A frontal breakthrough of the Daugava River was extremely difficult. Although there were not many German troops on the southern side of this river, the attacking side was bound to suffer far more casualties than the defending side.
Since Australasia had better options, it naturally would not waste its limited manpower on such a place.
Currently there were two methods to bypass the Daugava River defense line. One was to employ airborne operations to launch a surprise attack on Kaunas in Lithuania, as well as Vilnius and Molodechno under German control, thereby cutting off the German army's retreat routes in reverse.
However, this placed relatively high demands on airborne troops since it required penetrating deep into the enemy's belly, and they might also face encirclement by German forces coming from the directions of Minsk and Białystok.
Yet the benefits were also obvious. Regardless of whether they captured Kaunas, Vilnius, or Molodechno, they would be able to sever the retreat routes of the Germans and cause the Daugava River defense line, which the Germans had painstakingly constructed, to collapse in an instant.
The other plan was to land via the sea along the coast of East Prussia and Lithuania. Doing this could mobilize more troops to participate in the landing battle, but the bad news was that they would also face more German troops, and the speed certainly would not be as efficient as airborne operations.
Still, the advantage of a maritime landing was safety. The British and Australasian fleets had completely secured command of the sea in the Baltic Sea, so the Australasian landing fleet assembled at the Lithuanian border had no need to fear threats from the German Navy.
Moreover, Australasia also held the advantage of air superiority, ensuring the safety of the landing operations, which made it obviously