NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, R.I. OPERATION HUSKY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS By Stephen R. Cote Lieutenant Colonel, USMC A paper submitted to the faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations. The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy Signature ____________________ 18 May 2001 ____________________________ Professor Theodore Gatchel Commander Erik Dahl, USN Report Documentation Page Report Date Report Type Dates Covered (from... to) 18052001 N/A - Title and Subtitle Contract Number Operation Husky-A Critical Analysis Grant Number Program Element Number Author(s) Project Number Cote, Stephen R. Task Number Work Unit Number Performing Organization Name(s) and Address(es) Performing Organization Report Number Naval War College 686 Cushing Road Newport, RI 02841-1207 Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) and Sponsor/Monitor’s Acronym(s) Address(es) Sponsor/Monitor’s Report Number(s) Distribution/Availability Statement Approved for public release, distribution unlimited Supplementary Notes Abstract Subject Terms Report Classification Classification of this page unclassified unclassified Classification of Abstract Limitation of Abstract unclassified UU Number of Pages 24 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report Security Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 2. Security Classification Authority: 3. Declassification/Downgrading Schedule: 4. Distribution/Availability of Report: DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED. 5. Name of Performing Organization: JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 6. Office Symbol: 7. Address: NAVAL WAR COLLEGE C 686 CUSHING ROAD NEWPORT, RI 02841-1207 8. Title (Include Security Classification): OPERATION HUSKY–A CRITICAL ANALYSIS (UNCLASSIFIED) 9. Personal Authors: LIEUTENANT COLONEL STEPHEN R. COTE, USMC 10.Type of Report: FINAL 11. Date of Report: 18 May 2001 12.Page Count: 23 12A Paper Advisor (if any): N/A 13.Supplementary Notation: A paper submitted to the Faculty of the NWC in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the JMO Department. The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the NWC or the Department of the Navy. 14. Ten key words that relate to your paper: Sicily, Mediterranean Theater, Husky, World War II, Amphibious Operations, Barclay, Mincemeat, Eisenhower, Alexander, Patton. 15.Abstract: The Allied invasion of Sicily was the largest amphibious operation conducted in World War II with over seven assault divisions landing across Italian beaches. The planning and conduct of HUSKY was fraught with indecision, fragmented planning, poor coordination, and a lack of unity of effort. Husky proves to be an interesting case study of the operational level of war and provides several relevant lessons for today’s commanders and joint staff officers. This paper analyses the Allied planning effort form the operational level of war only. Specifically, this paper analyses the planning and conduct of HUSKY against the following seven operational functions: operational intelligence, operational command and control, operational movement and maneuver, operational command and control warfare, operational fires, operational protection, and operational logistics. 16.Distribution /Availability Unclassified Same As Rpt DTIC Users of Abstract: X 17.Abstract Security Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 18.Name of Responsible Individual: CHAIRMAN, JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 19.Telephone: 841-6461 20.Office Symbol: C Security Classification of This Page Unclassified Abstract of OPERATION HUSKY – A CRITICAL ANALYSIS The Allied invasion of Sicily was the largest amphibious operation conducted in World War II with over seven assault divisions landing across Italian beaches. The planning and conduct of HUSKY was fraught with indecision, fragmented planning, poor coordination, and a lack of unity of effort. Husky proves to be an interesting case study of the operational level of war and provides several relevant lessons for today’s commanders and joint staff officers. This paper analyzes the Allied planning effort from the operational level of war only. Specifically, this paper analyzes the planning and conduct of HUSKY in regard to following seven operational functions: operational intelligence, operational command and control, operational movement and maneuver, operational command and control warfare, operational fires, operational protection, and operational logistics. 1 The Allied invasion of Sicily was the largest amphibious operation conducted in World War II, with over seven assault divisions landing across Italian beaches. From 10 July to 17 August 1943, Allied forces fought a determined opponent that effectively traded space for time and successfully evacuated a large force to the mainland of Italy. Operation HUSKY culminated in an Allied victory and proved to be the catalyst for the decision to invade the Italian mainland. However, the planning and conduct of HUSKY was fraught with indecision, fragmented planning, poor coordination, and a lack of unity of effort. HUSKY proves to be an interesting case study of the operational level of war and provides several relevant lessons for today’s commanders and joint staff officers. This paper analyzes the Allied planning and conduct of HUSKY from the operational level of war only. The analysis of grand strategy in the Mediterranean theater and the Allied decision to invade Sicily is beyond the scope of this paper. Likewise, this paper does not address the tactical conduct of units involved in this major operation or the Axis operational functions. Specifically, the planning and conduct of HUSKY is evaluated regarding the following seven operational functions: operational command and control, operational movement and maneuver, operational intelligence, operational command and control warfare, operational fires, operational protection, and operational logistics. The study of the command and control structure of HUSKY reveals many weaknesses and flaws that seriously jeopardized the outcome of the operation. Decisive leadership was lacking, unity of effort was difficult to achieve, and functional commanders were given too much freedom to act independently. Command and control is the first area to be discussed. 1 COMMAND AND CONTROL The Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCOS) placed General Eisenhower in a difficult situation during the planning phase of Operation HUSKY. As Allied Commander in Chief (C-in-C) for HUSKY, he commanded a complex, combined organization in which his three subordinate commanders were British. General Sir Harold Alexander was designated as the Ground Force Commander and also served as the Deputy C-in-C for HUSKY. Air Chief Marshall Sir Arthur Tedder was named C-in-C of Allied Air Forces and Admiral Sir Andrew B. Cunningham was awarded command of all naval forces for the operation. General Eisenhower disliked the strong British influence within the command structure and its potentially negative impact upon HUSKY. The British practiced a system of cooperation or “leadership by committee” vice the American system of decisive leadership. General Eisenhower believed that this command structure would introduce the British system into the Allied Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) and possibly reduce his authority. 1 While the command structure was not optimal, it did not usurp Eisenhower’s authority. In some ways, the system actually ended up benefiting Eisenhower, as it gave him the freedom to concentrate on theater strategic issues, while leaving the detailed planning of HUSKY to his subordinate commanders. In this way, Eisenhower had the flexibility to pick and choose which issues he should become personally involved in. The HUSKY command structure was formed around the functional area concept, with each commander coequal in status and reporting to the C-in-C, their common superior. They also reported informally to their own national command authority. Since Eisenhower had to create harmony and teamwork within the organization, he had to be very careful not to be too assertive in his dealings with the British commanders. A more effective command structure 2 would have been the appointment of an overall operational commander, who was subordinate to Eisenhower, but commanded the entire HUSKY force. A single operational commander would have been able to unite the three commands without the additional burden of theater strategic duties. As the Deputy C-in-C, Alexander attempted to fill this role, however, he was overburdened with his duties as the ground force commander and his personality did not lend itself to the decisive leadership needed to effectively command the force. Unity of effort became a critical issue during the planning of HUSKY. The issue of air forces being responsive to naval and ground commanders was never adequately resolved. Air commanders retained complete control over all aspects of the air campaign. As one naval task group commander noted: “They took the point of view that all airplanes should be under air command regardless of their function.”2 Marshall Tedder’s air staff concentrated on defeating the Axis Air Force by accomplishing three tasks: destroy or neutralize enemy air forces within range of the invasion area, protect naval operations, and defend northwest Africa and captured areas of Sicily from attack.3 Close air support was not a primary mission of the air forces, and they never intended