- This topic has 4 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is especially important from the late 18th century forward when the pace of technological innovation in western civilization sped up. Keep in mind that to the modern mind, change is a constant but that was not always the case, indeed for most of human history it was not the case. For example, the horse was the main means of transport for 90% of human history, it has only been since the 1840’s since the horse began to be superseded and only really since the 1950’s when the horse disappeared as a main means of transportation. The Wehrmacht of WWII was mostly a horse drawn force, the visions and popularity of striking Panzer forces were only a tiny part of the Nazi military machine. There were only 17 Panzer divisions in the German Army against something like over 150+ infantry divisions with horse drawn transport.In the 19th century the revolutionary transport method was the train. Rail movement allowed for the mass movement of men and material faster than ever before. The limitation was that rail only let you go where tracks already existed of a suitable gage. Trains only got you as far as the end of the line. Once an army reached its concentration area it was limited to the rate a man could march as to how fast it could go, this limitation also applied to the logistic support of this army. So rail revolutionized transport, but only to a point.This same argument can be made when we look at tactical level technology. One such example is the introduction of rifles and breechloaders. This subject appeals to me because in 1866 the Prussian army was the only army in the world that had fielded a rifled, breechloading weapon. This was the Dreyse Needle Gun which the Prussians fielded starting in 1848. A key part of most present analysis of the campaign of 1866 says that Prussian tactical superiority was decisive and the effects of the rapid fire of the needle gun were an extreme shock to their Austrian opponents.But a frank discussion of technology in war is probably long overdue in historical circles. It is generally taken as a given that the side which is technologically superior will win. Or in other words that God favors not the big battalions but rather he favors the battalions with the neatest toys. I don’t necessarily think that history proves this point. A close look at any of the wars since 1815 will show that technology does not win wars, yes possession of a technology the opponent does not have confers an advantage, but that advantage need not be decisive. In the final analysis it is the use to which the human material of war is put that decides wars. The best technology in the world is useless if soldiers are not trained in its proper employment or if the doctrine of its use is faulty.There are numerous examples of advanced technology conferring no significant advantage in a war. The current war in Afghanistan is but the most recent; but this principle applies to conventional wars as well as insurgencies. Look at French employment of the mitrailleuse in 1870 as one example or the Russian failure to use railroads in the Crimea in 1854 as another.
What about naval technology? I think, except for a few exceptions, history shows that a superior ship or line of ships almost always win.
So Homer Lea wrote in 1908 when referring to native Americans and the colonies taken by the Brits and others during the 19th century.
What about naval technology? I think, except for a few exceptions, history shows that a superior ship or line of ships almost always win.
Tell that to the Russians. Don't channel Mahan too much. Sea Power is not as important as many think it is is and its relative importance is a recent development. The thing to remember about navies is that, like aircraft, ships can't hold territory, it takes an army to do that. It was only in the last few hundred years that a naval blockade has become a crippling strategy.The whole point of this piece is that modern military bureaucrats and politicians tend to put too much faith in technology while forgetting the human factors of war.
If you are you only talking modern warfare then I agree. But if you are talking warfare in general, I respectfully disagree with a few points you just made (and I'm not only channeling Mahan here). First of all, it's not a recent development. The British became an empire and held territory mainly because of their naval superiority. The Dutch were a major global power for more than a century because of better ships and better piloting, and their ability to successfully blokage major trading ports. You also see this often with Spain and Portugal. That's been a strategy since the 16th century.I would say when an air force became a factor, that's when things changed and naval superiority wasn't as important.
Explain Persia, Rome for the most part, the Delians, Egypt, Medieval Kiev, The Huns, and the Mongols. Sea Power is only effective where control of the sea, and hence seaborne trade can impact the economic well being of one of the combatants. I am not saying the Naval Superiority cannot be decisive. I am saying that naval power is not the be all, end all of military superiority that much modern theory would have you believe. Air power is more easily negated than you might think. A sufficiently powerful ADA threat forces Air Power types to divert so much combat power to suppression that air striking power can be reduced to annoyance levels. If you don't believe me ask North Vietnam how effective American air power was at interdiction between 1963-1973. At best, and used most wisely, Air power is a tactical and operational, rather than a strategic asset.Question, In the modern world what is more important: naval supremacy or control of LEO? I know what I think but would love to hear your answer.
I'm not saying sea power is the end all for everybody, I was just questioning and disagreeing with your comment on it not being as important as many think. I can't explain the others, but Rome did have the strongest navy at the time. The others were superior of course because of better land forces and battle techniques. How did the Greeks beat Persia? Sea power. How did Sparta beat Athens? Sea power. Sea power was the most important factor in early modern warfare. Explain how the Dutch beat Spain if sea power wasn't the be all that ends all. Explain how a relatively small, isolated island nation ruled the world for 200 years. It was much more than just economic well-being IMO. And besides, economic superiority is how they paid the military, afforded to build new ships, and keep the people at home happy and well fed.I don't know enough about the history of air power to make an educated comment, other than saying when air power first came into play, it wasn't so much about naval power anymore. If air power is easily negated, then explain WWII. Explain Pearl Harbor, or London, or Berlin, or Rotterdam. With Vietnam, you can argue about domestic issues which is what lost the war for us. We could have (and did at times) easily anhilate them. But, nope. The Lefties and hippies couldn't deal with that for whatever reason. Wasn't air power a major factor in the first Gulf War. It certainly was a factor in the initial invasion if OIF. Shock and awe!The wars we are involved in today are different than total warfare. Finding legitimate targets is nearly impossible (think Afghanistan). Intelligence is almost as important as the infantry now. We didn't win Iraq at the end by bombing the crap out of them, we won it by convincing the sheiks to come to our side. That certainly wasn't the case in many wars I can think of before the 1960s when the only goal was total submission by an enemy and there weren't all these international laws and even some in our government that tied our hands behind our backs. I am not familiar with the acronym LEO. Is that a logistics thing? I'm pretty sure you don't mean law enforcement officer.
Sea Power is not as important as many think. In the end, ground force wins wars. You can attempt to starve a country but I guarantee that soldiers will always get fed first. Sea Power is only effective if a nation relies on the sea. Rome did not have a navy until they confronted Carthage and needed one to defeat them. Before that the Romans had no need of a navy and even when they built one it was more of a legion on boats and a way to turn sea battle into a land fight than a navy designed to take on ships. Read this piece and this on the Roman Navy and how they fought. Did the Dutch defeat Spain or just hold them off? There is a difference. The Dutch never managed to defeat Spain because they could not translate sea power into an effective way to project their ground power. Britain, and later the US are probably the only two true sea powers. Both because of an accident of geography and some smart people. Both cold and can also successfully project Ground force when necessary. Show me an Air Power than won a war, or even a conventional battle through the use of air power that was not backed up by the credible threat of ground power. The best example you can probably pull out is Kosovo in ’99 and you would be wrong. The Serbs didn’t quit because we bombed them, they quit because the US and NATO had a credible ground threat on the ground in Bosnia and Macedonia. Here is am example of why airplanes can’t win wars. Say you have a bomber or even ten and they are attacking an entrenched defense can those aircraft accept a surrender if offered to them? No, they cannot. Whereas a ground force supported by those same aircraft can accept a surrender. The same concept applies to sea power, can a fleet accept the surrender of say, a city? Yes, they can but can that same fleet exercise effective, the key word being effective, control over that city after the surrender? The answer again is no. An air force can gain and maintain control of the air while a navy can gain and maintain control of the sea. Unfortunately, most people and cities exist in neither place and control of population, industry, and agriculture are the prerequisites for the successful conclusion of any war. Sea Power and Air Power advocates either forget or ignore the above facts in their quest to make warfare clean, they don’t want to acknowledge that war is a dirty, bloody affair in which people get killed, and often in horrible ways. Don’t get me wrong, both have their place and can contribute mightily to eventual victory but neither is decisive in and of itself. The only Air Power or Sea Power weapon that is singularly decisive are nuclear weapons and that only because they have the capability to kill or destroy the entire enemy country to include it’s population. I will restate my Question, In the modern world what is more important: naval supremacy or control of LEO? I know what I think but would love to hear your answer.LEO means Low Earth Orbit.For help Google “The Rods from God.”
I want to read your links and will get back with more, but I'd like to comment on this
Did the Dutch defeat Spain or just hold them off? There is a difference. The Dutch never managed to defeat Spain because they could not translate sea power into an effective way to project their ground power.
Yes they did!A Dutch army was organized after the Dutch Revolt. By the 1700s William III made them the second largest army in Europe. (which they could afford because they had such a vast sea empire) They beat Spain both on the sea and on the land, in the colonies as well as the Low Countries. Spain invaded from the south, the Dutch were able to stop any invasion and eventually drove them back. And they weren't only defensive, they also went offensive. Check out the Battle of Nieuwpoort for example. Also, see this link about VOC warfare. I would say the Dutch were quite successful translating sea power to ground power.
Sea Power is not as important as many think.
Even in the 16th-18th centuries? If we can get into a discussion about expansion, colonization, and economic dominance this statement could be easily debunked.
Sea Power and Air Power advocates either forget or ignore the above facts in their quest to make warfare clean, they don’t want to acknowledge that war is a dirty, bloody affair in which people get killed, and often in horrible ways.
Where do you get this from? I haven't read any naval historian that even comes close to implying that. Is dying on a ship "cleaner"and less horrible than being shot on land? Was life easier for an 18th century sailor than it was for infantry?Just curious, do these two statements apply to all of history or only today's modern warfare?
Yes, even in the 16th-18th Centuries, the days of Sea Power's heydays.
Even in the 16th-18th centuries? If we can get into a discussion about expansion, colonization, and economic dominance this statement could be easily debunked.Where do you get this from? I haven't read any naval historian that even comes close to implying that. Is dying on a ship "cleaner"and less horrible than being shot on land? Was life easier for an 18th century sailor than it was for infantry?Just curious, do these two statements apply to all of history or only today's modern warfare?
No, to my thinking they apply to all of history. I did not say anything about the experience of the average sailor, that is irrelevant to larger history. The fact is that naval warfare is much less wasteful of lives than ground warfare. The focus on the experience of the individual soldier or sailor has no bearing on larger issues of military dominance. You can call me heartless but then answer me this: Do you think Pitt or anybody else spent a lot of time agonizing over the way British seamen were treated while in service? The experience of the average seamen had and has no bearing on questions of state. That is a figment of modern micro-history. Colonial dominance has nothing to do with sea power except to the extent that sea powers could effectively project land power. See my earlier comments about taking and holding territory. The name of the game is power projection and sustainment.
No, you're not heartless, just factual. With all the mutinees, I don't think even many individual captains could care less about his men except for them doing their job. Heck, they didn't even care about paying them.
Colonial dominance has nothing to do with sea power except to the extent that sea powers could effectively project land power. See my earlier comments about taking and holding territory. The name of the game is power projection and sustainment.
I understand that, but I don't agree at all with what you say about sea power mainly because I tie in economic dominance with military dominance. A successful colony is a result of a nation's ability to project their power is it not? Patrick, without a powerful navy Britain, Spain, etc. etc. would never have been able to do that. Why would two European nations go to war of over some stupid little islands in the Carribean? The answer is, I think, because they realized the economic importance of that area. This is what financed their militaries. In England's case, they were able to create a standing army and navy. In situations of colonial war like this the number of infantry kind of becomes irrelevant. The number and size of ships; very relevant. We could also talk about how large navies could avert war between nations (kind of like the US-USSR Cold War).Don't you think privateering (piracy) was a major stratergy of warfare in early modern history? I know my answer, but I'm curious what yours will be especially with your saying naval power wasn't that important. Granted these weren't large scale battles, but they were sustained battles that projected power and held territory. How could a large land-based infantry possibly do this in India, the Americas, and other major trading centers? Logistically, I don't think this was possible, at the very least it would be extremely difficult.Let me ask you this "what if" question. What if any colonial power suddenly lost their navy. What would have happened to their colonies?
You are talking about the difference between a Sea Power and a Land Power. Britain has always been a sea power because they don't have a choice but to be one. I don't have time to answer in depth because I have to finish packing. I fly to the states tomorrow with my family for three weeks vacation. Don't expect to see me on the board at all until the end of the month. Then I will give you a longer answer.
You are talking about the difference between a Sea Power and a Land Power.
No, I think we're debating your area of study and my area of interest. Which one has the bigger muscles? ;DBut let me answer
Question, In the modern world what is more important: naval supremacy or control of LEO? I know what I think but would love to hear your answer.
Now that I know what LEO is, and if that means control of the satellites, I would answer definitely LEO .I look forward to more input from you. Have a good trip!!
