DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategy and Tactics in Warfighting (WS 2017/18)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategy and Tactics in Warfighting (WS 2017/18) Jörg Schimmelpfennig Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaft Ruhr-Universität Bochum Strategy and Tactics in Warfighting (WS 2017/18) Synopsis A Introduction 1. Strategy and tactics, or “stratagēma” and “tactica”: definitions and origins 2. The influence of technology on strategy and tactics 3. A navy’s purpose vs. an army’s purpose: “navies don’t purchase and possess real estate” 4. Strategic visions and tactical constraints 4.1. Littoral warfare: “A ship’s a fool that fights a fort.” (Nelson) 4.2. The “355-ship navy” and carrier strike force compositions 5. (Navy-oriented) foreword: “Tactics is the soul of our profession.” (Cebrowski) B (Mostly Naval) Tactics: “Fire Effectively First!” (Hughes) 6. Chase-Fiske-Lanchester Models: massing matters 6.1. Fighting sail tactics: ships-of-the-line, columns, shirkers, crossing the T, raking 6.2. Why (mathematical) models? Game theory and war games 6.3. (Pre 1775 infantry) Linear combat 6.4. The Fiske (1905) salvo model: tables, difference equations and tactical implications ... 6.4.1. ... concentrating fire? 6.4.2. ... massing? 6.4.3. ... surprise? 6.4.3. ... isolating enemy forces? 6.4.4. ... and a strategic implication: quantity or quality? 6.5. The Lanchester (1916) (originally aerial combat) square law for continuous fire 6.5.1. Solving the model 6.5.2. The Fiske tactical implications 6.5.3. Anecdotal evidence or empirical studies? Fighting sail; ground combat; COIN; aerial combat (“Flying Tigers”; Thach Weave; RAF doctrine) 6.6. Lanchester’s law, the prequel: The Chase (1902) square law 7. Tactical formations: column, line or echelon, “Turn” or “Corpen”? Lissa (1866); Parker; Fiske 8. A model of early WWII carrier warfare 8.1. Introduction to carrier warfare: welcome to the missile age 8.2. A linear (infantry-style) combat model 8.3. Screening and surprise: “Fire Effectively First!” yet again 8.4. Examples of early Pacific carrier battles 8.4.1. Coral Sea: American tactical defeat ... but strategic victory (May 7-8, 1942) 8.4.2. “AF” and Midway (June 4-5, 1942) 8.4.3. Eastern Solomons (August 24, 1942) 8.4.4. Santa Cruz Islands (October 26, 1942) 8.5. Early WWII carrier tactical problems: massing or dispersal? 9. WWII carrier warfare from 1943 onwards 9.1. Air support begins to matter: “Combat Air Patrol” and fighter escorts 9.2. The Battle of the Philippine Sea 9.3. Resolutions of tactical problems 10. WWII Destroyer tactics 10.1. U.S. cruiser and destroyer doctrines during the inter-war period 10.2. Guadalcanal: Cactus and the Tokyo Express 10.3. “The Battle of the Five Sitting Ducks”: Savo Island (November 8-9, 1942)) 10.4. Lessons learned I: “training, training and TRAINING” (Nimitz) 10.5. Lessons learned II: “Turn” instead of “corpen”; small TGs instead of large TF 10.6. New night fighting naval battle tactics: the Battle of Vella Gulf (November 6-7, 1943) 10.7. Battle of Okinawa: destroyer picket stations against kamikazes 11. Staying power and ship size since WWII 12. Naval warfare in the missile age 12.1. The Hughes (1995) salvo model 12.2. The Battle of the Philippine Sea revisited 12.3. Ship attributes: typical values 12.4. Planning with the salvo model: the importance of surprise and numbers 12.5. How to defend a Ticonderoga/Aegis cruiser 12.6. Mass for defense 12.7. Mass for scouting: Operation “Lion’s Den”, Haiphong Harbor (August 27, 1972) 12.8. Tactics subject to an A2/AD mission: disperse to survive C (Not Only Naval) Strategy 13. Strategy and tactics: telling the difference? 13.1. Some more definitions ... 13.2. “Forward – Engaged – Ready: A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” 14. “Missions of the U.S. Navy” (and respective “tactics” and “tactical tools”) 14.1. Warfighting missions 14.1.1. Sea control 14.1.2: Power projection ashore 14.2. Deterrence 14.2.1. Presence 14.2.2. Strategic deterrence 15. Excursion: U.S. Navy presence during the Syrian invasion of Jordan (September 1970) 16. Deception 16.1. Operation BOLO, North Vietnam (January 2, 1967) 16.2. Deception in 2x2 sequential games 17. Naval strategy in the missile warfare age: risk levels and opportunity costs 18. Strategic blunders 18.1 Halsey at Leyte (1944): “Where Is Task Force 34, The World Wonders!” (Nimitz) 18.2. Deployment of Soviet Foxtrot, Zulu submarines during the Cuban missile crisis (1962) 18.3. The Vietnam War: “The way to end this war is to win the damned thing.” (Olds) 18.4. Carter administration naval policy (1976-1980) 18.5. Thatcher naval policy (1981): “The Royal Navy was to become a coast guard.” (Lehman) 18.6. The UK 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review ... 19. Is strategic planning obsolete? “Man plans, fate laughs ...” References Introductory Texts and Seminal Contributions Jehu V. Chase (1902), A Mathematical Investigation of the Effect and Superiority of Force in Combats Upon the Sea, unpublished paper, Naval War College Archives, RG 8, Box 109, XTAV (1902), DECLASSIFIED in 1972. Julian Corbett (1911), Some Principles of Maritime Strategy, London: Longmans, Green & Company. Thomas J. Cutler (2014), Lest we forget – Presence, Proceedings of the United States Institute, Vol. 140, November 2014, 93. Bradley A. Fiske (1905), American naval policy, Proceedings of the United States Institute, Vol. 31, January 1905, 1-80. Bradley A. Fiske (1916), The Navy as a Fighting Machine, New York NY, Charles Scriber’s Sons. Thomas J. Cutler (2015), The US Naval Institute on Naval Strategy, Annapolis MD; Naval Institute Press. Department of the Navy (2015), A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, March 2015, Department of the Navy, Washington DC. Wayne P. Hughes (1992), The Value of Warship Attributes in Missile Combat, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA. Wayne P. Hughes (1995), A salvo model of warships in missile combat used to evaluate their staying power, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 42, March 1995, 267-289. Wayne P. Hughes (2000), Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, 2nd edition, Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press. Wayne P. Hughes (2015), The US Naval Institute on Naval Tactics, Annapolis MD; Naval Institute Press. Frederick W. Lanchester (1916), Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm, London: Constable. John F. Lehman (2001), On Seas of Glory: Heroic Men, Great Ships, and Epic Battles of the American Navy, New York NY: The Free Press. Peter M. Swartz, Karin Duggan (2011), The U.S. Navy in the World (1970-1980): Context for U.S. Navy Capstone Strategies and Concepts, CNA Strategic Studies (CSS). Stansfield Turner (1974), Missions of the US Navy, Proceedings of the United States Institute, Vol. 100, December 1974, 19-25. Brian Whaley (2016), Practice to Deceive: Learning Curves of Military Planners, Annapolis MD; Naval Institute Press. Other Primary Sources David A. Adams (2000), Win without fighting, Proceedings of the United States Institute, Vol. 126, September 2000, 54-57. Rodric Braithwaite (2017), Armageddon and Paranoia – The Nuclear Confrontation, London: Profile Books. John E. Capper (1918), Memorandum on the Requirements for an Armoured Striking Force for an Offensive in 1919, 1 July 1918, in: Alaric Searle (1917), The Military Papers and Correspondence of Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, Stroud: The History Press, 129-138. Jeffery R. Cares (1990), The Fundamentals of Salvo Warfare, Naval Postgraduate School Master’s Thesis, Monterey CA. Commander Destroyers Pacific Fleet (1943), Destroyer Torpedo Attack Instructions (Tentative), Destroyer Tactical Bulletin No. 4-43, DECLASSIFIED. Kent S. Coleman (2006), Halsey at Leyte Gulf: Command Decision and Disunity of Effort, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth KS. Hugh Elles (1917), Memorandum to General Staff, GHQ, 15 January 1918 – SECRET, in: Alaric Searle (1917), The Military Papers and Correspondence of Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, Stroud: The History Press, 63-65. John F.C. Fuller (1917), Memorandum on Anti-Tank Defence, 30 December 1917 – SECRET, in: Alaric Searle (1917), The Military Papers and Correspondence of Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, Stroud: The History Press, 54-62. John F.C. Fuller (1918), The Tactics of the Attack as Affected by the Speed and Circuit of the Medium D Tank, 24 May 1918 – SECRET, in: Alaric Searle (1917), The Military Papers and Correspondence of Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, Stroud: The History Press, 110-125. Ib Hansen, H.P. Gray (1990), Passive Protection and Ship Survivability in Years 2005-2020, David Taylor Research Center, SSPD 90-174-41, Bethesda MD, CONFIDENTIAL. Frank Hoffman (2012), Crafting a ‘good’ strategy, Proceedings of the United States Institute, Vol. 138, April 2012, 58-63. Thomas Hone, Trent Hone (2006), Battle Line: The United States Navy 1919-1939, Annapolis MD; Naval Institute Press. Trent Hone (2002), Building a doctrine: U.S. naval tactics and battle plans in the interwar period, International Journal of Naval History, Vol. 1, No. 2 (October 2002), 1-41. Trent Hone (2006), ‘Give them hell!’: The US Navy’s night combat doctrine and the campaign for Guadalcanal, War in History, Vol. 13, No. 2, 171-199. Trent Hone (2009), U.S. Navy surface battle doctrine and victory in the Pacific, Naval War College Review, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Winter 2009), 67-105. Samuel P. Huntington (1954), National policy and the transoceanic navy, Proceedings of the United States Institute, Vol. 80, May 1954, 483-493. Ian R. Johnson, Niall J. MacKay (2011), Lanchester models and the Battle of Britain, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 58, 210-222. Ronald L. Johnson (1989/89), Lanchester’s Square Law in Theory and Practice, School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth KS. John T. Kuehn (2008), Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet That Defeated the Japanese Navy, Annapolis MD; Naval Institute Press.f James M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • \Jl.Il Adding Making a 23-1 Attack Against a Single Japanese Negligible Power As Well
    4 ADDI NG REALIS by Steven List ADDI NG SI MUL TANEITY by Jerrold Thomas ADDI NG HISTORICITY by William C. Harting ~~~~ \Jl.il Adding making a 23-1 attack against a single Japanese negligible power as well. For instance, you DO before they could get into position for a have made the Brooklyn class CL 22% more Realism massed torpedo attack. It ended when a 2-1 powerful than the Cleveland class because torpedo attack put Iowa out of her misery. they carried 15-6" to the latter's 12. But the This is a good game on the surface, a Clevelands could fire 8-5" to either side, versus reasonable first generation system that is Thus we see a battleship with a "W" hit unable 4 for the Brooklyns, Eight 5" against 4 is a neither as cumbersome as Bismarck or to do any damage to another BB, and BB with difference of two gunnery strength points. One advanced Jutland, and not so simple-minded no secondary armament to defend itself from problem in incorporating such a rule is that as basic Jutland or the Midway surface destroyers and yet unable to use its generally only half the secondary can fire to combat rules. This is both its greatest strength overwhelming main battery on more than one either side (which is a problem you neatly and biggest weakness. DO at a time. And finally, no matter how ignored for torpedo tubes). overwhelming the firepower, it is impossible in Once again, the game in the magazine has the game to sink a ship with a single attack, no The Effects of Range on Gunnery: Other than some significant discrepancies with the article matter how often that has happened in fact.
    [Show full text]
  • A Salvo Model of Warships in Missile Combat Used to Evaluate Their Staying Power
    A Salvo Model of Warships in Missile Combat Used to Evaluate Their Staying Power Wayne P. Hughes, Jr. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93943 A methodology is introduced with which to compare the military worth of warship capabilities. It is based on a simple salvo model for exploratory analysis of modern combat characteristics. The “fractional exchange ratio” is suggested as a robust way to compare equal-cost configurations of naval forces. because we cannot know in advance how and where the warships will fight. To aid in exposition, definitions of all terms are included in Appendix A. The methodology is illustrated with important conclusions from para- metric analysis, among which are 1. Unstable circumstances arise as the combat power of the forces grows relative to their survivability. (Stable means the persistence of victory by the side with the greater combat potential.) 2. Weak staying power is likely to be the root cause when instability is observed. 3. Staying power is the ship design element least affected by the particulars of a battle, including poor tactics. 4. Numerical superiority is the force attribute that is consistently most advan- tageous. For example, if A’s unit striking power, staying power, and defensive power are all twice that of B, nevertheless B will achieve parity of outcome ifit has twice as many units as A. 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* I. BALANCED WARSHIP DESIGN Staying power, the ability of a ship to absorb hits and continue fighting, is a major attribute of warships. Developing a warship design in which offensive power, defensive power, and staying power are in balance according to some criterion, though ultimately a matter of judgment, can be enhanced by some transparent analysis employing simple combat equations.
    [Show full text]
  • An Administrative History of PT's in World War II
    AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF PT’S IN WORLD WAR II OFFICE OF NAVAL HISTORY 15 February 1946 Recreated from microfilm by members of the PT Boat Message Board . PRELIMINARY ISSUE http://www.ptboats.org/cgi-local/sitenetbbs/netboard.cgi PLEASE VISIT THE PT BOAT MESSAGE BOARD AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF PT’s IN WORLD WAR II 3 (Recreated October 25, 2010 the members of the PT Boat Message board) Document Recreated, October 26, 2010 (From a microfilmed copy of the original Navy document.) This post World War II Navy document from 1946, has been recreated from microfilm copy by a group of PT Boat Message Board members from the PT Boats, Inc. website. All textural content has been retyped, charts redrawn, and where possible, photographic content has been replaced with a better copy of the same image or a very similar image. The format of the document has also been changed from the original 1946 typewriter style document to a more finish published book appearance. A detailed table of contents has been added, as well as assigning figure numbers to all photographs and charts with their page location listed at the end of the table of contents and as a final change the Appendices section has been page numbered. Although these changes have been added, the actual document content has not been changed except for obvious typographic errors. Because of the Lexicon and military writing style from the nineteen forty’s era; the content, spelling and acronym used can’t be verified. This recreation has been made as a historical note, making it more available for those with the desire to learn more about the World War II Motor Torpedo Boat service and its boats.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Warfare in a Mature Precision-Strike Regime
    MARITIME WARFARE IN A MATURE PRECISION-STRIKE REGIME ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH 2014 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, non- partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. © 2014 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andrew Krepinevich is President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He assumed this position in 1993, following a 21-year career in the U.S. Army. Dr. Krepinevich has served in the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, and on the personal staff of three secretaries of defense. He has also served as a member of the National Defense Panel, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Experimentation, the Joint Forces Command Advisory Board, and the Defense Policy Board. He currently serves on the Chief of Naval Operations' (CNO's) Advisory Board and on the Army Special Operations Command's Advisory Board. Dr. Krepinevich frequently contributes to print and broadcast media. He has lectured before a wide range of professional and academic audiences, and has served as a consultant on mil- itary affairs for many senior government officials, including several secretaries of defense, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, and all four military services.
    [Show full text]
  • Building on Relationships with Global Partners by MC2 Richard Miller LANDMARK MAGAZINE LEADERSHIP Pg
    LANDMARKThe official publication of USS Emory S. Land VOL X / ISSUE V FEATURING Pay What You Owe By MC2 Destinyy Reed From Classmates to Shipmates By MC2 Jordyn Diomede SH to RS: Transferrable Skills By MC2 Richard Miller The Battle of Leyte Gulf By MC1 Jason Behnke Building on Relationships with Global Partners By MC2 Richard Miller LANDMARK MAGAZINE LEADERSHIP Pg. 03 - Commanding Officer TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg. 05 - Executive Officer Pg. 07 - Command Master Chief THE COMMAND TRIAD COMMANDING OFFICER FEATURES Capt. Michael D. Luckett Pg. 09 - Pay What You Owe Pg. 13 - From Classmates to Shipmates EXECUTIVE OFFICER Cmdr. Ritchie L. Taylor Pg. 15 - Adapt and Overcome Pg. 17 - What’s New with the Crew? COMMAND MASTER CHIEF Pg. 18 - An Underway Trick-or-Treat CMDCS Paul James Pg. 19 - SH to RS: Transferrable Skills Pg. 21 - TAP-Out Time Pg. 23 - The Battle of Leyte Gulf LANDMARK MAGAZINE STAFF Pg. 25 - Building on Relationships with Global Partners PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER Pg. 27 - Through the Lens Lt. DeNealia Cunningham Peterson LEADING PETTY OFFICER MC1 Jason Behnke LEAD EDITOR MC2 Jordyn Diomede ASSISTANT EDITOR MC1 Jason Behnke SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGER MC2 Richard Miller STAFF JOURNALIST MC2 Destinyy Reed STAFF JOURNALIST MC2 Edmund Thompson Landmark Magazine is an authorized publication for Sailors aboard the USS Emory S. Land (AS 39). Contents herein are not the views of, or endorsed by the United States government, Dept. of Defense, Dept. of the Navy, or the Commanding Officer of the ESL. All news, photos, and information for publication in Landmark Magazine must be submitted to the Public Affairs Officer of the USS Emory S.
    [Show full text]
  • South Pacific Destroyers: the United States Navy and the Challenges of Night Surface Combat
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2009 South Pacific esD troyers: The nitU ed States Navy and the Challenges of Night Surface Combat in the Solomons Islands during World War II. Johnny Hampton Spence East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the Military History Commons Recommended Citation Spence, Johnny Hampton, "South Pacific eD stroyers: The nitU ed States Navy and the Challenges of Night Surface Combat in the Solomons Islands during World War II." (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1865. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1865 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. South Pacific Destroyers: The United States Navy and the Challenges of Night Surface Combat in the Solomons Islands During World War II ____________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ____________________________ by Johnny H. Spence, II August 2009 ____________________________ Dr. Ronnie Day, Chair Dr. Emmett Essin Dr. Stephen Fritz Keywords: Destroyers, World War II, Pacific, United States Navy, Solomon Islands ABSTRACT South Pacific Destroyers: The United States Navy and the Challenges of Night Surface Combat in the Solomons Islands during World War II by Johnny H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the US Navy Into an Effective
    The Evolution of the U.S. Navy into an Effective Night-Fighting Force During the Solomon Islands Campaign, 1942 - 1943 A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Jeff T. Reardon August 2008 © 2008 Jeff T. Reardon All Rights Reserved ii This dissertation titled The Evolution of the U.S. Navy into an Effective Night-Fighting Force During the Solomon Islands Campaign, 1942 - 1943 by JEFF T. REARDON has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Marvin E. Fletcher Professor of History Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences iii ABSTRACT REARDON, JEFF T., Ph.D., August 2008, History The Evolution of the U.S. Navy into an Effective Night-Fighting Force During the Solomon Islands Campaign, 1942-1943 (373 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Marvin E. Fletcher On the night of August 8-9, 1942, American naval forces supporting the amphibious landings at Guadalcanal and Tulagi Islands suffered a humiliating defeat in a nighttime clash against the Imperial Japanese Navy. This was, and remains today, the U.S. Navy’s worst defeat at sea. However, unlike America’s ground and air forces, which began inflicting disproportionate losses against their Japanese counterparts at the outset of the Solomon Islands campaign in August 1942, the navy was slow to achieve similar success. The reason the U.S. Navy took so long to achieve proficiency in ship-to-ship combat was due to the fact that it had not adequately prepared itself to fight at night.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy and Tactics in Warfighting (WS 2018/19)
    Jörg Schimmelpfennig Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaft Ruhr-Universität Bochum Strategy and Tactics in Warfighting (WS 2018/19) Synopsis A Introduction 1. Struggling with “strategy”... 1.1. ... “Strategy is for flag officers only” (not attributed) 1.2. ... “Strategy is political will” (not attributed) 2. Strategy and tactics, or “ stratag ēma ” and “ tactica ”: definitions and origins 3. “Navies don’t purchase and possess real estate” (Hughes) 4. (Navy-oriented) foreword: “ Tactics is the soul of our profession .” (Cebrowski) 5. First “results” 5.1. Littoral warfare: “A ship’s a fool that fights a fort .” (Nelson) 5.2. “Fire effectively first!” (Mahan; Hughes) B (Mostly Naval) Tactics 6. Chase-Fiske-Lanchester Models 6.1. (Pre 1775 infantry) Linear combat 6.2. Fighting sail tactics: ships-of-the-line, columns, shirkers, crossing the T, raking 6.3. Why (mathematical) models? Game theory and war games 6.4. The Fiske (1905) salvo model: tables, difference equations and tactical implications 6.4.1. Concentrating fire? 6.4.2. Massing matters! 6.4.3. Surprise! (i.e. “Fire effectively first!” ) 6.4.4. Isolating enemy forces! 6.4.5. ... and a strategic implication: quantity over quality! 6.5. The Lanchester (1916) (originally aerial combat) square law for continuous fire 6.5.1. Solving the model 6.5.2. Fiske’s tactical/strategic implications? 6.5.3. Anecdotal evidence or empirical studies? Fighting sail; ground combat; COIN; aerial combat (“Flying Tigers”; Thach Weave; RAF doctrine) 6.6. Lanchester’s law, the prequel: The Chase (1902) square law 7. Formations: a primer 7.1. Foxhall Parker 7.2. Column or line? 7.3.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2004
    October November December 2004 "Rest well, yet sleep lightly and hear the call, if again sounded, to provide firepower for freedom…” THE JERSEYMAN The Battle of Leyte Gulf... Sixty years ago, naval forces of the United States and Australia dealt a deadly and final blow to the Japanese Navy at Leyte Gulf. Over a four day period ranging from 23 - 26 October 1944, and in four separate engagements, the Japanese Navy lost 26 ships and the US Navy lost 6. With this issue of The Jerseyman, we present another look back at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, record some new stories, and present a few 60 year old, but “new” photos sent in by the men that were there. Our sincere thanks to all WW2 veterans, and Battle of Leyte Gulf veterans for their contributions to this issue. History also records that the Battle of Leyte Gulf was the one time in the Pacific war that Admiral William F. “Bull” Halsey, flying his flag aboard battleship USS NEW JERSEY, had a chance to take on the giant Japanese battleships IJN Musashi, and IJN Yamato. But in a controversial decision that is studied and discussed to this day, Admiral Halsey took the bait of a Japanese carrier decoy fleet, split his forces, and headed USS NEW JERSEY and the Third Fleet North. Admiral Halsey lost his chance. The greatest sea-battle victory in history fell instead to the older ships of the United States Seventh Fleet. We can only speculate on what it would have meant if Halsey’s Third Fleet had been there with the old Seventh Fleet battleships of WEST VIRGINIA, CALIFORNIA, TENNESSEE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, and- MISSISSIPPI, and had added the firepower from fast battleships NEW JERSEY, IOWA, MASSACHUSETTS, SOUTH DAKOTA, WASHINGTON and ALABAMA… The flag shown is on display in the museum area of the ship.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lanchestrian Reappraisal of the Battle of Jutland
    This is a repository copy of Weight of Shell Must Tell : A Lanchestrian reappraisal of the Battle of Jutland. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/99759/ Version: Submitted Version Article: MacKay, Niall James orcid.org/0000-0003-3279-4717, Price, Christopher and Wood, Andrew James orcid.org/0000-0002-6119-852X (2016) Weight of Shell Must Tell : A Lanchestrian reappraisal of the Battle of Jutland. History. pp. 536-563. ISSN 1468-229X https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-229X.12241 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ History: The Journal of the Historical Association Weight of Shell Must Tell: A Lanchestrian reappraisal of the Battle of Jutland Journal:For History: Review The Journal of the Historical Only Association Manuscript ID Draft Wiley - Manuscript type: Original Article We re-analyse the 1916 battle of Jutland the major naval engagement of the First World War in the light of the understanding of dreadnought fleet tactics that developed over the decade leading up to it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Fleet Tactical Doctrine in the USN 1922-1941
    Copyright Trent Hone 2002 A Global Forum for Naval Historical Scholarship International Journal of Naval History October 2002 Volume 1 Number 2 Building a Doctrine: U. S. Naval Tactics and Battle Plans in the Interwar Period Trent Hone Senior Associate, Rubicon Technologies General Introduction In the nineteen years between the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States Navy honed its skills in numerous Fleet Problems, and tactical exercises conducted both at sea and at the Naval War College. The most important product of these efforts was the introduction of a common doctrine allowing the Navy’s officers to operate as a cohesive unit. In the years immediately following the Washington Naval Conference of 1922, this doctrine did not exist, but the advantages of such a common doctrine were well recognized. Steps were taken throughout the interwar period to teach the Fleet to think as a single unit; to react to the changing circumstances of battle with one mind. The importance of this doctrinal development has largely been ignored, primarily because battleships formed its centerpiece. The destruction of the Navy’s battle line at Pearl Harbor and the ensuing dominance of the aircraft carrier in the decisive battles of the Pacific War have led investigators to focus on aircraft carriers when examining the prewar development of the Navy’s doctrine. This article seeks to address that oversight. Introduction 1 2/2/2012 Copyright Trent Hone 2002 At the end of World War One, the Navy was in the midst of producing the most powerful collection of capital ships the world had ever seen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Solomons Naval Campaign: a Paradigm for Surface Warships in Maritime Strategy
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1985 The Solomons naval campaign: a paradigm for surface warships in maritime strategy. McKearney, T. J. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/21550 x, CALIF01 £ £ NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS THE SOLOMONS NAVAL CAMPAIGN: A PARADIGM FOR SURFACE WARSHIPS IN MARITIME STRATEGY by T. J. McKearney September 1985 Thesis Advisor Wayne P. Hughes, Jr. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited, T 224405 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whan Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT 4 PERIOD COVERED The Solomons Naval Campaign: A Paradigm Master's Thesis; for Surface Warships in Maritime Strategy September 198 5 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 7. author^; 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf*) T* J. McKearney 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AC3RESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA 4 WORK UNIT NUMBERS Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93943-5100 11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE Naval Postgraduate School September 1985 Monterey, California 93943-5100 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 276 U. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 ADORESSf// dl Heron! from Controlling Oftlce) 15. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thta report) Unclassified 1 5a. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 16. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMEN T (ol this Report) Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol the abatract entered In Block 20, It different from Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide It neceaaary and Identity by block number) Solomons Naval Campaign Surface Combatant Task Forces World War II War gaming 20.
    [Show full text]