viable and needed to end. Interwar period: In 1921, Italian aerial warfare theorist Giulio Douhet published The Command of the Air, a book positing that future wars would be decided in the skies. At the time, mainstream military theory did not see air power as a war-winning tactic. Douhet's idea was that air power could be a decisive force and be used to avoid the long and costly War of Attrition. In The War of 19, Douhet theorized that a future war between Germany and France would be settled in a matter of days, as the winner would be the one to gain air supremacy and destroy a few enemy cities with aerial bombs. He speculated that, while the targets would be announced ahead of time and all the population evacuated, but that the event would terrorize citizens into pressuring their government into immediate surrender. At the beginning of the Second World War, Douhet's ideas were dismissed by some, but it became apparent that his theories on the importance of aircraft were supported by events as the war continued. In 1925, the Royal Air Force (RAF) tested the ability of air supremacy in isolation from other warfare forms during their first independent action in Waziristan. The operation, that later came to be known as Pink's War after Wing Commander Richard Pink in charge, used only air warfare in a combination of air attack and air blockade over 54 days to force militant tribes to surrender. The campaign was successful in defeating the tribes with two deaths for the RAF, but contemporary critics were not entirely convinced of its use in isolation; Commander-in-Chief, India General Sir Claud Jacob stated that "satisfactory ... the results of these operations have been, I am of [the] opinion that a combination of land and air action would have brought about the desired result in a shorter space of time, and next time action has to be taken, I trust that it will be possible to employ the two forces in combination". American general Billy Mitchell was another influential air power theorist of the inter-war period. After the First World War I, then-Assistant Chief of Air Service in the United States Army Air Service under Chief Mason Patrick, Mitchell arranged live fire exercises that proved that aircraft could sink battleships (the largest and most heavily armed class of warships). The first of these was Project B in 1921, in which the captured First World War-era German battleship, SMS Ostfriesland, was sunk by a flight of bombers in 22 minutes. Mitchell's ideas were not popular, with his outspoken opposition to Army and Navy resistance resulting in a court-martial that precipitated his resignation, but he would prove prescient; his 1924 inspection tour of Hawaii and Asia culminated in a report (published in 1925 as the book Winged Defense) that predicted future war with Japan, including the attack on Pearl Harbor. He would also go on to influence air power advocates such as Russian-American Alexander P. de Seversky, whose 1942 New York Times bestselling book, Victory Through Air Power, was made into a 1943 Walt Disney animated film that opened with a quote from Mitchell; the film is reported to have been influentially shown by Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt in support of long-range bombing. Seeking to influence the outcome of the Spanish Civil War, various international powers tried to influence the conflict via a heavy reliance on air power.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air supremacy

Mitchell's ideas were not popular, with his outspoken opposition to Army and Navy resistance resulting in a court-martial that precipitated his resignation, but he would prove prescient; his 1924 inspection tour of Hawaii and Asia culminated in a report (published in 1925 as the book Winged Defense) that predicted future war with Japan, including the attack on Pearl Harbor. He would also go on to influence air power advocates such as Russian-American Alexander P. de Seversky, whose 1942 New York Times bestselling book, Victory Through Air Power, was made into a 1943 Walt Disney animated film that opened with a quote from Mitchell; the film is reported to have been influentially shown by Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt in support of long-range bombing. Seeking to influence the outcome of the Spanish Civil War, various international powers tried to influence the conflict via a heavy reliance on air power. The French government provided aircraft to the Republicans covertly, such as the Potez 540 bomber aircraft (nicknamed the "Flying Coffin" by Spanish Republican pilots), Dewoitine aircraft, and Loire 46 fighter aircraft being sent to the Republican forces, along with a group of trained fighter pilots and engineers to aid the Republicans. Also, until 8 September 1936, aircraft could freely pass from France into Spain if they were bought in other countries. The Soviet Union also covertly aided Republicans, between 634 and 806 aircraft were supplied alongside various other armaments. Both Italy and Nazi Germany supplied large numbers of aircraft to the Nationalists while also deploying their own units, such as the Condor Legion and the Aviazione Legionaria, to bolster the Nationalist's forces with their own. While the Soviet aircraft were in current service with their own forces, they proved inferior to those supplied by Germany by the end of the conflict. The use of aircraft, particularly by the Nationalists to continually pressure Republican forces and compel multiple withdrawals during the Aragon Offensive, allegedly informed both the Germans and Soviets of the value of using aircraft to support infantry. Second World War: At the beginning of the Second World War, the opposing sides developed different views on the importance of air power. Nazi Germany viewed it as a helpful tool to support the German Army, the approach being dubbed "flying artillery". The Allies saw it, specifically long-range strategic bombing, as being a more important part of warfare which they believed capable of crippling Germany's industrial centers. After the Battle of France, the Luftwaffe (Germany's air force) achieved air supremacy over Western Europe. The Battle of Britain represented a concerted attempt by Germany to establish air superiority over Great Britain, which it never achieved. Through home-territory advantage and Germany's failure to push home its strategy of targeting Britain's air defenses, Britain was able to establish air superiority over the territory – a superiority that it never lost. It denied the German military air superiority over the English Channel, making a seaborne invasion (planned as Operation Sea Lion) impossible in the face of Britain's naval power. Strategically, the overall situation at home and abroad at the end of the battle might be considered air parity between Britain and Germany. After the air battle, known as the Battle of Britain, the Germans switched to a strategy of night bombing raids, which Britain echoed with raids over Germany. During Operation Barbarossa, the Luftwaffe initially achieved air supremacy over the Soviet Union. As the war dragged on, the United States joined the fight and the combined Allied air forces gained air superiority and eventually supremacy in the West. (For example, the Luftwaffe mustered 391 aircraft to oppose over 9,000 allied aircraft on D-day.) Russia did the same on the Eastern Front, meaning the Luftwaffe could not effectively interfere with Allied land operations. Achieving total air superiority allowed the Allies to carry out ever-greater strategic bombing raids on Germany's industrial and civilian centers (including the Ruhr and Dresden), and to prosecute the land war successfully on both the Eastern and Western fronts. Following the Big Week attacks in late February 1944, the new 8th Air Force commander Jimmy Doolittle permitted P-51 Mustangs to fly far ahead of the bomber formations instead of closely escorting them starting in March 1944. This commenced in March 1944 and was part of a massive "fighter sweep" tactic to clear German skies of Luftwaffe fighters. Allied planes went after the German fighters wherever they could be found and substantially lowered bomber losses for their side for the rest of the war over Western Europe. The element of air superiority has been the driving force behind the development of aircraft carriers, which allow aircraft to operate in the absence of designated air bases. For example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out by aircraft operating from carriers thousands of miles away from the nearest Japanese air base. Some fighter aircraft specialized in combating other fighters, while interceptors were originally designed to counter bombers. Germany's most important air superiority fighters were the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190, while the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane were the primary ones on the British side. Performance and range made the P-51 Mustang the outstanding escort fighter which permitted American bombers to operate over Germany during daylight hours. They shot down 5,954 aircraft, more than any other American fighter in Europe. In the Pacific Theater, the A6M Zero gave Japan air superiority for much of the early part of the war, but suffered against newer naval fighters such as the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair which exceeded the Zero in performance and durability. The Hellcat shot down 5,168 enemy aircraft (the second highest number), while the land-based Lockheed P-38 was third, shooting down 3,785 in all theaters. Cold War: Superpower rivalry: During the Cold War, between 1946 and 1991, the US, UK, and NATO allies faced the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, and its allies. Both sides engaged in an arms race of improving radar and fighter intercept capability versus the threat of intercontinental strategic bombers carrying nuclear weapons. Initially, high altitude, later combined with high supersonic speeds, was hoped to keep nuclear bombers out of range of fighters and later surface to air missiles, both of which were sometimes equipped with nuclear warheads. In the 1960 U-2 incident an American very high altitude spy plane was shot down over the USSR with a S-75 Dvina(SA-2) long range high altitude surface to air missile largely refuting the concept of high altitude as a refuge for high-performance bomber aircraft. US training changed to low altitude flight of bombers and unpiloted cruise missiles in the hopes of avoiding ground-based air defense radar networks by hiding in with ground clutter and terrain, thwarting attempts at air supremacy over the enemy landmass. Ballistic missiles were also introduced and were very difficult and expensive to intercept even with nuclear-armed defensive missiles. Airborne early warning and control flying radar aircraft as well as look down shoot down radar in fighter and interceptor aircraft allowed engaging low flying invaders again tipping the balance though this was partly ameliorated by succeeding generations of electronic countermeasures. Ultimately the US led the way in first applying stealth technology to small strike aircraft like the F-117 and stealthy nuclear cruise missiles carried in conventional bombers for standoff release before the air defenses got too thick. The Soviet Union invested heavily in expensive to defeat intermediate and intercontinental range nuclear missiles and less on expensive to maintain patrol bombers, though they had to spend heavily on interceptors and surface to air missiles as well as radar sites to cover the huge landmass of the Soviet Union. The US joined with Canada to organize defense of the area of Alaska, Canada, and the continental United States with North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD using both interceptors, some armed with the nuclear AIR-2 Genie, and a surface to air missile component, which was at one point partly nuclearized. Development for the B-2 stealth bomber was intended for, and in anticipation of, a nuclear war and it was the first fully mature stealth aircraft to enter service. The F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter was a stealth fighter and interceptor aircraft designed during the Cold War as a medium altitude air superiority fighter which was intended to destroy Warsaw Pact aircraft without ever being detected or engaged; both were introduced after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Air superiority in the feared Cold War era WW-III European theater would include fighters intercepting or diverting nuclear and conventionally armed strike aircraft and ground-based air defences, some of which were developed into mobile systems which could accompany and protect armored and mechanized formations. While the Cold War never went hot directly between NATO and Warsaw Pact alliances, the US was engaged in two major limited air wars aiding allies who faced Soviet-supported enemies, with both sides using weaponry designed to fight such a conflict; the Korean and Vietnam wars. Korean War: The Korean War represented a major turning point for aerial warfare, being the first conflict in which jet aircraft played the central role in combat. Once-formidable fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, and Hawker Sea Fury—all piston-engined, propeller-driven, and designed during the Second World War—relinquished their air superiority roles to a new generation of faster, jet-powered fighters arriving in the theater. In the initial months of fighting, the P-80 Shooting Star, F9F Panther, Gloster Meteor and other jets under the UN flag dominated the Korean People's Air Force (KPAF) propeller-driven Soviet Yakovlev Yak-9 and Lavochkin La-9s.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air supremacy

Korean War: The Korean War represented a major turning point for aerial warfare, being the first conflict in which jet aircraft played the central role in combat. Once-formidable fighters such as the P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair, and Hawker Sea Fury—all piston-engined, propeller-driven, and designed during the Second World War—relinquished their air superiority roles to a new generation of faster, jet-powered fighters arriving in the theater. In the initial months of fighting, the P-80 Shooting Star, F9F Panther, Gloster Meteor and other jets under the UN flag dominated the Korean People's Air Force (KPAF) propeller-driven Soviet Yakovlev Yak-9 and Lavochkin La-9s. By early August 1950, the KPAF was reduced to only about 20 planes. However, with the Chinese intervention in late October 1950, the KPAF begun receiving the MiG-15, which was one of the world's most advanced jet fighters at that time. Equipped with not only jet propulsion but also a swept wing, the MiG-15 quickly outclassed the straight-wing United Nations fighters. In response, the United States dispatched three squadrons of its own swept-wing fighter, the F-86 Sabre, which arrived in the theatre in December 1950. The Sabre reportedly claimed kill ratios as high as 10 to 1 against the MiGs, allegedly shooting down 792 MiG-15s and 108 other aircraft in exchange for 78 Sabres that were lost to enemy fire. Meanwhile, the Grumman F9F Panther, a straight-wing carrier-based jet, became the mainstay of the USN during the period and had a relatively good showing, possessing a 7:2 kill ratio against the more powerful MiG-15. Vietnam War: During the Vietnam war the US side, especially over the north, had restrictive rules of engagement often requiring visual identification nullifying the advantage they would have had using beyond visual range missiles though possibly avoiding friendly fire due to IFF systems not being ubiquitous on US strike aircraft. In the 1950s, the United States Navy tasked the F-8 Crusader, known affectionately as the "Last Gun Fighter" as their close-in air superiority fighter. This role would be taken over by the F-4 Phantom, which was designed as a missile armed interceptor. The USAF had developed the F-100 and F-104 as air superiority fighters, though by the Vietnam war had already phased out the F-100 from all but air support missions and the fast but slow turning F-104 allegedly deterred attacks and despite losses scored no victories in air combat but in the USAF was also replaced by the F-4 by 1967. Especially under the rules of engagement imposed on them the 'Century Series" aircraft initially specifically designed for intercepting heavy nuclear bombers or delivering tactical nuclear weapons were found to be wanting when they were engaged by the very agile fighters Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 and Shenyang J-6 provided to the VPAF by the USSR and PRC; the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 while less agile was formidable against the F-4 and traded range for very high performance. This imbalance lead to the USAF ordering variants of the F-4 with an internal 20mm gun, and both the USAF and USN sometimes flying with centerline gun pods on aircraft not equipped with an internal gun. In the 1960s, the limited agility of American fighters in dogfights over Vietnam led to a revival of dedicated air superiority fighters, which led the development of the "Teen Series" F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. All of them made close-combat manoeuvrability a top priority, and were equipped with guns absent from early Phantoms. The heavy F-14 and F-15 were assigned the primary air superiority mission, because of their longer range radars and capability to carry more missiles of longer range than lightweight fighters. Arab–Israeli wars: From 1948, when Israel reestablished independence from a protective League of Nations mandatory regime managed by the UK, the neighbouring countries have, to varying degrees, disputed the legitimacy of a Jewish state in a majority Arab region. Some neighbouring states have in the last few decades recognized and signed peace treaties; all have ceased large scale conventional warfare to overrun Israel in large part due to an increasing ability to impose Israeli air supremacy over the region's airspace when required. 1948 war: The Israeli Air Force formed in 1948 with the formation of the modern State of Israel. Israel was involved in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War immediately after the end of the British mandate in Palestine. The air force initially consisted of mainly donated civil aircraft, a variety of obsolete and surplus ex-World War II combat-aircraft were quickly sourced by various means to supplement this fleet. Creativity and resourcefulness were the early foundations of Israeli military success in the air, rather than technology which, at the inception of the IAF, was generally inferior to that used by Israel's adversaries. In light of the complete Arab theater air supremacy, and the bombing and shelling of existing airbases, the first Israeli military-grade fighters operated from a hastily constructed makeshift airbase around the current Herzliya Airport, with fighters dispersed between the trees of an orange orchard. As the war progressed, more and more Czechoslovak, American, and British surplus WWII-era aircraft were procured, leading to a shift in the balance of power. 1956 war: In 1956, Israel, France, and the United Kingdom occupied the Sinai Peninsula after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, sparking the Suez Crisis. Israel's new French-made Dassault Mystere IV jet fighters provided air cover for the paratroop transport aircraft. The Egyptian tactic was to use their new Soviet-made MiG-15 jets as fighter escorts, while their older jets conducted strikes against Israeli troops and vehicles. In air combat, Israeli aircraft shot down between seven and nine Egyptian jets with the loss of one plane, but Egyptian strikes against the ground forces continued through to 1 November. After several sorties were launched by French and British aircraft, President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered his pilots to withdraw to bases in Southern Egypt. The Israeli Air Force was then free to strike Egyptian ground forces at will. 1967 war: In 1967, the Straits of Tiran were again closed and international peacekeepers were ejected by Egypt. Israel then initiated Operation Focus. Israel sent nearly every capable combat aircraft out against the vastly larger Egyptian Air Force, holding only four for protection. Egyptian airfields were destroyed with anti-runway penetration bombs and the aircraft were mostly destroyed on the ground; Syria and Jordan also had their air forces destroyed when they entered the conflict. This is one of the preeminent examples of a smaller force seizing air supremacy where Israel had complete control of the skies above the entire conflict area. War of Attrition: Following the Six-Day War, from 1967 to 1970, there were small scale incursions into the Israeli-held Sinai desert as Egypt rearmed. This evolved into large-scale artillery and air incursions in 1969, with Soviet pilots and SAM crews arriving to assist in January 1970. The strategy was to engage Israeli aircraft in surprise fighter encounters near the Suez Canal where Egyptian SAMs could be used to assist fighters. Syrian, North Korean, and Cuban pilots assisting also suffered losses in this period. In August 1970, a cease-fire was agreed on. 1973 war: The first few days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War saw major Arab ground breakthroughs, surprising Israel who, after its lopsided 1967 victory, considered its air supremacy sufficient to blunt or dissuade any conventional attack. Despite Egypt and Syria having rebuilt their air forces since 1967, Israel continued to deny them the airspace over the battle area; however, these Arab forces were able to control losses and shoot down Israeli air support aircraft by employing mobile surface to air weaponry which travelled along with invading units. Most of Israel's air power in the first few days was directed to reinforce the badly mismatched garrison overlooking the besieged Golan Heights which was under attack by Syria. After weakening the Arab SAM cover with airstrikes, commando raids, and armored cavalry, the Arab armored units outran their mobile SAM cover and Israeli aircraft began to take greater control of Egyptian skies, permitting Israeli landings and establishing a beachhead on the west bank of the Suez canal. When Egyptian fighter aircraft were sent into the area of the Israeli bridgehead, SAM sites were offlined which allowed Israeli air power to more safely engage and destroy many Egyptian fighters though taking some losses. 1978 Lebanon conflict: The 1978 South Lebanon conflict was an invasion of Lebanon up to the Litani River, carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in 1978 in response to the Coastal Road massacre. Israel had complete air supremacy. 1982 Lebanon invasion: In the 1982 Lebanon War where Israel invaded up to Beirut, Syria intervened on the side of Lebanon and the PLO forces residing there. Israeli jets shot down between 82 and 86 Syrian aircraft in aerial combat, without losses. A single Israeli A-4 Skyhawk and two helicopters were shot down by anti-aircraft fire and SAM missiles. This was the largest aerial combat battle of the jet age with over 150 fighters from both sides engaged. Syrian claims of aerial victories were met with skepticism even from their Soviet allies.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Air supremacy

1978 Lebanon conflict: The 1978 South Lebanon conflict was an invasion of Lebanon up to the Litani River, carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in 1978 in response to the Coastal Road massacre. Israel had complete air supremacy. 1982 Lebanon invasion: In the 1982 Lebanon War where Israel invaded up to Beirut, Syria intervened on the side of Lebanon and the PLO forces residing there. Israeli jets shot down between 82 and 86 Syrian aircraft in aerial combat, without losses. A single Israeli A-4 Skyhawk and two helicopters were shot down by anti-aircraft fire and SAM missiles. This was the largest aerial combat battle of the jet age with over 150 fighters from both sides engaged. Syrian claims of aerial victories were met with skepticism even from their Soviet allies. The Soviets were so shaken by the staggering losses sustained by their allies that they dispatched the deputy head of their air defense force to Syria to examine how the Israelis had been so dominant. The Israelis have upheld substantial air superiority for most of this time with Israel able to operate almost unopposed; Israel held near air supremacy against targets anywhere within range in the Middle East and North Africa until today. Regarding aircraft procurement, Israel started with British and French designs, then transitioning to indigenous production and then also design before moving again to purchasing to American designs. The Arabs directly participating in these battles against Israel except for Jordan and, to some extent, Iraq have commonly used Soviet designs. Falklands War: In the Falklands War (2 April–20 June 1982), the British deployed Harrier jets as air superiority fighters against Argentina's Mach-capable Dassault Mirage IIIEA fighters and subsonic Douglas A-4 Skyhawk jets. Despite the Sea Harrier's numerical and performance disadvantages, the British Harrier force suffered no air-to-air losses for over twenty Argentine aircraft shot down in aerial combat. Argentine airpower targeted Royal Navy ships during the landings at San Carlos Bay, numerous British vessels were lost or moderately damaged. However, many British ships escaped being sunk due to the Argentine pilots releasing their bombs at very low altitude, and hence those bomb fuzes did not have sufficient time to arm before impact and thus many never exploded. The pilots would have been aware of this—but released at such low altitudes due to the high concentration of British SAMs, Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), and Sea Harriers, many failed to climb to the necessary release point. The Argentine forces solved the problem by fitting improvised retarding devices, allowing the pilots to effectively employ low-level bombing attacks on 8 June. Gulf War: The Iraqi Air Force suffered almost complete obliteration in the opening stages of the Persian Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991). It lost most of its aircraft, as well as command-and-control capability, to precise Coalition strikes or when Iraqi personnel flew their aircraft to Iran. Iraqi Anti-aircraft defenses, including shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, were surprisingly ineffective against coalition aircraft, suffering only 75 aircraft losses in over 100,000 sorties, of which 42 of these were the result of Iraqi action while the other 33 were reportedly lost to accidents. In particular, RAF and US Navy aircraft which flew at low altitudes to avoid radar were particularly vulnerable, though this changed when the aircrews were ordered to fly above the AAA. Post Cold War: During the 1980s, the United States commenced work on a new fighter capable of gaining air superiority without being detected by an opposing force, approving the Advanced Tactical Fighter program to develop a replacement for the United States Air Force's (USAF) aging F-15 fleet. The YF-23 and the YF-22 were chosen as the finalists in the competition. During 2005, the F-22 Raptor, the subsequent result of the program, became operational. USAF officials have promoted the F-22 as being a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and avionics systems is said to enable unprecedented air combat capabilities. Anthony Cordesman wrote of NATO's theater air supremacy during its 1999 intervention in the Kosovo War of 1998–1999. According to several reports, including reports by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that quote Russian sources, the Russian Federation has in recent decades formulated explicit strategies for using tactical nuclear weapons. These new strategies have in part resulted from the assumption of obtaining air supremacy and use by the U.S. Air Force of precision munitions with little collateral damage in the Kosovo conflict in what amounted to quick mass destruction of military assets once only possible with nuclear weapons or massive bombing against fellow Slavic Serbians; it also assumed that Russia and its allies do not have the strategic economic capacity of current NATO and allied nations to meet this threat with conventional weapons. In response Vladimir Putin, then secretary of the Security Council of Russia, developed a concept of using both tactical and strategic nuclear threats and strikes to de-escalate or cause an enemy to disengage from a conventional conflict threatening what Russia considered a strategic interest. This concept was formalized when Putin took power in Russia in the following year. Throughout the Syrian Civil War of the 2010s, Israel was reportedly able to hold a general stance of air superiority over the Syrian forces, enabling offensive operations with relative impunity. However, this was challenged during 2018 by the deployment of a Russian-supplied S-400 missile battery to the Syrian theatre. During the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident, despite the loss of an aircraft, Israel has demonstrated their capability to operate without effective interference within the Syrian theater. On 22 May 2018, Israeli Air Force chief Amikam Norkin said that the service had employed their F-35Is in two attacks on two battle fronts, marking the first combat operation of an F-35 by any country. See also: Air superiority fighter Battleplan (documentary TV series) Canadian Forces aerospace doctrine Command of the sea Defense Technical Information Center No-fly zone Overmatch Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses Technological supremacy Victory Through Air Power and its film References: Citations: Bibliography: External links: Air Power In Peripheral Conflict: The cases of Korea and Vietnam Defense Technical Information Center Australian Department of Defence Col. John A. Warden III. The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat. June 2000. Encyclopædia Britannica Glossary of Nato Definitions Archived 22 January 2000 at the Wayback Machine The Luftwaffe and the battle for air superiority: Blueprint or warning RAND Study of U.S. Fighter Design

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne early warning and control

General characteristics: Modern AEW&C systems can detect aircraft from up to 400 km (220 nmi) away, well out of range of most surface-to-air missiles. One AEW&C aircraft flying at 9,000 m (30,000 ft) can cover an area of 312,000 km2 (120,000 sq mi). Three such aircraft in overlapping orbits can cover the whole of Central Europe. AEW&C system indicates close and far proximity range on threats and targets, help extend the range of their sensors, and make offensive aircraft harder to track by avoiding the need for them to keep their own radar active, which the enemy can detect. Systems also communicate with friendly aircraft, vectoring fighters towards hostile aircraft or any unidentified flying object. History of development: After having developed Chain Home—the first ground-based early-warning radar detection system—in the 1930s, the British developed a radar set that could be carried on an aircraft for what they termed "Air Controlled Interception". The intention was to cover the North West approaches where German long range Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor aircraft were threatening shipping. A Vickers Wellington bomber (serial R1629) was fitted with a rotating antenna array. It was tested for use against aerial targets and then for possible use against German E boats. Another radar equipped Wellington with a different installation was used to direct Bristol Beaufighters toward Heinkel He 111s, which were air-launching V-1 flying bombs. In February 1944, the US Navy ordered the development of a radar system that could be carried aloft in an aircraft under Project Cadillac. A prototype system was built and flown in August on a modified TBM Avenger torpedo bomber. Tests were successful, with the system being able to detect low flying formations at a range greater than 100 miles (160 km). US Navy then ordered production of the TBM-3W, the first production AEW aircraft to enter service. TBM-3Ws fitted with the AN/APS-20 radar entered service in March 1945, with 27 eventually constructed. It was also recognised that a larger land-based aircraft would be attractive, thus, under the Cadillac II program, multiple Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress bombers were also outfitted with the same radar. The Lockheed WV and EC-121 Warning Star, which first flew in 1949, served widely with US Air Force and US Navy. It provided the main AEW coverage for US forces during the Vietnam war. It remained operational until replaced with the E-3 AWACS. Developed roughly in parallel, N-class blimps were also used as AEW aircraft, filling gaps in radar coverage for the continental US, their tremendous endurance of over 200 hours being a major asset in an AEW aircraft. Following a crash, the US Navy opted to discontinue lighter than air operations in 1962. In 1958, the Soviet Tupolev Design Bureau was ordered to design an AEW aircraft. After determining that the projected radar instrumentation would not fit in a Tupolev Tu-95 or a Tupolev Tu-116, the decision was made to use the more capacious Tupolev Tu-114 instead. This solved the problems with cooling and operator space that existed with the narrower Tu-95 and Tu-116 fuselage. To meet range requirements, production examples were fitted with an air-to-air refueling probe. The resulting system, the Tupolev Tu-126, entered service in 1965 with the Soviet Air Forces and remained in service until replaced by the Beriev A-50 in 1984. During the Cold war, United Kingdom deployed a substantial AEW capability, initially with American Douglas AD-4W Skyraiders, designated Skyraider AEW.1, which in turn were replaced by the Fairey Gannet AEW.3, using the same AN/APS-20 radar. With the retirement of conventional aircraft carriers, the Gannet was withdrawn and the Royal Air Force (RAF) installed the radars from the Gannets on Avro Shackleton MR.2 airframes, redesignated Shackleton AEW.2. To replace the Shackleton AEW.2, an AEW variant of the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, known as the Nimrod AEW3, was ordered in 1974. After a protracted and problematic development, this was cancelled in 1986, and seven E-3Ds, designated Sentry AEW.1 in RAF service, were purchased instead. Current systems: Many countries have developed their own AEW&C systems, although the Boeing E-3 Sentry, E-7A and Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye are the most common systems worldwide. Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS): Boeing produces a specific system with a "rotodome" rotating radome that incorporates Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) radar. It is mounted on either the E-3 Sentry aircraft (Boeing 707) or more recently the Boeing E-767 (Boeing 767), the latter only being used by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. When AWACS first entered service it represented a major advance in capability, being the first AEW to use a pulse-Doppler radar, which allowed it to track targets normally lost in ground clutter. Previously, low-flying aircraft could only be readily tracked over water. The AWACS features a three-dimensional radar that measures azimuth, range, and elevation simultaneously; the unit installed upon the E-767 has superior surveillance capability over water compared to the AN/APY-1 system on the earlier E-3 models. E-2 Hawkeye: The E-2 Hawkeye was a specially designed AEW aircraft. Upon its entry to service in 1965, it was initially plagued by technical issues, causing a (later reversed) cancellation. Procurement resumed after efforts to improve reliability, such as replacement of the original rotary drum computer used for processing radar information by a Litton L-304 digital computer. In addition to purchases by the US Navy, the E-2 Hawkeye has been sold to the armed forces of Egypt, France, Israel, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. The latest E-2 version is the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, which features the new AN/APY-9 radar. The APY-9 radar has been speculated to be capable of detecting fighter-sized stealth aircraft, which are typically optimized against high frequencies like Ka, Ku, X, C and parts of the S-bands. Historically, UHF radars had resolution and detection issues that made them ineffective for accurate targeting and fire control; Northrop Grumman and Lockheed claim that the APY-9 has solved these shortcomings in the APY-9 using advanced electronic scanning and high digital computing power via space/time adaptive processing. Beriev A-50: The Russian Aerospace Forces are currently using approximately 3-5 Beriev A-50 and A-50U "Shmel" in the AEW role. The "Mainstay" is based on the Ilyushin Il-76 airframe, with a large non-rotating disk radome on the rear fuselage. These replaced the 12 Tupolev Tu-126 that filled the role previously. The A-50 and A-50U will eventually be replaced by the Beriev A-100, which features an AESA array in the radome and is based on the updated Il-476. KJ-2000: In May 1997, Russia and Israel agreed to jointly fulfill an order from China to develop and deliver an early warning system. China reportedly ordered one Phalcon for $250 million, which entailed retrofitting a Russian-made Ilyushin-76 cargo plane [also incorrectly reported as a Beriev A-50 Mainstay] with advanced Elta electronic, computer, radar and communications systems. Beijing was expected to acquire several Phalcon AEW systems, and reportedly could buy at least three more [and possibly up to eight] of these systems, the prototype of which was planned for testing beginning in 2000. In July 2000, the US pressured Israel to back out of the $1 billion agreement to sell China four Phalcon phased-array radar systems. Following the cancelled A-50I/Phalcon deal, China turned to indigenous solutions. The Phalcon radar and other electronic systems were taken off from the unfinished Il-76, and the airframe was handed to China via Russia in 2002. The Chinese AWACS has a unique phased array radar (PAR) carried in a round radome. Unlike the US AWACS aircraft, which rotate their rotodomes to give a 360 degree coverage, the radar antenna of the Chinese AWACS does not rotate. Instead, three PAR antenna modules are placed in a triangular configuration inside the round radome to provide a 360 degree coverage. The installation of equipment at the Il-76 began in late 2002 aircraft by Xian aircraft industries (Xian Aircraft Industry Co.). The first flight of an airplane KJ-2000 made in November 2003. All four machines will be equipped with this type. The last to be introduced into service the Chinese Air Force until the end of 2007. China is also developing a carrier-based AEW&C, Xian KJ-600 via Y-7 derived Xian JZY-01 testbed.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne early warning and control

The Chinese AWACS has a unique phased array radar (PAR) carried in a round radome. Unlike the US AWACS aircraft, which rotate their rotodomes to give a 360 degree coverage, the radar antenna of the Chinese AWACS does not rotate. Instead, three PAR antenna modules are placed in a triangular configuration inside the round radome to provide a 360 degree coverage. The installation of equipment at the Il-76 began in late 2002 aircraft by Xian aircraft industries (Xian Aircraft Industry Co.). The first flight of an airplane KJ-2000 made in November 2003. All four machines will be equipped with this type. The last to be introduced into service the Chinese Air Force until the end of 2007. China is also developing a carrier-based AEW&C, Xian KJ-600 via Y-7 derived Xian JZY-01 testbed. Netra AEW&CS: In 2003, the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) began a study of requirements for developing an Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWAC) system. In 2015, DRDO delivered 3 AWACs, called Netra, to the IAF with an advanced Indian AESA radar system fitted on the Brazilian Embraer EMB-145 air frame. Netra gives a 240-degree coverage of airspace. The Emb-145 also has air-to-air refuelling capability for longer surveillance time. The IAF also operates three Israeli EL/W-2090 systems, mounted on Ilyushin Il-76 airframes, the first of which first arrived on 25 May 2009. The DRDO proposed a more advanced AWACS with a longer range and with a 360-degree coverage akin to the Phalcon system, based on the Airbus A330 airframe, but given the costs involved there is also the possibility of converting used A320 airliners as well. IAF has plans to develop 6 more Netra AEW&CS based on Embraer EMB-145 platform and another 6 based on Airbus A321 platform. These systems are expected to have an enhanced performance including range and azimuth Boeing 737 AEW&C: The Royal Australian Air Force, Republic of Korea Air Force and the Turkish Air Force are deploying Boeing 737 AEW&C aircraft. The Boeing 737 AEW&C has a fixed, active electronically scanned array radar antenna instead of a mechanically-rotating one, and is capable of simultaneous air and sea search, fighter control and area search, with a maximum range of over 600 km (look-up mode). In addition, the radar antenna array is also doubled as an ELINT array, with a maximum range of over 850 km at 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) altitude. Erieye/GlobalEye: The Swedish Air Force uses the S 100D Argus ASC890 as its AEW platform. The S 100D Argus is based on the Saab 340 with an Ericsson Erieye PS-890 radar. Saab also offers the Bombardier Global 6000-based GlobalEye. In early 2006, the Pakistan Air Force ordered six Erieye AEW equipped Saab 2000s from Sweden. In December 2006, the Pakistan Navy requested three excess P-3 Orion aircraft to be equipped with Hawkeye 2000 AEW systems. China and Pakistan also signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the joint development of AEW&C systems. The Hellenic Air Force, Brazilian Air Force and Mexican Air Force use the Embraer R-99 with an Ericsson Erieye PS-890 radar, as on the S 100D. Others: Israel has developed the IAI/Elta EL/M-2075 Phalcon system, which uses an AESA (active electronically scanned array) in lieu of a rotodome antenna. The system was the first such system to enter service. The original Phalcon was mounted on a Boeing 707 and developed for the Israeli Defense Force and for export. Israel uses IAI EL/W-2085 airborne early warning and control multi-band radar system on Gulfstream G550; this platform is considered to be both more capable and less expensive to operate than the older Boeing 707-based Phalcon fleet. In 2017, India announced plans to purchase six airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) ("AWACS") aircraft that can also perform aerial refuelling, with the first two AEW&C aircraft awaiting approval by Cabinet in 2020. However, in September 2021, it was decided to use six Airbus A321s acquired from Air India instead. Helicopter AEW systems: On 3 June 1957, the first of 2 HR2S-1W, a derivative of the Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave, was delivered to the US Navy, it used the AN/APS-32 but proved unreliable due to vibration. The British Sea King ASaC7 naval helicopter was operated from both the Invincible-class aircraft carriers and later the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean. The creation of Sea King ASaC7, and earlier AEW.2 and AEW.5 models, came as the consequence of lessons learnt by the Royal Navy during the 1982 Falklands War when the lack of AEW coverage for the task force was a major tactical handicap, and rendered them vulnerable to low-level attack. The Sea King was determined to be both more practical and responsive than the proposed alternative of relying on the RAF's land-based Shackleton AEW.2 fleet. The first examples were a pair of Sea King HAS2s that had the Thorn-EMI ARI 5980/3 Searchwater LAST radar attached to the fuselage on a swivel arm and protected by an inflatable dome. The improved Sea King ASaC7 featured the Searchwater 2000AEW radar, which was capable of simultaneously tracking up to 400 targets, instead of an earlier limit of 250 targets. The Spanish Navy fields the SH-3 Sea King in the same role, operated from the LPH Juan Carlos I. The AgustaWestland EH-101A AEW of the Italian Navy is operated from the aircraft carriers Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi. During the 2010s, the Royal Navy opted to replace its Sea Kings with a modular "Crowsnest" system that can be fitted to any of their Merlin HM2 fleet. The Crowsnest system was partially based upon the Sea King ASaC7's equipment; an unsuccessful bid by Lockheed Martin had proposed using a new multi-functional sensor for either the AW101 or another aircraft. The Russian-built Kamov Ka-31 is deployed by the Indian Navy on the aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant and also on Talwar-class frigates. The Russian Navy has two Ka-31R variants, at least one of which was deployed on their aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in 2016. It is fitted with E-801M Oko (Eye) airborne electronic warfare radar that can track 20 targets simultaneously, detecting aircraft up to 150 km (90 mi) away, and surface warships up to 200 km (120 mi) distant. See also: List of airborne early warning aircraft List of AEW&C aircraft operators Airborne ground surveillance (e.g. JSTARS) References: Citations: Bibliography: Armistead, Leigh and Edwin Armistead. Awacs and Hawkeyes: The Complete History of Airborne Early Warning Aircraft. St Paul, Minnesota: Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1140-4. Davies, Ed. "AWACS Origins: Brassboard – Quest for the E-3 Radar". Air Enthusiast. No. 119, September/October 2005. Stamford, Lincs, UK: Key Publishing. pp. 2–6. ISSN 0143-5450. Gibson, Chris (2011). The Admiralty and AEW: Royal Navy Airborne Early Warning Projects. Blue Envoy Press. ISBN 978-0956195128. Gordon, Yefim; Komissarov, Dmitriy (2010). Soviet/Russian AWACS Aircraft: Tu-126, A-50, An-71, Ka-31. Red Star Vol. 23. Hinckley, England: Midland Publishing. ISBN 978-1857802153. Gordon, Yefim; Davison, Peter (2006). Tupolev Tu-95 Bear. Warbird Tech. Vol. 43. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-102-4. Hazell, Steve (2000). Fairey Gannet. Warpaint Series No.23. Buckinghamshire, England: Hall Park Books. ISSN 1363-0369. Hirst, Mike (1983). Airborne Early Warning: Design, Development, and Operations. London: Osprey. ISBN 978-0-85045-532-8. Hurturk, Kivanc N. (1998). History of the Boeing 707. New Hills: Buchair. ISBN 0-9666368-0-5.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne early warning and control

ISBN 978-1857802153. Gordon, Yefim; Davison, Peter (2006). Tupolev Tu-95 Bear. Warbird Tech. Vol. 43. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-102-4. Hazell, Steve (2000). Fairey Gannet. Warpaint Series No.23. Buckinghamshire, England: Hall Park Books. ISSN 1363-0369. Hirst, Mike (1983). Airborne Early Warning: Design, Development, and Operations. London: Osprey. ISBN 978-0-85045-532-8. Hurturk, Kivanc N. (1998). History of the Boeing 707. New Hills: Buchair. ISBN 0-9666368-0-5. Lake, Jon (February 2009). "Aircraft of the RAF – Part 10 Sentry AEW.1". Air International. Vol. 76, no. 2. Stamford, UK: Key Publishing. pp. 44–47. Lloyd, Alwyn T. (1987). Boeing 707 & AWACS. in Detail and Scale. Falbrook, CA: Aero Publishers. ISBN 0-8306-8533-2. Neufeld, Jacob; Watson, George M. Jr.; Chenoweth, David (1997). Technology and the Air Force. A Retrospective Assessment. Washington, D.C.: United States Air Force. pp. 267–287. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA440094&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfArchived 7 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine Pither, Tony (1998). The Boeing 707 720 and C-135. Air-Britain (Historians). ISBN 0-85130-236-X. Tyack, Bill "Maritime Patrol in the Piston Engine Era" Royal Air Force Historical Society Journal 33, 2005 ISSN 1361-4231. Wilson, Stewart (1998). Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8, and Vickers VC-10. Fyshwick, Australia: Aerospace Publications. ISBN 1-875671-36-6. External links: AWACS and JSTARS NATO AWACS-Spotter Geilenkirchen website FAS.org E-3 Sentry information Boeing AWACS website Airborne Early Warning Association website TU-126 MOSS AWACS – history of development- in Russian Airborne radar "Gneis-2" – in Russian "Electronic Weapons: AWACS Then And Forever". strategypage.com.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

Early history: Benjamin Franklin envisioned the danger of airborne attack in 1784, only a few months after the first manned flight in a hot air balloon: Five Thousand Balloons capable of raising two Men each, would not cost more than Five Ships of the Line: And where is the Prince who can afford so to cover his Country with Troops for its Defense, as that Ten Thousand Men descending from the Clouds, might not in many Places do an infinite deal of Mischief, before a Force could be brought together to repel them? An early modern operation was first envisioned by Winston Churchill who proposed the creation of an airborne force to assault behind the German lines in 1917 during the First World War. Later in late 1918. Major Lewis H. Brereton and his superior Brigadier General Billy Mitchell suggested dropping elements of the U.S. 1st Division behind German lines near Metz. The operation was planned for February 1919 but the war ended before the attack could be seriously planned. Mitchell conceived that US troops could be rapidly trained to utilize parachutes and drop from converted bombers to land behind Metz in synchronisation with a planned infantry offensive. Following the war, the United States Army Air Service experimented with the concept of carrying troops on the wings of aircraft, with them pulled off by the opening of their parachutes. The first true paratroop drop was by Italy in November 1927. Within a few years, several battalions were raised and eventually formed into two Folgore and Nembo divisions. Although they later fought with distinction in World War II, they were never used in a parachute drop. Men drawn from the Italian parachute forces were dropped in a special-forces operation in North Africa in 1943 in an attempt to destroy parked aircraft of the United States Army Air Forces. At about the same time, the Soviet Union was also experimenting with the idea, planning to drop entire units complete with vehicles and light tanks. To help train enough experienced jumpers, parachute clubs were organized with the aim of transferring into the armed forces if needed. Planning progressed to the point that Corps-size drops were demonstrated to foreign observers, including the British Military Attaché Archibald Wavell, in the Kiev military district maneuvers of 1935. One of the observing parties, Nazi Germany, was particularly interested. In 1936, Major F. W. Immans was ordered to set up a parachute school at Stendal (Borstel), and was allocated a number of Junkers Ju 52 aircraft to train on. The military had already purchased large numbers of Junkers Ju 52s which were slightly modified for use as paratroop transports in addition to their other duties. The first training class was known as Ausbildungskommando Immans. They commenced the first course on May 3, 1936. Other nations, including Argentina, Peru, Japan, France and Poland also organized airborne units around this time. France became the first nation to organize women in an airborne unit, recruiting 200 nurses who during peacetime would parachute into natural disaster zones but also as reservists who would be a uniformed medical unit during wartime. World War II: Axis operations: Several groups within the German armed forces attempted to raise their own paratroop formations, resulting in confusion. As a result, Luftwaffe General Kurt Student was put in overall command of developing a paratrooper force to be known as the Fallschirmjäger. During the invasions of Norway and Denmark in Operation Weserübung, the Luftwaffe dropped paratroopers on several locations. In Denmark, a small unit dropped on the Masnedøfort on the small island of Masnedø to seize the Storstrøm Bridge linking the islands of Falster and Zealand. A paratroop detachment also dropped at the airfield of Aalborg which was crucial for the Luftwaffe for operations over Norway. In Norway, a company of paratroopers dropped at Oslo's undefended airstrip. Over the course of the morning and early afternoon of April 9, 1940, the Germans flew in sufficient reinforcements to move into the capital in the afternoon, but by that time the Norwegian government had fled. In the Battle of France, members of the Brandenburg Regiment landed by Fieseler Fi 156 Storch light reconnaissance planes on the bridges immediately to the south of the 10th Panzer Division's route of march through the southern Ardennes. In Belgium, a small group of German glider-borne troops landed on top of the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael on the morning of May 10, 1940, and disabled the majority of its artillery. The fort held on for another day before surrendering. This opened up Belgium to attack by German Army Group B. The Dutch were exposed to the first large scale airborne attack in history. During the invasion of the Netherlands, the Germans threw into battle almost their entire Luftlandekorps, an airborne assault army corps that consisted of one parachute division and one division of airlanding troops plus the necessary transport capacity. The existence of this formation had been carefully kept secret until then. Two simultaneous airborne operations were launched. German paratroopers landed at three airfields near The Hague, hoping to seize the Dutch government. From one of these airfields, they were driven out after the first wave of reinforcements, brought in by Ju 52s, was annihilated by anti-aircraft fire and fierce resistance by some remaining Dutch defenders. As a result, numerous crashed and burning aircraft blocked the runway, preventing further reinforcements from landing. This was one of the few occasions where an airfield captured by paratroops has been recaptured. The other two airfields were recaptured as well. Simultaneously, the Germans dropped small packets of paratroopers to seize the crucial bridges that led directly across the Netherlands and into the heart of the country. They opened the way for the 9th Panzer Division. Within a day, the Dutch position became hopeless. Nevertheless, Dutch forces inflicted high losses on German transportation aircraft. Moreover, 1200 German elite troops from the Luftlandekorps taken prisoner around The Hague, were shipped to England just before the capitulation of the Dutch armed forces. The Fallschirmjägers' greatest victory and greatest losses occurred during the Battle of Crete. Signals intelligence, in the form of Ultra, enabled the British to wait on each German drop zone, yet despite compromised secrecy, surviving German paratroops and airlanded mountain troops pushed the Commonwealth forces off the island in part by unexpected fire support from their light 75 mm guns, though seaborne reinforcements were destroyed by the Royal Navy. However, the losses were so great that Adolf Hitler forbade their use in such operations in the future. He felt that the main strength of the paratroopers was novelty, and now that the British had clearly figured out how to defend against them, there was no real point to using them any more. One notable exception was the use of airborne forces in special operations. On September 12, 1943, Otto Skorzeny led a daring glider-based assault on the Gran Sasso Hotel, high in the Apennines mountains, and rescued Benito Mussolini from house arrest with very few shots being fired. On May 25, 1944, paratroopers were dropped as part of a failed attempt to capture Josip Broz Tito, the head of the Yugoslav Partisans and later postwar leader of Yugoslavia. Before the Pacific War began, the Imperial Japanese Army formed Teishin Dan ("Raiding Brigades") and the Imperial Japanese Navy trained marine (Rikusentai) paratroopers. They used paratroops in several battles in the Dutch East Indies campaign of 1941–1942. Rikusentai airborne troops were first dropped at the Battle of Manado, Celebes in January 1942, and then near Usua, during the Timor campaign, in February 1942. Teishin made a jump at the Battle of Palembang, on Sumatra in February 1942. Japanese airborne units suffered heavy casualties during the Dutch East Indies campaign, and were rarely used as parachute troops afterward. On 6 December 1944, a 750-strong detachment from Teishin Shudan ("Raiding Division") and the Takachiho special forces unit, attacked U.S. airbases in the Burauen area on Leyte, in the Philippines. The force destroyed some planes and inflicted casualties, but was eventually wiped out. Japan built a combat strike force of 825 gliders but never committed it to battle. Allied operations: Ironically, the battle that ended Germany's paratrooper operations had the opposite effect on the Allies. Convinced of the effectiveness of airborne assaults after Crete, the Allies hurried to train and organize their own airborne units. The British established No.1 Parachute Training School at RAF Ringway near Manchester, which trained all 60,000 European paratroopers recruited by the Allies during World War II. An Airlanding School was also set up in New Delhi, India, in October/November 1941, at the then-Welllingdon Airport (now the defunct Safdarjang Airport) to train paratroopers for the British Indian Army which had been authorised to raise an airborne-capable formation earlier, resulting in the formation of the 50th Indian Parachute Brigade.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

Japan built a combat strike force of 825 gliders but never committed it to battle. Allied operations: Ironically, the battle that ended Germany's paratrooper operations had the opposite effect on the Allies. Convinced of the effectiveness of airborne assaults after Crete, the Allies hurried to train and organize their own airborne units. The British established No.1 Parachute Training School at RAF Ringway near Manchester, which trained all 60,000 European paratroopers recruited by the Allies during World War II. An Airlanding School was also set up in New Delhi, India, in October/November 1941, at the then-Welllingdon Airport (now the defunct Safdarjang Airport) to train paratroopers for the British Indian Army which had been authorised to raise an airborne-capable formation earlier, resulting in the formation of the 50th Indian Parachute Brigade. The Indian airborne forces expanded during the war to the point that an airborne corps was planned bringing together the 2nd Indian Airborne Division and the British 6th Airborne Division, but the war ended before it could materialize. A fundamental decision was whether to create small airborne units to be used in specific coup-de-main type operations, or to organize entire airborne divisions for larger operations. Many of the early successful airborne operations were small, carried out by a few units, such as seizing a bridge. After seeing success of other units and observing smokejumper training methods on how training can be done in June 1940, General William C. Lee of the U.S. Army established the Army's first airborne division. The 101st would be reorganized into the 101st Airborne Division. The Allies eventually formed two British and five American divisions: the British 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions, and the U.S. 11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne Divisions. By 1944, the British divisions were grouped into the 1st Airborne Corps under Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Browning, while the American divisions in the European Theatre (the 17th, 82nd, and 101st) were organized into the XVIII Airborne Corps under Major General Matthew Ridgway. Both corps fell under the First Allied Airborne Army under U.S. Lieutenant General Lewis H. Brereton. The first U.S. airborne operation was by the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion in November 1942, as part of Operation Torch in North Africa. The U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions saw the most action in the European Theater, with the former in Sicily and Italy in 1943, and both in Normandy and the Netherlands in 1944. The 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team was the principal force in Operation Dragoon in Southern France. The 17th Airborne Division deployed to England in 1944 but did not see combat until the Battle of the Bulge in January 1945 where they, along with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were deployed as ground troops. The U.S. 11th and 13th Airborne Divisions were held in reserve in the United States until 1944 when the 11th Airborne Division was deployed to the Pacific, but mostly used as ground troops or for smaller airborne operations. The 13th Airborne Division was deployed to France in January 1945 but never saw combat as a unit. Soviet operations: The Soviets mounted only one large-scale airborne operation in World War II, despite their early leadership in the field in the 1930s. Russia also pioneered the development of combat gliders, but used them only for cargo during the war. Axis air superiority early in the conflict limited the ability of the Soviets to mount such operations, whilst later in the conflict ongoing shortages of materiel, including silk for parachutes, was also a problem. Nonetheless, the Soviets maintained their doctrinal belief in the effectiveness of airborne forces, as part of their concept of "deep battle", throughout the war. The largest drop during the war was corp-sized (the Vyazma airborne Operation, the 4th Airborne Corps). It was unsuccessful. Airborne formations were used as elite infantry units however, and played a critical role in several battles. For example, at the Battle of Kursk, the Guards Airborne defended the eastern shoulder of the southern penetration and was critical to holding back the German penetration. The Soviets sent at least one team of observers to the British and American airborne planning for D-Day, but did not reciprocate the liaison. Early commando raids: Operation Colossus: Raid on the Tragino Aqueduct: Britain's first airborne assault took place on February 10, 1941, when 'X' Troop, No 11 Special Air Service Battalion (which was formed from No 2 Commando and subsequently became 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment) dropped into southern Italy from converted Whitley bombers flying from Malta and demolished a span of the aqueduct near Tragino in a daring night raid named Operation Colossus. Operation Squatter: Raid on Axis airfields in Libya: 54 effectives of 'L' Detachment, Special Air Service Brigade (largely drawn from the disbanded Layforce) mounted a night parachute insertion onto two drop zones in Bir Temrad, North Africa on the night of November 16/17 1941 in preparation for a stealthy attack on the forward airfields of Gambut and Tmimi in order to destroy the Axis fighter force on the ground before the start of Operation Crusader, a major offensive by the British Eighth Army. Operation Biting: The Bruneval raid: A Würzburg radar site on the coast of France was attacked by a company of 120 British paratroopers from 2 Battalion, Parachute Regiment, commanded by Major John Frost, in Operation Biting on February 27, 1942. The key electronic components of the system were dismantled by an English radar mechanic and brought back to Britain for examination so that countermeasures could be devised. The result was a British victory. Of the 120 paratroopers who dropped in the dead of night, there were two killed, six wounded, and six captured. Mediterranean: Operation Mercury: Crete: This was the last large-scale airborne assault by Hitler and the Germans. The German paratroopers had such a high casualty rate that Hitler forbade any further large-scale airborne attacks. The Allies, on the other hand, were very impressed by the potential of paratroopers, and started to build their own airborne divisions. Operation Torch: North Africa: The first United States airborne combat mission occurred during Operation Torch in North Africa on 8 November 1942. 531 men of the 2nd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment flew over 1,600 miles (2,600 km) at night from Britain, over Spain, intending to drop near Oran and capture two airfields. Navigation errors, communications problems, and bad weather scattered the forces. Seven of the 39 C-47s landed far from Oran from Gibraltar to Tunisia, and only ten actually delivered their troops by parachute drop. The remainder off-loaded after 28 C-47 troop carriers, short on fuel, landed on the Sebkra d'Oran dry lake, and marched overland to their objectives. One week later, after repacking their own chutes, 304 men of the battalion conducted a second combat jump on 15 November 1942 to secure the airfield at Youk-les-Bains near the Tunisian border. From this base, the battalion conducted combined operations with various French forces against the German Afrika Korps in Tunisia. A unit of French Algerian infantry, the 3rd Regiment of Zouaves, was present at Youk-les-Bains and awarded the American paratroopers their own regimental crest as a gesture of respect. This badge was awarded to the battalion commander on 15 November 1942 by the 3rd Zouaves' regimental commander, and is worn today by all members of the 509th Infantry. Operation Husky: Sicily: As part of Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of the island of Sicily, four airborne operations (two British and two American) were carried out, landing during the nights of July 9 and 10 1943. The American paratroopers were from the 82nd Airborne Division, mainly Colonel James Gavin's 505th Parachute Regimental Combat Team (consisting of the 3rd Battalion of the 504th PIR, Company 'B' of the 307th Airborne Engineer Battalion and the 456th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion, with other supporting units), making their first combat jump. Strong winds encountered en route blew the dropping aircraft off course and scattered them widely. The result was that around half the paratroopers failed to make it to their rallying points. The British airborne troops from the 1st Airborne Division were glider infantry of the 1st Airlanding Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Philip Hicks, and they fared little better. Only 12 out of 137 gliders in Operation Ladbroke landed on target, with more than half landing in the sea. Nevertheless, the scattered airborne troops maximised their opportunities, attacking patrols and creating confusion wherever possible.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

Strong winds encountered en route blew the dropping aircraft off course and scattered them widely. The result was that around half the paratroopers failed to make it to their rallying points. The British airborne troops from the 1st Airborne Division were glider infantry of the 1st Airlanding Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Philip Hicks, and they fared little better. Only 12 out of 137 gliders in Operation Ladbroke landed on target, with more than half landing in the sea. Nevertheless, the scattered airborne troops maximised their opportunities, attacking patrols and creating confusion wherever possible. On the night of 11 July, a reinforcement drop of the 82nd, consisting of the 504th Parachute Regimental Combat Team (composed of the 1st and 2nd Battalions, the 376th Parachute Field Artillery and Company 'A' of the 307th Airborne Engineer Battalion), under Colonel Reuben Tucker, behind American lines at Farello airfield resulted in heavy friendly fire casualties when, despite forewarnings, Allied anti-aircraft fire both ashore and aboard U.S Navy ships shot down 23 of the transports as they flew over the beachhead. Despite a catastrophic loss of gliders and troops loads at sea, the British 1st Airlanding Brigade captured the Ponte Grande bridge south of Syracuse. Before the German counterattack, the beach landings took place unopposed and the 1st Airlanding Brigade was relieved by the British 5th Infantry Division as it swept inland towards Catania and Messina. On the evening of July 13, 1943, more than 112 aircraft carrying 1,856 men and 16 gliders with 77 artillerymen and ten 6 pounder guns, took off from North Africa in Operation Fustian. The initial target of the British 1st Parachute Brigade, under Brigadier Gerald Lathbury, was to capture the Primosole bridge and the high ground around it, providing a pathway for the Eighth Army, but heavy anti-aircraft fire shot down many of the Dakotas before they reached their target. Only 295 officers and men were dropped close enough to carry out the assault. They captured the bridge, but the German 4th Parachute Regiment recaptured it. They held the high ground until relieved by the 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division of the Eighth Army, which re-took the bridge at dawn on 16 July. The Allied commanders were forced to reassess the use of airborne forces after the many misdrops and the deadly friendly fire incident. Swing Board and the Knollwood Maneuver: General Dwight D. Eisenhower reviewed the airborne role in Operation Husky and concluded that large-scale formations were too difficult to control in combat to be practical. Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair, the overall commander of Army Ground Forces, had similar misgivings: once an airborne supporter, he had been greatly disappointed by the performance of airborne units in North Africa and more recently Sicily. However, other high-ranking officers, including the Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, believed otherwise. Marshall persuaded Eisenhower to set up a review board and to withhold judgement until the outcome of a large-scale maneuver, planned for December 1943, could be assessed. McNair ordered 11th Airborne Division commander Major general Joseph May Swing to form a committee—the Swing Board—composed of air force, parachute, glider infantry and artillery officers, whose arrangements for the maneuver would effectively decide the fate of divisional-sized airborne forces. As the 11th Airborne Division was in reserve in the United States and had not yet been earmarked for combat, the Swing Board selected it as the test formation. The maneuver would additionally provide the 11th Airborne and its individual units with further training, as had occurred several months previously in an earlier large-scale exercise conducted by the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. The 11th Airborne, as the attacking force, was assigned the objective of capturing Knollwood Army Auxiliary Airfield near Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The force defending the airfield and its environs was a combat team composed of elements of the 17th Airborne Division and a battalion from the 541st Parachute Infantry Regiment. The entire operation was observed by McNair, who would ultimately have a significant say in deciding the fate of the parachute infantry divisions. The Knollwood Maneuver took place on the night of 7 December 1943, with the 11th Airborne Division being airlifted to thirteen separate objectives by 200 C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft and 234 Waco CG-4A gliders. The transport aircraft were divided into four groups, two of which carried paratroopers while the other two towed gliders. Each group took off from a different airfield in the Carolinas. The four groups deployed a total of 4,800 troops in the first wave. Eighty-five percent were delivered to their targets without navigational error, and the airborne troops seized the Knollwood Army Auxiliary Airfield and secured the landing area for the rest of the division before daylight. With its initial objectives taken, the 11th Airborne Division then launched a coordinated ground attack against a reinforced infantry regiment and conducted several aerial resupply and casualty evacuation missions in coordination with United States Army Air Forces transport aircraft. The exercise was judged by observers to be a great success. McNair, pleased by its results, attributed this success to the great improvements in airborne training that had been implemented in the months following Operation Husky. As a result of the Knollwood Maneuver, division-sized airborne forces were deemed to be feasible and Eisenhower permitted their retention. Italy: Italy agreed to an armistice with the Allies on September 3, 1943, with the stipulation that the Allies would provide military support to Italy in defending Rome from German occupation. Operation Giant II was a planned drop of one regiment of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division northwest of Rome, to assist four Italian divisions in seizing the Italian capital. An airborne assault plan to seize crossings of the Volturno river during the Allied invasion of Italy, called Operation Giant, was abandoned in favor of the Rome mission. However, doubts about the willingness and capability of Italian forces to cooperate, and the distance of the mission far beyond support by the Allied military, resulted in the 82nd Airborne artillery commander, Brigadier General Maxwell Taylor (future commander of the 101st Airborne Division), being sent on a personal reconnaissance mission to Rome to assess the prospects of success. His report via radio on September 8 caused the operation to be postponed (and canceled the next day) as troop carriers loaded with two battalions of the 504th PIR were warming up for takeoff. With Giant II cancelled, Operation Giant I was reactivated to drop two battalions of the 504th PIR at Capua on September 13. However, significant German counterattacks, beginning on September 12, resulted in a shrinking of the American perimeter and threatened destruction of the Salerno beachhead. As a result, Giant I was cancelled and the 504th PIR instead dropped into the beachhead on the night of September 13 using transponding radar beacons as a guide. The next night the 505th PIR was also dropped into the beachhead as reinforcement. In all, 3,500 paratroopers made the most concentrated mass night drop in history, providing the model for the American airborne landings in Normandy in June 1944. An additional drop on the night of September 14–15 of the 509th PIB to destroy a key bridge at Avellino, to disrupt German motorized movements, was badly dispersed and failed to destroy the bridge before the Germans withdrew to the north. In April 1945, Operation Herring, an Italian commando-style airborne drop aimed at disrupting German rear area communications and movement over key areas in Northern Italy, took place. However the Italian troops were not dropped as a unit, but as a series of small (8–10 man) groups. Another operation, Operation Potato, was mounted by men drawn from the Folgore and Nembo divisions, operating with British equipment and under British command as No. 1 Italian Special Air Service Regiment. The men dropped in small groups from American C-47s and carried out a successful railway sabotage operation in northern Italy. Western Europe: The Allies had learned better tactics and logistics from their earlier airborne drops, and these lessons were applied for the assaults along the Western Front. Operation Neptune: One of the most famous of airborne operations was Operation Neptune, the assault of Normandy, part of Operation Overlord of the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944. The task of the airborne forces was to secure the flanks and approaches of the landing beaches in Normandy. The British glider transported troops and paratroopers of the 6th Airborne Division, which secured the eastern flank during Operation Tonga. This operation included the capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges, and the attack on the Merville gun battery. The American glider and parachute infantry of the 82nd (Operation Detroit) and 101st Airborne Divisions (Operation Chicago), though widely scattered by poor weather and poorly marked landing zones in the American airborne landings in Normandy, secured the western flank of U.S. VII Corps with heavy casualties. All together, airborne casualties in Normandy on D-Day totaled around 2,300.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

The task of the airborne forces was to secure the flanks and approaches of the landing beaches in Normandy. The British glider transported troops and paratroopers of the 6th Airborne Division, which secured the eastern flank during Operation Tonga. This operation included the capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges, and the attack on the Merville gun battery. The American glider and parachute infantry of the 82nd (Operation Detroit) and 101st Airborne Divisions (Operation Chicago), though widely scattered by poor weather and poorly marked landing zones in the American airborne landings in Normandy, secured the western flank of U.S. VII Corps with heavy casualties. All together, airborne casualties in Normandy on D-Day totaled around 2,300. Operation Dingson (5–18 June 1944) was conducted by about 178 Free French paratroops of the 4th Special Air Service (SAS), commanded by Colonel Pierre-Louis Bourgoin, who jumped into German-occupied France near Vannes, Morbihan, southern Brittany, in Plumelec, at 1130 on the night of 5 June and Saint-Marcel (8–18 June). At this time, there was approximately 100,000 German troops and artillery preparing to move to the Normandy landing areas. Immediately upon landing, 18 Free French went into action near Plumelec against German troops (Vlassov's army). The Free French established a base at Saint-Marcel and began to arm and equip local resistance fighters, operating with up to 3,000 Maquis. However, their base was heavily attacked by a German paratroop division on 18 June, and the men were forced to disperse. Captain Pierre Marienne with 17 of his companions (six paratroopers, eight resistance fighters and three farmers) died a few weeks later in Kerihuel, Plumelec, at dawn of 12 July. The Dingson team was joined by the men who had just completed Operation Cooney. Dingson was conducted alongside Operation Samwest and Operation Lost as part of Overlord. In Operation Dingson 35A, on 5 August 1944, 10 Waco CG-4A gliders towed by aircraft of 298 Squadron and 644 Squadron transported Free French SAS men and armed jeeps to Brittany near Vannes (Locoal-Mendon), each glider carrying three Free French troopers and a jeep. One glider was lost with the death of the British pilot. The SAS teams remained behind enemy lines until the Allies arrived. Operation Dragoon: Southern France: On August 15, 1944, airborne units of the 6th Army Group provisional airborne division, commanded by U.S. Major General Robert T. Frederick, opened Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France, with a dawn assault. Called the "1st Airborne Task Force", the force was composed of the 1st Special Services Forces, British 2nd Independent Parachute Brigade, the 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team, the 509th and 551st Parachute Infantry Battalions, the glider-borne 550th Airborne Infantry Battalion, and supporting units. Nearly 400 aircraft delivered 5,600 paratroopers and 150 guns to three drops zones surrounding Le Muy, between Fréjus and Cannes, in phase 1, Operation Albatross. Once they had captured their initial targets, they were reinforced by 2,600 soldiers and critical equipment carried in 408 gliders daylight missions code-named Operation Bluebird, phase 2, simultaneous with the beach landings, and Operation Dove, phase 3. A second daylight parachute drop, Operation Canary, dropped 736 men of the 551st PIB with nearly 100% effectiveness late on the afternoon of August 15. The airborne objective was to capture the area, destroy all enemy positions and hold the ground until the U.S. Seventh Army came ashore. Operation Market Garden: "A Bridge Too Far": Operation Market Garden of September 1944, involved 35,000 airborne troops dropped up to 100 miles (160 km) behind German lines in an attempt to capture a series of bridges over the Maas, Waal and Rhine Rivers, in an attempt to outflank German fortifications and penetrate into Germany. The operation was hastily planned and many key planning tasks were inadequately completed. Three complete airborne divisions executed Operation Market, the airborne phase. These were the British 1st Airborne Division, the U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, as well as the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade. All units were landed or dropped at various points along Highway 69 ("Hell's Highway") in order to create a "carpet" over which the British XXX Corps could rapidly advance in Operation Garden, the land phase. It was a daylight assault, with little initial opposition, and most units achieved high accuracy on drop and landing zones. In the end, after strong German counterattacks, the overall plan failed: the British 1st Airborne Division was all but destroyed at Arnhem, and the final Rhine bridge remained in German hands. Operation Repulse: re-supply of Bastogne: Operation Repulse, which took place in Bastogne on December 23, 24, 26, and 27, 1944, as part of the Battle of the Bulge, glider pilots, although flying directly through enemy fire, were able to land, delivering the badly needed ammunition, gasoline and medical supplies that enabled defenders against the German offensive to persevere and secure the ultimate victory. Operation Varsity: The Rhine Crossing: Operation Varsity was a daylight assault conducted by two airborne divisions, the British 6th Airborne Division and the U.S. 17th Airborne Division, both of which were part of the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps. Conducted as a part of Operation Plunder, the operation took place on 24 March 1945 in aid of an attempt by the Anglo-Canadian 21st Army Group to cross the Rhine River. Having learnt from the heavy casualties inflicted upon the airborne formations in Operation Market Garden, the two airborne divisions were dropped several thousand yards forward of friendly positions, and only some thirteen hours after Operation Plunder had begun and Allied ground forces had already crossed the Rhine. There was heavy resistance in some of the areas that the airborne troops landed in, with casualties actually statistically heavier than those incurred during Operation Market Garden. The British military historian Max Hastings has labelled the operation both costly and unnecessary, writing that "Operation Varsity was a folly for which more than a thousand men paid for with their lives ..." Pacific Theater: The following airborne operations against the Japanese are famous. New Guinea: In September 1943, in New Guinea, the U.S. Army's 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment and elements of the Australian Army's 2/4th Field Regiment made a highly successful, unopposed landing at Nadzab, during the Salamaua-Lae campaign. This was the first Allied airborne assault in the Pacific Theater. In July 1944, the 503rd jumped again, onto Noemfoor Island, off Dutch New Guinea, in the Battle of Noemfoor. Philippines: The honors for recapturing the Rock went to the 503rd Parachute Regimental Combat Team of Lieutenant Colonel George M. Jones and elements of Major General Roscoe B. Woodruff's 24th Infantry Division, the same units which undertook the capture of Mindoro island. The U.S. 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment's most famous operation was a landing on Corregidor ("The Rock") in February 1945, during the Philippines campaign of 1944–45. The U.S. Army's 11th Airborne Division saw a great deal of action in the Philippines as a ground unit. The 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment made the division's first jump near Tagaytay Ridge on 3 February 1945, meeting no resistance at the drop zone. Elements of the division also jumped to liberate 2,000 Allied civilians interned at Los Baños, 23 February 1945. The final operation of the division was conducted on 23 June 1945, in conjunction with an advance by U.S. ground forces in northern Luzon. A task force from the 11th was formed and jumped on Camalaniugan Airfield, south of Aparri. Burma: A large British force, known as the Chindits, operated behind Japanese lines during 1944. In Operation Thursday, most of the units were flown into landing grounds which had been seized by glider infantry transported by the American First Air Commando Group, commencing on March 5. Aircraft continued to land reinforcements at captured or hastily constructed landing strips until monsoon rains made them unusable. Small detachments were subsequently landed by parachute. The operation eventually wound down in July, with the exhausted Chindits making their way overland to link up with advancing American and Chinese forces. For Operation Dracula, an ad hoc parachute battalion group made up of personnel from the 153 and 154 (Gurkha) Parachute Battalions of the Indian Army secured Japanese coastal defences, which enabled the seaborne assault by the 26th Indian Infantry Division to attain its objectives with a minimum of casualties and time.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

Burma: A large British force, known as the Chindits, operated behind Japanese lines during 1944. In Operation Thursday, most of the units were flown into landing grounds which had been seized by glider infantry transported by the American First Air Commando Group, commencing on March 5. Aircraft continued to land reinforcements at captured or hastily constructed landing strips until monsoon rains made them unusable. Small detachments were subsequently landed by parachute. The operation eventually wound down in July, with the exhausted Chindits making their way overland to link up with advancing American and Chinese forces. For Operation Dracula, an ad hoc parachute battalion group made up of personnel from the 153 and 154 (Gurkha) Parachute Battalions of the Indian Army secured Japanese coastal defences, which enabled the seaborne assault by the 26th Indian Infantry Division to attain its objectives with a minimum of casualties and time. Ecuadorian–Peruvian War: During the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War, the Peruvian army established its own paratrooper unit and used it to great effect by seizing the Ecuadorian port city of Puerto Bolívar, on July 27, 1941, marking the first time in the Americas that airborne troops were used in combat. After World War II: Indonesian War of Independence: The Dutch Korps Speciale Troepen made two combat jumps during the Indonesian War of Independence. The first jump was as part of Operation Kraai: the capture of Yogyakarta, and the capture of Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta on 19 and 20 December 1948. The second combat jump happened during Operation Ekster: the capture of Jambi and the oilfields surrounding is, on Sumatra from 29 December 1948 to 23 January 1949. From the Indonesian side, the first airborne operation was an airborne-infiltration operation by 14 paratroopers on 17 October 1947, in Kotawaringin, Kalimantan. Korean War: The 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team ("Rakkasans") made two combat jumps in Korea during the Korean War. The first combat jump was made on October 20, 1950, at Sunchon and Sukchon, North Korea. The missions of the 187th were to cut the road north going to China, preventing North Korean leaders from escaping from Pyongyang; and to rescue American prisoners of war. The second combat jump was made on Wednesday, March 21, 1951, at Munsan-ni, South Korea codenamed Operation Tomahawk. The mission was to get behind Chinese forces and block their movement north. The Indian Army 60th Parachute Field Ambulance provided the medical cover for the operations, dropping an ADS and a surgical team totalling 7 officers and 5 other ranks, treating over 400 battle casualties apart from the civilian casualties that formed the core of their objective as the unit was on a humanitarian mission. The unit was to become the longest-serving military unit in any UN operation till date, serving from October 1950 till May 1953, a total of three and a half years, returning home to a heroes' welcome. The 187th served in six campaigns in Korea. Shortly after the war the 187th ARCT was considered for use in an Airborne drop to relieve the surrounded French garrison at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam but the United States, at that time, decided not to send its troops into the combat zone. The unit was assigned to the reactivated 101st Airborne Division and subsequently inactivated as a combat team in 1956 as part of the division's reorganization into the Pentomic structure, which featured battle groups in place of regiments and battalions. The 1st and 3rd Battalions, 187th Infantry, bearing the lineages of the former Co A and Co C, 187AIR, are now with the 101st Airborne Division as air assault units. First Indochina War: The French used paratroopers extensively during their 1946-54 war against the Viet Minh. Troupes de marine, Foreign Legion and local Vietnamese units took part in numerous operations which were to culminate in the disastrous siege of Dien Bien Phu. Suez crisis: Operations Machbesh & Musketeer: Launching the 1956 Suez War, on October 29, 1956, Israeli paratroopers led by Ariel Sharon dropped onto the important Mitla Pass to cut off and engage Egyptian forces. Operation Machbesh (Press) was the IDF's first and largest combat parachute drop. A few days later, Operation Musketeer needed the element of total surprise to succeed, and all 660 men had to be on the ground at El Gamil airfield and ready for action within four and a half minutes. At 04.15 hours on November 5, 1956, British 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment jumped in and although opposition was heavy, casualties were few. Meanwhile, French paratroopers of the 2nd Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment under the command of Colonel Chateau-Jobert jumped on the water treatment factory South of Port Said. The landings from the sea the next day saw the first large-scale heliborne assault, as 45 Commando, Royal Marines were landed by helicopters in Port Said from ships offshore. Both the British and the French accomplished total military victory against the disorganized Egyptian military and local armed civilians but political events forced total retreat of these forces after 48 hours of fighting. Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: Paratroopers were used in combat in South Asia after the Second World War during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1947, Indian Annexation of Goa in 1961 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The war in 1965 had the largest use of paratrooper forces, and unlike in previous conflicts, they were used in their intended capacity fully (They were not used in the airborne capacity in 1961, and it is unconfirmed in 1947). A covert operation was launched by the Pakistani Army with the intention of infiltrating Indian airbases and sabotaging them. The SSG (Special Service Group) commandos, were parachuted into Indian territory. Of the 180 para-commandos dropped, 138, including all officers but one, were captured and safely taken to prisoner of war (POW) camps. Twenty-two were killed, or rather lynched by joint combing teams of villagers armed with sticks, police and even bands of muleteers released by the Army, from the animal transport battalion of the nearby Corps headquarters. Only 20 para-commandos were unaccounted for and most escaped back to Pakistan under the fog. Most of these were from the Pathankot group, dropped less than 10 km from the border in an area that had plenty of ravines, riverine tracks to navigate back along. The War also saw the establishment of the first Indian Airborne Special Forces Unit - The Meghdoot Force - which was tasked with operations behind Pakistani Lines. This force is the predecessor to the modern India Para commando (SF) units, and had a major influence on modern Indian Special forces units. Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971: During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the Parachute Regiment of the Indian Army fought in numerous contacts in both the Eastern and Western Theatres. On 11 December, India airdropped the 2nd battalion (2 Para) in what is now famous as the Tangail airdrop. The paratroop unit was instrumental in denying the retreat and regrouping of the Pakistani Army and contributed substantially to the early collapse of Dhaka via covert operations. The regiment earned the battle honours of Poongli Bridge, Chachro and Defence of Poonch—during these operations. Indonesian Invasion of East Timor: The Indonesian Army used airborne troops in their 1975 invasion of East Timor. Following a naval bombardment of Dili, on December 7, 1975, Indonesian seaborne troops landed in the city while paratroops simultaneously descended on the city. 641 Indonesian paratroopers jumped into Dili, where they engaged in six-hours combat with East Timorese gunmen. Vietnam War: In 1963, in the Battle of Ap Bac, ARVN forces delivered airborne troops by helicopter and air drop. The use of helicopter-borne airmobile troops by the United States Army in the Vietnam War was widespread, and became an iconic image featuring in newsreels and movies about the conflict. In February 1967 Operation Junction City was launched, it would be the largest operation the Allied forces would assemble. During this operation, 845 members of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airmen (Airborne), the 319th Artillery (Airborne), and elements of H&H company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the only combat jump in Vietnam. Rhodesian Bush War: The men of the Rhodesian Light Infantry made more parachute jumps than any other military unit in history. While an Allied paratrooper of the Second World War would be considered a "veteran" after one operational jump, an RLI paratrooper could make three operational jumps in a single day, each in a different location, and each preceding a successful contact with the enemy. Between 1976 and 1980, over 14,000 jumps were recorded by the Rhodesian Security Forces as a whole.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

In February 1967 Operation Junction City was launched, it would be the largest operation the Allied forces would assemble. During this operation, 845 members of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airmen (Airborne), the 319th Artillery (Airborne), and elements of H&H company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the only combat jump in Vietnam. Rhodesian Bush War: The men of the Rhodesian Light Infantry made more parachute jumps than any other military unit in history. While an Allied paratrooper of the Second World War would be considered a "veteran" after one operational jump, an RLI paratrooper could make three operational jumps in a single day, each in a different location, and each preceding a successful contact with the enemy. Between 1976 and 1980, over 14,000 jumps were recorded by the Rhodesian Security Forces as a whole. The world record for operational jumps by an individual soldier is held by Corporal Des Archer of 1 Commando, RLI, who made 73 operational jumps between 1977 and the end of the war. Fireforce is a variant of the tactic of vertical envelopment of a target by helicopter-borne and small groups of parachute infantry developed by the Rhodesian Security Force. Fireforce counter-insurgency missions were designed to trap and eliminate insurgents before they could flee. The Rhodesian Security Force could react quickly to insurgent ambushes, farm attacks, Observation Post sightings, and could also be called in as reinforcements by trackers or patrols which made contact with the enemy. It was first deployed in January 1974 and saw its first action a month later on 24 February 1974. By the end of Rhodesian operations with internal peace agreements, Fireforce was a well-developed counterinsurgency tactic. Fireforce was an operational assault or response usually composed of a first wave of 32 soldiers carried to the scene by three Alouette III helicopters and one Dakota transport aircraft, with another Alouette III helicopter as a command/gunship aircraft and a light attack aircraft in support. One of the advantages of the Fireforce was its flexibility as all that was needed was a reasonable airstrip. It was such a successful tactic that some Rhodesian Light Infantry soldiers reputedly made as many as three parachute combat jumps in one day. Angolan Bush War: Cassinga: During the War in Angola, paratroopers of the South African Army attacked a South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) military base at the former town of Cassinga, Angola on 4 May 1978. Conducted as one of the three major actions of Operation Reindeer during the South African Border War, it was the South African Army's first major airborne assault. Soviet and Russian VDV: The Soviet Union maintained the world's largest airborne force during the Cold War, consisting of seven airborne divisions and a training division. The VDV was subordinated directly to the Ministry of Defense of USSR, and was a 'prestige service' in the armed forces of the USSR and Russia to reflect its strategic purpose. Recruits received much more rigorous training and better equipment than ordinary Soviet units. Unlike most airborne forces, which are a light infantry force, VDV has evolved into a fully mechanized parachute-deployed force thanks to its use of BMD-series light IFVs, BTR-D armoured carriers, 2S9 Nona self-propelled 120 mm gun-howitzer-mortars and 2S25 Sprut-SD 125 mm tank destroyers. The VDV have participated in virtually all Soviet and Russian conflicts since the Second World War, including the Soviet–Afghan War. As an elite force, the VDV developed two distinctive items of clothing: the telnyashka, or striped shirt, and the famous blue beret. Airborne assault (десантно-штурмовые войска or DShV) units wore similar striped shirts (as did the naval infantry) but used helicopters, rather than the Military Transport Aviation's An-12s, An-22s, and Il-76s, which carried the airborne troops and their equipment. Soviet Glider Infantry: The Soviets maintained three glider infantry regiments until 1965. Operation Meghdoot: Operation Meghdoot (lit. "Operation Cloud Messenger"), launched in the early hours of 13 April 1984, was the codename given to the preemptive strike launched by the Indian Armed Forces' to gain control of the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir, precipitating the Siachen conflict. Executed in the highest battlefield in the world, Meghdoot was the first ever military offensive of its kind. The operation was a success, resulting in Indian forces gaining control of the Siachen Glacier in its entirety. Recent history: With the advantages of helicopter use, airborne forces have dwindled in numbers in recent years. On July 20, 1974, several landings took place at north of Nicosia, during Operation Atilla. The Battle of Kolwezi was an airborne operation by French and Belgian airborne forces that took place in May 1978 in Zaire during the Shaba II invasion of Zaire by the Front for the National Liberation of the Congo (FLNC). It aimed at rescuing European and Zairean hostages held by FLNC rebels after they conquered the city of Kolwezi. The operation succeeded with the liberation of the hostages and light military casualties. During the 1983 Invasion of Grenada, the 75th Ranger Regiment made a combat jump on Point Salines International Airport. In 1989 during the U.S invasion of Panama the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division made its first combat jump in over 40 years. The 1st Brigade of the 82nd secured Omar Torrijos International Airport in Tocumen, Panama. The jump followed the 1st Ranger Battalion(+) of the 75th Ranger Regiment's combat jump onto the airfield. M551 Sheridan tanks were also dropped by air, the only time this capability was used in combat. At the same time as the combat jump onto Omar Torrijos International Airport, the 2nd and 3rd(-) Ranger Battalions, along with the 75th Ranger Regiment regimental headquarters, conducted a combat jump onto Rio Hato Airport. On September 16, 1994, elements of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division planned to jump into Port-au-Prince Airport in Haiti as part of Operation Restore Democracy, an effort to overthrow the military dictatorship of Raoul Cédras, and to restore the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. As they were already in the air to be deployed over the target, Cédras finally stepped down from his rule in part due to the diplomatic efforts led by former President Jimmy Carter, averting the entire mission. On October 19, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the 3rd Ranger Battalion and a small command and control element from the regimental headquarters of the 75th Ranger Regiment jumped into Kandahar to secure an airfield. On March 23, 2003, 3/75 Ranger Regiment conducted a combat jump into northern Iraq to seize a desert airfield. On March 26, 2003, the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted a combat jump into northern Iraq, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to seize an airfield and support special forces (Task Force Viking). The paratroopers departed from Aviano Air Base, Italy on fifteen C-17s. In 2009, Pakistan Army's paratroopers conducted combat jump operations during Operation Black Thunderstorm and Operation Rah-e-Nijat against the Pakistani Taliban in northwest Pakistan, to seize control of strategic mountain areas in order to support special forces and infantry troops. In January 2013, 250 French paratroopers from the 11th Parachute Brigade jumped into northern Mali to support an offensive to capture the city of Timbuktu. Doctrine: NATO Tactical Air Doctrine ATP-33 B See also: Airborne gun High-altitude military parachuting List of airborne artillery units List of paratrooper forces Pathfinder (military) Notes: References: Hastings, Max, Armageddon – The Battle For Germany 1944–45, Macmillan, 2004 L, Klemen (1999–2000). "Forgotten Campaign: The Dutch East Indies Campaign 1941–1942". Archived from the original on 2011-07-26. Further reading: Ambrose, Stephen E., Pegasus Bridge. Pocket Books, 2003 Ambrose, Stephen E., Band of Brothers. Pocket Books, 2001 Arthur, Max, Forgotten Voices Of The Second World War. Edbury Press, 2005 Balkoski, Joseph, Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing and Airborne Operations on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Stackpole Books US, 2006 Bando, Mark A., 101st Airborne: The Screaming Eagles at Normandy. Motorbooks International, 2001 Blair, Clay, Ridgway's Paratroopers – The American Airborne In World War II. The Dial Press, 1985 Buckingham, William F., Arnhem 1944. Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004 Buckingham, William F., D-Day – The First 72 Hours.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne forces

Pocket Books, 2003 Ambrose, Stephen E., Band of Brothers. Pocket Books, 2001 Arthur, Max, Forgotten Voices Of The Second World War. Edbury Press, 2005 Balkoski, Joseph, Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing and Airborne Operations on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Stackpole Books US, 2006 Bando, Mark A., 101st Airborne: The Screaming Eagles at Normandy. Motorbooks International, 2001 Blair, Clay, Ridgway's Paratroopers – The American Airborne In World War II. The Dial Press, 1985 Buckingham, William F., Arnhem 1944. Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004 Buckingham, William F., D-Day – The First 72 Hours. Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004 Calvocoressi, Peter, The Penguin History of the Second World War, Penguin Books Ltd, 1999 Department Of The Army, Pamphlet No. 20-232, Historical Study – Airborne Operations – A German Appraisal, 1951, Department Of The Army Devlin, Gerard M., Paratrooper – The Saga Of Parachute And Glider Combat Troops During World War II, Robson Books, 1979 DeVore, Marc, When Failure Thrives: Institutions and the Evolution of Postwar Airborne Forces. The Army Press, 2015 Dover, Victor, The Sky Generals, Cassell Ltd, 1981 Flanagan, E.M. Jr., Airborne – A Combat History Of American Airborne Forces, The Random House Publishing Group, 2002 Flint, Keith, Airborne Armour: Tetrarch, Locust, Hamilcar and the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment, 1938–50, Helion & Company, 2004 French, David, Raising Churchill's Army – The British Army And The War Against Germany 1919–1945, Oxford University Press, 2000 Frost, John, A Drop Too Many, Leo Cooper Ltd, 1994 Gregory, Barry, British Airborne Troops, Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 1974 Harclerode, Peter, Arnhem – A Tragedy Of Errors, Caxton Editions, 2000 Harclerode, Peter, Para! – Fifty Years Of The Parachute Regiment, Orion Books Ltd, 1996 Harclerode, Peter, Wings Of War – Airborne Warfare 1918–1945, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005 Hastings, Max, Overlord, Pan Books, 1999 Hibbert, Christopher, Arnhem, B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1998 Horrocks, Brian, A Full Life, Collins, 1960 Huston, James A., Out Of The Blue – U.S Army Airborne Operations In World War II, Purdue University Press, 1998 Jewell, Brian, "Over The Rhine" – The Last Days Of War In Europe, Spellmount Ltd, 1985 Keegan, John, The Second World War, Pimlico, 1997 Kershaw, Robert J., It Never Snows In September – The German View Of MARKET-GARDEN And The Battle Of Arnhem, September 1944, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, 2004 Koskimaki, George E., D-Day With The Screaming Eagles, Presidio Press, 2002 Koskimaki, George E., Hell's Highway – A Chronicle Of The 101st Airborne In The Holland Campaign, September–November 1944, Presidio Press, 2002 Lunteren, Frank van, Birth of a Regiment: The 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment in Sicily and Salerno, Permuted Press LLC, 2022 Jones, Robert, The History of the 101st Airborne Division, Turner Publishing Company, 2005 Middlebrook, Martin, Arnhem 1944 – The Airborne Battle, Penguin Books, 1995 Ministry Of Information, By Air To Battle – The Official Account Of The British Airborne Divisions, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1945 Nordyke, Phil, All American, All the Way: The Combat History Of The 82nd Airborne Division In World War II, Motorbooks International, 2005 Nordyke, Phil, Four Stars of Valour: The Combat History of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment in World War II, Motorbooks, 2006 Norton, G.G., The Red Devils – The Story Of The British Airborne Forces, Pan Books Ltd, 1973 Otway, T.B.H, Airborne Forces, Adlib Books, 1990 Rawson, Andrew, The Rhine Crossing – 9th US Army & 17th US Airborne, Pen & Sword Military, 2006 Ryan, Cornelius, A Bridge Too Far, Coronet Books, 1984 Saunders, Hilary St. George, The Red Beret – The Story Of The Parachute Regiment 1940–1945, Michael Joseph Ltd, 1954 Saunders, Tim, Operation Plunder – The British & Canadian Rhine Crossing, Pen & Sword Military, 2006 Tanase, Mircea, The airborne troops during the World War II, Military Publishing House Romania, 2006 Tugwell, Maurice, Airborne To Battle – A History Of Airborne Warfare 1918–1971, William Kimber & Co Ltd, 1971 Urquhart, R.E., Arnhem, Pan Books, 1960 Weeks, John, Assault From The Sky – The History Of Airborne Warfare, David & Charles Publisher plc, 1988 Whiting, Charles, American Eagles – The 101st Airborne's Assault On Fortress Europe 1944/45, Eskdale Publishing, 2001 Whiting, Charles, "Bounce The Rhine" – The Greatest Airborne Operation In History, Grafton Books, 1987 Whiting, Charles Slaughter Over Sicily, Leo Cooper, 1992 External links: Nga-airborne-assoc.org: NGA Airborne Association website ArmyParatrooper.org website AirborneSappers.org: Airborne Engineers Association website Historynet.com: World War II History Magazine — "Airborne Operations During World War II" (2004) Historynet.com: World War II History Magazine — "Operation Varsity: Allied Airborne Assault Over the Rhine River" (1998) Historynet.com: Military History Quarterly — "101st Airborne Division Participate in Operation Overlord" (2004) Theparas.co.uk: The Paras website Archived 2015-03-02 at the Wayback Machine Pathfindergroupuk.com: Pathfinder Parachute Group website – WWII parachute jump reenactments.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

Early history: Benjamin Franklin envisioned the danger of airborne attack in 1784, only a few months after the first manned flight in a hot air balloon: Five Thousand Balloons capable of raising two Men each, would not cost more than Five Ships of the Line: And where is the Prince who can afford so to cover his Country with Troops for its Defense, as that Ten Thousand Men descending from the Clouds, might not in many Places do an infinite deal of Mischief, before a Force could be brought together to repel them? An early modern operation was first envisioned by Winston Churchill who proposed the creation of an airborne force to assault behind the German lines in 1917 during the First World War. Later in late 1918. Major Lewis H. Brereton and his superior Brigadier General Billy Mitchell suggested dropping elements of the U.S. 1st Division behind German lines near Metz. The operation was planned for February 1919 but the war ended before the attack could be seriously planned. Mitchell conceived that US troops could be rapidly trained to utilize parachutes and drop from converted bombers to land behind Metz in synchronisation with a planned infantry offensive. Following the war, the United States Army Air Service experimented with the concept of carrying troops on the wings of aircraft, with them pulled off by the opening of their parachutes. The first true paratroop drop was by Italy in November 1927. Within a few years, several battalions were raised and eventually formed into two Folgore and Nembo divisions. Although they later fought with distinction in World War II, they were never used in a parachute drop. Men drawn from the Italian parachute forces were dropped in a special-forces operation in North Africa in 1943 in an attempt to destroy parked aircraft of the United States Army Air Forces. At about the same time, the Soviet Union was also experimenting with the idea, planning to drop entire units complete with vehicles and light tanks. To help train enough experienced jumpers, parachute clubs were organized with the aim of transferring into the armed forces if needed. Planning progressed to the point that Corps-size drops were demonstrated to foreign observers, including the British Military Attaché Archibald Wavell, in the Kiev military district maneuvers of 1935. One of the observing parties, Nazi Germany, was particularly interested. In 1936, Major F. W. Immans was ordered to set up a parachute school at Stendal (Borstel), and was allocated a number of Junkers Ju 52 aircraft to train on. The military had already purchased large numbers of Junkers Ju 52s which were slightly modified for use as paratroop transports in addition to their other duties. The first training class was known as Ausbildungskommando Immans. They commenced the first course on May 3, 1936. Other nations, including Argentina, Peru, Japan, France and Poland also organized airborne units around this time. France became the first nation to organize women in an airborne unit, recruiting 200 nurses who during peacetime would parachute into natural disaster zones but also as reservists who would be a uniformed medical unit during wartime. World War II: Axis operations: Several groups within the German armed forces attempted to raise their own paratroop formations, resulting in confusion. As a result, Luftwaffe General Kurt Student was put in overall command of developing a paratrooper force to be known as the Fallschirmjäger. During the invasions of Norway and Denmark in Operation Weserübung, the Luftwaffe dropped paratroopers on several locations. In Denmark, a small unit dropped on the Masnedøfort on the small island of Masnedø to seize the Storstrøm Bridge linking the islands of Falster and Zealand. A paratroop detachment also dropped at the airfield of Aalborg which was crucial for the Luftwaffe for operations over Norway. In Norway, a company of paratroopers dropped at Oslo's undefended airstrip. Over the course of the morning and early afternoon of April 9, 1940, the Germans flew in sufficient reinforcements to move into the capital in the afternoon, but by that time the Norwegian government had fled. In the Battle of France, members of the Brandenburg Regiment landed by Fieseler Fi 156 Storch light reconnaissance planes on the bridges immediately to the south of the 10th Panzer Division's route of march through the southern Ardennes. In Belgium, a small group of German glider-borne troops landed on top of the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael on the morning of May 10, 1940, and disabled the majority of its artillery. The fort held on for another day before surrendering. This opened up Belgium to attack by German Army Group B. The Dutch were exposed to the first large scale airborne attack in history. During the invasion of the Netherlands, the Germans threw into battle almost their entire Luftlandekorps, an airborne assault army corps that consisted of one parachute division and one division of airlanding troops plus the necessary transport capacity. The existence of this formation had been carefully kept secret until then. Two simultaneous airborne operations were launched. German paratroopers landed at three airfields near The Hague, hoping to seize the Dutch government. From one of these airfields, they were driven out after the first wave of reinforcements, brought in by Ju 52s, was annihilated by anti-aircraft fire and fierce resistance by some remaining Dutch defenders. As a result, numerous crashed and burning aircraft blocked the runway, preventing further reinforcements from landing. This was one of the few occasions where an airfield captured by paratroops has been recaptured. The other two airfields were recaptured as well. Simultaneously, the Germans dropped small packets of paratroopers to seize the crucial bridges that led directly across the Netherlands and into the heart of the country. They opened the way for the 9th Panzer Division. Within a day, the Dutch position became hopeless. Nevertheless, Dutch forces inflicted high losses on German transportation aircraft. Moreover, 1200 German elite troops from the Luftlandekorps taken prisoner around The Hague, were shipped to England just before the capitulation of the Dutch armed forces. The Fallschirmjägers' greatest victory and greatest losses occurred during the Battle of Crete. Signals intelligence, in the form of Ultra, enabled the British to wait on each German drop zone, yet despite compromised secrecy, surviving German paratroops and airlanded mountain troops pushed the Commonwealth forces off the island in part by unexpected fire support from their light 75 mm guns, though seaborne reinforcements were destroyed by the Royal Navy. However, the losses were so great that Adolf Hitler forbade their use in such operations in the future. He felt that the main strength of the paratroopers was novelty, and now that the British had clearly figured out how to defend against them, there was no real point to using them any more. One notable exception was the use of airborne forces in special operations. On September 12, 1943, Otto Skorzeny led a daring glider-based assault on the Gran Sasso Hotel, high in the Apennines mountains, and rescued Benito Mussolini from house arrest with very few shots being fired. On May 25, 1944, paratroopers were dropped as part of a failed attempt to capture Josip Broz Tito, the head of the Yugoslav Partisans and later postwar leader of Yugoslavia. Before the Pacific War began, the Imperial Japanese Army formed Teishin Dan ("Raiding Brigades") and the Imperial Japanese Navy trained marine (Rikusentai) paratroopers. They used paratroops in several battles in the Dutch East Indies campaign of 1941–1942. Rikusentai airborne troops were first dropped at the Battle of Manado, Celebes in January 1942, and then near Usua, during the Timor campaign, in February 1942. Teishin made a jump at the Battle of Palembang, on Sumatra in February 1942. Japanese airborne units suffered heavy casualties during the Dutch East Indies campaign, and were rarely used as parachute troops afterward. On 6 December 1944, a 750-strong detachment from Teishin Shudan ("Raiding Division") and the Takachiho special forces unit, attacked U.S. airbases in the Burauen area on Leyte, in the Philippines. The force destroyed some planes and inflicted casualties, but was eventually wiped out. Japan built a combat strike force of 825 gliders but never committed it to battle. Allied operations: Ironically, the battle that ended Germany's paratrooper operations had the opposite effect on the Allies. Convinced of the effectiveness of airborne assaults after Crete, the Allies hurried to train and organize their own airborne units. The British established No.1 Parachute Training School at RAF Ringway near Manchester, which trained all 60,000 European paratroopers recruited by the Allies during World War II. An Airlanding School was also set up in New Delhi, India, in October/November 1941, at the then-Welllingdon Airport (now the defunct Safdarjang Airport) to train paratroopers for the British Indian Army which had been authorised to raise an airborne-capable formation earlier, resulting in the formation of the 50th Indian Parachute Brigade.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

Japan built a combat strike force of 825 gliders but never committed it to battle. Allied operations: Ironically, the battle that ended Germany's paratrooper operations had the opposite effect on the Allies. Convinced of the effectiveness of airborne assaults after Crete, the Allies hurried to train and organize their own airborne units. The British established No.1 Parachute Training School at RAF Ringway near Manchester, which trained all 60,000 European paratroopers recruited by the Allies during World War II. An Airlanding School was also set up in New Delhi, India, in October/November 1941, at the then-Welllingdon Airport (now the defunct Safdarjang Airport) to train paratroopers for the British Indian Army which had been authorised to raise an airborne-capable formation earlier, resulting in the formation of the 50th Indian Parachute Brigade. The Indian airborne forces expanded during the war to the point that an airborne corps was planned bringing together the 2nd Indian Airborne Division and the British 6th Airborne Division, but the war ended before it could materialize. A fundamental decision was whether to create small airborne units to be used in specific coup-de-main type operations, or to organize entire airborne divisions for larger operations. Many of the early successful airborne operations were small, carried out by a few units, such as seizing a bridge. After seeing success of other units and observing smokejumper training methods on how training can be done in June 1940, General William C. Lee of the U.S. Army established the Army's first airborne division. The 101st would be reorganized into the 101st Airborne Division. The Allies eventually formed two British and five American divisions: the British 1st and 6th Airborne Divisions, and the U.S. 11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne Divisions. By 1944, the British divisions were grouped into the 1st Airborne Corps under Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Browning, while the American divisions in the European Theatre (the 17th, 82nd, and 101st) were organized into the XVIII Airborne Corps under Major General Matthew Ridgway. Both corps fell under the First Allied Airborne Army under U.S. Lieutenant General Lewis H. Brereton. The first U.S. airborne operation was by the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion in November 1942, as part of Operation Torch in North Africa. The U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions saw the most action in the European Theater, with the former in Sicily and Italy in 1943, and both in Normandy and the Netherlands in 1944. The 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team was the principal force in Operation Dragoon in Southern France. The 17th Airborne Division deployed to England in 1944 but did not see combat until the Battle of the Bulge in January 1945 where they, along with the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions were deployed as ground troops. The U.S. 11th and 13th Airborne Divisions were held in reserve in the United States until 1944 when the 11th Airborne Division was deployed to the Pacific, but mostly used as ground troops or for smaller airborne operations. The 13th Airborne Division was deployed to France in January 1945 but never saw combat as a unit. Soviet operations: The Soviets mounted only one large-scale airborne operation in World War II, despite their early leadership in the field in the 1930s. Russia also pioneered the development of combat gliders, but used them only for cargo during the war. Axis air superiority early in the conflict limited the ability of the Soviets to mount such operations, whilst later in the conflict ongoing shortages of materiel, including silk for parachutes, was also a problem. Nonetheless, the Soviets maintained their doctrinal belief in the effectiveness of airborne forces, as part of their concept of "deep battle", throughout the war. The largest drop during the war was corp-sized (the Vyazma airborne Operation, the 4th Airborne Corps). It was unsuccessful. Airborne formations were used as elite infantry units however, and played a critical role in several battles. For example, at the Battle of Kursk, the Guards Airborne defended the eastern shoulder of the southern penetration and was critical to holding back the German penetration. The Soviets sent at least one team of observers to the British and American airborne planning for D-Day, but did not reciprocate the liaison. Early commando raids: Operation Colossus: Raid on the Tragino Aqueduct: Britain's first airborne assault took place on February 10, 1941, when 'X' Troop, No 11 Special Air Service Battalion (which was formed from No 2 Commando and subsequently became 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment) dropped into southern Italy from converted Whitley bombers flying from Malta and demolished a span of the aqueduct near Tragino in a daring night raid named Operation Colossus. Operation Squatter: Raid on Axis airfields in Libya: 54 effectives of 'L' Detachment, Special Air Service Brigade (largely drawn from the disbanded Layforce) mounted a night parachute insertion onto two drop zones in Bir Temrad, North Africa on the night of November 16/17 1941 in preparation for a stealthy attack on the forward airfields of Gambut and Tmimi in order to destroy the Axis fighter force on the ground before the start of Operation Crusader, a major offensive by the British Eighth Army. Operation Biting: The Bruneval raid: A Würzburg radar site on the coast of France was attacked by a company of 120 British paratroopers from 2 Battalion, Parachute Regiment, commanded by Major John Frost, in Operation Biting on February 27, 1942. The key electronic components of the system were dismantled by an English radar mechanic and brought back to Britain for examination so that countermeasures could be devised. The result was a British victory. Of the 120 paratroopers who dropped in the dead of night, there were two killed, six wounded, and six captured. Mediterranean: Operation Mercury: Crete: This was the last large-scale airborne assault by Hitler and the Germans. The German paratroopers had such a high casualty rate that Hitler forbade any further large-scale airborne attacks. The Allies, on the other hand, were very impressed by the potential of paratroopers, and started to build their own airborne divisions. Operation Torch: North Africa: The first United States airborne combat mission occurred during Operation Torch in North Africa on 8 November 1942. 531 men of the 2nd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment flew over 1,600 miles (2,600 km) at night from Britain, over Spain, intending to drop near Oran and capture two airfields. Navigation errors, communications problems, and bad weather scattered the forces. Seven of the 39 C-47s landed far from Oran from Gibraltar to Tunisia, and only ten actually delivered their troops by parachute drop. The remainder off-loaded after 28 C-47 troop carriers, short on fuel, landed on the Sebkra d'Oran dry lake, and marched overland to their objectives. One week later, after repacking their own chutes, 304 men of the battalion conducted a second combat jump on 15 November 1942 to secure the airfield at Youk-les-Bains near the Tunisian border. From this base, the battalion conducted combined operations with various French forces against the German Afrika Korps in Tunisia. A unit of French Algerian infantry, the 3rd Regiment of Zouaves, was present at Youk-les-Bains and awarded the American paratroopers their own regimental crest as a gesture of respect. This badge was awarded to the battalion commander on 15 November 1942 by the 3rd Zouaves' regimental commander, and is worn today by all members of the 509th Infantry. Operation Husky: Sicily: As part of Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of the island of Sicily, four airborne operations (two British and two American) were carried out, landing during the nights of July 9 and 10 1943. The American paratroopers were from the 82nd Airborne Division, mainly Colonel James Gavin's 505th Parachute Regimental Combat Team (consisting of the 3rd Battalion of the 504th PIR, Company 'B' of the 307th Airborne Engineer Battalion and the 456th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion, with other supporting units), making their first combat jump. Strong winds encountered en route blew the dropping aircraft off course and scattered them widely. The result was that around half the paratroopers failed to make it to their rallying points. The British airborne troops from the 1st Airborne Division were glider infantry of the 1st Airlanding Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Philip Hicks, and they fared little better. Only 12 out of 137 gliders in Operation Ladbroke landed on target, with more than half landing in the sea. Nevertheless, the scattered airborne troops maximised their opportunities, attacking patrols and creating confusion wherever possible.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

Strong winds encountered en route blew the dropping aircraft off course and scattered them widely. The result was that around half the paratroopers failed to make it to their rallying points. The British airborne troops from the 1st Airborne Division were glider infantry of the 1st Airlanding Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Philip Hicks, and they fared little better. Only 12 out of 137 gliders in Operation Ladbroke landed on target, with more than half landing in the sea. Nevertheless, the scattered airborne troops maximised their opportunities, attacking patrols and creating confusion wherever possible. On the night of 11 July, a reinforcement drop of the 82nd, consisting of the 504th Parachute Regimental Combat Team (composed of the 1st and 2nd Battalions, the 376th Parachute Field Artillery and Company 'A' of the 307th Airborne Engineer Battalion), under Colonel Reuben Tucker, behind American lines at Farello airfield resulted in heavy friendly fire casualties when, despite forewarnings, Allied anti-aircraft fire both ashore and aboard U.S Navy ships shot down 23 of the transports as they flew over the beachhead. Despite a catastrophic loss of gliders and troops loads at sea, the British 1st Airlanding Brigade captured the Ponte Grande bridge south of Syracuse. Before the German counterattack, the beach landings took place unopposed and the 1st Airlanding Brigade was relieved by the British 5th Infantry Division as it swept inland towards Catania and Messina. On the evening of July 13, 1943, more than 112 aircraft carrying 1,856 men and 16 gliders with 77 artillerymen and ten 6 pounder guns, took off from North Africa in Operation Fustian. The initial target of the British 1st Parachute Brigade, under Brigadier Gerald Lathbury, was to capture the Primosole bridge and the high ground around it, providing a pathway for the Eighth Army, but heavy anti-aircraft fire shot down many of the Dakotas before they reached their target. Only 295 officers and men were dropped close enough to carry out the assault. They captured the bridge, but the German 4th Parachute Regiment recaptured it. They held the high ground until relieved by the 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division of the Eighth Army, which re-took the bridge at dawn on 16 July. The Allied commanders were forced to reassess the use of airborne forces after the many misdrops and the deadly friendly fire incident. Swing Board and the Knollwood Maneuver: General Dwight D. Eisenhower reviewed the airborne role in Operation Husky and concluded that large-scale formations were too difficult to control in combat to be practical. Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair, the overall commander of Army Ground Forces, had similar misgivings: once an airborne supporter, he had been greatly disappointed by the performance of airborne units in North Africa and more recently Sicily. However, other high-ranking officers, including the Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, believed otherwise. Marshall persuaded Eisenhower to set up a review board and to withhold judgement until the outcome of a large-scale maneuver, planned for December 1943, could be assessed. McNair ordered 11th Airborne Division commander Major general Joseph May Swing to form a committee—the Swing Board—composed of air force, parachute, glider infantry and artillery officers, whose arrangements for the maneuver would effectively decide the fate of divisional-sized airborne forces. As the 11th Airborne Division was in reserve in the United States and had not yet been earmarked for combat, the Swing Board selected it as the test formation. The maneuver would additionally provide the 11th Airborne and its individual units with further training, as had occurred several months previously in an earlier large-scale exercise conducted by the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. The 11th Airborne, as the attacking force, was assigned the objective of capturing Knollwood Army Auxiliary Airfield near Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The force defending the airfield and its environs was a combat team composed of elements of the 17th Airborne Division and a battalion from the 541st Parachute Infantry Regiment. The entire operation was observed by McNair, who would ultimately have a significant say in deciding the fate of the parachute infantry divisions. The Knollwood Maneuver took place on the night of 7 December 1943, with the 11th Airborne Division being airlifted to thirteen separate objectives by 200 C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft and 234 Waco CG-4A gliders. The transport aircraft were divided into four groups, two of which carried paratroopers while the other two towed gliders. Each group took off from a different airfield in the Carolinas. The four groups deployed a total of 4,800 troops in the first wave. Eighty-five percent were delivered to their targets without navigational error, and the airborne troops seized the Knollwood Army Auxiliary Airfield and secured the landing area for the rest of the division before daylight. With its initial objectives taken, the 11th Airborne Division then launched a coordinated ground attack against a reinforced infantry regiment and conducted several aerial resupply and casualty evacuation missions in coordination with United States Army Air Forces transport aircraft. The exercise was judged by observers to be a great success. McNair, pleased by its results, attributed this success to the great improvements in airborne training that had been implemented in the months following Operation Husky. As a result of the Knollwood Maneuver, division-sized airborne forces were deemed to be feasible and Eisenhower permitted their retention. Italy: Italy agreed to an armistice with the Allies on September 3, 1943, with the stipulation that the Allies would provide military support to Italy in defending Rome from German occupation. Operation Giant II was a planned drop of one regiment of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division northwest of Rome, to assist four Italian divisions in seizing the Italian capital. An airborne assault plan to seize crossings of the Volturno river during the Allied invasion of Italy, called Operation Giant, was abandoned in favor of the Rome mission. However, doubts about the willingness and capability of Italian forces to cooperate, and the distance of the mission far beyond support by the Allied military, resulted in the 82nd Airborne artillery commander, Brigadier General Maxwell Taylor (future commander of the 101st Airborne Division), being sent on a personal reconnaissance mission to Rome to assess the prospects of success. His report via radio on September 8 caused the operation to be postponed (and canceled the next day) as troop carriers loaded with two battalions of the 504th PIR were warming up for takeoff. With Giant II cancelled, Operation Giant I was reactivated to drop two battalions of the 504th PIR at Capua on September 13. However, significant German counterattacks, beginning on September 12, resulted in a shrinking of the American perimeter and threatened destruction of the Salerno beachhead. As a result, Giant I was cancelled and the 504th PIR instead dropped into the beachhead on the night of September 13 using transponding radar beacons as a guide. The next night the 505th PIR was also dropped into the beachhead as reinforcement. In all, 3,500 paratroopers made the most concentrated mass night drop in history, providing the model for the American airborne landings in Normandy in June 1944. An additional drop on the night of September 14–15 of the 509th PIB to destroy a key bridge at Avellino, to disrupt German motorized movements, was badly dispersed and failed to destroy the bridge before the Germans withdrew to the north. In April 1945, Operation Herring, an Italian commando-style airborne drop aimed at disrupting German rear area communications and movement over key areas in Northern Italy, took place. However the Italian troops were not dropped as a unit, but as a series of small (8–10 man) groups. Another operation, Operation Potato, was mounted by men drawn from the Folgore and Nembo divisions, operating with British equipment and under British command as No. 1 Italian Special Air Service Regiment. The men dropped in small groups from American C-47s and carried out a successful railway sabotage operation in northern Italy. Western Europe: The Allies had learned better tactics and logistics from their earlier airborne drops, and these lessons were applied for the assaults along the Western Front. Operation Neptune: One of the most famous of airborne operations was Operation Neptune, the assault of Normandy, part of Operation Overlord of the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944. The task of the airborne forces was to secure the flanks and approaches of the landing beaches in Normandy. The British glider transported troops and paratroopers of the 6th Airborne Division, which secured the eastern flank during Operation Tonga. This operation included the capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges, and the attack on the Merville gun battery. The American glider and parachute infantry of the 82nd (Operation Detroit) and 101st Airborne Divisions (Operation Chicago), though widely scattered by poor weather and poorly marked landing zones in the American airborne landings in Normandy, secured the western flank of U.S. VII Corps with heavy casualties. All together, airborne casualties in Normandy on D-Day totaled around 2,300.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

The task of the airborne forces was to secure the flanks and approaches of the landing beaches in Normandy. The British glider transported troops and paratroopers of the 6th Airborne Division, which secured the eastern flank during Operation Tonga. This operation included the capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges, and the attack on the Merville gun battery. The American glider and parachute infantry of the 82nd (Operation Detroit) and 101st Airborne Divisions (Operation Chicago), though widely scattered by poor weather and poorly marked landing zones in the American airborne landings in Normandy, secured the western flank of U.S. VII Corps with heavy casualties. All together, airborne casualties in Normandy on D-Day totaled around 2,300. Operation Dingson (5–18 June 1944) was conducted by about 178 Free French paratroops of the 4th Special Air Service (SAS), commanded by Colonel Pierre-Louis Bourgoin, who jumped into German-occupied France near Vannes, Morbihan, southern Brittany, in Plumelec, at 1130 on the night of 5 June and Saint-Marcel (8–18 June). At this time, there was approximately 100,000 German troops and artillery preparing to move to the Normandy landing areas. Immediately upon landing, 18 Free French went into action near Plumelec against German troops (Vlassov's army). The Free French established a base at Saint-Marcel and began to arm and equip local resistance fighters, operating with up to 3,000 Maquis. However, their base was heavily attacked by a German paratroop division on 18 June, and the men were forced to disperse. Captain Pierre Marienne with 17 of his companions (six paratroopers, eight resistance fighters and three farmers) died a few weeks later in Kerihuel, Plumelec, at dawn of 12 July. The Dingson team was joined by the men who had just completed Operation Cooney. Dingson was conducted alongside Operation Samwest and Operation Lost as part of Overlord. In Operation Dingson 35A, on 5 August 1944, 10 Waco CG-4A gliders towed by aircraft of 298 Squadron and 644 Squadron transported Free French SAS men and armed jeeps to Brittany near Vannes (Locoal-Mendon), each glider carrying three Free French troopers and a jeep. One glider was lost with the death of the British pilot. The SAS teams remained behind enemy lines until the Allies arrived. Operation Dragoon: Southern France: On August 15, 1944, airborne units of the 6th Army Group provisional airborne division, commanded by U.S. Major General Robert T. Frederick, opened Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France, with a dawn assault. Called the "1st Airborne Task Force", the force was composed of the 1st Special Services Forces, British 2nd Independent Parachute Brigade, the 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team, the 509th and 551st Parachute Infantry Battalions, the glider-borne 550th Airborne Infantry Battalion, and supporting units. Nearly 400 aircraft delivered 5,600 paratroopers and 150 guns to three drops zones surrounding Le Muy, between Fréjus and Cannes, in phase 1, Operation Albatross. Once they had captured their initial targets, they were reinforced by 2,600 soldiers and critical equipment carried in 408 gliders daylight missions code-named Operation Bluebird, phase 2, simultaneous with the beach landings, and Operation Dove, phase 3. A second daylight parachute drop, Operation Canary, dropped 736 men of the 551st PIB with nearly 100% effectiveness late on the afternoon of August 15. The airborne objective was to capture the area, destroy all enemy positions and hold the ground until the U.S. Seventh Army came ashore. Operation Market Garden: "A Bridge Too Far": Operation Market Garden of September 1944, involved 35,000 airborne troops dropped up to 100 miles (160 km) behind German lines in an attempt to capture a series of bridges over the Maas, Waal and Rhine Rivers, in an attempt to outflank German fortifications and penetrate into Germany. The operation was hastily planned and many key planning tasks were inadequately completed. Three complete airborne divisions executed Operation Market, the airborne phase. These were the British 1st Airborne Division, the U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, as well as the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade. All units were landed or dropped at various points along Highway 69 ("Hell's Highway") in order to create a "carpet" over which the British XXX Corps could rapidly advance in Operation Garden, the land phase. It was a daylight assault, with little initial opposition, and most units achieved high accuracy on drop and landing zones. In the end, after strong German counterattacks, the overall plan failed: the British 1st Airborne Division was all but destroyed at Arnhem, and the final Rhine bridge remained in German hands. Operation Repulse: re-supply of Bastogne: Operation Repulse, which took place in Bastogne on December 23, 24, 26, and 27, 1944, as part of the Battle of the Bulge, glider pilots, although flying directly through enemy fire, were able to land, delivering the badly needed ammunition, gasoline and medical supplies that enabled defenders against the German offensive to persevere and secure the ultimate victory. Operation Varsity: The Rhine Crossing: Operation Varsity was a daylight assault conducted by two airborne divisions, the British 6th Airborne Division and the U.S. 17th Airborne Division, both of which were part of the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps. Conducted as a part of Operation Plunder, the operation took place on 24 March 1945 in aid of an attempt by the Anglo-Canadian 21st Army Group to cross the Rhine River. Having learnt from the heavy casualties inflicted upon the airborne formations in Operation Market Garden, the two airborne divisions were dropped several thousand yards forward of friendly positions, and only some thirteen hours after Operation Plunder had begun and Allied ground forces had already crossed the Rhine. There was heavy resistance in some of the areas that the airborne troops landed in, with casualties actually statistically heavier than those incurred during Operation Market Garden. The British military historian Max Hastings has labelled the operation both costly and unnecessary, writing that "Operation Varsity was a folly for which more than a thousand men paid for with their lives ..." Pacific Theater: The following airborne operations against the Japanese are famous. New Guinea: In September 1943, in New Guinea, the U.S. Army's 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment and elements of the Australian Army's 2/4th Field Regiment made a highly successful, unopposed landing at Nadzab, during the Salamaua-Lae campaign. This was the first Allied airborne assault in the Pacific Theater. In July 1944, the 503rd jumped again, onto Noemfoor Island, off Dutch New Guinea, in the Battle of Noemfoor. Philippines: The honors for recapturing the Rock went to the 503rd Parachute Regimental Combat Team of Lieutenant Colonel George M. Jones and elements of Major General Roscoe B. Woodruff's 24th Infantry Division, the same units which undertook the capture of Mindoro island. The U.S. 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment's most famous operation was a landing on Corregidor ("The Rock") in February 1945, during the Philippines campaign of 1944–45. The U.S. Army's 11th Airborne Division saw a great deal of action in the Philippines as a ground unit. The 511th Parachute Infantry Regiment made the division's first jump near Tagaytay Ridge on 3 February 1945, meeting no resistance at the drop zone. Elements of the division also jumped to liberate 2,000 Allied civilians interned at Los Baños, 23 February 1945. The final operation of the division was conducted on 23 June 1945, in conjunction with an advance by U.S. ground forces in northern Luzon. A task force from the 11th was formed and jumped on Camalaniugan Airfield, south of Aparri. Burma: A large British force, known as the Chindits, operated behind Japanese lines during 1944. In Operation Thursday, most of the units were flown into landing grounds which had been seized by glider infantry transported by the American First Air Commando Group, commencing on March 5. Aircraft continued to land reinforcements at captured or hastily constructed landing strips until monsoon rains made them unusable. Small detachments were subsequently landed by parachute. The operation eventually wound down in July, with the exhausted Chindits making their way overland to link up with advancing American and Chinese forces. For Operation Dracula, an ad hoc parachute battalion group made up of personnel from the 153 and 154 (Gurkha) Parachute Battalions of the Indian Army secured Japanese coastal defences, which enabled the seaborne assault by the 26th Indian Infantry Division to attain its objectives with a minimum of casualties and time.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

Burma: A large British force, known as the Chindits, operated behind Japanese lines during 1944. In Operation Thursday, most of the units were flown into landing grounds which had been seized by glider infantry transported by the American First Air Commando Group, commencing on March 5. Aircraft continued to land reinforcements at captured or hastily constructed landing strips until monsoon rains made them unusable. Small detachments were subsequently landed by parachute. The operation eventually wound down in July, with the exhausted Chindits making their way overland to link up with advancing American and Chinese forces. For Operation Dracula, an ad hoc parachute battalion group made up of personnel from the 153 and 154 (Gurkha) Parachute Battalions of the Indian Army secured Japanese coastal defences, which enabled the seaborne assault by the 26th Indian Infantry Division to attain its objectives with a minimum of casualties and time. Ecuadorian–Peruvian War: During the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War, the Peruvian army established its own paratrooper unit and used it to great effect by seizing the Ecuadorian port city of Puerto Bolívar, on July 27, 1941, marking the first time in the Americas that airborne troops were used in combat. After World War II: Indonesian War of Independence: The Dutch Korps Speciale Troepen made two combat jumps during the Indonesian War of Independence. The first jump was as part of Operation Kraai: the capture of Yogyakarta, and the capture of Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta on 19 and 20 December 1948. The second combat jump happened during Operation Ekster: the capture of Jambi and the oilfields surrounding is, on Sumatra from 29 December 1948 to 23 January 1949. From the Indonesian side, the first airborne operation was an airborne-infiltration operation by 14 paratroopers on 17 October 1947, in Kotawaringin, Kalimantan. Korean War: The 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team ("Rakkasans") made two combat jumps in Korea during the Korean War. The first combat jump was made on October 20, 1950, at Sunchon and Sukchon, North Korea. The missions of the 187th were to cut the road north going to China, preventing North Korean leaders from escaping from Pyongyang; and to rescue American prisoners of war. The second combat jump was made on Wednesday, March 21, 1951, at Munsan-ni, South Korea codenamed Operation Tomahawk. The mission was to get behind Chinese forces and block their movement north. The Indian Army 60th Parachute Field Ambulance provided the medical cover for the operations, dropping an ADS and a surgical team totalling 7 officers and 5 other ranks, treating over 400 battle casualties apart from the civilian casualties that formed the core of their objective as the unit was on a humanitarian mission. The unit was to become the longest-serving military unit in any UN operation till date, serving from October 1950 till May 1953, a total of three and a half years, returning home to a heroes' welcome. The 187th served in six campaigns in Korea. Shortly after the war the 187th ARCT was considered for use in an Airborne drop to relieve the surrounded French garrison at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam but the United States, at that time, decided not to send its troops into the combat zone. The unit was assigned to the reactivated 101st Airborne Division and subsequently inactivated as a combat team in 1956 as part of the division's reorganization into the Pentomic structure, which featured battle groups in place of regiments and battalions. The 1st and 3rd Battalions, 187th Infantry, bearing the lineages of the former Co A and Co C, 187AIR, are now with the 101st Airborne Division as air assault units. First Indochina War: The French used paratroopers extensively during their 1946-54 war against the Viet Minh. Troupes de marine, Foreign Legion and local Vietnamese units took part in numerous operations which were to culminate in the disastrous siege of Dien Bien Phu. Suez crisis: Operations Machbesh & Musketeer: Launching the 1956 Suez War, on October 29, 1956, Israeli paratroopers led by Ariel Sharon dropped onto the important Mitla Pass to cut off and engage Egyptian forces. Operation Machbesh (Press) was the IDF's first and largest combat parachute drop. A few days later, Operation Musketeer needed the element of total surprise to succeed, and all 660 men had to be on the ground at El Gamil airfield and ready for action within four and a half minutes. At 04.15 hours on November 5, 1956, British 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment jumped in and although opposition was heavy, casualties were few. Meanwhile, French paratroopers of the 2nd Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment under the command of Colonel Chateau-Jobert jumped on the water treatment factory South of Port Said. The landings from the sea the next day saw the first large-scale heliborne assault, as 45 Commando, Royal Marines were landed by helicopters in Port Said from ships offshore. Both the British and the French accomplished total military victory against the disorganized Egyptian military and local armed civilians but political events forced total retreat of these forces after 48 hours of fighting. Indo-Pakistani War of 1965: Paratroopers were used in combat in South Asia after the Second World War during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1947, Indian Annexation of Goa in 1961 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The war in 1965 had the largest use of paratrooper forces, and unlike in previous conflicts, they were used in their intended capacity fully (They were not used in the airborne capacity in 1961, and it is unconfirmed in 1947). A covert operation was launched by the Pakistani Army with the intention of infiltrating Indian airbases and sabotaging them. The SSG (Special Service Group) commandos, were parachuted into Indian territory. Of the 180 para-commandos dropped, 138, including all officers but one, were captured and safely taken to prisoner of war (POW) camps. Twenty-two were killed, or rather lynched by joint combing teams of villagers armed with sticks, police and even bands of muleteers released by the Army, from the animal transport battalion of the nearby Corps headquarters. Only 20 para-commandos were unaccounted for and most escaped back to Pakistan under the fog. Most of these were from the Pathankot group, dropped less than 10 km from the border in an area that had plenty of ravines, riverine tracks to navigate back along. The War also saw the establishment of the first Indian Airborne Special Forces Unit - The Meghdoot Force - which was tasked with operations behind Pakistani Lines. This force is the predecessor to the modern India Para commando (SF) units, and had a major influence on modern Indian Special forces units. Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971: During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, the Parachute Regiment of the Indian Army fought in numerous contacts in both the Eastern and Western Theatres. On 11 December, India airdropped the 2nd battalion (2 Para) in what is now famous as the Tangail airdrop. The paratroop unit was instrumental in denying the retreat and regrouping of the Pakistani Army and contributed substantially to the early collapse of Dhaka via covert operations. The regiment earned the battle honours of Poongli Bridge, Chachro and Defence of Poonch—during these operations. Indonesian Invasion of East Timor: The Indonesian Army used airborne troops in their 1975 invasion of East Timor. Following a naval bombardment of Dili, on December 7, 1975, Indonesian seaborne troops landed in the city while paratroops simultaneously descended on the city. 641 Indonesian paratroopers jumped into Dili, where they engaged in six-hours combat with East Timorese gunmen. Vietnam War: In 1963, in the Battle of Ap Bac, ARVN forces delivered airborne troops by helicopter and air drop. The use of helicopter-borne airmobile troops by the United States Army in the Vietnam War was widespread, and became an iconic image featuring in newsreels and movies about the conflict. In February 1967 Operation Junction City was launched, it would be the largest operation the Allied forces would assemble. During this operation, 845 members of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airmen (Airborne), the 319th Artillery (Airborne), and elements of H&H company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the only combat jump in Vietnam. Rhodesian Bush War: The men of the Rhodesian Light Infantry made more parachute jumps than any other military unit in history. While an Allied paratrooper of the Second World War would be considered a "veteran" after one operational jump, an RLI paratrooper could make three operational jumps in a single day, each in a different location, and each preceding a successful contact with the enemy. Between 1976 and 1980, over 14,000 jumps were recorded by the Rhodesian Security Forces as a whole.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

In February 1967 Operation Junction City was launched, it would be the largest operation the Allied forces would assemble. During this operation, 845 members of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Airmen (Airborne), the 319th Artillery (Airborne), and elements of H&H company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade made the only combat jump in Vietnam. Rhodesian Bush War: The men of the Rhodesian Light Infantry made more parachute jumps than any other military unit in history. While an Allied paratrooper of the Second World War would be considered a "veteran" after one operational jump, an RLI paratrooper could make three operational jumps in a single day, each in a different location, and each preceding a successful contact with the enemy. Between 1976 and 1980, over 14,000 jumps were recorded by the Rhodesian Security Forces as a whole. The world record for operational jumps by an individual soldier is held by Corporal Des Archer of 1 Commando, RLI, who made 73 operational jumps between 1977 and the end of the war. Fireforce is a variant of the tactic of vertical envelopment of a target by helicopter-borne and small groups of parachute infantry developed by the Rhodesian Security Force. Fireforce counter-insurgency missions were designed to trap and eliminate insurgents before they could flee. The Rhodesian Security Force could react quickly to insurgent ambushes, farm attacks, Observation Post sightings, and could also be called in as reinforcements by trackers or patrols which made contact with the enemy. It was first deployed in January 1974 and saw its first action a month later on 24 February 1974. By the end of Rhodesian operations with internal peace agreements, Fireforce was a well-developed counterinsurgency tactic. Fireforce was an operational assault or response usually composed of a first wave of 32 soldiers carried to the scene by three Alouette III helicopters and one Dakota transport aircraft, with another Alouette III helicopter as a command/gunship aircraft and a light attack aircraft in support. One of the advantages of the Fireforce was its flexibility as all that was needed was a reasonable airstrip. It was such a successful tactic that some Rhodesian Light Infantry soldiers reputedly made as many as three parachute combat jumps in one day. Angolan Bush War: Cassinga: During the War in Angola, paratroopers of the South African Army attacked a South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) military base at the former town of Cassinga, Angola on 4 May 1978. Conducted as one of the three major actions of Operation Reindeer during the South African Border War, it was the South African Army's first major airborne assault. Soviet and Russian VDV: The Soviet Union maintained the world's largest airborne force during the Cold War, consisting of seven airborne divisions and a training division. The VDV was subordinated directly to the Ministry of Defense of USSR, and was a 'prestige service' in the armed forces of the USSR and Russia to reflect its strategic purpose. Recruits received much more rigorous training and better equipment than ordinary Soviet units. Unlike most airborne forces, which are a light infantry force, VDV has evolved into a fully mechanized parachute-deployed force thanks to its use of BMD-series light IFVs, BTR-D armoured carriers, 2S9 Nona self-propelled 120 mm gun-howitzer-mortars and 2S25 Sprut-SD 125 mm tank destroyers. The VDV have participated in virtually all Soviet and Russian conflicts since the Second World War, including the Soviet–Afghan War. As an elite force, the VDV developed two distinctive items of clothing: the telnyashka, or striped shirt, and the famous blue beret. Airborne assault (десантно-штурмовые войска or DShV) units wore similar striped shirts (as did the naval infantry) but used helicopters, rather than the Military Transport Aviation's An-12s, An-22s, and Il-76s, which carried the airborne troops and their equipment. Soviet Glider Infantry: The Soviets maintained three glider infantry regiments until 1965. Operation Meghdoot: Operation Meghdoot (lit. "Operation Cloud Messenger"), launched in the early hours of 13 April 1984, was the codename given to the preemptive strike launched by the Indian Armed Forces' to gain control of the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir, precipitating the Siachen conflict. Executed in the highest battlefield in the world, Meghdoot was the first ever military offensive of its kind. The operation was a success, resulting in Indian forces gaining control of the Siachen Glacier in its entirety. Recent history: With the advantages of helicopter use, airborne forces have dwindled in numbers in recent years. On July 20, 1974, several landings took place at north of Nicosia, during Operation Atilla. The Battle of Kolwezi was an airborne operation by French and Belgian airborne forces that took place in May 1978 in Zaire during the Shaba II invasion of Zaire by the Front for the National Liberation of the Congo (FLNC). It aimed at rescuing European and Zairean hostages held by FLNC rebels after they conquered the city of Kolwezi. The operation succeeded with the liberation of the hostages and light military casualties. During the 1983 Invasion of Grenada, the 75th Ranger Regiment made a combat jump on Point Salines International Airport. In 1989 during the U.S invasion of Panama the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division made its first combat jump in over 40 years. The 1st Brigade of the 82nd secured Omar Torrijos International Airport in Tocumen, Panama. The jump followed the 1st Ranger Battalion(+) of the 75th Ranger Regiment's combat jump onto the airfield. M551 Sheridan tanks were also dropped by air, the only time this capability was used in combat. At the same time as the combat jump onto Omar Torrijos International Airport, the 2nd and 3rd(-) Ranger Battalions, along with the 75th Ranger Regiment regimental headquarters, conducted a combat jump onto Rio Hato Airport. On September 16, 1994, elements of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division planned to jump into Port-au-Prince Airport in Haiti as part of Operation Restore Democracy, an effort to overthrow the military dictatorship of Raoul Cédras, and to restore the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. As they were already in the air to be deployed over the target, Cédras finally stepped down from his rule in part due to the diplomatic efforts led by former President Jimmy Carter, averting the entire mission. On October 19, 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the 3rd Ranger Battalion and a small command and control element from the regimental headquarters of the 75th Ranger Regiment jumped into Kandahar to secure an airfield. On March 23, 2003, 3/75 Ranger Regiment conducted a combat jump into northern Iraq to seize a desert airfield. On March 26, 2003, the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted a combat jump into northern Iraq, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to seize an airfield and support special forces (Task Force Viking). The paratroopers departed from Aviano Air Base, Italy on fifteen C-17s. In 2009, Pakistan Army's paratroopers conducted combat jump operations during Operation Black Thunderstorm and Operation Rah-e-Nijat against the Pakistani Taliban in northwest Pakistan, to seize control of strategic mountain areas in order to support special forces and infantry troops. In January 2013, 250 French paratroopers from the 11th Parachute Brigade jumped into northern Mali to support an offensive to capture the city of Timbuktu. Doctrine: NATO Tactical Air Doctrine ATP-33 B See also: Airborne gun High-altitude military parachuting List of airborne artillery units List of paratrooper forces Pathfinder (military) Notes: References: Hastings, Max, Armageddon – The Battle For Germany 1944–45, Macmillan, 2004 L, Klemen (1999–2000). "Forgotten Campaign: The Dutch East Indies Campaign 1941–1942". Archived from the original on 2011-07-26. Further reading: Ambrose, Stephen E., Pegasus Bridge. Pocket Books, 2003 Ambrose, Stephen E., Band of Brothers. Pocket Books, 2001 Arthur, Max, Forgotten Voices Of The Second World War. Edbury Press, 2005 Balkoski, Joseph, Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing and Airborne Operations on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Stackpole Books US, 2006 Bando, Mark A., 101st Airborne: The Screaming Eagles at Normandy. Motorbooks International, 2001 Blair, Clay, Ridgway's Paratroopers – The American Airborne In World War II. The Dial Press, 1985 Buckingham, William F., Arnhem 1944. Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004 Buckingham, William F., D-Day – The First 72 Hours.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airborne operation

Pocket Books, 2003 Ambrose, Stephen E., Band of Brothers. Pocket Books, 2001 Arthur, Max, Forgotten Voices Of The Second World War. Edbury Press, 2005 Balkoski, Joseph, Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing and Airborne Operations on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Stackpole Books US, 2006 Bando, Mark A., 101st Airborne: The Screaming Eagles at Normandy. Motorbooks International, 2001 Blair, Clay, Ridgway's Paratroopers – The American Airborne In World War II. The Dial Press, 1985 Buckingham, William F., Arnhem 1944. Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004 Buckingham, William F., D-Day – The First 72 Hours. Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004 Calvocoressi, Peter, The Penguin History of the Second World War, Penguin Books Ltd, 1999 Department Of The Army, Pamphlet No. 20-232, Historical Study – Airborne Operations – A German Appraisal, 1951, Department Of The Army Devlin, Gerard M., Paratrooper – The Saga Of Parachute And Glider Combat Troops During World War II, Robson Books, 1979 DeVore, Marc, When Failure Thrives: Institutions and the Evolution of Postwar Airborne Forces. The Army Press, 2015 Dover, Victor, The Sky Generals, Cassell Ltd, 1981 Flanagan, E.M. Jr., Airborne – A Combat History Of American Airborne Forces, The Random House Publishing Group, 2002 Flint, Keith, Airborne Armour: Tetrarch, Locust, Hamilcar and the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment, 1938–50, Helion & Company, 2004 French, David, Raising Churchill's Army – The British Army And The War Against Germany 1919–1945, Oxford University Press, 2000 Frost, John, A Drop Too Many, Leo Cooper Ltd, 1994 Gregory, Barry, British Airborne Troops, Macdonald & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 1974 Harclerode, Peter, Arnhem – A Tragedy Of Errors, Caxton Editions, 2000 Harclerode, Peter, Para! – Fifty Years Of The Parachute Regiment, Orion Books Ltd, 1996 Harclerode, Peter, Wings Of War – Airborne Warfare 1918–1945, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005 Hastings, Max, Overlord, Pan Books, 1999 Hibbert, Christopher, Arnhem, B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1998 Horrocks, Brian, A Full Life, Collins, 1960 Huston, James A., Out Of The Blue – U.S Army Airborne Operations In World War II, Purdue University Press, 1998 Jewell, Brian, "Over The Rhine" – The Last Days Of War In Europe, Spellmount Ltd, 1985 Keegan, John, The Second World War, Pimlico, 1997 Kershaw, Robert J., It Never Snows In September – The German View Of MARKET-GARDEN And The Battle Of Arnhem, September 1944, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, 2004 Koskimaki, George E., D-Day With The Screaming Eagles, Presidio Press, 2002 Koskimaki, George E., Hell's Highway – A Chronicle Of The 101st Airborne In The Holland Campaign, September–November 1944, Presidio Press, 2002 Lunteren, Frank van, Birth of a Regiment: The 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment in Sicily and Salerno, Permuted Press LLC, 2022 Jones, Robert, The History of the 101st Airborne Division, Turner Publishing Company, 2005 Middlebrook, Martin, Arnhem 1944 – The Airborne Battle, Penguin Books, 1995 Ministry Of Information, By Air To Battle – The Official Account Of The British Airborne Divisions, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1945 Nordyke, Phil, All American, All the Way: The Combat History Of The 82nd Airborne Division In World War II, Motorbooks International, 2005 Nordyke, Phil, Four Stars of Valour: The Combat History of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment in World War II, Motorbooks, 2006 Norton, G.G., The Red Devils – The Story Of The British Airborne Forces, Pan Books Ltd, 1973 Otway, T.B.H, Airborne Forces, Adlib Books, 1990 Rawson, Andrew, The Rhine Crossing – 9th US Army & 17th US Airborne, Pen & Sword Military, 2006 Ryan, Cornelius, A Bridge Too Far, Coronet Books, 1984 Saunders, Hilary St. George, The Red Beret – The Story Of The Parachute Regiment 1940–1945, Michael Joseph Ltd, 1954 Saunders, Tim, Operation Plunder – The British & Canadian Rhine Crossing, Pen & Sword Military, 2006 Tanase, Mircea, The airborne troops during the World War II, Military Publishing House Romania, 2006 Tugwell, Maurice, Airborne To Battle – A History Of Airborne Warfare 1918–1971, William Kimber & Co Ltd, 1971 Urquhart, R.E., Arnhem, Pan Books, 1960 Weeks, John, Assault From The Sky – The History Of Airborne Warfare, David & Charles Publisher plc, 1988 Whiting, Charles, American Eagles – The 101st Airborne's Assault On Fortress Europe 1944/45, Eskdale Publishing, 2001 Whiting, Charles, "Bounce The Rhine" – The Greatest Airborne Operation In History, Grafton Books, 1987 Whiting, Charles Slaughter Over Sicily, Leo Cooper, 1992 External links: Nga-airborne-assoc.org: NGA Airborne Association website ArmyParatrooper.org website AirborneSappers.org: Airborne Engineers Association website Historynet.com: World War II History Magazine — "Airborne Operations During World War II" (2004) Historynet.com: World War II History Magazine — "Operation Varsity: Allied Airborne Assault Over the Rhine River" (1998) Historynet.com: Military History Quarterly — "101st Airborne Division Participate in Operation Overlord" (2004) Theparas.co.uk: The Paras website Archived 2015-03-02 at the Wayback Machine Pathfindergroupuk.com: Pathfinder Parachute Group website – WWII parachute jump reenactments.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airbridge (logistics)

See also: Blockade runner, a means of delivering material by ship to a port in naval blockade. Airlift, an organized delivery of supplies or personnel primarily via aircraft. == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

Types of carriers: General features: Speed is a crucial attribute for aircraft carriers, as they need to be able to be deployed quickly anywhere in the world and have to be fast enough to evade detection and targeting from enemy forces. A high speed also increases the "wind over the deck", boosting the lift available for fixed-wing aircraft to carry fuel and ammunition. To evade nuclear submarines, the carriers should have a speed of more than 30 knots (35 mph; 56 km/h). Aircraft carriers are among the largest types of warships due to their need for ample deck space. An aircraft carrier must be able to perform increasingly diverse mission sets. Diplomacy, power projection, quick crisis response force, land attack from the sea, sea base for helicopter and amphibious assault forces, anti-surface warfare (ASUW), defensive counter air (DCA), and humanitarian aid disaster relief (HADR) are some of the missions the aircraft carrier is expected to accomplish. Traditionally an aircraft carrier is supposed to be one ship that can perform at least power projection and sea control missions. An aircraft carrier must be able to efficiently operate an air combat group. This means it should handle fixed-wing jets as well as helicopters. This includes ships designed to support operations of short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) jets. Basic types: Aircraft cruiser Amphibious assault ship and sub-types Anti-submarine warfare carrier Balloon carrier and balloon tenders Escort carrier Fleet carrier Flight deck cruiser Helicopter carrier Light aircraft carrier Seaplane tender and seaplane carriers Utility carrier: This type was mainly used in the US Navy, in the decade after World War 2 to ferry aircraft. Some of the types listed here are not strictly defined as aircraft carriers by some sources. By role: A fleet carrier is intended to operate with the main fleet and usually provides an offensive capability. These are the largest carriers capable of fast speeds. By comparison, escort carriers were developed to provide defense for convoys of ships. They were smaller and slower with lower numbers of aircraft carried. Most were built from mercantile hulls or, in the case of merchant aircraft carriers, were bulk cargo ships with a flight deck added on top. Light aircraft carriers were fast enough to operate with the main fleet but of smaller size with reduced aircraft capacity. The Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Kusnetsov was termed a "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser". This was primarily a legal construct to avoid the limitations of the Montreux Convention preventing 'aircraft carriers' transiting the Turkish Straits between the Soviet Black Sea bases and the Mediterranean Sea. These ships, while sized in the range of large fleet carriers, were designed to deploy alone or with escorts. In addition to supporting fighter aircraft and helicopters, they provide both strong defensive weaponry and heavy offensive missiles equivalent to a guided-missile cruiser. By configuration: Aircraft carriers today are usually divided into the following four categories based on the way that aircraft take off and land: Catapult-assisted take-off barrier-arrested recovery (CATOBAR): these carriers generally carry the largest, heaviest, and most heavily armed aircraft, although smaller CATOBAR carriers may have other limitations (weight capacity of aircraft elevator, etc.). All CATOBAR carriers in service today are nuclear-powered. Twelve are in service: ten Nimitz and one Gerald R. Ford-class fleet carriers in the United States; and the Charles de Gaulle in France. Short take-off barrier-arrested recovery (STOBAR): these carriers are generally limited to carrying lighter fixed-wing aircraft with more limited payloads. STOBAR carrier air wings, such as the Sukhoi Su-33 and future Mikoyan MiG-29K wings of Admiral Kuznetsov are often geared primarily towards air superiority and fleet defense roles rather than strike/power projection tasks, which require heavier payloads (bombs and air-to-ground missiles). Five are in service: two in China, two in India, and one in Russia. Short take-off vertical-landing (STOVL): limited to carrying STOVL aircraft. STOVL aircraft, such as the Harrier family and Yakovlev Yak-38 generally have limited payloads, lower performance, and high fuel consumption when compared with conventional fixed-wing aircraft; however, a new generation of STOVL aircraft, currently consisting of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, has much improved performance. Fourteen are in service; nine STOVL amphibious assault ships in the US; two carriers each in Italy and the UK; and one STOVL amphibious assault ship in Spain. Helicopter carrier: Helicopter carriers have a similar appearance to other aircraft carriers but operate only helicopters – those that mainly operate helicopters but can also operate fixed-wing aircraft are known as STOVL carriers (see above). Seventeen are in service: four in Japan; three in France; two each in Australia, China, Egypt and South Korea; and one each in Brazil and Thailand. In the past, some conventional carriers were converted and these were called "commando carriers" by the Royal Navy. Some helicopter carriers, but not all, are classified as amphibious assault ships, tasked with landing and supporting ground forces on enemy territory. By size: Fleet carrier Light aircraft carrier Escort carrier Supercarrier: The appellation "supercarrier" is not an official designation with any national navy, but a term used predominantly by the media and typically when reporting on larger and more advanced carrier types. It is also used when comparing carriers of various sizes and capabilities, both current and past. It was first used by The New York Times in 1938, in an article about the Royal Navy's HMS Ark Royal, that had a length of 800 feet (244 m), a displacement of 22,000 ton and was designed to carry 72 aircraft. Since then, aircraft carriers have consistently grown in size, both in length and displacement, as well as improved capabilities; in defense, sensors, electronic warfare, propulsion, range, launch and recovery systems, number and types of aircraft carried and number of sorties flown per day. China and the United Kingdom both have carriers in service or under construction with displacements ranging from 65,000 to 85,000 tons and lengths from 280 to 320 meters (920 to 1,050 ft) which have been described as "supercarriers". The largest "supercarriers" in service as of 2022, however, are with the US Navy, with displacements exceeding 100,000 tons, lengths of over 337 meters (1,106 ft), and capabilities that match or exceed those of any other class. Hull type identification symbols: Several systems of identification symbol for aircraft carriers and related types of ship have been used. These include the pennant numbers used by the Royal Navy, Commonwealth countries, and Europe, along with the hull classification symbols used by the US and Canada. History: Origins: The 1903 advent of the heavier-than-air fixed-wing airplane with the Wright brothers' first flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, was closely followed on 14 November 1910, by Eugene Burton Ely's first experimental take-off of a Curtiss Pusher airplane from the deck of a United States Navy ship, the cruiser USS Birmingham anchored off Norfolk Navy Base in Virginia. Two months later, on 18 January 1911, Ely landed his Curtiss Pusher airplane on a platform on the armored cruiser USS Pennsylvania anchored in San Francisco Bay. On 9 May 1912, the first take off of an airplane from a ship while underway was made by Commander Charles Samson flying a Short Improved S.27 biplane "S.38" of the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) from the deck of the Royal Navy's pre-dreadnought battleship HMS Hibernia, thus providing the first practical demonstration of the aircraft carrier for naval operations at sea. Seaplane tender support ships came next, with the French Foudre of 1911. Early in World War I, the Imperial Japanese Navy ship Wakamiya conducted the world's first successful ship-launched air raid: on 6 September 1914, a Farman aircraft launched by Wakamiya attacked the Austro-Hungarian cruiser SMS Kaiserin Elisabeth and the Imperial German gunboat Jaguar in Jiaozhou Bay off Qingdao; neither was hit. The first attack using an air-launched torpedo occurred on 2 August, when a torpedo was fired by Flight Commander Charles Edmonds from a Short Type 184 seaplane, launched from the seaplane carrier HMS Ben-my-Chree. The first carrier-launched airstrike was the Tondern raid in July 1918. Seven Sopwith Camels were launched from the battlecruiser HMS Furious which had been completed as a carrier by replacing her planned forward turret with a flight deck and hangar prior to commissioning. The Camels attacked and damaged the German airbase at Tondern, Germany (modern day Tønder, Denmark), and destroyed two zeppelin airships. The first landing of an airplane on a moving ship was by Squadron Commander Edwin Harris Dunning, when he landed his Sopwith Pup on HMS Furious in Scapa Flow, Orkney on 2 August 1917. Landing on the forward flight deck required the pilot to approach round the ship's superstructure, a difficult and dangerous manoeuver and Dunning was later killed when his airplane was thrown overboard while attempting another landing on Furious.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

The first carrier-launched airstrike was the Tondern raid in July 1918. Seven Sopwith Camels were launched from the battlecruiser HMS Furious which had been completed as a carrier by replacing her planned forward turret with a flight deck and hangar prior to commissioning. The Camels attacked and damaged the German airbase at Tondern, Germany (modern day Tønder, Denmark), and destroyed two zeppelin airships. The first landing of an airplane on a moving ship was by Squadron Commander Edwin Harris Dunning, when he landed his Sopwith Pup on HMS Furious in Scapa Flow, Orkney on 2 August 1917. Landing on the forward flight deck required the pilot to approach round the ship's superstructure, a difficult and dangerous manoeuver and Dunning was later killed when his airplane was thrown overboard while attempting another landing on Furious. HMS Furious was modified again when her rear turret was removed and another flight deck added over a second hangar for landing aircraft over the stern. Her funnel and superstructure remained intact however and turbulence from the funnel and superstructure was severe enough that only three landing attempts were successful before further attempts were forbidden. This experience prompted the development of vessels with a flush deck and produced the first large fleet ships. In 1918, HMS Argus became the world's first carrier capable of launching and recovering naval aircraft. As a result of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which limited the construction of new heavy surface combat ships, most early aircraft carriers were conversions of ships that were laid down (or had served) as different ship types: cargo ships, cruisers, battlecruisers, or battleships. These conversions gave rise to the USS Langley in 1922, the US Lexington-class aircraft carriers (1927), Japanese Akagi and Kaga, and British Courageous class (of which Furious was one). Specialist carrier evolution was well underway, with several navies ordering and building warships that were purposefully designed to function as aircraft carriers by the mid-1920s. This resulted in the commissioning of ships such as the Japanese Hōshō (1922), HMS Hermes (1924, although laid down in 1918 before Hōshō), and Béarn (1927). During World War II, these ships would become known as fleet carriers. World War II: The aircraft carrier dramatically changed naval warfare in World War II, because air power was becoming a significant factor in warfare. The advent of aircraft as focal weapons was driven by the superior range, flexibility, and effectiveness of carrier-launched aircraft. They had greater range and precision than naval guns, making them highly effective. The versatility of the carrier was demonstrated in November 1940, when HMS Illustrious launched a long-range strike on the Italian fleet at their base in Taranto, signalling the beginning of the effective and highly mobile aircraft strikes. This operation in the shallow water harbor incapacitated three of the six anchored battleships at a cost of two torpedo bombers. World War II in the Pacific Ocean involved clashes between aircraft carrier fleets. The Japanese surprise attack on the American Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor naval and air bases on Sunday, 7 December 1941, was a clear illustration of the power projection capability afforded by a large force of modern carriers. Concentrating six carriers in a single unit turned naval history about, as no other nation had fielded anything comparable. In the "Doolittle Raid", on 18 April 1942, the US Navy carrier USS Hornet sailed to within 650 nautical miles (1,200 km) of Japan and launched 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers from her deck in a demonstrative retaliatory strike on the mainland, including the capital, Tokyo. However, the vulnerability of carriers compared to traditional capital ships was illustrated by the sinking of HMS Glorious by German battleships during the Norwegian campaign in 1940. This new-found importance of naval aviation forced nations to create a number of carriers, in efforts to provide air superiority cover for every major fleet to ward off enemy aircraft. This extensive usage led to the development and construction of 'light' carriers. Escort aircraft carriers, such as USS Bogue, were sometimes purpose-built but most were converted from merchant ships as a stop-gap measure to provide anti-submarine air support for convoys and amphibious invasions. Following this concept, light aircraft carriers built by the US, such as USS Independence (commissioned in 1943), represented a larger, more "militarized" version of the escort carrier. Although with similar complement to escort carriers, they had the advantage of speed from their converted cruiser hulls. The UK 1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier was designed for building quickly by civilian shipyards and with an expected service life of about 3 years. They served the Royal Navy during the war, and the hull design was chosen for nearly all aircraft carrier equipped navies after the war, until the 1980s. Emergencies also spurred the creation or conversion of highly unconventional aircraft carriers. CAM ships were cargo-carrying merchant ships that could launch (but not retrieve) a single fighter aircraft from a catapult to defend the convoy from long range land-based German aircraft. Postwar era: Before World War II, international naval treaties of 1922, 1930, and 1936 limited the size of capital ships including carriers. Since World War II, aircraft carrier designs have increased in size to accommodate a steady increase in aircraft size. The large, modern Nimitz class of US Navy carriers has a displacement nearly four times that of the World War II–era USS Enterprise, yet its complement of aircraft is roughly the same—a consequence of the steadily increasing size and weight of individual military aircraft over the years. Today's aircraft carriers are so expensive that some nations which operate them risk significant economic and military impact if a carrier is lost. Some changes were made after 1945 in carriers: The angled flight deck was invented by Royal Navy Captain (later Rear Admiral) Dennis Cambell, as naval aviation jets higher speeds required carriers be modified to "fit" their needs. Additionally, the angled flight deck allows for simultaneous launch and recovery. Jet blast deflectors became necessary to protect aircraft and handlers from jet blast. The first US Navy carriers to be fitted with them were the wooden-decked Essex-class aircraft carriers which were adapted to operate jets in the late 1940s. Later versions had to be water-cooled because of increasing engine power. Optical landing systems were developed to facilitate the very precise landing angles required by jet aircraft, which have a faster landing speed giving the pilot little time to correct misalignments, or mistakes. The first system was fitted to HMS Illustrious in 1952. Aircraft carrier designs have increased in size to accommodate continuous increase in aircraft size. The 1950s saw US Navy's commission of "supercarriers", designed to operate naval jets, which offered better performance at the expense of bigger size and demanded more ordnance to be carried on-board (fuel, spare parts, electronics, etc.). The combination of increased carrier size, speed requirements above 30 knots (35 mph; 56 km/h), and a requirement to operate at sea for long periods mean that modern large aircraft carriers often use nuclear reactors to create power for propulsion, electricity, catapulting airplanes from aircraft carriers, and a few more minor uses. Modern navies that operate such aircraft carriers treat them as capital ships of fleets, a role previously held by the galleons, ships-of-the-line and battleships. This change took place during World War II in response to air power becoming a significant factor in warfare, driven by the superior range, flexibility and effectiveness of carrier-launched aircraft. Following the war, carrier operations continued to increase in size and importance, and along with, carrier designs also increased in size and ability. Some of these larger carriers, dubbed by the media as "supercarriers", displacing 75,000 tons or greater, have become the pinnacle of carrier development. Some are powered by nuclear reactors and form the core of a fleet designed to operate far from home. Amphibious assault ships, such as the Wasp and Mistral classes, serve the purpose of carrying and landing Marines, and operate a large contingent of helicopters for that purpose. Also known as "commando carriers" or "helicopter carriers", many have the capability to operate VSTOL aircraft. The threatening role of aircraft carriers has a place in modern asymmetric warfare, like the gunboat diplomacy of the past. Carriers also facilitate quick and precise projections of overwhelming military power into such local and regional conflicts. Lacking the firepower of other warships, carriers by themselves are considered vulnerable to attack by other ships, aircraft, submarines, or missiles. Therefore, an aircraft carrier is generally accompanied by a number of other ships to provide protection for the relatively unwieldy carrier, to carry supplies, re-supply (Many carriers are self-sufficient and will supply their escorts) and perform other support services, and to provide additional offensive capabilities. The resulting group of ships is often termed a carrier strike group, battle group, carrier group, or carrier battle group. There is a view among some military pundits that modern anti-ship weapons systems, such as torpedoes and missiles, or even ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads have made aircraft carriers and carrier groups too vulnerable for modern combat.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

Carriers also facilitate quick and precise projections of overwhelming military power into such local and regional conflicts. Lacking the firepower of other warships, carriers by themselves are considered vulnerable to attack by other ships, aircraft, submarines, or missiles. Therefore, an aircraft carrier is generally accompanied by a number of other ships to provide protection for the relatively unwieldy carrier, to carry supplies, re-supply (Many carriers are self-sufficient and will supply their escorts) and perform other support services, and to provide additional offensive capabilities. The resulting group of ships is often termed a carrier strike group, battle group, carrier group, or carrier battle group. There is a view among some military pundits that modern anti-ship weapons systems, such as torpedoes and missiles, or even ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads have made aircraft carriers and carrier groups too vulnerable for modern combat. Carriers can also be vulnerable to diesel-electric submarines like the German U24 of the conventional 206 class which in 2001 "fired" at the Enterprise during the exercise JTFEX 01-2 in the Caribbean Sea by firing flares and taking a photograph through its periscope or the Swedish Gotland which managed the same feat in 2006 during JTFEX 06-2 by penetrating the defensive measures of Carrier Strike Group 7 which was protecting USS Ronald Reagan. Description: Structure: Carriers are large and long ships, although there is a high degree of variation depending on their intended role and aircraft complement. The size of the carrier has varied over history and among navies, to cater to the various roles that global climates have demanded from naval aviation. Regardless of size, the ship itself must house their complement of aircraft, with space for launching, storing, and maintaining them. Space is also required for the large crew, supplies (food, munitions, fuel, engineering parts), and propulsion. US aircraft carriers are notable for having nuclear reactors powering their systems and propulsion. The top of the carrier is the flight deck, where aircraft are launched and recovered. On the starboard side of this is the island, where the funnel, air-traffic control and the bridge are located. The constraints of constructing a flight deck affect the role of a given carrier strongly, as they influence the weight, type, and configuration of the aircraft that may be launched. For example, assisted launch mechanisms are used primarily for heavy aircraft, especially those loaded with air-to-ground weapons. CATOBAR is most commonly used on US Navy fleet carriers as it allows the deployment of heavy jets with full load-outs, especially on ground-attack missions. STOVL is used by other navies because it is cheaper to operate and still provides good deployment capability for fighter aircraft. Due to the busy nature of the flight deck, only 20 or so aircraft may be on it at any one time. A hangar storage several decks below the flight deck is where most aircraft are kept, and aircraft are taken from the lower storage decks to the flight deck through the use of an elevator. The hangar is usually quite large and can take up several decks of vertical space. Munitions are commonly stored on the lower decks because they are highly explosive. Usually this is below the waterline so that the area can be flooded in case of emergency. Flight deck: As "runways at sea", aircraft carriers have a flat-top flight deck, which launches and recovers aircraft. Aircraft launch forward, into the wind, and are recovered from astern. The flight deck is where the most notable differences between a carrier and a land runway are found. Creating such a surface at sea poses constraints on the carrier. For example, the size of the vessel is a fundamental limitation on runway length. This affects take-off procedure, as a shorter runway length of the deck requires that aircraft accelerate more quickly to gain lift. This either requires a thrust boost, a vertical component to its velocity, or a reduced take-off load (to lower mass). The differing types of deck configuration, as above, influence the structure of the flight deck. The form of launch assistance a carrier provides is strongly related to the types of aircraft embarked and the design of the carrier itself. There are two main philosophies to keep the deck short: add thrust to the aircraft, such as using a Catapult Assisted Take-Off (CATO-); and changing the direction of the airplanes' thrust, as in Vertical and/or Short Take-Off (V/STO-). Each method has advantages and disadvantages of its own: Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR): A steam- or electric-powered catapult is connected to the aircraft, and is used to accelerate conventional aircraft to a safe flying speed. By the end of the catapult stroke, the aircraft is airborne and further propulsion is provided by its own engines. This is the most expensive method as it requires complex machinery to be installed under the flight deck, but allows for even heavily loaded aircraft to take off. Short Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) depends on increasing the net lift on the aircraft. Aircraft do not require catapult assistance for take off; instead on nearly all ships of this type an upwards vector is provided by a ski-jump at the forward end of the flight deck, often combined with thrust vectoring by the aircraft. Alternatively, by reducing the fuel and weapon load, an aircraft is able to reach faster speeds and generate more upwards lift and launch without a ski-jump or catapult. Short Take-Off Vertical-Landing (STOVL): On aircraft carriers, non-catapult-assisted, fixed-wing short takeoffs are accomplished with the use of thrust vectoring, which may also be used in conjunction with a runway "ski-jump". Use of STOVL tends to allow aircraft to carry a larger payload as compared to during VTOL use, while still only requiring a short runway. The most famous examples are the Hawker Siddeley Harrier and the BAe Sea Harrier. Although technically VTOL aircraft, they are operationally STOVL aircraft due to the extra weight carried at take-off for fuel and armaments. The same is true of the Lockheed F-35B Lightning II, which demonstrated VTOL capability in test flights but is operationally STOVL or in the case of UK uses "shipborne rolling vertical landing" Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL): Certain aircraft are specifically designed for the purpose of using very high degrees of thrust vectoring (e.g. if the thrust to weight-force ratio is greater than 1, it can take off vertically), but are usually slower than conventionally propelled aircraft due to the additional weight from associated systems. On the recovery side of the flight deck, the adaptation to the aircraft load-out is mirrored. Non-VTOL or conventional aircraft cannot decelerate on their own, and almost all carriers using them must have arrested-recovery systems (-BAR, e.g. CATOBAR or STOBAR) to recover their aircraft. Aircraft that are landing extend a tailhook that catches on arrestor wires stretched across the deck to bring themselves to a stop in a short distance. Post-World War II Royal Navy research on safer CATOBAR recovery eventually led to universal adoption of a landing area angled off axis to allow aircraft who missed the arresting wires to "bolt" and safely return to flight for another landing attempt rather than crashing into aircraft on the forward deck. If the aircraft are VTOL-capable or helicopters, they do not need to decelerate and hence there is no such need. The arrested-recovery system has used an angled deck since the 1950s because, in case the aircraft does not catch the arresting wire, the short deck allows easier take off by reducing the number of objects between the aircraft and the end of the runway. It also has the advantage of separating the recovery operation area from the launch area. Helicopters and aircraft capable of vertical or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) usually recover by coming abreast of the carrier on the port side and then using their hover capability to move over the flight deck and land vertically without the need for arresting gear. Staff and deck operations: Carriers steam at speed, up to 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph) into the wind during flight deck operations to increase wind speed over the deck to a safe minimum. This increase in effective wind speed provides a higher launch airspeed for aircraft at the end of the catapult stroke or ski-jump, as well as making recovery safer by reducing the difference between the relative speeds of the aircraft and ship. Since the early 1950s on conventional carriers it has been the practice to recover aircraft at an angle to port of the axial line of the ship. The primary function of this angled deck is to allow aircraft that miss the arresting wires, referred to as a bolter, to become airborne again without the risk of hitting aircraft parked forward. The angled deck allows the installation of one or two "waist" catapults in addition to the two bow cats. An angled deck also improves launch and recovery cycle flexibility with the option of simultaneous launching and recovery of aircraft. Conventional ("tailhook") aircraft rely upon a landing signal officer (LSO, radio call sign 'paddles') to monitor the aircraft's approach, visually gauge glideslope, attitude, and airspeed, and transmit that data to the pilot. Before the angled deck emerged in the 1950s, LSOs used colored paddles to signal corrections to the pilot (hence the nickname). From the late 1950s onward, visual landing aids such as the optical landing system have provided information on proper glide slope, but LSOs still transmit voice calls to approaching pilots by radio.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

The angled deck allows the installation of one or two "waist" catapults in addition to the two bow cats. An angled deck also improves launch and recovery cycle flexibility with the option of simultaneous launching and recovery of aircraft. Conventional ("tailhook") aircraft rely upon a landing signal officer (LSO, radio call sign 'paddles') to monitor the aircraft's approach, visually gauge glideslope, attitude, and airspeed, and transmit that data to the pilot. Before the angled deck emerged in the 1950s, LSOs used colored paddles to signal corrections to the pilot (hence the nickname). From the late 1950s onward, visual landing aids such as the optical landing system have provided information on proper glide slope, but LSOs still transmit voice calls to approaching pilots by radio. Key personnel involved in the flight deck include the shooters, the handler, and the air boss. Shooters are naval aviators or naval flight officers and are responsible for launching aircraft. The handler works just inside the island from the flight deck and is responsible for the movement of aircraft before launching and after recovery. The "air boss" (usually a commander) occupies the top bridge (Primary Flight Control, also called primary or the tower) and has the overall responsibility for controlling launch, recovery and "those aircraft in the air near the ship, and the movement of planes on the flight deck, which itself resembles a well-choreographed ballet". The captain of the ship spends most of his time one level below primary on the Navigation Bridge. Below this is the Flag Bridge, designated for the embarked admiral and his staff. To facilitate working on the flight deck of a US aircraft carrier, the sailors wear colored shirts that designate their responsibilities. There are at least seven different colors worn by flight deck personnel for modern United States Navy carrier air operations. Carrier operations of other nations use similar color schemes. Deck structures: The superstructure of a carrier (such as the bridge, flight control tower) are concentrated in a relatively small area called an island, a feature pioneered on HMS Hermes in 1923. While the island is usually built on the starboard side of the flight deck, the Japanese aircraft carriers Akagi and Hiryū had their islands built on the port side. Very few carriers have been designed or built without an island. The flush deck configuration proved to have significant drawbacks, primary of which was management of the exhaust from the power plant. Fumes coming across the deck were a major issue in USS Langley. In addition, lack of an island meant difficulties managing the flight deck, performing air traffic control, a lack of radar housing placements and problems with navigating and controlling the ship itself. Another deck structure that can be seen is a ski-jump ramp at the forward end of the flight deck. This was first developed to help launch short take off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft take off at far higher weights than is possible with a vertical or rolling takeoff on flat decks. Originally developed by the Royal Navy, it since has been adopted by many navies for smaller carriers. A ski-jump ramp works by converting some of the forward rolling movement of the aircraft into vertical velocity and is sometimes combined with the aiming of jet thrust partly downward. This allows heavily loaded and fueled aircraft a few more precious seconds to attain sufficient air velocity and lift to sustain normal flight. Without a ski-jump, launching fully-loaded and fueled aircraft such as the Harrier would not be possible on a smaller flat deck ship before either stalling out or crashing directly into the sea. Although STOVL aircraft are capable of taking off vertically from a spot on the deck, using the ramp and a running start is far more fuel efficient and permits a heavier launch weight. As catapults are unnecessary, carriers with this arrangement reduce weight, complexity, and space needed for complex steam or electromagnetic launching equipment. Vertical landing aircraft also remove the need for arresting cables and related hardware. Russian, Chinese, and Indian carriers include a ski-jump ramp for launching lightly loaded conventional fighter aircraft but recover using traditional carrier arresting cables and a tailhook on their aircraft. The disadvantage of the ski-jump is the penalty it exacts on aircraft size, payload, and fuel load (and thus range); heavily laden aircraft cannot launch using a ski-jump because their high loaded weight requires either a longer takeoff roll than is possible on a carrier deck, or assistance from a catapult or JATO rocket. For example, the Russian Sukhoi Su-33 is only able to launch from the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov with a minimal armament and fuel load. Another disadvantage is on mixed flight deck operations where helicopters are also present, such as on a US landing helicopter dock or landing helicopter assault amphibious assault ship. A ski jump is not included as this would eliminate one or more helicopter landing areas; this flat deck limits the loading of Harriers but is somewhat mitigated by the longer rolling start provided by a long flight deck compared to many STOVL carriers. National fleets: The US Navy has the largest fleet of carriers in the world, with eleven supercarriers currently in service. China and India each have two STOBAR carriers in service. The UK has two STOVL carriers in service. The navies of France and Russia each operate a single medium-sized carrier. The US also has nine similarly sized Amphibious Warfare Ships. There are five small light carriers in use capable of operating both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters; Japan and Italy each operate two, and Spain one. Additionally there are eighteen small carriers which only operate helicopters serving the navies of Australia (2), Brazil (1), China (2), Egypt (2), France (3), Japan (4), South Korea (2), Thailand (1) and Turkey (1). Algeria: Current Kalaat Béni Abbès (L-474) is an amphibious transport dock of the Algerian National Navy with two deck-landing spots for helicopters. Australia: Current The Royal Australian Navy operates two Canberra-class landing helicopter docks. The two-ship class, based on the Spanish vessel Juan Carlos I and built by Navantia and BAE Systems Australia, represents the largest ships ever built for the Royal Australian Navy. HMAS Canberra underwent sea trials in late 2013 and was commissioned in 2014. Her sister ship, HMAS Adelaide, was commissioned in December 2015. The Australian ships retain the ski-ramp from the Juan Carlos I design, although the RAN has not acquired carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. Brazil: Current In December 2017, the Brazilian Navy confirmed the purchase of HMS Ocean for (GBP) £84.6 million (equivalent to R$359.5M and US$113.2M) and renamed her Atlântico. The ship was decommissioned from Royal Navy service in March 2018. The Brazilian Navy commissioned the carrier on 29 June 2018 in the United Kingdom. After undertaking a period of maintenance in the UK, the ship travelled to its new home port, Arsenal de Marinha do Rio de Janeiro (AMRJ) to be fully operational by 2020. The ship displaces 21,578 tonnes, is 203.43 meters (667.4 ft) long and has a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi). Before leaving HMNB Devonport for her new homeport in Rio's AMRJ, Atlântico underwent operational sea training under the Royal Navy's Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) program. On 12 November 2020, Atlântico was redesignated "NAM", for "multipurpose aircraft carrier" (Portuguese: Navio Aeródromo Multipropósito), from "PHM", for "multipurpose helicopter carrier" (Portuguese: Porta-Helicópteros Multipropósito), to reflect the ship's capability to operate with fixed-wing medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles as well as crewed tiltrotor VTOL aircraft. China: Current 2 STOBAR carriers: Liaoning (60,900 tons) was originally built as the Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag and was later purchased as a hulk in 1998 on the pretext of use as a floating casino, then towed to China for rebuild and completion. Liaoning was commissioned on 25 September 2012 and began service for testing and training. In November 2012, Liaoning launched and recovered Shenyang J-15 naval fighter aircraft for the first time. After a refit in January 2019, she was assigned to the North Sea Fleet, a change from her previous role as a training carrier. Shandong (60,000–70,000 tons) was launched on 26 April 2017. She is the first to be built domestically, to an improved Kuznetsov-class design. Shandong started sea trials on 23 April 2018, and entered service in December 2019. 1 CATOBAR carrier: Fujian (80,000 tons) is a CATOBAR carrier which was under construction between 2015 and 2016 before being completed in June 2022. She is being fitted out as of 2022 and will commence service in 2023–2024. 3 Landing helicopter docks A Type 075 LHD, Hainan was commissioned on 23 April 2021 at the naval base in Sanya. A second ship, Guangxi, was commissioned on 26 December 2021 and a third ship, Anhui, was commissioned in October 2022.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

Shandong (60,000–70,000 tons) was launched on 26 April 2017. She is the first to be built domestically, to an improved Kuznetsov-class design. Shandong started sea trials on 23 April 2018, and entered service in December 2019. 1 CATOBAR carrier: Fujian (80,000 tons) is a CATOBAR carrier which was under construction between 2015 and 2016 before being completed in June 2022. She is being fitted out as of 2022 and will commence service in 2023–2024. 3 Landing helicopter docks A Type 075 LHD, Hainan was commissioned on 23 April 2021 at the naval base in Sanya. A second ship, Guangxi, was commissioned on 26 December 2021 and a third ship, Anhui, was commissioned in October 2022. Future China has had a long-term plan to operate six large aircraft carriers with two carriers per fleet. China is planning a class of eight landing helicopter dock vessels, the Type 075 (NATO reporting name Yushen-class landing helicopter assault). This is a class of amphibious assault ship under construction by the Hudong–Zhonghua Shipbuilding company. The first ship was commissioned in April 2021. China is also planning a modified class of the same concept, the Type 076 landing helicopter dock, that will also be equipped with an electromagnetic catapult launch system. Egypt: Current Egypt signed a contract with French shipbuilder DCNS to buy two Mistral-class helicopter carriers for approximately 950 million euros. The two ships were originally to be sold to Russia, but the deal was cancelled by France due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014. On 2 June 2016, Egypt received the first of two helicopter carriers acquired in October 2015, the landing helicopter dock Gamal Abdel Nasser. The flag transfer ceremony took place in the presence of Egyptian and French Navies' chiefs of staff, chairman and chief executive officers of both DCNS and STX France, and senior Egyptian and French officials. On 16 September 2016, DCNS delivered the second of two helicopter carriers, the landing helicopter dock Anwar El Sadat which also participated in a joint military exercise with the French Navy before arriving at her home port of Alexandria. Egypt is so far the only country in Africa or the Middle East to possess a helicopter carrier. France: Current The French Navy operates the 42,000-tonne nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Commissioned in 2001, she is the flagship of the French Navy. The ship carries a complement of Dassault Rafale M and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft, EC725 Caracal and AS532 Cougar helicopters for combat search and rescue, as well as modern electronics and Aster missiles. She is a CATOBAR-type carrier that uses two 75 m C13-3 steam catapults of a shorter version of the catapult system installed on the US Nimitz-class carriers, one catapult at the bow and one across the front of the landing area. In addition, the French Navy operates three Mistral-class amphibious assault ships. Future In October 2018, the French Ministry of Defence began an 18-month study for €40 million for the eventual future replacement of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle beyond 2030. In December 2020, President Macron announced that construction of the next generation carrier would begin in around 2025 with sea trials to start in about 2036. The carrier is planned to have a displacement of around 75,000 tons and to carry about 32 next-generation fighters, two to three E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes and a yet-to-be-determined number of unmanned carrier air vehicles. India: Current 2 STOBAR carriers: INS Vikramaditya, 45,400 tonnes, modified Kiev class. The carrier was purchased by India on 20 January 2004 after years of negotiations at a final price of $2.35 billion (equivalent to $3,147,000,000 in 2023). The ship successfully completed her sea trials in July 2013 and aviation trials in September 2013. She was formally commissioned on 16 November 2013 at a ceremony held at Severodvinsk, Russia. INS Vikrant, also known as Indigenous Aircraft Carrier 1 (IAC-1) a 45,000-tonne, 262-metre-long (860 ft) aircraft carrier whose keel was laid in 2009. The new carrier will operate MiG-29K and naval HAL Tejas aircraft. The ship is powered by gas-turbines and has a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 kilometres) and deploys 10 helicopters and 30 aircraft. The ship was launched in 2013, sea-trials began in August 2021 and was commissioned on 2 September 2022. Future India has plans for a third carrier, INS Vishal, also known as Indigenous Aircraft Carrier 2 (IAC-2) with a displacement of over 65,000 tonnes and is planned with a CATOBAR system to launch and recover heavier aircraft. India has also issued a request for information (RFI) to procure four Landing helicopter dock displacing 30,000–40,000 tons with a capacity to operate 12 medium lift special ops and two heavy lift helicopters and troops for amphibious operations. Italy: Current 2 STOVL carriers: Giuseppe Garibaldi: 14,000-tonne Italian STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1985. Cavour: 30,000-tonne Italian STOVL carrier designed and built with secondary amphibious assault facilities, commissioned in 2008. Future Italy plans to replace ageing aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, as well as one of the San Giorgio-class landing helicopter docks, with a new amphibious assault ship, to be named Trieste. The ship will be significantly larger than her predecessors with a displacement of 38,000 tonnes at full load. Trieste is to carry the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. Meanwhile, Giuseppe Garibaldi will be transferred to Italian Space Operation Command for use as a satellite launch platform. Japan: Current 2 Izumo-class multi-purpose destroyers – 250-metre-long (820 ft), 19,500-tonne (27,000 tonnes full load) STOVL carrier Izumo was launched August 2013 and commissioned March 2015. Izumo's sister ship, Kaga, was commissioned in 2017. In December 2018, the Japanese Cabinet gave approval to convert both Izumo-class destroyers into aircraft carriers for F-35B STOVL operations. The conversion of Izumo was underway as of mid-2020. The modification of maritime escort vessels is to "increase operational flexibility" and enhance Pacific air defense, the Japanese defense ministry's position is "We are not creating carrier air wings or carrier air squadrons" similar to the US Navy. The Japanese STOVL F-35s, when delivered, will be operated by the Japan Air Self Defense Force from land bases; according to the 2020 Japanese Defense Ministry white paper the STOVL model was chosen for the JASDF due the lack of appropriately long runways to support air superiority capability across all of Japanese airspace. Japan has requested that the USMC deploy STOVL F-35s and crews aboard the Izumo-class ships "for cooperation and advice on how to operate the fighter on the deck of the modified ships". On 3 October 2021, two USMC F-35Bs performed the first vertical landings and horizontal take-offs from JS Izumo, marking 75 years since fixed-wing aircraft operated from a Japanese carrier. 2 Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers – 19,000-tonne (full load) anti-submarine warfare carriers with enhanced command-and-control capabilities allowing them to serve as fleet flagships. Russia: Current 1 STOBAR carrier: Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov: 55,000-tonne Kuznetsov-class STOBAR aircraft carrier. Launched in 1985 as Tbilisi, renamed and operational from 1995. Without catapults she can launch and recover lightly fueled naval fighters for air defense or anti-ship missions but not heavy conventional bombing strikes. Officially designated an aircraft carrying cruiser, she is unique in carrying a heavy cruiser's complement of defensive weapons and large P-700 Granit offensive missiles. The P-700 systems will be removed in the coming refit to enlarge her below decks aviation facilities as well as upgrading her defensive systems. The ship has been out of service and in repairs since 2018. The current projection is that repairs will be completed and the ship will be transferred back to the Russian Navy sometime in 2024, however this may be pushed back to 2025 if issues arise during overhaul and testing. Future The Russian Government has been considering the potential replacement of Admiral Kuznetsov for some time and has considered the Shtorm-class aircraft carrier as a possible option. This carrier will be a hybrid of CATOBAR and STOBAR, given the fact that she uses both systems of launching aircraft. The carrier is expected to cost between $1.8 billion and $5.63 billion.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

The P-700 systems will be removed in the coming refit to enlarge her below decks aviation facilities as well as upgrading her defensive systems. The ship has been out of service and in repairs since 2018. The current projection is that repairs will be completed and the ship will be transferred back to the Russian Navy sometime in 2024, however this may be pushed back to 2025 if issues arise during overhaul and testing. Future The Russian Government has been considering the potential replacement of Admiral Kuznetsov for some time and has considered the Shtorm-class aircraft carrier as a possible option. This carrier will be a hybrid of CATOBAR and STOBAR, given the fact that she uses both systems of launching aircraft. The carrier is expected to cost between $1.8 billion and $5.63 billion. As of 2020, the project had not yet been approved and, given the financial costs, it was unclear whether it would be made a priority over other elements of Russian naval modernization. A class of 2 LHD, Project 23900 is planned and an official keel laying ceremony for the project happened on 20 July 2020. South Korea: Current Two Dokdo-class 18,860-tonne full deck amphibious assault ships with hospital and well deck and facilities to serve as fleet flagships. Future South Korea has set tentative plans for procuring two light aircraft carriers by 2033, which would help make the ROKN a blue water navy. In December 2020, details of South Korea's planned carrier program (CVX) were finalized. A vessel of about 40,000 tons is envisaged carrying about 20 F-35B fighters as well as future maritime attack helicopters. Service entry had been anticipated in the early 2030s. The program has encountered opposition in the National Assembly. In November 2021, the National Defense Committee of the National Assembly reduced the program's requested budget of 7.2 billion KRW and to just 500 million KRW (about $400K USD), effectively putting the project on hold, at least temporarily. However, on 3 December 2021 the full budget of 7.2 billion won was passed by the National Assembly. Basic design work is to begin in earnest starting 2022. Spain: Current Juan Carlos I: 27,000-tonne, specially designed multipurpose strategic projection ship which can operate as an amphibious assault ship and aircraft carrier. Juan Carlos I has full facilities for both functions including a ski jump for STOVL operations, is equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft. Also, well deck, and vehicle storage area which can be used as additional hangar space, launched in 2008, commissioned 30 September 2010. Thailand: Current 1 offshore helicopter support ship: HTMS Chakri Naruebet helicopter carrier: 11,400-tonne STOVL carrier based on Spanish Príncipe de Asturias design. Commissioned in 1997. The AV-8S Matador/Harrier STOVL fighter wing, mostly inoperable by 1999, was retired from service without replacement in 2006. As of 2010, the ship is used for helicopter operations and for disaster relief. Turkey: Current TCG Anadolu is a 27,079-tonne amphibious assault ship (LHD) of the Turkish Navy that can be configured as a 24,660-tonne V/STOL aircraft carrier. Construction began on 30 April 2016 by Sedef Shipbuilding Inc. at their Istanbul shipyard. TCG Anadolu was commissioned with a ceremony on 10 April 2023. The construction of a sister ship, to be named TCG Trakya, is currently being planned by the Turkish Navy. The Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk and the Bell AH-1 SuperCobra are the two main types of helicopters used on TCG Anadolu, with the occasional use of CH-47F Chinook helicopters of the Turkish Army during military exercises and operations. The AH-1W Super Cobras will eventually be complemented and replaced by the TAI T929 ATAK 2. The jet-powered, low-observable Bayraktar MIUS Kızılelma and the MALE Bayraktar TB3 are two UCAVs that are specifically designed and manufactured by Baykar Technologies to be used on TCG Anadolu. The maiden flight of TAI Anka-3 (also part of Project MIUS), a jet-powered, flying wing type UCAV with stealth technology, was successfully completed on 28 December 2023. Future On 3 January 2024, the Turkish government approved the plan for the design and construction of a larger aircraft carrier. On 15 February 2024, the Design and Projects Office of the Turkish Navy announced that it will be a STOBAR aircraft carrier with an overall length of 285 metres (935 ft), beam of 68 metres (223 ft), draught of 10.1 metres (33 ft), and displacement of 60,000 tons. It will have a COGAG propulsion system and a maximum speed of 25 knots (29 mph; 46 km/h). United Kingdom: Current Two 65,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth-class STOVL carriers which operate the F-35 Lightning II. HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned in December 2017 and HMS Prince of Wales in December 2019. Queen Elizabeth undertook her first operational deployment in 2021. Each Queen Elizabeth-class ship is able to operate around 40 aircraft during peacetime operations and is thought to be able to carry up to 72 at maximum capacity. As of the end of April 2020, 18 F-35B aircraft had been delivered to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. "Full operating capability" for the UK's carrier strike capability had been planned for 2023 (two squadrons or 24 jets operating from one carrier). The longer-term aim remains for the ability to conduct a wide range of air operations and support amphibious operations worldwide from both carriers by 2026. They form the central part of the UK Carrier Strike Group. Future The Queen Elizabeth-class ships are expected to have service lives of 50 years. United States: Current 11 CATOBAR carriers, all nuclear-powered: Nimitz class: ten 101,000-tonne, 333-meter-long (1,092 ft) fleet carriers, the first of which was commissioned in 1975. A Nimitz-class carrier is powered by two nuclear reactors providing steam to four steam turbines. Gerald R. Ford class, one 100,000-tonne, 337-meter-long (1,106 ft) fleet carrier. The lead of the class Gerald R. Ford came into service in 2017, with another nine planned to replace the aging Nimitz-class ships. Nine amphibious assault ships carrying vehicles, Marine fighters, attack and transport helicopters, and landing craft with STOVL fighters for CAS and CAP: America class: a class of 45,000-tonne amphibious assault ships, although the first two ships in this class, (Flight 0) do not have well decks, all subsequent ships (Flight I) will have well decks. Two ships are currently in service out of a planned 11 ships. Ships of this class can have a secondary mission as a light aircraft carrier with 20 AV-8B Harrier II, and in the future the F-35B Lightning II aircraft after unloading their Marine expeditionary unit. Wasp class: a class of 41,000-tonne amphibious assault ships, members of this class have been used in wartime in their secondary mission as light carriers with 20 to 25 AV-8Bs after unloading their Marine expeditionary unit. Seven ship currently in service of an original eight, with one lost to fire. Future The current US fleet of Nimitz-class carriers will be followed into service (and in some cases replaced) by the Gerald R. Ford class. It is expected that the ships will be more automated in an effort to reduce the amount of funding required to maintain and operate the vessels. The main new features are implementation of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) (which replaces the old steam catapults) and unmanned aerial vehicles. In terms of future carrier developments, Congress has discussed the possibility of accelerating the phasing-out of one or more Nimitz-class carriers, postponing or canceling the procurement of CVN-81 and CVN-82, or modifying the purchase contract. Following the deactivation of USS Enterprise in December 2012, the US fleet comprised 10 fleet carriers, but that number increased back to 11 with the commissioning of Gerald R. Ford in July 2017. The House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee on 24 July 2007, recommended seven or eight new carriers (one every four years). However, the debate has deepened over budgeting for the $12–14.5 billion (plus $12 billion for development and research) for the 100,000-tonne Gerald R. Ford-class carrier (estimated service 2017) compared to the smaller $2 billion 45,000-tonne America-class amphibious assault ships, which are able to deploy squadrons of F-35Bs. The first of this class, USS America, is now in active service with another, USS Tripoli, and 9 more are planned.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Aircraft carrier

Following the deactivation of USS Enterprise in December 2012, the US fleet comprised 10 fleet carriers, but that number increased back to 11 with the commissioning of Gerald R. Ford in July 2017. The House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee on 24 July 2007, recommended seven or eight new carriers (one every four years). However, the debate has deepened over budgeting for the $12–14.5 billion (plus $12 billion for development and research) for the 100,000-tonne Gerald R. Ford-class carrier (estimated service 2017) compared to the smaller $2 billion 45,000-tonne America-class amphibious assault ships, which are able to deploy squadrons of F-35Bs. The first of this class, USS America, is now in active service with another, USS Tripoli, and 9 more are planned. In a report to Congress in February 2018, the Navy stated it intends to maintain a "12 CVN force" as part of its 30-year acquisition plan. Aircraft carriers in preservation: Current museum carriers: A few aircraft carriers have been preserved as museum ships. They are: USS Yorktown (CV-10) in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina USS Intrepid (CV-11) in New York City USS Hornet (CV-12) in Alameda, California USS Lexington (CV-16) in Corpus Christi, Texas USS Midway (CV-41) in San Diego, California Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev in Tianjin, China Soviet aircraft carrier Minsk in Nantong, China Former museum carriers: INS Vikrant (1961) was moored as a museum in Mumbai from 2001 to 2012, but was never able to find an industrial partner and was closed that year. She was scrapped in 2014. USS Cabot (CVL-28) was acquired for preservation and moored in New Orleans from 1990 to 2002, but due to an embezzlement scandal, funding for the museum never materialized and the ship was scrapped in 2002. Planned but cancelled museum carriers: USS Tarawa (LHA-1) had a preservation campaign to bring her to the West Coast of the United States as the world's first amphibious assault ship museum. However, in RIMPAC 2024, on 9 July 2024, the Tarawa was sunk alongside USS Dubuque (LPD-8) as SINKEXs. Future museum carriers: See also: Airborne aircraft carrier Aviation-capable naval vessels Carrier-based aircraft Drone carrier Lily and Clover Merchant aircraft carrier Mobile offshore base Project Habakkuk Seadrome Submarine aircraft carrier Unsinkable aircraft carrier Related lists: Notes: References: Bibliography: Further reading: External links: "Launch & Recover (1960)" on YouTube – technical training film from the Royal Navy

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airdrop

History: Early airdrops were conducted by dropping or pushing padded bundles from aircraft. Later, small crates fitted with parachutes were pushed out of aircraft side cargo doors. Later, cargo aircraft were designed with rear access ramps, lowerable in flight, that allowed large platforms to be rolled out the back. As aircraft grew larger, the U.S. Air Force and Army developed low-level extraction, allowing vehicles like light tanks, armored personnel carriers and other large supplies to be delivered. Propaganda leaflets are another commonly airdropped item. Airdrops evolved to include massive bombs as payload. The 15,000-pound (6,800 kg) BLU-82, nicknamed the "Daisy Cutter" for its ability to turn a dense forest into a helicopter landing zone in a single blast, was used in the Vietnam War and more recently in Afghanistan. The 22,600-pound (10,250 kg) GBU-43/B, nicknamed the "Mother Of All Bombs", was deployed to the Persian Gulf for the Iraq War. Cargo aircraft like the C-130 or C-17 serve as bombers to deliver these palletized airdropped weapons. In 2021, the Air Force Research Laboratory successfully demonstrated the Rapid Dragon palletized cruise missile deployment system that is characterized as “a bomb bay in a box” that could allow cargo transport aircraft to act as standoff cruise missile carriers, safely staying out of a threat zone and launching a mass of standoff weapons such as the 500 kg warhead JASSM-ER (925 km (575 mi)), JASSM-XR (1,900 km (1,200 mi)) or JDAM-ER (80 km (50 mi)). The self-contained and disposable launch system can be loaded and deployed like a conventional palletized airdrop before the parachuted module deploys its missiles with preprogramed coordinates or targeting data transmitted from allied units. The module requires no additional training and the aircraft can resume its mission as a transportation vehicle after the system is launched out the cargo bay. In peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, food and medical supplies are often airdropped from United Nations and other aircraft. Types: The type of airdrop refers to the way that the airdrop load descends to the ground. There are several types of airdrop, and each may be carried out using different methods. Low-Velocity Airdrop is the delivery of a load involving parachutes that are designed to slow the load down as much as possible, ensuring that it impacts the ground with minimal force. This type of airdrop is used for delicate equipment and larger items such as vehicles. High-Velocity Airdrop is the delivery of a load involving a parachute meant to stabilize its fall. The parachute will slow the load, though not to the extent of a low-velocity airdrop. High-velocity airdrops are used for durable items like military ready-to-eat meals. The Low-Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) is a variation of the high-velocity drop in which aircraft come close to carrying out a touch-and-go landing without actually touching the ground, ejecting their load at an extremely low altitude (as shown in the photo below of a C-130 airdropping a tank). Free-Fall Airdrop is an airdrop with no parachute at all. A common example of this type of airdrop is the delivery of airborne leaflet propaganda used in psychological warfare or the Triwall Aerial Delivery System (TRIADS). Methods: The method of airdrop refers to the way the load leaves the aircraft. There are three main airdrop methods currently used in military operations. Extraction airdrops use an extraction parachute to pull the load out of the end of the aircraft: the parachute is deployed behind the aircraft, pulling the load out before cargo parachutes slow its descent. Extraction drops are usually low-velocity airdrops, with rare exceptions (e.g. LAPES). Manual Extraction airdrops, where the load is physically pushed out of an aircraft by a specially trained crew of up to four people. Gravity airdrops use the attitude of the aircraft at time of drop to cause loads to roll out of the plane like a sled down a hill. The most common use of a gravity airdrop is the Container Delivery System (CDS) bundle. Door bundle drops are the simplest of airdrop methods: the loadmaster simply pushes out the load at the appropriate time. Historically, bomber aircraft were often used to drop supplies, using special supply canisters compatible with the aircraft's bomb attachment system. During World War II, German bomber aircraft dropped containers called Versorgungsbomben (provisions bombs) to supply friendly troops on the ground. The British equivalent was the CLE Canister that could carry up to 600 pounds (270 kg) of supplies or weapons. Notably, British and American bombers air-dropped weapons to the Polish Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. During the Dutch famine of 1944-1945, British and American bombers dropped food on the Netherlands to feed civilians in danger of starvation; an agreement was made with Germany not to fire on the airdrop aircraft. See also: References: Technical Order (TO)13C7-1-11 Airdrop of Supplies and Equipment: Rigging Containers. Department Of The Air Force. September 2005. Technical Order (TO)13C7-1-5 Airdrop of Supplies and Equipment: Rigging Airdrop Platforms. Department Of The Air Force. August 2001. External links: 47 Air Despatch Sqn RLC The British Army's only remaining unit specialising in airdrop. Airdrop of Supplies and Equipment: Rigging Loads for Special Operations Headquarters, Department of the Army, United States Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airlift

History: In November 1915 the French squadron MF 99 S, equipped with Farman MF.11, flew wounded soldiers from Serbia through Albania to Corfu. This was the first medevac operation in air history. In April 1923 aircraft of the British Royal Air Force's Iraq Command flew 280 Sikh troops from Kingarban to Kirkuk in the first British air trooping operation. This operation was only conducted over a short-range and it was not until 1929 that the RAF conducted a long-range non-combat air evacuation of British Embassy staff from Afghanistan to India using a Vickers Victoria during the Kabul airlift. The world's first long-range combat airlift took place from July to October 1936. Nazi German Luftwaffe Ju 52 and Fascist Italian Regia Aeronautica Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 were used by the Spanish Nationalist Air Force to transport Army of Africa troops from Spanish Morocco to the Spanish mainland at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. Airlifts became practical during World War II as aircraft became large and sophisticated enough to handle large cargo demands. The Germans used an airlift in successful relief of the Demyansk Pocket, albeit with the Luftwaffe suffering considerable losses to its fleet of transport planes. Due to the apparent vindication of the airlift tactic, Chief of the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe Hermann Göring assured Adolf Hitler that the Luftwaffe could conduct an airlift on a larger scale, which was the key factor not to let the Sixth Army withdraw from Stalingrad after its encirclement by the Red Army. However the Luftwaffe was strained at this point while facing better prepared Soviet air forces at Stalingrad, so they were unable to delivery the necessary supplies before the airfields were overrun. In spite of the airlift's obvious shortcomings, Hitler refused permission for the Sixth Army to attempt a breakout, eventually leading its commander Friedrich Paulus to surrender. The U.S. Army Air Force's Air Transport Command began the largest and longest-sustained airlift of the war in May 1942, delivering more than half a million net tons of materiel from India to Free China over the Hump by November 1945. After many USAAF airmen were shot down in Nazi-occupied Serbia during Operation Tidal Wave, the U.S. Fifteenth Air Force and the Office of Strategic Services evacuated a number of them in Operation Halyard with the assistance of Draža Mihailović's Chetnik partisans. Additionally, at the end of World War II the USAAF and the RAF arranged humanitarian airdrops to the Nazi-occupied Netherlands through Operations Manna and Chowhound to alleviate the Dutch famine of 1944-45. The largest airlift was the Berlin airlift, lasting from June 1948 to September 1949, an international operation intended to thwart the blockading of West Berlin by the Soviet Union. The airlift was arranged by the U.S. Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, the French Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the South African Air Force using C-47 Skytrains, C-54 Skymasters, Handley Page Haltons, and Short Sunderlands. Many Soviet and Western leaders alike initially assumed that an airlift to resupply West Berlin would fail because of the results of the Battle of Stalingrad. However, it instead succeeded and became an embarrassment for the Soviet Union, which ended the blockade. The blockade and the success of the airlift would be a major factor in the beginning of the Cold War and the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Western European Union, and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Israeli Air Force and El Al conducted a number of airlifts during the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries to Israel after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. In 1949 Israel evacuated 49,000 Yemenite Jews to Israel via Operation On Wings of Eagles. In 1951 it carried out Operation Ezra and Nehemiah evacuating over 120,000 Jews from Iraq to Israel via British Cyprus. The Israel Defense Forces later evacuated over 8,000 Beta Israel refugees from Ethiopia living in refugee camps in Sudan through Operation Moses, Operation Joshua, and Operation Solomon during the Ethiopian famine and civil war. During the First Indochina War, the French expeditionary forces devised the hérisson ('hedgehog') concept, establishing a fortified airhead by airlifting soldiers to positions adjacent to key Viet Minh supply lines to Laos. This would cut off Viet Minh soldiers fighting in Laos and force them to withdraw. "It was an attempt to interdict the enemy's rear area, to stop the flow of supplies and reinforcements, to establish a redoubt in the enemy's rear and disrupt his lines". It was executed successfully at the Battle of Nà Sản, so the French hoped to repeat it on a larger scale at the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ. However, based on the lessons learned from Nà Sản, the Viet Minh improved their preparations at Điện Biên Phủ including concealed artillery and massed anti-aircraft batteries, making it dangerous for the French aircraft to use the runways, afterwards a bombardment forced the French to abandon use of the airstrip altogether and rely upon parachute drops. The besieged French forces eventually surrendered. The largest civilian airlift ever, the Biafran airlift, was carried out by Protestant and Catholic churches working together under the banner "Joint Church Aid" (JCA) to carry food to Biafra, during the Biafran secession war from Nigeria in 1967–70. This joint effort (which those involved used to call "Jesus Christ Airlines" as an inside joke from the initials JCA) is estimated to have saved more than a million lives in Biafra. Most airplanes departed from Portuguese São Tomé and Príncipe to the bush landing strip of Uli, the only operational "airport" in Biafra, which was made by enlarging a common road. Flights were made flying at night with all lights off and under near-total radio silence to avoid Nigerian Air Force MiG aircraft. All the airplanes, crews, and logistics were paid, set up, and maintained by the joint church groups. JCA and their crews and aircraft (mostly aging multi prop airliners like DC-7's, Lockheed Constellation and Superconstellations, DC-6's, and DC3's) kept flying into Biafra at the cost of many crews lives. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the U.S. Air Force Military Airlift Command conducted Operation Nickel Grass to resupply Israel in the face of a coordinated surprise attack by Egypt and Syria. The airlift allowed Israel to begin a counteroffensive against the Arab states but caused the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to place an oil embargo on the United States, beginning the 1970s energy crisis. During the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus the Hellenic Air Force attempted to airlift commandos to Nicosia Airport through Operation Niki but failed after the Nord Noratlas planes were shot down by friendly fire from the Cypriot National Guard after flying over RAF Akrotiri. The largest civilian airlift in history was conducted by Air India during the Gulf War, which repatriated 176,000 Indian migrant workers stranded in Ba'athist Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait. India has conducted other airlifts of migrant workers during Middle Eastern crises. The Indian Navy evacuated numerous Indian civilians from the 2006 Lebanon War via Operation Sukoon, from the First Libyan Civil War via Operation Safe Homecoming, from the South Sudanese Civil War via Operation Sankat Mochan, and from the Saudi-Yemen War in Operation Raahat. The Pakistan Navy also evacuated Pakistani nationals from Yemen via an airlift during the Saudi intervention. The Indian Armed Forces also conducted an airlift to Nepal after the 2015 Nepal earthquake through Operation Maitri. During the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, numerous air forces and civilian airlines arranged evacuation flights from Wuhan Tianhe International Airport. The highest rate of civilian airlift in history (number of civilians evacuated per day) was during fall of Kabul in August 2021, where 778 flights evacuated 124,334 people over 17 days - 7,300 civilians per day (compared to 2,700 per day airlift of Indians from Kuwait in 1990). The evacuation peaked on August 23, 2021, where over 21,600 civilians were evacuated in a single day. During the fall of Kabul at the end of the War in Afghanistan after the Taliban captured most of Afghanistan in a 2021 offensive following the withdrawal of US and NATO forces, foreign governments evacuated hundreds of thousands of their citizens as well as at-risk Afghans from Hamid Karzai International Airport. As part of the U.S. Armed Forces' Operation Allies Refuge, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin requisitioned U.S. airliners through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to assist the U.S. Transportation Command. The U.S. Department of Defense later claimed to have evacuated 122,000 people, including U.S. citizens and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants. Other airlifts included the British Armed Forces' Operation Pitting, the Canadian Armed Forces' Operation AEGIS, and the Indian Armed Forces' Operation Devi Shakti.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Airlift

During the fall of Kabul at the end of the War in Afghanistan after the Taliban captured most of Afghanistan in a 2021 offensive following the withdrawal of US and NATO forces, foreign governments evacuated hundreds of thousands of their citizens as well as at-risk Afghans from Hamid Karzai International Airport. As part of the U.S. Armed Forces' Operation Allies Refuge, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin requisitioned U.S. airliners through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to assist the U.S. Transportation Command. The U.S. Department of Defense later claimed to have evacuated 122,000 people, including U.S. citizens and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants. Other airlifts included the British Armed Forces' Operation Pitting, the Canadian Armed Forces' Operation AEGIS, and the Indian Armed Forces' Operation Devi Shakti. Strategic airlift: Strategic airlift is the use of military transport aircraft to transport vehicles, materiel, weaponry, or personnel over long distances. Typically, this involves airlifting the required items between two airbases that are not in the same vicinity. This allows commanders to bring items into a combat theater from a point on the other side of the planet, if necessary. Aircraft which perform this role are considered strategic airlifters. This contrasts with tactical airlifters, such as the C-130 Hercules and Transall C-160, which can normally only move supplies within a given theater of operations. Examples of late current large strategic airlifters include: Airbus A400M Atlas Antonov An-124 Ruslan Antonov An-225 Mriya (Only model destroyed during the Battle of Antonov Airport) Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Ilyushin Il-76 Lockheed C-5 Galaxy Xi'an Y-20 However it is prohibitively expensive and impractical to shift a substantial mechanised force such as main battle tanks by air. For instance the M1 Abrams could only be carried by a C-5 Galaxy (two tanks) or a C-17 Globemaster III (one tank). This difficulty has prompted investment in lighter armoured fighting vehicles (such as the Stryker), as well as some preliminary research into alternative airlift technologies such as ground effect vehicles and airships. Civilian aircraft are also commonly used for transportation. For some civilian airlines, such as Volga-Dnepr Airlines, military contracts account for a large portion of their income. Tactical airlift: Tactical airlift is a military term for the airborne transportation of supplies and equipment within a theatre of operations (in contrast to strategic airlift). Aircraft that perform this role are referred to as tactical airlifters. These are typically turboprop aircraft and feature short landing and take-off distances and low-pressure tires allowing operations from small or poorly prepared airstrips. While they lack the speed and range of strategic airlifters (which are typically jet-powered), these capabilities are invaluable within war zones. Larger military transport helicopters, such as the CH-47 Chinook and Mil Mi-26, can also be used to airlift personnel and equipment. Helicopters have the advantage that they do not require a landing strip and that equipment can often be suspended below the aircraft allowing it to be delivered without landing but are fuel inefficient and thus typically have limited range. Hybrid aircraft such as the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey also exist which attempt to combine VTOL flight with greater range and speed. Tactical airlift aircraft are designed to be maneuverable, allowing the low-altitude flight to avoid detection by radar and for the airdropping of supplies. Most are fitted with defensive aids systems to protect them from attack by surface-to-air missiles. The earliest Soviet tactical airlift occurred in 1929, in which forty men of the Red Army were airlifted to the town of Garm, Tajikistan (then the Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) to repel an attacking force of Basmachi rebels under Fuzail Maksum. Examples of late current large tactical airlifters include: Antonov An-12 Antonov An-72 Antonov An-70 Antonov An-178 EADS CASA CN-235 EADS CASA C-295 C-27 Spartan C-130J Super Hercules Transall C-160 Kawasaki C-2 Shaanxi Y-8 Shaanxi Y-9 Embraer KC-390 Airlifter comparison: Recent platforms: See also: References and notes: External links: The short film AIRLIFT ... WORKING FOR HUMANITY (1979) is available for free viewing and download at the Internet Archive.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

All round defence

See also: Defensive fighting position Infantry tactics List of military tactics Fortification == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ambush

History: The use of ambush tactics by early people dates as far back as two million years when anthropologists have recently suggested that ambush techniques were used to hunt large game. One example from ancient times is the Battle of the Trebia River. Hannibal encamped within striking distance of the Romans with the Trebia River between them, and placed a strong force of cavalry and infantry in concealment, near the battle zone. He had noticed, says Polybius, a "place between the two camps, flat indeed and treeless, but well adapted for an ambuscade, as it was traversed by a water-course with steep banks, densely overgrown with brambles and other thorny plants, and here he proposed to lay a stratagem to surprise the enemy". When the Roman infantry became entangled in combat with his army, the hidden ambush force attacked the Roman infantry in the rear. The result was slaughter and defeat for the Romans. Nevertheless, the battle also displays the effects of good tactical discipline on the part of the ambushed force. Although most of the legions were lost, about 10,000 Romans cut their way through to safety, maintaining unit cohesion. This ability to maintain discipline and break out or maneuver away from a kill zone is a hallmark of good troops and training in any ambush situation. Ambushes were widely used by the Lusitanians, in particular by their chieftain Viriathus. Their usual tactic, called concursare, involved repeatedly charging and retreating, forcing the enemy to eventually give them chase, to set up ambushes in difficult terrain where allied forces would be awaiting. In his first victory, he eluded the siege of Roman praetor Gaius Vetilius and attracted him to a narrow pass next to the Barbesuda river, where he destroyed his army and killed the praetor. Viriathus's ability to turn chases into ambushes would grant him victories over a number of Roman generals. Another Lusitanian ambush was performed by Curius and Apuleius on Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus, who led a numerically superior army complete with war elephants and Numidian cavalry. The ambush allowed Curius and Apuleius to steal Servilianus's loot train. However, a tactic error in their retreat led to the Romans retaking the train and putting the Lusitanians to flight. Viriathus later defeated Servilianus with a surprise attack. Germanic war chief Arminius sprung an ambush against the Romans at Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. This particular ambush was to affect the course of Western history. The Germanic forces demonstrated several principles needed for a successful ambush. They took cover in difficult forested terrain, allowing the warriors time and space to mass without detection. They had the element of surprise, and this was also aided by the defection of Arminius from Roman ranks prior to the battle. They sprang the attack when the Romans were most vulnerable; when they had left their fortified camp, and were on the march in a pounding rainstorm. The Germans did not dawdle at the hour of decision but attacked quickly, using a massive series of short, rapid, vicious charges against the length of the whole Roman line, with charging units sometimes withdrawing to the forest to regroup while others took their place. The Germans also used blocking obstacles, erecting a trench and earthen wall to hinder Roman movement along the route of the killing zone. The result was a mass slaughter of the Romans and the destruction of three legions. The Germanic victory caused a limit on Roman expansion in the West. Ultimately, it established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next four hundred years, until the decline of the Roman influence in the West. The Roman Empire made no further concerted attempts to conquer Germania beyond the Rhine. There are many notable examples of ambushes during the Roman-Persian Wars. A year after their victory at Carrhae, the Parthians invaded Syria but were driven back after a Roman ambush near Antigonia. Roman Emperor Julian was mortally wounded in an ambush near Samarra in 363 during the retreat from his Persian campaign. A Byzantine invasion of Persian Armenia was repelled by a small force at Anglon who performed a meticulous ambush by using the rough terrain as a force multiplier and concealing in houses. Heraclius' discovery of a planned ambush by Shahrbaraz in 622 was a decisive factor in his campaign. Arabia during Muhammad's era: According to Muslim tradition, Islamic Prophet Muhammad used ambush tactics in his military campaigns. His first such use was during the Caravan raids. In the Kharrar caravan raid, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas was ordered to lead a raid against the Quraysh. His group consisted of about twenty Muhajirs. This raid was about a month after the previous one. Sa'd, with his soldiers, set up an ambush in the valley of Kharrar on the road to Mecca and waited to raid a Meccan caravan returning from Syria. However, the caravan had already passed and the Muslims returned to Medina without any loot. Arab tribes during Muhammad's era also used ambush tactics. One example retold in Muslim tradition is said to have taken place during the First Raid on Banu Thalabah. The Banu Thalabah tribe were already aware of the impending attack; so they lay in wait for the Muslims. When Muhammad ibn Maslama arrived at the site, the Banu Thalabah with 100 men ambushed the Muslims while they were making preparation to sleep and, after a brief resistance, killed them all except for Muhammad ibn Maslama, who feigned death. A Muslim who happened to pass that way found him and assisted him to return to Medina. The raid was unsuccessful. Procedure: In modern warfare, an ambush can be employed by ground troops up to platoon size against enemy targets, which may be other ground troops, or possibly vehicles. However, in some situations, especially when deep behind enemy lines, the actual attack will be carried out by a platoon. A company-sized unit will be deployed to support the attack group, setting up and maintaining a forward patrol harbour from which the attacking force will deploy, and to which they will retire after the attack. Planning: Ambushes are complex multiphase operations and are therefore usually planned in some detail. First, a suitable killing zone is identified. This is where the ambush will be laid, where enemy units are expected to pass, and gives reasonable cover for the deployment, execution, and extraction phases of the ambush patrol. A path along a wooded valley floor would be a typical example. Ambush can be described geometrically as: Linear, when a number of firing units are equally distant from the linear kill zone. It can easily be controlled under all visibility conditions. L-shaped, when a short leg of firing units are placed to enfilade (fire the length of) the sides of the linear kill zone. V-shaped, when the firing units are distant from the kill zone where the enemy enters and the firing units lay down bands of intersecting and interlocking fire. This ambush is normally triggered only when the enemy is well into the kill zone. The intersecting bands of fire prevent any attempt of moving out of the kill zone. Viet Cong ambush techniques: Ambush criteria: The terrain for the ambush had to meet strict criteria: provide concealment to prevent detection from the ground or air enable ambush force to deploy, encircle and divide the enemy allow for heavy weapons emplacements to provide sustained fire enable the ambush force to set up observation posts for early detection of the enemy permit the secret movement of troops to the ambush position and the dispersal of troops during withdrawal One important feature of the ambush was that the target units should 'pile up' after being attacked, thus preventing them any easy means of withdrawal from the kill zone and hindering their use of heavy weapons and supporting fire. Terrain was usually selected which would facilitate this and slow down the enemy. Any terrain around the ambush site which was not favourable to the ambushing force, or which offered some protection to the target, was heavily mined and booby trapped or pre-registered for mortars. Ambush units: The NVA/VC ambush formations consisted of: lead-blocking element main-assault element rear-blocking element observation posts command post Other elements might also be included if the situation demanded, such as a sniper screen along a nearby avenue of approach to delay enemy reinforcements. Command posts: When deploying into an ambush site, the NVA first occupied several observation posts, placed to detect the enemy as early as possible and to report on the formation it was using, its strength and firepower, as well as to provide early warning to the unit commander. Usually, one main OP and numerous secondary OPs were established. Runners and radios were used to communicate between the OPs and the main command post. The OPs were located so that enemy movement into the ambush could be observed. They would remain in position throughout the ambush to report routes of reinforcement and withdrawal by the enemy, as well as his manoeuvre options. Frequently the OPs were reinforced to squad size and served as flank security. The command post was situated in a central location, frequently on terrain which afforded it a vantage point overlooking the ambush site. Recon methods: Reconnaissance elements observing a potential ambush target on the move generally stayed 300–500 meters away. A "leapfrogging" recon technique can be used.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ambush

Usually, one main OP and numerous secondary OPs were established. Runners and radios were used to communicate between the OPs and the main command post. The OPs were located so that enemy movement into the ambush could be observed. They would remain in position throughout the ambush to report routes of reinforcement and withdrawal by the enemy, as well as his manoeuvre options. Frequently the OPs were reinforced to squad size and served as flank security. The command post was situated in a central location, frequently on terrain which afforded it a vantage point overlooking the ambush site. Recon methods: Reconnaissance elements observing a potential ambush target on the move generally stayed 300–500 meters away. A "leapfrogging" recon technique can be used. Surveillance units were echeloned one behind the other. As the enemy drew close to the first, it fell back behind the last recon team, leaving an advance group in its place. This one in turn fell back as the enemy again closed the gap, and the cycle rotated. This method helped keep the enemy under continuous observation from a variety of vantage points, and allowed the recon groups to cover one another. See also: Ambush predator Viet Cong and PAVN battle tactics Flanking maneuver Flypaper theory (strategy) List of military tactics Sniper References: Extract from Lt Col Anthony B. Herbert's Soldier's Handbook

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

Preparation and planning: A naval landing operation requires vessels to troops and equipment and might include amphibious reconnaissance. Military intelligence services obtain information on the opponent. Amphibious warfare goes back to ancient times. The Sea Peoples menaced the Egyptians from the reign of Akhenaten as captured on the reliefs at Medinet Habu and Karnak. The Hellenic city states routinely resorted to amphibious assaults upon each other's shores, which they reflected upon in their plays and other art. The landing at Marathon by the Persians on 9 September 490 BC was the largest amphibious operation until the landings at the Battle of Gallipoli. Marines: In 1537 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, decided to train and assign amphibious-assault skilled units to the Royal Armada specifically for fighting on and from ships. The Spanish Marines were born under the name Compañías Viejas del Mar de Nápoles ("All-Spanish Sea Companies of Naples"). The idea was to set up a permanent assignation of land troops to the Royal Spanish Navy that would be available for the Crown. The first "professional" marine units were already task-trained amphibious troops, but instead of being disbanded, they were kept for the Spanish Crown's needs. Their first actions took place all along the Mediterranean Sea, where the Turks and pirate settlements were risks for commerce and navigation: Algiers, Malta and Gelves. In 1565, the island of Malta was invaded by the Ottoman Turks during the Great Siege of Malta, forcing its defenders to retreat to the fortified cities. A strategic choke point in the Mediterranean Sea, its loss would have been so menacing for the kingdoms of Western Europe that forces were urgently raised to relieve the island. It took four months to train, arm and move a 5,500-man amphibious force to lift the siege. Other countries adopted the idea and subsequently raised their own early marine forces as well. Development: From the 15th to the 20th centuries, several European countries established and expanded overseas colonies. Amphibious operations mostly aimed to settle colonies and to secure strong points along navigational routes. Amphibious forces were fully organized and devoted to this mission, although the troops not only fought ashore, but on board ships. By their nature amphibious assaults involve highly complex operations, demanding the coordination of disparate elements; when accomplished properly a paralyzing surprise to the enemy can be achieved. However, when there is a lack of preparation and/or coordination, often because of hubris, disastrous results can ensue. Terceras Landing: Álvaro de Bazán, Marquis of Santa Cruz, was an early proponent of amphibious warfare. The "Terceras Landing" in the Azores Islands on 25 May 1583, was a military feat as Bazán and the rest of commanders decided to make a fake landing to distract the defending forces (5,000 Portuguese, English and French soldiers). Special seagoing barges were also arranged to unload cavalry horses and 700 artillery pieces on the beach; special rowing boats were armed with small cannons to support the landing boats; special supplies were readied to be unloaded and support the 11,000-man landing force strength. The total strength of the amphibious force was 15,000 men, including an armada of 90 ships. Queen Anne's War: A superb example of successful combined operations, of both military branches and different imperial units, is the Siege of Port Royal (1710). The siege was a combined arms, British/Colonial American amphibious assault upon the Acadian Provincial capital Port-Royal (Acadia) of French Canada, during Queen Anne's War (the name of the American theater of the War of the Spanish Succession). The battle is known as the seminal moment in the conquest of Acadia. The siege resulted in the British imperial Force conquering French Arcadia and renaming Port Royal, Annapolis Royal. The War of Jenkin's Ear: One famous instance of a failed amphibious assault was in 1741 at the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in New Granada, when a large British amphibious assault force commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon, and including a contingent of 200 Virginia "Marines"(not originally meant to be so) commanded by Lawrence Washington (older half brother of George Washington), failed to overcome a much smaller, but very heavily fortified Spanish defence force and were forced to retreat back to the ships and call off the operation. King George's War: The Siege of Louisbourg (1745) took place in 1745 when a New England colonial force aided by a small British fleet captured Louisbourg, the capital of the French province of Île-Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island) during the War of the Austrian Succession, known as King George's War in the British colonies. The northern British colonies regarded Louisbourg as a menacers, calling it the "American Dunkirk" due to its use as a base for privateers. There was regular, intermittent warfare between the French and the Wabanaki Confederacy on one side and the northern New England colonies on the other (See the Northeast Coast Campaigns of 1688, 1703, 1723, 1724). For the French, the Fortress of Louisbourg also protected the chief entrance to Canada, as well as the nearby French fisheries. The French government had spent 25 years in fortifying it, and the cost of its defenses was reckoned at thirty million livres. Although the fortress's construction and layout was acknowledged as having superior seaward defences, a series of low rises behind them made it vulnerable to a land attack. The low rises provided attackers places to erect siege batteries. The fort's garrison was poorly paid and supplied, and its inexperienced leaders mistrusted them. The colonial attackers were also lacking in experience, but ultimately succeeded in gaining control of the surrounding defences. The defenders surrendered in the face of an imminent assault. Louisbourg was an important bargaining chip in the peace negotiations to end the war, since it represented a major British success. Factions within the British government were opposed to returning it to the French as part of any peace agreement, but these were eventually overruled, and Louisbourg was returned, over the objections of the victorious British North Americans, to French control after the 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, in return for French concessions elsewhere. French and Indian War: The Siege of Louisbourg (1758) was a pivotal operation of the British military in 1758 (which included Colonial American Provincial and Ranger units) during the Seven Years' War (known in the United States as the French and Indian War), a war that ended the French colonial era in Atlantic Canada and led to the subsequent British campaign to capture all of French North America by the war's end. Another major amphibious landing took place during the Seven Years' War, the Siege of Quebec in 1759. The British, in addition to colonial American Ranger units, had raised experimental light infantry units to integrate aspects of the ranger ideal into the regular army. They also produced the first specially designed landing-craft in order to enable their troops to cross the Saint Lawrence River in force. After considering and rejecting a number of plans for landings on the north shore of the river, Major General James Wolfe and his brigadiers decided in late August to land upriver of the city. The British prepared for their risky deployment upstream. Troops had already been aboard landing ships and drifting up and down the river for several days when on 12 September Wolfe made a final decision on the British landing site, selecting L'Anse-au-Foulon. Wolfe's plan of attack depended on secrecy and surprise—a key element of a successful amphibious operation—a small party of men would land by night on the north shore, climb the tall cliff, seize a small road, and overpower the garrison that protected it, allowing the bulk of his army (5,000 men) to ascend the cliff by the small road and then deploy for battle on the plateau. The operation proved a success, leading to the surrender of the city, and heavily influenced subsequent engagements. In 1762 a British force, with a small colonial American ranger contingent, successfully landed at Havana in Cuba, besieged the city and captured it after a two-month campaign thanks to improved coordination of land and sea forces. In the same year, 1762, British Royal Navy sailors and marines succeed in taking the capital of the East Indies: Manila in the Philippines as well. American Revolutionary War: In 1776 Samuel Nicholas and the Continental Marines, the "progenitor" of the United States Marine Corps, made a first successful landing in the Raid of Nassau in the Bahamas. In 1782 The British rebuffed a long Franco-Spanish attempt to seize Gibraltar by water-borne forces. In 1783 a Franco-Spanish force invaded the British-held island of Minorca. The Second British Empire: In 1798 Minorca experienced yet another of its many changes of sovereignty when captured by a British landing. As the British Empire expanded worldwide, four colonies (Halifax, in Nova Scotia; Bermuda; Gibraltar; and Malta) were designated Imperial fortresses, from which Britain's domination of the oceans and the Mediterranean and Caribbean seas was maintained, including its ability to deny safe passage to enemy naval and merchant vessels while protecting its own merchant trade, as well as to its ability to project superior naval and military force anywhere on the planet.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

American Revolutionary War: In 1776 Samuel Nicholas and the Continental Marines, the "progenitor" of the United States Marine Corps, made a first successful landing in the Raid of Nassau in the Bahamas. In 1782 The British rebuffed a long Franco-Spanish attempt to seize Gibraltar by water-borne forces. In 1783 a Franco-Spanish force invaded the British-held island of Minorca. The Second British Empire: In 1798 Minorca experienced yet another of its many changes of sovereignty when captured by a British landing. As the British Empire expanded worldwide, four colonies (Halifax, in Nova Scotia; Bermuda; Gibraltar; and Malta) were designated Imperial fortresses, from which Britain's domination of the oceans and the Mediterranean and Caribbean seas was maintained, including its ability to deny safe passage to enemy naval and merchant vessels while protecting its own merchant trade, as well as to its ability to project superior naval and military force anywhere on the planet. This was demonstrated during the American War of 1812, when the ships of the North America Station of the Royal Navy and military forces of the British Army, Board of Ordnance, and Royal Marines, maintained a blockade of much of the Atlantic seaboard of the United States of America, carried out amphibious raids such as the 22 June 1813 Battle of Craney Island, and then launched the Chesapeake Campaign (defeating American forces in the Battle of Bladensburg, capturing and burning Washington, DC, and raiding Alexandria, Virginia), from Bermuda. The point is further reinforced by Britain's poor showing during the war in the battles upon the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Without great naval fortresses or forward reinforced ports the Royal Navy was unable to hold and command the lakes, or stop amphibious raiding into Canada, such as the many raids on York (now Toronto) during the conflict. Even though each side held their own territorial coastlines, the British lost two large and powerful squadrons in two separate battles, the Battle of Lake Erie & the Battle of Lake Champlain, losing the British control of the two strategic lakes, for no losses of American ships in either battle. Industrial era: In the Mexican–American War, US forces under Winfield Scott launched the first major amphibious assault in US history, and its largest amphibious assault until WWII, in the 1847 Siege of Veracruz. During the Crimean War of 1853–1856 the anti-Russian alliance launched an Anglo-French amphibious operation against Russia at Bomarsund, Finland on 8 August 1854. During the American Civil War of 1861–1865 the United States made several amphibious assaults along the coastlines of the Confederate States. Actions at Hatteras Inlet (August 1861) and at Port Royal, South Carolina were the first of many attacks, others occurring on Roanoke Island, NC; Galveston, TX; Fort Sumter, Morris Island and James Island, SC; and several more. The largest such clash happened in January 1865 at Fort Fisher—the largest and most powerful fort in the world at the time—which protected the entrance of Wilmington, North Carolina. The assaulting force consisted of over 15,000 men and 70 warships with over 600 guns. During the American Civil War, the Mississippi Marine Brigade was established to act swiftly against Confederate forces operating near the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The unit consisted of artillery, cavalry and infantry with the United States Ram Fleet used as transportation. Amphibious warfare during the War of the Pacific of 1879 to 1883 saw coordination of army, navy and specialized units. The first amphibious assault of this war took place during the Battle of Pisagua when 2,100 Chilean troops successfully took Pisagua from 1,200 Peruvian and Bolivian defenders on 2 November 1879. Chilean Navy ships bombarded beach defenses for several hours at dawn, followed by open, oared boats landing army infantry and sapper units into waist-deep water, under enemy fire. An outnumbered first landing-wave fought at the beach; the second and third waves in the following hours succeeded in overcoming resistance and moving inland. By the end of the day, an expeditionary army of 10,000 had disembarked at the captured port. In 1881 Chilean ships transported approximately 30,000 men, along with their mounts and equipment, 500 miles (800 km) in order to attack Lima. Chilean commanders commissioned purpose-built, flat-bottomed landing craft that would deliver troops in shallow water closer to the beach, possibly the first purpose-built amphibious landing-craft in history: "These [36 shallow draft, flat-bottomed] boats would be able to land three thousand men and twelve guns in a single wave". Neutral military observers closely studied landing tactics and operations during the War of the Pacific: two Royal Navy ships monitored the Battle of Pisagua; United States Navy observer Lt. Theodorus B. M. Mason included an account in his report The War on the Pacific Coast of South America. The USS Wachusett with Alfred Thayer Mahan in command, was stationed at Callao, Peru, protecting American interests during the final stages of the War of the Pacific. He formulated his concept of sea power while reading a history book in an English gentleman's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890). An amphibious assault took place on the beaches of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914, when the United States Navy attacked and occupied the city as result of the Tampico Affair. Modern operations: World War I marked the beginning of the first modern amphibious warfare operations. However, tactics and equipment were still rudimentary and required much improvisation. At the time, British Royal Marine Light Infantry (merged with the Royal Marine Artillery in the 1920s to form the Royal Marines) were used primarily as naval parties onboard Royal Navy warships to maintain discipline and man ships' guns. The RMLI joined a new Royal Navy division, the Royal Naval Division, formed in 1914 (out of those not needed on ships) to fight on land; however, throughout the conflict, army units were depended upon to provide the bulk, if not all, of troops used in amphibious landings. The first amphibious assault of the war was the Battle of Bita Paka (11 September 1914) was fought south of Kabakaul, on the island of New Britain, and was a part of the invasion and subsequent occupation of German New Guinea by the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) shortly after the outbreak of the First World War. The first British amphibious assault of the war ended in disaster in November 1914. A large British Indian Army force was directed to launch an amphibious assault on Tanga, German East Africa. British actions prior to the assault, however, alerted the Germans to prepare to repel an invasion. The Indian forces suffered heavy casualties when they advanced on the city, forcing them to withdraw back to their boats, leaving much of their equipment behind. The Russian army and navy also grew adept to amphibious warfare in the Black Sea, conducting many raids and bombardments on Ottoman positions. On 11 October 1917, German land and naval forces launched an amphibious assault, code named Operation Albion, on the islands of Saaremaa (Ösel), Hiiumaa (Dagö) and Muhu (Moon); they controlled the entrance to the Gulf of Riga. By the end of the month German forces had successfully overrun the islands forcing the Russians to abandon them with the loss of some 20,000 troops, 100 guns and the pre-dreadnought battleship Slava. The capture of the islands opened a route for German naval forces into the Gulf of Finland threatening the city of Petrograd, a fact that contributed to the cessation of hostilities on the Eastern front. Gallipoli: The first large scale amphibious operations, ones that were to heavily influence theorists in the decades to come, were conducted as part of the Battle of Gallipoli in 1915 against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The Gallipoli peninsula forms the northern bank of the Dardanelles, a strait that provided a sea route to what was then the Russian Empire, one of the Allied powers during the war. Intending to secure it, Russia's allies Britain and France launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula with the eventual aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). Although the naval attack was repelled and the land campaign failed, the campaign was the first modern amphibious landing, and featured air support, specialized landing craft and a naval bombardment. The seaplane tender HMS Ark Royal supported the landings under the command of Commander Robert Clark-Hall. Seaplanes were used for aerial reconnaissance, ground support for the troops landing at Anzac Cove and the bombing of fortifications. Ark Royal was augmented by a squadron from the No. 3 Squadron of the Royal Naval Air Service, operating from a nearby island. Initial landings took place in unmodified rowing boats that were extremely vulnerable to attack from the shore defences. The first purpose-built landing craft were built for the campaign. SS River Clyde, built as a collier, was adapted to be a landing ship for the Landing at Cape Helles. Openings were cut in her steel hull as sally ports from which troops would emerge onto gangways and then to a bridge of smaller boats from the ship to the beach.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

The seaplane tender HMS Ark Royal supported the landings under the command of Commander Robert Clark-Hall. Seaplanes were used for aerial reconnaissance, ground support for the troops landing at Anzac Cove and the bombing of fortifications. Ark Royal was augmented by a squadron from the No. 3 Squadron of the Royal Naval Air Service, operating from a nearby island. Initial landings took place in unmodified rowing boats that were extremely vulnerable to attack from the shore defences. The first purpose-built landing craft were built for the campaign. SS River Clyde, built as a collier, was adapted to be a landing ship for the Landing at Cape Helles. Openings were cut in her steel hull as sally ports from which troops would emerge onto gangways and then to a bridge of smaller boats from the ship to the beach. Boiler plate and sandbags were mounted on her bow, and behind them a battery of 11 machine guns was installed. The machine gun battery was manned by Royal Naval Air Service men. Work began on painting River Clyde's hull sandy yellow as camouflage, but this was incomplete by the time of the landing. It was soon clear that the Turkish defence was equipped with rapid-fire weapons, which meant that ordinary landing boats were inadequate for the task. In February 1915, orders were placed for the design of purpose built landing craft. A design was created in four days resulting in an order for 200 'X' Lighters with a spoon-shaped bow to take shelving beaches and a drop down frontal ramp. The first use took place after they had been towed to the Aegean and performed successfully in the 6 August landing at Suvla Bay of IX Corps, commanded by Commander Edward Unwin. 'X' Lighters, known to the soldiers as 'Beetles', carried about 500 men, displaced 135 tons and were based on London barges being 105 feet, 6 inches long, 21 feet wide, and 7 feet, 6 inches deep. The engines mainly ran on heavy oil and ran at a speed of approximately 5 knots. The sides of the ships were bullet proof, and was designed with a ramp on the bow for disembarkation. A plan was devised to land British heavy tanks from pontoons in support of the Third Battle of Ypres, but this was abandoned. The lessons of the Gallipoli campaign had a significant impact upon the development of amphibious operational planning, and have since been studied by military planners prior to operations such as the Normandy Landings in 1944 and during the Falklands War in 1982. The campaign also influenced US Marine Corps amphibious operations during the Pacific War, and continues to influence US amphibious doctrine. During the interwar period the campaign "became a focal point for the study of amphibious warfare" in the United Kingdom and United States, because it involved the four types of amphibious operations: the raid, demonstration, assault and withdrawal. Analysis of the campaign before World War II led to a belief among many armed forces that amphibious assaults could not succeed against modern defences. The perception continued until the Normandy Landings in June 1944, despite some successful examples of amphibious operations earlier in the war, such as those in Italy, and at Tarawa and in the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific. Although the negative perception prevailed among Allied planners in the interwar years, the war situation after 1940 meant that such operations had to be considered. However, despite early successes in North Africa and Italy, it was not until Normandy that the belief that opposed landings could not succeed was completely excised. Interwar developments: One of the first amphibious landings involving armour was conducted by the Irish National Army in 1922, during the Irish Civil War. Landings against Republican rebels at Westport, Fenit and Cork all involved armour cars. The Westport and Fenit landings involved light armoured cars and 18-pounder artillery guns being hoisted off the ships by crane. Heavier armoured cars were used at Cork, resulting in some difficulty. While Irish troops could reach the coast in small boats from naval vessels offshore, the ships had to dock to unload the heavy vehicles and artillery guns. These operations were a major success for the Irish government forces, mainly due to the element of surprise and the use of armoured vehicles and artillery. Government forces were able to capture all the major towns and cities in southern Ireland. The Alhucemas landing on 8 September 1925, performed by a Spanish-French coalition against rebel Berber tribesmen in the north of Morocco, was an amphibious landing where tanks were used for the first time and massive aerial and naval gunfire support was employed by the landing forces, directed by spotting personnel with communication devices. Floating depots were organized with medical, water, ammunition and food supplies, to be dispatched ashore when needed. The barges used in this landing were the surviving "K" boats from Gallipoli, upgraded in Spanish shipyards. In 1938, Japanese forces attacked Chinese defenders over the Yangtze River at the Battle of Wuhan. Soon, the Japanese would later further improve its techniques upon seaborne assaults by the Second Sino-Japanese War. By World War II, marines such as the Special Naval Landing Force used amphibious landings to attack and sweep across territories in South East Asia. Their technique of surprise landings with naval support inspired the British and American landings in World War II such as D-Day and the Pacific Campaign. Britain: During the inter-war period, the combination of the negative experience at Gallipoli and economic stringency contributed to the delay in procuring equipment and adopting a universal doctrine for amphibious operations in the Royal Navy. The costly failure of the Gallipoli campaign coupled with the emerging potential of airpower satisfied many in naval and military circles that the age of amphibious operations had come to a close. Still, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, animated discussion in Staff Colleges in Britain and the Indian Army Staff College at Quetta surrounded the strategic potential of the Dardanelles campaign compared with the strategic stalemate of the Western Front. The economic austerity of the worldwide economic depression and the government's adoption of the Ten Year Rule assured that such theoretical talk would not result in the procurement of any large scale equipment. Despite this outlook, the British produced the Motor Landing Craft in 1920, based on their experience with the early 'Beetle' armoured transport. The craft could put a medium tank directly onto a beach. From 1924, it was used with landing boats in annual exercises in amphibious landings. It was later called Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM) and was the predecessor of all Allied landing craft mechanised (LCM). The Army and Royal Navy formed a landing craft committee to "recommend... the design of landing craft". A prototype motor landing craft, designed by J. Samuel White of Cowes, was built and first sailed in 1926. It weighed 16 tons and had a box-like appearance, having a square bow and stern. To prevent fouling of the propellers in a craft destined to spend time in surf and possibly be beached, a crude waterjet propulsion system was devised by White's designers. A Hotchkiss petrol engine drove a centrifugal pump which produced a jet of water, pushing the craft ahead or astern, and steering it, according to how the jet was directed. Speed was 5–6 knots and its beaching capacity was good. By 1930, three MLC were operated by the Royal Navy. For a short journey, from shore to shore, the cargo could be rolled or carried into the boat over its ramp. On longer journeys, ship to shore, a derrick would lower the MLC into the sea from the transporting vessel. The derrick would then lower the vehicle or cargo load. Upon touching down on shore, soldiers or vehicles exited by the bow ramp. Although there was much official apathy toward amphibious operations, this began to change in the late 1930s. The Royal Naval Staff College at Greenwich, drafted a document detailing combined operations requirements and submitted it to the Chiefs of Staff in 1936. The document recommended the establishment of an inter-service 'Training and Development Centre', with a permanent force of Royal Marines attached to it. Its functions were to "train in all methods for the seizure of defended beaches; develop the materiel necessary for such methods, with special regard to protection of troops, speed of landing, and the attainment of surprise; and develop methods and materiel for the destruction or neutralization of enemy defenses, including bombardment and aircraft co-operation. The Inter-Service Training and Development Centre was established at Fort Cumberland, near Portsmouth in 1938, and brought together representatives from the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force convened with the portfolio of developing methods and equipment to use in Combined Operations. The Centre examined certain specific problems, including craft for landing tanks, beach organisation, floating piers, headquarters ships, amphibian tanks, underwater obstacles, the landing of water and petrol and the use of small craft in amphibious raids By the end of 1939 the ISTDC had codified a policy for landings, and defended it at Staff College discussions. Operational experience during the Second World War introduced modifications to this landing policy, but it was essentially the policy used in the Torch and Husky landings four years later.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

The Inter-Service Training and Development Centre was established at Fort Cumberland, near Portsmouth in 1938, and brought together representatives from the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force convened with the portfolio of developing methods and equipment to use in Combined Operations. The Centre examined certain specific problems, including craft for landing tanks, beach organisation, floating piers, headquarters ships, amphibian tanks, underwater obstacles, the landing of water and petrol and the use of small craft in amphibious raids By the end of 1939 the ISTDC had codified a policy for landings, and defended it at Staff College discussions. Operational experience during the Second World War introduced modifications to this landing policy, but it was essentially the policy used in the Torch and Husky landings four years later. The essential shape of this landing policy is described by Bernard Fergusson in The Watery Maze, The system provided for an approach under cover of darkness in fast ships carrying special craft; the craft being sent ashore while the ships lay out of sight of land; small-craft smoke and gun protection while the beachhead was seized; the landing of a reserve; the capture of a covering position far enough inland to secure the beach and anchorage from enemy fire; the bringing in of ships carrying the main body; and finally the discharge of vehicles and stores by other craft specially designed to do so directly on to beaches. And in all this it was important to achieve tactical surprise. Among the many tactical innovations introduced by the centre, codified in the Manual on Combined Operations and the Standard Naval Bombardment Code, was the use of Floating Piers (pontoons) to bridge the water gap, the creation of Smoke Generating devices to obscure the assault and the use of infrared directional beacons for landing accuracy. The centre also played a role in the development of the first specialized landing crafts, including the Assault Landing Craft, the Mechanized Landing Craft (LCM(1)), the Landing Craft Tank (Mk. 1), Support Landing Craft LCS(1), LCS(2) and Landing Ship Infantry. Divisional-sized amphibious landing exercises were carried out by the British Army in the 1930s. United States: In contrast to the British attitude, the U.S. military, especially the Marine Corps remained enthusiastic at the possibilities of amphibious warfare. The Marine Corps was searching for an expanded mission after World War I, during which it had merely been used as a junior version of the Army infantry. During the 1920s, it found a new mission—to be a fast-reacting, light infantry fighting force carried rapidly to far off locations by the US Navy. Its special role would be amphibious landings on enemy-held islands, but it took years to figure out how to do that. The Mahanian notion of a decisive fleet battle required forward bases for the Navy close to the enemy. After the Spanish–American War the Marines gained the mission of occupying and defending those forward bases, and began a training program on Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. As early as 1900 the General Board of the United States Navy considered building advance bases for naval operations in the Pacific and the Caribbean. The Marine Corps was given this mission in 1920, but the challenge was to avoid another disaster like Gallipoli. The conceptual breakthrough came in 1921 when Major "Pete" Ellis wrote Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia a secret 30,000-word manifesto that proved inspirational to Marine strategists and highly prophetic. To win a war in the Pacific, the Navy would have to fight its way through thousands of miles of ocean controlled by the Japanese—including the Marshall, Caroline, Marianas and Ryukyu island chains. If the Navy could land Marines to seize selected islands, they could become forward bases. Ellis argued that with an enemy prepared to defend the beaches, success depended on high-speed movement of waves of assault craft, covered by heavy naval gunfire and attack from the air. He predicted that the decisive action would take place on the beach itself, so the assault teams would need not just infantry but also machine gun units, light artillery, light tanks, and combat engineers to defeat beach obstacles and defenses. Assuming the enemy had its own artillery, the landing craft would have to be specially built to protect the landing force. The failure at Gallipoli came because the Turks could easily reinforce the specific landing sites. The Japanese would be unable to land new forces on the islands under attack. Not knowing which of the many islands would be the American target, the Japanese would have to disperse their strength by garrisoning many islands that would never be attacked. An island like Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands, would, Ellis estimated, require two regiments, or 4,000 Marines. Guided by Marine observer aircraft, and supplemented by Marine light bombers, warships would provide enough firepower so that Marines would not need any heavy artillery (in contrast to the Army, which relied heavily on its artillery). Shelling defended islands was a new mission for warships. The Ellis model was officially endorsed in 1927 by the Joint Board of the Army and Navy (a forerunner of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). However, actual implementation of the new mission took another decade because the Marine Corps was preoccupied in Central America and the Navy was slow to start training in how to support the landings. The prototype advanced base force officially evolved into the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) in 1933. In 1939, during the annual Fleet Landing Exercises, the FMF became interested in the military potential of Andrew Higgins's design of a powered, shallow-draught boat. These LCVPs, dubbed the 'Higgins Boats', were reviewed and passed by the U.S. Naval Bureau of Construction and Repair. Soon, the Higgins boats were developed to a final design with a ramp, and were produced in large numbers. Second World War: By the Second World War tactics and equipment had moved on. The first use of British landing craft in an opposed landing in the Second World War, saw the disembarkation of French Foreign Legionnaires of the 13th Demi-Brigade and supporting French Hotchkiss H39 tanks on the beach at Bjerkvik, eight miles (13 km) above Narvik, on 13 May during the Norwegian campaign. The first major and successful amphibious operation was Operation Ironclad, a British campaign to capture Vichy French-controlled Madagascar. The naval contingent consisted of over 50 vessels, drawn from Force H, the British Home Fleet and the British Eastern Fleet, commanded by Rear Admiral Edward Neville Syfret. The fleet included the aircraft carrier Illustrious, her sister ship Indomitable and the aging battleship Ramillies to cover the landings. The first wave of the British 29th Infantry Brigade and No. 5 Commando landed in assault craft on 5 May 1942, follow-up waves were by two brigades of the 5th Infantry Division and Royal Marines. Air cover was provided mainly by Fairey Albacore and Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers which attacked Vichy shipping. Purpose-built landing craft were among the vessels used at the evacuation from Dunkirk (Operation Dynamo) and an amphibious operation was tried out at Dieppe in 1942. The operation proved a costly failure, but the lessons, hard learned, were used later. Many small-scale operations were conducted by the Allies on the Axis-held coast of Europe, including raids on the Lofoten Islands, St Nazaire and Bruneval. Specialized infantry landing craft: In the run up to World War II, many specialized landing craft, both for infantry and vehicles, were developed. In November 1938, the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre proposed a new type of landing craft. Its specifications were to weigh less than ten long tons, to be able to carry the thirty-one men of a British Army platoon and five assault engineers or signallers, and to be so shallow drafted as to be able to land them, wet only up to their knees, in eighteen inches of water. All of these specifications made the Landing Craft Assault; a separate set of requirements were laid down for a vehicle and supplies carrier, although previously the two roles had been combined in the Motor Landing Craft. J. S. White of Cowes built a prototype to the Fleming design. Eight weeks later the craft was doing trials on the Clyde. All landing craft designs must find a compromise between two divergent priorities; the qualities that make a good sea boat are opposite those that make a craft suitable for beaching. The craft had a hull built of double-diagonal mahogany planking. The sides were plated with "10lb. DIHT" armour, a heat treated steel based on D1 steel, in this case Hadfield's Resista 1⁄4". The Landing Craft Assault remained the most common British and Commonwealth landing craft of World War II, and the humblest vessel admitted to the books of the Royal Navy on D-Day. Prior to July 1942, these craft were referred to as "Assault Landing Craft" (ALC), but "Landing Craft; Assault" (LCA) was used thereafter to conform with the joint US–UK nomenclature system. The Landing Craft Infantry was a stepped up amphibious assault ship, developed in response to a British request for a vessel capable of carrying and landing substantially more troops than the smaller Landing Craft Assault (LCA). The result was a small steel ship that could land 200 troops, traveling from rear bases on its own bottom at a speed of up to 15 knots.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

DIHT" armour, a heat treated steel based on D1 steel, in this case Hadfield's Resista 1⁄4". The Landing Craft Assault remained the most common British and Commonwealth landing craft of World War II, and the humblest vessel admitted to the books of the Royal Navy on D-Day. Prior to July 1942, these craft were referred to as "Assault Landing Craft" (ALC), but "Landing Craft; Assault" (LCA) was used thereafter to conform with the joint US–UK nomenclature system. The Landing Craft Infantry was a stepped up amphibious assault ship, developed in response to a British request for a vessel capable of carrying and landing substantially more troops than the smaller Landing Craft Assault (LCA). The result was a small steel ship that could land 200 troops, traveling from rear bases on its own bottom at a speed of up to 15 knots. The original British design was envisioned as being a "one time use" vessel which would simply ferry the troops across the English Channel, and were considered an expendable vessel. As such, no troop sleeping accommodations were placed in the original design. This was changed shortly after initial use of these ships, when it was discovered that many missions would require overnight accommodations. The first LCI(L)s entered service in 1943 chiefly with the Royal Navy (RN) and United States Navy. Some 923 LCI were built in ten American shipyards and 211 provided under lend-lease to the Royal Navy. Specialized vehicle landing craft: Following the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre's (ISTDC) successful development of the infantry carrying LCA, attention turned to the means of efficiently delivering a tank to a beach in 1938. Inquires were made of the army as to the heaviest tank that might be employed in a landing operation. The army wanted to be able to land a 12-ton tank, but the ISTDC, anticipating weight increases in future tank models specified 16 tons burthen for Mechanised Landing Craft designs. Another governor on any design was the need to land tanks and other vehicles in less than approximately 2+1⁄2 feet of water. Design work began at John I. Thornycroft Ltd. in May 1938 with trials completing in February 1940. Although early LCM(1)s were powered by two Thornycroft 60 bhp petrol engines, the majority were powered by Chrysler, in-line, 6-cylinder Crown petrol engines. Constructed of steel and selectively clad with armour plate, this shallow-draft, barge-like boat with a crew of 6, could ferry a tank of 16 long tons to shore at 7 knots (13 km/h). Depending on the weight of the tank to be transported the craft might be lowered into the water by its davits already loaded or could have the tank placed in it after being lowered into the water. Although the Royal Navy had the Landing Craft Mechanised at its disposal, in 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill demanded an amphibious vessel capable of landing at least three 36-ton heavy tanks directly onto a beach, able to sustain itself at sea for at least a week, and inexpensive and easy to build. Admiral Maund, Director of the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre (which had developed the Landing Craft Assault), gave the job to naval architect Sir Roland Baker, who within three days completed initial drawings for a 152-foot (46 m) landing craft with a 29-foot (8.8 m) beam and a shallow draft. Ship builders Fairfields and John Brown agreed to work out details for the design under the guidance of the Admiralty Experimental Works at Haslar. Tank tests with models soon determined the characteristics of the craft, indicating that it would make 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) on engines delivering about 700 hp (520 kW). Designated the LCT Mark 1, 20 were ordered in July 1940 and a further 10 in October 1940. The first LCT Mark 1 was launched by Hawthorn Leslie in November 1940. It was an all-welded 372-ton steel-hulled vessel that drew only 3 feet (0.91 m) of water at the bow. Sea trials soon proved the Mark 1 to be difficult to handle and almost unmanageable in some sea conditions. The designers set about correcting the faults of the Mark 1 in the LCT Mark 2. Longer and wider, three Paxman diesel or Napier Lion petrol engines replaced the Hall-Scotts, and 15 and 20 lb. armoured shielding was added to the wheelhouse and gun tubs. The Mark 3 had an additional 32-foot (9.8 m) midsection that gave it a length of 192 feet (59 m) and a displacement of 640 tons. Even with this extra weight, the vessel was slightly faster than the Mark 1. The Mk.3 was accepted on 8 April 1941, and was prefabricated in five sections. The Mark 4 was slightly shorter and lighter than the Mk.3, but had a much wider beam (38 ft 9 in (11.81 m)) and was intended for cross channel operations as opposed to seagoing use. When tested in early assault operations, like the ill-fated Canadian commando raid on Dieppe in 1942, the lack of manoeuvring ability led to the preference for a shorter overall length in future variants, most of which were built in the United States. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, the U.S. Navy had no amphibious vessels at all, and found itself obliged to consider British designs already in existence. One of these, advanced by K.C. Barnaby of Thornycroft, was for a double-ended LCT to work with landing ships. The Bureau of Ships quickly set about drawing up plans for landing craft based on Barnaby's suggestions, although with only one ramp. The result, in early 1942, was the LCT Mark 5, a 117-foot craft with a beam of 32 feet that could accommodate five 30-ton or four 40-ton tanks or 150 tons of cargo. With a crew of twelve men and one officer, this 286 ton landing craft had the merit of being able to be shipped to combat areas in three separate water-tight sections aboard a cargo ship or carried pre-assembled on the flat deck of an LST. The Mk.5 would be launched by heeling the LST on its beam to let the craft slide off its chocks into the sea, or cargo ships could lower each of the three sections into the sea where they were joined. A further development was the Landing Ship, Tank designation, built to support amphibious operations by carrying significant quantities of vehicles, cargo, and landing troops directly onto an unimproved shore. The British evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940 demonstrated to the Admiralty that the Allies needed relatively large, ocean-going ships capable of shore-to-shore delivery of tanks and other vehicles in amphibious assaults upon the continent of Europe. The first purpose-built LST design was HMS Boxer. To carry 13 Churchill infantry tanks, 27 vehicles and nearly 200 men (in addition to the crew) at a speed of 18 knots, it could not have the shallow draught that would have made for easy unloading. As a result, each of the three (Boxer, Bruiser, and Thruster) ordered in March 1941 had a very long ramp stowed behind the bow doors. In November 1941, a small delegation from the British Admiralty arrived in the United States to pool ideas with the United States Navy's Bureau of Ships with regard to development of ships and also including the possibility of building further Boxers in the US. During this meeting, it was decided that the Bureau of Ships would design these vessels. The LST(2) design incorporated elements of the first British LCTs from their designer, Sir Rowland Baker, who was part of the British delegation. This included sufficient buoyancy in the ships' sidewalls that they would float even with the tank deck flooded. The LST(2) gave up the speed of HMS Boxer at only 10 knots but had a similar load while drawing only 3 feet forward when beaching. In three separate acts dated 6 February 1942, 26 May 1943, and 17 December 1943, Congress provided the authority for the construction of LSTs along with a host of other auxiliaries, destroyer escorts, and assorted landing craft. The enormous building program quickly gathered momentum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the previously laid keel of an aircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid down on 10 June 1942 at Newport News, Va., and the first standardized LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. Twenty-three were in commission by the end of 1942. Lightly armored, they could steam cross the ocean with a full load on their own power, carrying infantry, tanks and supplies directly onto the beaches. Together with 2,000 other landing craft, the LSTs gave the troops a protected, quick way to make combat landings, beginning in summer 1943.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

The enormous building program quickly gathered momentum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the previously laid keel of an aircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid down on 10 June 1942 at Newport News, Va., and the first standardized LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. Twenty-three were in commission by the end of 1942. Lightly armored, they could steam cross the ocean with a full load on their own power, carrying infantry, tanks and supplies directly onto the beaches. Together with 2,000 other landing craft, the LSTs gave the troops a protected, quick way to make combat landings, beginning in summer 1943. D-Day: The most famous amphibious assaults of the war, and of all time, were the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944, in which British, Canadian, and US forces landed at Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword beaches in the largest amphibious operation in history. The organizational planning of the landings (Operation Neptune) was in the hands of Admiral Bertram Ramsay. It covered the landing of the troops and their re-supply. Many innovative elements were included in the operation to ensure its success. Operation Pluto was a scheme developed by Arthur Hartley, chief engineer with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, to construct an undersea oil pipeline under the English Channel between England and France to provide logistical support to the landed armies. Allied forces on the European continent required a tremendous amount of fuel. Pipelines were considered necessary to relieve dependence on oil tankers, which could be slowed by bad weather, were susceptible to German submarines, and were also needed in the Pacific War. Geoffrey William Lloyd, the Minister for Petroleum gained the support of Admiral Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations for the operation. Two types of pipeline were developed. The first type was the flexible HAIS pipe with a 3 inch (75 mm) diameter lead core, weighing around 55 long tons per nautical mile (30 t/km), was essentially a development by Siemens Brothers (in conjunction with the National Physical Laboratory) of their existing undersea telegraph cables, and known as HAIS (from Hartley-Anglo-Iranian-Siemens). The second type was a less flexible steel pipe of similar diameter, developed by engineers from the Iraq Petroleum Company and the Burmah Oil Company. In June 1942 the Post Office cable ship Iris laid lengths of both Siemens' and Henleys' cable in the Clyde. The pipeline was completely successful and PLUTO was formally brought into the plans for the invasion of Europe. The project was deemed "strategically important, tactically adventurous, and, from the industrial point of view, strenuous". After full-scale testing of an 83 km (45 nautical mile) HAIS pipe across the Bristol Channel between Swansea in Wales and Watermouth in North Devon, the first line to France was laid on 12 August 1944, over the 130 km (70 nautical miles) from Shanklin Chine on the Isle of Wight across the English Channel to Cherbourg Naval Base. A further HAIS pipe and two HAMELs followed. As the fighting moved closer to Germany, 17 other lines (11 HAIS and 6 HAMEL) were laid from Dungeness to Ambleteuse in the Pas-de-Calais. In January 1945, 305 tonnes (300 long tons) of fuel was pumped to France per day, which increased tenfold to 3,048 tonnes (3,000 long tons) per day in March, and eventually to 4,000 tons (almost 1,000,000 Imperial gallons) per day. In total, over 781 000 m3 (equal to a cube with 92 metre long sides or over 172 million imperial gallons) of gasoline had been pumped to the Allied forces in Europe by VE day, providing a critical supply of fuel until a more permanent arrangement was made, although the pipeline remained in operation for some time after. Portable harbours were also prefabricated as temporary facilities to allow rapid offloading of cargo onto the beaches during the Allied invasion of Normandy. The Dieppe Raid of 1942 had shown that the Allies could not rely on being able to penetrate the Atlantic Wall to capture a port on the north French coast. The problem was that large ocean-going ships of the type needed to transport heavy and bulky cargoes and stores needed sufficient depth of water under their keels, together with dockside cranes, to off-load their cargo and this was not available except at the already heavily defended French harbours. Thus, the Mulberries were created to provide the port facilities necessary to offload the thousands of men and vehicles, and tons of supplies necessary to sustain Operation Overlord and the Battle of Normandy. The harbours were made up of all the elements one would expect of any harbour: breakwater, piers, roadways etc. At a meeting following the Dieppe Raid, Vice-Admiral John Hughes-Hallett declared that if a port could not be captured, then one should be taken across the Channel. The concept of Mulberry harbours began to take shape when Hughes-Hallett moved to be Naval Chief of Staff to the Overlord planners. The proposed harbours called for many huge caissons of various sorts to build breakwaters and piers and connecting structures to provide the roadways. The caissons were built at a number of locations, mainly existing ship building facilities or large beaches like Conwy Morfa around the British coast. The works were let out to commercial construction firms including Balfour Beatty, Costain, Nuttall, Henry Boot, Sir Robert McAlpine and Peter Lind & Company, who all still operate today, and Cubitts, Holloway Brothers, Mowlem and Taylor Woodrow, who all have since been absorbed into other businesses that are still operating. On completion they were towed across the English Channel by tugs to the Normandy coast at only 4.3 Knots (8 km/h or 5 mph), built, operated and maintained by the Corps of Royal Engineers, under the guidance of Reginald D. Gwyther, who was appointed CBE for his efforts. By 9 June, just 3 days after D-Day, two harbours codenamed Mulberry "A" and "B" were constructed at Omaha Beach and Arromanches, respectively. However, a large storm on 19 June destroyed the American harbour at Omaha, leaving only the British harbour still intact but damaged, which included damage to the 'Swiss Roll' which had been deployed as the most western floating roadway had to be taken out of service. The surviving Mulberry "B" came to be known as Port Winston at Arromanches. While the harbour at Omaha was destroyed sooner than expected, Port Winston saw heavy use for 8 months—despite being designed to last only 3 months. In the 10 months after D-Day, it was used to land over 2.5 million men, 500,000 vehicles, and 4 million tonnes of supplies providing much needed reinforcements in France. Other: Other large amphibious operations in the European theatre of World War II and the war in the Pacific include: Europe: Pacific: Korean War: During the Korean War the U.S. X Corps, consisting of the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division landed at Inchon. Conceived of and commanded by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur, this landing is considered by many military historians to have been a tactical jewel, one of the most brilliant amphibious maneuvers in history (See analysis in main article). The success of this battle eventually resulted in link up with U.S. Army forces that broke out of the Pusan perimeter, and led by the 1st Cavalry Division and its Task Force Lynch, cleared much of South Korea. A second landing by the Tenth Corps on the east coast approached the Chosin Reservoir and hydroelectric plants that powered much of Communist China's heavy industry, and led to intervention by Chinese forces on behalf of North Korea. Amphibious landings also took place during the First Indochina War, notably during Operation Camargue, one of the largest of the conflict. Suez Crisis and Falklands War: The British Royal Marines made their first post-World War II amphibious assault during the Suez Crisis of 1956 when they successfully landed at Suez on 6 November as part of a joint seaborne/airborne operation code-named MUSKETEER. Despite all the progress that was seen during World War II, there were still fundamental limitations in the types of coastline that were suitable for assault. Beaches had to be relatively free of obstacles, and have the right tidal conditions and the correct slope. However, the development of the helicopter fundamentally changed the equation. The first use of helicopters in an amphibious assault came during the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 (the Suez War). Two British light fleet carriers were pressed into service to carry helicopters, and a battalion-sized airborne assault was made. Two of the other carriers involved, HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Albion, were converted in the late 1950s into dedicated "commando carriers."

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious operations

Despite all the progress that was seen during World War II, there were still fundamental limitations in the types of coastline that were suitable for assault. Beaches had to be relatively free of obstacles, and have the right tidal conditions and the correct slope. However, the development of the helicopter fundamentally changed the equation. The first use of helicopters in an amphibious assault came during the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 (the Suez War). Two British light fleet carriers were pressed into service to carry helicopters, and a battalion-sized airborne assault was made. Two of the other carriers involved, HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Albion, were converted in the late 1950s into dedicated "commando carriers." Nearly 30 years later in the Falklands War, the 1st Marines Brigade of the Argentine Marine Corps along with Navy's Special Forces performed Operation Rosario landing at Mullet Creek near Stanley on 2 April 1982, while later the Royal Marines' 3 Commando Brigade, (augmented by the British Army's Parachute Regiment) landed at Port San Carlos on 21 May 1982 during Operation Sutton. Landing at Cyprus: The Turkish Armed Forces launched an amphibious assault on 20 July 1974, on Kyrenia, following the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état. The Turkish naval force provided naval gunfire support during the landing operation and transported the amphibious forces from the port of Mersin to the island. The Turkish landing forces consisted of around 3,000 troops, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces. Iran-Iraq war: During the Iran–Iraq War, the Iranians launched Operation Dawn 8 (Persian: عملیات والفجر ۸), in which 100,000 troops comprising 5 Army divisions and 50,000 men from the IRGC and the Basij advanced in a two-pronged offensive into southern Iraq. Taking place between 9 and 25 February, the assault across the Shatt al-Arab achieved significant tactical and operational surprise. The Iranians launched their assault on the peninsula at night, their men arriving on rubber boats. Iranian Navy SEALs spearheaded the offensive despite a shortage of gear. Prior to this action Iranian Naval Commandos performed reconnaissance of the Faw Peninsula. The Iranian SEALs penetrated an obstacle belt and isolated Iraqi bunkers whose troops had taken cover from the heavy rains inside or were sleeping. Iranian demolition teams detonated charges on the obstacles to create a path for the Iranian infantry waiting to begin their assault. Not only did the amphibious landings provide a significant lodgement behind Iraq's tactical front, but they also created a psychological shock wave throughout the Persian Gulf region. Soon after the initial landings, Iranian combat engineers were able to construct bridges to improve the flow of ground troops into the lodgement area. Iran managed to maintain their foothold in Al-Faw against several Iraqi counter-offensives and chemical attacks for another month despite heavy casualties until a stalemate was reached. The Faw Peninsula was later recaptured by Iraqi forces, by the massive and illegal use of chemical weapons, the same day as the US launched Operation Praying Mantis on Iran, destroying their navy. Persian Gulf War: During the Persian Gulf War, Assault Craft Unit 5 was able to position U.S. Marine and naval support off the coast of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This force was composed of 40 amphibious assault ships, the largest such force to be assembled since the Battle of Inchon. The objective was to fix the six Iraqi divisions deployed along the Kuwaiti coast. The purpose behind this amphibious maneuver (known as an amphibious demonstration) was to prevent 6 Iraqi divisions poised for the defense of the littorals from being able to actively engage in combat at the real front. The operation was extremely successful in keeping more than 41,000 Iraqi forces from repositioning to the main battlefield. As a result, the Marines maneuvered through the Iraq defense of southern Kuwait and outflanked the Iraqi coastal defense forces. Elem War: During the Sri Lankan civil war the LTTE used amphibious warfare in some of their successful battles such as Battle of Pooneryn in 1992 and Second Battle of Elephant Pass in 2000 to overrun and capture Sri Lankan Army bases. Iraq War: An amphibious assault was carried out by Royal Marines, U.S. Marines and units of the Polish special forces when they landed at the Al-Faw Peninsula on 20 March 2003 during the Iraq War. Invasion of Anjouan: On 25 March 2008, Operation Democracy in Comoros was launched in the Comoros by government and African Union troops. The amphibious assault led to the ousting of Colonel Bacar's government, which had taken over the autonomous state of Adjouan. Battle of Kismayo (2012): From 28 September to 1 October 2012, the Somali National Army launched an assault in conjuncture with allied militia led by Kenya Defense Forces to liberate the city of Kismayo from insurgent control in a first of its kind by an African military. The operation, known as Operation Sledge Hammer, started with the landing of Somali and Kenyan troops outside the city of Kismayo. By 1 October, the coalition forces were able to push Al-Shabaab out of the city. See also: List of marines and similar forces Marines Navy Raid (military)#Seaborne US Amphibious Training Base Notes: References: Further reading: Alexander, Joseph H., and Merrill L. Bartlett. Sea Soldiers in the Cold War: Amphibious Warfare, 1945–1991 (1994) Bartlett, Merrill L. Assault from the Sea: Essays on the History of Amphibious Warfare (1993) Dwyer, John B. Commandos From The Sea: The History Of Amphibious Special Warfare In World War II And The Korean War (1998) Heck, Timothy; Friedman, B. A., eds. On Contested Shores: The Evolving Role of Amphibious Operations (Marine Corps University Press, 2020) online review of this book Ireland, Bernard. The World Encyclopedia of Amphibious Warfare Vessels: An illustrated history of modern amphibious warfare (2011) Isely, Jeter A., Philip A. Crowl. The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War Its Theory and Its Practice in the Pacific (1951) Millett, Allan R. Semper Fidelis: History of the United States Marine Corps (2nd ed. 1991) ch 12–14 Moore, Richard S (November 1982). "Ideas and Direction: Building Amphibious Doctrine". Marine Corps Gazette. 66 (11): 49–58. ProQuest 206354619. Reber, John J (1977). "Pete Ellis: Amphibious Warfare Prophet". U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. 103 (11): 53–64. Venzon, Anne Cipriano. From Whaleboats to Amphibious Warfare: Lt. Gen. "Howling Mad" Smith and the U.S. Marine Corps (Praeger, 2003) External links: Media related to Amphibious warfare at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

Preparation and planning: A naval landing operation requires vessels to troops and equipment and might include amphibious reconnaissance. Military intelligence services obtain information on the opponent. Amphibious warfare goes back to ancient times. The Sea Peoples menaced the Egyptians from the reign of Akhenaten as captured on the reliefs at Medinet Habu and Karnak. The Hellenic city states routinely resorted to amphibious assaults upon each other's shores, which they reflected upon in their plays and other art. The landing at Marathon by the Persians on 9 September 490 BC was the largest amphibious operation until the landings at the Battle of Gallipoli. Marines: In 1537 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, decided to train and assign amphibious-assault skilled units to the Royal Armada specifically for fighting on and from ships. The Spanish Marines were born under the name Compañías Viejas del Mar de Nápoles ("All-Spanish Sea Companies of Naples"). The idea was to set up a permanent assignation of land troops to the Royal Spanish Navy that would be available for the Crown. The first "professional" marine units were already task-trained amphibious troops, but instead of being disbanded, they were kept for the Spanish Crown's needs. Their first actions took place all along the Mediterranean Sea, where the Turks and pirate settlements were risks for commerce and navigation: Algiers, Malta and Gelves. In 1565, the island of Malta was invaded by the Ottoman Turks during the Great Siege of Malta, forcing its defenders to retreat to the fortified cities. A strategic choke point in the Mediterranean Sea, its loss would have been so menacing for the kingdoms of Western Europe that forces were urgently raised to relieve the island. It took four months to train, arm and move a 5,500-man amphibious force to lift the siege. Other countries adopted the idea and subsequently raised their own early marine forces as well. Development: From the 15th to the 20th centuries, several European countries established and expanded overseas colonies. Amphibious operations mostly aimed to settle colonies and to secure strong points along navigational routes. Amphibious forces were fully organized and devoted to this mission, although the troops not only fought ashore, but on board ships. By their nature amphibious assaults involve highly complex operations, demanding the coordination of disparate elements; when accomplished properly a paralyzing surprise to the enemy can be achieved. However, when there is a lack of preparation and/or coordination, often because of hubris, disastrous results can ensue. Terceras Landing: Álvaro de Bazán, Marquis of Santa Cruz, was an early proponent of amphibious warfare. The "Terceras Landing" in the Azores Islands on 25 May 1583, was a military feat as Bazán and the rest of commanders decided to make a fake landing to distract the defending forces (5,000 Portuguese, English and French soldiers). Special seagoing barges were also arranged to unload cavalry horses and 700 artillery pieces on the beach; special rowing boats were armed with small cannons to support the landing boats; special supplies were readied to be unloaded and support the 11,000-man landing force strength. The total strength of the amphibious force was 15,000 men, including an armada of 90 ships. Queen Anne's War: A superb example of successful combined operations, of both military branches and different imperial units, is the Siege of Port Royal (1710). The siege was a combined arms, British/Colonial American amphibious assault upon the Acadian Provincial capital Port-Royal (Acadia) of French Canada, during Queen Anne's War (the name of the American theater of the War of the Spanish Succession). The battle is known as the seminal moment in the conquest of Acadia. The siege resulted in the British imperial Force conquering French Arcadia and renaming Port Royal, Annapolis Royal. The War of Jenkin's Ear: One famous instance of a failed amphibious assault was in 1741 at the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in New Granada, when a large British amphibious assault force commanded by Admiral Edward Vernon, and including a contingent of 200 Virginia "Marines"(not originally meant to be so) commanded by Lawrence Washington (older half brother of George Washington), failed to overcome a much smaller, but very heavily fortified Spanish defence force and were forced to retreat back to the ships and call off the operation. King George's War: The Siege of Louisbourg (1745) took place in 1745 when a New England colonial force aided by a small British fleet captured Louisbourg, the capital of the French province of Île-Royale (present-day Cape Breton Island) during the War of the Austrian Succession, known as King George's War in the British colonies. The northern British colonies regarded Louisbourg as a menacers, calling it the "American Dunkirk" due to its use as a base for privateers. There was regular, intermittent warfare between the French and the Wabanaki Confederacy on one side and the northern New England colonies on the other (See the Northeast Coast Campaigns of 1688, 1703, 1723, 1724). For the French, the Fortress of Louisbourg also protected the chief entrance to Canada, as well as the nearby French fisheries. The French government had spent 25 years in fortifying it, and the cost of its defenses was reckoned at thirty million livres. Although the fortress's construction and layout was acknowledged as having superior seaward defences, a series of low rises behind them made it vulnerable to a land attack. The low rises provided attackers places to erect siege batteries. The fort's garrison was poorly paid and supplied, and its inexperienced leaders mistrusted them. The colonial attackers were also lacking in experience, but ultimately succeeded in gaining control of the surrounding defences. The defenders surrendered in the face of an imminent assault. Louisbourg was an important bargaining chip in the peace negotiations to end the war, since it represented a major British success. Factions within the British government were opposed to returning it to the French as part of any peace agreement, but these were eventually overruled, and Louisbourg was returned, over the objections of the victorious British North Americans, to French control after the 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, in return for French concessions elsewhere. French and Indian War: The Siege of Louisbourg (1758) was a pivotal operation of the British military in 1758 (which included Colonial American Provincial and Ranger units) during the Seven Years' War (known in the United States as the French and Indian War), a war that ended the French colonial era in Atlantic Canada and led to the subsequent British campaign to capture all of French North America by the war's end. Another major amphibious landing took place during the Seven Years' War, the Siege of Quebec in 1759. The British, in addition to colonial American Ranger units, had raised experimental light infantry units to integrate aspects of the ranger ideal into the regular army. They also produced the first specially designed landing-craft in order to enable their troops to cross the Saint Lawrence River in force. After considering and rejecting a number of plans for landings on the north shore of the river, Major General James Wolfe and his brigadiers decided in late August to land upriver of the city. The British prepared for their risky deployment upstream. Troops had already been aboard landing ships and drifting up and down the river for several days when on 12 September Wolfe made a final decision on the British landing site, selecting L'Anse-au-Foulon. Wolfe's plan of attack depended on secrecy and surprise—a key element of a successful amphibious operation—a small party of men would land by night on the north shore, climb the tall cliff, seize a small road, and overpower the garrison that protected it, allowing the bulk of his army (5,000 men) to ascend the cliff by the small road and then deploy for battle on the plateau. The operation proved a success, leading to the surrender of the city, and heavily influenced subsequent engagements. In 1762 a British force, with a small colonial American ranger contingent, successfully landed at Havana in Cuba, besieged the city and captured it after a two-month campaign thanks to improved coordination of land and sea forces. In the same year, 1762, British Royal Navy sailors and marines succeed in taking the capital of the East Indies: Manila in the Philippines as well. American Revolutionary War: In 1776 Samuel Nicholas and the Continental Marines, the "progenitor" of the United States Marine Corps, made a first successful landing in the Raid of Nassau in the Bahamas. In 1782 The British rebuffed a long Franco-Spanish attempt to seize Gibraltar by water-borne forces. In 1783 a Franco-Spanish force invaded the British-held island of Minorca. The Second British Empire: In 1798 Minorca experienced yet another of its many changes of sovereignty when captured by a British landing. As the British Empire expanded worldwide, four colonies (Halifax, in Nova Scotia; Bermuda; Gibraltar; and Malta) were designated Imperial fortresses, from which Britain's domination of the oceans and the Mediterranean and Caribbean seas was maintained, including its ability to deny safe passage to enemy naval and merchant vessels while protecting its own merchant trade, as well as to its ability to project superior naval and military force anywhere on the planet.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

American Revolutionary War: In 1776 Samuel Nicholas and the Continental Marines, the "progenitor" of the United States Marine Corps, made a first successful landing in the Raid of Nassau in the Bahamas. In 1782 The British rebuffed a long Franco-Spanish attempt to seize Gibraltar by water-borne forces. In 1783 a Franco-Spanish force invaded the British-held island of Minorca. The Second British Empire: In 1798 Minorca experienced yet another of its many changes of sovereignty when captured by a British landing. As the British Empire expanded worldwide, four colonies (Halifax, in Nova Scotia; Bermuda; Gibraltar; and Malta) were designated Imperial fortresses, from which Britain's domination of the oceans and the Mediterranean and Caribbean seas was maintained, including its ability to deny safe passage to enemy naval and merchant vessels while protecting its own merchant trade, as well as to its ability to project superior naval and military force anywhere on the planet. This was demonstrated during the American War of 1812, when the ships of the North America Station of the Royal Navy and military forces of the British Army, Board of Ordnance, and Royal Marines, maintained a blockade of much of the Atlantic seaboard of the United States of America, carried out amphibious raids such as the 22 June 1813 Battle of Craney Island, and then launched the Chesapeake Campaign (defeating American forces in the Battle of Bladensburg, capturing and burning Washington, DC, and raiding Alexandria, Virginia), from Bermuda. The point is further reinforced by Britain's poor showing during the war in the battles upon the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Without great naval fortresses or forward reinforced ports the Royal Navy was unable to hold and command the lakes, or stop amphibious raiding into Canada, such as the many raids on York (now Toronto) during the conflict. Even though each side held their own territorial coastlines, the British lost two large and powerful squadrons in two separate battles, the Battle of Lake Erie & the Battle of Lake Champlain, losing the British control of the two strategic lakes, for no losses of American ships in either battle. Industrial era: In the Mexican–American War, US forces under Winfield Scott launched the first major amphibious assault in US history, and its largest amphibious assault until WWII, in the 1847 Siege of Veracruz. During the Crimean War of 1853–1856 the anti-Russian alliance launched an Anglo-French amphibious operation against Russia at Bomarsund, Finland on 8 August 1854. During the American Civil War of 1861–1865 the United States made several amphibious assaults along the coastlines of the Confederate States. Actions at Hatteras Inlet (August 1861) and at Port Royal, South Carolina were the first of many attacks, others occurring on Roanoke Island, NC; Galveston, TX; Fort Sumter, Morris Island and James Island, SC; and several more. The largest such clash happened in January 1865 at Fort Fisher—the largest and most powerful fort in the world at the time—which protected the entrance of Wilmington, North Carolina. The assaulting force consisted of over 15,000 men and 70 warships with over 600 guns. During the American Civil War, the Mississippi Marine Brigade was established to act swiftly against Confederate forces operating near the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The unit consisted of artillery, cavalry and infantry with the United States Ram Fleet used as transportation. Amphibious warfare during the War of the Pacific of 1879 to 1883 saw coordination of army, navy and specialized units. The first amphibious assault of this war took place during the Battle of Pisagua when 2,100 Chilean troops successfully took Pisagua from 1,200 Peruvian and Bolivian defenders on 2 November 1879. Chilean Navy ships bombarded beach defenses for several hours at dawn, followed by open, oared boats landing army infantry and sapper units into waist-deep water, under enemy fire. An outnumbered first landing-wave fought at the beach; the second and third waves in the following hours succeeded in overcoming resistance and moving inland. By the end of the day, an expeditionary army of 10,000 had disembarked at the captured port. In 1881 Chilean ships transported approximately 30,000 men, along with their mounts and equipment, 500 miles (800 km) in order to attack Lima. Chilean commanders commissioned purpose-built, flat-bottomed landing craft that would deliver troops in shallow water closer to the beach, possibly the first purpose-built amphibious landing-craft in history: "These [36 shallow draft, flat-bottomed] boats would be able to land three thousand men and twelve guns in a single wave". Neutral military observers closely studied landing tactics and operations during the War of the Pacific: two Royal Navy ships monitored the Battle of Pisagua; United States Navy observer Lt. Theodorus B. M. Mason included an account in his report The War on the Pacific Coast of South America. The USS Wachusett with Alfred Thayer Mahan in command, was stationed at Callao, Peru, protecting American interests during the final stages of the War of the Pacific. He formulated his concept of sea power while reading a history book in an English gentleman's club in Lima, Peru. This concept became the foundation for his celebrated The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890). An amphibious assault took place on the beaches of Veracruz, Mexico in 1914, when the United States Navy attacked and occupied the city as result of the Tampico Affair. Modern operations: World War I marked the beginning of the first modern amphibious warfare operations. However, tactics and equipment were still rudimentary and required much improvisation. At the time, British Royal Marine Light Infantry (merged with the Royal Marine Artillery in the 1920s to form the Royal Marines) were used primarily as naval parties onboard Royal Navy warships to maintain discipline and man ships' guns. The RMLI joined a new Royal Navy division, the Royal Naval Division, formed in 1914 (out of those not needed on ships) to fight on land; however, throughout the conflict, army units were depended upon to provide the bulk, if not all, of troops used in amphibious landings. The first amphibious assault of the war was the Battle of Bita Paka (11 September 1914) was fought south of Kabakaul, on the island of New Britain, and was a part of the invasion and subsequent occupation of German New Guinea by the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) shortly after the outbreak of the First World War. The first British amphibious assault of the war ended in disaster in November 1914. A large British Indian Army force was directed to launch an amphibious assault on Tanga, German East Africa. British actions prior to the assault, however, alerted the Germans to prepare to repel an invasion. The Indian forces suffered heavy casualties when they advanced on the city, forcing them to withdraw back to their boats, leaving much of their equipment behind. The Russian army and navy also grew adept to amphibious warfare in the Black Sea, conducting many raids and bombardments on Ottoman positions. On 11 October 1917, German land and naval forces launched an amphibious assault, code named Operation Albion, on the islands of Saaremaa (Ösel), Hiiumaa (Dagö) and Muhu (Moon); they controlled the entrance to the Gulf of Riga. By the end of the month German forces had successfully overrun the islands forcing the Russians to abandon them with the loss of some 20,000 troops, 100 guns and the pre-dreadnought battleship Slava. The capture of the islands opened a route for German naval forces into the Gulf of Finland threatening the city of Petrograd, a fact that contributed to the cessation of hostilities on the Eastern front. Gallipoli: The first large scale amphibious operations, ones that were to heavily influence theorists in the decades to come, were conducted as part of the Battle of Gallipoli in 1915 against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The Gallipoli peninsula forms the northern bank of the Dardanelles, a strait that provided a sea route to what was then the Russian Empire, one of the Allied powers during the war. Intending to secure it, Russia's allies Britain and France launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula with the eventual aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). Although the naval attack was repelled and the land campaign failed, the campaign was the first modern amphibious landing, and featured air support, specialized landing craft and a naval bombardment. The seaplane tender HMS Ark Royal supported the landings under the command of Commander Robert Clark-Hall. Seaplanes were used for aerial reconnaissance, ground support for the troops landing at Anzac Cove and the bombing of fortifications. Ark Royal was augmented by a squadron from the No. 3 Squadron of the Royal Naval Air Service, operating from a nearby island. Initial landings took place in unmodified rowing boats that were extremely vulnerable to attack from the shore defences. The first purpose-built landing craft were built for the campaign. SS River Clyde, built as a collier, was adapted to be a landing ship for the Landing at Cape Helles. Openings were cut in her steel hull as sally ports from which troops would emerge onto gangways and then to a bridge of smaller boats from the ship to the beach.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

The seaplane tender HMS Ark Royal supported the landings under the command of Commander Robert Clark-Hall. Seaplanes were used for aerial reconnaissance, ground support for the troops landing at Anzac Cove and the bombing of fortifications. Ark Royal was augmented by a squadron from the No. 3 Squadron of the Royal Naval Air Service, operating from a nearby island. Initial landings took place in unmodified rowing boats that were extremely vulnerable to attack from the shore defences. The first purpose-built landing craft were built for the campaign. SS River Clyde, built as a collier, was adapted to be a landing ship for the Landing at Cape Helles. Openings were cut in her steel hull as sally ports from which troops would emerge onto gangways and then to a bridge of smaller boats from the ship to the beach. Boiler plate and sandbags were mounted on her bow, and behind them a battery of 11 machine guns was installed. The machine gun battery was manned by Royal Naval Air Service men. Work began on painting River Clyde's hull sandy yellow as camouflage, but this was incomplete by the time of the landing. It was soon clear that the Turkish defence was equipped with rapid-fire weapons, which meant that ordinary landing boats were inadequate for the task. In February 1915, orders were placed for the design of purpose built landing craft. A design was created in four days resulting in an order for 200 'X' Lighters with a spoon-shaped bow to take shelving beaches and a drop down frontal ramp. The first use took place after they had been towed to the Aegean and performed successfully in the 6 August landing at Suvla Bay of IX Corps, commanded by Commander Edward Unwin. 'X' Lighters, known to the soldiers as 'Beetles', carried about 500 men, displaced 135 tons and were based on London barges being 105 feet, 6 inches long, 21 feet wide, and 7 feet, 6 inches deep. The engines mainly ran on heavy oil and ran at a speed of approximately 5 knots. The sides of the ships were bullet proof, and was designed with a ramp on the bow for disembarkation. A plan was devised to land British heavy tanks from pontoons in support of the Third Battle of Ypres, but this was abandoned. The lessons of the Gallipoli campaign had a significant impact upon the development of amphibious operational planning, and have since been studied by military planners prior to operations such as the Normandy Landings in 1944 and during the Falklands War in 1982. The campaign also influenced US Marine Corps amphibious operations during the Pacific War, and continues to influence US amphibious doctrine. During the interwar period the campaign "became a focal point for the study of amphibious warfare" in the United Kingdom and United States, because it involved the four types of amphibious operations: the raid, demonstration, assault and withdrawal. Analysis of the campaign before World War II led to a belief among many armed forces that amphibious assaults could not succeed against modern defences. The perception continued until the Normandy Landings in June 1944, despite some successful examples of amphibious operations earlier in the war, such as those in Italy, and at Tarawa and in the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific. Although the negative perception prevailed among Allied planners in the interwar years, the war situation after 1940 meant that such operations had to be considered. However, despite early successes in North Africa and Italy, it was not until Normandy that the belief that opposed landings could not succeed was completely excised. Interwar developments: One of the first amphibious landings involving armour was conducted by the Irish National Army in 1922, during the Irish Civil War. Landings against Republican rebels at Westport, Fenit and Cork all involved armour cars. The Westport and Fenit landings involved light armoured cars and 18-pounder artillery guns being hoisted off the ships by crane. Heavier armoured cars were used at Cork, resulting in some difficulty. While Irish troops could reach the coast in small boats from naval vessels offshore, the ships had to dock to unload the heavy vehicles and artillery guns. These operations were a major success for the Irish government forces, mainly due to the element of surprise and the use of armoured vehicles and artillery. Government forces were able to capture all the major towns and cities in southern Ireland. The Alhucemas landing on 8 September 1925, performed by a Spanish-French coalition against rebel Berber tribesmen in the north of Morocco, was an amphibious landing where tanks were used for the first time and massive aerial and naval gunfire support was employed by the landing forces, directed by spotting personnel with communication devices. Floating depots were organized with medical, water, ammunition and food supplies, to be dispatched ashore when needed. The barges used in this landing were the surviving "K" boats from Gallipoli, upgraded in Spanish shipyards. In 1938, Japanese forces attacked Chinese defenders over the Yangtze River at the Battle of Wuhan. Soon, the Japanese would later further improve its techniques upon seaborne assaults by the Second Sino-Japanese War. By World War II, marines such as the Special Naval Landing Force used amphibious landings to attack and sweep across territories in South East Asia. Their technique of surprise landings with naval support inspired the British and American landings in World War II such as D-Day and the Pacific Campaign. Britain: During the inter-war period, the combination of the negative experience at Gallipoli and economic stringency contributed to the delay in procuring equipment and adopting a universal doctrine for amphibious operations in the Royal Navy. The costly failure of the Gallipoli campaign coupled with the emerging potential of airpower satisfied many in naval and military circles that the age of amphibious operations had come to a close. Still, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, animated discussion in Staff Colleges in Britain and the Indian Army Staff College at Quetta surrounded the strategic potential of the Dardanelles campaign compared with the strategic stalemate of the Western Front. The economic austerity of the worldwide economic depression and the government's adoption of the Ten Year Rule assured that such theoretical talk would not result in the procurement of any large scale equipment. Despite this outlook, the British produced the Motor Landing Craft in 1920, based on their experience with the early 'Beetle' armoured transport. The craft could put a medium tank directly onto a beach. From 1924, it was used with landing boats in annual exercises in amphibious landings. It was later called Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM) and was the predecessor of all Allied landing craft mechanised (LCM). The Army and Royal Navy formed a landing craft committee to "recommend... the design of landing craft". A prototype motor landing craft, designed by J. Samuel White of Cowes, was built and first sailed in 1926. It weighed 16 tons and had a box-like appearance, having a square bow and stern. To prevent fouling of the propellers in a craft destined to spend time in surf and possibly be beached, a crude waterjet propulsion system was devised by White's designers. A Hotchkiss petrol engine drove a centrifugal pump which produced a jet of water, pushing the craft ahead or astern, and steering it, according to how the jet was directed. Speed was 5–6 knots and its beaching capacity was good. By 1930, three MLC were operated by the Royal Navy. For a short journey, from shore to shore, the cargo could be rolled or carried into the boat over its ramp. On longer journeys, ship to shore, a derrick would lower the MLC into the sea from the transporting vessel. The derrick would then lower the vehicle or cargo load. Upon touching down on shore, soldiers or vehicles exited by the bow ramp. Although there was much official apathy toward amphibious operations, this began to change in the late 1930s. The Royal Naval Staff College at Greenwich, drafted a document detailing combined operations requirements and submitted it to the Chiefs of Staff in 1936. The document recommended the establishment of an inter-service 'Training and Development Centre', with a permanent force of Royal Marines attached to it. Its functions were to "train in all methods for the seizure of defended beaches; develop the materiel necessary for such methods, with special regard to protection of troops, speed of landing, and the attainment of surprise; and develop methods and materiel for the destruction or neutralization of enemy defenses, including bombardment and aircraft co-operation. The Inter-Service Training and Development Centre was established at Fort Cumberland, near Portsmouth in 1938, and brought together representatives from the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force convened with the portfolio of developing methods and equipment to use in Combined Operations. The Centre examined certain specific problems, including craft for landing tanks, beach organisation, floating piers, headquarters ships, amphibian tanks, underwater obstacles, the landing of water and petrol and the use of small craft in amphibious raids By the end of 1939 the ISTDC had codified a policy for landings, and defended it at Staff College discussions. Operational experience during the Second World War introduced modifications to this landing policy, but it was essentially the policy used in the Torch and Husky landings four years later.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

The Inter-Service Training and Development Centre was established at Fort Cumberland, near Portsmouth in 1938, and brought together representatives from the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force convened with the portfolio of developing methods and equipment to use in Combined Operations. The Centre examined certain specific problems, including craft for landing tanks, beach organisation, floating piers, headquarters ships, amphibian tanks, underwater obstacles, the landing of water and petrol and the use of small craft in amphibious raids By the end of 1939 the ISTDC had codified a policy for landings, and defended it at Staff College discussions. Operational experience during the Second World War introduced modifications to this landing policy, but it was essentially the policy used in the Torch and Husky landings four years later. The essential shape of this landing policy is described by Bernard Fergusson in The Watery Maze, The system provided for an approach under cover of darkness in fast ships carrying special craft; the craft being sent ashore while the ships lay out of sight of land; small-craft smoke and gun protection while the beachhead was seized; the landing of a reserve; the capture of a covering position far enough inland to secure the beach and anchorage from enemy fire; the bringing in of ships carrying the main body; and finally the discharge of vehicles and stores by other craft specially designed to do so directly on to beaches. And in all this it was important to achieve tactical surprise. Among the many tactical innovations introduced by the centre, codified in the Manual on Combined Operations and the Standard Naval Bombardment Code, was the use of Floating Piers (pontoons) to bridge the water gap, the creation of Smoke Generating devices to obscure the assault and the use of infrared directional beacons for landing accuracy. The centre also played a role in the development of the first specialized landing crafts, including the Assault Landing Craft, the Mechanized Landing Craft (LCM(1)), the Landing Craft Tank (Mk. 1), Support Landing Craft LCS(1), LCS(2) and Landing Ship Infantry. Divisional-sized amphibious landing exercises were carried out by the British Army in the 1930s. United States: In contrast to the British attitude, the U.S. military, especially the Marine Corps remained enthusiastic at the possibilities of amphibious warfare. The Marine Corps was searching for an expanded mission after World War I, during which it had merely been used as a junior version of the Army infantry. During the 1920s, it found a new mission—to be a fast-reacting, light infantry fighting force carried rapidly to far off locations by the US Navy. Its special role would be amphibious landings on enemy-held islands, but it took years to figure out how to do that. The Mahanian notion of a decisive fleet battle required forward bases for the Navy close to the enemy. After the Spanish–American War the Marines gained the mission of occupying and defending those forward bases, and began a training program on Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. As early as 1900 the General Board of the United States Navy considered building advance bases for naval operations in the Pacific and the Caribbean. The Marine Corps was given this mission in 1920, but the challenge was to avoid another disaster like Gallipoli. The conceptual breakthrough came in 1921 when Major "Pete" Ellis wrote Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia a secret 30,000-word manifesto that proved inspirational to Marine strategists and highly prophetic. To win a war in the Pacific, the Navy would have to fight its way through thousands of miles of ocean controlled by the Japanese—including the Marshall, Caroline, Marianas and Ryukyu island chains. If the Navy could land Marines to seize selected islands, they could become forward bases. Ellis argued that with an enemy prepared to defend the beaches, success depended on high-speed movement of waves of assault craft, covered by heavy naval gunfire and attack from the air. He predicted that the decisive action would take place on the beach itself, so the assault teams would need not just infantry but also machine gun units, light artillery, light tanks, and combat engineers to defeat beach obstacles and defenses. Assuming the enemy had its own artillery, the landing craft would have to be specially built to protect the landing force. The failure at Gallipoli came because the Turks could easily reinforce the specific landing sites. The Japanese would be unable to land new forces on the islands under attack. Not knowing which of the many islands would be the American target, the Japanese would have to disperse their strength by garrisoning many islands that would never be attacked. An island like Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands, would, Ellis estimated, require two regiments, or 4,000 Marines. Guided by Marine observer aircraft, and supplemented by Marine light bombers, warships would provide enough firepower so that Marines would not need any heavy artillery (in contrast to the Army, which relied heavily on its artillery). Shelling defended islands was a new mission for warships. The Ellis model was officially endorsed in 1927 by the Joint Board of the Army and Navy (a forerunner of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). However, actual implementation of the new mission took another decade because the Marine Corps was preoccupied in Central America and the Navy was slow to start training in how to support the landings. The prototype advanced base force officially evolved into the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) in 1933. In 1939, during the annual Fleet Landing Exercises, the FMF became interested in the military potential of Andrew Higgins's design of a powered, shallow-draught boat. These LCVPs, dubbed the 'Higgins Boats', were reviewed and passed by the U.S. Naval Bureau of Construction and Repair. Soon, the Higgins boats were developed to a final design with a ramp, and were produced in large numbers. Second World War: By the Second World War tactics and equipment had moved on. The first use of British landing craft in an opposed landing in the Second World War, saw the disembarkation of French Foreign Legionnaires of the 13th Demi-Brigade and supporting French Hotchkiss H39 tanks on the beach at Bjerkvik, eight miles (13 km) above Narvik, on 13 May during the Norwegian campaign. The first major and successful amphibious operation was Operation Ironclad, a British campaign to capture Vichy French-controlled Madagascar. The naval contingent consisted of over 50 vessels, drawn from Force H, the British Home Fleet and the British Eastern Fleet, commanded by Rear Admiral Edward Neville Syfret. The fleet included the aircraft carrier Illustrious, her sister ship Indomitable and the aging battleship Ramillies to cover the landings. The first wave of the British 29th Infantry Brigade and No. 5 Commando landed in assault craft on 5 May 1942, follow-up waves were by two brigades of the 5th Infantry Division and Royal Marines. Air cover was provided mainly by Fairey Albacore and Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers which attacked Vichy shipping. Purpose-built landing craft were among the vessels used at the evacuation from Dunkirk (Operation Dynamo) and an amphibious operation was tried out at Dieppe in 1942. The operation proved a costly failure, but the lessons, hard learned, were used later. Many small-scale operations were conducted by the Allies on the Axis-held coast of Europe, including raids on the Lofoten Islands, St Nazaire and Bruneval. Specialized infantry landing craft: In the run up to World War II, many specialized landing craft, both for infantry and vehicles, were developed. In November 1938, the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre proposed a new type of landing craft. Its specifications were to weigh less than ten long tons, to be able to carry the thirty-one men of a British Army platoon and five assault engineers or signallers, and to be so shallow drafted as to be able to land them, wet only up to their knees, in eighteen inches of water. All of these specifications made the Landing Craft Assault; a separate set of requirements were laid down for a vehicle and supplies carrier, although previously the two roles had been combined in the Motor Landing Craft. J. S. White of Cowes built a prototype to the Fleming design. Eight weeks later the craft was doing trials on the Clyde. All landing craft designs must find a compromise between two divergent priorities; the qualities that make a good sea boat are opposite those that make a craft suitable for beaching. The craft had a hull built of double-diagonal mahogany planking. The sides were plated with "10lb. DIHT" armour, a heat treated steel based on D1 steel, in this case Hadfield's Resista 1⁄4". The Landing Craft Assault remained the most common British and Commonwealth landing craft of World War II, and the humblest vessel admitted to the books of the Royal Navy on D-Day. Prior to July 1942, these craft were referred to as "Assault Landing Craft" (ALC), but "Landing Craft; Assault" (LCA) was used thereafter to conform with the joint US–UK nomenclature system. The Landing Craft Infantry was a stepped up amphibious assault ship, developed in response to a British request for a vessel capable of carrying and landing substantially more troops than the smaller Landing Craft Assault (LCA). The result was a small steel ship that could land 200 troops, traveling from rear bases on its own bottom at a speed of up to 15 knots.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

DIHT" armour, a heat treated steel based on D1 steel, in this case Hadfield's Resista 1⁄4". The Landing Craft Assault remained the most common British and Commonwealth landing craft of World War II, and the humblest vessel admitted to the books of the Royal Navy on D-Day. Prior to July 1942, these craft were referred to as "Assault Landing Craft" (ALC), but "Landing Craft; Assault" (LCA) was used thereafter to conform with the joint US–UK nomenclature system. The Landing Craft Infantry was a stepped up amphibious assault ship, developed in response to a British request for a vessel capable of carrying and landing substantially more troops than the smaller Landing Craft Assault (LCA). The result was a small steel ship that could land 200 troops, traveling from rear bases on its own bottom at a speed of up to 15 knots. The original British design was envisioned as being a "one time use" vessel which would simply ferry the troops across the English Channel, and were considered an expendable vessel. As such, no troop sleeping accommodations were placed in the original design. This was changed shortly after initial use of these ships, when it was discovered that many missions would require overnight accommodations. The first LCI(L)s entered service in 1943 chiefly with the Royal Navy (RN) and United States Navy. Some 923 LCI were built in ten American shipyards and 211 provided under lend-lease to the Royal Navy. Specialized vehicle landing craft: Following the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre's (ISTDC) successful development of the infantry carrying LCA, attention turned to the means of efficiently delivering a tank to a beach in 1938. Inquires were made of the army as to the heaviest tank that might be employed in a landing operation. The army wanted to be able to land a 12-ton tank, but the ISTDC, anticipating weight increases in future tank models specified 16 tons burthen for Mechanised Landing Craft designs. Another governor on any design was the need to land tanks and other vehicles in less than approximately 2+1⁄2 feet of water. Design work began at John I. Thornycroft Ltd. in May 1938 with trials completing in February 1940. Although early LCM(1)s were powered by two Thornycroft 60 bhp petrol engines, the majority were powered by Chrysler, in-line, 6-cylinder Crown petrol engines. Constructed of steel and selectively clad with armour plate, this shallow-draft, barge-like boat with a crew of 6, could ferry a tank of 16 long tons to shore at 7 knots (13 km/h). Depending on the weight of the tank to be transported the craft might be lowered into the water by its davits already loaded or could have the tank placed in it after being lowered into the water. Although the Royal Navy had the Landing Craft Mechanised at its disposal, in 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill demanded an amphibious vessel capable of landing at least three 36-ton heavy tanks directly onto a beach, able to sustain itself at sea for at least a week, and inexpensive and easy to build. Admiral Maund, Director of the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre (which had developed the Landing Craft Assault), gave the job to naval architect Sir Roland Baker, who within three days completed initial drawings for a 152-foot (46 m) landing craft with a 29-foot (8.8 m) beam and a shallow draft. Ship builders Fairfields and John Brown agreed to work out details for the design under the guidance of the Admiralty Experimental Works at Haslar. Tank tests with models soon determined the characteristics of the craft, indicating that it would make 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) on engines delivering about 700 hp (520 kW). Designated the LCT Mark 1, 20 were ordered in July 1940 and a further 10 in October 1940. The first LCT Mark 1 was launched by Hawthorn Leslie in November 1940. It was an all-welded 372-ton steel-hulled vessel that drew only 3 feet (0.91 m) of water at the bow. Sea trials soon proved the Mark 1 to be difficult to handle and almost unmanageable in some sea conditions. The designers set about correcting the faults of the Mark 1 in the LCT Mark 2. Longer and wider, three Paxman diesel or Napier Lion petrol engines replaced the Hall-Scotts, and 15 and 20 lb. armoured shielding was added to the wheelhouse and gun tubs. The Mark 3 had an additional 32-foot (9.8 m) midsection that gave it a length of 192 feet (59 m) and a displacement of 640 tons. Even with this extra weight, the vessel was slightly faster than the Mark 1. The Mk.3 was accepted on 8 April 1941, and was prefabricated in five sections. The Mark 4 was slightly shorter and lighter than the Mk.3, but had a much wider beam (38 ft 9 in (11.81 m)) and was intended for cross channel operations as opposed to seagoing use. When tested in early assault operations, like the ill-fated Canadian commando raid on Dieppe in 1942, the lack of manoeuvring ability led to the preference for a shorter overall length in future variants, most of which were built in the United States. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, the U.S. Navy had no amphibious vessels at all, and found itself obliged to consider British designs already in existence. One of these, advanced by K.C. Barnaby of Thornycroft, was for a double-ended LCT to work with landing ships. The Bureau of Ships quickly set about drawing up plans for landing craft based on Barnaby's suggestions, although with only one ramp. The result, in early 1942, was the LCT Mark 5, a 117-foot craft with a beam of 32 feet that could accommodate five 30-ton or four 40-ton tanks or 150 tons of cargo. With a crew of twelve men and one officer, this 286 ton landing craft had the merit of being able to be shipped to combat areas in three separate water-tight sections aboard a cargo ship or carried pre-assembled on the flat deck of an LST. The Mk.5 would be launched by heeling the LST on its beam to let the craft slide off its chocks into the sea, or cargo ships could lower each of the three sections into the sea where they were joined. A further development was the Landing Ship, Tank designation, built to support amphibious operations by carrying significant quantities of vehicles, cargo, and landing troops directly onto an unimproved shore. The British evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940 demonstrated to the Admiralty that the Allies needed relatively large, ocean-going ships capable of shore-to-shore delivery of tanks and other vehicles in amphibious assaults upon the continent of Europe. The first purpose-built LST design was HMS Boxer. To carry 13 Churchill infantry tanks, 27 vehicles and nearly 200 men (in addition to the crew) at a speed of 18 knots, it could not have the shallow draught that would have made for easy unloading. As a result, each of the three (Boxer, Bruiser, and Thruster) ordered in March 1941 had a very long ramp stowed behind the bow doors. In November 1941, a small delegation from the British Admiralty arrived in the United States to pool ideas with the United States Navy's Bureau of Ships with regard to development of ships and also including the possibility of building further Boxers in the US. During this meeting, it was decided that the Bureau of Ships would design these vessels. The LST(2) design incorporated elements of the first British LCTs from their designer, Sir Rowland Baker, who was part of the British delegation. This included sufficient buoyancy in the ships' sidewalls that they would float even with the tank deck flooded. The LST(2) gave up the speed of HMS Boxer at only 10 knots but had a similar load while drawing only 3 feet forward when beaching. In three separate acts dated 6 February 1942, 26 May 1943, and 17 December 1943, Congress provided the authority for the construction of LSTs along with a host of other auxiliaries, destroyer escorts, and assorted landing craft. The enormous building program quickly gathered momentum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the previously laid keel of an aircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid down on 10 June 1942 at Newport News, Va., and the first standardized LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. Twenty-three were in commission by the end of 1942. Lightly armored, they could steam cross the ocean with a full load on their own power, carrying infantry, tanks and supplies directly onto the beaches. Together with 2,000 other landing craft, the LSTs gave the troops a protected, quick way to make combat landings, beginning in summer 1943.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

The enormous building program quickly gathered momentum. Such a high priority was assigned to the construction of LSTs that the previously laid keel of an aircraft carrier was hastily removed to make room for several LSTs to be built in her place. The keel of the first LST was laid down on 10 June 1942 at Newport News, Va., and the first standardized LSTs were floated out of their building dock in October. Twenty-three were in commission by the end of 1942. Lightly armored, they could steam cross the ocean with a full load on their own power, carrying infantry, tanks and supplies directly onto the beaches. Together with 2,000 other landing craft, the LSTs gave the troops a protected, quick way to make combat landings, beginning in summer 1943. D-Day: The most famous amphibious assaults of the war, and of all time, were the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944, in which British, Canadian, and US forces landed at Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword beaches in the largest amphibious operation in history. The organizational planning of the landings (Operation Neptune) was in the hands of Admiral Bertram Ramsay. It covered the landing of the troops and their re-supply. Many innovative elements were included in the operation to ensure its success. Operation Pluto was a scheme developed by Arthur Hartley, chief engineer with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, to construct an undersea oil pipeline under the English Channel between England and France to provide logistical support to the landed armies. Allied forces on the European continent required a tremendous amount of fuel. Pipelines were considered necessary to relieve dependence on oil tankers, which could be slowed by bad weather, were susceptible to German submarines, and were also needed in the Pacific War. Geoffrey William Lloyd, the Minister for Petroleum gained the support of Admiral Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations for the operation. Two types of pipeline were developed. The first type was the flexible HAIS pipe with a 3 inch (75 mm) diameter lead core, weighing around 55 long tons per nautical mile (30 t/km), was essentially a development by Siemens Brothers (in conjunction with the National Physical Laboratory) of their existing undersea telegraph cables, and known as HAIS (from Hartley-Anglo-Iranian-Siemens). The second type was a less flexible steel pipe of similar diameter, developed by engineers from the Iraq Petroleum Company and the Burmah Oil Company. In June 1942 the Post Office cable ship Iris laid lengths of both Siemens' and Henleys' cable in the Clyde. The pipeline was completely successful and PLUTO was formally brought into the plans for the invasion of Europe. The project was deemed "strategically important, tactically adventurous, and, from the industrial point of view, strenuous". After full-scale testing of an 83 km (45 nautical mile) HAIS pipe across the Bristol Channel between Swansea in Wales and Watermouth in North Devon, the first line to France was laid on 12 August 1944, over the 130 km (70 nautical miles) from Shanklin Chine on the Isle of Wight across the English Channel to Cherbourg Naval Base. A further HAIS pipe and two HAMELs followed. As the fighting moved closer to Germany, 17 other lines (11 HAIS and 6 HAMEL) were laid from Dungeness to Ambleteuse in the Pas-de-Calais. In January 1945, 305 tonnes (300 long tons) of fuel was pumped to France per day, which increased tenfold to 3,048 tonnes (3,000 long tons) per day in March, and eventually to 4,000 tons (almost 1,000,000 Imperial gallons) per day. In total, over 781 000 m3 (equal to a cube with 92 metre long sides or over 172 million imperial gallons) of gasoline had been pumped to the Allied forces in Europe by VE day, providing a critical supply of fuel until a more permanent arrangement was made, although the pipeline remained in operation for some time after. Portable harbours were also prefabricated as temporary facilities to allow rapid offloading of cargo onto the beaches during the Allied invasion of Normandy. The Dieppe Raid of 1942 had shown that the Allies could not rely on being able to penetrate the Atlantic Wall to capture a port on the north French coast. The problem was that large ocean-going ships of the type needed to transport heavy and bulky cargoes and stores needed sufficient depth of water under their keels, together with dockside cranes, to off-load their cargo and this was not available except at the already heavily defended French harbours. Thus, the Mulberries were created to provide the port facilities necessary to offload the thousands of men and vehicles, and tons of supplies necessary to sustain Operation Overlord and the Battle of Normandy. The harbours were made up of all the elements one would expect of any harbour: breakwater, piers, roadways etc. At a meeting following the Dieppe Raid, Vice-Admiral John Hughes-Hallett declared that if a port could not be captured, then one should be taken across the Channel. The concept of Mulberry harbours began to take shape when Hughes-Hallett moved to be Naval Chief of Staff to the Overlord planners. The proposed harbours called for many huge caissons of various sorts to build breakwaters and piers and connecting structures to provide the roadways. The caissons were built at a number of locations, mainly existing ship building facilities or large beaches like Conwy Morfa around the British coast. The works were let out to commercial construction firms including Balfour Beatty, Costain, Nuttall, Henry Boot, Sir Robert McAlpine and Peter Lind & Company, who all still operate today, and Cubitts, Holloway Brothers, Mowlem and Taylor Woodrow, who all have since been absorbed into other businesses that are still operating. On completion they were towed across the English Channel by tugs to the Normandy coast at only 4.3 Knots (8 km/h or 5 mph), built, operated and maintained by the Corps of Royal Engineers, under the guidance of Reginald D. Gwyther, who was appointed CBE for his efforts. By 9 June, just 3 days after D-Day, two harbours codenamed Mulberry "A" and "B" were constructed at Omaha Beach and Arromanches, respectively. However, a large storm on 19 June destroyed the American harbour at Omaha, leaving only the British harbour still intact but damaged, which included damage to the 'Swiss Roll' which had been deployed as the most western floating roadway had to be taken out of service. The surviving Mulberry "B" came to be known as Port Winston at Arromanches. While the harbour at Omaha was destroyed sooner than expected, Port Winston saw heavy use for 8 months—despite being designed to last only 3 months. In the 10 months after D-Day, it was used to land over 2.5 million men, 500,000 vehicles, and 4 million tonnes of supplies providing much needed reinforcements in France. Other: Other large amphibious operations in the European theatre of World War II and the war in the Pacific include: Europe: Pacific: Korean War: During the Korean War the U.S. X Corps, consisting of the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division landed at Inchon. Conceived of and commanded by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur, this landing is considered by many military historians to have been a tactical jewel, one of the most brilliant amphibious maneuvers in history (See analysis in main article). The success of this battle eventually resulted in link up with U.S. Army forces that broke out of the Pusan perimeter, and led by the 1st Cavalry Division and its Task Force Lynch, cleared much of South Korea. A second landing by the Tenth Corps on the east coast approached the Chosin Reservoir and hydroelectric plants that powered much of Communist China's heavy industry, and led to intervention by Chinese forces on behalf of North Korea. Amphibious landings also took place during the First Indochina War, notably during Operation Camargue, one of the largest of the conflict. Suez Crisis and Falklands War: The British Royal Marines made their first post-World War II amphibious assault during the Suez Crisis of 1956 when they successfully landed at Suez on 6 November as part of a joint seaborne/airborne operation code-named MUSKETEER. Despite all the progress that was seen during World War II, there were still fundamental limitations in the types of coastline that were suitable for assault. Beaches had to be relatively free of obstacles, and have the right tidal conditions and the correct slope. However, the development of the helicopter fundamentally changed the equation. The first use of helicopters in an amphibious assault came during the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 (the Suez War). Two British light fleet carriers were pressed into service to carry helicopters, and a battalion-sized airborne assault was made. Two of the other carriers involved, HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Albion, were converted in the late 1950s into dedicated "commando carriers."

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Amphibious warfare

Despite all the progress that was seen during World War II, there were still fundamental limitations in the types of coastline that were suitable for assault. Beaches had to be relatively free of obstacles, and have the right tidal conditions and the correct slope. However, the development of the helicopter fundamentally changed the equation. The first use of helicopters in an amphibious assault came during the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 (the Suez War). Two British light fleet carriers were pressed into service to carry helicopters, and a battalion-sized airborne assault was made. Two of the other carriers involved, HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Albion, were converted in the late 1950s into dedicated "commando carriers." Nearly 30 years later in the Falklands War, the 1st Marines Brigade of the Argentine Marine Corps along with Navy's Special Forces performed Operation Rosario landing at Mullet Creek near Stanley on 2 April 1982, while later the Royal Marines' 3 Commando Brigade, (augmented by the British Army's Parachute Regiment) landed at Port San Carlos on 21 May 1982 during Operation Sutton. Landing at Cyprus: The Turkish Armed Forces launched an amphibious assault on 20 July 1974, on Kyrenia, following the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état. The Turkish naval force provided naval gunfire support during the landing operation and transported the amphibious forces from the port of Mersin to the island. The Turkish landing forces consisted of around 3,000 troops, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and artillery pieces. Iran-Iraq war: During the Iran–Iraq War, the Iranians launched Operation Dawn 8 (Persian: عملیات والفجر ۸), in which 100,000 troops comprising 5 Army divisions and 50,000 men from the IRGC and the Basij advanced in a two-pronged offensive into southern Iraq. Taking place between 9 and 25 February, the assault across the Shatt al-Arab achieved significant tactical and operational surprise. The Iranians launched their assault on the peninsula at night, their men arriving on rubber boats. Iranian Navy SEALs spearheaded the offensive despite a shortage of gear. Prior to this action Iranian Naval Commandos performed reconnaissance of the Faw Peninsula. The Iranian SEALs penetrated an obstacle belt and isolated Iraqi bunkers whose troops had taken cover from the heavy rains inside or were sleeping. Iranian demolition teams detonated charges on the obstacles to create a path for the Iranian infantry waiting to begin their assault. Not only did the amphibious landings provide a significant lodgement behind Iraq's tactical front, but they also created a psychological shock wave throughout the Persian Gulf region. Soon after the initial landings, Iranian combat engineers were able to construct bridges to improve the flow of ground troops into the lodgement area. Iran managed to maintain their foothold in Al-Faw against several Iraqi counter-offensives and chemical attacks for another month despite heavy casualties until a stalemate was reached. The Faw Peninsula was later recaptured by Iraqi forces, by the massive and illegal use of chemical weapons, the same day as the US launched Operation Praying Mantis on Iran, destroying their navy. Persian Gulf War: During the Persian Gulf War, Assault Craft Unit 5 was able to position U.S. Marine and naval support off the coast of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This force was composed of 40 amphibious assault ships, the largest such force to be assembled since the Battle of Inchon. The objective was to fix the six Iraqi divisions deployed along the Kuwaiti coast. The purpose behind this amphibious maneuver (known as an amphibious demonstration) was to prevent 6 Iraqi divisions poised for the defense of the littorals from being able to actively engage in combat at the real front. The operation was extremely successful in keeping more than 41,000 Iraqi forces from repositioning to the main battlefield. As a result, the Marines maneuvered through the Iraq defense of southern Kuwait and outflanked the Iraqi coastal defense forces. Elem War: During the Sri Lankan civil war the LTTE used amphibious warfare in some of their successful battles such as Battle of Pooneryn in 1992 and Second Battle of Elephant Pass in 2000 to overrun and capture Sri Lankan Army bases. Iraq War: An amphibious assault was carried out by Royal Marines, U.S. Marines and units of the Polish special forces when they landed at the Al-Faw Peninsula on 20 March 2003 during the Iraq War. Invasion of Anjouan: On 25 March 2008, Operation Democracy in Comoros was launched in the Comoros by government and African Union troops. The amphibious assault led to the ousting of Colonel Bacar's government, which had taken over the autonomous state of Adjouan. Battle of Kismayo (2012): From 28 September to 1 October 2012, the Somali National Army launched an assault in conjuncture with allied militia led by Kenya Defense Forces to liberate the city of Kismayo from insurgent control in a first of its kind by an African military. The operation, known as Operation Sledge Hammer, started with the landing of Somali and Kenyan troops outside the city of Kismayo. By 1 October, the coalition forces were able to push Al-Shabaab out of the city. See also: List of marines and similar forces Marines Navy Raid (military)#Seaborne US Amphibious Training Base Notes: References: Further reading: Alexander, Joseph H., and Merrill L. Bartlett. Sea Soldiers in the Cold War: Amphibious Warfare, 1945–1991 (1994) Bartlett, Merrill L. Assault from the Sea: Essays on the History of Amphibious Warfare (1993) Dwyer, John B. Commandos From The Sea: The History Of Amphibious Special Warfare In World War II And The Korean War (1998) Heck, Timothy; Friedman, B. A., eds. On Contested Shores: The Evolving Role of Amphibious Operations (Marine Corps University Press, 2020) online review of this book Ireland, Bernard. The World Encyclopedia of Amphibious Warfare Vessels: An illustrated history of modern amphibious warfare (2011) Isely, Jeter A., Philip A. Crowl. The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War Its Theory and Its Practice in the Pacific (1951) Millett, Allan R. Semper Fidelis: History of the United States Marine Corps (2nd ed. 1991) ch 12–14 Moore, Richard S (November 1982). "Ideas and Direction: Building Amphibious Doctrine". Marine Corps Gazette. 66 (11): 49–58. ProQuest 206354619. Reber, John J (1977). "Pete Ellis: Amphibious Warfare Prophet". U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. 103 (11): 53–64. Venzon, Anne Cipriano. From Whaleboats to Amphibious Warfare: Lt. Gen. "Howling Mad" Smith and the U.S. Marine Corps (Praeger, 2003) External links: Media related to Amphibious warfare at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

Chariots: As states grew in size, the speed of mobilization became crucial because central power could not hold if rebellions could not be suppressed rapidly. The first solution to this was the chariot, which was initially used in the Middle East from around 1800 BC. First pulled by oxen and donkeys, they allowed rapid traversing of the relatively flat lands of the Middle East. The chariots were light enough that they could easily be floated across rivers. Improvements in the ability to train horses soon allowed them to be used to pull chariots, possibly as early as 2100 BC, and their greater speed and power made chariots even more efficient. The major limitation of the use of chariots was terrain; while very mobile on flat, hard, open ground, it was very difficult to traverse more difficult terrain, such as rough ground, even sparse trees or bushes, small ravines or streams, or marsh. In such terrain, chariots were less maneuverable than common foot soldiers, and later cavalry. The chariot was so powerful for transportation and warfare that it became the key weapon in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd millennium BC. The typical chariot was worked by two men: one would be a bowman who would fire at enemy forces, while the other would control the vehicle. Over time, chariots were developed to carry up to five warriors. In China, chariots became the central weapon of the Shang dynasty, allowing them to unify a great area. Although chariots have been compared to modern-day tanks in the role they played on the battlefield, i.e. shock attacks, this is disputed, with scholars pointing out that chariots were vulnerable and fragile, and required a level terrain while tanks are all-terrain vehicles; thus chariots were unsuitable for use like modern tanks as a physical shock force. The chief advantage of the chariot was the tactical mobility they provided to bowmen. Tightly packed infantry was the formation of choice, in order for ancient generals to maintain command and control during the battle as well as for mutual protection. But a force of chariots could stand off at long range and rain arrows down on the infantrymen's heads. Because of their speed, any attempts to charge the chariots could be easily evaded. If, on the other hand, an infantry unit spread out to minimize the damage from arrows, they would lose the benefit of mutual protection and the charioteers could easily overrun them. Thus any force facing chariots was in a tactical dilemma, making chariots indispensable to armies of those times. But they were complicated equipment that required specialized craftsmen to maintain them. This made chariots expensive to own. When chariots were owned by individuals within a society, it tended to give rise to a warrior class of specialists and a feudal system (an example of which can be seen in Homer's The Iliad). Where chariots were publicly owned, they helped in the maintenance and establishment of a strong central government, e.g. the New Egyptian Kingdom. Chariot usage peaked in the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC, which was probably the largest chariot battle ever fought, involving perhaps 5,000 chariots. Naval warfare: Naval warfare in the ancient world can be traced back to the Mediterranean in the third millennium BC, from evidence of paintings in the Cyclades and models of ships which were made across the Aegean. Ships were used for civilian transport and trade, as well as for military purposes. They were propelled by both rowing and sailing, but since the Mediterranean is known for its inconsistent weather patterns, rowing was probably the primary means of propulsion. The first documented, physical evidence of a naval battle is found in a relief painting located in the temple of Medinet Habu, near Luxor, Egypt. It shows the victory of Ramses III over the 'Sea-Peoples' in the Nile river delta in the early twelfth century BC. These 'Sea-Peoples' were originally believed to be of Philistine and Phoenician descent, while there is speculation that there could be some Greek influence in their seafaring. Even before this relief painting, there are earlier records of the practice of sea battles as early as 2550 BC under the Egyptian pharaoh Sahue, who reportedly used transport vessels to escort his armies to foreign shores. There is even further evidence from earlier sources that illustrate seafaring and military action around the Nile Delta during the early dynastic period in Egypt, following into the reign of Ramses II Before that victory of Ramses III, the state of Egypt had no access to the kind of timber needed to build seafaring vessels and warships on a large scale. Instead of importing large quantities of timber to build warships, Egyptian naval architects and early engineers began to convert the common Egyptian riverboats. They reconfigured the size of the ship and added heavy trees for longitudinal support of the hull on the open sea. The warships constructed in this way contributed to that victory. The relief painting shows in great detail how fighting was conducted in a naval battle. It shows Egyptian warships with over twenty rows of oarsmen along with infantry troops and archers fighting in apparent hand-to-hand combat with the opposing naval force. This raises a question to the theory that there was no actual naval weaponry developed at this time but rather a reliance upon maneuvering tactics and strategy in order to engage with infantry troops. The trireme: Among the great innovations of naval warfare in the ancient world there are few that can surpass the Trireme style warship in terms of efficiency, strategy, and overall effectiveness. The first depiction of this 'longship' style vessel can be found in Homer's The Iliad as a means of transport of armed men and supplies to areas of conflict across the seas. These ships were said to have consisted of two separate levels that could have held up to 60 men per level, all operating oars in unison to propel the ship. The upper level of oarsmen would sit in single-file fashion, pulling their oars through what is called a top wale or some sort of oar-port; while the men in the lower rows would sit in the ships' hold also rowing through lower oar-ports. It is also said that each oar throughout the ship would be made in length proportionate to the physique of an average Greek man. Manned crews for these massive warships would have been quite impressive, but accounts vary in actual numbers of men from source to source. Herodotus of Halicarnassus was a Greek historian in the fourth century BC who, through his accounts, said that these Triremes would consist of at least two-hundred men manning all positions. With these massive crews, these ships were able to work at maximum capacity and efficiency in regards to speed, navigation, and transport. While these ships were built for maximum efficiency, there is room for debate about the conditions and space aboard the ship itself. It is estimated that out of the 200 man crew, around 170 of those men would have been oarsmen with respective positions below deck. These oarsmen below deck would sit on thwarts and kept their personal storage items beneath them, reassuring the theory that these ships would be very crowded with little room for anything other than operational functions. What exactly these Greek triremes were capable of in battle is debated. There are various different accounts that lay down foundations of what equipment was used and how these ships engaged in combat. The main military applications of Greek Triremes, besides the transport of troops and supplies, would be the advantages of ramming tactics. Developments and innovations of the Greek Trireme evolved over time, especially in respect to ramming tactics. Naval architects during this time saw fit to bring about full effectiveness and damaging power to these ships. By doing this, the amount of manpower would stay consistent, i.e., keeping the same amount of rowing power but shortening the length of the ship to condense the ramming power while keeping speed and agility consistent. This new ideology of warfare and naval tactics would prove to be prudent to the overall military applications of the Trireme, and soon would become the principal combative strategy of the Greek navy and other navies alike. The Greek Trireme, soon after its appearance in the Aegean, would become the standard warship throughout the Mediterranean as sovereign states such as Egypt and even the Persian Empire would adopt the design of these ships and apply them to their own military applications. One major attraction of the Greek design was not only its efficient ramming capability but also its ability to travel long distances at fair speeds. One account from the Athenian soldier and historian Xenophon describes the voyage of the Athenian fleet commander Iphicrates through unfriendly waters and the strategy he used combined with the sheer sailing power of the Trireme. "He proceeded with his journey and at the same time made all the necessary preparations for action, at the outset leaving his main sails behind as if he was expecting an engagement. In addition, even if there was a following wind he used his small [boat] sails little, but progressed by oar [instead, presumably, of using main sails and boat sails when the wind was favourable]. Thus he both improved the fitness of his men and achieved a higher speed for his ships".This primary source account can be interpreted as functional and efficient use of the Greek trireme.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

One major attraction of the Greek design was not only its efficient ramming capability but also its ability to travel long distances at fair speeds. One account from the Athenian soldier and historian Xenophon describes the voyage of the Athenian fleet commander Iphicrates through unfriendly waters and the strategy he used combined with the sheer sailing power of the Trireme. "He proceeded with his journey and at the same time made all the necessary preparations for action, at the outset leaving his main sails behind as if he was expecting an engagement. In addition, even if there was a following wind he used his small [boat] sails little, but progressed by oar [instead, presumably, of using main sails and boat sails when the wind was favourable]. Thus he both improved the fitness of his men and achieved a higher speed for his ships".This primary source account can be interpreted as functional and efficient use of the Greek trireme. Maximizing its speed through rugged and unfriendly seas while also utilizing specific military strategy in order to ensure the most prudent and effective outcome was what led to the success of the trireme across all kinds of empires and civilizations throughout the Mediterranean. The trireme would later become a vital piece of naval weaponry throughout the Persian Wars, for both the Greeks and the Persian Empire, as well as the base standard for the formation of the Roman Navy. The Persian Wars were the first to feature large-scale naval operations: not only sophisticated fleet engagements with dozens of triremes on each side, but also combined land-sea operations. Ships in the ancient world could operate only on the relatively quiet waters of seas and rivers; the oceans were off-limits. Navies were almost always used as auxiliaries to land forces, often essential to bringing them supplies. They would rarely strike out on their own. With only limited-range weapons, naval galleys would often attempt to ram their opponents with their reinforced bow to cause damage or sink the enemy warships which often caused the two ships to become joined, and initiated a boarding battle. Only occasionally was a decisive naval battle fought, such as the Battle of Lade in which a Persian navy destroyed the Greek navy. Tactics and weapons: Strategy: Ancient strategy focused broadly on the twin goals of convincing the enemy that continued war was more costly than submitting, and of making the most gain possible from war. Forcing the enemy to submit generally consisted of defeating their army in the field. Once the enemy force was routed, the threat of siege, civilian deaths, and the like often forced the enemy to the bargaining table. However, this goal could be accomplished by other means. Burning enemy fields would force the choice of surrendering or fighting a pitched battle. Waiting an enemy out until their army had to disband due to the beginning of the harvest season or running out of payment for mercenaries presented an enemy with a similar choice. The exceptional conflicts of the ancient world were when these rules of warfare were violated. The Spartan and Athenian refusal to accept surrender after many years of war and near bankruptcy in the Peloponnesian War is one such exceptional example, as is the Roman refusal to surrender after the Battle of Cannae. A more personal goal in war was simple profit. This profit was often monetary, as was the case with the raiding culture of the Gallic tribes. But the profit could be political, as great leaders in war were often rewarded with government office after their success. These strategies often contradict modern common sense as they conflict with what would be best for the states involved in the war. Tactics: Effective tactics varied greatly, depending on: The army's size Unit types Terrain The weather Positional advantage Skill level Individual battle experience Individual morale Armament (quantity and quality) Weapons: Ancient weapons included the spear, the atlatl with light javelin or similar projectile, the bow and arrow, the sling; polearms such as the spear, falx and javelin; hand-to-hand weapons such as swords, spears, clubs, maces, axes, and knives. Catapults, siege towers, and battering rams were used during sieges. The Ancient Greeks left behind many examples of their weapons through their burial practices. In Arms and Armour of the Greeks, the rapier-like swords found within Mycenean tombs tended to be brittle due to their length and slim designs. During the Bronze Age, two new types of swords made a debut: the horned and cruciform varieties. The horned sword was named after the horn-like appearance of the handguard and was the preferred weapon for cutting strikes. The cruciform sword was derived from the Minoan dagger's flanged hilt and rounded handguards set at right angles. Spears continued to remain the preferred means for thrusting attacks, but the Palace Period saw the addition of a socketed base to the weapon. This new period also saw a shift in the role of the bow and arrow from hunting implements to full-fledged weapons. As Greek civilization progressed, the need for weapons changed and by the Late Period of Mycenae, weapons had become shorter and more suited for use in work environments rather than battles. Macedon was known more traditionally for having a strong cavalry rather than infantry. During Alexander's reign, the Sarissophori came into being and this was unique to Alexander's time in power. While the cavalry was more prominent, the Macedon infantry, made up of the poor and peasant classes, formed into a new and unique branch of the military that was different from the hoplite. These warriors were armed with a huge pike weapon called a sarissa as well as the army being equipped with slings, which used almond-shaped bronze bullets that were engraved with either Philip's or his generals' name. For siege warfare, the Macedonians used an arrow-firing catapult. For armor, they were equipped with a metal helmet, greaves, and a shield covered with bronze. In The Archaeology of Weapons, a broader account of ancient weaponry is taken into account through the investigation of European weapons. Oakeshott believes that at some point between 1500 and 100 BC that the sword developed from the knife in both Minoan Crete and Celtic Britain and strongly resembles the rapiers. During the Bronze Age in the same general region, several other swords were developed: the Hallstatt first appeared during this Age but did not become widely used until the Iron Age, the Carps Tongues, and the Rhone Valley swords. The Hallstatt swords gained prominence during the Iron Age and were a long sword with a rather curious point that was one of three shapes: rounded, a square shape, or similar to a fishtail, and were the preferred weapon for use in a chariot. The Carps Tongues blade were also rather large swords with the edges running parallel for two-thirds of the blade before narrowing to the usually point. The last sword is that of the Rhone Valley and is generally considered more of small sword or an overly large dagger with each hilt uniquely cast in bronze. The pommel of this type of dagger has the ends drawn out into two thin points that curve in towards the blade. Along with Hallstatt swords, there were found to be spears, similar to the spearheads found in Mycenae they were quite large at fifteen inches and having a hollow socket however they were unique in that they had a small collar of bronze near where they attached to the shaft. Within India's long history there are several different regimes that produced unique weapons. The list of weapons primarily used in India are the battle axe, the bow and arrow, spears, spike, barbed dart, the sword, iron club, javelin, iron arrow, and the scimitar. One sword type is the katar blade, these are equipped with sword breaking bars and both the shape and size would depend on whether the bearer was cavalry or an infantryman. A curved sword such as the talwar or shamsheer was ideal for a cutting motion delivered from horseback. There were three early iron sword types being the leaf-shaped, spoon-shaped and the parallel sword each ideal for thrusting and jabbing as opposed to a striking or cutting motion. The Rajputs, Gurkhas, Nagas, and Coorg and Malabar each developed a weapon unique to themselves. The Rajputs wielded the khanda which is a broad and straight sword with a wider point. The Gurkhas had two swords that they preferred to use the kukri, a short sword that angled towards a wide tip, and the kora, their historical war sword which was around 60 centimeters with a single edge that was rather narrow near the handler and curving towards the front. The daos had a blade equal to two feet in length that had a wide and square-like tip and the handle was made of either wood or ivory, these were the weapons that came to popularity for the Nagas. The Ayudha katti was a single-edged blade also near two feet long but with no handle and wield by the Coorg and Malabar. In Southern India, the Borobudur and the Veragal, either shaped like a hook or a wavy design, were the swords in use. A rather unique weapon used in India is the Baghnakh, which is similar to a knuckle duster and was used to slit the opponent's throat or belly. Armor in India can be found dating back to 500 BC and Vedic literature; there are several different types: leather and fabric, scale, brigandine, lamellar, mail, plate, and a combination of mail and plate.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

The daos had a blade equal to two feet in length that had a wide and square-like tip and the handle was made of either wood or ivory, these were the weapons that came to popularity for the Nagas. The Ayudha katti was a single-edged blade also near two feet long but with no handle and wield by the Coorg and Malabar. In Southern India, the Borobudur and the Veragal, either shaped like a hook or a wavy design, were the swords in use. A rather unique weapon used in India is the Baghnakh, which is similar to a knuckle duster and was used to slit the opponent's throat or belly. Armor in India can be found dating back to 500 BC and Vedic literature; there are several different types: leather and fabric, scale, brigandine, lamellar, mail, plate, and a combination of mail and plate. In Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India it is read that the wrastrana, a breastplate, has been in use since prehistoric times though the most popular is the char-aina meaning four mirrors is a coat of mail overlaid with four elaborately designed plates. The helmets consisted of a sliding nose guard with a piece of chainmail hanging from it designed to protect the neck and shoulders. Armor was not just limited to human soldiers but extended to their horses and elephants as well. The horse armor was made up of mail and plates or lamellae which covered the neck, chest, and hindquarters underneath which was some form of padding to keep it in place while a faceplate protected the animal's face. The elephants, used as a battering ram or to break and trample enemy lines, were also donned in armor for battle. The elephant's head was covered by a steel mask and covered half of the trunk while the throat and sides were protected by lamellae armor while the tusks were tipped with sharp metal. Sieges: Siege warfare of the ancient Near East took place behind walls built of mud bricks, stone, wood or a combination of these materials depending on local availability. The earliest representations of siege warfare date to the Protodynastic Period of Egypt, c. 3000 BC, while the first siege equipment is known from Egyptian tomb reliefs of the 24th century BC showing wheeled siege ladders. Assyrian palace reliefs of the 9th to 7th centuries BC display sieges of several Near Eastern cities. Though a simple battering ram had come into use in the previous millennium, the Assyrians improved siege warfare. The most common practice of siege warfare was, however, to lay siege and wait for the surrender of the enemies inside. Due to the problem of logistics, long-lasting sieges involving anything but a minor force could seldom be maintained. Ancient siege warfare varied from each civilization and how each city was defended differently and had to approach with different tactics. One way to ensure an army used all its troops in its siege is shown when its explained how a chariot can be used in a siege, saying that, "During the sieges, the chariots, and mostly in the Neo-Assyrian armies, were surely employed to patrol and protect the flanks and the rear of the besiegers' lines and camp." (UF 41 p. 5). This shows that generals had to find new tactics to incorporate parts of their army that wouldn't work in the siege, as shown with the chariots on patrol duty and ensuring the army was safe from a flank attack from the enemy army. This strategy ensures that all forces are used and contributing to the battle effort and helping gain victory for them and all pulling their weight as well. By culture: Ancient Near East: Mesopotamia: Egypt: Throughout most of its history, ancient Egypt was unified under one government. The main military concern for the nation was to keep enemies out. The arid plains and deserts surrounding Egypt were inhabited by nomadic tribes who occasionally tried to raid or settle in the fertile Nile river valley. The Egyptians built fortresses and outposts along the borders east and west of the Nile Delta, in the Eastern Desert, and in Nubia to the south. Small garrisons could prevent minor incursions, but if a large force was detected a message was sent for the main army corps. Most Egyptian cities lacked city walls and other defenses. The first Egyptian soldiers carried a simple armament consisting of a spear with a copper spearhead and a large wooden shield covered by leather hides. A stone mace was also carried in the Archaic period, though later this weapon was probably only in ceremonial use, and was replaced with the bronze battle axe. The spearmen were supported by archers carrying a composite bow and arrows with arrowheads made of flint or copper. No armour was used during the 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC. As the dynasties expanded and grew upon the last that fell to gain new territory and control new people for the empire of Egypt. One of the ways the dynasties were different were the new technologies used in the later dynasties against the enemy. One example is the armies of Ramesses' II faced off against the Hittites in the Battle of Qadesh. Both armies have cavalry units supporting their infantry and scouts to get updates on the movements. These advances differ from two groups attacking head-on for control of an area and facing losses on both sides The major advance in weapons technology and warfare began around 1600 BC when the Egyptians fought and defeated the Hyksos people, who ruled Lower Egypt at the time. It was during this period the horse and chariot were introduced into Egypt. Other new technologies included the sickle sword, body armour and improved bronze casting. In the New Kingdom, the Egyptian military changed from levy troops into a firm organization of professional soldiers. Conquests of foreign territories, like Nubia, required a permanent force to be garrisoned abroad. The Egyptians were mostly used to slowly defeating a much weaker enemy, town-by-town until beaten into submission. The preferred tactic was to subdue a weaker city or kingdom one at a time resulting in the surrender of each fraction until complete domination was achieved. The encounter with other powerful Near Eastern kingdoms like Mitanni, the Hittites, and later the Assyrians and Babylonians, made it necessary for the Egyptians to conduct campaigns far from home. The next leap forwards came in the Late Period (712–332 BC), when mounted troops and weapons made of iron came into use. After the conquest by Alexander the Great, Egypt was heavily Hellenized and the main military force became the infantry phalanx. The ancient Egyptians were not great innovators in weapons technology, and most weapons technology innovation came from Western Asia and the Greek world. These soldiers were paid with a plot of land for the provision of their families. After fulfillment of their service, the veterans were allowed retirement to these estates. Generals could become quite influential at the court, but unlike other feudal states, the Egyptian military was completely controlled by the king. Foreign mercenaries were also recruited; first Nubians (Medjay), and later also Libyans and Sherdens in the New Kingdom. By the Persian period, Greek mercenaries entered service into the armies of the rebellious pharaohs. The Jewish mercenaries at Elephantine served the Persian overlords of Egypt in the 5th century BC. Although, they might also have served the Egyptian pharaohs of the 6th century BC. As far as had been seen from the royal propaganda of the time, the king or the crown prince personally headed the Egyptian troops into battle. The army could number tens of thousands of soldiers, so the smaller battalions consisting of 250 men, led by an officer, may have been the key of command. The tactics involved a massive strike by archery followed by infantry and/or chariotry attacking the broken enemy lines. The enemies could, however, try to surprise the large Egyptian force with ambushes and by blocking the road as the Egyptian campaign records informs us. Within the Nile valley itself, ships and barges were important military elements. Ships were vital for providing supplies for the troops. The Nile river had no fords so barges had to be used for river crossings. Dominating the river often proved necessary for prosecuting sieges, like the Egyptian conquest of the Hyksos capital Avaris. Egypt had no navy to fight naval battles at sea before the Late Period. However, a battle involving ships took place at the Egyptian coast in the 12th century BC between Ramesses III and seafaring raiders. Persia: Ancient Persia first emerged as a major military power under Cyrus the Great. Its form of warfare was based on massed infantry in light armor to pin the enemy force whilst cavalry dealt the killing blow. Cavalry was used in huge numbers but it is not known whether they were heavily armored or not. Most Greek sources claim the Persians wore no armor, but we do have an example from Herodotus which claims that an unhorsed cavalry Officer wore a gold cuirass under his red robes. Chariots were used in the early days but during the later days of the Persian Empire they were surpassed by horsemen. During the Persian Empire's height, they even possessed war elephants from North Africa and distant India. The elite of the Persian Army were the famous Persian Immortals, a 10,000 strong unit of professional soldiers armed with a spear, a sword and a bow. Archers also formed a major component of the Persian Army.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

Its form of warfare was based on massed infantry in light armor to pin the enemy force whilst cavalry dealt the killing blow. Cavalry was used in huge numbers but it is not known whether they were heavily armored or not. Most Greek sources claim the Persians wore no armor, but we do have an example from Herodotus which claims that an unhorsed cavalry Officer wore a gold cuirass under his red robes. Chariots were used in the early days but during the later days of the Persian Empire they were surpassed by horsemen. During the Persian Empire's height, they even possessed war elephants from North Africa and distant India. The elite of the Persian Army were the famous Persian Immortals, a 10,000 strong unit of professional soldiers armed with a spear, a sword and a bow. Archers also formed a major component of the Persian Army. Persian tactics primarily had four stages involving archers, infantry and cavalry. The archers, who wielded longbows, would fire waves of arrows before the battle, attempting to cut the enemy numbers down prior battle. The cavalry would then attempt to run into the enemy and sever communications between generals and soldiers. Infantry would then proceed to attack the disoriented soldiers, subsequently weakened from the previous attacks. Nubia: The Kerma culture was the first Nubian kingdom to unify much of the region. The Classic Kerma Culture, named for its royal capital at Kerma, was one of the earliest urban centers in the Nile region Kerma culture was militaristic. This is attested by the many bronze daggers or swords as well as archer burials found in their graves. The Kingdom of Kush began to emerge around 1000 BC, 500 years after the end of the Kingdom of Kerma. The first period of the kingdom's history, the 'Napatan', was succeeded by the 'Meroitic period', when the royal cemeteries relocated to Meroë around 300 BC. Bowmen were the most important force components throughout Kushite military history. Archaeology has also revealed the use of the crossbow in Kush. Siege engines were deployed in Kushite siege warfare; for instance, during Piye's invasion of Ashmunein in the 8th century BC. Other Kushite weapons included War Elephants, chariots, armor. At its peak, the kingdom of Kush stretched all the way from Nubia to the Near East. Asia: India: During the Vedic period (fl. 1500–500 BC), the Vedas and other associated texts contain references to warfare. The earliest allusions to a specific battle are those to the Battle of the Ten Kings in which extensive use of chariots between inter-tribal wars was found in Mandala 7 of the Rigveda. The two great ancient epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata (c. 1000–500 BC) are centered on conflicts and refer to military formations, theories of warfare and esoteric weaponry. Valmiki's Ramayana describes Ayodhya's military as defensive rather than aggressive. The city, it says, was strongly fortified and was surrounded by a deep moat. Ramayana describes Ayodhya in the following words: "The city abounded in warriors undefeated in battle, fearless and chinskilled in the use of arms, resembling lions guarding their mountain caves". Mahabharata describes various military techniques, including the Chakravyuha. The world's first recorded military application of war elephants is in the Mahabharatha. From India, war elephants were brought to the Persian Empire where they were used in several campaigns. The Persian king Darius III employed about 50 Indian elephants in the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC) fought against Alexander the Great. In the Battle of the Hydaspes River, the Indian king Porus, who ruled in Punjab, with his smaller army of 200 war elephants, 2,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry, presented great difficulty for Alexander the Great's larger army of 4,000 cavalry and 50,000 infantry, though Porus was eventually defeated. At this time, the Nanda Empire further east in northern and eastern India had an army of 6000 war elephants, 80,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry and 8,000 armed chariots. Chanakya (c. 350–275 BC) was a professor of political science at Takshashila University, and later the prime minister of emperor Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Empire. Chanakya wrote the Arthashastra, which covered various topics on ancient Indian warfare in great detail, including various techniques and strategies relating to war. These included the earliest uses of espionage and assassinations. These techniques and strategies were employed by Chandragupta Maurya, who was a student of Chanakya, and later by Ashoka (304–232 BC). Chandragupta Maurya conquered the Magadha Empire and expanded to all of northern India, establishing the Maurya Empire, which extended from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal. In 305 BC, Chandragupta defeated Seleucus I Nicator, who ruled the Seleucid Empire and controlled most of the territories conquered by Alexander the Great. Seleucus eventually lost his territories in Southern Asia, including southern Afghanistan, to Chandragupta. Seleucus exchanged territory west of the Indus for 500 war elephants and offered his daughter to Chandragupta. In this matrimonial alliance, the enmity turned into friendship, and Seleucus' dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to the Mauryan court at Pataliputra. As a result of this treaty, the Maurya Empire was recognized as a great power by the Hellenistic World, and the kings of Egypt and Syria sent their own ambassadors to his court. According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta Maurya built an army consisting of 30,000 cavalry, 10,000 war elephants, and 600,000 infantry, which was the largest army known in the ancient world. Ashoka went on to expand the Maurya Empire to almost all of South Asia, along with much of Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Ashoka eventually gave up on warfare after converting to Buddhism. The Cholas were the first rulers of the Indian subcontinent to maintain a navy and use it to expand their dominion overseas. Vijayalaya Chola defeated the Pallavas and captured Thanjavur. In the early 10th century the Chola king Parantaka I defeated the Pandyan king Maravarman Rajasimha II and invaded Sri Lanka. The Rashtrakuta ruler Krishna III defeated and killed Parantaka I's son Rajaditya in about 949. Uttama Chola reigned 970–85. Inscriptions tell that at least from his time, Chola warriors wore waist coats of armour. Hence, one regiment was called Niyayam-Uttama-Chola-tterinda-andalakattalar. Paluvettaraiyar Maravan Kandanar served as a general under Uttama and his predecessor, Sundara. Rajaraja Chola began his military career with the conquest of the Cheras in the Kandalur War. He captured the Pandya ruler Amara Bhujanga, the town of Vizhinjam, and a part of Sri Lanka. In the 14th year of his reign (998–999) he conquered the Gangas of Mysore, the Nolambas of Bellary and Eastern Mysore, Tadigaipadi, Vengi, Coorg, the Pandyas and the Chalukyas of the Deccan. During the next three years, he subdued Quilon and the northern kingdom of Kalinga with the help of his son Rajendra Chola I. Rajendra later completed the conquest of Sri Lanka, crossed the Ganges, and marched across Kalinga to Bengal. He sent out a great naval expedition that occupied parts of Java, Malaya, and Sumatra. The Cholas were brought down by the Hoysalas from the west and Pandyas from the south. China: Ancient China during the Shang dynasty was a Bronze Age society based on chariot armies. An archaeological study of Shang sites at Anyang have revealed extensive examples of chariots and bronze weapons. The overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou saw the creation of a feudal social order, resting militarily on a class of aristocratic chariot warriors (士). In the Spring and Autumn period, warfare increased. Zuo zhuan describes the wars and battles among the feudal lords during the period. Warfare continued to be stylised and ceremonial even as it grew more violent and decisive. The concept of military hegemon (霸) and his "way of force" (霸道) came to dominate Chinese society. Sun Tzu created a book that still applies to today's modern armies, The Art of War. Formations of the army can be clearly seen from the Terracotta Army of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor in the history of China to be successful in the unification of different warring states. Light infantry acting as shock troops lead the army, followed by heavy infantry as the main body of the army.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

The overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou saw the creation of a feudal social order, resting militarily on a class of aristocratic chariot warriors (士). In the Spring and Autumn period, warfare increased. Zuo zhuan describes the wars and battles among the feudal lords during the period. Warfare continued to be stylised and ceremonial even as it grew more violent and decisive. The concept of military hegemon (霸) and his "way of force" (霸道) came to dominate Chinese society. Sun Tzu created a book that still applies to today's modern armies, The Art of War. Formations of the army can be clearly seen from the Terracotta Army of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor in the history of China to be successful in the unification of different warring states. Light infantry acting as shock troops lead the army, followed by heavy infantry as the main body of the army. Wide usage of cavalry and chariots behind the heavy infantry also gave the Qin army an edge in battles against the other warring states. Warfare became more intense, ruthless and much more decisive during the Warring States period, in which great social and political change was accompanied by the end of the system of chariot warfare and the adoption of mass infantry armies. Cavalry was also introduced from the northern frontier, despite the cultural challenge it posed for robe-wearing Chinese men. Chinese river valley civilizations would adopt nomadic "pants" for their cavalry units and soldiers. Japanese: Horses and bows were very important in Japan and were used in warfare from very early times, as shown in statues and artifacts found in tombs of early chieftains. Samurai eventually became very skilled in using the horse. Because their main weapon at this time was the bow and arrow, early samurai exploits were spoken of in Japanese war tales as the "Way of the Horse and Bow." Horse and bow combined was a battlefield advantage to the early samurai. A bunch of arrows made of mainly wood with poison-tipped points was worn on a warrior's right side so he could quickly knock and release an arrow mid-gallop. Although they weren't as important as the bow, swords of various sizes and types were also part of an early samurai's armory. They were mostly for close-quarters engagements. Many different kinds of spears were also used. One, the naginata, was a curved blade fixed to the end of a pole several feet long. This was known as a 'woman's spear' because samurai girls were taught to use it from an early age. A device called the kumade, which resembled a long-handled garden rake, was used to catch the clothing or helmet of enemy horsemen and unseat them. Common samurai archers had armor made of lamellae pieces laced together with colorful cords. The lightweight armor allowed for greater freedom of movement, faster speed, and reduced fatigue for horse and rider. The early Yamato period had seen a continual engagement in the Korean Peninsula until Japan finally withdrew, along with the remaining forces of the Baekje Kingdom. Several battles occurred in these periods as the Emperor's succession gained importance. By the Nara period, Honshū was completely under the control of the Yamato clan. Near the end of the Heian period, samurai became a powerful political force, thus starting the feudal period. Ancient Greece: In general, most features of the hoplite panoply of classical Greek antiquity, were already known during the Late Bronze Age by Mycenaean Greeks (c. 1600–1100 BC). Mycenaean Greek society invested in the development of military infrastructure, while military production and logistics were supervised directly from the palatial centers. Infantry did almost all of the fighting in Greek battles. The Greeks did not have any notable cavalry tradition except the Thessalians. Hoplites, Greek infantry, fought with a long spear and a large shield, the aspis. Light infantry (psiloi) peltasts, served as skirmishers. Despite the fact that most Greek cities were well fortified (with the notable exception of Sparta) and Greek siege technology was not up to the task of breaching these fortifications by force, most land battles were pitched ones fought on flat-open ground. This was because of the limited period of service Greek soldiers could offer before they needed to return to their farms; hence, a decisive battle was needed to settle matters at hand. To draw out a city's defenders, its fields would be threatened with destruction, threatening the defenders with starvation in the winter if they did not surrender or accept battle. This pattern of warfare was broken during the Peloponnesian War, when Athens' command of the sea allowed the city to ignore the destruction of the Athenian crops by Sparta and her allies by shipping grain into the city from the Crimea. This led to a warfare style in which both sides were forced to engage in repeated raids over several years without reaching a settlement. It also made sea battle a vital part of warfare. Greek naval battles were fought between triremes – long and speedy rowing ships which engaged the enemy by ramming and boarding actions. Hellenistic Era: During the time of Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, the Macedonians were regarded as the most complete well co-ordinated military force in the known world. Although they are best known for the achievements of Alexander the Great, his father Philip II of Macedon created and designed the fighting force Alexander used in his conquests. Before this time and for centuries their military prowess was nowhere near that the sarissa phalanx offered. However, prior to the improvements made by Philip II of Macedon armies fought in the traditional manner of the Greeks; that of the hoplite phalanx. Philip provided his Macedonian soldiers in the phalanx with sarissa, a spear which was 4–6 meters in length. The sarissa, when held upright by the rear ranks of the phalanx (there were usually eight ranks), helped hide maneuvers behind the phalanx from the view of the enemy. When held horizontal by the front ranks of the phalanx, enemies could be run through from far away. The hoplite type troops were not abandoned, but were no longer the core of the army. In 358 BC he met the Illyrians in battle with his reorganized Macedonian phalanx and utterly defeated them. The Illyrians fled in panic, leaving the majority of their 9,000-strong army dead. The Macedonian army invaded Illyria and conquered the southern Illyrian tribes. After the defeat of the Illyrians, Macedon's policy became increasingly aggressive. Paeonia was already forcefully integrated into Macedon under Philip's rule. In 357 BC Philip broke the treaty with Athens and attacked Amphipolis which promised to surrender to the Athenians in exchange for the fortified town of Pydna, a promise he didn't keep. The city fell back in the hands of Macedonia after an intense siege. Then he secured possession over the gold mines of nearby Mount Pangaeus, which would enable him to finance his future wars. In 356 the Macedonian army advanced further eastward and captured the town of Crenides (near modern Drama) which was in the hands of the Thracians, and which Philip renamed after himself to Philippi. The Macedonian eastern border with Thrace was now secured at the river Nestus (Mesta). Philip next marched against his southern enemies. In Thessaly he defeated his enemies and by 352, he was firmly in control of this region. The Macedonian army advanced as far as the pass of Thermopylae which divides Greece in two parts, but it did not attempt to take it because it was strongly guarded by a joint force of Athenians, Spartans, and Achaeans. Having secured the bordering regions of Macedon, Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and marched deep into Thrace for a long conquering campaign. By 339 after defeating the Thracians in series of battles, most of Thrace was firmly in Macedonian hands save the most eastern Greek coastal cities of Byzantium and Perinthus who successfully withstood the long and difficult sieges. But both Byzantium and Perinthus would have surely fallen had it not been for the help they received from the various Greek city-states, and the Persian king himself, who now viewed the rise of Macedonia and its eastern expansion with concern. Ironically, the Greeks invited and sided with the Persians against the Macedonians, although Persia had been the nation hated the most by Greece for more than a century. The memory of the Persian invasion of Greece some 150 years ago was still alive, but the current politics for the Macedonians had put it aside. Much greater would be the conquests of his son, Alexander the Great, who would add to the phalanx a powerful cavalry, led by his elite Companions, and flexible, innovative formations and tactics. He advanced Greek style of combat, and was able to muster large bodies of men for long periods of time for his campaigns against Persia. Iron Age Europe: Roman Empire: The Roman army was the world's first professional army. It had its origins in the citizen army of the Republic, which was staffed by citizens serving mandatory duty for Rome. The reforms of Marius around 100 BC turned the army into a professional structure, still largely filled by citizens, but citizens who served continuously for 20 years before being discharged.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

The memory of the Persian invasion of Greece some 150 years ago was still alive, but the current politics for the Macedonians had put it aside. Much greater would be the conquests of his son, Alexander the Great, who would add to the phalanx a powerful cavalry, led by his elite Companions, and flexible, innovative formations and tactics. He advanced Greek style of combat, and was able to muster large bodies of men for long periods of time for his campaigns against Persia. Iron Age Europe: Roman Empire: The Roman army was the world's first professional army. It had its origins in the citizen army of the Republic, which was staffed by citizens serving mandatory duty for Rome. The reforms of Marius around 100 BC turned the army into a professional structure, still largely filled by citizens, but citizens who served continuously for 20 years before being discharged. The Romans were also noted for making use of auxiliary troops, non-Romans who served with the legions and filled roles that the traditional Roman military could not fill effectively, such as light skirmish troops and heavy cavalry. Later in the Empire, these auxiliary troops, along with foreign mercenaries, became the core of the Roman military. By the late Empire, tribes such as the Visigoths were bribed to serve as mercenaries. The Roman navy was traditionally considered less important, although it remained vital for the transportation of supplies and troops, also during the great purge of pirates from the Mediterranean sea by Pompey the Great in the 1st century BC. Most of Rome's battles occurred on land, especially when the Empire was at its height and all the land around the Mediterranean was controlled by Rome. But there were notable exceptions. The First Punic War, a pivotal war between Rome and Carthage in the 3rd century BC, was largely a naval conflict. And the naval Battle of Actium established the Roman empire under Augustus. Balkans: The Illyrian king Bardyllis turned part of south Illyria into a formidable local power in the 4th century BC. He managed to become king of the Dardanians and include other tribes under his rule. However, their power was weakened by bitter rivalries and jealousy. The army was composed by peltasts with a variety of weapons. The Thracians fought as peltasts using javelins and crescent or round wicker shields. Missile weapons were favored but close combat weaponry was carried by the Thracians as well. These close combat weapons varied from the dreaded Rhomphaia & Falx to spears and swords. Thracians shunned armor and greaves and fought as light as possible favoring mobility above all other traits and had excellent horsemen. The Dacian tribes, located on modern-day Romania and Moldova were part of the greater Thracian family of peoples. They established a highly militarized society and, during the periods when the tribes were united under one king (82–44 BC, 86–106) posed a major threat to the Roman provinces of Lower Danube. Dacia was conquered and transformed into a Roman province in 106 after a long, hard war. Celtic: Tribal warfare appears to have been a regular feature of Celtic societies. While epic literature depicts this as more of a sport focused on raids and hunting rather than organised territorial conquest, the historical record is more of tribes using warfare to exert political control and harass rivals, for economic advantage, and in some instances to conquer territory. The Celts were described by classical writers such as Strabo, Livy, Pausanias, and Florus as fighting like "wild beasts", and as hordes. Dionysius said that their "manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood or men digging with mattocks, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all". Such descriptions have been challenged by contemporary historians. Caesar himself describes the Gauls as forming phalanxes (likely similar to the medieval shieldwall) and testudos in battle, and using spears as their main weapon, as opposed to swords. Germanic: Historical records of the Germanic tribes in Germania east of the Rhine and west of the Danube do not begin until quite late in the ancient period, so only the period after 100 BC can be examined. What is clear is that the Germanic idea of warfare was quite different from the pitched battles fought by Rome and Greece. Instead, the Germanic tribes focused on raids. The purpose of these was generally not to gain territory, but rather to capture resources and secure prestige. These raids were conducted by irregular troops, often formed along family or village lines. Leaders of unusual personal magnetism could gather more soldiers for longer periods, but there was no systematic method of gathering and training men, so the death of a charismatic leader could mean the destruction of an army. Armies also often consisted of more than 50 percent noncombatants, as displaced people would travel with large groups of soldiers, the elderly, women, and children. Though often defeated by the Romans, the Germanic tribes were remembered in Roman records as fierce combatants, whose main downfall was that they failed to unite successfully into one fighting force, under one command. After the three Roman legions were ambushed and destroyed by an alliance of Germanic tribes headed by Arminius at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, the Roman Empire made no further concentrated attempts at conquering Germania beyond the Rhine. Prolonged warfare against the Romans accustomed the Germanic tribes to improved tactics such as the use of reserves, military discipline and centralised command. Germanic tribes would eventually overwhelm and conquer the ancient world, giving rise to modern Europe and medieval warfare. For an analysis of Germanic tactics versus the Roman empire see tactical problems in facing the Gauls and the Germanic tribes Notable ancient wars: Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire Ionian Revolt The Ionian Revolt was a series of conflicts between the Ionia and the Persian Empire that began 499 BC and lasted until 493 BC. The revolt begins because of Athens's offensive attack to the city of Sardis and massacring the Persian citizens by burning down the city. This revolt had a major role in starting the Greco-Persian wars. Greco-Persian Wars The Greco-Persian Wars were a series of conflicts between the Greek City-States and the Persian Empire that began around 500 BC and lasted until 448 BC. Peloponnesian War The Peloponnesian War was begun in 431 BC between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League which included Sparta and Corinth. The war was documented by Thucydides, an Athenian general, in his work The History of The Peloponnesian War. The war lasted 27 years, with a brief truce in the middle. Wars of Alexander the Great King Alexander the III of Macedonia throughout his entire reign from 336 to 321 B.C embarked on a campaign of conquest of the Persian Empire. Starting from modern-day Western Turkey Alexander the Great conquered the entirety of Egypt, the Middle East, Iran and parts of India and Central Asia. Never losing a battle Alexander expanded the boundaries of the known world to the Greek World at the time. With an untimely death, his successors fought over the territories they had conquered. However, due to Alexander the Great Greek culture and technology spread into Asia for centuries to come. Kalinga War (265–264 BC) was a war fought between the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka and the state of Kalinga, a feudal republic located on the coast of the present-day Indian state of Odisha. Ashoka's response to the Kalinga War is recorded in the Edicts of Ashoka. According to some of these (Rock Edict XIII and Minor Rock Edict I), the Kalinga War prompted Ashoka, already a non-engaged Buddhist, to devote the rest of his life to Ahimsa (non-violence) and to Dhamma-Vijaya (victory through Dhamma). Qin's wars of unification Qin's wars of unification were a series of military campaigns launched in the late 3rd century BC by the Qin state against the other six major states – Han, Zhao, Yan, Wei, Chu and Qi – within the territories that formed modern China. By the end of the wars in 221 BC, Qin had unified most of the states and occupied some lands south of the Yangtze River. The territories conquered by Qin served as the foundation of the Qin Empire. Punic Wars The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between Rome and the city of Carthage (a Phoenician descendant). They are known as the "Punic" Wars because Rome's name for Carthaginians was Punici (older Poeni, due to their Phoenician ancestry). They determined that the Romans would control the Mediterranean Sea and led to the eventual rise of the greater Roman Empire across Europe, Asia and Africa. The First Punic War was primarily a naval war fought between 264 BC and 241 BC.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Ancient warfare

By the end of the wars in 221 BC, Qin had unified most of the states and occupied some lands south of the Yangtze River. The territories conquered by Qin served as the foundation of the Qin Empire. Punic Wars The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between Rome and the city of Carthage (a Phoenician descendant). They are known as the "Punic" Wars because Rome's name for Carthaginians was Punici (older Poeni, due to their Phoenician ancestry). They determined that the Romans would control the Mediterranean Sea and led to the eventual rise of the greater Roman Empire across Europe, Asia and Africa. The First Punic War was primarily a naval war fought between 264 BC and 241 BC. The Second Punic War is famous for Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and was fought between 218 BC and 202 BC. The Third Punic War resulted in the destruction of Carthage and was fought between 149 BC and 146 BC. Roman-Persian Wars The Roman–Persian Wars were a series of conflicts between states of the Greco-Roman world and two successive Iranian empires: the Parthian and the Sassanid. Battles between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic began in 92 BC; wars began under the late Republic, and continued through the Roman and Sassanid empires. They were ended by the Arab Muslim invasions, which devastated the Sassanid and Byzantine East Roman empires shortly after the end of the last war between them. Han–Xiongnu War The Han–Xiongnu War, also known as the Sino-Xiongnu War, was a series of military battles fought between the Chinese Han empire and the Xiongnu confederated state located in modern day Mongolia from 133 BC to 89 AD. The final wars resulted in the final destruction of the Xiongnu as a political entity in Siberia. China would temporally enjoy peace on its northern frontier before new peoples such as the Xianbei took the role of the Xiongnu. Roman-Germanic Wars The Germanic Wars is a name given to a large series of military engagements between the Romans and various Germanic tribes between 113 BC and AD 596. The nature of these wars varied through time between Roman conquest, Germanic uprisings and later Germanic invasions in the Roman Empire that started in the late 2nd century. The series of conflicts which began in the 5th century, under the Western Roman Emperor Honorius, led (along with internal strife) to the ultimate downfall of the Western Roman Empire. Unit types: See also: Ancient Mediterranean piracy History of physical training and fitness Horses in warfare Women in warfare Siege (Roman history) References: Sources: Wu, Shu-hui (2013). "Debates and Decision-Making: The Battle of the Altai Mountains (Jinweishan 金微山) in AD 91". Debating War in Chinese History. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-22372-1. Literature: Anglim, Simon, and Phyllis G. Jestice. Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World (3000 B.C. to 500 A.D.): Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics. Dunne Books: 2003. ISBN 0-312-30932-5. Adams, William Y. (2013). Qasr Ibrim: The Ballana Phase. Egypt Exploration Society. ISBN 978-0856982163. Bradford, Alfred S. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Praeger Publishing: 2001. ISBN 0-275-95259-2. Connolly, Peter. Greece and Rome at War. Greenhill Books: 1998. ISBN 1-85367-303-X. Gabriel, Richard A. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger Publishing: 2002. ISBN 0-275-97809-5 Gichon, Mordechai, and Chaim Herzog. Battles of the Bible. Greenhill Books: 2002. ISBN 1-85367-477-X. Goldsworthy, Adrian. The Complete Roman Army. Thames & Hudson: 2003. ISBN 0-500-05124-0. Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Vintage: 1993. ISBN 0-679-73082-6. Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Indiana University Press: 1999. ISBN 0-253-33546-9. Leblanc, Steven A. Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press: 1999. ISBN 0-87480-581-3. Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Overlook Press: 2003. ISBN 1-58567-348-X. Peers, Chris J. Ancient Chinese Armies 1500–200 BC. Osprey Publishing: 1990. ISBN 0-85045-942-7. Peers, Chris J., and Michael Perry. Imperial Chinese Armies : 200 BC–589 AD. Osprey Publishing: 1995. ISBN 1-85532-514-4. Sabin, Philip. Lost Battles: Reconstructing The Great Clashes of the Ancient World. Hambledon Continuum: 2007. ISBN 1-84725-187-0. Van Creveld, Martin. "Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present". Free Press: 1991. ISBN 0-02-933153-6. Warry, John Gibson, and John Warry. Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome. University of Oklahoma Press: 1999. External links: Evolution of Sling Weapons War in ancient Greece: a bibliography

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-access/area denial

Overview: United States: A2/AD strategy is a significant concern of US policy, viewing it as a weapon of weaker forces that could be used against the US military. The US military considers that enemy adoption of anti-access/area denial strategies "may well be the most difficult operational challenge U.S. forces will face over the coming decades."The Department of Defense developed the "joint air-sea battle concept for defeating adversaries across the range of military operations, including adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities". Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson has commented on the vagueness of the term A2/AD, saying: "To some, A2AD is a code-word, suggesting an impenetrable “keep-out zone” that forces can enter only at extreme peril to themselves. To others, A2AD refers to a family of technologies. To still others, a strategy. In sum, A2AD is a term bandied about freely, with no precise definition, that sends a variety of vague or conflicting signals, depending on the context in which it is either transmitted or received. [...] The Navy will avoid using the term A2AD as a stand-alone acronym that can mean many things to different people or almost anything to anyone." China: The People's Republic of China is employing a multi-faceted A2/AD strategy to exclude or deter as many adversary forces from acting within the waters it claims as its territorial waters as outlined by the nine-dash line. The initial impulse for this strategy is said to have been the deployment of two US carrier battle groups in the area, reacting to Chinese tests and exercises for a possible invasion of Taiwan in 1995, which went effectively uncontested by the Chinese navy. The Chinese A2/AD strategy's main focus lies on sea denial by missiles (see also paragraph Sea), but features submarines and airplanes as well. The Chinese denial capabilities are not sufficient to exclude Japanese and US troops from the South China Sea, but enough to inflict heavy casualties in case of a war for the occupation of Taiwan. Sea: The concept of A2/AD has long been used by navies under names such as Command of the seas and controlling the sea lines of communication. Naval A2/AD typically takes advantage of geographical features that limit access such as chokepoints or the water surrounding an island. A blockade is an example of a naval anti-access operation. Anti-ship missiles are a modern method of stopping a potential adversary from attacking by sea. China, Russia, North Korea, Syria and Iran all have developed or imported such weapons in an effort to develop a modern A2/AD strategy to counter United States' power projection from nearby waterways. In response to China's pursuit of such A2/AD capabilities, the United States has developed the AirSea Battle doctrine. Other methods of area denial at a strategic level include aircraft carriers, submarines, surface-to-air missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, electronic warfare and interceptor aircraft. Mines, coastal submarines, and attack craft could be employed in littoral areas. Other area denial systems include cruise missiles, long-range strike aircraft, mines, and coastal defense artillery. The term A2/AD was created in 2003 to describe the threats posed by long-range missile systems, precision munitions, and satellite technology that will make military operations in the littoral areas challenging for modern naval forces. Land: The anti-access threat for the Army includes "theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long-range rockets and artillery, weapons of mass destruction and other unconventional means, and information operations." A2/AD strategies on land often take advantage of natural geographic features or bridges that can support anti-access operations. Land-based area denial operations degrade the adversary's ability with techniques such as harassing fires, deception, and guerrilla-warfare-like tactics that avoid direct confrontation. Land-based area denial techniques also include artillery, rocket, and missile strikes, mine fields, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents. Air: A no-fly zone is an A2/AD strategy in the air, prohibiting access to part of the airspace. A2/AD can be supported by surface-to-air missiles such as the S-300 and S-400. The threat on forward air bases from cruise and ballistic missiles can also impose anti-access. Cyberspace: Attacks in cyberspace are an increasingly important part of the A2/AD threat. Tactical cyber A2/AD operations block access to specific resources, while strategic A2/AD blocks access to cyberspace itself. See also: Area denial weapon == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

Terminology: It may also be called counter-air, anti-air, AA, flak, layered air defence or air defence forces. The term air defence was probably first used by the UK when Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) was created as a Royal Air Force command in 1925. However, arrangements in the UK were also called "anti-aircraft", abbreviated as AA, a term that remained in general use into the 1950s. After the First World War it was sometimes prefixed by "light" or "heavy" (LAA or HAA) to classify a type of gun or unit. Nicknames for anti-aircraft guns include "AA", "AAA" or "triple-A" (abbreviations of "anti-aircraft artillery"), "flak" (from the German Flugzeugabwehrkanone), "ack-ack" (from the spelling alphabet used by the British for voice transmission of "AA"); and "archie" (a World War I British term probably coined by Amyas Borton, and believed to derive via the Royal Flying Corps, from the music-hall comedian George Robey's line "Archibald, certainly not!"). NATO defines anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) as "measures taken to defend a maritime force against attacks by airborne weapons launched from aircraft, ships, submarines and land-based sites". In some armies the term all-arms air defence (AAAD) is used for air defence by nonspecialist troops. Other terms from the late 20th century include "ground based air defence" (GBAD) with related terms "short range air defense" (SHORAD) and man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS). Anti-aircraft missiles are variously called surface-to-air missiles, ("SAMs") and surface-to-air guided weapons (SAGWs). Examples are the RIM-66 Standard, Raytheon Standard Missile 6, or the MBDA Aster missile. Non-English terms for air defence include the German Flak or FlaK (Fliegerabwehrkanone, 'aircraft defence cannon', also cited as Flugabwehrkanone), whence English flak, and the Russian term Protivovozdushnaya oborona (Cyrillic: Противовозду́шная оборо́на), a literal translation of 'anti-air defence', abbreviated as PVO. In Russian, the AA systems are called zenitnye (i.e., 'pointing to zenith') systems. In French, air defence is called Défense contre les aéronefs (DCA) , aéronef meaning 'aircraft'. The maximum distance at which a gun or missile can engage an aircraft is an important figure. However, many different definitions are used and unless the same definition is used, performance of different guns or missiles cannot be compared. For AA guns only the ascending part of the trajectory can be usefully used. One term is "ceiling", the maximum ceiling being the height a projectile would reach if fired vertically, not practically useful in itself as few AA guns are able to fire vertically, and the maximum fuse duration may be too short, but potentially useful as a standard to compare different weapons. The British adopted "effective ceiling", meaning the altitude at which a gun could deliver a series of shells against a moving target; this could be constrained by maximum fuse running time as well as the gun's capability. By the late 1930s the British definition was "that height at which a directly approaching target at 400 mph [640 km/h] can be engaged for 20 seconds before the gun reaches 70 degrees elevation". General description: The essence of air defence is to detect hostile aircraft and destroy them. The critical issue is to hit a target moving in three-dimensional space; an attack must not only match these three coordinates, but must do so at the time the target is at that position. This means that projectiles either have to be guided to hit the target, or aimed at the predicted position of the target at the time the projectile reaches it, taking into account the speed and direction of both the target and the projectile. Throughout the 20th century, air defence was one of the fastest-evolving areas of military technology, responding to the evolution of aircraft and exploiting technology such as radar, guided missiles and computing (initially electromechanical analogue computing from the 1930s on, as with equipment described below). Improvements were made to sensors, technical fire control, weapons, and command and control. At the start of the 20th century these were either very primitive or non-existent. Initially sensors were optical and acoustic devices developed during World War I and continued into the 1930s, but were quickly superseded by radar, which in turn was supplemented by optoelectronics in the 1980s. Command and control remained primitive until the late 1930s, when Britain created an integrated system for ADGB that linked the ground-based air defence of the British Army's Anti-Aircraft Command, although field-deployed air defence relied on less sophisticated arrangements. NATO later called these arrangements an "air defence ground environment", defined as "the network of ground radar sites and command and control centres within a specific theatre of operations which are used for the tactical control of air defence operations". Rules of engagement are critical to prevent air defences engaging friendly or neutral aircraft. Their use is assisted but not governed by identification friend or foe (IFF) electronic devices originally introduced during the Second World War. While these rules originate at the highest authority, different rules can apply to different types of air defence covering the same area at the same time. AAAD usually operates under the tightest rules. NATO calls these rules "weapon control orders" (WCO), they are: Weapons free: weapons may be fired at any target not positively recognised as friendly. Weapons tight: weapons may be fired only at targets recognised as hostile. Weapons hold: weapons may only be fired in self-defence or in response to a formal order. Until the 1950s, guns firing ballistic munitions were the standard weapon; guided missiles then became dominant, except at the very shortest ranges. However, the type of shell or warhead and its fuzing and, with missiles, the guidance arrangement were and are varied. Targets are not always easy to destroy; nonetheless, damaged aircraft may be forced to abort their mission and, even if they manage to return and land in friendly territory, may be out of action for days or permanently. Ignoring small arms and smaller machine-guns, ground-based air defence guns have varied in calibre from 20 mm to at least 152 mm. Ground-based air defence is deployed in several ways: Self-defence by ground forces using their organic weapons, AAAD. Accompanying defence, specialist air defence elements accompanying armoured or infantry units. Point defence around a key target, such as a bridge, critical government building or ship. Area air defence, typically "belts" of air defence to provide a barrier, but sometimes an umbrella covering an area. Areas can vary widely in size. They may extend along a nation's border, e.g. the Cold War MIM-23 Hawk and Nike belts that ran north–south across Germany, across a military formation's manoeuvre area, or above a city or port. In ground operations air defence areas may be used offensively by rapid redeployment across current aircraft transit routes. Air defence has included other elements, although after the Second World War most fell into disuse: Tethered barrage balloons to deter and threaten aircraft flying below the height of the balloons, where they are susceptible to damaging collisions with steel tethers. Cables strung across valleys, sometimes forming a "curtain" with vertical cables hanging from them. Searchlights to illuminate aircraft at night for both gun-layers and optical instrument operators. During World War II searchlights became radar controlled. Large smoke screens created by large smoke canisters on the ground to screen targets and prevent accurate weapon aiming by aircraft. Passive air defence is defined by NATO as "Passive measures taken for the physical defence and protection of personnel, essential installations and equipment in order to minimise the effectiveness of air and/or missile attack". It remains a vital activity by ground forces and includes camouflage and concealment to avoid detection by reconnaissance and attacking aircraft. Measures such as camouflaging important buildings were common in the Second World War. During the Cold War the runways and taxiways of some airfields were painted green. Organization: While navies are usually responsible for their own air defence—at least for ships at sea—organisational arrangements for land-based air defence vary between nations and over time. The most extreme case was the Soviet Union and this model may still be followed in some countries: it was a separate service, on a par with the army, navy, or air force. In the Soviet Union, this was called Voyska PVO, and had both fighter aircraft, separate from the air force, and ground-based systems. This was divided into two arms, PVO Strany, the Strategic Air defence Service responsible for Air Defence of the Homeland, created in 1941 and becoming an independent service in 1954, and PVO SV, Air Defence of the Ground Forces. Subsequently, these became part of the air force and ground forces respectively. At the other extreme, the United States Army has an Air Defense Artillery Branch that provides ground-based air defence for both homeland and the army in the field; however, it is operationally under the Joint Force Air Component Commander. Many other nations also deploy an air-defence branch in the army.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

In the Soviet Union, this was called Voyska PVO, and had both fighter aircraft, separate from the air force, and ground-based systems. This was divided into two arms, PVO Strany, the Strategic Air defence Service responsible for Air Defence of the Homeland, created in 1941 and becoming an independent service in 1954, and PVO SV, Air Defence of the Ground Forces. Subsequently, these became part of the air force and ground forces respectively. At the other extreme, the United States Army has an Air Defense Artillery Branch that provides ground-based air defence for both homeland and the army in the field; however, it is operationally under the Joint Force Air Component Commander. Many other nations also deploy an air-defence branch in the army. Some, such as Japan or Israel, choose to integrate their ground based air defence systems into their air force. In Britain and some other armies, the single artillery branch has been responsible for both home and overseas ground-based air defence, although there was divided responsibility with the Royal Navy for air defence of the British Isles in World War I. However, during the Second World War, the RAF Regiment was formed to protect airfields everywhere, and this included light air defences. In the later decades of the Cold War this included the United States Air Force's operating bases in the UK. All ground-based air defence was removed from Royal Air Force (RAF) jurisdiction in 2004. The British Army's Anti-Aircraft Command was disbanded in March 1955, but during the 1960s and 1970s the RAF's Fighter Command operated long-range air-defence missiles to protect key areas in the UK. During World War II, the Royal Marines also provided air defence units; formally part of the mobile naval base defence organisation, they were handled as an integral part of the army-commanded ground based air defences. The basic air defence unit is typically a battery with 2 to 12 guns or missile launchers and fire control elements. These batteries, particularly with guns, usually deploy in a small area, although batteries may be split; this is usual for some missile systems. SHORAD missile batteries often deploy across an area with individual launchers several kilometres apart. When MANPADS is operated by specialists, batteries may have several dozen teams deploying separately in small sections; self-propelled air defence guns may deploy in pairs. Batteries are usually grouped into battalions or equivalent. In the field army, a light gun or SHORAD battalion is often assigned to a manoeuvre division. Heavier guns and long-range missiles may be in air-defence brigades and come under corps or higher command. Homeland air defence may have a full military structure. For example, the UK's Anti-Aircraft Command, commanded by a full British Army general was part of ADGB. At its peak in 1941–42 it comprised three AA corps with 12 AA divisions between them. History: Earliest use: The use of balloons by the U.S. Army during the American Civil War compelled the Confederates to develop methods of combating them. These included the use of artillery, small arms, and saboteurs. They were unsuccessful, and internal politics led the United States Army's Balloon Corps to be disbanded mid-war. The Confederates experimented with balloons as well. Turks carried out the first ever anti-airplane operation in history during the Italo-Turkish war. Although lacking anti-aircraft weapons, they were the first to shoot down an airplane by rifle fire. The first aircraft to crash in a war was the one of Lieutenant Piero Manzini, shot down on August 25, 1912. The earliest known use of weapons specifically made for the anti-aircraft role occurred during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. After the disaster at Sedan, Paris was besieged and French troops outside the city started an attempt at communication via balloon. Gustav Krupp mounted a modified 1-pounder (37 mm) gun – the Ballonabwehrkanone (Balloon defence cannon) or BaK — on top of a horse-drawn carriage for the purpose of shooting down these balloons. By the early 20th century balloon, or airship, guns, for land and naval use were attracting attention. Various types of ammunition were proposed, high explosive, incendiary, bullet-chains, rod bullets and shrapnel. The need for some form of tracer or smoke trail was articulated. Fuzing options were also examined, both impact and time types. Mountings were generally pedestal type but could be on field platforms. Trials were underway in most countries in Europe but only Krupp, Erhardt, Vickers Maxim, and Schneider had published any information by 1910. Krupp's designs included adaptations of their 65 mm 9-pounder, a 75 mm 12-pounder, and even a 105 mm gun. Erhardt also had a 12-pounder, while Vickers Maxim offered a 3-pounder and Schneider a 47 mm. The French balloon gun appeared in 1910, it was an 11-pounder but mounted on a vehicle, with a total uncrewed weight of two tons. However, since balloons were slow moving, sights were simple. But the challenges of faster moving aeroplanes were recognised. By 1913 only France and Germany had developed field guns suitable for engaging balloons and aircraft and addressed issues of military organisation. Britain's Royal Navy would soon introduce the QF 3-inch and QF 4-inch AA guns and also had Vickers 1-pounder quick firing "pom-poms" that could be used in various mountings. The first US anti-aircraft cannon was a 1-pounder concept design by Admiral Twining in 1911 to meet the perceived threat of airships, that eventually was used as the basis for the US Navy's first operational anti-aircraft cannon: the 3-inch/23 caliber gun. First World War: On the 30th of September, 1915, troops of the Serbian Army observed three enemy aircraft approaching Kragujevac. Soldiers fired at them with shotguns and machine-guns but failed to prevent them from dropping 45 bombs over the city, hitting military installations, the railway station and many other, mostly civilian, targets in the city. During the bombing raid, private Radoje Ljutovac fired his cannon at the enemy aircraft and successfully shot one down. It crashed in the city and both pilots died from their injuries. The cannon Ljutovac used was not designed as an anti-aircraft gun; it was a slightly modified Turkish cannon captured during the First Balkan War in 1912. This was the first occasion in military history that a military aircraft was shot down with ground-to-air artillery fire. The British recognised the need for anti-aircraft capability a few weeks before World War I broke out; on 8 July 1914, the New York Times reported that the British government had decided to "dot the coasts of the British Isles with a series of towers, each armed with two quick-firing guns of special design," while "a complete circle of towers" was to be built around "naval installations" and "at other especially vulnerable points". By December 1914 the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) was manning AA guns and searchlights assembled from various sources at some nine ports. The Royal Garrison Artillery (RGA) was given responsibility for AA defence in the field, using motorised two-gun sections. The first were formally formed in November 1914. Initially they used QF 1-pounder "pom-pom"s (37 mm versions of the Maxim Gun). All armies soon deployed AA guns often based on their smaller field pieces, notably the French 75 mm and Russian 76.2 mm, typically simply propped up on some sort of embankment to get the muzzle pointed skyward. The British Army adopted the 13-pounder quickly producing new mountings suitable for AA use, the 13-pdr QF 6 cwt Mk III was issued in 1915. It remained in service throughout the war but 18-pdr guns were lined down to take the 13-pdr shell with a larger cartridge producing the 13-pr QF 9 cwt and these proved much more satisfactory. However, in general, these ad hoc solutions proved largely useless. With little experience in the role, no means of measuring target, range, height or speed the difficulty of observing their shell bursts relative to the target gunners proved unable to get their fuse setting correct and most rounds burst well below their targets. The exception to this rule was the guns protecting spotting balloons, in which case the altitude could be accurately measured from the length of the cable holding the balloon. The first issue was ammunition. Before the war it was recognised that ammunition needed to explode in the air. Both high explosive (HE) and shrapnel were used, mostly the former. Airburst fuses were either igniferious (based on a burning fuse) or mechanical (clockwork). Igniferious fuses were not well suited for anti-aircraft use. The fuse length was determined by time of flight, but the burning rate of the gunpowder was affected by altitude. The British pom-poms had only contact-fused ammunition.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

With little experience in the role, no means of measuring target, range, height or speed the difficulty of observing their shell bursts relative to the target gunners proved unable to get their fuse setting correct and most rounds burst well below their targets. The exception to this rule was the guns protecting spotting balloons, in which case the altitude could be accurately measured from the length of the cable holding the balloon. The first issue was ammunition. Before the war it was recognised that ammunition needed to explode in the air. Both high explosive (HE) and shrapnel were used, mostly the former. Airburst fuses were either igniferious (based on a burning fuse) or mechanical (clockwork). Igniferious fuses were not well suited for anti-aircraft use. The fuse length was determined by time of flight, but the burning rate of the gunpowder was affected by altitude. The British pom-poms had only contact-fused ammunition. Zeppelins, being hydrogen-filled balloons, were targets for incendiary shells and the British introduced these with airburst fuses, both shrapnel type-forward projection of incendiary "pot" and base ejection of an incendiary stream. The British also fitted tracers to their shells for use at night. Smoke shells were also available for some AA guns, these bursts were used as targets during training. German air attacks on the British Isles increased in 1915 and the AA efforts were deemed somewhat ineffective, so a Royal Navy gunnery expert, Admiral Sir Percy Scott, was appointed to make improvements, particularly an integrated AA defence for London. The air defences were expanded with more RNVR AA guns, 75 mm and 3-inch, the pom-poms being ineffective. The naval 3-inch was also adopted by the army, the QF 3-inch 20 cwt (76 mm), a new field mounting was introduced in 1916. Since most attacks were at night, searchlights were soon used, and acoustic methods of detection and locating were developed. By December 1916 there were 183 AA sections defending Britain (most with the 3-inch), 74 with the BEF in France and 10 in the Middle East. AA gunnery was a difficult business. The problem was of successfully aiming a shell to burst close to its target's future position, with various factors affecting the shells' predicted trajectory. This was called deflection gun-laying, where "off-set" angles for range and elevation were set on the gunsight and updated as their target moved. In this method, when the sights were on the target, the barrel was pointed at the target's future position. Range and height of the target determined fuse length. The difficulties increased as aircraft performance improved. The British dealt with range measurement first, when it was realised that range was the key to producing a better fuse setting. This led to the height/range finder (HRF), the first model being the Barr & Stroud UB2, a two-metre optical coincident rangefinder mounted on a tripod. It measured the distance to the target and the elevation angle, which together gave the height of the aircraft. These were complex instruments and various other methods were also used. The HRF was soon joined by the height/fuse indicator (HFI), this was marked with elevation angles and height lines overlaid with fuse length curves, using the height reported by the HRF operator, the necessary fuse length could be read off. However, the problem of deflection settings — "aim-off" — required knowing the rate of change in the target's position. Both France and the UK introduced tachymetric devices to track targets and produce vertical and horizontal deflection angles. The French Brocq system was electrical; the operator entered the target range and had displays at guns; it was used with their 75 mm. The British Wilson-Dalby gun director used a pair of trackers and mechanical tachymetry; the operator entered the fuse length, and deflection angles were read from the instruments. By the start of World War I, the 77 mm had become the standard German weapon, and came mounted on a large traverse that could be easily transported on a wagon. Krupp 75 mm guns were supplied with an optical sighting system that improved their capabilities. The German Army also adapted a revolving cannon that came to be known to Allied fliers as the "flaming onion" from the shells in flight. This gun had five barrels that quickly launched a series of 37 mm artillery shells. As aircraft started to be used against ground targets on the battlefield, the AA guns could not be traversed quickly enough at close targets and, being relatively few, were not always in the right place (and were often unpopular with other troops), so changed positions frequently. Soon the forces were adding various machine-gun based weapons mounted on poles. These short-range weapons proved more deadly, and the "Red Baron" is believed to have been shot down by an anti-aircraft Vickers machine gun. When the war ended, it was clear that the increasing capabilities of aircraft would require better means of acquiring targets and aiming at them. Nevertheless, a pattern had been set: anti-aircraft warfare would employ heavy weapons to attack high-altitude targets and lighter weapons for use when aircraft came to lower altitudes. Interwar years: World War I demonstrated that aircraft could be an important part of the battlefield, but in some nations it was the prospect of strategic air attack that was the main issue, presenting both a threat and an opportunity. The experience of four years of air attacks on London by Zeppelins and Gotha G.V bombers had particularly influenced the British and was one of if not the main driver for forming an independent air force. As the capabilities of aircraft and their engines improved it was clear that their role in future war would be even more critical as their range and weapon load grew. However, in the years immediately after World War I, the prospect of another major war seemed remote, particularly in Europe, where the most militarily capable nations were, and little financing was available. Four years of war had seen the creation of a new and technically demanding branch of military activity. Air defence had made huge advances, albeit from a very low starting point. However, it was new and often lacked influential 'friends' in the competition for a share of limited defence budgets. Demobilisation meant that most AA guns were taken out of service, leaving only the most modern. However, there were lessons to be learned. In particular the British, who had had AA guns in most theatres in action in daylight and used them against night attacks at home. Furthermore, they had also formed an Anti-Aircraft Experimental Section during the war and accumulated large amounts of data that was subjected to extensive analysis. As a result, they published the two-volume Textbook of Anti-Aircraft Gunnery in 1924–1925. It included five key recommendations for HAA equipment: Shells of improved ballistic shape with HE fillings and mechanical time fuses Higher rates of fire assisted by automation Height finding by long-base optical instruments Centralised control of fire on each gun position, directed by tachymetric instruments incorporating the facility to apply corrections of the moment for meteorological and wear factors More accurate sound-location for the direction of searchlights and to provide plots for barrage fire Two assumptions underpinned the British approach to HAA fire; first, aimed fire was the primary method and this was enabled by predicting gun data from visually tracking the target and having its height. Second, that the target would maintain a steady course, speed and height. This HAA was to engage targets up to 24,000 ft (7.3 km). Mechanical time fuses were required because the speed of powder burning varied with height, so fuse length was not a simple function of time of flight. Automated fire ensured a constant rate of fire that made it easier to predict where each shell should be individually aimed. In 1925 the British adopted a new instrument developed by Vickers. It was a mechanical analogue computer - the Predictor AA No 1. Given the target height, its operators tracked the target and the predictor produced bearing, quadrant elevation and fuse setting. These were passed electrically to the guns, where they were displayed on repeater dials to the layers who "matched pointers" (target data and the gun's actual data) to lay the guns. This system of repeater electrical dials built on the arrangements introduced by British coast artillery in the 1880s, and coast artillery was the background of many AA officers. Similar systems were adopted in other countries and for example the later Sperry M3A3 in the US, was also used by Britain as the Predictor AA No 2. Height finders were also increasing in size; in Britain, the seven-foot optical base World War I Barr & Stroud UB 2 stereoscopic rangefinder was replaced by the nine-foot optical base UB 7 and the eighteen-foot optical base UB 10 (only used on static AA sites). Goertz in Germany and Levallois in France produced five m (16 ft) instruments. However, in most countries the main effort in HAA guns until the mid-1930s was improving existing ones, although various new designs were on drawing boards. From the early 1930s eight countries developed radar; these developments were sufficiently advanced by the late 1930s for development work on sound-locating acoustic devices to be generally halted, although equipment was retained. Furthermore, in Britain the volunteer Observer Corps formed in 1925 provided a network of observation posts to report hostile aircraft flying over Britain.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

Height finders were also increasing in size; in Britain, the seven-foot optical base World War I Barr & Stroud UB 2 stereoscopic rangefinder was replaced by the nine-foot optical base UB 7 and the eighteen-foot optical base UB 10 (only used on static AA sites). Goertz in Germany and Levallois in France produced five m (16 ft) instruments. However, in most countries the main effort in HAA guns until the mid-1930s was improving existing ones, although various new designs were on drawing boards. From the early 1930s eight countries developed radar; these developments were sufficiently advanced by the late 1930s for development work on sound-locating acoustic devices to be generally halted, although equipment was retained. Furthermore, in Britain the volunteer Observer Corps formed in 1925 provided a network of observation posts to report hostile aircraft flying over Britain. Initially radar was used for airspace surveillance to detect approaching hostile aircraft. However, the German Würzburg radar put into use in 1940 was capable of providing data suitable for controlling AA guns, and the British Radar, Gun Laying, Mark I, was designed to be used on AA gun positions and was in use by 1939. The Treaty of Versailles prevented Germany having AA weapons, and for example, the Krupps designers joined Bofors in Sweden. Some World War I guns were retained and some covert AA training started in the late 1920s. Germany introduced the 8.8 cm FlaK 18 in 1933, the 36 and 37 models followed with various improvements, but ballistic performance was unchanged. In the late 1930s the 10.5 cm FlaK 38 appeared, soon followed by the 39; this was designed primarily for static sites but had a mobile mounting, and the unit had 220 V 24 kW generators. In 1938 design started on the 12.8 cm FlaK. Britain had successfully tested a new 3.6-inch gun, in 1918. In 1928 a 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun became the preferred solution, but it took six years to gain funding. Production of the QF 3.7-inch gun began in 1937; this gun was used on mobile carriages with the field army and transportable guns on fixed mountings for static positions. At the same time the Royal Navy adopted a new 4.5-inch (113 mm) gun in a twin turret, which the army adopted in simplified single-gun mountings for static positions, mostly around ports where naval ammunition was available. The performance of the new guns was limited by their standard fuse No 199, with a 30-second running time, although a new mechanical time fuse giving 43 seconds was nearing readiness. In 1939 a machine fuse setter was introduced to eliminate manual fuse setting. The US ended World War I with two 3-inch AA guns and improvements were developed throughout the inter-war period. However, in 1924 work started on a new 105 mm static mounting AA gun, but only a few were produced by the mid-1930s because by this time work had started on the 90 mm AA gun, with mobile carriages and static mountings able to engage air, sea and ground targets. The M1 version was approved in 1940. During the 1920s there was some work on a 4.7-inch which lapsed, but revived in 1937, leading to a new gun in 1944. While HAA and its associated target acquisition and fire control was the primary focus of AA efforts, low-level close-range targets remained and by the mid-1930s were becoming an issue. Until this time the British, at RAF insistence, continued their use of World War I machine guns, and introduced twin MG mountings for AAAD. The army was forbidden from considering anything larger than .50-inch. However, in 1935 their trials showed that the minimum effective round was an impact-fused 2 lb HE shell. The following year they decided to adopt the Bofors 40 mm and a twin barrel Vickers 2-pdr (40 mm) on a modified naval mount. The air-cooled Bofors was vastly superior for land use, being much lighter than the water-cooled "pom-pom", and UK production of the Bofors 40 mm was licensed. The Predictor AA No 3, as the Kerrison Predictor was officially known, was introduced with it. The 40 mm Bofors had become available in 1931. In the late 1920s the Swedish Navy had ordered the development of a 40 mm naval anti-aircraft gun from the Bofors company. It was light, rapid-firing and reliable, and a mobile version on a four-wheel carriage was soon developed. Known simply as the 40 mm, it was adopted by some 17 different nations just before World War II and is still in use today in some applications such as on coastguard frigates. Rheinmetall in Germany developed an automatic 20 mm in the 1920s and Oerlikon in Switzerland had acquired the patent to an automatic 20 mm gun designed in Germany during World War I. Germany introduced the rapid-fire 2 cm FlaK 30 and later in the decade it was redesigned by Mauser-Werke and became the 2 cm FlaK 38. Nevertheless, while 20 mm was better than a machine gun and mounted on a very small trailer made it easy to move, its effectiveness was limited. Germany therefore added a 3.7 cm. The first, the 3.7 cm FlaK 18 developed by Rheinmetall in the early 1930s, was basically an enlarged 2 cm FlaK 30. It was introduced in 1935 and production stopped the following year. A redesigned gun 3.7 cm FlaK 36 entered service in 1938, it too had a two-wheel carriage. However, by the mid-1930s the Luftwaffe realised that there was still a coverage gap between 3.7 cm and 8.8 cm guns. They started development of a 5 cm gun on a four-wheel carriage. After World War I the US Army started developing a dual-role (AA/ground) automatic 37 mm cannon, designed by John M. Browning. It was standardised in 1927 as the T9 AA cannon, but trials quickly revealed that it was worthless in the ground role. However, while the shell was a bit light (well under 2 lbs) it had a good effective ceiling and fired 125 rounds per minute; an AA carriage was developed and it entered service in 1939 as the 37 mm gun M1. It proved prone to jamming, and was eventually replaced in AA units by the Bofors 40 mm. The Bofors had attracted attention from the US Navy, but none were acquired before 1939. Also, in 1931 the US Army worked on a mobile anti-aircraft machine mount on the back of a heavy truck having four .30 calibre water-cooled machine guns and an optical director. It proved unsuccessful and was abandoned. The USSR introduced a new 76 mm M1931 in 1937, an 85 mm M1938 and developed the 37 mm M1939 (61-K), which appears to have been copied from the Bofors 40 mm. A Bofors 25 mm, essentially a scaled down 40 mm, was also copied as the 25 mm M1939. During the 1930s solid-fuel rockets were under development in the Soviet Union and Britain. In Britain the interest was for anti-aircraft fire, it quickly became clear that guidance would be required for precision. However, rockets, or "unrotated projectiles" as they were called, could be used for anti-aircraft barrages. A two-inch rocket using HE or wire obstacle warheads - the Z battery - was introduced first to deal with low-level or dive bombing attacks on smaller targets such as airfields. The three-inch was in development at the end of the inter-war period. Naval aspects: WWI had been a war in which air warfare blossomed, but had not matured to the point of being a real threat to naval forces. The prevailing assumption was that a few relatively small caliber naval guns could manage to keep enemy aircraft beyond a range where harm might be expected. In 1939 radio controlled target drones became available to the US Navy in quantity allowing a more realistic testing of existing anti-aircraft suites against actual flying and manoeuvring targets. The results were sobering to an unexpected degree. The United States was still emerging from the effects of the Great Depression and funds for the military had been sparse to the degree that 50% of shells used were still powder fused. The US Navy found that a significant portion of its shells were duds or low order detonations (incomplete detonation of the explosive contained by the shell). Virtually every major country involved in combat in World War II invested in aircraft development. The cost of aircraft research and development was small and the results could be large. So rapid was the performance leaps of evolving aircraft that the British High Angle Control System (HACS) was obsolete and designing a successor very difficult for the British establishment. Electronics would prove to be an enabler for effective anti-aircraft systems and both the US and UK had a growing electronics industry.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

The results were sobering to an unexpected degree. The United States was still emerging from the effects of the Great Depression and funds for the military had been sparse to the degree that 50% of shells used were still powder fused. The US Navy found that a significant portion of its shells were duds or low order detonations (incomplete detonation of the explosive contained by the shell). Virtually every major country involved in combat in World War II invested in aircraft development. The cost of aircraft research and development was small and the results could be large. So rapid was the performance leaps of evolving aircraft that the British High Angle Control System (HACS) was obsolete and designing a successor very difficult for the British establishment. Electronics would prove to be an enabler for effective anti-aircraft systems and both the US and UK had a growing electronics industry. In 1939 radio controlled drones became available to actually test existing systems in British and American service. The results were disappointing by any measure. High-level manoeuvring drones were virtually immune to shipboard AA systems. The US drones could simulate dive bombing which showed the dire need for autocannons. Japan introduced powered gliders in 1940 as drones but apparently was unable to dive bomb. There is no evidence of other powers using drones in this application at all. It may have caused a major underestimation of the threat and an inflated view of their AA systems. Second World War: Poland's AA defences were no match for the German attack, and the situation was similar in other European countries. Significant AAW (Anti-Air Warfare) started with the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940. QF 3.7-inch AA guns provided the backbone of the ground-based AA defences, although initially significant numbers of QF 3-inch 20 cwt were also used. The Army's Anti-aircraft command, which was under operational command of RAF Fighter Command within Air Defence GB, grew to 12 AA divisions in three AA corps. Bofors 40 mm guns entered service in increasing numbers. In addition, the RAF regiment was formed in 1941 with responsibility for airfield air defence, eventually with Bofors 40 mm as their main armament. Fixed AA defences, using HAA and LAA, were established by the Army in key overseas places, notably Malta, Suez Canal and Singapore. While the 3.7-inch was the main HAA gun in fixed defences and the only mobile HAA gun with the field army, the QF 4.5-inch gun, manned by artillery, was used in the vicinity of naval ports and made use of the naval ammunition supply. The 4.5-inch at Singapore had the first success in shooting down Japanese bombers. Mid war QF 5.25-inch naval guns started being emplaced in some permanent sites around London. This gun was also deployed in dual-role coast defence/AA positions. Germany's high-altitude needs were originally going to be filled by a 75 mm gun from Krupp, designed in collaboration with their Swedish counterpart Bofors, but the specifications were later amended to require much higher performance. In response Krupp's engineers presented a new 88 mm design, the FlaK 36. First used in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the gun proved to be one of the best anti-aircraft guns in the world, as well as particularly deadly against light, medium, and even early heavy tanks. After the Dambusters raid in 1943 an entirely new system was developed that was required to knock down any low-flying aircraft with a single hit. The first attempt to produce such a system used a 50 mm gun, but this proved inaccurate and a new 55 mm gun replaced it. The system used a centralised control system including both search and targeting radar, which calculated the aim point for the guns after considering windage and ballistics, and then sent electrical commands to the guns, which used hydraulics to point themselves at high speeds. Operators simply fed the guns and selected the targets. This system, modern even by today's standards, was in late development when the war ended. The British had already arranged licence building of the Bofors 40 mm, and introduced these into service. These had the power to knock down aircraft of any size, yet were light enough to be mobile and easily swung. The gun became so important to the British war effort that they even produced a movie, The Gun, that encouraged workers on the assembly line to work harder. The Imperial measurement production drawings the British had developed were supplied to the Americans who produced their own (unlicensed) copy of the 40 mm at the start of the war, moving to licensed production in mid-1941. Service trials demonstrated another problem however: that ranging and tracking the new high-speed targets was almost impossible. At short range, the apparent target area is relatively large, the trajectory is flat and the time of flight is short, allowing to correct lead by watching the tracers. At long range, the aircraft remains in firing range for a long time, so the necessary calculations can, in theory, be done by slide rules—though, because small errors in distance cause large errors in shell fall height and detonation time, exact ranging is crucial. For the ranges and speeds that the Bofors worked at, neither answer was good enough. The solution was automation, in the form of a mechanical computer, the Kerrison Predictor. Operators kept it pointed at the target, and the Predictor then calculated the proper aim point automatically and displayed it as a pointer mounted on the gun. The gun operators simply followed the pointer and loaded the shells. The Kerrison was fairly simple, but it pointed the way to future generations that incorporated radar, first for ranging and later for tracking. Similar predictor systems were introduced by Germany during the war, also adding radar ranging as the war progressed. A plethora of anti-aircraft gun systems of smaller calibre was available to the German Wehrmacht combined forces, and among them the 1940-origin Flakvierling quadruple-20 mm-autocannon-based anti-aircraft weapon system was one of the most often-seen weapons, seeing service on both land and sea. The similar Allied smaller-calibre air-defence weapons of the American forces were also quite capable. Their needs could cogently be met with smaller-calibre ordnance beyond using the usual singly-mounted M2 .50 caliber machine gun atop a tank's turret, as four of the ground-used "heavy barrel" (M2HB) guns were mounted together on the American Maxson M45 Quadmount weapon (as a direct answer to the Flakvierling), which were often mounted on the back of a half-track to form the M16 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage. Although of less power than Germany's 20 mm systems, the typical four or five combat batteries of an Army AAA battalion were often spread many kilometres apart from each other, rapidly attaching and detaching to larger ground combat units to provide welcome defence from enemy aircraft. AAA battalions were also used to help suppress ground targets. Their larger 90 mm M3 gun would prove, as did the eighty-eight, to make an excellent anti-tank gun as well, and was widely used late in the war in this role. Also available to the Americans at the start of the war was the 120 mm M1 gun stratosphere gun, which was the most powerful AA gun with an impressive 60,000 ft (18 km) altitude capability, however no 120 M1 was ever fired at an enemy aircraft. The 90 mm and 120 mm guns continued to be used into the 1950s. The United States Navy had also put some thought into the problem, When the US Navy began to rearm in 1939 in many ships the primary short ranged gun was the M2 .50 caliber machine gun. While effective in fighters at 300 to 400 yards this is point blank range in naval anti-aircraft ranges. Production of the Swiss Oerlikon 20 mm had already started to provide protection for the British and this was adopted in exchange for the M2 machine guns. From December 1941 to January 1942, production had risen to not only cover all British requirements but also allowed 812 units to be actually delivered to the US Navy. By the end of 1942 the 20 mm had accounted for 42% of all aircraft destroyed by the US Navy's shipboard AA. However, the King Board had noted that the balance was shifting towards the larger guns used by the fleet. The US Navy had intended to use the British pom-pom, however, the weapon required the use of cordite which BuOrd had found objectionable for US service. Further investigation revealed that US powders would not work in the pom-pom. Bureau of Ordnance was well aware of the Bofors 40 mm gun. The firm York Safe and Lock was negotiating with Bofors to attain the rights to the air-cooled version of the weapon. At the same time Henry Howard, an engineer, and businessman became aware of it and contacted RAMD W. R. Furlong, chief of the Bureau of Ordnance. He ordered the Bofors weapon system to be investigated. York Safe and Lock would be used as the contracting agent. The system had to be redesigned for both the English measurement system and mass production, as the original documents recommended hand fitting parts and drilling to shape. As early as 1928 the US Navy saw the need to replace the .50 caliber machine gun with something heavier.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

Further investigation revealed that US powders would not work in the pom-pom. Bureau of Ordnance was well aware of the Bofors 40 mm gun. The firm York Safe and Lock was negotiating with Bofors to attain the rights to the air-cooled version of the weapon. At the same time Henry Howard, an engineer, and businessman became aware of it and contacted RAMD W. R. Furlong, chief of the Bureau of Ordnance. He ordered the Bofors weapon system to be investigated. York Safe and Lock would be used as the contracting agent. The system had to be redesigned for both the English measurement system and mass production, as the original documents recommended hand fitting parts and drilling to shape. As early as 1928 the US Navy saw the need to replace the .50 caliber machine gun with something heavier. The 1.1"/75 (28 mm) Mark 1 was designed. Placed in quadruple mounts with a 500 rpm rate of fire it would have fit the requirements. However, the gun was suffering teething issues being prone to jamming. While this could have been solved the weight of the system was equal to that of the quad-mount Bofors 40 mm while lacking the range and power that the Bofors provided. The gun was relegated to smaller less vital ships by the end of the war. The 5"/38 naval gun rounded out the US Navy's AA suite. A dual purpose mount, it was used in both the surface and AA roles with great success. Mated with the Mark 37 director and the proximity fuse it could routinely knock drones out of the sky at ranges as far as 13,000 yards.A 3"/50 MK 22 semiautomatic dual gun was produced but not employed before the end of the war and therefore beyond the scope of this article. However early marks of the 3"/50 were employed in destroyer escorts and on merchant ships. 3″/50 caliber guns (Marks 10, 17, 18, and 20) first entered service in 1915 as a refit to USS Texas (BB-35), and were subsequently mounted on many types of ships as the need for anti-aircraft protection was recognized. During World War II, they were the primary gun armament on destroyer escorts, patrol frigates, submarine chasers, minesweepers, some fleet submarines, and other auxiliary vessels, and were used as a secondary dual-purpose battery on some other types of ships, including some older battleships. They also replaced the original low-angle 4"/50 caliber guns (Mark 9) on "flush-deck" Wickes and Clemson-class destroyers to provide better anti-aircraft protection. The gun was also used on specialist destroyer conversions; the "AVD" seaplane tender conversions received two guns; the "APD" high-speed transports, "DM" minelayers, and "DMS" minesweeper conversions received three guns, and those retaining destroyer classification received six. The Germans developed massive reinforced-concrete blockhouses, some more than six stories high, which were known as Hochbunker 'high bunkers' or "Flaktürme" flak towers, on which they placed anti-aircraft artillery. Those in cities attacked by the Allied land forces became fortresses. Several in Berlin were some of the last buildings to fall to the Soviets during the Battle of Berlin in 1945. The British built structures such as the Maunsell Forts in the North Sea, the Thames Estuary and other tidal areas upon which they based guns. After the war most were left to rot. Some were outside territorial waters, and had a second life in the 1960s as platforms for pirate radio stations, while another became the base of a micronation, the Principality of Sealand. Some nations started rocket research before World War II, including for anti-aircraft use. Further research started during the war. The first step was unguided missile systems like the British 2-inch RP and 3-inch, which was fired in large numbers from Z batteries, and were also fitted to warships. The firing of one of these devices during an air raid is suspected to have caused the Bethnal Green disaster in 1943. Facing the threat of Japanese Kamikaze attacks the British and US developed surface-to-air rockets like British Fairey Stooge or the American Lark as counter measures, but none of them were ready at the end of the war. The Germans missile research was the most advanced of the war as the Germans put considerable effort in the research and development of rocket systems for all purposes. Among them were several guided and unguided systems. Unguided systems involved the Fliegerfaust (literally "aircraft fist") rocket launcher as the first MANPADS. Guided systems were several sophisticated radio, wire, or radar guided missiles like the Wasserfall ('waterfall') rocket. Owing to the severe war situation for Germany all of those systems were only produced in small numbers and most of them were only used by training or trial units. Another aspect of anti-aircraft defence was the use of barrage balloons to act as physical obstacle initially to bomber aircraft over cities and later for ground attack aircraft over the Normandy invasion fleets. The balloon, a simple blimp tethered to the ground, worked in two ways. Firstly, it and the steel cable were a danger to any aircraft that tried to fly among them. Secondly, to avoid the balloons, bombers had to fly at a higher altitude, which was more favourable for the guns. Barrage balloons were limited in application, and had minimal success at bringing down aircraft, being largely immobile and passive defences. The Allies' most advanced technologies were showcased by the anti-aircraft defence against the German V-1 cruise missiles (V stands for Vergeltungswaffe, 'retaliation weapon'). The 419th and 601st anti-aircraft gun battalions of the US Army were first allocated to the Folkestone-Dover coast to defend London, and then moved to Belgium to become part of the "Antwerp X" project coordinated from the Le Grand Veneur in Keerbergen. With the liberation of Antwerp, the port city immediately became the highest priority target, and received the largest number of V-1 and V-2 missiles of any city. The smallest tactical unit of the operation was a gun battery consisting of four 90 mm guns firing shells equipped with a radio proximity fuse. Incoming targets were acquired and automatically tracked by SCR-584 radar,. Output from the gun-laying radar was fed to the M9 gun director, an electronic analogue computer to calculate the lead and elevation corrections for the guns. With the help of these three technologies, close to 90% of the V-1 missiles, on track to the defence zone around the port, were destroyed. Post-war: Post-war analysis demonstrated that even with newest anti-aircraft systems employed by both sides, the vast majority of bombers reached their targets successfully, on the order of 90%. While these figures were undesirable during the war, the advent of the nuclear bomb considerably altered the acceptability of even a single bomber reaching its target. The developments during World War II continued for a short time into the post-war period as well. In particular the US Army set up a huge air defence network around its larger cities based on radar-guided 90 mm and 120 mm guns. US efforts continued into the 1950s with the 75 mm Skysweeper system, an almost fully automated system including the radar, computers, power, and auto-loading gun on a single powered platform. The Skysweeper replaced all smaller guns then in use in the Army, notably the 40 mm Bofors. By 1955, the US military deemed the 40 mm Bofors obsolete due to its reduced capability to shoot down jet powered aircraft, and turned to SAM development, with the Nike Ajax and the RSD-58. In Europe NATO's Allied Command Europe developed an integrated air defence system, NATO Air Defence Ground Environment (NADGE), that later became the NATO Integrated Air Defence System. The introduction of the guided missile resulted in a significant shift in anti-aircraft strategy. Although Germany had been desperate to introduce anti-aircraft missile systems, none became operational during World War II. Following several years of post-war development, however, these systems began to mature into viable weapons. The US started an upgrade of their defences using the Nike Ajax missile, and soon the larger anti-aircraft guns disappeared. The same thing occurred in the USSR after the introduction of their SA-2 Guideline systems. As this process continued, the missile found itself being used for more and more of the roles formerly filled by guns. First to go were the large weapons, replaced by equally large missile systems of much higher performance. Smaller missiles soon followed, eventually becoming small enough to be mounted on armoured cars and tank chassis. These started replacing, or at least supplanting, similar gun-based SPAAG systems in the 1960s, and by the 1990s had replaced almost all such systems in modern armies. Man-portable missiles, MANPADS, as they are known today, were introduced in the 1960s and have supplanted or replaced even the smallest guns in most advanced armies. In the 1982 Falklands War, the Argentine armed forces deployed the newest west European weapons including the 35 mm Oerlikon GDF-002 twin cannon and Roland missile.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

As this process continued, the missile found itself being used for more and more of the roles formerly filled by guns. First to go were the large weapons, replaced by equally large missile systems of much higher performance. Smaller missiles soon followed, eventually becoming small enough to be mounted on armoured cars and tank chassis. These started replacing, or at least supplanting, similar gun-based SPAAG systems in the 1960s, and by the 1990s had replaced almost all such systems in modern armies. Man-portable missiles, MANPADS, as they are known today, were introduced in the 1960s and have supplanted or replaced even the smallest guns in most advanced armies. In the 1982 Falklands War, the Argentine armed forces deployed the newest west European weapons including the 35 mm Oerlikon GDF-002 twin cannon and Roland missile. The Rapier missile system was the primary GBAD system, used by both British artillery and RAF regiment, a few brand-new FIM-92 Stinger were used by British special forces. Both sides also used the Blowpipe missile. British naval missiles used included Sea Dart and the older Sea Slug longer range systems, SeaCat and the new Sea Wolf short range systems. Machine guns in AA mountings were used both ashore and afloat. During the 2008 South Ossetia war air power faced off against powerful SAM systems, like the 1980s Buk-M1. In February 2018, an Israeli F-16 fighter was downed in the occupied Golan Heights province, after it had attacked an Iranian target in Syria. In 2006, Israel also lost a helicopter over Lebanon, shot down by a Hezbollah rocket. AA warfare systems: Although the firearms used by the infantry, particularly machine guns, can be used to engage low altitude air targets, on occasion with notable success, their effectiveness is generally limited and the muzzle flashes reveal infantry positions. Speed and altitude of modern jet aircraft limit target opportunities, and critical systems may be armoured in aircraft designed for the ground attack role. Adaptations of the standard autocannon, originally intended for air-to-ground use, and heavier artillery systems were commonly used for most anti-aircraft gunnery, starting with standard pieces on new mountings, and evolving to specially designed guns with much higher performance prior to World War II. The shells fired by these weapons are usually fitted with different types of fuses (barometric, time-delay, or proximity) to explode close to the airborne target, releasing a shower of fast metal fragments. For shorter-range work, a lighter weapon with a higher rate of fire is required, to increase a hit probability on a fast airborne target. Weapons between 20 mm and 40 mm calibre have been widely used in this role. Smaller weapons, typically .50 calibre or even 8 mm rifle calibre guns have been used in the smallest mounts. Unlike the heavier guns, these smaller weapons are in widespread use due to their low cost and ability to quickly follow the target. Classic examples of autocannons and large calibre guns are the 40 mm autocannon from Bofors and the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, 36 gun designed by Krupp. Artillery weapons of this sort have for the most part been superseded by the effective surface-to-air missile systems that were introduced in the 1950s, although they were still retained by many nations. The development of surface-to-air missiles began in Nazi Germany during the late World War II with missiles such as the Wasserfall, though no working system was deployed before the war's end, and represented new attempts to increase effectiveness of the anti-aircraft systems faced with growing threat from bombers. Land-based SAMs can be deployed from fixed installations or mobile launchers, either wheeled or tracked. The tracked vehicles are usually armoured vehicles specifically designed to carry SAMs. Larger SAMs may be deployed in fixed launchers, but can be towed/re-deployed at will. The SAMs launched by individuals are known in the United States as the Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS). MANPADS of the former Soviet Union have been exported around the World, and can be found in use by many armed forces. Targets for non-ManPAD SAMs will usually be acquired by air-search radar, then tracked before/while a SAM is "locked-on" and then fired. Potential targets, if they are military aircraft, will be identified as friend or foe before being engaged. The developments in the latest and relatively cheap short-range missiles have begun to replace autocannons in this role. The interceptor aircraft (or simply interceptor) is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, particularly bombers, usually relying on high speed and altitude capabilities. A number of jet interceptors such as the F-102 Delta Dagger, the F-106 Delta Dart, and the MiG-25 were built in the period starting after the end of World War II and ending in the late 1960s, when they became less important due to the shifting of the strategic bombing role to ICBMs. Invariably the type is differentiated from other fighter aircraft designs by higher speeds and shorter operating ranges, as well as much reduced ordnance payloads. The radar systems use electromagnetic waves to identify the range, altitude, direction, or speed of aircraft and weather formations to provide tactical and operational warning and direction, primarily during defensive operations. In their functional roles they provide target search, threat detection, guidance, reconnaissance, navigation, instrumentation, and weather reporting support to combat operations. Anti-UAV defences: An anti-UAV defence system (AUDS) is a system for defence against military unmanned aerial vehicles. A variety of designs have been developed, using lasers, net-guns and air-to-air netting, signal jamming, and hi-jacking by means of in-flight hacking. Anti-UAV defence systems have been deployed against ISIL drones during the Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Alternative approaches for dealing with UAVs have included using a shotgun at close range, and for smaller drones, training eagles to snatch them from the air. This only works on relatively small UAVs and loitering munitions (also called "suicide drones"). Larger UCAVs such as the MQ-1 Predator can be (and frequently are) shot down like manned aircraft of similar sizes and flight profiles. Future developments: Guns are being increasingly pushed into specialist roles, such as the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS, which uses the GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm seven-barrel Gatling gun for last ditch anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence. Even this formerly front-line weapon is currently being replaced by new missile systems, such as the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, which is smaller, faster, and allows for mid-flight course correction (guidance) to ensure a hit. To bridge the gap between guns and missiles, Russia in particular produces the Kashtan CIWS, which uses both guns and missiles for final defence with two six-barrelled 30 mm Gsh-6-30 rotary canon and eight 9M311 surface-to-air missiles provide for its defensive capabilities. Upsetting this development to all-missile systems is the current move to stealth aircraft. Long range missiles depend on long-range detection to provide significant lead. Stealth designs cut detection ranges so much that the aircraft is often never even seen, and when it is, it is often too late for an intercept. Systems for detection and tracking of stealthy aircraft are a major problem for anti-aircraft development. However, as stealth technology grows, so does anti-stealth technology. Multiple transmitter radars such as those from bistatic radars and low-frequency radars are said to have the capabilities to detect stealth aircraft. Advanced forms of thermographic cameras such as those that incorporate QWIPs would be able to optically see a stealth aircraft regardless of the aircraft's radar cross-section (RCS). In addition, side-looking radars, high-powered optical satellites, and sky-scanning, high-aperture, high sensitivity radars such as radio telescopes, would all be able to narrow down the location of a stealth aircraft under certain parameters. The newest SAMs have a claimed ability to be able to detect and engage stealth targets, with the most notable being the Russian S-400, which is claimed to be able to detect a target with a 0.05-square metre RCS from 90 km away. Another potential weapon system for anti-aircraft use is the laser. Although air planners have imagined lasers in combat since the late 1960s, only the most modern laser systems are currently reaching what could be considered "experimental usefulness". In particular the Tactical High Energy Laser can be used in the anti-aircraft and anti-missile role. The ALKA directed-energy weapon (DEW) system is a Turkish dual electromagnetic/laser weapon developed by Roketsan allegedly used to destroy one of GNC's Wing Loong II UAVs; if true, this would represent the first known time a vehicle mounted combat laser was used to destroy another combat vehicle during genuine wartime conditions. The future of projectile based weapons may be found in the railgun. Currently tests are underway on developing systems that could create as much damage as a Tomahawk, but at a fraction of the cost. In February 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it fired a shell at 5,600 miles (9,000 km) per hour using 10 megajoules of energy.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

In particular the Tactical High Energy Laser can be used in the anti-aircraft and anti-missile role. The ALKA directed-energy weapon (DEW) system is a Turkish dual electromagnetic/laser weapon developed by Roketsan allegedly used to destroy one of GNC's Wing Loong II UAVs; if true, this would represent the first known time a vehicle mounted combat laser was used to destroy another combat vehicle during genuine wartime conditions. The future of projectile based weapons may be found in the railgun. Currently tests are underway on developing systems that could create as much damage as a Tomahawk, but at a fraction of the cost. In February 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it fired a shell at 5,600 miles (9,000 km) per hour using 10 megajoules of energy. Its expected performance is over 13,000 miles (21,000 km) per hour muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5-metre target from 200 nautical miles (370 km) away while shooting at 10 shots per minute. It is expected to be ready in 2020 to 2025. These systems, while currently designed for static targets, would only need the ability to be retargeted to become the next generation of AA system. Force structures: Most Western and Commonwealth militaries integrate air defence purely with the traditional services of the military (i.e. army, navy and air force), as a separate arm or as part of artillery. In the British Army for instance, air defence is part of the artillery arm, while in the Pakistan Army, it was split off from the artillery to form a separate arm of its own in 1990. This is in contrast to some (largely communist or ex-communist) countries where not only are there provisions for air defence in the army, navy and air force but there are specific branches that deal only with the air defence of territory, for example, the Soviet PVO Strany. The USSR also had a separate strategic rocket force in charge of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. Navy: Smaller boats and ships typically have machine-guns or fast cannons, which can often be deadly to low-flying aircraft if linked to a radar-directed fire-control system radar-controlled cannon for point defence. Some vessels like Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers are as much a threat to aircraft as any land-based air defence system. In general, naval vessels should be treated with respect by aircraft, however the reverse is equally true. Carrier battle groups are especially well defended, as not only do they typically consist of many vessels with heavy air defence armament but they are also able to launch fighter jets for combat air patrol overhead to intercept incoming airborne threats. Nations such as Japan use their SAM-equipped vessels to create an outer air defence perimeter and radar picket in the defence of its Home islands, and the United States also uses its Aegis-equipped ships as part of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System in the defence of the Continental United States. Some modern submarines, such as the Type 212 submarines of the German Navy, are equipped with surface-to-air missile systems, since helicopters and anti-submarine warfare aircraft are significant threats. The subsurface launched anti-air missile was first purposed by US Navy Rear Admiral Charles B. Momsen, in a 1953 article. Layered air defence: Layered air defence in naval tactics, especially within a carrier group, is often built around a system of concentric layers with the aircraft carrier at the centre. The outer layer will usually be provided by the carrier's aircraft, specifically its AEW&C aircraft combined with the CAP. If an attacker is able to penetrate this layer, then the next layers would come from the surface-to-air missiles carried by the carrier's escorts; the area-defence missiles, such as the RIM-67 Standard, with a range of up to 100 nmi, and the point-defence missiles, like the RIM-162 ESSM, with a range of up to 30 nmi. Finally, virtually every modern warship will be fitted with small-calibre guns, including a CIWS, which is usually a radar-controlled Gatling gun of between 20 mm and 30 mm calibre capable of firing several thousand rounds per minute. Army: Armies typically have air defence in depth, from integral man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) such as the RBS 70, Stinger and Igla at smaller force levels up to army-level missile defence systems such as Angara and Patriot. Often, the high-altitude long-range missile systems force aircraft to fly at low level, where anti-aircraft guns can bring them down. As well as the small and large systems, for effective air defence there must be intermediate systems. These may be deployed at regiment-level and consist of platoons of self-propelled anti-aircraft platforms, whether they are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAGs), integrated air-defence systems like 2K22 Tunguska or all-in-one surface-to-air missile platforms like Roland or SA-8 Gecko. On a national level the United States Army was atypical in that it was primarily responsible for the missile air defences of the Continental United States with systems such as Project Nike. Air force: Air defence by air forces is typically provided by fighter jets carrying air-to-air missiles. However, most air forces choose to augment airbase defence with surface-to-air missile systems as they are such valuable targets and subject to attack by enemy aircraft. In addition, some countries choose to put all air defence responsibilities under the air force. Area air defence: Area air defence, the air defence of a specific area or location, (as opposed to point defence), have historically been operated by both armies (Anti-Aircraft Command in the British Army, for instance) and Air Forces (the United States Air Force's CIM-10 Bomarc). Area defence systems have medium to long range and can be made up of various other systems and networked into an area defence system (in which case it may be made up of several short range systems combined to effectively cover an area). An example of area defence is the defence of Saudi Arabia and Israel by MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries during the first Gulf War, where the objective was to cover populated areas. Tactics: Mobility: Most modern air defence systems are fairly mobile. Even the larger systems tend to be mounted on trailers and are designed to be fairly quickly broken down or set up. In the past, this was not always the case. Early missile systems were cumbersome and required much infrastructure; many could not be moved at all. With the diversification of air defence there has been much more emphasis on mobility. Most modern systems are usually either self-propelled (i.e. guns or missiles are mounted on a truck or tracked chassis) or towed. Even systems that consist of many components (transporter/erector/launchers, radars, command posts etc.) benefit from being mounted on a fleet of vehicles. In general, a fixed system can be identified, attacked and destroyed whereas a mobile system can show up in places where it is not expected. Soviet systems especially concentrate on mobility, after the lessons learnt in the Vietnam war between the US and Vietnam with the SA-2 Guideline. Air defence versus air defence suppression: Israel and the US Air Force, in conjunction with the members of NATO, have developed significant tactics for air defence suppression. Dedicated weapons such as anti-radiation missiles and advanced electronics intelligence and electronic countermeasures platforms seek to suppress or negate the effectiveness of an opposing air-defence system. It is an arms race; as better jamming, countermeasures and anti-radiation weapons are developed, so are better SAM systems with ECCM capabilities and the ability to shoot down anti-radiation missiles and other munitions aimed at them or the targets they are defending. Insurgent tactics: Stinger missiles supplied by the United States were used against the aircraft of the Soviet Union by the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the Cold War. Rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) can be—and often are—used against hovering helicopters (e.g., by Somali militiamen during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu. Firing an RPG at steep angles poses a danger to the user, because the backblast from firing reflects off the ground. In Somalia, militia members sometimes welded a steel plate onto the exhaust end of an RPG's tube to deflect pressure away from the shooter when shooting up at US helicopters. RPGs are used in this role only when more effective weapons are not available. Another example of using RPGs against helicopters is Operation Anaconda in March 2002 in Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents defending Shah-i-Kot Valley used RPGs in a direct fire role against landing helicopters. Four rangers were killed when their helicopter was shot down by an RPG, and SEAL team member Neil C. Roberts fell out of his helicopter when it was hit by two RPGs. In other instances helicopters have been shot down in Afghanistan during a mission in Wardak province. One feature that makes RPGs useful in air defence is that they are fused to automatically detonate at 920 m. If aimed into the air this causes the warhead to airburst which can release a limited but potentially damaging amount of shrapnel hitting a helicopter landing or taking off. For insurgents the most effective method of countering aircraft is to attempt to destroy them on the ground, either by penetrating an airbase perimeter and destroying aircraft individually, e.g.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-aircraft warfare

Another example of using RPGs against helicopters is Operation Anaconda in March 2002 in Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents defending Shah-i-Kot Valley used RPGs in a direct fire role against landing helicopters. Four rangers were killed when their helicopter was shot down by an RPG, and SEAL team member Neil C. Roberts fell out of his helicopter when it was hit by two RPGs. In other instances helicopters have been shot down in Afghanistan during a mission in Wardak province. One feature that makes RPGs useful in air defence is that they are fused to automatically detonate at 920 m. If aimed into the air this causes the warhead to airburst which can release a limited but potentially damaging amount of shrapnel hitting a helicopter landing or taking off. For insurgents the most effective method of countering aircraft is to attempt to destroy them on the ground, either by penetrating an airbase perimeter and destroying aircraft individually, e.g. the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid, or finding a position where aircraft can be engaged with indirect fire, such as mortars. A recent trend emerging during the Syrian Civil War is the use of ATGM against landing helicopters. See also: Air defence forces Air supremacy Gun laying List of anti-aircraft weapons Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon The bomber will always get through References: Citations: Sources: External links: "Flak (1943)" on YouTube 1914 1918 war in Alsace – The Battle of Linge 1915 – The 63rd Anti Aircraft Regiment in 14 18 – The 96th poste semi-fixed in the Vosges Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air Defense by Kenneth P. Werrell (book available for download) Japanese Anti-aircraft land/vessel doctrines in 1943–44 2nd/3rd Australian Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-war movement

History: American Revolutionary War: Substantial opposition to British war intervention in America led the British House of Commons on 27 February 1783 to vote against further war in America, paving the way for the Second Rockingham ministry and the Peace of Paris. Antebellum United States: Substantial antiwar sentiment developed in the United States roughly between the end of the War of 1812 and the commencement of the Civil War in what is called the Antebellum era. A similar movement developed in England during the same period. The movement reflected both strict pacifist and more moderate non-interventionist positions. Many prominent intellectuals of the time, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau (see Civil Disobedience) and William Ellery Channing contributed literary works against war. Other names associated with the movement include William Ladd, Noah Worcester, Thomas Cogswell Upham, and Asa Mahan. Many peace societies were formed throughout the United States, the most prominent of which being the American Peace Society. Numerous periodicals (such as The Advocate of Peace) and books were also produced. The Book of Peace, an anthology produced by the American Peace Society in 1845, must surely rank as one of the most remarkable works of antiwar literature ever produced. A recurring theme in this movement was the call for the establishment of an international court to adjudicate disputes between nations. Another distinct feature of antebellum antiwar literature was the emphasis on how war contributed to a moral decline and brutalization of society in general. American Civil War: A key event in the early history of the modern anti-war stance in literature and society was the American Civil War, where it culminated in the candidacy of George B. McClellan for US president as a Peace Democrat against incumbent President Abraham Lincoln. The outlines of the antiwar stance are seen: the argument of the costs of maintaining the present conflict not being worth the gains that can be made, the appeal to end the horrors of war, and the argument of war being waged for the profit of particular interests. During the war, the New York Draft Riots were started as violent protests against Lincoln's Enrollment Act of Conscription to draft men to fight in the war. The outrage over conscription was augmented by the ability to "buy" one's way out, which could be afforded only by the wealthy. After the war, The Red Badge of Courage described the chaos and sense of death which resulted from the changing style of combat: away from the set engagement, and towards two armies engaging in continuous battle over a wide area. Second Boer War: William Thomas Stead formed an organization against the Second Boer War, the Stop the War Committee. World War I: In Britain, in 1914, the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Camp, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the immenence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present) "that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust-probably not more than one-quarter of us – learned how right the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it." Having voiced these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorrien's career, or prevent him from carrying out his duty in the First World War to the best of his abilities. With the increasing mechanization of war, opposition to its horrors grew, particularly in the wake of the First World War. European avant-garde cultural movements such as Dada were explicitly anti-war. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 gave the American authorities the right to close newspapers and jailed individuals for having anti-war views. On 16 June 1918, Eugene V. Debs made an anti-war speech and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison, but President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence on 25 December 1921. Between the World Wars: In 1924, Ernst Friedrich published Krieg dem Krieg! (War Against War!): an album of photographs drawn from German military and medical archives from the first world war. In Regarding the Pain of Others Sontag describes the book as "photography as shock therapy" that was designed to "horrify and demoralize". It was in the 1930s that the Western anti-war movement took shape, to which the political and organizational roots of most of the existing movement can be traced. Characteristics of the anti-war movement included opposition to the corporate interests perceived as benefiting from war, to the status quo which was trading the lives of the young for the comforts of those who are older, the concept that those who were drafted were from poor families and would be fighting a war in place of privileged individuals who were able to avoid the draft and military service, and to the lack of input in decision making that those who would die in the conflict would have in deciding to engage in it. In 1933, the Oxford Union resolved in its Oxford Pledge, "That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country." Many war veterans, including US General Smedley Butler, spoke out against wars and war profiteering on their return to civilian life. Veterans were still extremely cynical about the motivations for entering World War I, but many were willing to fight later in the Spanish Civil War, indicating that pacifism was not always the motivation. These trends were depicted in novels such as All Quiet on the Western Front, For Whom the Bell Tolls and Johnny Got His Gun. World War II: Opposition to World War II was most vocal during its early period, and stronger still before it started while appeasement and isolationism were considered viable diplomatic options. Communist-led organizations, including veterans of the Spanish Civil War, opposed the war during the period starting with the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact but then turned into hawks after Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The war seemed, for a time, to set anti-war movements at a distinct social disadvantage; very few, mostly ardent pacifists, continued to argue against the war and its results at the time. However, the Cold War followed with the post-war realignment, and the opposition resumed. The grim realities of modern combat, and the nature of mechanized society ensured that the anti-war viewpoint found presentation in Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five and The Tin Drum. This sentiment grew in strength as the Cold War seemed to present the situation of an unending series of conflicts, which were fought at terrible cost to the younger generations. Vietnam War: Organized opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began slowly and in small numbers in 1964 on various college campuses in the United States and quickly as the war grew deadlier. In 1967 a coalition of antiwar activists formed the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam which organized several large anti-war demonstrations between the late 1960s and 1972. Counter-cultural songs, organizations, plays and other literary works encouraged a spirit of nonconformism, peace, and anti-establishmentarianism. This anti-war sentiment developed during a time of unprecedented student activism and right on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, and was reinforced in numbers by the demographically significant baby boomers. It quickly grew to include a wide and varied cross-section of Americans from all walks of life. The anti-Vietnam war movement is often considered to have been a major factor affecting America's involvement in the war itself. Many Vietnam veterans, including future Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John Kerry and disabled veteran Ron Kovic, spoke out against the Vietnam War on their return to the United States. Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh, a Vietnamese peace activist, aligned her Vietnamese Women's Movement for the Right to Live with international activists of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and Women Strike for Peace. Her imprisonment and publications about the war brought international attention to the social and economic issues created by the war and fostered international opposition to it.: 109–110 : 85, 89–90  Her arrest and lack of a trial sparked Bella Abzug and WILPF members to write to the United States Congress and petition President Richard Nixon to appeal to South Vietnamese officials for her release,: 126 : 90  which was widely covered in the press. Campaigns opposing the war and conscription also took place in Australia. South African Border War: Opposition to the South African Border War spread to a general resistance to the apartheid military. Organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resisters, were set up. Many opposed the war at this time. Yugoslav Wars: Following the rise of nationalism and political tensions after Slobodan Milošević came to power, as well as the outbreaks of the Yugoslav Wars, numerous anti-war movements developed in Serbia.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-war movement

: 109–110 : 85, 89–90  Her arrest and lack of a trial sparked Bella Abzug and WILPF members to write to the United States Congress and petition President Richard Nixon to appeal to South Vietnamese officials for her release,: 126 : 90  which was widely covered in the press. Campaigns opposing the war and conscription also took place in Australia. South African Border War: Opposition to the South African Border War spread to a general resistance to the apartheid military. Organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resisters, were set up. Many opposed the war at this time. Yugoslav Wars: Following the rise of nationalism and political tensions after Slobodan Milošević came to power, as well as the outbreaks of the Yugoslav Wars, numerous anti-war movements developed in Serbia. The anti-war protests in Belgrade were held mostly because of opposition the Battle of Vukovar, Siege of Dubrovnik and Siege of Sarajevo, while protesters demanded the referendum on a declaration of war and disruption of military conscription. More than 50,000 people participated in many protests, and more than 150,000 people took part in the most massive protest called "The Black Ribbon March" in solidarity with people in Sarajevo. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 200,000 people deserted from the Yugoslav People's Army, while between 100,000 and 150,000 people emigrated from Serbia refusing to participate in the war. According to professor Renaud De la Brosse, senior lecturer at the University of Reims and a witness called by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), it is surprising how great the resistance to Milošević's propaganda was among Serbs, given that and the lack of access to alternative news. The most famous associations and NGOs who marked the anti-war ideas and movements in Serbia were the Center for Antiwar Action, Women in Black, Humanitarian Law Center and Belgrade Circle. The Rimtutituki was a rock supergroup featuring Ekatarina Velika, Električni Orgazam and Partibrejkers members, which was formed at the petition signing against mobilization in Belgrade. NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention. About 2,000 Serbian Americans and anti-war activists protested in New York City against NATO airstrikes, while more than 7,000 people protested in Sydney. The most massive protests were held in Greece, and demonstrations were also held in Italian cities, London, Moscow, Toronto, Berlin, Stuttgart, Salzburg and Skopje. 2001 Afghanistan War: There was initially little opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War in the United States and the United Kingdom, which was seen as a response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and was supported by most of the American public. Most vocal opposition came from pacifist groups and groups promoting a left-wing political agenda. Over time, opposition to the war in Afghanistan has grown more widespread, partly as a result of weariness with the length of the conflict and partly as a result of a conflating of the conflict with the unpopular war in Iraq. Iraq War: The anti-war position gained renewed support and attention in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies. Millions of people staged mass protests across the world in the immediate prelude to the invasion, and demonstrations and other forms of anti-war activism have continued throughout the occupation. The primary opposition within the U.S. to the continued occupation of Iraq has come from the grassroots. Opposition to the conflict, how it had been fought, and complications during the aftermath period divided public sentiment in the U.S., resulting in majority public opinion turning against the war for the first time in the spring of 2004, a turn which has held since. The American country music band Dixie Chicks opposition to the war caused many radio stations to stop playing their records, but who were supported in their anti-war stance by the equally anti-war country music legend Merle Haggard, who in the summer of 2003 released a song critical of US media coverage of the Iraq War. Anti-war groups protested during both the Democratic National Convention and 2008 Republican National Convention protests held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in September 2008. Possible war against Iran: Organised opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States is known to have started during 2005–2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Joseph Cirincione and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that United States' concerns over the alleged threat posed by the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapons program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to oppose potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several individuals, grassroots organisations and international governmental organisations, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, Nobel Prize winners including Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams, Harold Pinter and Jody Williams, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Code Pink, the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, and the Arab League, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran. War in Donbass: Anti-war/Putin demonstrations took place in Moscow "opposing the War in Donbass", i.e., in Eastern Ukraine. Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen: 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: In May 2021, protests broke out following a flare-up of the Israel–Palestine conflict. In the U.S., thousands gathered in at least seven major cities across the country in solidarity with Palestinians. The 2021 conflict lasted from 6 May until 21 May when a ceasefire was signed. The following day, an estimated 180,000 protestors gathered in Hyde Park, England, in what may have been the largest pro-Palestine demonstration in British history. Speeches were made by anti-war campaigners and trade union members including demands that the UK government disinvest and sanction Israel. Messages such as "free Palestine" and "stop the war" were displayed on banners and placards and chanted by protesters. Despite the ceasefire, protests continued into June, with, for example, protestors in Oakland, California, attempting to block an Israeli cargo ship from entering the Port of Oakland on 4 June. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Beginning in 2022, the anti-war movement was renewed following tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Protests escalated on 24 February 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced prison sentences of up to 15 years for publishing "fake news" about Russian military operations. As of December 2022, more than 4,000 people, including Russian opposition politicians and journalists, had been prosecuted under Russia's "fake news" laws for criticizing the war in Ukraine. 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Multiple protests against the war took place around the world since the start of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, in support of Palestine mostly. Arts and culture: English poet Robert Southey's 1796 poem After Blenheim is an early modern example of anti-war literature that was written generations after the Battle of Blenheim but while Britain was again at war against France. World War I produced a generation of poets and writers influenced by their experiences in the war. The work of poets, including Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, exposed the contrast between the realities of life in the trenches and how the war was seen by the British public at the time and the earlier patriotic verse penned by Rupert Brooke. The German writer Erich Maria Remarque penned All Quiet on the Western Front, which has been adapted for several mediums and has become of the most often cited pieces of anti-war media. Pablo Picasso's 1937 painting Guernica on the other hand, used abstraction, rather than realism, to generate an emotional response to the loss of life from the Condor Legion and Aviazione Legionaria's bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The American author Kurt Vonnegut used science fiction themes in his 1969 novel Slaughterhouse-Five, depicting the bombing of Dresden in World War II, which Vonnegut witnessed. The second half of the 20th century also witnessed a strong anti-war presence in other art forms, including anti-war music such as "Eve of Destruction", "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "One Tin Soldier", and films such as M*A*S*H and Die Brücke, opposing the Cold War in general or specific conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has also generated significant artistic anti-war works, including the American filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which holds the box-office record for documentary films, and the Canadian musician Neil Young's 2006 album Living with War. Anti-war intellectual and scientist-activists and their work: Various people have discussed the philosophical question of whether war is inevitable, and how it can be avoided; in other words, what are the necessities of peace.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Anti-war movement

The second half of the 20th century also witnessed a strong anti-war presence in other art forms, including anti-war music such as "Eve of Destruction", "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "One Tin Soldier", and films such as M*A*S*H and Die Brücke, opposing the Cold War in general or specific conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has also generated significant artistic anti-war works, including the American filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which holds the box-office record for documentary films, and the Canadian musician Neil Young's 2006 album Living with War. Anti-war intellectual and scientist-activists and their work: Various people have discussed the philosophical question of whether war is inevitable, and how it can be avoided; in other words, what are the necessities of peace. Various intellectuals and others have discussed it from an intellectual and philosophical point of view, not only in public, but participating or leading anti-war campaigns despite its differing from their main areas of expertise, leaving their professional comfort zones to warn against or fight against wars. Philosophical possibility of avoiding war: Immanuel Kant: In (1795) "Perpetual Peace" ("Zum ewigen Frieden"). Immanuel Kant booklet on "Perpetual Peace" in 1795. Politically, Kant was one of the earliest exponents of the idea that perpetual peace could be secured through universal democracy and international cooperation. Leading scientists and intellectuals: Here is a list of notable anti-war scientists and intellectuals: Linus Pauling was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his peace activism (his second Nobel Prize). He circulated multiple petitions among scientists. Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein had correspondences on violence, peace, and human nature. Bertrand Russell mostly was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism. Occasionally, he advocated preventive nuclear war, before the opportunity provided by the atomic monopoly is gone, and "welcomed with enthusiasm" world government. He went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. In 1950 Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought". Manifestos and statements by scientist and intellectual activists: Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight other leading scientists and intellectuals signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto issued July 9, 1955. The Mainau Declaration of 15 July 1955 was signed by 52 Nobel Prize laureates. The Dubrovnik-Philadelphia Statement of 1974/1976 was signed by Linus Pauling and others. See also: References: Sources: Powers, Roger S. (1997). Protest, Power, and Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from ACT-UP to Women's Suffrage. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-76482-0. Further reading: External links: Guide to anti-war websites by The Guardian Essays and speeches from the Antebellum Era peace movement 1969 anti-war march in Berlin Scates, Bob (2022). "The draftmen go free : a history of the anti-conscription movement in Australia". Book review and whole book. The Commons Social Change Library.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

History: Failure of collective security: Appeasement policy, the policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini, operating jointly at that time, during 1937 and 1938 by continuous concessions granted in the hope of reaching a point of saturation when the dictators would be willing to accede to international collaboration.... It came to an end when Hitler seized Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939, in defiance of his promises given at Munich, and Prime Minister Chamberlain, who had championed appeasement before, decided on a policy of resistance to further German aggression. Chamberlain's policy of appeasement emerged from the failure of the League of Nations and the failure of collective security. The League of Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War I in the hope that international co-operation and collective resistance to aggression might prevent another war. Members of the League were entitled to the assistance of other members if they came under attack. The policy of collective security ran in parallel with measures to achieve international disarmament and, if possible, was to be based on economic sanctions against an aggressor. The policy appeared to be ineffectual when confronted by the aggression of dictators, notably Germany's Remilitarization of the Rhineland and Italy's Benito Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia. Invasion of Manchuria: In September 1931, the Empire of Japan, a member of the League of Nations, invaded Manchuria, in northeast China, by claiming that the regional population was not only Chinese but was multi-ethnic. The Republic of China appealed to the League of Nations and to the United States for assistance. The League of Nations Council asked the parties to withdraw to their original positions to permit a peaceful settlement. The United States reminded them of their duty under the Kellogg–Briand Pact to settle matters peacefully. Japan was undeterred and went on to occupy the whole of Manchuria. The League set up a commission of inquiry that condemned Japan, and the League duly adopted the report in February 1933. In response, Japan resigned from the League and continued its advance into China, with neither the League nor the United States taking any action. However, the U.S. issued the Stimson Doctrine and refused to recognize Japan's conquest, which played a role in shifting U.S. policy to favour China over Japan during the late 1930s. Some historians, such as David Thomson, assert that the League's "inactivity and ineffectualness in the Far East lent every encouragement to European aggressors who planned similar acts of defiance". Anglo-German Payments Agreement: The 1934 Anglo-German Payments Agreement stabilised economic relations between Britain and Germany, guaranteeing German interest repayments on bonds arising from World War I reparations and deepening British economic ties to Germany, particularly in the area of trade. Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador to Britain, in 1938 characterised the agreement, alongside the 1935 naval agreement, as carrying "the swaying structure of foreign relations [between the UK and Germany] even in critical periods". Anglo-German Naval Agreement: The 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement had Britain permit Germany to begin rebuilding the German Navy, including its U-boats, despite Germany having repeatedly violated the Treaty of Versailles. Abyssinia crisis: Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini had imperial ambitions in Abyssinia. Italy was already in possession of the neighbouring Eritrea and Somalia. In December 1934, there was a clash between Royal Italian Army and Imperial Ethiopian Army troops at Walwal, near the border between British and Italian Somaliland, in which Italian troops took possession of the disputed territory, and about 150 Abyssinians and 50 Italians were killed. Italy demanded apologies and compensation from Abyssinia, which appealed to the League, with Emperor Haile Selassie famously appealing in person to the assembly in Geneva. The League persuaded both sides to seek a settlement under the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1928, but Italy continued troop movements, and Abyssinia appealed to the League again. In October 1935 Mussolini launched an attack on Abyssinia. The League declared Italy to be the aggressor and imposed sanctions, but coal and oil were not included since blocking them, it was thought, would provoke war. Albania, Austria and Hungary refused to apply sanctions, and Germany and the United States were not in the League. Nevertheless, the Italian economy suffered. The League considered closing off the Suez Canal, which would have stopped arms to Abyssinia, but thinking that would be too harsh a measure, failed to do so. Earlier, in April 1935, Italy had joined Britain and France in protest against German rearmament. France was anxious to placate Mussolini to keep him away from an alliance with Germany. Britain was less hostile to Germany and set the pace in imposing sanctions and moved a naval fleet into the Mediterranean, but in November 1935, British Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare and French Prime Minister, Pierre Laval had secret discussions in which they agreed to concede two thirds of Abyssinia to Italy. However, the press leaked the content of the discussions, and a public outcry forced Hoare and Laval to resign. In May 1936, undeterred by sanctions, Italy captured Addis Ababa, the Abyssinian capital, and proclaimed Victor Emmanuel III as Emperor of Ethiopia. In July the League abandoned sanctions. The episode, in which sanctions were incomplete and appeared to be easily given up, seriously discredited the League. Remilitarisation of the Rhineland: Under the Versailles Settlement, the Rhineland was demilitarised. Germany accepted that arrangement under the Locarno Treaties of 1925. Hitler claimed that it threatened Germany and, on 7 March 1936, sent the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland. He gambled on Britain not getting involved but was unsure of how France would react. The action was opposed by many of his advisers. His officers had orders to withdraw if they met French resistance. France consulted Britain and lodged protests with the League but took no action. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said that Britain lacked the forces to back its guarantees to France and that in any case, public opinion would not allow so. In Britain, it was thought that the Germans were merely walking into "their own backyard". Hugh Dalton, a Labour Party MP who usually advocated stiff resistance to Germany, said that neither the British people nor Labour would support military or economic sanctions. In the Council of the League, only the Soviet Union proposed sanctions against Germany. Hitler, who was invited to negotiate, proposed a non-aggression pact with the Western powers. When asked for details, he did not reply. Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland had persuaded him that the international community would not resist him, and it put Germany in a powerful strategic position. Spanish Civil War: Many historians argue that the British policy of non-intervention was a product of the Establishment's anti-communist stance. Scott Ramsay (2019) instead argues that Britain demonstrated "benevolent neutrality" and was simply hedging its bets by avoiding the favouring of one side or the other. The goal was that in a European war Britain would enjoy the "benevolent neutrality" of whichever side won in Spain. Conduct of appeasement, 1937–1939: In 1937, Stanley Baldwin resigned as Prime Minister. He was replaced by Neville Chamberlain, who pursued a policy of appeasement and rearmament. Chamberlain's reputation for appeasement rests in large measure on his negotiations with Hitler over Czechoslovakia in 1938. Anschluss: When the German Empire and Austria-Hungary were broken up in 1918, Austria was left as a rump state with the temporary adopted name Deutschösterreich ("German-Austria"), with the vast majority of Austrians wanting to join Germany. However, the victors' agreements of World War I (the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain) strictly forbade union between Austria and Germany without League consent, as well as the name "German-Austria", which reverted to "Austria" after the emergence of the First Republic of Austria in September 1919. The constitutions of both the Weimar Republic and the First Republic of Austria, included the aim of unification, which was supported by democratic parties. However, the rise of Hitler dampened the enthusiasm of the Austrian government for such a plan. Hitler, an Austrian by birth, had been a pan-German from a very young age and had promoted a Pan-German vision of a Greater Germanic Reich from the beginning of his career in politics. He wrote in Mein Kampf (1924) that he would attempt a union of his birth country Austria with Germany by any means possible and by force if necessary. By early 1938, Hitler had consolidated his power in Germany and was ready to implement his long-held plan. Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg wished to pursue ties with Italy but turned to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania (the Little Entente). To that end, Hitler took violent exception. In January 1938, the Austrian Nazis attempted a putsch following which some were imprisoned. Hitler summoned Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden in February and demanded, with the threat of military action, for him to release imprisoned Austrian Nazis and to allow them to participate in the government.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

He wrote in Mein Kampf (1924) that he would attempt a union of his birth country Austria with Germany by any means possible and by force if necessary. By early 1938, Hitler had consolidated his power in Germany and was ready to implement his long-held plan. Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg wished to pursue ties with Italy but turned to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania (the Little Entente). To that end, Hitler took violent exception. In January 1938, the Austrian Nazis attempted a putsch following which some were imprisoned. Hitler summoned Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden in February and demanded, with the threat of military action, for him to release imprisoned Austrian Nazis and to allow them to participate in the government. Schuschnigg complied and appointed Arthur Seyss-Inquart, a pro-Nazi lawyer, as interior minister. To forestall Hitler and to preserve Austria's independence, Schuschnigg scheduled a plebiscite on the issue for 13 March. Hitler demanded for the plebiscite to be cancelled. The German Propaganda Ministry issued press reports that riots had broken out in Austria and that large parts of the Austrian population were calling for German troops to restore order. On 11 March, Hitler sent an ultimatum to Schuschnigg that demanded him to hand over all power to the Austrian Nazis or face an invasion. The British Ambassador in Berlin, Nevile Henderson, registered a protest with the German government against the use of coercion against Austria. Schuschnigg, realising that neither France nor the United Kingdom would actively support him, resigned in favour of Seyss-Inquart, who then appealed to German troops to restore order. On 12 March, the German Wehrmacht crossed the Austrian border. They met no resistance and were greeted by cheering Austrians. The invasion was the first major test of the Wehrmacht's machinery. Austria became the German province of Ostmark, with Seyss-Inquart as governor. A plebiscite was held on 10 April and officially recorded the support of 99.73% of the voters for the Anschluss. Although the Allies had prohibited the union of Austria and Germany, their reaction to the Anschluss was mild. Even the strongest voices against annexation, particularly those of Fascist Italy, France and Britain (the "Stresa Front"), were not backed by force. In the British House of Commons, Chamberlain said, "The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force". The American reaction was similar. The international reaction to the events of 12 March 1938 led Hitler to conclude that he could use even more aggressive tactics in his plan to expand the Third Reich. The Anschluss paved the way for Munich in September 1938 because it indicated the likely non-response of Britain and France to future German aggression. Munich Agreement: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. Under the Versailles Settlement, Czechoslovakia was created with the territory of the Czech part more or less corresponding to the Czech Crown lands as they had existed within Austria-Hungary and earlier. The new country included Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia and had border areas with a majority-German population that was known as the Sudetenland and areas with significant numbers of other ethnic minorities (notably Hungarians, Poles and Ruthenians). In April 1938, the Sudeten German Party, led by Konrad Henlein, agitated for autonomy and then threatened, in Henlein's words, "direct action to bring the Sudeten Germans within the frontiers of the Reich". An international crisis ensued. France and Britain advised Czechoslovak acceptance of Sudeten autonomy. The Czechoslovak government refused and ordered a partial mobilisation in expectation of German aggression. Lord Runciman was sent by Chamberlain to mediate in Prague and persuaded the Czechoslovak government to grant autonomy. Germany escalated the dispute, with the country's press carrying stories of alleged atrocities against Sudeten Germans, and Hitler ordering 750,000 troops to the Czechoslovak border. In August, Henlein broke off negotiations with the Czechoslovak authorities. At a Nazi party rally in Nuremberg on 12 September, Hitler made a speech attacking Czechoslovakia and there was an increase of violence by Sudeten Nazis against Czechoslovak and Jewish targets. Chamberlain, faced with the prospect of a German invasion, flew to Berchtesgaden on 15 September to negotiate directly with Hitler, who now demanded that Chamberlain accept not Sudeten self-government within Czechoslovakia but the absorption of the Sudeten lands into Germany. Chamberlain became convinced that refusal would lead to war. The geography of Europe was such that Britain and France could forcibly prevent the German occupation of the Sudetenland only by the invasion of Germany. Chamberlain, therefore, returned to Britain and agreed to Hitler's demands. Britain and France told the Czechoslovak President Edvard Beneš to hand over to Germany all territory with a German majority. Hitler increased his aggression against Czechoslovakia and ordered the establishment of a Sudeten German paramilitary organisation, which proceeded to carry out terrorist attacks on Czechoslovak targets. German annexation of Sudetenland: On 22 September, Chamberlain flew to Bad Godesberg for his second meeting with Hitler and said that he was willing to accept the cession of the Sudetenland to Germany. He was startled by the response of Hitler that the cession of the Sudetenland was not enough and that Czechoslovakia, which Hitler had described as a "fraudulent state", must be broken up completely. Later in the day, Hitler resiled by saying that he was willing to accept the cession of the Sudetenland by 1 October. On 24 September, Germany issued the Godesberg Memorandum, which demanded cession by 28 September or war. The Czechoslovak government rejected those demands, France ordered mobilisation and Britain mobilised the Royal Navy. On 26 September, Hitler made a speech at the Sportpalast in Berlin in which he claimed that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe", and he gave Czechoslovakia an ultimatum of 28 September at 2:00pm to cede the territory to Germany or to face war. In the atmosphere of growing conflict, Mussolini persuaded Hitler to put the dispute to a four-power conference. On 29 September 1938, Hitler, Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier and Mussolini met in Munich. Czechoslovakia was not to be a party to these talks, nor was the Soviet Union. The four powers agreed that Germany would complete its occupation of the Sudetenland but that an international commission would consider other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was told that if it did not submit, it would stand alone. At Chamberlain's request, Hitler readily signed an agreement for between the United Kingdom and Germany. Chamberlain returned to Britain and promised "peace for our time". Before Munich, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had sent a telegram to Chamberlain that said, "Good man" and he later told the American ambassador in Rome, William Phillips, "I am not a bit upset over the final result". First Vienna Award and German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia: As a result of the annexation of the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia lost 800,000 citizens, much of its industry and its mountain defences in the west. The rest of Czechoslovakia was left weak and powerless to resist subsequent occupation. In the following months, Czechoslovakia was broken up and ceased to exist, as Germany occupied the Sudetenland; Hungary took part of Slovakia, including Carpathian Ruthenia; and Poland annexed Trans-Olza. On 15 March 1939, the German Wehrmacht moved into the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and from Prague Castle, Hitler proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia to be the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, completing the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Slovakia separated and created under a puppet government of Germany. In March 1939, Chamberlain foresaw a possible disarmament conference between himself, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. British Home Secretary, Samuel Hoare, said, "These five men, working together in Europe and blessed in their efforts by the President of the United States of America, might make themselves eternal benefactors of the human race". In effect, the British and French had by the Munich negotiations pressured their ally of Czechoslovakia to cede part of its territory to a hostile neighbour in order to preserve peace. Churchill likened the negotiations at Berchtesgarten, Bad Godesberg and Munich to a man demanding £1, then, when it is offered, demanding £2, then when it is refused settling for £1.17s.6d. British leaders committed to the Munich Agreement in spite of their awareness of Hitler's vulnerability at the time.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

Slovakia separated and created under a puppet government of Germany. In March 1939, Chamberlain foresaw a possible disarmament conference between himself, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. British Home Secretary, Samuel Hoare, said, "These five men, working together in Europe and blessed in their efforts by the President of the United States of America, might make themselves eternal benefactors of the human race". In effect, the British and French had by the Munich negotiations pressured their ally of Czechoslovakia to cede part of its territory to a hostile neighbour in order to preserve peace. Churchill likened the negotiations at Berchtesgarten, Bad Godesberg and Munich to a man demanding £1, then, when it is offered, demanding £2, then when it is refused settling for £1.17s.6d. British leaders committed to the Munich Agreement in spite of their awareness of Hitler's vulnerability at the time. In August 1938, General Ludwig Beck relayed a message to Lord Halifax to explain that most of the German General Staff had prepared a coup against the Fuhrer for if there was "proof that England will fight if Czechoslovakia is attacked". When Chamberlain received the news, he dismissed it out of hand. In September, the British received assurance that the General Staff's offer to launch the coup still stood with key private sector police and army support, even though Beck had resigned his post. Chamberlain ultimately ceded to all of Hitler's demands at Munich because he believed Britain and Nazi Germany were "the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against communism". Czechoslovakia had a modern well-prepared military, and Hitler, on entering Prague, conceded that a war would have cost Germany much blood but the decision by France and Britain not to defend Czechoslovakia in the event of war and the exclusion from the equation of the Soviet Union, which Chamberlain distrusted, meant that the outcome would have been uncertain. The event forms the main part of what became known as Munich betrayal (Czech: Mnichovská zrada) in Czechoslovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe, as the Czechoslovak view was that Britain and France had pressured it to cede territory to prevent a major war, which would involve Western Europe. The Western view is that the pressure was done to save Czechoslovakia from total annihilation. German annexation of Lithuania's Klaipėda Region: Rumours had reached the Lithuanian government to the effect that Germany had specific plans to take over Klaipėda. On 12 March 1939, Foreign Minister Juozas Urbšys represented Lithuania at the coronation of Pope Pius XII in Rome. On Urbšys's return to Lithuania, he stopped in Berlin with the hope of clarifying the growing rumours. On 20 March, just five days after the German occupation of Prague, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop agreed to meet Urbšys but not the Lithuanian Ambassador to Berlin, Kazys Škirpa, who was asked to wait in another room. The conversation lasted for about 40 minutes. Ribbentrop demanded the return of Klaipėda to Germany and threatened military action. Urbšys relayed the verbal ultimatum to the Lithuanian government. Because the ultimatum was never set down in writing and did not include a formal deadline, some historians downplay its importance and describe it as a "set of demands", rather than as an ultimatum. However, it was made clear that force would be used should Lithuania resist, and Lithuania was warned not to seek help from other nations. A clear deadline was not given, but Lithuania was told to make a speedy decision and that any clashes or German casualties would inevitably provoke a response from the German military. Lithuania secretly informed the signatories of the Klaipėda Convention about those demands since technically, Lithuania could not transfer Klaipėda without the signatories' approvals. Italy and Japan supported Germany in the matter, and the United Kingdom and France expressed sympathy for Lithuania but chose not to offer any material assistance and followed a well-publicized policy of appeasement. The British treated the issue in the same way as the earlier Sudeten Crisis and made no plans to assist Lithuania or the other Baltic States if they were attacked by Germany. The Soviets supported Lithuania in principle but did not wish to disrupt their relations with Germany since they were contemplating the German-Soviet Pact. Without any material international support, Lithuania had no choice but to accept the ultimatum. Lithuanian diplomacy characterized the concession as a "necessary evil" to enable Lithuania to preserve its independence, and it maintained the hope that it was merely a temporary retreat. Outbreak of World War II and Phoney War: By August 1939, Hitler was convinced that the democratic nations would never put up any effective opposition to him. He expressed his contempt for them in a speech that he delivered to his Commanders in Chief: "Our enemies have leaders who are below the average. No personalities. No masters, no men of action.... Our enemies are small fry. I saw them in Munich". On 1 September 1939, German forces started their invasion of Poland. Britain and France joined the war against Germany but initially averted serious military involvement during the period known as the Phoney War. After the German invasion of Norway, opinion turned against Chamberlain's conduct of the war. He resigned after the Norway Debate in the British House of Commons, and on 10 May 1940 Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. In July, after the Fall of France, when Britain stood almost alone against Germany, Hitler offered peace. Some politicians both inside and outside the government were willing to consider the offer, but Churchill refused to do so. Chamberlain died on 9 November the same year. Churchill delivered a tribute to him in which he said, "Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged". Attitudes: As the policy of appeasement failed to prevent war, those who advocated it were quickly criticised. Appeasement came to be seen as something to be avoided by those with responsibility for the diplomacy of Britain or any other democratic country. By contrast, the few who stood out against appeasement were seen as "voices in the wilderness whose wise counsels were largely ignored, with almost catastrophic consequences for the nation in 1939–40". More recently, however, historians have questioned the accuracy of that simple distinction between appeasers and anti-appeasers. "Few appeasers were really prepared to seek peace at any price; few, if any, anti-appeasers were prepared for Britain to make a stand against aggression whatever the circumstances and wherever the location in which it occurred". Avoiding mistakes of First World War: Chamberlain's policy in many respects continued the policies of MacDonald and Baldwin and was popular until the failure of the Munich Agreement to stop Hitler in Czechoslovakia. "Appeasement" had been a respectable term between 1919 and 1937 to signify the pursuit of peace. Many believed after the First World War that wars were started by mistake, in which case the League of Nations could prevent them; or that they were caused by large-scale armaments, in which case disarmament was the remedy; or that they were caused by national grievances, in which case the grievances should be redressed peacefully. Many thought that the Versailles Treaty had been unjust, that the German minorities were entitled to self-determination, and that Germany was entitled to equality in armaments. Government views: Appeasement was accepted by most of those responsible for British foreign policy in the 1930s; by leading journalists and academics; and by members of the British royal family such as King Edward VIII and his successor, George VI. Anti-communism was sometimes acknowledged as a deciding factor, as mass labour unrest resurfaced in Britain, and news of Stalin's bloody purges disturbed the West. A common upper-class slogan was "better Hitlerism than Communism". In France, right-wingers were sometimes accused of believing "Better Hitler than Blum" in reference to the French Socialist Prime Minister Léon Blum at the time. Anti-communism was a motive of a close ally of Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, who said after he had visited Göring and met Hitler in Germany in 1936 and 1937: "Nationalism and Racialism is a powerful force but I can't feel that it's either unnatural or immoral! I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same!" Most Conservative MPs were also in favour, but Churchill said that their supporters were divided and in 1936 led a delegation of leading Conservative politicians to express to Baldwin their alarm about the speed of German rearmament and the fact that Britain was falling behind. Baldwin rejected their sense of urgency and declared that he would not get Britain to war with anybody "for the League of Nations or anybody else" and that if there were to be any fighting in Europe, "I should like to see the Bolshies and Nazis doing it".

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same!" Most Conservative MPs were also in favour, but Churchill said that their supporters were divided and in 1936 led a delegation of leading Conservative politicians to express to Baldwin their alarm about the speed of German rearmament and the fact that Britain was falling behind. Baldwin rejected their sense of urgency and declared that he would not get Britain to war with anybody "for the League of Nations or anybody else" and that if there were to be any fighting in Europe, "I should like to see the Bolshies and Nazis doing it". Amongst Conservatives, Churchill was unusual in believing that Germany menaced freedom and democracy, that British rearmament should proceed more rapidly and that Germany should be resisted over Czechoslovakia. His criticism of Hitler began from the start of the decade, but Churchill was slow to attack fascism overall because of his own vitriolic opposition to communists, "international Jews" and socialism generally. Churchill's sustained warnings about fascism commenced only in 1938 after Francisco Franco, who was receiving aid from Italy and Germany during the Spanish Civil War, decimated the left in Spain. The week before Munich, Churchill warned, "The partition of Czechoslovakia under pressure from the UK and France amounts to the complete surrender of the Western Democracies to the Nazi threat of force. Such a collapse will bring peace or security neither to the UK nor to France". He and a few other Conservatives who refused to vote for the Munich settlement were attacked by their local constituency parties. However, Churchill's subsequent leadership of Britain during the war and his role in creating the post-war consensus against appeasement have tended to obscure the fact that "his contemporary criticism of totalitarian regimes other than Hitler's Germany was at best muted". It was not until May 1938 that he began "consistently to withhold his support from the National Government's conduct of foreign policy in the division lobbies of the House of Commons". He seems "to have been convinced by the Sudeten German leader, Henlein, in the spring of 1938, that a satisfactory settlement could be reached if Britain managed to persuade the Czech government to make concessions to the German minority". Military views: In Britain, the Royal Navy generally favoured appeasement although it was during the Abyssinia Crisis of 1937 that it was confident it could easily defeat the Royal Italian Navy in open warfare. However, it favoured appeasement because it did not want to commit a large fraction of its naval power to the Mediterranean Sea, which would weaken its positions against Germany and Japan. In 1938, the Royal Navy approved appeasement regarding Munich because it calculated that Britain then lacked the political and military resources to intervene and to maintain an imperial defence capability simultaneously. Public opinion in Britain throughout the 1930s was frightened by the prospect of German terror bombing of British cities, which had started during the First World War. The media emphasised the dangers, and the general consensus was that defence was impossible and, as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin had said in 1932, "The bomber will always get through". However, the Royal Air Force had two major weapons systems in the works: better interceptors (Hurricanes and Spitfires) and especially radar. They promised to counter the German bombing offensive but were not yet ready and so appeasement was necessary to cause a delay. Specifically, regarding the fighters, the RAF warned the government in October 1938 that the German Luftwaffe bombers would probably get through: "the situation... will be definitely unsatisfactory throughout the next twelve months". In France, the Armée de l'Air intelligence section closely examined the strength of the Luftwaffe and decided the German pursuit planes and bombers were the best in the world and that the Germans were producing 1000 warplanes a month. It perceived decisive German air superiority and so it was pessimistic about its ability to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. Guy La Chambre, the civilian air minister, optimistically informed the government that the air force could stop the Luftwaffe. However, General Joseph Vuillemin, air force chief of staff, warned that it was far inferior and consistently opposed war against Germany. Opposition parties: The Labour Party opposed the fascist dictators on principle but until the late 1930s also opposed rearmament and had a significant pacifist wing. In 1935, its pacifist leader, George Lansbury, resigned after a party resolution in favour of sanctions against Italy, which he opposed. He was replaced by Clement Attlee, who at first opposed rearmament by advocating the abolition of national armaments and a world peacekeeping force under the direction of the League of Nations. However, with the rising threat from Nazi Germany and the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, that policy eventually lost credibility, and in 1937, Ernest Bevin and Hugh Dalton persuaded the party to support rearmament and oppose appeasement. A few on the left said that Chamberlain looked forward to a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Attlee claimed in one political speech in 1937 that the National Government had connived at German rearmament "because of its hatred of Russia". British communists, following the party line defined by Joseph Stalin, argued that appeasement had been a pro-fascist policy and that the British ruling class preferred fascism to socialism. The Communist MP Willie Gallacher said that "many prominent representatives of the Conservative Party, speaking for powerful landed and financial interests in the country, would welcome Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative to the establishment of Socialism in this country". Public opinion: British public opinion had been strongly opposed to war and rearmament in the early 1930s, but that began to shift by mid-decade. At a debate at the Oxford Union Society in 1933, a group of undergraduates passed a motion saying that they would not fight for King and country, which persuaded some in Germany that Britain would never go to war. Baldwin told the House of Commons that in 1933, he had been unable to pursue a policy of rearmament because of the strong pacifist sentiment in the country. In 1935, eleven million responded to the League of Nations "Peace Ballot" by pledging support for the reduction of armaments by international agreement. On the other hand, the same survey also found that 58.7% of British voters favoured "collective military sanctions" against aggressors, and public reaction to the Hoare-Laval Pact with Mussolini was extremely unfavorable. Even the left wing of the pacifist movement quickly began to turn with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, and many peace-balloters began signing up for the International Brigades to fight Franco. By the height of the Spanish conflict in 1937, the majority of young pacifists had modified their views to accept that war could be a legitimate response to aggression and fascism. Czechoslovakia did not concern most people until mid-September 1938, when they began to object to a small democratic state being bullied. Nevertheless, the initial response of the British public to the Munich agreement was generally favourable. As Chamberlain left for Munich in 1938, the whole House of Commons cheered him noisily. On 30 September, on his return to Britain, Chamberlain delivered his famous "peace for our time" speech to delighted crowds. He was invited by the royal family onto the balcony at Buckingham Palace before he had reported to Parliament. The agreement was supported by most of the press, with only Reynold's News and the Daily Worker dissenting. In Parliament, the Labour Party opposed the agreement. Some Conservatives abstained in the vote, but the only MP to advocate war was the Conservative Duff Cooper, who had resigned from the government to protest the agreement. Role of media: Positive opinion of appeasement was shaped partly by media manipulation. The German correspondent for The Times, Norman Ebbutt, charged that his persistent reports about Nazi militarism had been suppressed by his editor, Geoffrey Dawson. Historians such as Richard Cockett, William Shirer and Frank McDonough have confirmed the claim. The results of an October 1938 Gallup poll, which showed 86% of the public believed Hitler was lying about his future territorial ambitions, was censored from the News Chronicle at the last minute by the publisher, who was loyal to Chamberlain. For the few journalists who were asking challenging questions about appeasement, primarily members of the foreign press, Chamberlain often froze them out or intimidated them. When asked at press conferences about Hitler's abuse of Jews and other minority groups, he went so far as to denounce these reports as "Jewish-Communist propaganda". Chamberlain's direct manipulation of the BBC was sustained and egregious. For example, Lord Halifax told radio producers not to offend Hitler and Mussolini, and they complied by censoring anti-fascist commentary made by Labour and Popular Front MPs. The BBC also suppressed the fact that 15,000 people protested the prime minister in Trafalgar Square as he returned from Munich in 1938 (10,000 more than welcomed him at 10 Downing Street). The BBC radio producers continued to censor news of persecution of Jews even after the war broken out, as Chamberlain still held out hopes of a quick armistice and did not want to inflame the atmosphere.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

When asked at press conferences about Hitler's abuse of Jews and other minority groups, he went so far as to denounce these reports as "Jewish-Communist propaganda". Chamberlain's direct manipulation of the BBC was sustained and egregious. For example, Lord Halifax told radio producers not to offend Hitler and Mussolini, and they complied by censoring anti-fascist commentary made by Labour and Popular Front MPs. The BBC also suppressed the fact that 15,000 people protested the prime minister in Trafalgar Square as he returned from Munich in 1938 (10,000 more than welcomed him at 10 Downing Street). The BBC radio producers continued to censor news of persecution of Jews even after the war broken out, as Chamberlain still held out hopes of a quick armistice and did not want to inflame the atmosphere. As Richard Cockett noted: [Chamberlain] had successfully demonstrated how a government in a democracy could influence and control the press to a remarkable degree. The danger in this for Chamberlain was that he preferred to forget that he exercised such influence, and so increasingly mistook his pliant press for real public opinion... the truth of the matter was that by controlling the press he was merely ensuring that the press was unable to reflect public opinion. The journalist Shiela Grant Duff's Penguin Special, Europe and the Czechs, was published and distributed to every MP on the day that Chamberlain returned from Munich. Her book was a spirited defence of the Czech nation and a detailed criticism of British policy and confronted the need for war if necessary. It was influential and widely read. Although she argued against the policy of "peace at almost any price", she did not take a personal tone, unlike Guilty Men two years later. At start of World War II: Once Germany invaded Poland and so ignited World War II, consensus was that appeasement was responsible. The Labour MP Hugh Dalton identified the policy with wealthy people in the City of London, Conservatives and members of the peerage who were soft on Hitler. The appointment of Churchill as Prime Minister after the Norway Debate hardened opinion against appeasement and encouraged the search for those responsible. Three British journalists, Michael Foot, Frank Owen and Peter Howard, writing under the name of "Cato" in their book Guilty Men, called for the removal from office of 15 public figures they held accountable, including Chamberlain. The book defined appeasement as the "deliberate surrender of small nations in the face of Hitler's blatant bullying". It was hastily written and has few claims to historical scholarship, but Guilty Men shaped subsequent thinking about appeasement, and it is said that it contributed to the defeat of the Conservatives in the 1945 general election. The change in the meaning of "appeasement" after Munich was summarised later by the historian David Dilks: "The word in its normal meaning connotes the pacific settlement of disputes; in the meaning usually applied to the period of Neville Chamberlain['s] premiership, it has come to indicate something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense." Postwar historians: Churchill's book The Gathering Storm, published in 1948, made a similar judgment to Guilty Men though in moderate tones. The book and Churchill's authority confirmed the orthodox view. Historians have subsequently explained Chamberlain's policies in various ways. It could be said that he believed sincerely that the objectives of Hitler and Mussolini were limited, and that the settlement of their grievances would protect the world from war since for safety, military and air power should be strengthened. One of the first dissents to the prevailing criticism of appeasement was made by John F. Kennedy in his 1940 Harvard College thesis, Why England Slept, in which he argued that appeasement had been necessary because the United Kingdom and France were unprepared for a world war. In 1961, the view of appeasement as avoidable error and cowardice was similarly set on its head by A.J.P. Taylor in his book The Origins of the Second World War. Taylor argued that Hitler did not have a blueprint for war and behaved much as any other German leader might have. Appeasement was an active policy, not a passive one, and allowing Hitler to consolidate was a policy implemented by "men confronted with real problems, doing their best in the circumstances of their time". Taylor said that appeasement ought to be seen as a rational response to an unpredictable leader that was both diplomatically and politically appropriate to the time. His view has been shared by other historians. For example, Paul Kennedy, who says of the choices facing politicians at the time, "Each course brought its share of disadvantages: there was only a choice of evils. The crisis in the British global position by this time was such that it was, in the last resort, insoluble, in the sense that there was no good or proper solution". Martin Gilbert expressed a similar view: "At bottom, the old appeasement was a mood of hope, Victorian in its optimism, Burkean in its belief that societies evolved from bad to good and that progress could only be for the better. The new appeasement was a mood of fear, Hobbesian in its insistence upon swallowing the bad in order to preserve some remnant of the good, pessimistic in its belief that Nazism was there to stay and, however horrible it might be, should be accepted as a way of life with which Britain ought to deal". The arguments in Taylor's Origins of the Second World War, which have sometimes been described as "revisionist", were rejected by many historians at the time, and reviews of his book in Britain and the United States were generally critical. Nevertheless, he was praised for some of his insights. By showing that appeasement was a popular policy and that there was a continuity in British foreign policy after 1933, he shattered the common view of the appeasers as a small degenerate clique that had mysteriously hijacked the British government sometime in the 1930s that had carried out their policies in the face of massive public resistance. Also, by portraying the leaders of the 1930s as real people attempting to deal with real problems, he made the first strides towards explaining the actions of the appeasers, rather than merely condemning them. In the early 1990s a new theory of appeasement, sometimes called "counter-revisionist", emerged as historians argued that appeasement was probably the only choice for the British government in the 1930s but that it was poorly implemented, carried out too late and not enforced strongly enough to constrain Hitler. Appeasement was considered a viable policy because of the strains that the British Empire faced in recuperating from World War I, and Chamberlain was said to have adopted a policy suitable to Britain's cultural and political needs. Frank McDonough is a leading proponent of that view of appeasement, which was described his book Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War as a "post revisionist" study. Appeasement was a crisis management strategy seeking a peaceful settlement of Hitler's grievances. "Chamberlain's worst error", says McDonough, "was to believe that he could march Hitler on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Hitler was marching very firmly on the road to war". He criticised revisionist historians for concentrating on Chamberlain's motivations, rather than how appeasement worked in practice, as a "usable policy" to deal with Hitler. James P. Levy argues against the outright condemnation of appeasement. "Knowing what Hitler did later", he writes, "the critics of Appeasement condemn the men who tried to keep the peace in the 1930s, men who could not know what would come later.... The political leaders responsible for Appeasement made many errors. They were not blameless. But what they attempted was logical, rational, and humane". The view of Chamberlain colluding with Hitler to attack the Soviet Union has persisted, however, particularly on the far left. In 1999, Christopher Hitchens wrote that Chamberlain "had made a cold calculation that Hitler should be re-armed... partly to encourage his 'tough-minded' solution to the Bolshevik problem in the East". Consciously encouraging war with Stalin is not widely accepted to be a motive of the Downing Street appeasers, but there is a historical consensus that anti-communism was central to appeasement's appeal for the conservative elite. As Antony Beevor writes, "The policy of appeasement was not Neville Chamberlin's invention. Its roots lay in a fear of bolshevism. The general strike of 1926 and the depression made the possibility of revolution a very real concern to conservative politicians. As a result, they had mixed feelings towards the German and Italian regimes which had crushed the communists and socialists in their own countries". Postwar politicians: Statesmen in the postwar years have often referred to their opposition to appeasement as a justification for firm, sometimes armed, action in international relations. United States: U.S. President Harry S. Truman thus explained his decision to enter the Korean War in 1950, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden in his confrontation of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Suez Crisis of 1956, U.S. President John F. Kennedy his "quarantine" of Cuba in 1962, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in his resistance to communism in Indochina in the 1960s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan in his air strike on Libya in 1986, and U.S.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

As a result, they had mixed feelings towards the German and Italian regimes which had crushed the communists and socialists in their own countries". Postwar politicians: Statesmen in the postwar years have often referred to their opposition to appeasement as a justification for firm, sometimes armed, action in international relations. United States: U.S. President Harry S. Truman thus explained his decision to enter the Korean War in 1950, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden in his confrontation of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Suez Crisis of 1956, U.S. President John F. Kennedy his "quarantine" of Cuba in 1962, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in his resistance to communism in Indochina in the 1960s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan in his air strike on Libya in 1986, and U.S. President Donald Trump in the drone strike that led to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Vietnam: After the Viet Minh won the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in a letter to British Prime Minister Churchill, "We failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time. That marked the beginning of many years of stark tragedy and desperate peril. May it not be that our nations have learned something from that lesson?" Similarly, President Lyndon Johnson said to defend the Vietnam War, "Everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon, then I'd be doing exactly what Chamberlain did in World War II. I'd be giving a big fat reward to aggression". Cuba: During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay and various hawks within the Kennedy administration for an air strike on Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba compared Kennedy's hesitance to do so to appeasement. That was partially a jab at Kennedy's father Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., who had supported appeasement while he was U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom and later supported a negotiated surrender to Germany during the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis and the Battle of Britain. Soviet Union: During the Cold War, the "lessons" of appeasement were cited by prominent conservative allies of Reagan, who urged him to be assertive in "rolling back" Soviet-backed regimes throughout the world. The Heritage Foundation's Michael Johns, for instance, wrote in 1987 that "seven years after Ronald Reagan's arrival in Washington, the United States government and its allies are still dominated by the culture of appeasement that drove Neville Chamberlain to Munich in 1938." Some conservatives even compared Reagan to Chamberlain after his withdrawal of the Multinational Force in Lebanon because of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Argentina: British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher invoked the example of Churchill during the Falklands War of 1982: "When the American Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, urged her to reach a compromise with the Argentines she rapped sharply on the table and told him, pointedly, 'that this was the table at which Neville Chamberlain sat in 1938 and spoke of the Czechs as a faraway people about whom we know so little'". Thatcher, along with U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, made similar arguments after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the planning for the Gulf War. The spectre of appeasement was raised in discussions of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Iraq: U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair also cited Churchill's warnings about German rearmament to justify their action in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War. Syria: In 2013, Obama administration officials such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel claimed that a failure of the United States to intervene in the Syrian Civil War after the Ghouta chemical attack would be an act of appeasement towards Bashar al-Assad. Iran: In May 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush cautioned against "the false comfort of appeasement" when dealing with Iran and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Opponents of President Barack Obama later criticized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as an act of appeasement with Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later stated that the Trump administration's foreign policy was "trying to correct for what was the Obama administration's appeasement of Iran." Islamism: The Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali demands a confrontational policy at the European level to meet the threat of radical Islam and compares policies of non-confrontation to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. China: Tibetan separatists consider the policy of the West towards the People's Republic of China with regard to Tibet as appeasement. Russia: The minimal international reactions to the invasion of Chechnya, the invasion of Georgia and the 2014 annexation of Crimea, as well as the conflict in the Donbas, which all stand in violation of international law, is seen by some as the cause that encouraged Russian president Vladimir Putin to conduct a full-scale invasion of the rest of Ukraine in 2022. Some commentators have suggested that some NATO countries are following the policy of appeasement towards Vladimir Putin's Russia by rejecting the support of Ukrainian democracy through military operations and aid during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. North Korea: Afghanistan: The 2020 Doha Agreement between the United States and the Taliban without involvement of the then Afghan government was criticized as the American appeasement of the Taliban. Over the American war in Afghanistan, the United States and its NATO allies (ISAF and RSM periods) along with the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its national defense and security forces warred against the Taliban and its allied militant groups and later the Islamic State – Khorasan Province. After Donald Trump become the president, he decided to wrap up all military operations in Afghanistan and to begin negotiation with the Taliban, which culminated with the Doha Agreement on 29 February 2020. After President Joe Biden decided to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan on 31 August 2021, the Taliban launched their final offensive of the war, which brought the fall of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, during which Kabul was taken over by the Taliban on 15 August 2021. The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan and the evacuation of American citizens and residents and at-risk Afghans from Kabul International Airport on 30 August 2021. Criticism: In the mid-20th century, appeasement was seen as discredited in the United Kingdom due to its role in contributing to World War II. Scholar Aaron McKeil pointed out that appeasement restraint against liberal interventionism would lead to more proxy wars, and fail to offer institutions and norms for mitigating great power conflict. Alternative strategies to avoid conflict include deterrence, where threats or limited force dissuades an actor from escalating conflict, typically because the prospective attacker believes that the probability of success is low and the costs of attack are high. Appeasement can be seen as promoting frozen conflicts and rewarding aggression. Appeasement might be more difficult to achieve if the source of conflict is indivisible and can be held by only one party, preventing small concessions. The case of peacebuilding in Timor-Leste can be seen as appeasement to avoid conflict without addressing underlying conflict grievances. The Minsk agreements have been called by some as appeasement, which subsequently failed to prevent the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Appeasement can face the dilemma where appeasing a group of former rebels can increase grievances with new groups. See also: Notes: References: Sources: Grant Duff, Sheila (1938). Europe and the Czechs. London: Penguin. Further reading: Historiography: Barros, Andrew, Talbot C. Imlay, Evan Resnick, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jack S. Levy. "Debating British Decision-making toward Nazi Germany in the 1930s." International Security 34#1 (2009): 173–98. online. Cole, Robert A. "Appeasing Hitler: The Munich Crisis of 1938: A Teaching and Learning Resource," New England Journal of History (2010) 66#2 pp. 1–30. Dimuccio, Ralph BA. "The study of appeasement in international relations: Polemics, paradigms, and problems." Journal of peace research 35.2 (1998): 245–259. Finney, Patrick. "The romance Of decline: The historiography of appeasement and British national identity." Electronic Journal of International History 1 (2000). online; comprehensive evaluation of the scholarship Hughes, R. Gerald. "The Ghosts of Appeasement: Britain and the Legacy of the Munich Agreement." Journal of Contemporary History (2013) 48#4 pp. 688–716. Record, Jeffrey. "Appeasement Reconsidered – Investigating the Mythology of the 1930s" (Strategic Studies Institute, 2005) online Roi, Michael. "Introduction: Appeasement: Rethinking the Policy and the Policy-Makers." Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.3 (2008): 383–390. Strang, G. Bruce.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Appeasement

Journal of peace research 35.2 (1998): 245–259. Finney, Patrick. "The romance Of decline: The historiography of appeasement and British national identity." Electronic Journal of International History 1 (2000). online; comprehensive evaluation of the scholarship Hughes, R. Gerald. "The Ghosts of Appeasement: Britain and the Legacy of the Munich Agreement." Journal of Contemporary History (2013) 48#4 pp. 688–716. Record, Jeffrey. "Appeasement Reconsidered – Investigating the Mythology of the 1930s" (Strategic Studies Institute, 2005) online Roi, Michael. "Introduction: Appeasement: Rethinking the Policy and the Policy-Makers." Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.3 (2008): 383–390. Strang, G. Bruce. "The spirit of Ulysses? Ideology and British appeasement in the 1930s." Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.3 (2008): 481–526. Van Tol, David. "History extension 2019: Constructing history case study: Appeasement." Teaching History 51.3 (2017): 35+. Walker, Stephen G. "Solving the Appeasement Puzzle: Contending Historical Interpretations of British Diplomacy during the 1930s." British Journal of International Studies 6#3 (1980): 219–46. online. Watt, D. C. "The Historiography of Appeasement", in Crisis and Controversy: Essays in Honour of A. J. P. Taylor, ed. A. Sked and C. Cook (London, 1976) External links: Media related to Appeasement at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Area denial weapon

Historical methods: Anti-cavalry: In medieval warfare, sturdy stakes were stuck into the ground at the bottom of long lines of ditches, positioned with a sharp end pointing up diagonally, in order to prevent cavalry charges in a given area. Even if the stakes were spotted, horsemen would be forced to dismount and effectively give up their advantage as cavalry, and become easier targets. The correct layout of these extensive lines of ditches and the control of stake size, form and placement were part of the craft of war. An alternative cavalry deterrent, allowing quicker dispersal and providing the advantage of being hidden more easily, was the deployment of, for example, small balls with spikes, used during most of antiquity. Many variants were used, such as boards with metal hooks, as described as used by Julius Caesar. A more modern version of this are caltrops. Passive fortification—ditches and obstacles such as dragon's teeth and Czech hedgehogs—were used as anti-tank measures during World War II. Anti-infantry: Simple rows or clusters of sharpened sticks (nowadays also known as punji sticks), and small caltrops have been used in anti-infantry warfare since antiquity. However, due to the difficulty of mass-producing them in the pre-modern age, they were rarely used except in the defense of limited areas or chokepoints, especially during sieges, where they were used to help seal breaches. Increasing ease of production still did not prevent these methods from slowly falling out of favor from the late Middle Ages onward. Caltrops are still sometimes used in modern conflicts, such as during the Korean War, where Chinese troops, often wearing only light shoes, were particularly vulnerable. In modern times, special caltrops are also sometimes used against wheeled vehicles with pneumatic tires. Some South American urban guerrillas such as the Tupamaros and Montoneros, who called them "miguelitos," have used caltrops to avoid pursuit after ambushes. Modern methods: Explosives: The most common area denial weapons are land mines of various types, planted by hand or dispersed by artillery. Some modern prototypes experiment with automatic guns or artillery-delivered ammunitions that are fired only after remote sensing detects enemies. Booby traps or improvised explosive devices in sufficient concentration also qualify as area denial weapons, though they are much easier to clear and usually pose less long-term danger. Temporary area denial can be achieved on a tactical level by artillery barrage. During an armed conflict there are several methods of countering land mines. These include using armored vehicles to negate the effects of anti-personnel land mines. Land mines can also be cleared either by hand, or by using specialised equipment such as tanks equipped with flails. Explosives can also be used to clear mine fields, either by artillery bombardment, or with specialised charges such as Bangalore torpedoes, the Antipersonnel Obstacle Breaching System and the Python Minefield Breaching System. 156 states are parties to the Ottawa Treaty under which they have agreed not to use, stockpile, produce or transfer anti-personnel mines. CBRNE agents: Various CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive) weapons can be used for area denial, as long as the agent is long-lasting. Fallout from nuclear weapons might be used in such a role. While never actually employed in this form, its use had been suggested by Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, who proposed spreading radioactive waste across transportation corridors to inhibit the movement of Chinese and North Korean forces. Anthrax spores can contaminate the ground for long periods of time, thus providing a form of area denial. However, the short-term (tactical) effects are likely to be low - the psychological effects on an opponent would likely be more significant. The massive use of defoliants such as Agent Orange can be used as an interdiction measure because they leave areas empty of any form of vegetation cover. In the desert-like terrain that ensues, it is impossible for the enemy to travel without being seen, and there is little cover in case of an attack, especially from the air. Many chemical weapons also produce toxic effects on any personnel in an affected area. However, this usually has no tactical value, as the effects of indirect exposure do not develop fast or substantially enough - though again, the psychological effect upon an enemy aware of the chemical usage may be considerable. There are however some chemical agents that are by design non-degrading, such as the nerve agent VX. Sulfur mustard (mustard gas) was extensively used by both German and allied forces on the west front in World War I as an effective area-denial weapon, usually through contaminating large land stripes by extensive shelling with HD/Gelbkreuz ordnance. Since sulfur mustard is very persistent, involatile, hard-to-decontaminate and highly effective in inflicting debilitating casualties at even low doses, this tactic proved to be very effective. Targeted: To address some of the problems with land-mines (see § Drawbacks), weapons manufacturers are now experimenting with area-denial weapons which need human command to operate. Such systems are usually envisioned as a combination of either explosives, pre-targeted artillery shelling or smartguns with remote sensing equipment (sound, vibration, sight/thermal). By not posing a long-term risk, and by having some level of IFF capability (automatic or human-decision-based), these systems aim to achieve compliance with the Ottawa Treaty, as for example the Metal Storm ADWS (Area Denial Weapons System). Drawbacks: As area denial weapons do not discriminate between friend, foe, or civilian, they make the affected zone hazardous for all trying to enter. Concepts for area denial weapons which do discriminate (by active sensing) have often been proposed, but have not yet reached a stage of general usefulness, due to their high complexity (and cost) and the risk of misidentification. Explosive-based area-denial weapons (mines) may be intentionally equipped with detonators which degrade over time, either exploding them or rendering them relatively harmless. Even in these cases, unexploded munitions often pose significant risk. See also: Active Denial System Anti-access/area denial Area Denial Artillery Munition Decontamination foam Denied area Scorched earth Sea denial Sentry gun Suppressive fire References: External links: Media related to Area denial weapons at Wikimedia Commons

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Area of responsibility

Area of operation: The Areas of Operation, or AOs, are areas that component and force commanders define as their tactical operability. It is also known as close battlespace. The commanders focus on establishing command and control in this area; which encompasses all aspects of fire support—naval gunfire, air and artillery superiority—in order to provide his ground forces the support they need. Also, the commander sets up force protection and supportive arms, such as logistics or reinforcements. The term "area of operations" has long been used in the United States Army, for the geographic areas of interest to much smaller units than the combatant commands. It has especially been used among U.S. Army Special Forces. The commander can choose to organize his AO so that his subordinates have contiguous or noncontiguous AOs: Contiguous AO—In a contiguous AO, all the subordinate commands' share one or more common boundary within supporting distance of one another in the battlespace. A commander may establish their battlespace in a reflection of linear operations, where there is a continuity and contiguous array of units across the area of operation (AO). Noncontiguous—A noncontiguous Area of Operation is one where one or more subordinate AOs do not share a common boundary. The commander establishes noncontiguous AOs when a more likely situation is one where the task force conducts non-linear operations within a noncontiguous battlespace and within an operational framework with noncontiguous deep, close, and rear areas. Operation Restore Hope in Somalia during 1992–1993, is an example of a battlefield framework with noncontiguous areas. The United States' Marine Air-Ground Task Forces' (MAGTF) rear area was centered around the separate sites of the embassy compound, port, and airfield in the city of Mogadishu, while its close area was widely scattered around the towns and villages of the interior that were occupied by the MAGTF. The MAGTF's deep area included the rest of the country and particularly those population and relief centers not under the joint force commander's supervision. Areas of influence: In an area of influence, the component or force commander assigns subordinate units to conduct missions in and out of this area. Communication is key, either for reconnaissance to report intelligence or fire support for ground forces. Sometimes known as distant battlespace, it is useful to the force commander as a tool in assigning subordinate areas of operations and in focusing intelligence collection and information operations to shape the battlespace to facilitate future operations. Today's area of influence may be tomorrow's AO. Area of interest: The key term area of interest specifies areas of interest to the component or force commander; the location of friendly and enemy forces, and the capabilities that may be an advantage, the infrastructure, and key terrain that concern the commander. The size of the area of interest normally exceeds the commander's operational reach, which mainly focuses within the scope of deep operations. While the area of interest includes the AO and area of influence, the area of interest may stretch far beyond the other parts of a commander's battlespace. A commander may also have areas of interest around airbases in other countries neighboring the task force's AO. See also: List of U.S. government and military acronyms == References ==

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armistice

International law: Under international law, an armistice is a legal agreement (often in a document) that ends fighting between the "belligerent parties" of a war or conflict. At the Hague Convention of 1899, three treaties were agreed and three declarations made. The Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land stated, "If [the armistice's] duration is not fixed," the parties may resume fighting (Article 36) as they choose but with proper notifications. That is in comparison to a "fixed duration" armistice in which the parties may renew fighting only at the end of the particular fixed duration. When the belligerent parties say in effect that "this armistice completely ends the fighting" without any end date for the armistice, the duration of the armistice is fixed in the sense that no resumption of the fighting is allowed at any time. For example, the Korean Armistice Agreement calls for a "ceasefire and armistice" and has the "objective of establishing an armistice which will ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved." Armistice Day: Armistice Day (which coincides with Remembrance Day and Veterans Day, public holidays) is commemorated every year on 11 November to mark the Armistice of 11 November 1918 signed between the Allies of World War I and the German Empire at Compiègne, France, for the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front of World War I, which took effect at eleven o'clock in the morning, the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918. Most countries changed the name of the holiday after World War II to honor veterans of that and subsequent conflicts. Most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations adopted the name Remembrance Day, and the United States chose Veterans Day. Early modern history: Armistice of Copenhagen of 1537 ended the Danish war known as the Count's Feud Armistice of Stuhmsdorf of 1635 between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden Peace of Westphalia of 1648 that ended the Thirty Years' War and Eighty Years' War 20th century: References: External links: "Allied Armistice Terms, 11 November 1918". The War to End All Wars. FirstWorldWar.com. Archived from the original on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-04. The Expanded Cease-Fires Data Set Code Book (Emory University)

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armored warfare

World War I: Modern armored warfare began during the First World War of 1914–1918. Strategists wanted to break the tactical, operational and strategic stalemates forced on commanders on the Western Front by the effectiveness of entrenched defensive infantry armed with machine guns – known as trench warfare. Under these conditions, attacks usually advanced very slowly and incurred massive casualties. The developers of tanks aimed to return manoeuvre to warfare, and found a practical way to do so: providing caterpillar traction to machine guns allowing them to overcome trenches, while at the same time offering them armour protection against small arms as they were moving. Britain and France first developed tanks in 1915 as a way of navigating the barbed wire and other obstacles of no-man's land while remaining protected from machine-gun fire. British Mark I tanks first went into action at the Somme on 15 September 1916, but did not manage to break the deadlock of trench warfare. The first French employment of tanks, on 16 April 1917, using the Schneider CA, also failed to live up to expectations. In the Battle of Cambrai (November to December 1917) British tanks were more successful, and broke a German trenchline system, the Hindenburg Line. Despite the generally unpromising beginnings, the military and political leadership in both Britain and France during 1917 backed large investment into armoured-vehicle production. This led to a sharp increase in the number of available tanks for 1918. The German Empire, on the contrary, produced only a few tanks, late in the war. Twenty German A7V tanks were produced during the entire conflict, compared to over 4,400 French and over 2,500 British tanks of various kinds. Nonetheless, World War I saw the first tank-versus-tank battle, during the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux in April 1918, when a group of three German A7V tanks engaged a group of three British Mark IV tanks which they met accidentally. After the final German spring offensives of 21 March to 18 July 1918, the Entente deployed tanks en masse at the Battle of Soissons (18 to 22 July 1918) and Battle of Amiens (August 1918), which ended the stalemate imposed by trench warfare on the Western Front, and thus effectively ended the war. Tactically, deployment plans for armour during the war typically placed a strong emphasis on direct support for infantry. The tank's main tasks were seen as crushing barbed-wire and destroying machine-gun nests, facilitating the advance of foot soldiers. Theoretical debate largely focused on the question of whether to use a "swarm" of light tanks for this, or a limited number of potent heavy vehicles. Though in the Battle of Cambrai a large concentration of British heavy tanks effected a breakthrough, it was not exploited by armour. The manoeuvrability of the tank should at least in theory regain armies the ability to flank enemy lines. In practice, tank warfare during most of World War I was hampered by the technical immaturity of the new weapon system, limiting speed, operational range, and reliability, and a lack of effective armoured tactics. Strategic use of tanks developed only slowly during and immediately after World War I, partly due to these technical limits but also due to the prestige role traditionally accorded to horse-mounted cavalry. An exception, on paper, was the Plan 1919 of the British Army's Colonel J. F. C. Fuller, who envisaged using the expected vast increase in armour production during 1919 to execute deep strategic penetrations by mechanised forces consisting of tanks and infantry carried by trucks, supported by aeroplanes, to paralyse the enemy command-structure. Following the First World War, the technical and doctrinal aspects of armoured warfare became more sophisticated and diverged into multiple schools of doctrinal thought. Interwar period: 1920s: During the 1920s, a very limited number of tanks were produced. There were however, important theoretical and technical developments. Various British and French commanders who had contributed to the origin of the tank, such as Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, B. H. Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller, theorised about a possible future use of independent armoured forces, containing a large concentration of tanks, to execute deep strategic penetrations. Especially Liddell Hart wrote many books about the subject, partly propagating Fuller's theories. Such doctrines were faced with the reality that during the 1920s the armoured vehicles, as early road transport in general, were extremely unreliable, and could not be used in sustained operations. Mainstream thought on the subject was more conservative and tried to integrate armoured vehicles into the existing infantry and cavalry organisation and tactics. Technical development initially focussed on the improvement of the suspension system, transmission and engine, to create vehicles that were faster, more reliable and had a better range than their WW I predecessors. To save weight, such designs had thin armour plating and this inspired fitting small-calibre high-velocity guns in turrets, giving tanks a good antitank capacity. Both France and Britain eventually built specialised infantry tanks, more heavily armoured to provide infantry support, and cavalry tanks that were faster and could exploit a breakthrough, seeking to bring about defeat of the enemy by severing his lines of communication and supply, as cavalry had done during the previous century. The British were the first to create a larger fully mechanised unit when the War Office sanctioned the creation of the Experimental Mechanized Force, which was formed on 1 May 1927, under infantry Colonel R. J. Collins, after Fuller (was) refused the function. Its sub-units were entirely mobile and consisted of reconnaissance tankettes and armoured cars, a battalion of forty-eight Vickers Medium Mark I tanks, a motorised machine-gun battalion, a mechanised artillery regiment, which had one battery of fully tracked self-propelled Birch guns capable of acting as conventional or anti-aircraft artillery, and a motorised company of field engineers. The unit carried out operations on Salisbury Plain and was observed by the other major nations, the United States, Germany, and the Soviet Union. Although its performance was recognised, it was disbanded in 1928. In 2022, Kendrick Kuo, assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College, argued that the British army, under budget and over-stretched during the interwar period, pursued innovation recklessly by betting on the combat effectiveness of armoured units operating with little infantry or artillery support. Doing so led to its initial setbacks in North Africa during the Second World War. All major European states (with the exception of Germany that was forbidden to possess armoured vehicles under the Treaty of Versailles), the US, and Japan, would create their own experimental mechanised forces during the late 1920s, many using either French or British vehicle designs or even directly purchased vehicles, but largely borrowing from both to develop their own doctrines. 1930s: During the 1930s, political tensions between the world powers quickly increased. The Soviet Union and France began to rearm in the early thirties. In the Soviet Union, the mechanisation of the armed forces was part of a massive general industrialisation programme, the successive Five Years Plans, and the country soon had more tanks than the rest of the world combined, thousands of them being produced per year. In this period, before the rise to power of the Nazi Party in Germany, German officers were sent to observe and participate in development of armoured doctrine in the USSR. Red Army and German experts collaborated in developing the use of tanks based on second generation vehicles with turreted main weapons, and experimenting to design different chassis configurations and drive trains. One important acquisition for the Red Army turned out to be the purchase of a T3 chassis, using the Christie suspension, from US designer John Walter Christie, which served as the basis of the Soviet BT series of fast tanks. The Red Army tactics were influenced by the theoretical works of Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky who advocated "large scale tank warfare" as part of the deep battle doctrine. In France, the second largest tank producer, mechanisation was motivated by a need to compensate for severe manpower shortages due to a collapsed birth rate during World War I. This led to the development of a vast range of specialised armoured vehicles, not just tanks but also armoured cars, self-propelled guns, mechanised artillery, armoured tractors, armoured supply vehicles, armoured artillery observation vehicles, armoured command vehicles, half-tracks, and fully tracked armoured personnel carriers. As the mechanisation progressed, slowly the French armour doctrine began to reflect the increased capacity, evolving from direct infantry support, to independent breakthrough and eventually envelopment with the Infantry, and to deep strategic exploitation with the Cavalry. Despite the increase in tank numbers, in all countries financial constraints prohibited a full mechanisation of the entire armed ground forces. Necessarily, most of the divisions still consisted of infantry that was not even motorised. As a result, tanks tended to be allotted to special armoured units, where the limited and expensive expert maintenance and training capacity could be concentrated. Only the Soviet Union had enough tanks to equip an organic tank battalion in each infantry division. Nevertheless, France was the first to create large armoured units: in 1934 two Mechanised Corps were formed of 430 tanks each. In July 1935, in France the 4th Cavalry Division was transformed into the 1e Division Légère Mécanique, the first French armoured division of the Cavalry.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armored warfare

Despite the increase in tank numbers, in all countries financial constraints prohibited a full mechanisation of the entire armed ground forces. Necessarily, most of the divisions still consisted of infantry that was not even motorised. As a result, tanks tended to be allotted to special armoured units, where the limited and expensive expert maintenance and training capacity could be concentrated. Only the Soviet Union had enough tanks to equip an organic tank battalion in each infantry division. Nevertheless, France was the first to create large armoured units: in 1934 two Mechanised Corps were formed of 430 tanks each. In July 1935, in France the 4th Cavalry Division was transformed into the 1e Division Légère Mécanique, the first French armoured division of the Cavalry. In Germany, after the Nazi Regime started open rearmament in March 1935, on 15 October 1935 three Panzerdivisionen were formed. Though some tank brigades were part of the Cavalry or Infantry arm, most German tanks were concentrated into a special branch, from 1936 called the Panzerwaffe. The precise interpretation of this phenomenon has proven controversial among military historians. Traditionally, it has been seen as part of a "Blitzkrieg strategy" of swift world conquest by means of armoured forces. Later it has been argued, among others by Karl-Heinz Frieser, that the German army in the 1930s did not even possess an explicit Blitzkrieg tactical doctrine, let alone strategy. This would have been reflected by the relatively unimpressive rate of tank production and development. During the 1930s the United Kingdom gave priority to the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. The British Army began the conversion of its cavalry from horse to tanks and all but a few regiments were fully converted by 1939. The British 1st Armoured Division was formed, as the "Mobile Division", in November 1937. Before the Second World War actual use of armoured fighting vehicles was limited. Both sides used Italian, German and Soviet tanks during the Spanish Civil War but these proved to be vulnerable to antitank guns due to their thin armour. Traditionalist elements within the Red Army used this to diminish the influence of proponents of mechanisation. Tukhachevsky himself was executed in 1937. Nevertheless, during the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars of 1938 and 1939, the Soviet forces tested modern armoured warfare tactics. General Georgy Zhukov in the summer of 1939 combined mass tank manoeuvres with artillery and air attacks, to defeat the Japanese Imperial Army at the Battles of Khalkhin Gol at Nomonhan in Mongolia. Partly as a result of the experiences in Spain, the Soviet Union began the development of a new generation of medium and heavy tanks, sporting much stronger armour and armament. World War II: Poland: In their Invasion of Poland during September 1939, German forces applied a narrow cooperation between large armoured units – of the Panzerwaffe and the Cavalry – and "active" infantry divisions to break the Polish defensive lines and pursue the defeated enemy forces. The more limited and dispersed Polish armoured units were quickly destroyed. The Red Army, invading the east of Poland, also deployed armoured divisions. At the time, the swift collapse of the Polish army was seen as the result of an armoured Blitzkrieg. However, later it has been argued that the campaign was largely an instance of the classical nineteenth century German concept of the "Annihilation Battle", in which the role of deep strategic armoured penetrations was limited. France: In the wake of the Polish campaign, during the Phoney War French, British and German tank production sharply increased, with both western allies out-producing Germany. However, the Anglo-French coalition proved unable to match the Germans in the number of armoured divisions, as it was impossible to quickly raise such large units. Though the French possessed a superior number of tanks, often better armoured and armed, half of these were allotted at army-level to independent Bataillons de Chars de Combat ("battle tank battalions") for infantry support. In early 1940, the German command had concluded that it could not win a war of attrition and embarked on a high-risk strategy. They approved the Manstein Plan, envisaging an advance through the Ardennes by the main mass of German infantry divisions, spearheaded by seven armoured divisions, while the main mobile French reserve consisting of three Cavalry armoured divisions (Divisions Légères Mécaniques or Mechanised Light Divisions) – the only armoured units organised on the lines of the German armoured divisions – would be lured into the Low Countries by a feint attack with a lesser force, including three armoured divisions. In May 1940, during the Battle of France, the German feint resulted in a number of undecided armour engagements, among them the Battle of Hannut, the largest tank battle fought until that date. At the same time, German motorised infantry west of the Ardennes forced the crossings over the river Meuse, assisted by massive carpet bombing of the crossing points. In the original plan, the armoured divisions were again supposed to closely cooperate with the infantry divisions. In reality, armour commanders like Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian immediately broke out of the bridgeheads, initiating a drive towards the English Channel, which was reached within a week. The French reserve of four Infantry armoured divisions, the Divisions cuirassées, lacked sufficient strategic mobility to prevent this. The strategic envelopment surrounded the Belgian army, the British Expeditionary Force and the best French troops. It led to the Evacuation of Dunkirk and the ultimate fall of France in operation Fall Rot. The spectacular and unexpected success not only caused a sudden change in the global geostrategic situation, gaining Germany a position of hegemony on the European continent, but also seemed to vindicate the theories of Fuller and Liddell-Hart. Confronted with the undeniable potential of armoured manoeuvre warfare, from the summer of 1940 onwards the armed forces of all surviving major powers adapted their tactical doctrine, unit organisation, strategic planning and tank production plans. According to Frieser, this was even true for Germany itself, that only now officially adopted Blitzkrieg tactics. North African theatre: In the deserts of North Africa, the British developed the alternative approach of combining the armoured, infantry and artillery together to form a 'balanced, combined arms team'. The 10th Italian Army of Maresciallo (Marshal) Rodolfo Graziani, being ill-armed and inadequately led, soon gave way to this approach by the Commonwealth troops of the British Western Desert Force. The arrival of the German Afrika Korps under command of General der Panzertruppe Erwin Rommel highlighted the weaknesses of the British approach: the small number of infantry and artillery in each armoured division was sufficient when attacking the immobile and uncoordinated Italian troops, but against the highly mobile, well-coordinated German units, the undermanned Commonwealth formations were proving inadequate. Between 1941 and 1942, the Allies struggled in armoured battles in the North African desert due to improper tactics; in particular, running armoured formations into opposing anti-tank positions; however, they achieved some notable successes at Crusader, 1st Alamein and under Montgomery finally achieved decisive victories, in particular at the Second Battle of El Alamein. In 2022, Kendrick Kuo, assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote that due to factors emanating from the interwar period, the British army in North Africa initially operated their armoured units with little infantry or artillery support. Meanwhile, the Germans had integrated their armour with mechanised infantry and artillery. Only after undoing their misplaced emphasis on armour were the British able to restore their combat effectiveness. Soviet Union: Pre-war: Much of the Red Army development in tank use was based on the theoretical work carried out by such officers as Tukhachevsky and Triandafillov in the mid to late 1930s. This was as part of the two-directioned concepts, one being infantry-centred "broad front" and the other being a "shock army". While the infantry based part of the doctrine demanded "powerful tanks" (heavy tanks armed with infantry guns and machineguns) and "tankettes" (light, often amphibious tanks with machineguns), the shock army demanded "manoeuvre tanks" (fast tanks with medium guns) used in conjunction with motorised forces and "mechanised cavalry" that would operate in depth as "strategic cavalry" combined with nascent airborne troops. These ideas culminated in the "PU-36" or the 1936 Field Service Regulations. Wartime: At the start of the Second World War much of the Red Army, including its armoured forces, was in transition and recovering from the 1937 repression of the officer corps. The Red Army ignored the lessons from Nomonhan, which had been successfully conducted by General Zhukov, and relied instead on lessons from politically selected officers who were veterans of the Spanish Civil War. The result was a poor showing during the Winter War. The Red Army tank fleet was extremely large, consisting of some 24,000 vehicles, but many were obsolete or unfit for service due to difficulties with supplying spare parts and lack of qualified support staff.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armored warfare

These ideas culminated in the "PU-36" or the 1936 Field Service Regulations. Wartime: At the start of the Second World War much of the Red Army, including its armoured forces, was in transition and recovering from the 1937 repression of the officer corps. The Red Army ignored the lessons from Nomonhan, which had been successfully conducted by General Zhukov, and relied instead on lessons from politically selected officers who were veterans of the Spanish Civil War. The result was a poor showing during the Winter War. The Red Army tank fleet was extremely large, consisting of some 24,000 vehicles, but many were obsolete or unfit for service due to difficulties with supplying spare parts and lack of qualified support staff. One important development took place shortly before the war, which influenced Soviet armoured doctrine and tank design for a decade: the creation of the T-34. Developed on the Christie suspension chassis and using sloped armour for the first time, the T-34 proved a shock to the German forces in the first German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. The T-34 had an excellent combination of mobility, protection and firepower. Using wide tracks, the T-34 was also able to negotiate terrain in difficult weather conditions, something that persistently dogged the German designs. Assessing the success of the German Blitzkrieg strategy, operational methods and tactics, the Red Army concluded that it should return to the use of operational methods developed before the war, so the Tank Armies were eventually created. To complement the T-34, heavy tanks, self-propelled artillery, and tank destroyers were also designed. The Red Army's armoured forces were used in concentrations during all strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, initiated under strict secrecy and using the Principle of Surprise. Germany: In Germany, in-depth research through theoretical approaches, wargaming and exercises developed a confidence within the Panzertruppe itself (and political support by Hitler) in the armoured formation as the key battlefield formation – although this view was before 1940 not shared by the other Arms of Service. A key part of this doctrine was improved communications by having radios in all tanks, although this ideal suffered from technical limits as most tanks had receiver sets only. At the outbreak of World War II, the German armoured forces benefited from a much more profound and more flexible training than that of the Allies on the tactical and operational level. German tanks operated while directed by radio communication, which allowed tank commanders to take greater advantage of the manoeuvrability of their vehicles. Even after the conquest of Poland, "Blitzkrieg" was not defined on the strategic level. Guderian and von Manstein devised a strategy that entailed what later would be seen as the essence of Blitzkrieg: concentrated panzer divisions performing swift deep penetrations. This strategy was not initially accepted by German High Command. Nevertheless, the final plans for the invasion of France in 1940 hinged on the element of a Schwerpunkt at Sedan, and was assigned to such forces. The great success of this operation led to Blitzkrieg being integrated with strategic planning for the rest of the war. German tanks could carry with them enough fuel and supplies to go almost two hundred kilometers, and enough food to last three to nine days. This relative independence from supply lines proved effective, and allowed them to advance on critical targets much faster and without hesitation. Another factor was the ability of commanders to make strategic decisions in the field and without much consultation with their headquarters, the orders of which were often simply ignored. A prime example is Erwin Rommel's lead-from-the-front approach while commanding 7.Panzer-Division which allowed him a flexible response to the battlefield situation, an instance of the Auftragstaktik (reliance on subordinates to make their own decisions). The effect of German Panzer's speed, mobility, and communication shocked the French, and ultimately were the deciding factors in the battle. It overcame their inferiority in armour and armament relative to the main French materiel such as the Char B1 bis. The superior tactical and operational praxis, combined with an appropriate strategic implementation, enabled the Germans to defeat forces superior in armour (both quantitatively and qualitatively) in the battles of 1940, but just as Blitzkrieg became a deliberate military doctrine, in 1941, it ultimately failed on the eastern front, though initially attaining spectacular successes. Before the war, Heinz Guderian had in his Achtung–Panzer! propounded a thorough mechanisation of the German forces. By 1942, increased AFV-production allowed a fuller implementation of this ideal. Now extensive armoured combined arms team could be formed, distinct from a purely infantry or cavalry formation. The panzer divisions integrated tanks with mechanised infantry (riding in halftracks to be protected from small-arms fire while being transported) and self-propelled artillery (howitzers fitted on a tank chassis). This allowed the panzer division to become an independent combat force, in principle able to overcome the problems of attaining a breakthrough against entrenched enemy infantry, equipped with large numbers of antitank-guns, with the potential to completely halt tank assaults inflicting devastating losses to armoured units without infantry support. However, much of the AFV production was increasingly diverted away from the Panzertruppe. The Artillery formed its own Sturmgeschütz units and infantry divisions were given their own Panzerjäger companies. Despite lowering their formal organic strength, from the summer of 1943 onwards, the armoured divisions were structurally short of tanks. United States: Though the U.S. had established the Tank Corps in World War I using French Renault FT light tanks and British Mark V and Mark V* heavy tanks, and some officers like Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton, Jr. emerged from that war initially as avid proponents of continuing and developing an American armoured force, the rapid reduction of the forces and apathy and even antipathy towards funding and maintaining armed forces in the inter-war years led to relative stagnation of armoured doctrine in the United States. Adna R. Chaffee, Jr., virtually alone, advocated for the future of armoured warfare and the development of appropriate training, equipment and doctrine during the late 1920s through the 1930s. The United States Army regarded the French Army as the best army in Europe, and consequently the U.S. Army frequently copied French uniforms (the American Civil War) and aeroplanes. Only when France was rapidly overrun in 1940 did the U.S. Army become "shocked" into re-thinking the influences by the perceived actions of German tanks in the 1939 Polish Campaign. Its Armored Combat Arm was not created until 1940 when the Armored Force was born on 10 July 1940, with the Headquarters, Armor Force and the Headquarters, I Armored Corps established at Fort Knox. On July 15, 1940, the 7th Cavalry Brigade (Mechanised) became the 1st Armored Division; the 7th Provisional Tank Brigade, an infantry tank unit at Fort Benning, became the 2nd Armored Division". The Tank Battalion was established at Fort Meade, Md., and a small Armored Force School was also established. Under this doctrine, U.S. tank crews of both armoured divisions and GHQ tank battalions were taught to fight tanks in tank on tank engagements. Armoured force personnel during and after the war criticised the infantry for using the GHQ tank battalions assigned to infantry divisions strictly as infantry support. Tank destroyers: The U.S. combined arms team included air support, artillery, engineers, and a tank component supplemented by tank destroyers formed into independent tank destroyer battalions. The latter is most closely identified with the Chief of Army Ground Forces, Lesley J. McNair. Having studied the early German successes McNair came under the belief that U.S. forces would be faced with fast moving enemy forces who would seek to bypass, isolate and reduce U.S. forces in a replay of the Fall of France. To stem the flood of marauding panzers, fast moving powerfully armed tank destroyer battalions were created to be held back and used in the counter-attack. It was also calculated that U.S. interests would be better served by large numbers of reliable (battle-worthiness) medium tanks rather than a smaller number of unreliable heavy tanks. It was decided therefore to slow the production of the U.S. heavy tank designs such as the M26 Pershing and concentrate resources on mass-producing the M4 Sherman and tank destroyers such as the M18 Hellcat. To be able get into position to counter-attack, the tank destroyers had to be fast. To achieve the desired mobility and agility from the engines available the armour protection was sacrificed, a measure of protection coming from being nimble and hopefully from being able to knock out the enemy before they could get a shot in. Although they usually had guns of either 75 mm or 76 mm calibre (the M36 used a 90mm calibre gun), the tank destroyer units were issued with the ancestor of the modern armour-piercing discarding sabot, rounds which made their guns much more powerful than a simple comparison of calibres would suggest. Japan: The Japanese doctrine was mainly French in concept but with some purely Japanese elements.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armored warfare

It was decided therefore to slow the production of the U.S. heavy tank designs such as the M26 Pershing and concentrate resources on mass-producing the M4 Sherman and tank destroyers such as the M18 Hellcat. To be able get into position to counter-attack, the tank destroyers had to be fast. To achieve the desired mobility and agility from the engines available the armour protection was sacrificed, a measure of protection coming from being nimble and hopefully from being able to knock out the enemy before they could get a shot in. Although they usually had guns of either 75 mm or 76 mm calibre (the M36 used a 90mm calibre gun), the tank destroyer units were issued with the ancestor of the modern armour-piercing discarding sabot, rounds which made their guns much more powerful than a simple comparison of calibres would suggest. Japan: The Japanese doctrine was mainly French in concept but with some purely Japanese elements. Due to Japan's naval priorities in warship construction and inter-service feuds (the marine branch of the IJN favoured all-around protective armour) IJA tanks were lightly armoured. As with most armour during the 1930s, the main guns were small in calibre: 37 mm for their Type 95 light tanks and 47 mm for the Type 97 medium tank, but this was sometimes compensated by a high muzzle velocity. The IJA's use of tanks in China exemplifies its doctrine: light tanks were used for scouting or acted as mobile infantry support, while medium tanks supported the infantry and assaulted deeper objectives, but did not fight en masse. In 1939, the Japanese Army engaged Soviet armour at Nomonhan. During the three-month-long war, Japanese armour had shown their weakness against Soviet tanks; and the resulting Japanese defeat prompted a series of complaints by the Imperial Army to incorporate improvements in future Japanese armour. This is the primary reason IJA tanks were not as successful while being used with IJA tactics. The tank forces of the U.S. Army consisted of the M2A4 and M3 Stuart light tanks up until 1941, although these vehicles were five years newer than the 1935 built Type 95's, the IJA and U.S. light tanks were comparable to each other, and seemingly performed well for their respective forces during jungle combat operations; during their phase of World War II. As with all armour, maintenance was a continuous challenge; especially in tropical environments. When IJA and SNLF (Imperial marines) tanks did clash with the enemy they were quickly destroyed by concealed anti-tank guns or overwhelming numbers of hostile tanks. Japan was a naval power, and concentrated its production on warships, thus placing a low priority on armoured vehicle development, its tanks becoming quickly obsolete during the later years of the war. A number of designs that were equal to heavier foreign types were on the drawing board at the beginning of the war, but would only be built in small numbers towards the end, being placed in reserve, to be deployed for the defence of Japan itself. China: The Republic of China's National Revolutionary Army's 200th Division was the country's only mechanised division during the war. The 200th used pre-war tanks acquired from Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union. After 1945: Indo-Pakistani wars: Arab–Israeli wars: The conflict between Arab nations in the East Mediterranean region and Israel in particular would serve to become a testing ground for development in armoured warfare during the decades of the Cold War. Both sides in the Arab–Israeli series of conflicts made heavy use of tanks and other armoured vehicles due to the practicality of tanks in the desert environment these conflicts largely took place in. During the 1956 Suez War and Six-Day War (1967), Israeli armoured units typically had the advantage, mainly due to good tactics and unit cohesion. Conversely, the Yom Kippur War (1973) illustrated the problems that can arise if armoured and infantry units do not work closely together. Israeli tanks, operating independently in large numbers, were decimated by Egyptian anti-tank teams, well-distributed amongst regular infantry, and often equipped with new, first-generation portable anti-tank guided missiles. This is an extreme example but exemplifies what has been fairly thoroughly documented since the Second World War: tanks and infantry work best by taking advantage of each other's strengths and combining to minimise the weaknesses. In many conflicts, it was usual to see infantry riding on the back of tanks, ready to jump off and provide support when necessary. Unfortunately, the design of many modern tanks makes this a dangerous practice. The turboshaft-powered M1 Abrams, for example, has such hot exhaust gas that nearby infantry have to be careful where they stand. Tanks can also be very vulnerable to well aimed artillery; well-coordinated air support and counter-battery artillery units can help overcome this. Emergence of guided missiles: While attempts to defeat the tank were made before and during the Second World War, through the use of conventional high velocity anti-tank artillery, this proved increasingly difficult in the post-war period due to increased armour protection and mobility of tanks. In response, the Soviet Union, the country with the largest armoured fleet in the world, strove to incorporate some anti-tank capability into almost every infantry weapon. By the 1960s, Soviet defense scientists were designing portable anti-tank guided missiles. These new weapons were to be either carried by infantry, or fired from the newly developed BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle. They were in use with Soviet forces before the end of the decade. In 1973, the Israeli Army failed to anticipate the importance of these new weapon systems. Hundreds of AT-3 Sagger man-portable anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), supplied to Egypt by the Soviet Union and could be operated by infantry without having extensive training, inflicted heavy losses on the Israeli armoured formations. Since then, ATGMs have played an important role within the Israeli Army, having developed advanced domestic-made versions (see Spike/Gil missile), which have been widely exported throughout the world. In the recent 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, while Israeli infantry were able to easily defeat opposing ATGM teams, tanks operating on their own suffered several hits from the latest advanced Russian tandem-warhead types (such as the Kornet). This highlighted that tanks operating solely, in the era of ATGMs, are extremely vulnerable. Responding to the serious tank losses suffered against Hezbollah, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in cooperation with Israel Aircraft Industries developed a missile defence system for tanks, called Trophy, to intercept and destroy anti tank missiles. The system was successfully deployed in combat on March 1, 2011, when it intercepted an anti tank missile during an engagement on the Gaza border. NATO: During the Cold War, NATO assumed armoured warfare to be a dominant aspect of conventional ground warfare in Europe. Although the use of light tanks was largely discontinued, and heavy tanks were also mostly abandoned, the medium tank design evolved into heavier models due to increase in armour and larger sized main weapon resulting in the main battle tank (MBT) which came into existence, combining most of the different types of tanks during World War II. For the most part the NATO armoured doctrine remained defensive, and dominated by use of nuclear weapons as deterrence. Although most NATO nations began the Cold War period with a large number of U.S.-designed tanks in their fleets, there was a considerable degree of disagreement on the design of future MBTs among the NATO major nations. Both the U.S. and Germany experimented with, but abandoned the missile-armed MBT-70. The M26 Pershing basic design of the United States would evolve until the M60 main battle tank was replaced with the gas-turbine powered M1 Abrams in the 1980s. The British Army also retained a World War II tank design, the Centurion, which proved to be highly successful and was not fully replaced until the 1970s. The West German Bundeswehr decided to develop their own tank in the 1960s, and in the 1970s produced the Leopard I, which was a somewhat lighter design, conforming to German doctrine that emphasised speed over protection. From the same initial collaborative project as the Leopard I, the French series of AMX tanks also emphasised manoeuvre over protection. By the 21st century, most advanced western main battle tanks were built around powerful engines, large 120 mm guns and composite armour. Warsaw Pact: The Warsaw Pact armoured doctrine was substantially influenced by the developments in the Soviet Army which sought to adopt its existing doctrine evolved during World War II to the nuclear battlefield. In the early 1960s this led to a number of important developments in the armoured forces and their supporting Arms. One important development was the transition of the Second World War use of Cavalry-Mechanised Group (CMG) into the Cold War Operational Manoeuvre Group (OMG) that was designed to exploit breakthroughs to penetrate NATO's defences in depth. This was a culmination of the Deep Battle theory dating to the 1930s. In 1964 a significant breakthrough in tank design was achieved in the Soviet Union when the T-64 was produced which for the first time used an automatic loader, reducing the crew of the tank to three crewmen. Subsequently, this model, and the later T-72 and T-80 tanks introduced further innovations that influenced armoured warfare by introducing guided missiles into the tank ammunition mix, allowing ATGW fire from standard tank guns.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armored warfare

In the early 1960s this led to a number of important developments in the armoured forces and their supporting Arms. One important development was the transition of the Second World War use of Cavalry-Mechanised Group (CMG) into the Cold War Operational Manoeuvre Group (OMG) that was designed to exploit breakthroughs to penetrate NATO's defences in depth. This was a culmination of the Deep Battle theory dating to the 1930s. In 1964 a significant breakthrough in tank design was achieved in the Soviet Union when the T-64 was produced which for the first time used an automatic loader, reducing the crew of the tank to three crewmen. Subsequently, this model, and the later T-72 and T-80 tanks introduced further innovations that influenced armoured warfare by introducing guided missiles into the tank ammunition mix, allowing ATGW fire from standard tank guns. The Soviet Union was also one of the countries that used two Main Battle Tanks: The high-quality T-80s and lower quality T-72s. Modern Soviet tanks, like the ones mentioned, are typically armed with 125 mm (5 in) smooth bore guns. Advancements in Soviet tanks include improved Fire Control Systems, strong armour protected by ERA, and defensive countermeasures (such as Shtora-1 and Arena). The most advanced Soviet tank, up until the end of the Cold War, was the T-80U, which shared similar characteristics with the M1A1(Turbine engine, advanced Fire Control Systems, strong armour, and firepower) Infantry fighting vehicles were first developed in the 1960s with the Soviet Union's BMP-1, for the first time allowing supporting infantry to accompany tanks on a battlefield when nuclear weapon use was expected. The T-64s and BMP-1s were also joined by the self-propelled guns and more importantly Mi-24 Rotary-wing aircraft capable of firing anti-tank missiles entering production in 1970 which were built and theorised as "flying tanks". The Soviet tank troops, as they were known in the USSR, included armoured units, armoured training regiments and other formations and units. Vietnam War: M113 armoured personnel carriers proved effective in the terrain of Vietnam against enemy forces which, until 1968, rarely deployed their armour. Though they were soon countered with mines and RPGs, M-113's continued service during the war, primarily evolving into infantry fighting vehicles, known as the ACAV (Armoured Cavalry Assault Vehicle); and functioning as a "light tank." More heavily armed infantry fighting vehicles such as the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle would be based on experience with the M113. Gun trucks were also introduced as M35 trucks fitted with armour and guns to protect convoys. In 1968, Communist forces primarily deployed the Soviet built PT-76 light tank. By 1971, the larger T-54 medium tanks were fielded, proving themselves susceptible to the M-72 LAW rocket, ARVN M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks, as well as the larger M48A3 Pattons. In January 1969, U.S. armoured cavalry units began exchanging their M48A3 Patton tanks for the M551 Sheridan Armoured Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicles; by 1970 over 200 Sheridan tanks were operating in Vietnam. 21st century: Tanks rarely work alone; the usual minimum unit size is a platoon (a platoon is the smallest U.S. Army/Marine unit led by an officer, and a component of a company or troop) of three to five tanks. The tanks of the platoon work together providing mutual support: two might advance while covered by the others then stop and provide cover for the remainder to move ahead. Normally, multiple platoons coordinate with mechanised infantry and use their mobility and firepower to penetrate weak points in enemy lines. This is where the powerful engines, tracks and turrets come into play. The ability to rotate the turret by a full 360° allows coordinated movement within and between platoons, while defending against attacks from multiple directions and engaging troops and vehicles without stopping or slowing down. When on the defensive, they wait in prepared positions or use any natural terrain elements (such as small hills) for cover. A tank sitting just behind a hill crest ("hull-down") exposes only the top of its turret, with the gun and sensors, to the enemy, leaving the smallest possible target while allowing it to engage the enemy on the other side of the hill. Tanks are usually able to depress the main gun below the horizontal since modern kinetic energy (KE) rounds have nearly flat trajectories. Without this they would be unable to exploit such positions. However, upon cresting a hill, the tank may expose its thinly armoured underside to enemy weapons. The disposition of armour around a tank is not uniform; the front is typically better armoured than the sides or rear. Accordingly, normal practice is to keep the front towards the enemy at all times; the tank retreats by reversing instead of turning around. Driving backwards away from an enemy is even safer than driving forwards towards them since driving forwards over a bump can throw the front of the tank up in the air, exposing the thin armour of the underside and taking the gun off the target due to its limited angle of depression. The tracks, wheels and suspension of a tank are outside the armoured hull and are some of the most vulnerable spots. The easiest way to disable a tank (other than a direct hit in a vulnerable area with a full-power anti-tank weapon) is to target the tracks for a "mobility kill" (m-kill), or target all external visual aids with rubbery cohesive substances such as melted rubber or blackened high viscosity epoxy resins. Once a tank is disabled it is easier to destroy. This is why side-skirts are an important feature; they can deflect heavy machine-gun bullets and trigger the detonation of high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds before they strike the running gear. Other vulnerable parts of a typical tank include the engine deck (with air intakes, radiators, etc.) and the turret ring, where the turret joins the hull. When used defensively, tanks are often sunk into trenches or placed behind earth berms for increased protection. The tanks can fire off a few shots from their defensive position, then retreat (reversing) to another prepared position further back and drive behind the berms or into the trenches there. These positions can be constructed by the tank crews, but preparations are better and quicker if carried out by combat engineers with bulldozers. Overhead protection, even if it is fairly thin, can also be very useful since it can help pre-detonate artillery shells and avoid direct hits from above which can be deadly to tanks, by striking them at their thinnest armour. In short, tank crews find as many ways as possible to augment the armour on their vehicles. Tanks usually go into battle with a round in the gun, ready to fire, to minimise reaction time when encountering an enemy. The US doctrine calls for this round to be a kinetic energy (KE) round, as the reaction time is most important when meeting enemy tanks, to get the first shot (and possibly the first kill). If troops or light vehicles are encountered, the usual response is to fire this round at them, despite it not being ideal—it is difficult and time-consuming to remove a round which is already in the breech. In this case, after the KE round is fired, a HEAT round would normally be loaded next to continue the engagement. Tanks can be decisive in city fighting, with the ability to demolish walls and fire medium and heavy machine guns in several directions simultaneously. However, tanks are especially vulnerable in urban combat. It is much easier for enemy infantry to sneak up behind a tank or fire at its sides, where it is most vulnerable. In addition, firing down from multi-story buildings allows shots at the thin upper turret armour and even basic weapons like Molotov cocktails, if aimed at the engine air intakes, can disable a tank. Because of these limits, tanks are difficult to use in city conflicts where civilians or friendly forces might be nearby, since their firepower can't be used effectively. Some analysts argue that recent conflicts, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlight the growing vulnerability of tanks. Estimates from early 2024 indicate that Russia has lost around 3,000 tanks in the first two years of the conflict, with the actual number likely being higher. In contrast, during the Israel-Hamas war, Israeli tanks equipped with active protection systems (APS) showed improved survivability against anti-tank missiles. Additionally, using tanks in pairs with overlapping APS provided extra defense and enhanced their overall effectiveness. Airborne threats: Tanks and other armoured vehicles are vulnerable to attack from the air for several reasons. One is that they are easily detectable—the metal they are made of shows up well on radar, and is especially obvious if they are moving in formation. A moving tank also produces a lot of heat, noise and dust. The heat makes seeing them on a forward-looking infra-red system easy and the dust is a good visual cue during the day. The other major reason is that most armoured vehicles have thinner armour on the roof of the turret and on the engine deck, so an anti-tank guided missile or bomb (from an attack helicopter, unmanned combat aerial vehicle, ground-attack jet or small drone) hitting them from the top can be deadly even if it has a small warhead. Even a small automatic cannon is powerful enough to penetrate the rear and top sections of the engine compartment of a tank.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armored warfare

Airborne threats: Tanks and other armoured vehicles are vulnerable to attack from the air for several reasons. One is that they are easily detectable—the metal they are made of shows up well on radar, and is especially obvious if they are moving in formation. A moving tank also produces a lot of heat, noise and dust. The heat makes seeing them on a forward-looking infra-red system easy and the dust is a good visual cue during the day. The other major reason is that most armoured vehicles have thinner armour on the roof of the turret and on the engine deck, so an anti-tank guided missile or bomb (from an attack helicopter, unmanned combat aerial vehicle, ground-attack jet or small drone) hitting them from the top can be deadly even if it has a small warhead. Even a small automatic cannon is powerful enough to penetrate the rear and top sections of the engine compartment of a tank. Loitering munition (suicide drone) is also used to attack tanks in modern warfare. Certain aircraft have been developed to attack armoured vehicles. Most notable is the purpose-built Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as the "Warthog". Although able to carry a number of different missiles and bombs (including anti-tank ordnance such as the AGM-65 Maverick), the A-10's main weapon is a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun which is capable of firing 3,900 depleted uranium armour-piercing rounds per minute. The Russian equivalent is the SU-25. Similarly, a number of helicopter gunships have been designed mainly to engage enemy armoured vehicles. The AH-1Z Viper, AH-64 Apache, HAL Light Combat Helicopter, Denel Rooivalk, Eurocopter Tiger, Ka-50 Black Shark, Mi-28 Havoc, A129 Mangusta and Westland Lynx are examples. Helicopters are very effective against armoured vehicles for many reasons. The AH-64D Longbow Apache, for example, is equipped with an improved sensor suite and weapon systems and the AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar dome installed over the main rotor. Airborne threats can be countered in several ways. One is air supremacy. This is what the United States relies on most, which is demonstrated by their distinct lack of effective short-range, mobile air defence vehicles to accompany armoured units. Most other countries accompany their armoured forces with highly mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft guns such as the German Gepard or the Soviet 9K22 Tunguska, short and medium-range surface-to-air missile systems such as the SA-6, SA-8 and SA-11, or combine both on the same vehicle (the Tunguska for example can also host SA-19 SAM missiles). The usage of anti-aircraft rounds fired from the main gun of a tank has been increasing over the years. An example is the HE-FRAG round from the T-90 which can be detonated at a set distance as determined by its laser range finder. Engineering support: Armoured warfare is mechanically and logistically intensive and requires extensive support mechanisms. Armoured fighting vehicles require armoured vehicles capable of working in the same terrain to support them. These are operated by the appropriate branches of the army, e.g. recovery and maintenance vehicles by the REME and combat engineering vehicles by the RE in the British Army. These include: Armoured recovery vehicles (ARV)—many of these are based on the chassis for the vehicle they support. E.g. the ARV for the UK Challenger tank is a Challenger hull onto which a winch is added. Armoured supply vehicles Combat engineering vehicles (CEV), e.g. bulldozers For transporting tracked AFVs over highways, heavy transporters are used, since AFVs are prone to malfunction and their tracks also ruin the highways. Light tanks and tank destroyers: While tanks are integral to armoured warfare, when power projection is required, the inability to perform rapid deployment has always been a limit of heavy main battle tanks. It takes a few weeks to transfer tanks and their supporting equipment by air or sea. Some tanks and armoured vehicles can be dropped by parachute, or carried by cargo airplanes or helicopters. The largest transports can only carry one or two main battle tanks. Smaller transports can only carry or air drop light tanks and APCs such as the M113. The desire to create air-portable armoured vehicles that can still take on conventional MBTs has usually resulted in ATGM-armed light vehicles or in self-propelled gun style vehicles. The lack of armour protection is offset by the provision of a first-look/first-hit/first-kill capability through the mating of a powerful gun to superior targeting electronics, a concept similar to that of the US tank destroyers of World War II. Vehicles which have put such considerations into practice include the Stingray light tank, AMX 10 RC and B1 Centauro. Most such US projects to create such vehicles have been abortive, e.g. the M8 Armored Gun System. The most common was the flawed M551 Sheridan light tank. This was an air-portable tank capable of destroying heavier tanks using the revolutionary (for the time) 152 mm CLGP launcher. The combat effectiveness of this tank was limited by the unreliable MGM-51 missile. The latest iteration of the mobile anti-tank gun platform in American service is the M1134 anti-tank guided missile vehicle, a Stryker variant equipped with TOW missiles; most modern militaries operate comparable vehicles. Though limited conflicts (such as the insurgency in Iraq) rarely involve direct combat between armoured vehicles, the need to defend against insurgent attacks and IEDs has resulted in the application of armour to light vehicles and the continued use of armoured transports, fighting vehicles and tanks. See also: Theorists and practitioners: Notes: References: External links: Tanks Encyclopedia Japanese Tanks and Tank Tactics Chapter II: Tactics Historic films showing tank warfare during the First World War at europeanfilmgateway.eu Educational video of how armored vehicles are used on the battlefield.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armoured fighting vehicle

Evolution: The concept of a highly mobile and protected fighting unit has been around for centuries; from Hannibal's war elephants to Leonardo's contraptions, military strategists endeavoured to maximize the mobility and survivability of their soldiers. Armoured fighting vehicles were not possible until internal combustion engines of sufficient power became available at the start of the 20th century. History: Pre-modern: Modern armoured fighting vehicles represent the realization of an ancient concept – that of providing troops with mobile protection and firepower. Armies have deployed war machines and cavalries with rudimentary armour in battle for millennia. Use of these animals and engineering designs sought to achieve a balance between the conflicting paradoxical needs of mobility, firepower and protection. Siege machine: Siege engines, such as battering rams and siege towers, would often be armoured in order to protect their crews from enemy action. Polyidus of Thessaly developed a very large movable siege tower, the helepolis, as early as 340 BC, and Greek forces used such structures in the Siege of Rhodes (305 BC). The idea of a protected fighting vehicle has been known since antiquity. Frequently cited is Leonardo da Vinci's 15th-century sketch of a mobile, protected gun-platform; the drawings show a conical, wooden shelter with apertures for cannons around the circumference. The machine was to be mounted on four wheels which would be turned by the crew through a system of hand cranks and cage (or "lantern") gears. Leonardo claimed: "I will build armoured wagons which will be safe and invulnerable to enemy attacks. There will be no obstacle which it cannot overcome." Modern replicas have demonstrated that the human crew would have been able to move it over only short distances. War wagon: Hussite forces in Bohemia developed war wagons – medieval horse-drawn wagons that doubled as wagon forts – around 1420 during the Hussite Wars. These heavy wagons were given protective sides with firing slits; their heavy firepower came from either a cannon or from a force of hand-gunners and crossbowmen, supported by light cavalry and infantry using pikes and flails. Heavy arquebuses mounted on wagons were called arquebus à croc. These carried a ball of about 3.5 ounces (100 g). Modern: By the end of World War II, most modern armies had vehicles to carry infantry, artillery and anti-aircraft weaponry. Most modern AFVs are superficially similar in design to their World War II counterparts, but with significantly better armour, weapons, engines, electronics, and suspension. The increase in the capacity of transport aircraft makes possible and practicable the transport of AFVs by air. Many armies are replacing some or all of their traditional heavy vehicles with lighter airmobile versions, often with wheels instead of tracks. Armed and armoured car: The first modern AFVs were armed cars, dating back virtually to the invention of the motor car. The British inventor F. R. Simms designed and built the Motor Scout in 1898. It was the first armed, petrol-engine powered vehicle ever built. It consisted of a De Dion-Bouton quadracycle with a Maxim machine gun mounted on the front bar. An iron shield offered some protection for the driver from the front, but it lacked all-around protective armour. The armoured car was the first modern fully armoured fighting vehicle. The first of these was the Simms's Motor War Car, also designed by Simms and built by Vickers, Sons & Maxim in 1899. The vehicle had Vickers armour 6 mm thick and was powered by a four-cylinder 3.3-litre 16 hp Cannstatt Daimler engine giving it a maximum speed of around 9 miles per hour (14 kilometres per hour). The armament, consisting of two Maxim guns, was carried in two turrets with 360° traverse. Another early armoured car of the period was the French Charron, Girardot et Voigt 1902, presented at the Salon de l'Automobile et du cycle in Brussels, on 8 March 1902. The vehicle was equipped with a Hotchkiss machine gun, and with 7 mm armour for the gunner. Armoured cars were first used in large numbers on both sides during World War I as scouting vehicles. Tank: In 1903, H. G. Wells published the short story "The Land Ironclads," positing indomitable war machines that would bring a new age of land warfare, the way steam-powered ironclad warships had ended the age of sail. Wells's literary vision was realized in 1916, when, amidst the pyrrhic standstill of the Great War, the British Landship Committee deployed revolutionary armoured vehicles to break the stalemate. The tank was envisioned as an armoured machine that could cross ground under fire from machine guns and reply with its own mounted machine guns and naval artillery. These first British tanks of World War I moved on caterpillar tracks that had substantially lower ground pressure than wheeled vehicles, enabling them to pass the muddy, pocked terrain and slit trenches of the Battle of the Somme. Troop transport: The tank eventually proved highly successful and, as technology improved, it became a weapon that could cross large distances at much higher speeds than supporting infantry and artillery. The need to provide the units that would fight alongside the tank led to the development of a wide range of specialised AFVs, especially during the Second World War (1939–1945). The armoured personnel carrier, designed to transport infantry troops to the frontline, emerged towards the end of World War I. During the first actions with tanks, it had become clear that close contact with infantry was essential in order to secure ground won by the tanks. Troops on foot were vulnerable to enemy fire, but they could not be transported in the tank because of the intense heat and noxious atmosphere. In 1917, Lieutenant G. J. Rackham was ordered to design an armoured vehicle that could fight and carry troops or supplies. The Mark IX tank was built by Armstrong, Whitworth & Co., although just three vehicles had been finished at the time of the Armistice in November 1918, and only 34 were built in total. Tankette: Different tank classifications emerged in the interwar period. The tankette was conceived as a mobile, two-man model, mainly intended for reconnaissance. In 1925, Sir John Carden and Vivian Loyd produced the first such design to be adopted – the Carden Loyd tankette. Tankettes saw use in the Royal Italian Army during the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935–1936), the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), and almost everywhere Italian soldiers fought during World War II. The Imperial Japanese Army used tankettes for jungle warfare. Self-propelled artillery: The British Gun Carrier Mark I, the first Self-propelled artillery, was fielded in 1917. It was based on the first tank, the British Mark I, and carried a heavy field-gun. The next major advance was the Birch gun (1925), developed for the British motorised warfare experimental brigade (the Experimental Mechanized Force). This mounted a field gun, capable of the usual artillery trajectories and even anti-aircraft use, on a tank chassis. During World War II, most major military powers developed self-propelled artillery vehicles. These had guns mounted on a tracked chassis (often that of an obsolete or superseded tank) and provided an armoured superstructure to protect the gun and its crew. The first British design, "Bishop", carried the 25 pdr gun-howitzer in an extemporised mounting on a tank chassis that severely limited the gun's performance. It was replaced by the more effective Sexton. The Germans built many lightly armoured self-propelled anti-tank guns using captured French equipment (for example Marder I), their own obsolete light tank chassis (Marder II), or ex-Czech chassis (Marder III). These led to better-protected tank destroyers, built on a medium-tank chassis such as the Jagdpanzer IV or the Jagdpanther. Anti-aircraft vehicle: The Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon debuted in WWI. The German 88 mm anti-aircraft gun was truck-mounted and used to great effect against British tanks, and the British QF 3-inch 20 cwt was mounted on trucks for use on the Western Front. Although the Birch gun was a general purpose artillery piece on an armoured tracked chassis, it was capable of elevation for anti-aircraft use. Vickers Armstrong developed one of the first SPAAGs based on the chassis of the Mk.E 6-ton light tank/Dragon Medium Mark IV tractor, mounting a Vickers QF-1 "Pom-Pom" gun of 40 mm. The Germans fielded the Sd.Kfz. 10/4 and 6/2, cargo halftracks mounting single 20 mm or 37 mm AA guns (respectively) by the start of the war. Self-propelled multiple rocket-launcher: Rocket launchers such as the Soviet Katyusha originated in the late 1930s. The Wehrmacht fielded self-propelled rocket artillery in World War II – the Panzerwerfer and Wurfrahmen 40 equipped half-track armoured fighting vehicles. Many modern multiple rocket launchers are self propelled by either truck or tank chassis.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armoured fighting vehicle

Vickers Armstrong developed one of the first SPAAGs based on the chassis of the Mk.E 6-ton light tank/Dragon Medium Mark IV tractor, mounting a Vickers QF-1 "Pom-Pom" gun of 40 mm. The Germans fielded the Sd.Kfz. 10/4 and 6/2, cargo halftracks mounting single 20 mm or 37 mm AA guns (respectively) by the start of the war. Self-propelled multiple rocket-launcher: Rocket launchers such as the Soviet Katyusha originated in the late 1930s. The Wehrmacht fielded self-propelled rocket artillery in World War II – the Panzerwerfer and Wurfrahmen 40 equipped half-track armoured fighting vehicles. Many modern multiple rocket launchers are self propelled by either truck or tank chassis. Design: Survivability: The level of armour protection between AFVs varies greatly – a main battle tank will normally be designed to take hits from other tank guns and anti-tank missiles, whilst light reconnaissance vehicles are often only armoured "just in case". Whilst heavier armour provides better protection, it makes vehicles less mobile (for a given engine power), limits its air-transportability, increases cost, uses more fuel and may limit the places it can go – for example, many bridges may be unable to support the weight of a main battle tank. A trend toward composite armour is taking the place of steel – composites are stronger for a given weight, allowing the tank to be lighter for the same protection as steel armour, or better protected for the same weight. Armour is being supplemented with active protection systems on a number of vehicles, allowing the AFV to protect itself from incoming projectiles. The level of protection also usually varies considerably throughout the individual vehicle too, depending on the role of the vehicle and the likely direction of attack. For example, a main battle tank will usually have the heaviest armour on the hull front and the turret, lighter armour on the sides of the hull and the thinnest armour on the top and bottom of the tank. Other vehicles – such as the MRAP family – may be primarily armoured against the threat from IEDs and so will have heavy, sloped armour on the bottom of the hull. Firepower: Weaponry varies by a very wide degree between AFVs – lighter vehicles for infantry carrying, reconnaissance or specialist roles may have only a autocannon or machine gun (or no armament at all), whereas heavy self-propelled artillery will carry howitzers, mortars or rocket launchers. These weapons may be mounted on a pintle, affixed directly to the vehicle or placed in a turret or cupola. The greater the recoil of the weapon on an AFV, the larger the turret ring needs to be. A larger turret ring necessitates a larger vehicle. To avoid listing to the side, turrets on amphibious vehicles are usually located at the centre of the vehicle. Grenade launchers provide a versatile launch platform for a plethora of munitions including, smoke, phosphorus, tear gas, illumination, anti-personnel, infrared and radar-jamming rounds. Turret stabilization is an important capability because it enables firing on the move and prevents crew fatigue. Maneuverability: Modern AFVs have primarily used either petrol (gasoline) or diesel piston engines. More recently, gas turbines have been used. Most early AFVs used petrol engines, as they offer a good power-to-weight ratio. However, they fell out of favour during World War II due to the flammability of the fuel. Most current AFVs are powered by a diesel engine; modern technology, including the use of turbo-charging, helps to overcome the lower power-to-weight ratio of diesel engines compared to petrol. Gas turbine (turboshaft) engines offer a very high power-to-weight ratio and were starting to find favour in the late 20th century – however, they offer very poor fuel consumption and as such some armies are switching from gas turbines back to diesel engines (i.e. the Russian T-80 used a gas turbine engine, whereas the later T-90 does not). The US M1 Abrams is a notable example of a gas turbine powered tank. Modern classification by type and role: Notable armoured fighting vehicles extending from post-World War I to today. Tank: The tank is an all terrain AFV incorporating artillery which is designed to fill almost all battlefield roles and to engage enemy forces by the use of direct fire in the frontal assault role. Though several configurations have been tried, particularly in the early experimental "golden days" of tank development, a standard, mature design configuration has since emerged to a generally accepted pattern. This features a main tank gun or artillery gun, mounted in a fully rotating turret atop a tracked automotive hull, with various additional secondary weapon systems throughout. Philosophically, the tank is, by its very nature, an offensive weapon. Being a protective encasement with at least one gun position, it is essentially a pillbox or small fortress (though these are static fortifications of a purely defensive nature) that can move toward the enemy – hence its offensive utility. Psychologically, the tank is a force multiplier that has a positive morale effect on the infantry it accompanies. It also instills fear in the opposing force who can often hear and even feel their arrival. Tank classifications: Tanks were classified either by size or by role. Classification by relative size was common, as this also tended to influence the tanks' role. Light tanks are smaller tanks with thinner armour and lower-powered guns, allowing for better tactical mobility and ease of strategic transport. These are intended for armoured reconnaissance, skirmishing, artillery observation, expeditionary warfare and supplementing airborne or naval landings. Light tanks are typically cheaper to build and maintain, but fare poorly against heavier tanks. They may be held in reserve for exploiting any breakthroughs in enemy lines, with the goal of disrupting communications and supply lines. Medium tanks are mid-sized tanks with adequate armour and guns, and fair mobility, allowing for a balance of fighting abilities, mobility, cost-effectiveness, and transportability. Medium tanks are effective in groups when used against enemy tanks. Heavy tanks are larger tanks with thick armour and more powerful guns, but less mobile and more difficult to transport. They were intended to be more than a match for typical enemy medium tanks, easily penetrating their armour while being much less susceptible to their attacks. Heavy tanks cost more to both build and maintain, and their heavy armour proved most effective when deployed in support infantry assaulting entrenched fortifications. Over time, tanks tended to be designed with heavier armour and weapons, increasing the weight of all tanks, so these classifications are relative to the average for the nation's tanks for any given period. An older tank design might be reclassified over time, such as a tank being first deployed as a medium tank, but in later years relegated to light tank roles. Tanks were also classified by roles that were independent of size, such as cavalry tank, cruiser tank, fast tank, infantry tank, "assault" tank, or "breakthrough" tank. Military theorists initially tended to assign tanks to traditional military infantry, cavalry, and artillery roles, but later developed more specialized roles unique to tanks. In modern use, the heavy tank has fallen out of favour, being supplanted by more heavily armed and armoured descendant of the medium tanks – the universal main battle tank. The light tank has, in many armies, lost favour to cheaper, faster, lighter armoured cars; however, light tanks (or similar vehicles with other names) are still in service with a number of forces as reconnaissance vehicles, most notably the Russian Marines with the PT-76, the British Army with the Scimitar, and the Chinese Army with the Type 63. Main battle tank: Modern main battle tanks or "universal tanks" incorporate recent advances in automotive, artillery, armour, and electronic technology to combine the best characteristics of the historic medium and heavy tanks into a single, all-around type. They are also the most expensive to mass-produce. A main battle tank is distinguished by its high level of firepower, mobility and armour protection relative to other vehicles of its era. It can cross comparatively rough terrain at high speeds, but its heavy dependency on fuel, maintenance, and ammunition makes it logistically demanding. It has the heaviest armour of any AFVs on the battlefield, and carries a powerful precision-guided munition weapon systems that may be able to engage a wide variety of both ground targets and air targets. Despite significant advances in anti-tank warfare, it still remains the most versatile and fearsome land-based weapon-systems of the 21st-century, valued for its shock action and high survivability. Tankette: A tankette is a tracked armed and armoured vehicle resembling a small "ultra-light tank" or "super-light tank" roughly the size of a car, mainly intended for light infantry support or scouting. Tankettes were introduced in the mid-1920s as a reconnaissance vehicle and a mobile machine gun position They were one or two-man vehicles armed with a machine gun. Colloquially it may also simply mean a "small tank". Tankettes were designed and built by several nations between the 1920s and 1940s following the British Carden Loyd tankette which was a successful implementation of "one man tank" ideas from Giffard Le Quesne Martel, a British Army engineer. They were very popular with smaller countries. Some saw some combat (with limited success) in World War II. However, the vulnerability of their light armour eventually caused the concept to be abandoned.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armoured fighting vehicle

Tankette: A tankette is a tracked armed and armoured vehicle resembling a small "ultra-light tank" or "super-light tank" roughly the size of a car, mainly intended for light infantry support or scouting. Tankettes were introduced in the mid-1920s as a reconnaissance vehicle and a mobile machine gun position They were one or two-man vehicles armed with a machine gun. Colloquially it may also simply mean a "small tank". Tankettes were designed and built by several nations between the 1920s and 1940s following the British Carden Loyd tankette which was a successful implementation of "one man tank" ideas from Giffard Le Quesne Martel, a British Army engineer. They were very popular with smaller countries. Some saw some combat (with limited success) in World War II. However, the vulnerability of their light armour eventually caused the concept to be abandoned. However, the German Army uses a modern design of air-transportable armoured weapons carriers, the Wiesel AWC, which resembles the concept of a tankette. Super-heavy tank: The term "super-heavy tank" has been used to describe armoured fighting vehicles of extreme size, generally over 75 tonnes. Programs have been initiated on several occasions with the aim of creating an invincible siegeworks/breakthrough vehicle for penetrating enemy formations and fortifications without fear of being destroyed in combat. Examples were designed in World War I and World War II (such as the Panzer VIII Maus), along with a few in the Cold War. However, few working prototypes were built and there is no clear evidence any of these vehicles saw combat, as their immense size would have made most designs impractical. Missile tank: A missile tank is a tank fulfilling the role of a main battle tank, but using only anti-tank surface-to-surface missiles for main armament. Several nations have experimented with prototypes, notably the Soviet Union during the tenure of Nikita Khrushchev (projects Object 167, Object 137Ml, Object 155Ml, Object 287, Object 775), Flame tank: A flame tank is an otherwise-standard tank equipped with a flamethrower, most commonly used to supplement combined arms attacks against fortifications, confined spaces, or other obstacles. The type only reached significant use in the Second World War, during which the United States, Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom (including members of the British Commonwealth) all produced flamethrower-equipped tanks. Usually, the flame projector replaced one of the tank's machineguns, however, some flame projectors replaced the tank's main gun. Fuel for the flame weapon was generally carried inside the tank, although a few designs mounted the fuel externally, such as the armoured trailer used on the Churchill Crocodile. Flame tanks have been superseded by thermobaric weapons such as the Russian TOS-1. Infantry tank: The idea for this tank was developed during World War I by British and French. The infantry tank was designed to work in concert with infantry in the assault, moving mostly at a walking pace, and carrying heavy armour to survive defensive fire. Its main purpose was to suppress enemy fire, crush obstacles such as barbed-wire entanglements, and protect the infantry on their advance into and through enemy lines by giving mobile overwatch and cover. The French Renault FT was the first iteration of this concept. The British and French retained the concept between the wars and into the Second World War era. Because infantry tanks did not need to be fast, they could carry heavy armour. One of the best-known infantry tanks was the Matilda II of World War II. Other examples include the French R-35, the British Valentine, and the British Churchill. Cruiser tank: A cruiser tank, or cavalry tank, was designed to move fast and exploit penetrations of the enemy front. The idea originated in "Plan 1919", a British plan to break the trench deadlock of World War I in part via the use of high-speed tanks. The first cruiser tank was the British Whippet. Between the wars, this concept was implemented in the "fast tanks" pioneered by J. Walter Christie. These led to the Soviet BT tank series and the British cruiser tank series. During World War II, British cruiser tanks were designed to complement infantry tanks, exploiting gains made by the latter to attack and disrupt the enemy rear areas. In order to give them the required speed, cruiser designs sacrificed armour and armament compared to the infantry tanks. Pure British cruisers were generally replaced by more capable medium tanks such as the US Sherman and, to a lesser extent, the Cromwell by 1943. The Soviet fast tank (bistrokhodniy tank, or BT tank) classification also came out of the infantry/cavalry concept of armoured warfare and formed the basis for the British cruisers after 1936. The T-34 was a development of this line of tanks as well, though their armament, armour, and all-round capability places them firmly in the medium tank category. Armoured car: The armoured car is a wheeled, often lightly armoured, vehicle adapted as a fighting machine. Its earliest form consisted of a motorised ironside chassis fitted with firing ports. By World War I, this had evolved into a mobile fortress equipped with command equipment, searchlights, and machine guns for self-defence. It was soon proposed that the requirements for the armament and layout of armoured cars be somewhat similar to those on naval craft, resulting in turreted vehicles. The first example carried a single revolving cupola with a Vickers gun; modern armoured cars may boast heavier armament – ranging from twin machine guns to large calibre cannon. Some multi-axled wheeled fighting vehicles can be quite heavy, and superior to older or smaller tanks in terms of armour and armament. Others are often used in military marches and processions, or for the escorting of important figures. Under peacetime conditions, they form an essential part of most standing armies. Armoured car units can move without the assistance of transporters and cover great distances with fewer logistical problems than tracked vehicles. During World War II, armoured cars were used for reconnaissance alongside scout cars. Their guns were suitable for some defence if they encountered enemy armoured fighting vehicles, but they were not intended to engage enemy tanks. Armoured cars have since been used in the offensive role against tanks with varying degrees of success, most notably during the South African Border War, Toyota War, the Invasion of Kuwait, and other lower-intensity conflicts. Aerosledge: An aerosledge is a type of propeller-driven snowmobile, running on skis, used for communications, mail deliveries, medical aid, emergency recovery and border patrolling in northern Russia, as well as for recreation. Aerosledges were used by the Soviet Red Army during the Winter War and World War II. Some early aerosledges were built by young Igor Sikorsky in 1909–10, before he built multi-engine airplanes and helicopters. They were very light plywood vehicles on skis, propelled by old airplane engines and propellers. Scout car: A scout car is a military armoured reconnaissance vehicle, capable of off-road mobility and often carrying mounted weapons such as machine guns for offensive capabilities and crew protection. They often only carry an operational crew aboard, which differentiates them from wheeled armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry mobility vehicles (IMVs), but early scout cars, such as the open-topped US M3 scout car could carry a crew of seven. The term is often used synonymously with the more general term armoured car, which also includes armoured civilian vehicles. They are also differentiated by being designed and built for purpose, as opposed to improvised "technicals" which might serve in the same role. Reconnaissance vehicle: A reconnaissance vehicle, also known as a scout vehicle, is a military vehicle used for forward reconnaissance. Both tracked and wheeled reconnaissance vehicles are in service. In some countries, light tanks such as the M551 Sheridan and AMX-13 are also used by scout platoons. Reconnaissance vehicles are usually designed with a low profile or small size and are lightly armoured, relying on speed and cover to escape detection. Their armament ranges from a medium machine gun to an autocannon. Modern examples are often fitted with ATGMs and a wide range of sensors. Some armoured personnel carriers and infantry mobility vehicle, such as the M113, TPz Fuchs, and Cadillac Gage Commando double in the reconnaissance role. Internal security vehicle: An internal security vehicle (ISV), also known as an armoured security vehicle (ASV), is a combat vehicle used for suppressing civilian unrest. Security vehicles are typically armed with a turreted heavy machine gun and auxiliary medium machine gun. The vehicle is designed to minimize firepower dead space. Non-lethal water cannons and tear gas cannons can provide suppressive fire in lieu of unnecessary deadly fire. The vehicle must be protected against weapons typical of riots. Protection from improvised incendiary devices is achieved though coverage of the air intake and exhaust ports as well as a strong locking mechanism on the fuel opening. Turret and door locks prevent access to the interior of the vehicle by rioters. Vision blocks, ballistic glass and window shutters and outside surveillance cameras allow protected observation from within the vehicle. Wheeled 4x4 and 6x6 configurations are typical of security vehicles. Tracked security vehicles are often cumbersome and leave negative political connotations for being perceived as an imperial invading force.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armoured fighting vehicle

Security vehicles are typically armed with a turreted heavy machine gun and auxiliary medium machine gun. The vehicle is designed to minimize firepower dead space. Non-lethal water cannons and tear gas cannons can provide suppressive fire in lieu of unnecessary deadly fire. The vehicle must be protected against weapons typical of riots. Protection from improvised incendiary devices is achieved though coverage of the air intake and exhaust ports as well as a strong locking mechanism on the fuel opening. Turret and door locks prevent access to the interior of the vehicle by rioters. Vision blocks, ballistic glass and window shutters and outside surveillance cameras allow protected observation from within the vehicle. Wheeled 4x4 and 6x6 configurations are typical of security vehicles. Tracked security vehicles are often cumbersome and leave negative political connotations for being perceived as an imperial invading force. Military light utility vehicle: Military light utility vehicles are the lightest weight class of military vehicles. It refers to light 4x4 military vehicles with light or no armour and all-terrain mobility. This type of vehicle originated in the first half of the 20th century when horses and other draft animals were replaced with mechanization. Light utility vehicles such as the Willys Jeep were frequently mounted with .50-calibre machineguns and other small weapons for hit-and-run tactics in WWII, especially by the British Special Air Service who used Jeeps to raid Axis airfields during the North Africa campaign. After WWII, vehicles like the Toyota Mega Cruiser and Humvee filled this role. In the 21st century, improvised explosive devices continue to pose threat to mobile infantry resulting in light utility vehicles being made heavier and with more armour. Improvised fighting vehicle: An improvised fighting vehicle is a combat vehicle resulting from modifications to a civilian or military non-combat vehicle in order to give it a fighting capability. Such modifications usually consist of the grafting of armour plating and weapon systems. Various militaries have procured such vehicles, ever since the introduction of the first automobiles into military service. During the early days, the absence of a doctrine for the military use of automobiles or of an industry dedicated to producing them, lead to much improvisation in the creation of early armoured cars, and other such vehicles. Later, despite the advent of arms industries in many countries, several armies still resorted to using ad hoc contraptions, often in response to unexpected military situations, or as a result of the development of new tactics for which no available vehicle was suitable. The construction of improvised fighting vehicles may also reflect a lack of means for the force that uses them. This is especially true in underdeveloped countries and even in developing countries, where various armies and guerrilla forces have used them, as they are more affordable than military-grade combat vehicles. Modern examples include military gun truck used by units of regular armies or other official government armed forces, based on a conventional military cargo truck, that is able to carry a large weight of weapons and armour. They have mainly been used by regular armies to escort military convoys in regions subject to ambush by guerrilla forces. "Narco tanks", used by Mexican drug cartels in the Mexican drug war, are built from such trucks, which combines operational mobility, tactical offensive, and defensive capabilities. Troop carriers: Troop-carrying AFVs are divided into three main types – armoured personnel carriers (APCs), infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and infantry mobility vehicles (IMV). The main difference between the three is their intended role – the APC is designed purely to transport troops and is armed for self-defence only – whereas the IFV is designed to provide close-quarters and anti-armour fire support to the infantry it carries. IMV is a wheeled armoured personnel carrier serving as a military patrol, reconnaissance or security vehicle. Armoured personnel carrier: Armoured personnel carriers (APCs) are intended to carry infantry quickly and relatively safely to the point where they are deployed. In the Battle of Amiens, 8 August 1918, the British Mk V* tank (a lengthened Mark V) carried a small number of machine gunners as an experiment, but the men were debilitated by the conditions inside the vehicle. Later that year the first purpose-built APC, the British Mk IX tank (Mark Nine), appeared. In 1944, the Canadian general Guy Simonds ordered the conversion of redundant armoured vehicles to carry troops (generically named "Kangaroos"). This proved highly successful, even without training, and the concept was widely used in the 21st Army Group. Post-war, specialised designs were built, such as the Soviet BTR-60 and US M113. Infantry fighting vehicle: An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), also known as a mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV), is a type of armoured fighting vehicle used to carry infantry into battle and provide direct fire support. The first example of an IFV was the West German Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 which served in the Bundeswehr from 1958 until the early 1980s. IFVs are similar to armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry carrier vehicles (ICVs), designed to transport a section or squad of infantry (generally between five and ten men) and their equipment. They are differentiated from APCs – which are purely "troop-transport" vehicles armed only for self-defence – because they are designed to give direct fire support to the dismounted infantry and so usually have significantly enhanced armament. IFVs also often have improved armour and some have firing ports (allowing the infantry to fire personal weapons while mounted). They are typically armed with an autocannon of 20 to 57 mm calibre, 7.62mm machine guns, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and/or surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). IFVs are usually tracked, but some wheeled vehicles fall into this category. IFVs are generally less heavily armed and armoured than main battle tanks. They sometimes carry anti-tank missiles to protect and support infantry against armoured threats, such as the NATO TOW missile and Soviet Bastion, which offer a significant threat to tanks. Specially equipped IFVs have taken on some of the roles of light tanks; they are used by reconnaissance organizations, and light IFVs are used by airborne units which must be able to fight without the heavy firepower of tanks. Infantry mobility vehicle: An infantry mobility vehicle (IMV) or protected patrol vehicle (PPV) is a wheeled armoured personnel carrier (APC) serving as a military patrol, reconnaissance or security vehicle. Examples include the ATF Dingo, AMZ Dzik, AMZ Tur, Mungo ESK, and Bushmaster IMV. This term also applies to the vehicles currently being fielded as part of the MRAP program. IMVs were developed in response to the threats of modern counterinsurgency warfare, with an emphasis on Ambush Protection and Mine-Resistance. Similar vehicles existed long before the term IMV was coined, such as the French VAB and South African Buffel. The term is coming more into use to differentiate light 4x4 wheeled APCs from the traditional 8x8 wheeled APCs. It is a neologism for what might have been classified in the past as an armoured scout car, such as the BRDM, but the IMV is distinguished by having a requirement to carry dismountable infantry. The up-armoured M1114 Humvee variant can be seen as an adaptation of the unarmoured Humvee to serve in the IMV role. Amphibious vehicles: Many modern military vehicles, ranging from light wheeled command and reconnaissance, through armoured personnel carriers and tanks, are manufactured with amphibious capabilities. Contemporary wheeled armoured amphibians include the French Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé and Véhicule Blindé Léger. The latter is a small, lightly armoured 4×4 all-terrain vehicle that is fully amphibious and can swim at 5.4 km/h. The VAB (Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé – 'armoured vanguard vehicle') is a fully amphibious armoured personnel carrier powered in the water by two water jets, that entered service in 1976 and produced in numerous configurations, ranging from basic personnel carrier, anti-tank missile platform. During the Cold War the Soviet bloc states developed a number of amphibious APCs, fighting vehicles and tanks, both wheeled and tracked. Most of the vehicles the Soviets designed were amphibious, or could ford deep water. Wheeled examples are the BRDM-1 and BRDM-2 4x4 armoured scout cars, as well as the BTR-60, BTR-70, BTR-80, BTR-94 and BTR-90 8x8 armoured personnel carriers. The United States started developing a long line of Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) designs from c. 1940. The US Marine Corps currently uses the AAV7-A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which was to be succeeded by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which was capable of planing on water and can achieve water speeds of 37–46 km/h. The EFV project has been cancelled. A significant number of tracked armoured vehicles that are primarily intended for land-use, have some amphibious capability, tactically useful inland, reducing dependence on bridges. They use their tracks, sometimes with added propeller or water jets for propulsion.

mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv

Armoured fighting vehicle

Wheeled examples are the BRDM-1 and BRDM-2 4x4 armoured scout cars, as well as the BTR-60, BTR-70, BTR-80, BTR-94 and BTR-90 8x8 armoured personnel carriers. The United States started developing a long line of Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) designs from c. 1940. The US Marine Corps currently uses the AAV7-A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which was to be succeeded by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which was capable of planing on water and can achieve water speeds of 37–46 km/h. The EFV project has been cancelled. A significant number of tracked armoured vehicles that are primarily intended for land-use, have some amphibious capability, tactically useful inland, reducing dependence on bridges. They use their tracks, sometimes with added propeller or water jets for propulsion. As long as the banks have a shallow enough slopes to enter or leave the water they can cross rivers and water obstacles. Some heavy tanks can operate amphibiously with a fabric skirt to add buoyancy. The Sherman DD tank used in the Normandy landings had this setup. When in water the waterproof float screen was raised and propellers deployed. Some modern vehicles use a similar skirt. Airborne vehicles: Lightweight armoured fighting vehicles designed or modified to be carried by aircraft and delivered by air drop, helicopter lift, glider, or air landing with infantry to provide heavier tactical firepower and mobility. The air-equivalent to amphibious vehicles, the main advantage of airborne forces is their ability to be deployed into combat zones without land passage, as long as the airspace is accessible. Airborne vehicles are limited only by the tonnage capacity of their transport aircraft. Airborne vehicles typically lack the armour and supplies necessary for prolonged combat, so they are utilized for establishing an airhead to bring in larger forces before carrying out other combat objectives. One modern example is the German Wiesel AWC. The USA also created the M22 Locust as a way to aid paratroopers/ being paradropped in as it was very lightly armoured and very small. Armoured engineering vehicle: Modern engineering AFV's utilize chassis based on main battle tank platforms: these vehicles are as well armoured and protected as tanks, designed to keep up with tanks, breach obstacles to help tanks get to wherever it needs to be, perform utility functions necessary to expedite mission objectives of tanks, and to conduct other earth-moving and engineering work on the battlefield. These vehicles go by different names depending upon the country of use or manufacture. In the United States the term "combat engineer vehicle (CEV)" is used, in the United Kingdom the term "Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE)" is used, while in Canada and other commonwealth nations the term "armoured engineer vehicle (AEV)" is used. There is no set template for what such a vehicle will look like, yet likely features include a large dozer blade or mine ploughs, a large calibre demolition cannon, augers, winches, excavator arms and cranes, or lifting booms. Although the term "armoured engineer vehicle" is used specifically to describe these multi-purpose tank-based engineering vehicles, that term is also used more generically in British and Commonwealth militaries to describe all heavy tank-based engineering vehicles used in the support of mechanized forces. Thus, "armoured engineer vehicle" used generically would refer to AEV, AVLB, Assault Breachers, and so on. Good examples of this type of vehicle include the UK Trojan AVRE, the Russian IMR, and the US M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. Breaching vehicle: A breaching vehicle is especially designed to clear pathways for troops and other vehicles through minefields and along roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices. These vehicles are equipped with mechanical or other means for the breaching of man-made obstacles. Common types of breaching vehicles include mechanical flails, mine plough vehicles, and mine roller vehicles. Armoured bulldozer: The armoured bulldozer is a basic tool of combat engineering. These combat engineering vehicles combine the earth moving capabilities of the bulldozer with armour which protects the vehicle and its operator in or near combat. Most are civilian bulldozers modified by addition of vehicle armour/military equipment, but some are tanks stripped of armament and fitted with a dozer blade. Some tanks have bulldozer blades while retaining their armament, but this does not make them armoured bulldozers as such, because combat remains the primary role – earth moving is a secondary task. Armoured recovery vehicle: An armoured recovery vehicle (ARV) is a type of vehicle recovery armoured fighting vehicle used to repair battle- or mine-damaged as well as broken-down armoured vehicles during combat, or to tow them out of the danger zone for more extensive repairs. To this end the term armoured repair and recovery vehicle (ARRV) is also used. ARVs are normally built on the chassis of a main battle tank (MBT), but some are also constructed on the basis of other armoured fighting vehicles, mostly armoured personnel carriers (APCs). ARVs are usually built on the basis of a vehicle in the same class as they are supposed to recover; a tank-based ARV is used to recover tanks, while an APC-based one recovers APCs, but does not have the power to tow a much heavier tank. Armoured vehicle-launched bridge: An armoured vehicle-launched bridge (AVLB) is a combat support vehicle, sometimes regarded as a subtype of combat engineering vehicle, designed to assist militaries in rapidly deploying tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles across rivers. The AVLB is usually a tracked vehicle converted from a tank chassis to carry a folding metal bridge instead of weapons. The AVLB's job is to allow armoured or infantry units to cross water, when a river too deep for vehicles to wade through is reached, and no bridge is conveniently located (or sufficiently sturdy, a substantial concern when moving 60-ton tanks). The bridge layer unfolds and launches its cargo, providing a ready-made bridge across the obstacle in only minutes. Once the span has been put in place, the AVLB vehicle detaches from the bridge, and moves aside to allow traffic to pass. Once all of the vehicles have crossed, it crosses the bridge itself and reattaches to the bridge on the other side. It then retracts the span ready to move off again. A similar procedure can be employed to allow crossings of small chasms or similar obstructions. AVLBs can carry bridges of 60 feet (18 metres) or greater in length. By using a tank chassis, the bridge layer is able to cover the same terrain as main battle tanks, and the provision of armour allows them to operate even in the face of enemy fire. However, this is not a universal attribute: some exceptionally sturdy 6x6 or 8x8 truck chassis have lent themselves to bridge-layer applications. Combat engineer section carriers: Combat engineer section carriers are used to transport sappers (combat engineers) and can be fitted with bulldozers' blades and other mine-breaching devices. They are often used as APCs because of their carrying ability and heavy protection. They are usually armed with machine guns and grenade launchers and usually tracked to provide enough tractive force to push blades and rakes. Some examples are the U.S. M113 APC, IDF Puma, Nagmachon, Husky, and U.S. M1132 ESV (a Stryker variant). Air defence vehicles: An anti-aircraft vehicle, also known as a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG) or self-propelled air defense system (SPAD), is a mobile vehicle with a dedicated anti-aircraft capability. Specific weapon systems used include machine guns, anti-aircraft autocannons, larger anti-air guns, or surface-to-air-missiles, and some mount both guns and longer-ranged missiles (e.g. the Pantsir-S1). Platforms used include both trucks and heavier combat vehicles such as armored personnel carriers and tanks, which add protection from aircraft, artillery, and small arms fire for front line deployment. Anti-aircraft guns are usually mounted in a quickly-traversing turret with a high rate of elevation, for tracking fast-moving aircraft. They are often in dual or quadruple mounts, allowing a high rate of fire. In addition, most anti-aircraft guns can be used in a direct-fire role against surface targets to great effect. In the early 21st century, missiles (generally mounted on similar turrets) largely supplanted anti-aircraft guns, though guns have recently shown revived utility against slow, low-flying drones. Self-propelled artillery: Self-propelled artillery vehicles give mobility to artillery. Within the term are covered self-propelled guns (or howitzers) and rocket artillery. They are highly mobile, usually based on tracked chassis carrying either a large howitzer or other field gun or alternatively a mortar or some form of rocket or missile launcher. They are usually used for long-range indirect bombardment support on the battlefield. In the past, self-propelled artillery has included direct-fire "Gun Motor Carriage" vehicles, such as assault guns and tank destroyers (also known as self-propelled anti-tank guns). These have been heavily armoured vehicles, the former providing danger-close fire-support for infantry and the latter acting as specialized anti-tank vehicles. Modern self-propelled artillery vehicles may superficially resemble tanks, but they are generally lightly armoured, too lightly to survive in direct-fire combat.