The Persian/Greek Wars show you what loss of the seas does to you. You get Greeks bearing sharp pointy gifts.

 

 

Do you have any information about when Petty Officer Capriotti was in Hawaii?

The timing would be significant as it could be coincident as to when the PacFLT opened its underwater demolition swimmer school.

 

That would be the mid to later half of 1942.

 

Curious.

 

Herald

 

Israel never had control of the seas. First Britain had it now America has it. The country with the second largest population of

Jews and the largest population of philos. That is not all that bad for naval security. And Israel can count on it's commerce being protected by default of US naval hegemony. Every nation has to rely on others for some things.

Numbers and priorities. Until we kick this oil habit and take down the PRC bandits, the USN is going to be busy east of Israel.

 

 

As for the Persian/ Greek wars showing that loseing control of the seas gets you Greeks with pointy things, by Alexander's time it was the Greeks who lost control of the sea. He solved that problem simply by marching along the coast Eastward subjugating cities one by one. 

1. Alexander burned his transports. The Greek fleet back in his homeland he left untouched. Got to take those classical historians with appropriate seasoning.

2. The whole point of Tyre was to cut Persian SLOCs to Egypt and preserve his own SLOCS to Greece. He was still receiving Greek reinforcements by sea.

 

 

 

Israel is simply not rich enough to be a naval power. Nor is it dependant enough on the sea. It is to bad in a way. To my  anglo-saxon mind navies are associated with adventure, technology, travel, pioneering and making the seas bloom(so to speak), and aesthetically pleasing warships while armies have a distasteful association with unchecked autocracy or even barracks-states. Not to mention, navies fight nature as well as man which European style armies usually are not made to do. Nevertheless not everyone can be a naval power. Russia cannot be, and Germany could not be. And Israel cannot be and need not be. Historically Israel's naval history was as an arm of the secret service rather then as a military component. That is for such things as smuggling refugees or weapons. Or countering same. Or carrying out covert ops. The most interesting thing about Israel's navy is being involved in the first surface-to-surface missile battles. And the main purpose of todays Israeli navy is(besides boomers) allowing the interception of smugglers without actually sinking them.

In other words Israel's navy cannot be a "strategic arm". Or more precisely it cannot be an operational arm. Israel is simply not likely to be in a war in which sea power would be decisive. Nor does it have the resources to build a navy.

One possible use for the Israeli navy, would be to remodel it as an amphibious force. The ability to land brigade strength or more forces on an enemy coast would be a powerful addition. Remember Inchon.

As for using the Italian Navy as advisors, there is no particular reason why Italians would know more then Israelis. The same strategy textbooks are open to all and the Italian navy had mixed performance in the last major naval war. The only powers who have used seapower as a strategic arm recently are US, Britain, and Russia, and Russia is a sea-denying navy. Italy can tell how to administer a navy though. But US can do that too.

To put it bluntly, don't have Kaiser Bill fantasies. Israel is not a naval power and trying to be would require to much investment.

 

 

 

The question of geographical size seems irrelevant when one looks at the histories of navies. Israel is small yes, but does that mean it can't have a navy that can project power, and be a strategic arm of the Israeli military machine...no.

 Trade defense is the legitimate reason to have a navy-that and killing bandits.

The Dutch in particular is an example of a small nation exerting great naval power. They were the traders, the middlemen and with wealth it brought with it great military might. These examples are to only highlight that bigness doesn't make greatness. Israel has great entrepeneurial/brain resources, which in my opinion is the most valuable resource available to a nation. Israel is also situated smack bang in the crossroads of East meeting west, providing it the perfect place to be the global middlemen. Point here is if Israel was to shed its socialist upbringing, embrace the market, deregulate its banking sector and curb its constant terror threat (tourism) there is a great capacity for it to have the budgets necessary to support a world class navy.

Dutch in Indonesia. Rape, pillage, murder.     

As for the reasons why Israel would ever need a blue water navy, a Navy which has strategic capabilities, there are three main reasons for such a need;

Reiterate- Trade defense is the legitimate reason to have a navy-that and killing bandits. 

First, Israel is the Jewish State, it is therefore a guardian of all Jews that may find themselves persecuted in their host country. You may chalk this up to some bizarre paranoia, but history would say otherwise, inevitably there will be some institutionalized Jew hate, and Israel's Navy should be able to project power at the very least to execute a plausible evacuation of the threatened jewish population abroad.

 

1. Agreed. This comes under the heading of killing bandits. 

2nd, part of Israeli military doctrine is defensive strategy, offensive tactics. This means that Israel should in every part of its war making strategy be able to take the battle from its shores and bring the threat to the enemy. Why should Israel's Navy be excluded from having such a capacity.

3rd, Israel relies to a great degree on deterrence in order for it not to be plunged into war every other day. This means that the enemy will back off b/c he knows if there is a fight he will get mauled or at least badly injured. Having a Navy that can deploy troops, a Navy that has a good submarine threat and can provide firepower is a great deterrence factor with the cost-benefit analysis.

I am of the opinion, that the only thing limiting the growth and strength of Israel's Navy, is Israel. I for one have been a long advocate of mimicking the Australian naval procurement of the last few years, especially with its canberra and hobart classes. I also regard the need for Israel to build its own indiginous attack submarine. Israel would obviously need to drastically increase its defense budget, which in itself will demand a government that limits its welfare program, increase its revenues and encorporates its brain power assets in a competitive marketplace. Currently Israel spends 10% of its gdp on its defense, in the 80's it was close to 25% of its gdp. Israel is today one of the top economies in the world, and has shown quite adaptive resilience in the face of intractable conflict, Israel should be given the benefit of the doubt.

4. The need to control the local battle-space makes sense, that includes the eastern Mediterranean as far as possible. Strategic mission assigned to the submarine arm means a strategic not a tactical submarine.  Deterrence only works if the deterrent fits the threat set.

This Naval increase would demand of Israel much forward thinking, and changes in economic policies to support such procurement projects, but it can be done!

Shirrush,

 

I do enjoy our disagreements, it shows the diversity of though when approaching, the composition, purposes and and values seen in the Jewish State. I have noticed though that in our exchanges, you conveniently stop posting when the argument demands a further qualification,clarification or begs the question on your part (if you like I will cite the threads).

 

As for this argument on the need and possibility of an Israeli navy that can project force and engage other naval/military forces far from its borders...there is plenty to argue about. I'm just reticent to get into another debate with you when on previous occassions they have left me wanting. I will wait for your reply or another posters reply (if another poster is interested in this disagreement then I will move forward with my opinion)