Much Ado About Nothing?Much Ado About Nothing?

Command Relations in Amphibious Operations

CAPT Don Inbody, USN

“You can get your planes to do anything you want, but we can’t get the Air Force to do a goddam thing!”

Lt. Gen. Patton to VADM Hewitt

July 1943

At IssueAt Issue

What is the best command relationship between CATF and CLF?– OPCON Command (Doctrinal)– Support Command (Test)

Joint Pub 3-02Test Pub 3-02

OPCON CommandOPCON Command

OPCON COMMAND RELATIONSHIP CATF/CLF OPTION

JFC, Navy Component Commander, or JFMCC

CATF CLF

OPCON

Optional OPCON Relationship

PLANNING PHASE EXECUTION PHASE

CLF

CATF

JFC, Navy Component Commander, or JFMCC

Support CommandSupport Command

S U P P O R T C O M M A N D R E L A T I O N S H I P

J F C , N a v y C o m p o n e n tC o m m a n d e r , o r J F M C C

C A T F C L F

O P C O N ( N o t e 1 )

P L A N N I N G P H A S E E X E C U T I O N P H A S E

J F C , N a v y C o m p o n e n tC o m m a n d e r , o r J F M C C

C L F C A T F

S u p p o r t

Amphibious HistoryAmphibious History

Historical ExamplesExamine Command Relations

– Landing Force Commander– Navy Force Commander

Determine major contentious issues for the commanders

Historical Examples (33)Historical Examples (33)

Veracruz Expedition Civil War Western

Campaign Gallipoli Guadalcanal North Africa Sicily Salerno New Guinea Campaign

(15 landings)

Tarawa (2 landings) Marianas (3 landings) Normandy Southern France Leyte Iwo Jima Okinawa Inchon

Command Relations RegimesCommand Relations Regimes

Cooperation (Support Command)OPCON CommandExpeditionary OPCON

GallipoliGallipoli

Cooperation Technical problems with landingTechnical problems with C2No problems related to command

relations

GuadalcanalGuadalcanal

Expeditionary OPCON– Landing Force Opcon to ATF

Issue: CVs supporting ATFIssue: CATF Controlling movements

of landing force.

SicilySicily

CooperationIssue: Air/CV SupportAirborne movements not

coordinated

SalernoSalerno

Cooperation (Support Command)Withdrawal from landing beachIssue: Air Support (cooperative)CV Support

New Guinea CampaignNew Guinea Campaign

Cooperation (3 landings)OPCON (12 landings)Issue: CV support MacArthur presence (Strong CinC)

Mitigated command relations problems

LeyteLeyte

OPCON CommandIssue: CV Support of ATF

MarianasMarianas

OPCON CommandIssue: Corps Control of Separated

landings (resolved)

Iwo JimaIwo Jima

Issue: Pre D-day NGFS– resolved for Okinawa

SummarySummary

Relationship Landings IssuesCooperation 8 7Exp 1 2OPCON 24 13Totals 33 22

Cooperation (Support) IssuesCooperation (Support) Issues

Gallipoli C2 from ship to shoreNew Guinea CV Support (x3)Sicily Air/CV SupportSicily Airborne coordination

Expeditionary OPCON IssuesExpeditionary OPCON Issues

Guadalcanal CV Support

OPCON Command IssuesOPCON Command Issues

Salerno Air SupportNew Guinea CV Support (x8)Marianas CLF Corps CmdLeyte CV SupportIwo Jima Pre D-day Fires

Summary of IssuesSummary of Issues

Relationship Landings IssuesCooperation 10 3Exp 1 1OPCON 19 13

ConclusionsConclusions

Air/CV Support is principal issue– Large carriers never under CATF

control– Land Based Air power not responsive to

CLF controlCATF & CLF relationship

– Different command relationship would not have solved most issues

Conclusions (cont)Conclusions (cont)

Landing Force Commander must have equal access to higher headquarters

Strong JFC can mitigate coordination issues– JFC’s presence

• MacArthur (SWPA, Inchon)• Spruance

– Clear commander’s guidance

Conclusions (cont)Conclusions (cont)

CATF will ultimately support CLF

Implications for Joint Force CdrImplications for Joint Force Cdr

JFC must provide clear guidance for air support

JFC must provide clear commander’s guidance to CLF and CATF

Much Ado About Nothing?Much Ado About Nothing?

Maybe so...

““Land Officers have no pretense Land Officers have no pretense to command at sea. Sea Officers to command at sea. Sea Officers have no pretense to command on have no pretense to command on land.”land.”Royal Navy Signal BookRoyal Navy Signal Book17441744