Only the fact that of the two tank landing craft one had no problems, where as with the other the tanks could not climb the rocky slope to get of the beach. Just this small nugget of practical information, will mean a lot for the selection of future landing sites.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Also do your experiments somewhere that while enough of a challenge to match "real world conditions" can be safely overwhelmed enough that if things go wrong you can get your men and gear back out before angry German's arrive to storm the place.
It took an actual invasion in OTL. For now he might be wobbly but I don't think he'll be turfed out, especially since as OTL actually swapping sides (or at least asking for an end to the war) would be to invite a German occupation, until they have some hope the allies can get into position before the German's can they won't risk that.
The Japanese proved OTL that it didn't matter how good your tank was if you were the only folks around with a tank.
Britain TTL is showing up with tanks that aren't just 'good enough', but exceed expectations from the poor sods who have to face them with AT gear intended for the previous generation of armoured warfare.
Wait, is the fact that Britain managed to hold Crete and North Africa meant that they decided only try to invade (albeit successfully ITTL) this island now?
Also need a good medium tank that can go ashore with the first wave as clearly the heavy is a bit to heavy for that job...
I'm sure Mr. Carden would be fine with that.
Also, this raid was extremely useful, not only in securing the island, but in the realisation of the need to check the terrain in the area before landing. While a Dieppe-style raid will probably still be required in France, it should at least mean they'll pick a beach conducive to tank advances and check what the inland areas look like too, which ought to prevent such an attack becoming quite as much of a Charlie Foxtrot as the original raid proved to be.
Last edited:
Could also lead to the development of the Carpet Layer of the AVRE much sooner, once they analyse the results from the use of landed AFVs...
Tbh as was shown they are going to need a way to get those ta la ashore and quickly even if they pick the right beach we are still talking about the Channel they are going to have to lash down those tanks and drop the DD tanks in close enough so they don't get swept away.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
The British are in the Mediterranean, as they will be in Norway and along the French coast, taking their first baby steps, on the long road towards eventual invading Italy and France. It should be remembered that the British have a long history of amphibious operations, some highly successful Quebec, and others that were complete disasters Gallipoli. And when it comes to equipment, there are only two devices that the British hadn’t been experimenting with in the inter war years, the LSD Landing Ship Dock, that’s down to the Japanese, and the tracked amphibious lander American. The Americans went on to develop the amphibious truck during the war, while the British were the first to build large Tank landing ships, the famous large slow target LST. Note that post war it was the British who made the next two big leaps in amphibious operations, the introduction of both the hover craft, and vertical assault with helicopters. And we shouldn’t forget that the British expanding on work during the inter war years, developed the amphibious tank, the famous DD Sherman. Britain had on the proverbial shoe string during the inter war years experimented with a number of landing craft, and had by the outbreak of war had working models of both a basic personnel and vehicle carrier, along with being the first to design a tank landing craft, which became the LCT in American and British service.
The recent operation in the Eastern Mediterranean, while being a success overall, has shown up a number of problems, as will similar operations in Norway and France. The first mistake was during the preparation, in failing to remember P6, that is proper preparation prevents piss poor performance. As time passes and the British gain more experience in planning amphibious operations, they will realise that the hard work of preparing such a mission is in the reconnaissance. This includes, better air reconnaissance so that everyone has as accurate as possible maps of the invasion beaches and the surrounding area. Along with intense reconnaissance of the proposed landing site and the waters surrounding it, this will involve combat swimmers mapping the area and taking samples of the ground, to ensure it can support any vehicles and troops you propose landing in the area. Often forgotten is as though a metrological survey as possible, the beach might be perfect, but if twenty days out of thirty is unusable because the local weather conditions subject it to extreme surf conditions, it’s definitely better to look elsewhere. If can not get your tanks/armoured vehicles off the beach and there are no suitable roads to drive them on, there is no good reason to send them.
Will the British attempt a landing against a defended port/harbour such as they did IOTL against Dieppe, probably, will such an attack be as big a deserter as this was maybe. However with better preparation, and the realisation that tanks need a better beach surface to land over, such an attack could be less costly. While still highlighting that such an assault is not likely to produce the results you want. It should be noted that I personally can only recall one assault against a defended harbour in the modern era that succeeded, the American assault against Incheon during the Korean War. And had this attack been against a better equipped and commanded army such as the Germans of WWII, I believe that it could have been a total failure. Note that all the allied attempts to capture a defended harbour during the Touch invasion failed, and they were against a really weak opposition. There is no doubt that the British will have learned some valuable lessons from this attack, and will in the subsequent months/years learn even more. In the same way that the USN/USMC, learned valuable lessons as they progressed across the Pacific, it was only in subsequent landings against larger islands such as the Philippines and Okinawa, that the Japanese were able to make the Americans pay a significant price for success. And that was predominately in the land campaign subsequent to the initial landing. Right now and for the foreseeable future all the advantages will lie with the British as it is they who have the overwhelming naval advantage, and increasingly air superiority.
RR.
The recent operation in the Eastern Mediterranean, while being a success overall, has shown up a number of problems, as will similar operations in Norway and France. The first mistake was during the preparation, in failing to remember P6, that is proper preparation prevents piss poor performance. As time passes and the British gain more experience in planning amphibious operations, they will realise that the hard work of preparing such a mission is in the reconnaissance. This includes, better air reconnaissance so that everyone has as accurate as possible maps of the invasion beaches and the surrounding area. Along with intense reconnaissance of the proposed landing site and the waters surrounding it, this will involve combat swimmers mapping the area and taking samples of the ground, to ensure it can support any vehicles and troops you propose landing in the area. Often forgotten is as though a metrological survey as possible, the beach might be perfect, but if twenty days out of thirty is unusable because the local weather conditions subject it to extreme surf conditions, it’s definitely better to look elsewhere. If can not get your tanks/armoured vehicles off the beach and there are no suitable roads to drive them on, there is no good reason to send them.
Will the British attempt a landing against a defended port/harbour such as they did IOTL against Dieppe, probably, will such an attack be as big a deserter as this was maybe. However with better preparation, and the realisation that tanks need a better beach surface to land over, such an attack could be less costly. While still highlighting that such an assault is not likely to produce the results you want. It should be noted that I personally can only recall one assault against a defended harbour in the modern era that succeeded, the American assault against Incheon during the Korean War. And had this attack been against a better equipped and commanded army such as the Germans of WWII, I believe that it could have been a total failure. Note that all the allied attempts to capture a defended harbour during the Touch invasion failed, and they were against a really weak opposition. There is no doubt that the British will have learned some valuable lessons from this attack, and will in the subsequent months/years learn even more. In the same way that the USN/USMC, learned valuable lessons as they progressed across the Pacific, it was only in subsequent landings against larger islands such as the Philippines and Okinawa, that the Japanese were able to make the Americans pay a significant price for success. And that was predominately in the land campaign subsequent to the initial landing. Right now and for the foreseeable future all the advantages will lie with the British as it is they who have the overwhelming naval advantage, and increasingly air superiority.
RR.
And what is being learned in the Aegean is also going to be applied in the Far East as well. With Singapore holding against the Japanese, the USN's Pacific strategy of OTL is going to be distinctly sub-optimal. I think the landings in Borneo are going to come a lot sooner that 1945 ITTL.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
The American Pacific strategy has been planned from before the Great War, and will basically follow the pre war plan, involving as it did very few ground forces, and large naval forces. Remember there is very little need for American naval forces in Europe, especially their capital units, and they would have to take second place to the British, which is not acceptable to the American government and military. There is however a great demand for American ground forces, and they will be fighting against a technically advanced enemy, which the army want to do, not play second fiddle to the marines in an island hopping campaign. As for Borneo, it can be very much left to wither on the vine, and given how underdeveloped its infrastructure is, those vital points can be captured one by one, by a small force. The major amphibious operators by the British will be against Thailand, Vietnam and possibly Southern China. Were the ability to outflank the Japanese by landing behind the current front line, will give the British a major advantage.
RR.