"WWI - why no amphibious landing on the Western Front?" Topic

Would it not have been possible, or was it even considered, for either the Allies or the Axis Powers to have made an amphibious landing behind the Front Line in either France or Germany to avoid a frontal attack on prepared positions and thereby achieve a war of movement, leading to a victory?

Surely, local naval supremacy for even a short number of days could have been achieved that would have allowed a landing and then exploitation of the enemy rear areas.

I'm not sure either, but I seem to remember reading that there was a crap load of mines off the entire coats, and that allot of the cities that could had a port were heavily defended…. perhaps.

Plus maybe that disaster in Turkey scared them off the idea.

I would not be suprised if plans existed. But with the sizes of the navies, the coastal artillery and the restrictive channeling leading to Germany…it would have been a slobberknocker. No doubt, both sides were fearful of looking more like the Persians than the Greeks in a rather famous naval battle.

Plus I don't think they had the art developed to the point where they could have successfully pulled off a large enough landing to make a difference. They didn't have the specialized boats, etc., that were developed for or during WWII.

There was a plan to descend on the Baltic coast, the Courageous class battle cruisers were designed to support it.If you don't know about them then have a look at
link
For the Baltic project
link

There certainly was a plan on the part of the Allies and the Brits actually built some landing craft – which could (and should) have been used at Gallipoli but were kept for the North Sea invasion that never happened

I think that the Brits were put off by the potential for intervention by the High Seas Fleet (which they shouldn't have been – it would have been a good way to get the Germans to come out where the Royal Navy could beat them) and the German High Seas Fleet never really had enough punch to challenge the Brits in a stand-up fight, so no chance of any amphibious work for them

The Belgian coast might have been possiible, but I doubt an amphibious landing could land enough fast enough to counteract the interior lines for the Germans

The closet operation to an amphibious landing was the Zeebrugge raid.

Landing troops is only part of the problem. You have to be able to keep them supplied (making it not possible for the Germans and expensive for the Allies, allowing for mines, submarines and coastal artillery).

I would imagine that there were troops deployed along vulnerable coastlines, albeit including second class or resting/recuperating units. If a landing took place, small numbers of troops could easily delay the invaders, slowing the advance until reserves could come into play. Then you have a beachhead which is probably vulnerable and difficult either to supply or evacuate. So the risks are very high, the chances of success are low.

And then the question of where to land? The Belgian coast was pretty heavily defended (as the Zeebrugge raid showed). Going beyond the Netherlands the silted river channels, covered by Heliogoland and next to the High Seas Fleet bases, would not be an easy target (read 'The Riddle of the Sands' for this). For the Germans, they would have to force the Channel – and for that they would need a decisive victory over the Royal Navy.

All that being said, it might make an interesting idea for a relatively small scale WWI campaign using Western Front troops without the trenches.

There was a plan for a divisional size assault (including landing heavy tanks) behind the coastal flank of the Germans in Belgium combined with a frontal attack in 1918.

I always thought it would make an interesting game.

The plan was shelved after the German Army essentially collapsed after Amiens in 1918.

One could make the same observations about the Allies in WW2, why didn't they just invade the Pas de Calais/Antwerp/Bremen or whatever to support their advance in NWE? Presumably for the same reasons they didn't in WW1.

It wasn't anything we did much while playing Third Reich either, although the NGFS came in very handy along the coast. Setting up and planning a huge set piece naval assault into the teeth of the German defences never seemed very attractive once the guys were safely ashore and fighting. The navy was also quite busy keeping the guys supplied.

I guess it was all just too close the enemy forces and their bases, air and naval power etc. All those scary minefields, MTBs and coastal submarines.

I suspect that Jutland – hardly a ringing endorsement of the Royal Navy's total command of the seas – would have been a factor in thinking as well.

Only Britain could realistically have spared the men to make such a landing, and I doubt they could afford a sea-born Somme should any of the German navy get involved during the disembarcation, or they find themselves in an uncharted minefield, or a u-boat attack. They would likely have been in range of german airpower too, without any chance of their own air cover.

And once ashore, advocate covers the supply question quite well.

when you consider the Royal navy's strategy for a german landing in WW2 – which was let them get ashore, then strike at sea – they would have been aware of the risks of just wasting more good divisions on a futile gesture before they were forced to surrender.

I'd expect Anzio, not D-Day.

besides, where would they strike for on foot?

Apart from maybe trying to knock off Kiel, I can't see much that could be landed on and defended while still offering a place to strike out to in Germany. its a big risk just to speed up the liberation of Belgium.

In 1914 when the Race to the Sea was ending the allies feared a German seaborne attempt to turn the extreme left behind the Belgian lines at Nieupoort thereby bypassing the potential flooding plans for Belgium and also for the Dunkirk area. The fear was of course the loss of Calais.

The Royal Navy did of course dominate the sea here and they had constituted the Dover Patrol to assist the Belgians by shelling the German rear areas and helping to break up their attacks. However the fear of German submarines was such that the Dover Patrol was eventually withdrawn to a safe distance especially after a ship was torpedoed in the area.

As far as I know the Germans had no such plans and I don't even know if they had the capability.

I know this is not the same as the question asked as this fear related only to the local tactical situation but I have often wondered why the British did not use the same tactic in the 1917 campaign for example when the ultimate target was Ghent and Bruges. I agree with Keraunos above when he says "where would they strike for on foot" but they could have assisted in the 1917 attempted breakout.

Make a great wargame.

There was indeed a plan, which Haig was enthusiastic about, to attack Ostend with landing craft…some modified to be able to carry tanks…in support of the Third Ypres offensive. However, the unravelling of that campaign meant reserves were not forthcoming for that plan and it got shelved.

Landing troops behind German lines could have been a tactical move to support troops attacking in Belgium or a strategic move to force the Germans to retreat.

The Germans did anticipate a landing and had troops stationed by the coast to repel an invasion.

IIRC. The British feared that landing on the coast of Belgium would put troops too close to German troop concentrations and the attackers would be easily bottled in, the German coast offered few if any useful targets and was too far from the front to force a major withdrawal.

Ideally they should have been able to land near Rotterdam/Scheveningen and take the Rhine and Maas while swinging south towards Antwerp which could have caused some panic with the Germans in Belgium.

As has already been said Third Ypres originally included plans for an amphibious landing on the coast behind the Germans lines. The main thrust of the campaign was supposed to move towards this goal.

Fisher boasted of plans to send 50,000 men to the Baltic or to the Scheswig Holstein. According to Richard Dunley PhD Candidate KCL who presented a paper on Fisher strategic deterrence in 1904-08 the plans were never really advanced. There were serious problems with that. By 1914 the Hochsee Flotte had the ability to ruin the RN day a strategic landing was out of question (and according to Richard Fisher was using the idea more to divert politicians from the BEF creation than a real war plan; disclaimer: while I have worked closely with Andrew D. Lambert in KCL I am not subscribing his approach to WW1, to me BEF was the right option and Fisher overplayed his hand in 1908 to the point he was not anymore able to deter the Germans). A tactical landing, as already pointed out, was planned but required a ground based advance to be made workable. The RN had a limited number of destroyers and any similar operation wold have needed them diverted from escort duty both of convoys and of the battlefleet. Larger the landing and farther away from ground relief larger the need for the tincans.

NAval gunfire was used in support of the army along the coast but a landing operation would have been an undertaking of a greater magnitude.

'Ideally they should have been able to land near Rotterdam/Scheveningen and take the Rhine and Maas while swinging south towards Antwerp which could have caused some panic with the Germans in Belgium.' Netherlands was neutral…. such a maneuver would have required Rotterdam to provide supply and invading the Netherlands would have caused serious political repercussions.

Certainly not by Germany. Their navy could make short runs into the North Sea, but nothing long enough to cover a convoy of slow transports and then a landing. They never went out again after Jutland.

The Germans kept 2 or 3 corps in reserve at first in 1914 to protect the coast but with the need for manpower on both fronts and the fact that the British deployed the BEF to France let them redeployed them to the front. The British used their naval reserve manpower in belguim and got it interred in Holland. So England had no one to actually invade with. You cant threaten an invasion without men.

The British then spent the war rebuilding their army several times after destroying it several times. You do not want to send someone with 6 weeks of basic training to take a beach led by a cadre several ranks above their last posting.

Also remember that great landing the Brits and French made in Greece which was bottled up by the Bulgarians until 1918.

'They never went out again after Jutland.'

Wrong, at least one fleet sized sortie and several BB division were out. In 1918 there was even a brief engagement with the US Squadron.

'Also remember that great landing the Brits and French made in Greece which was bottled up by the Bulgarians until 1918.'

apple and oranges. The landing was successful and the expedition supplied, just problematic to move forward in the terrain they faced. There was plenty of reserve trained manpower for an amphibious landing if the required conditions were meet. The problem was that it would have been a tactical exploitation on a flank and that would have happened only if the G in Gap Scheme happened. The Royal Navy division mainly returned to UK (only some units were interned in the Netherlands) and were used in Egypt and Gallipoli. You can threaten invasion without men, your enemy cannot look inside the hull of your ships. Actually the threat was perceived by the Germans as real hence the deployment of defenses along the coast.

"In 1918 there was even a brief engagement with the US Squadron."

News to me. Do you have a link to something online about this? It would be a fun scenario.

As well as landing craft, I've seen photos of two monitor style cruisers supporting a massive iron jetty which troops were to walk/run along to get to the beach. Also, another reason for the assault on Ostend was to take out the U-Boat pens there.

>They never went out again after Jutland.

On August 18/19 1916 the Hochseeflotte went out again on reconaissance into the North Sea, aiming at Sunderland. In skirmishes around this sortie two torpedo attacks upon German ships were made (one successfully damaging the Westfalen) and the light cruisers Nottingham and Falmouth were sunk by supporting submarines.

Another sortie towards the Doggerbank on October 18-20 led to no contact.

In december the fleet was reorganized and the submarine warfare got priority (with the consequence of the US entry into the war shortly after).

Starting in early 1917 repeated strikes by the ratings occured, preparing the navy as the focal breeding ground of the later German revolution.

In autumn parts of the Hochseeflotte were detached to support the landings in the Baltics.

On April 23-25 1918 a squadron sortied into the Northsea with five battleships, without contact.

Preparations for a major operation in October went to naught due to a combination of unrest and the realization that it would be military useless.

The "never went out again" is a myth cultivated by the British, who knew about the later sorties and decided (or just failed) not to engage again – probably because their goal to bottle up the Hochseeflotte could be achieved without a major naval battle. The Germans did not force another engagement (eg. by coastal shelling) because short of a complete victory (which would be highly unlikely) they would achieve not much by it and thus put their resources into submarine warfare.

After Jutland and with the interdiction of shipping, the Royal Navies plan was simple, you have to come to us. The straightjacket was that the German fleet could go into the North Sea and do what? Now had the German fleet headed for the channel or the Denmark straits etc, then a fleet engagement would have occurred.

As to allied landing you have a narrow strip of Belgium and Heligoland as your targets, one lands you into the arms of the German Army, the other is at the mercy of submarines for resupply.

The Royal Navy Division (63rd Division) fought on the Western Front from 1916 onwards.

1914-1918.net/63div.htm

The British were concerned about a German landing in 1914 and held back two divisions from the BEF.

The Germans were concerned about an amphibious landing in northern Germany and held back reserve forces there. The fear was that Denmark would join a British landing.

The Belgiums were afraid of a British amphibious landing when the war started and held back an infantry division to counter this.

The Germans were concerned about an amphibious landing on the Belgian coast and launched a pre-emptive attack (Operation Strandfest 'Beach Party') in 1917. This involved the first major use of mustard gas on the Western Front.

The British planned Operation Hush that, as Martin mentioned, comprised a division of infantry, tanks, cyclists and support weapons to be landed in two massive pontoons. The aim was to exploit any collapse of the German defenses on the Ypres heights during Third Ypres. There was extensive research on the beaches, including sand samples, tidal patterns, etc, etc. Ex-residents of the Middlekerke and Westende towns were interveiewed. A replica of the sea wall was made and tanks were fitted with special ramps – the first 'Funnies'. A huge smoke screen was planned, given that the biggest threat by far was not the mines but the huge (and not so huge) naval guns that protected the coast, with the aerial observers.

The conditions were never met for Hush and the operation was cancelled.

I am going to wargame the whole landing in Great War Spearhead, having created replica terrain for the coast from Nieuport to Ostend.

Robert

I am going to wargame the whole landing in Great War Spearhead, having created replica terrain for the coast from Nieuport to Ostend

Now that would be of interest to me should you decide to report your wargame.

Guys, thanks for your hugely interesting replies they are much appreciated. I think you agree, an interesting potential aspect of WWI. Thanks again.

There will be a report and lots of photos. My favourites are the stands that have two monitors and a scratchbuilt pontoon on each stand. I used Navwar for the models.

Robert

The other scenario that I have created is the fictional Battle of Timmapse. This involves Danish forces attacking German reserves just south of the Danish-German border. No amphibious landing though :(

Robert