Amphibious forces still need to put troops and heavy equipment ashore where an enemy would prefer to stop them. Those forces also require command and control facilities and must expect enemy attack. Nineteenth-century explosive shells and First World War artillery and machine guns supplied earlier reasons for declaring landings impossible. Operations nevertheless continued under those threats. Gallipoli is used to distinguish getting ashore from achieving a successful campaign afterwards, with failure of command and control blamed for what followed. The historical comparison concerns adapting the means of landing to an enduring mission.
Notable Point · 52:18-54:05
Amphibious missions persist as defenses change
Earlier threats to amphibious landings and the Gallipoli example distinguish getting forces ashore from succeeding in the campaign that follows.