Today I was idly browsing a book on the history of the warship and the effect of naval warfare on land. It tracked the lineage of fighting ships from the ancient Greek and Roman triremes to the modern nuclear aircraft carrier. Very interesting book.
Anyways, I have noticed a strange parallel between the current situation on the seas and a historical situation.
From roughly 1805 (the year of Trafalgar) to 1914, Great Britain possessed such an absolute command of the oceans of the world that nobody could challenge the Royal Navy. After the Napoleonic Wars which sealed the Pax Britannica, the USN was still in it's fledgling stages, France was not about to start anything due to the defeats, Spain was a shadow of its 17th century glory and the powers of Prussia, Austria and Russia were overwhelmingly land-based. Technology continued to progress and, by the 1870s, the world's first ironclads were steaming across the seas. At first these were of the 'belt-and-battery' type; essentially ships of the line with iron armour, but turreted ships followed soon after in the 1880s and 90s. By the 1880s, naval technology had changed absolutely from what Nelson experienced at Trafalgar, and no major fleet actions were fought in all those years of British dominance. The two major wars of Europe between the Napoleonic and First World War was the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussia completely lacked in a navy, so the French ships had no challenge. The other was the Crimean War, but Russia didn't even deploy it's fleet during said conflict and ironclads were still in their infancy. Nobody was really sure what the new naval warfare would be like. Some thought that steam power gave ships a freedom of movement and that ramming would be the decisive tactic of the new era. This passed very soon Some thought that floating batteries and fortresses would make naval bombardment almost unthinkable. Others thought that the old line of battle was obsolete and that the new ships would deploy in wedge-shaped 'groups', fighting a ferocious melee of ramming and broadsides. A few officers believed that small gunboats bearing a single one of the new naval rifles would make the expense of the ironclads a waste. Nobody, not the new officers nor the old admirals, was sure what naval combat was going to be like, and no lessons could be taken from Nelsonic warfare. Until WWI and the Battle of Jutland, the navies of all the great powers could not tell what fleet actions of their new era would be like.
This is very similar to our current situation. The USN rules the waves with carriers, destroyers and guided missile cruisers. There hasn't been a major challenge to the US Navy since WWII sealed it's position as the leading power on the seas. Vietnam had no navy, Korea didn't, Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to stand before the USN. I don't think any major navy has faced any major challenge since the Second World War. The most recent naval battles I can think of were small incidents pitting USN destroyers and cruisers vs pirate skiffs, which is not, by any possible standard, a example of 21st century fleet action. Many people insist that the missile and jet fighter will be the decisive threats of modern naval combat, but these attacking forces will be pitted against advanced CIWS like the Oerlikon Millennium 35mm CIWS, which can fire Air Burst Munitions to put up a veritable wall of flak with its considerable firing rate of 1000 rounds/minute (16 rounds/second). When two fleets of major naval powers meet in the 21st century, what will happen? I'm not talking about a situation like in the Middle East, when the USN pretty much had free reign but for a few patrol boats, i'm talking a full on clash of CVBGs. Advanced modern missiles and fighters will be pitted against equal missiles, fighters and CIWS systems.
What will fleet actions be like in this new century?
Anyways, I have noticed a strange parallel between the current situation on the seas and a historical situation.
From roughly 1805 (the year of Trafalgar) to 1914, Great Britain possessed such an absolute command of the oceans of the world that nobody could challenge the Royal Navy. After the Napoleonic Wars which sealed the Pax Britannica, the USN was still in it's fledgling stages, France was not about to start anything due to the defeats, Spain was a shadow of its 17th century glory and the powers of Prussia, Austria and Russia were overwhelmingly land-based. Technology continued to progress and, by the 1870s, the world's first ironclads were steaming across the seas. At first these were of the 'belt-and-battery' type; essentially ships of the line with iron armour, but turreted ships followed soon after in the 1880s and 90s. By the 1880s, naval technology had changed absolutely from what Nelson experienced at Trafalgar, and no major fleet actions were fought in all those years of British dominance. The two major wars of Europe between the Napoleonic and First World War was the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussia completely lacked in a navy, so the French ships had no challenge. The other was the Crimean War, but Russia didn't even deploy it's fleet during said conflict and ironclads were still in their infancy. Nobody was really sure what the new naval warfare would be like. Some thought that steam power gave ships a freedom of movement and that ramming would be the decisive tactic of the new era. This passed very soon Some thought that floating batteries and fortresses would make naval bombardment almost unthinkable. Others thought that the old line of battle was obsolete and that the new ships would deploy in wedge-shaped 'groups', fighting a ferocious melee of ramming and broadsides. A few officers believed that small gunboats bearing a single one of the new naval rifles would make the expense of the ironclads a waste. Nobody, not the new officers nor the old admirals, was sure what naval combat was going to be like, and no lessons could be taken from Nelsonic warfare. Until WWI and the Battle of Jutland, the navies of all the great powers could not tell what fleet actions of their new era would be like.
This is very similar to our current situation. The USN rules the waves with carriers, destroyers and guided missile cruisers. There hasn't been a major challenge to the US Navy since WWII sealed it's position as the leading power on the seas. Vietnam had no navy, Korea didn't, Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to stand before the USN. I don't think any major navy has faced any major challenge since the Second World War. The most recent naval battles I can think of were small incidents pitting USN destroyers and cruisers vs pirate skiffs, which is not, by any possible standard, a example of 21st century fleet action. Many people insist that the missile and jet fighter will be the decisive threats of modern naval combat, but these attacking forces will be pitted against advanced CIWS like the Oerlikon Millennium 35mm CIWS, which can fire Air Burst Munitions to put up a veritable wall of flak with its considerable firing rate of 1000 rounds/minute (16 rounds/second). When two fleets of major naval powers meet in the 21st century, what will happen? I'm not talking about a situation like in the Middle East, when the USN pretty much had free reign but for a few patrol boats, i'm talking a full on clash of CVBGs. Advanced modern missiles and fighters will be pitted against equal missiles, fighters and CIWS systems.
What will fleet actions be like in this new century?
Comment