Some Qualitative Observations of Air Power at Dieppe…

One of things I looked at in the course of my research was the contemporary qualitative view of the effectiveness of Air Power over Dieppe. This was easily classified into fours areas; political, command, operational and German views of the raid.

At an operational level a useful source was the Canadian Military Headquarters Historical Reports compiled by C P Stacey during the course of the war. Many of these were based upon oral accounts given by either surviving or released soldiers in the period 1942-1945. Therefore, they do not suffer from many of the issues related to oral testimony. Though Stacey’s motive must be born in mind as he was quite happy to confront Mountbatten over what he perceived as the problems of the raid. One of the more interesting things to come out of the accounts below was the issue of identification. Indeed by the D-Day it was common to see aircraft with the so-called ‘D-Day stripes’, however, these were certainly used during Operation STARKEY in 1943 and I have seen some reference to their use at Dieppe. Indeed I have seen a picture of a Free French Spitfire with bands applied over the cowling, however, I can’t find a standing order for this.

Anyway here is what I wrote on this source…

While at a political and command level it can be argued that RAF’s operations over Dieppe were viewed as a success, it is useful to see how those on the beach and on the supporting ships viewed it. Given that the RAF’s primary mission was air cover, their opinion helps to frame whether or not that support was successful from their perspective. The CMHQ reports compiled by C P Stacey form a useful basis for such an analysis.[1] In terms of air power, the views are mixed, varying from negative opinions on the issue of supporting bombardment to positive views on the overall impact of air power. For example, Captain G A Browne of the Royal Canadian Artillery, who served as a Forward Observation Officer (FOO) with the RRC, commented on the cancelling of the aerial bombardment to preserve the element of surprise that;

Further, is surprise easier to obtain, than the preparatory heavy air bombardment which in our case would quite probably have succeeded where surprise, or rather the hope of surprise, failed?[2]

This rather negative view can be contrasted with that of Lieutenant J E R Wood of the Royal Canadian Engineers, who was captured on RED/WHITE beach, commented after the war that

Some of our people later claimed they never saw the Air Force. Of course they didn’t. They were too busy up top keeping the Luftwaffe off us. I can truthfully say we were not machine gunned on that beach except by our own people after we’d folded up. That means the R.A.F. did its stuff.[3]

Two accounts highlight one of the key problems found during JUBILEE; the identification of friendly aircraft and friendly fire due to issues of command and control. Both Captain James Runcie of the QOCHC and Private Maier of the Essex Scottish both discuss the issue of friendly fire on Canadian positions on RED/WHITE beach.[4] However, neither account is critical of the RAF; for example, Maier noted that a late-arriving Landing Craft Tank caused the incident he witnessed, in his opinion.[5] All the force commanders in their reports highlighted the issue of recognition with Roberts noting that ‘A much higher standard of air recognition is required.’[6] This was reiterated by Hughes-Hallett in the ‘Lessons Learnt’ report.[7] The problem of control was noted in an army report in December, which praised the directing of close support aircraft, but noted that the delay imposed by the system then in place needed work.[8]


[1] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89 – The Operation at DIEPPE, 19 Aug 42: Personal Stories of Participants, 31 December 1942; CMHQ Report No. 90 – The Operation at DIEPPE, 19 Aug 42: Further Personal Stories of Participants, 18 February 1943; CMHQ Report No. 142 – Operation “JUBILEE”: The Raid on Dieppe, 19 Aug 42, Further New Information, 18 July 1945.

[2] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89, p. A-9.

[3] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 142, para. 15.

[4] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89, p. H-6; CMHQ Report No. 90, p. D-3.

[5] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 90, p. D-3.

[6] TNA, DEFE 2/551, The Dieppe Report (Combined Report,  October 1942), p. 143.

[7] TNA, ADM 239/350, Lessons Learnt, p. 1.

[8] TNA, WO 106/4195A, File 24 – Lessons to be Learned from the Dieppe Raid.

Some Concluding thoughts…

Here are some of my general thoughts on the effectiveness of the RAF during the raid on Dieppe. If I was to pull out one general point it would be that unlike what Mountbatten argued i.e that Dieppe provided vital lessons for OVERLORD, for the RAF Dieppe is one pillar of development that feeds in to 1943 but that it had to be understood in context with developments from other theatres.

——————————————————————————————–

In the build up to and during JUBILEE, the RAF showed the degree to which as a service it was willing to integrate into Combined Operations. The fact that in the inter-war years the RAF called for a holistic Combined Operations doctrine illustrates that the RAF was aware of the need to consider inter-service cooperation on operations. That this did not happen was largely down to the other services, especially the RN which wished to keep the focus on amphibious operations. The RAF was aware of the key role it was to play in any Combined Operation and by the start of the war the pre-requisite of air superiority was accepted by all the services. By 1942, the RAF had made a vigorous attempt to integrate itself into the Combined Operations organisation with the setting up of No. 1441 Flight at the CTC. This would eventually become No. 105 Wing, which would have an important role in controlling the crews required for the HQS and FDTs from 1943 onwards. This organisation from 1942 onwards would train squadrons from Fighter, Bomber and Army Co-Operation Commands in the principles relating to the support of Combined Operations. This occurred alongside their normal operations with which they were tasked. That this occurred despite the protestations of Harris, illustrates the importance that the Air Staff placed upon integration and co-operation.

During the course of JUBILEE Leigh-Mallory, as the senior RAF officer, played a full part in the advising and operational decision-making process and during the course of the battle sought to control air operations with a representative onboard the HQS. That Leigh-Mallory was not on board himself highlights the difficulty of commanding air power and the need to be at a central command node to effectively control air assets. This would still be the overall situation in 1944, though eased by the development of the FDT. Leigh-Mallory also illustrated a willingness to work with Mountbatten on future operations when it showed the opportunity to attain his primary goal of air superiority, even though these would become strategic dead end.

The parallel development of Combined Operation doctrine and the operational objectives of Fighter Command merged to give that command its primary mission during JUBILEE. Normally viewed as a selfish act by the RAF, an understanding of Combined Operations doctrine shows that the opposite is actually the case. That the RAF’s view of the role of air superiority had developed to include fighter operations by the time of JUBILEE helps to explain its role. The fact that it aided its Fighter Command’s role in 1942 should not be seen negatively. It illustrates the flexibility of air power in the face of changing operational conditions. The need for air superiority from fighter aircraft had been illustrated in numerous campaigns before JUBILEE, prevented German attempts to gain air superiority in 1940.

That the RAF’s modus operandi during JUBILEE fitted in with Fighter Commands role should as be noted viewed positively. The RAF was seeking to do its best to prevent the Luftwaffe from interfering with the operation. In this, it was generally successful. That the RAF suffered more than the Luftwaffe is not an indication that it was out fought on the day as the detailed analysis above illustrates that many of the airframes were returned to service and many pilots were rescued. This would be a telling factor for the Luftwaffe whose inability to replace losses would cost them in the air battles of the 1943 and 1944. However, the RAF was able to maintain and effective strength in 1943 with a well-trained cadre of pilots. The Luftwaffe was not able to do from 1942 onwards due to poor training and the high rate of losses it was suffering on all fronts.

Possibly the one area where problems occurred in the aftermath of JUBILEE was in the belief held by Leigh-Mallory and Mountbatten that a similar operation could be launched in order to wear down the Luftwaffe by forcing it to fight, even the RAF was forced to admit that the method was a one shot strategy and without the actual landing of significant forces there was unlikely to be a repeat performance. However, given the strategic situation of late 1942 and early 1943 it was perhaps not wrong for it to be tried. Both AFLAME and COLEMAN were strategic dead ends and this was realised by members of the Air Staff who vetoed the operations as far as they could. That they stayed on the agenda may well be explained by Mountbatten’s attempts to garner more power for COHQ, as was seen in the preparation for JUBILEE. However, Leigh-Mallory must not be excused for not seeing the fallacy of this strategy. Despite the failures of late 1942 the strategy was revived as part of deception plans in 1943, however, once again it did not succeed in the aim of bringing the Luftwaffe to battle.

In terms of the direct impact of air power on JUBILEE, it can be argued that with the exception of the loss of HMS Berkeley and some landing craft the cover provided by Fighter Command was useful in preventing the full weight of the Luftwaffe attacking the beaches. It was noted by eyewitness that some of the losses, while regrettable, were not the fault of the RAF as in the midst of battle craft were arriving late and caught in the maelstrom. The loss of HMS Berkeley was primarily the fault of the failure of command and control systems then in place to deal with RAF aircraft flying below three thousand feet. This meant that Luftwaffe aircraft under this height became the RN’s responsiblity, therefore, the loss must be put down to the RN’s AA defences. In general, the direct support provided was very useful. For example, the attacks on the Hess Battery aided No.4 Commando’s operation. Smoke laying was found to be very useful and was most welcome in the withdrawal phase of JUBILEE. The most disappointing aspect was the provision of Tac R which were left with little to do, as the Germans did not send in reserves. However, the battle was costly for the RAF, with aircraft on the direct support mission suffering the most. Nevertheless, the RAF was willing to accept these losses.

Traditional arguments relating to the effectiveness of JUBILEE usually relate to its importance in providing lessons that contributed to the success of OVERLORD. This is certainly the argument made by Mountbatten in his later life and supported by Hughes-Hallett. From an air power perspective, it is hard to support this position. That JUBILEE served a purpose is certainly true. It fitted in with the prevailing view of air power in support of Combined Operations and aided Fighter Command’s key operational objectives; however, these lessons did not last into 1944. By 1943, it became apparent to the Allies that the battle for air superiority in preparation for OVERLORD would have to be fought closer to Germany and due to the technical limitation of Fighter Command’s equipment; this battle would be primarily fought by the 8AAF.

Therefore, if the lessons of JUBILEE were not important in the preparation for OVERLORD, were they as useful elsewhere? The answer to this is that JUBILEE’s importance lay in the impact it had upon events in 1943. JUBILEE acted as an enabler of change. It illustrated problems that had to be resolved if air power was to be fully effective in Combined Operations. The problems the occurred in the command and control of air power during JUBILEE, noticeably the loss of HMS Berkeley, led to the development and refinement of a command and control system that played a useful role in the Mediterranean and come to fruition at Normandy. Had the war gone on beyond 1945 it is also likely that the further development of the FDT concept into ocean going FDS would have been useful to SEAC. The ability to control air power within the area of fleet AA defence during OVERLORD overcame the primary problem encountered during JUBILEE.

JUBILEE also illustrated the need for some form of aerial bombardment in support of Combined Operations, though its exclusion was for valid reasons. In order to deal with this contentious issue, as illustrated by Harris’ unwillingness to allow Bomber Command aircraft to bomb civilian targets in France, the formation of the inter-service committee on fire support was encouraged by discussions emanating from JUBILEE. This committee, led by the RAF examined the issue and made suggestions that would aid the planners of OVERLORD where aerial bombardment was used fully. Indeed the choice of Graham as chair was a perceptible one due to his pre-war experience in Combined Operations doctrine. However, as JUBILEE was an enabler it should be recognised that much practical experience in this issue and the development of the FDT concept came from the Mediterranean, which proved to be a training ground for ideas being developed. The Graham Report that appeared in December 1943 would form one source of information for the planners of OVERLORD. In providing this source of information the RAF illustrated its flexibility and willingness to work with other services on joint issues.

The thesis has sought to re-frame the debate surrounding the RAF at Dieppe by taking a progressive examination of both its operational and doctrinal context. Then it has sought to examine what impact JUBILEE had on air power in Combined Operations. Generally, it can be argued the RAF performed well on the day and that while losses were high these were either replaceable or repairable. Its impact upon on the Luftwaffe is more difficult but it can be said that their losses were more difficult to replace. While losses to the assault force occurred, it can be argued that had the RAF not been fighting for air superiority, thus, providing air cover, they would have been worse. The impact of JUBILEE on future operations is more difficult to assess. Certainly JUBILEE enabled discussions to occur but whether this had a direct link to OVERLORD is debatable given the vast amount of experience be gained in the Mediterranean. Thus, this thesis has hopefully refocused the debate on JUBILEE to an examination of the operational effectiveness of the RAF and the impact on developments in 1943 not 1944.

The end and a few changes…

Well I am sitting on the train to Birmingham to go and submit my MPhil thesis. Part of me is happy that it is done but the other part feels worried that I have left bits out. I know there are limitations but that is the nature of the beast. Being only 40,000 words there is only so much I could include. I admit as much in my introduction. I am proud of the work and feel that it does what I set out to do and that is to refute the revisionist accounts on the RAF’s perceived failure to use bombers at Dieppe.

One thing that I am very glad about is my choice of supervisor for it. I had the honour and pleasure of working with Professor Gary Sheffield, one of the UK’s leading military historians. I can not stress too much to potential postgraduate the importance of having a good working relationship with your supervisor. The ability to turn to him or her when you get stuck is so important and if the relationship is fractious it won’t help. I have been lucky to have a supervisor who let me explore the problem and offer pertinent advice when appropriate. He also acted as an excellent editor picking up on numerous mistakes that my tired eyes just could not pick up. I am certain that my thesis all the better for Gary’s help and assistance. So make sure you pick a suitable supervisor as it will pay dividends by the end.

In terms of what is next well the first thing will be the Viva at some date not too far in the future. However, before that I have got move. An offer by work means I leave this week. This is not as bad as it seems as I am going to go back to uni full-time for my PhD. I have to admit this is quite exciting. I am going to stick with Birmingham as even as a part-time student the atmosphere has been excellent. Also in the field of War Studies it is an up and coming challenger to KCL and it is exciting to be part of that. Birmingham already had a reputation in the field of First World War Studies and is growing in the area of Second World War Studies. It is also expanding into air power history. In terms of my thesis I plan to shift my area somewhat. Up until now I have concentrated on operational histories of the use of air power but I am now going to look at leadership effectiveness. In particular I am proposing to examine the career of Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory who seems to be the villain in many accounts of the Second World War. Hopeful, I will be re-focusing this in my thesis but time will tell on that. I hope to be starting in January. As I go along I will be blogging my experience as a comparison with Robert Thompson’s experience of a military history PhD in the states.

In the mean time I will be starting the process of chopping my thesis into one article and also starting some of the ideas I mentioned a few weeks back. I have just finished the editing process on my first chapter for a book on a conference that I attended last year. That should be out next year. I have also joined Zotero and so far I am pleased with it as a research tool. I have started an Air Power History group with thee aim of collating research and writing on this field. A grandiose task I know but who knows it may be of use to someone. All in all the next few months are going to be eventful.

Publishing my Thesis

I mentioned in my post yesterday that at some point I would like to publish what I have written. To do this I would need to expand the scope of the work but this is not some that is problematic as there were several areas that due to time and space just had to be left. From my introduction I made these observations as to the limitations of my thesis:

Despite the scope of research undertaken there are several areas that, because of limitations of time and the span of the work, have been avoided due to the focus on operational and tactical issues. First, strategic level discussions surrounding the RAF’s role, in particular the argument that the RAF were not interested due to its desire to prosecute the strategic bomber offensive, though by default this thesis does show that this is not a clear as some historians have argued. Second, it does not explore the importance of radar to JUBILEE as John Campbell in Dieppe Revisited has dealt with this effectively. Research also opened several areas that could not be explored but to the word limit; this included the use of balloons in Combined Operations and the RAF’s participation in providing meteorological advice for Combined Operations. If this work were expanded, it would be envisaged that the scope of archival sources would be increased to include various personal papers at assorted institutions and to expand the German perspective using the Bundesarchiv at Freiburg.

Thus, there are several distinct areas where I could bulk out a work such as this and because of the nature of my thesis I have not really described the air action of Dieppe, this having been done very well by Norman Franks in his work The Greatest Air Battle. However, it would be useful to include more of this to give a feel of the nature of operations during the raid.

However, I feel this is a few years off doing as I intend to start my PhD and so time will be precious. However, for financial reasons I intend to start my PhD in 2010 so in the mean time I have been giving some thought as to what can be effectively ‘cut out’ of my thesis and published as articles. This is a discussion I have already had with my supervisor, Professor Gary Sheffield. We have discussed distilling the key points from the thesis into one article and I feel this is a good idea but the thought of cutting 40,000 words into 10-15,000 sounds a bit daunting but a challenge I will enjoy. I do think that if done right this will add to the scholarship of Dieppe.

Another shorter article I have been thinking of playing with is statistical analysis of the losses suffered at Dieppe. This is one element of my final chapter but I feel that it could be taken further and is useful in explaining the nature of air power during Combined Operations and also disproving the normal arguments about the RAF at Dieppe i.e. they suffer more losses than the Luftwaffe, therefore, they must be bad. This to me is rubbish as offensive forces always suffers more proportionally. It is the nature of offensive warfare. It may well be use to link this to Lanchester’s Laws.

Another article, this time moving away from Dieppe, would be on the RAF and Combined Operations Doctrine. My research has highlighted that the orthodox argument of the RAF being fixated on strategic bombing have little basis in records. Actually recent scholarship, in particular David Ian Hall’s work on tactical air power, has started to show that the RAF views were much more nuanced and complex than hitherto assumed. This is certainly true of Combined Operations and an exploration of the RAF’s view and contribution may well be useful.

Most of these seem doable to me and is one of the reasons for me not starting my PhD as soon as I had planned, though I will be spending my time reading up on Leadership theory. I think, considering that eventually I would like to work in academia, that writing these papers and trying to get them published would be advantageous. I suppose a question for all you academics out there is which is more important; published works or qualifications? It always astounds me when I look at a job and they ask for a PhD but what if you have been published. Does this not count for anything?

Submitting my Thesis

Well I am almost at that time. In actual fact I am about two and a half weeks away from when I need to submit even though I still need to finish the conclusion. This isn’t as bad as it seems as I finish work on Friday so I have got time to get it done. 

It has been a very enjoyable experience that I intend to continue when I look to start my PhD very soon. My students are often amazed when I talk about writing 40,000 words but as I try to explain to them it is not that hard. Actual the real problem is trying to stay within the word limit. I have been re-drafting my chapters and I have found that I have just had to cut out section and references them in footnotes in an attempt to make my examiners aware that I know that these issues exist.

I have also been having to decide on a title for the thesis. Initially my proposal was entitled ‘The RAF and the Raid on Dieppe: A Reappraisal?’ However, as time has gone on and research has taken me in certain directions the feel of the thesis has changed to one that also deals with air power and Combined Operations doctrine. I felt that this needed to the reflected in the title. These were the titles I came up with:

  1. The Royal Air Force and the Raid on Dieppe, 19 August 1942: A Reappraisal
  2. Air Power and Operation JUBILEE, the Raid on Dieppe, 19 August 1942: A Reappraisal
  3. Air Power, Combined Operations (Doctrine) and Operations JUBILEE, the Raid on Dieppe, 19 August 1942
  4. The Effectiveness of Air Power at Dieppe, Operation JUBILEE, 19 August 1942

Each one had its merits but in the end I have picked 3 but taken Doctrine out of the brackets. I feel this nicely sums up what I have been examining as I have attempted to look at the effectiveness of the RAF from a doctrinal perspective. I have used a linear models of effectiveness for the thesis do this needed to be represented in the title. I think it works. Does anyone think different.

As I say I have been working hard to finish this and I have been doing lots of the fiddly bits to the format. One thing I have prepared is the contents. This is how the thesis is laid out with the key areas that have been discussed:

  1. Introduction
  2. Air Power and Combined Operations Doctrine from 1914 to the Second World War
    1. Lessons of the First World War
    2. The Royal Air Force and the Problems of the Inter-War Years
    3. The Role of the Staff Colleges and Combined Operations Exercises
    4. Writing the Manual of Combined Operations and the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre
    5. Synopsis
  3. The RAF, the Battle for Air Superiority and Planning Operation JUBILEE
    1. The Battle for Air Superiority, 1940-1942
    2. Training for Combined Operations
    3. Planning the Raid
    4. Synopsis
  4. Operational Analysis of Operation JUBILEE and ‘Lessons Learnt’
    1. Contemporary Qualitative Analysis of Air Power at Dieppe
    2. Quantitative Analysis of Air Power at Dieppe
    3. Raiding as an Intruder Strategy, 1942-1943
    4. Command and Control of Air Power during Combined Operations
    5. The Graham Report and Aerial Bombardment
    6. Synopsis
  5. Conclusion

The next part once I have finished and done my Viva is to look at what I can condense cut out and re-write for publication. I am toying with the idea of expanding the work to include area that time and length precluded me from examining. There is also a lot of narrative that was excluded that could be included to beef it out so who know.

Finally tank you to everyone that has read this blog and made comments of draft sections. Your contributions have been invaluable.

German Footage of Dieppe

Here is some contemporary German Propaganda footage of the Dieppe Raid. Makes for interesting viewing about the attack.

As to the validity of the footage I am not sure so if anyone has more information I would be interested.

One thing about youtube I like is some of the comments made by people. This piece has a few comments made by Canadians who still insist on blaming the British for throwing Canadians into this operation. The reality is more to do with the fact that by 1942 the Canadians are looking to be used in a major operations. All of this comes back to the debate surrounding Villa’s book and the role of Mountbatten. Villa’s work is extremely conspiratorial about the motives for Dieppe and centre’s much of the blame on Mountbatten. Villa’s work certainly shows that he had an axe to grind. For a more balanced view I would recommend some of the work done by Robert Henshaw who examines the role of Canadian Nationalism in the raid. Henshaw does not absolve Mountbatten but does show that it was far more naunced than Villa argues. As an interesting side note about the importance of Canadian Nationalism in wartime was pointed out to me last year by Trevor Harvey, who was talking about the formation of the Canadian Corps in the First World War, and he noted that nationalism was one of the key driving forces in the formation of that unit and its subsequent employment.

As a sidenote I have started another blog to support a unit my students are taking on Mass Media and Social Change in post-war Britain. It is a bit of an experiment to see how it can support the course. Also social and cultural history are not my areas so any thoughts or tips will be graciously recieved.

Combined Operations

Another aspect of my thesis that has required explaining is what is meant by the term Combined Operations as its meaning has change din the years since the Second World War. 

Combined Operations in modern military parlance does not equate to how it was viewed in the inter-war period and during the Second World War. RAF doctrine of the 21st century, AP 3000, defines combined operations as, ‘Military operations in which elements of two or more Allied nations participate.’[1] This definition is akin to coalition warfare and is not what is meant by the term combined operations as will be used throughout this thesis. RAF doctrine of the Second World War era, AP 1300, defines combined operation as:

‘…the term to de-scribe those forms of operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working separately under their respective commanders, but with a common aim.’[2] 

Thus, with this definition we are closer to what is meant by combined operations during the Second World War. If combined operation were to be discussed in the modern military the vernacular to be used would be one of jointness where operations take place ‘…in which elements of more than one service of the same nations participates.’[3] Therefore, combined operations in this context involves more than one service operating together to achieve a common aim. However, the definition can be taken further, as does the doctrinal manuals of the time, AP 1300 and the Manual of Combined Operations,[4] do, as there are several forms of combined operations which can be taken into consideration, such as raids, invasion, demonstrations and withdrawals.[5] By the time the revised Manual of Combined Operations had been published in 1938 the definition had been modified to:‘…forms of operations where, naval, military, or air forces in combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategical object.’[6] 

While this definition does not offer a satisfactory definition for the topic of this thesis it is what the British military understood by the term as they went into the Second World War. It does, despite several salient shortcomings, provide a sound basis as to what combined operations are. Within the context of this thesis a combined operations can be defined as a raid against a hostile shore utilising forces from each of the three services operating independently under the command of their respective service chiefs but with common tactical, operational and strategic aim as laid down by the supreme commander, in this case the Chief of Combined Operations, Mountbatten. This contains the key tenants of the 1938 definition under which Mountbatten and his force commanders, including AVM Leigh-Mallory, were operating.


[1] Anon AP 3000: British Air Power Doctrine, 3rd Edition (London: HMSO, 1999) p. 3.13.3
[2] TNA, AIR 10/1910 ‘Royal Air Force War Manual Part I – Chapter 13: Combined Operations’ p. 1. AP 1300 was originally published in 1928 and subsequently republished in 1935 and 1940. A useful online version of the manual is available at http://ww2airfronts.org/doctrine/raf/warmanual1/warmanual1-0.html
[3] Anon, AP 1300, P. 3.13.6
[4] TNA, DEFE 2/709 ‘Manual of Combined Operations, 1938’. This manual is a revision of the 1925 and 1931 manual that was born out of exercise at the three service staff colleges.
[5] Ian Speller and Christopher Tuck Amphibious Warfare: The Theory and Practice of Amphibious Operations in the 20th Century (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2001) p.
[6] Cited in Kenneth Clifford Amphibious Warfare Development in Britain and America from 1940 – 1940 (New York: Edgewood, 1983) p. 1