Sounds like an excellent dissertation topic! Out of interest, have you come across Aimee Fox, Edward Erickson or Mesut Uyar yet in the academic literature? Have recently done some academic work myself on the Great War in the Middle East and found them extremely useful.
Upon further review, I have Erickson’s book in my to-read pile but must have forgotten that I ordered it. (It happens!). Uyar’s book is too pricey to order but I’ll have my library get it. Thanks for the tips!
Sounds great! I picked up a second hand copy of Moorehead last year, but it's still on my stack.
I have a quick question though. I've been working on a longer I-don't-know-what on Advanced Base Force development, and nothing in what's publicly available references British doctrine in ABF doctrine development. I did see a bit on Dion Williams going through the files at HQMC in 1913 for any doctrine the Corps had on paper, and all he found were the lectures and articles he'd written himself.
I know you shared 18th century RN doctrine links with me a few years back, but the 20th century seems like it was whole cloth for USN/USMC.
I'm only up to 1914 so far, so I'm not worried, but was wondering if you'd found any cross over between the Royal Navy and the USMC doctrinally pre-1917?
Not yet, but I had to cut that U.S. chapter from the dissertation. I’ll bring it back for the book but that research isn’t started yet.
The short answer is yes in practice there’s a lot of common. But the U.S. doesn’t have written doctrine until Dion Williams and Pete Ellis started the practice.
Sounds like an excellent dissertation topic! Out of interest, have you come across Aimee Fox, Edward Erickson or Mesut Uyar yet in the academic literature? Have recently done some academic work myself on the Great War in the Middle East and found them extremely useful.
Aimee Fox’s chapter on Gallipoli is already on my list but I’ll check out the others.
Upon further review, I have Erickson’s book in my to-read pile but must have forgotten that I ordered it. (It happens!). Uyar’s book is too pricey to order but I’ll have my library get it. Thanks for the tips!
Strongly suggest reading these two gems by Moretz:
"The Development of British Amphibious Operations 1882-1914"
"British Amphibious Operations of the First World War".
They may have some answers to that question of why they abandoned established doctrine...
I already have the first ordered, it’s still crossing the pond!
Sounds great! I picked up a second hand copy of Moorehead last year, but it's still on my stack.
I have a quick question though. I've been working on a longer I-don't-know-what on Advanced Base Force development, and nothing in what's publicly available references British doctrine in ABF doctrine development. I did see a bit on Dion Williams going through the files at HQMC in 1913 for any doctrine the Corps had on paper, and all he found were the lectures and articles he'd written himself.
I know you shared 18th century RN doctrine links with me a few years back, but the 20th century seems like it was whole cloth for USN/USMC.
I'm only up to 1914 so far, so I'm not worried, but was wondering if you'd found any cross over between the Royal Navy and the USMC doctrinally pre-1917?
Anyhow, all my best.
Not yet, but I had to cut that U.S. chapter from the dissertation. I’ll bring it back for the book but that research isn’t started yet.
The short answer is yes in practice there’s a lot of common. But the U.S. doesn’t have written doctrine until Dion Williams and Pete Ellis started the practice.
So far an excellent assessment.
I wonder if the folks who planned the Gallipoli operation looked at landing at Tanga in November of 1914.
It sure is a beautiful city.