Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Purpose Of Sea Power?
CJH    4/28/2007 7:01:30 PM
IIRC, Mahan wrote that a nation's sea power resided in its merchant fleet and that a navy's purpose is to secure access by this fleet to the world's seas. If this was so a century or more ago, what is the case now? Can we safely dispense with a blue ocean navy although we may retain the means to support ground forces from seaward? How important is unfettered ocean commerce to our nation's security? Is it necessary for us to be responsible for the security of the world's sea lanes? Are there any potential threats to that security?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Yimmy       4/30/2007 9:46:59 PM
Numerous wars have been won and lost as a result of naval warfare.
 
Just look at the Spanish Armada.
 
Quote    Reply

sibleyeng       5/1/2007 2:50:17 AM



Where is the army's front seat in a merchant shipping Vs submarine war Jim? Are you sure all wars are fought on land? I've got my doubts.



Why, it's right there on the front lines waiting for the Close Sea Support that the Navy is shirking while it wastes resources on its Strategic Torpedoing Campaign.  But that would be typical, since the Navy never has wanted to perform its primary mission of CSS.  If the Army controlled at least the CSS mission, if not the whole Navy like it ought to, then proper emphasis would be paid to building arsenal ships for launching cruise missiles and gunfire at the enemy troops so our warfighters could get the fire support they need to occupy the enemy's ports.  Then we wouldn't need to go chasing their merchant shipping around the globe since they couldn't bring any of it back to their country anyway.

By that logic, we don't need any air superiority machines as well. Ditch the F-22 and force the AF to switch over to JSF-Bs. Dump the F-22 money into additional cargo planes, AC-130s, SOCOM helos, and A-10s.
 
Then, since the Marines do a better job of CAS, and training their aviators to understand what "real" war is like, put Marine aviators in the cockpits.
 
Please tell me you were being sarcastic.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman       5/1/2007 3:54:59 AM
I think everybody has missed the point of displacedjim's posts. They are clearly a sarcastic reaction to people who want to merge the air force with the army and believe it ignores the close air support mission, etcetera.
 
Do I win a prize Jim? ;)
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/1/2007 8:00:27 AM
*Ding!  Ding!*
 
Ladies and germs, we have a winner!
 
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty       5/1/2007 8:08:19 AM

*Ding!  Ding!*

 

Ladies and germs, we have a winner!

 


I feel sheepish.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/1/2007 8:36:04 AM
When has air-power alone ever resolved a conflict?
 
The navy has... the army has.... but I don't think the airforce ever has.  I guess thats because its just a support asset unlike the other two?
 
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       5/1/2007 10:01:41 AM
 
"When has air-power alone ever resolved a conflict?
 
The navy has... the army has.... but I don't think the airforce ever has.  I guess thats because its just a support asset unlike the other two?:
 
Umm, How about the most determined foe that the American military ever fought?
 
No American Combat troops were ever landed on Mainland Japan. Sure we'd taken outposts, and bases, and even a small fistfull of home islands. But we never landed on the main landmass of Japan. No matter how hard we tried, we couldn't break the Japanese will. We cut them off, destroyed thier fleet, pushed them back from the sea, and killed hundreds of thousands  of thier soldiers as we hopped across the pacific. But even as we closed, the Japanese were still preparing for that last battle. It took B-29s to break thier will. It took massive firebombings, massive civilian casualties, and finally, not one but two atomic blasts to finally drag the Japanese to the peace table. It was airpower that brought the fight to the Japanese Mainland. It was Airpower that destroyed thier will to fight.
 
The Navy won the entire Pacific ocean, crushing thier foes and dominating the waves. The Marines fought and bled for each and every island that they wrested from the Imperial Army. But the bombers can claim Japan. No troops ever touched its beaches, and the Navy with all of its carriers, and all of its battleships, still couldn't have possibly projected the shear amount of firepower necessary to do it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Don't forget the LineBacker raids of Vietnam. We brough the Vietnamese to the negotiating tables. We didn't send troops, we didn't send ships, we sent planes, and they performed as expected. The navy didn't lose that war, that Airforce didn't lose that war, the marines and the army sure as hell did not lose that war. That one was all the F@@#ing politicians.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/1/2007 10:52:04 AM

When has air-power alone ever resolved a conflict?

 

The navy has... the army has.... but I don't think the airforce ever has.  I guess thats because its just a support asset unlike the other two?

 



And here we have why it remains necessary to resort to such tactics.  Thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/1/2007 11:33:39 AM
Jim, you are welcome to use whatever tactics you wish, however I tend to think such backdoor tactics destroy the credability of your argument. :)
 
Kirby, air-power did not win Vietnam (America lost), and neither did it win against Japan.  Japan was beatern on the ground in the pacific and Asia by the Americans, British, Indians, Chinese, Australians and Russians et al.  It is debateable as to whether Japan would have continued fighting without the atomic bombs being dropped, however it is not debatable as to their losing in the end.  This is while atomic bombs themselves are not limited to air-power (aircraft being but one method of delivery).
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       5/2/2007 1:57:00 PM
Many forget that seapower = military vessels + merchant shipping. Problem for USA is that it allowed its merchant shipping to decline. The merchant fleet of the USA consists mostly of inland or domestic shipping or military contractors. Very few viable US flag ,owned, and operated ships in actual international commerce. Our imports and exports are dependent on foriegn owned ships. Our imported oil is all brought in on foriegn vessels. There are no US flag supertankers except for the Alaska trade and that oil is for a specific market on west coast.
 
Without a shot being fired, a foreign enemy with deep pockets would simply need to buy or charter up existing vessels and redirect them and not charter out for US bound voyages. It would actually cause a temporary glut in oil prices but isolate the USA being starved of oil requirements. This then produces a game of chicken. Can the enemy afford to tie up shipping longer than USA can sustain shortage?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics