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
xylene       5/2/2007 2:05:50 PM

But wars are only won by occupying the other guy's territory.  That takes soldiers, not sailors.  The enemy can't mess with your merchant shipping once you've taken his ports.  Again, soldiers.  Obviously, therefore, the Navy is an ancillary force that exists to support the Army.  The Navy's primary focus should be transporting soldiers to the battle, putting them ashore (including by assault landings/helicopter insertion when necessary), and keeping them supplied while the Army wins the war. Most of all, the Navy needs to emphasize providing effective Close Sea Support (CSS) to the troops.  Of course fulfilling the mission of winning the ground war may require securing sea superiority, but such efforts must remain merely a prerequisite stepping-stone to facilitating accomplishing the real mission. Therefore, construction of naval superiority ships like multi-billion dollar submarines needs to take a back seat to construction of transports, amphibious warfare ships, and aircraft carriers filled with close air support aircraft. Most of all the Navy needs to build a new class of arsenal ship that does nothing but what the Navy ought to be focused on, which is its primary mission of providing CSS. Probably the best way to ensure close co-operation between the support element (the Navy) and the combat element (the Army) would be to put an Army officer onboard each ship, either as the executive officer or even as the commander.  Also, Naval Operations staff needs to be mainly comprised of Army officers. In fact, it would probably be best for CNO to be an Army four-star, preferably with extensive Infantry or Armor and corps-level command experience. That way officers who actually know what its like to fight wars can make sure the Navy provides effective support to the warfighters.  Shoot, I suppose the best solution really would be to abolishing the Navy as a separate branch and just bring it under the Army where it belongs and probably always should have been all along.


That should be the job of a viable US Merchant Marine.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman       5/2/2007 6:17:41 PM

Yay! What's the prize? Perhaps a small ship for the Danube fleet of my new Slovak navy that is actually part of the air force, which is part of the army that, in turn, is merely a branch of the space forces, which belong under the X-forces that play only a supporting role for the special forces... ugh, I think I need to fix the chain of command! ;)
*Ding!  Ding!*

 

Ladies and germs, we have a winner!

 



 
Quote    Reply

CJH    displacedjim Priorities    5/27/2007 2:42:15 PM
I would offer these observations -
Perhaps the greatest single factor in Rome's defeat of Carthage in the Hannibalic War was Rome's control of the seas through its seapower. The king of Macedonia made an effort to send forces to Italy in aid of Hannibal but quit at the sight of patrolling Roman galleys. Yet this war is regarded as a land only war.
 
In the earlier Sicilian War with Carthage, Rome built a fleet (really three fleets to get one successful one) from scratch. Rome's navy decided the outcome of that war because Carthage's army on Sicily had to surrender without resupply from the sea. 
 
Many knowledgeable people have said we just don't know how close we came to losing WWII because of the u-boats in the North Atlantic sinking our merchant ships. In WWI it was said England at one point was down to, I think, one week of food during height of the submarine campaign against it.
 
Rommel was chiefly stymied by a lack of supply over the Mediterranean because of British control of that sea.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       5/27/2007 5:29:37 PM
Why, CJH, it appears you knew the answers to your questions all along!  Who'da thunk it?  ;-)
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics