Introduction
history of sea power, though not exactly, but the main account of the struggle between countries, and the final competition between countries often lead to war violence. Maritime trade on the national wealth and strength of the far-reaching implications early in guiding the development of maritime trade and prosperity until the correct theory was discovered to have been clearly recognized. a country in order to ensure their people have access to maritime trade is not balanced the interests of monopoly or using ordinary legislation, or is to develop a number of prohibitions to restrict foreign trade, or when these methods fail, they take direct action to try to eliminate violence against foreigners in the trade. that do not give in to win the desire to share all that is or can not, at least occupies most of the trade interests, and occupation of distant spheres of influence who have not yet explicitly trade zone, these conflicts of interest, which aroused the anger often leads to war. On the other hand, from other causes of the war, its implementation methods and outcomes are in large part by whether the control of marine and control. Therefore, the history of sea power, from its broadest sense, involves a benefit to a nation dependent on the oceans or the use of all things marine stronger. But the history of sea power is mainly A military history. Thus, in the following chapter, though not all, but mainly describes the situation in this regard.
some of the great military leaders have warned before, we should like to study past military history, such a study for correcting our thoughts, for the clever in the future war is essential. Napoleon was a very ambitious military strategist, he studied the battle he cited Alexander, Han Stubbs and the implementation of Nigeria's battle Caesar. But these people do not know the black gunpowder. so in the full-time writers seem to have become an important understanding, that while many of the conditions of war, from one century to another century, as the weapons development has changed, but there are some in the history of the doctrine is preserved correctly, and now continue to exist, and thus become the universal doctrine, and can rise to the general principle. For the same reason, although in the past half century , because of scientific progress and the use of steam as the driving force, the Navy has undergone a drastic change in weapons, but we will see the sea of the past history of naval warfare through it to illustrate the general principle, it will be very instructive The.
discriminating like us to study the history and the era naval sailing experience, there is a double necessity. because such studies can provide the application and evaluation is now needed for the lesson, on the other hand, to the current So far, the steam is also a short history of the Navy fleet has not been able to form a clear doctrine. for the sailing, we have a lot of practical experience; and steam ships, in fact we do not have any practical experience. Therefore, the future of naval warfare Almost all theoretical inference; although we have tried to study in detail the fleet with a long history of steam, the famous voyage by oars warships sail single-deck paddle similarities between the fleet, so that these theories have a relatively solid, reliable basis; but the future of naval warfare has not been fully validated in prior to the theory of naval warfare must not be too much reliance on steam ships and warships sail paddle similarity between the points, although by no means a superficial similarity. single-deck paddle steam ships and warships sail in common is that they have the wind can not rely on the ability to sail in any direction. But steam power, but also to make these different levels of the steam ship with a fundamental difference between sailing ; As for sailing, when the wind direction only to a limited number of sailing, no wind is necessarily a step. But people should not only know how to observe the similarities of things, but also should be good at different aspects of looking at things. because when people's imagination interested in the similarities found in mm This is the spirit of the pursuit when one of the most enjoyable things easier for the newly discovered mm analogue produced in the difference aversion, so it will ignore or refuse to recognize such differences. Single deck paddle warships sail and steam ships, although the development has been different, and have those already mentioned above, the performance, but they at least have two things are different; so we sail from single-deck paddle battle the history of the ship to steam ships to provide the lessons, they must keep in mind the similarities and differences, otherwise it will make the wrong judgments. warships sail single-deck paddle power, is bound to use the rapid decay, which because their energy can not sustain such a long consumption. The result is that, although single-deck warships can be tactical paddle sports fan, but the tactical movements of the time is limited; [author Note: Therefore, the Peloponnesian During the war, Syracuse (Siracusa, Sicily, Italy today) and Curtis claim Rakhmonov carat, bravely blocking offensive Expeditionary Force Athens, Syracuse (413 BC), and adhere to flank the enemy's offensive line this strategy. He said: must be hard to paddle, and when they are exhausted, we can attack them. paddle warships sail these two conditions will inevitably lead to a short distance between the two sides fighting a rapid assault. of course, does not preclude the two sides come face to face before making an attempt to cleverly outflanking of enemy ships or indirect implementation. Under such a rapid assault and melee, the emergence of a modern navy in the very popular, more consistent, even very well-known view that the development of modern naval weapons, the inevitable result will be mm is a large melee, in which the melee, as its history shown, it will be difficult to distinguish friend and foe. Anyway prove that this opinion is valuable, but must not simply single-deck paddle warships sail and steam ships in the bow are fitted with a ram, and can the fact that direct towards the enemy at any time as the historical basis for this opinion, regardless of single deck paddle warships sail and steam ships difference between the two. because so far, this opinion is only an inference, so best to go through the battle-tested, to be pros and cons of such tactics further clarified before it can make the final judgments. that is, or such tactics to obtain a positive assessment, it will put forward two different opinions mm strength is not the implementation of the phase between the upper and lower fleet melee, tactics and technology is the insignificant. In modern times, the Navy is equipped with a sophisticated, powerful weapons, the implementation of the melee is not the best option. If one has strong confidence in Admiral heart expand its fleet tactics better, and his captain were also very good, he will not want to start with the same force of the enemy in a dogfight. because in this melee, these favorable conditions will not be fully utilized, and Luck will play a most important role, and is equal to his fleet as a group of activities over the last ship from the hash is not integrated with the mob. [author note: be careful of the words in order to avoid complicated tactics seem to advocate movement caused by meaningless arguments. He was confident that a fleet to obtain conclusive results must be close to the enemy, but can not wait until there has been some advantage to go after the war. This is generally favorable conditions to get through the motor, so the training well-established and well-managed fleet is able to achieve these favorable conditions. In fact, no result is due to hastily hand to hand combat and the most reckless lack of confidence in the result of tactical operations.] As for the melee when it is appropriate and what When appropriate, the history has been a lot of lessons.
then only a single deck paddle warships sail is very similar to the current steam ships; and in other areas there are many differences; but because of these different place is not clear, so little attention. contrary to sailing, its notable features is it different from the modern point of the steam ship; so common sailing and steam ships, although there is also easy see, but not so clear, so not to attract attention. Compared with the steam ship, the realized depends on the wind sailing serious weaknesses that deepened the differences between them the impression. remove this sailing and sailing operations, its tactical utilization is still very instructive lesson. In view of single deck paddle warships will not sail without the wind, so the loss of combat capability, so in our time, it tactics should be more than sailing by people of all ages; but the truth is replaced by the single-deck paddle boat sail warships and ships in the use of steam before it has been the best ships. sailboat has a very far away from the the ability to attack the enemy, and this motor does not matter how long it will need to implement staff exhausted, so that you can make the most of the crew have to manipulate into offensive weapons without having to spend energy to manipulate the oar oars. These are the sailing and steam ships in common. If from a tactical point of view, these capabilities are at least single-deck paddle warships sail against the wind in the absence of wind or the ability to exercise is just as important.
people are looking for similarities, not only There is a tendency to easy to overlook the differences, but also easy to imagine that the same according to their own point exaggerated. can be to consider, we noted strong penetration of the boat has a range of distant gun and close range, but destructive large mortar, also pointed out that the modern steam ship with longer range of guns and torpedoes. torpedoes only in a limited distance, caused by severe impact damage to the enemy, but as in the past aimed gun is through enemy ships. Although these are only considered from a tactical point of view, but no doubt they will definitely affect the Fleet Commander and the Captain who plans; this similarity is real, not forced. sailing and steam ships have hope and enemy ship-to-ship to the implementation of direct confrontation, forced to board enemy ships sailing through their capture, the steam ship to sink through the ram; but for sailing and steam ships to accomplish this task is very difficult because in order to achieve this task effectively, must ship sailing to the battlefield a unique position, and projectile weapons is not the case, it is a vast area from many points on the implementation of the shooting.
based on wind direction and given two or two fleets sailing the relative position of the most important tactical issues involved, and may be admiral of that era are most concerned about. On the surface, it seems that in the present conditions, its steam ship is irrelevant, therefore, the lessons of history in this regard, there is nothing worth. if under serious consideration compared the wind and the upper hand, or make use of wind, , on both sides of this line there is still much scope for the upwind edge. leeward and windward are relative.] notable feature, mainly to seize their main characteristics, rather than to consider the other side issues, will prove that this view is wrong. warships have the upper hand the significant advantages of the location can be free to fight and the withdrawal of combat, then attack in the choice of method can form a favorable offensive posture. but this advantage will also bring some disadvantages. for example, tend to disrupt the battle formation, the enemy will be exposed to longitudinal shooting under fire, and make the attacker's part of the gun or all guns useless. these are approaching the enemy often happen. occupy the ship or fleet under the wind can not attack, you do not want to retreat, the battle only for a limited in the defense, and only in accordance with the intention of the enemy to fight. but if calm, it can more easily maintain a combat formation, but also can not fight back when the Dijian continuing attacks on its implementation of the gun, so will be able to make up for these adverse conditions. From a historical point of view, these favorable and unfavorable characteristics of all ages in all the offensive and defensive operations are very similar. attackers to close and destroy the enemy, we must bear some of the risks and suffered some loss; but defender, has been so reluctant to venture forward, maintain a good tight battle formation, and the attacker can also use the self-exposure. through some of the details can be clearly seen that the upwind and downwind fundamental difference between these. upwind of the British occupation are often like, because the consistent policy of the British attack on the enemy to destroy them; while the French occupation of the wind is usually used to position, because it is often the approach of the enemy so that they can weaken the enemy's combat effectiveness, and to avoid a decisive encounter, which can save their fleet strength. The French almost always consistently subordinated to the chief of naval operations other military considerations, they do not want to spend money on him in the navy, and sought to save Navy spending, to keep a defensive posture, and limit its role on repelling the enemy's attack. In order to implement this policy, as long as the enemy is to show of force, not to the war, the French will be pleased to use this application downwind skilful tactics. But when the British Admiral Rodney is not only to attack, and that to use the upper hand, a part of the enemy's front, large concentrations of troops, his cautious approach to the guitar is still wearing a military commander of the fleet will change tactical. Rodney is still conducted with three wearing Kyrgyzstan war, in the first battle, the French occupation under the wind; but when the guitar is still aware of wearing the purpose of Rodney, the Bianxiang wind direction, not attacks , but the withdrawal, unless the conditions in his favor, he was to attack. Now take the offensive or withdrawal, no longer dependent on the wind, but rather depends on whether the fleet has a faster speed. in a fleet, which Speed not only depends on the speed of each ship a single ship, but also depends on the unity of their tactical operations. From now on, with the rapid pace of the ships will be able to occupy a favorable position.
Therefore, from the sailing and single deck paddle warships sail to find useful lessons of history, not as many people imagine a vain hope. sailboat and sail single-deck paddle ships and modern warships have the same place, also have and Modern warships different place. these different places, so that we can not refer to their experience or combat tactics as a precedent to follow. But the role of a precedent and less than a principle different from the role. a precedent that may have been wrong , or because circumstances change, may no longer be applied; and principles reflect the essence of things, though with changes in circumstances, you can use a variety of different, but they remain a criterion, according to the criteria to be fighting the inevitable to win. There were such principles of war, they are the numerous wars of the past victories and failures of the established, is always the same. the situation has changed, and weapons, but to properly deal with the situation or the successful use of arms to those who must follow the eternal teachings of history, take the right on the battlefield tactics, or the correct implementation of large-scale operational activity, that action taken to correct strategy.
However, the entire battlefield, including those large-scale operations, and may involve competition in the sea most of the globe, the lessons of history and compare with the more obvious the role of durable, long time because many conditions remain unchanged. theater may be larger or smaller, their difficulties may be obvious or not obvious, the hostile armies may be strong or weak, if necessary, may be difficult or easy mobility, but all these are different levels of scale and is not essentially different. As the savage replaced by modern civilization, with the double means of communication , smooth roads, rivers, was added to our food sources from the bridge and the increasing operational activities are becoming more easily, quickly and widely, but the operational activities must follow the principles remain unchanged. when the car transporting troops on foot instead of , when the train instead of car, from the increased fighting, or it can be said to shorten the operational time; but the troops should be concentrated, such as the location of the decision requires the direction of movement, to attack the enemy positions which part of the land and the protection of communication lines, etc. These principles have not changed. in the sea, too, from fear to sail from one port to another port of slow single-deck paddle sail warships, the development of venture to sail the boat to the ends of the earth, and from sailing to the development of We now steam ships, the Navy expanded the scope of operational activities, and also accelerated the speed of ships, but the guiding principle of naval operations, but no need to change. Therefore, the earlier cited 2,300 years ago in his speech Rakhmonov carat Curtis bear with a proper strategic plan, which some of the principles as then, now also apply. the warring sides in the army or fleet into It points out the distinction between tactics and strategy), there are many issues to commanders to make decisions, including the entire battlefield full operational plan. These include the Navy, the exact functions in the war; the Navy's real target; the Navy should concentration of a particular place or places; create fuel and various supplies warehouse; keep these warehouses and smooth flow of traffic between their bases; also include research as a decisive combat activities or auxiliary mm undermine the military value of trade ; and damage to the most effective way of trade: a distributed cruise or the use of heavily armed merchant ships must pass through some of the important transport hub. All of these are strategic issues, and issues related to the history of this area has been well documented. recent In the British Navy launched a community in a meaningful discussion, and its mainly on the two famous British admiral, Lord Howe and Lord St. Vincent, in the battle with France, British naval deployment for the approach of the merits of the comparison. this is a strategic issue entirely, not just of historical interest, which is currently a very important issue. naval deployment is based on the principle, now as then, has not changed. St. Vincent's deployment policy to save the United Kingdom, so that them from the invasion, and in the General Nelson and his colleagues directly into the hands of the British naval battle of Trafalgar angle.
Therefore, in the naval strategy in the past a number of important doctrines, its importance is still not reduced. These important doctrine of the role, not only can be used to explain the principle, but relatively unchanged in the case of conditions can also be used as a precedent. When considered from a strategic point of view need to make the fleet into battle in a particular place, but the tactics point of view, it may not quite correct. human progress, weapons are constantly changing; with the changes in weapons, would inevitably lead to changing the way fighting, that troops or ships on the battlefield changes in the use and deployment . So in the event there are many links with the sea within sectors there is a tendency that the study will not be any past experience and lessons learned, and that this is a waste of time. In spite of this view is natural, but they not only completely lead countries to see the sea fleet deployed in the broad strategic intent, and even tactical view is narrow and one-sided. fleets have demonstrated the scope of their activities, and the fleet has been so changed, and will continue to change world history . Over the past success or failure of some of the fighting, depending on whether they implement the operational principles of the fighting. So, if careful study of these naval battles success or failure will not only find but will gradually understand these principles, these principles will continue to learn He applied to the ships of that era used the tactics and weapons to go. He will also see changes in tactics after the change occurs not only in weapons, and weapons will lead to inevitable changes in tactical change. people will see the arms and changes in tactics between the two is quite a long time interval. The reason for the improvement of weapons is mostly one or two people by the result of efforts to change tactics to defeat the conservative sectors of the principles of force of habit, and this habit is so strong . Only recognize each change, seriously study the new ship, or the power and limitations of new weapons, and then use the characteristics to adapt to its tactics, to be able to correct this habit. History has shown that all people want the military to this is done in vain; but if someone can recognize this change, then the operations will be of great benefit, because the lessons of great value in itself.
Therefore, we can now accept the cover of a French tactician Morrow view, he wrote 125 years ago: structural changes caused by vessels, control vessels on the change, ultimately resulting in fleet deployment and change of command of the fleet. Naval Tactical more susceptible to criticism. more specifically the use of these tactics should be based on the principles and change weapons. No doubt the application of strategic principles to change from time to time, but this change is very small; therefore easier to recognize the strategic basic principles. the above described historical events for us to find some from the description of the subject is very important example.
1798 Battle of the Nile year, the British fleet is not only fully and completely defeated the French fleet, but also destruction of France and Napoleon in Egypt between the lines of troops played a decisive role. In this battle, the British Admiral Nelson set for large tactical most shining example, it is the reputation of and well integrated during the battle of art. Before destruction, not to provide support to them; but some form of this tactic with the principle that the enemy formation choose the most difficult to get some assistance, and the use of superior force to attack it, they still do not have out of date. British Fleet Jie Davis Battle of St. Vincent Kok, with 15 over the 27 enemy ships, even though the enemy is not at anchor, but in the voyage, but he is also in accordance with the above principles of those speaking. However, people sometimes various fleeting impression of the situation, it seems to deal with these situations than on the principle of eternal impression deeper. Instead, Nelson's victory in the war on the process of strategic role played by some of the principles contained not only easier to be recognized, and has been seen that these principles also apply to our times. French adventure activities in Egypt, the success or failure depends on its ability to maintain its naval and smooth flow of traffic between metropolitan France. the triumph of the Battle of the Nile British destroyed the only way to ensure traffic safety, the French Navy, and it was decided the fate of the final defeat of France; people not only quickly saw the blow against the enemy lines in accordance with the principle, and will see this Now the principle is correct, and whether in the era of single-deck paddle warships sail, or in the sailing ship era or the era of steam, the same is correct.
But now there is a contempt of past mistakes views that those things are old and outdated, plus people are born lazy or blind to the history of the Navy bears lessons of those long-term effective strategy. For example, how many people are not the Battle of Trafalgar angle, the Nelson, and honors their talents and skills as an isolated anomaly great event? how many people ask themselves this strategic question, Jai angle battle more than a year is a continuation of the great drama of the last act strategically? In this drama, the history there has never been the two greatest commanders, Napoleon, and Nelson in each contest. In Battle of Trafalgar in the losers corner is not the French admiral Bougainville Naff, but Napoleon; winning is not Nelson, but was saved Britain; Why? because of Napoleon's failed joint action , and Nelson's intuitive knowledge and initiative of the British fleet continued to track the enemy, and it arrived at the decisive moment. [author Note: See the comments at the end of this chapter.] Battle of Trafalgar tactical angle, although details yet to be comments, but its main feature is consistent with the principles of war, and the British adventure has been at the time the outcome of emergency and sea proved to be completely correct; but the British prepare for the efficiency of the process of implementation of activities capacity and energy, as well as a few months before the war, the British commander of thinking and observation methods, some of the key strategic lessons are learned, and still is very important.
in the Battle of the Nile and Telafaer Add angle sea battle, in line with laws of war have made and decisive results. now can refer to a third wars, in the wars, because there is no fighting in the last two made the kind of clear results obtained, it is easy for debating what to do. In the American War of Independence, the French and Spanish alliance in 1799 against the British. combined fleet in the English Channel three times, including one as high as 66 the total number of sailing ships, the British fleet in the number of distinct disadvantage, forcing them to have to hide in the harbor. At that time Spain's main objective is to recover Gibraltar and Jamaica; to attack the almost impregnable fortress of Gibraltar, France and Spain from the sea and land into a great power. But these attacks is invalid, so you can ask the question mm a purely naval strategy, namely: France and Spain, the English Channel with the control, with attacks on British ports in the fleet, with the destruction of the local trade and invasion to threaten the United Kingdom, is better than make every effort to directly attack the British Empire, the remote, very rugged outpost will be more sure? long-term not been for the invasion of the British invasion of fright, if suddenly shaken to its fleet to the British the full confidence of so that they will lose relatively courage. No matter what the final decision, the issue as a strategic point is reasonable; However, a French officer at the time, proposed an alternative way, he was in favor of a direct large-scale attack to West Indies exchange for the island of Gibraltar. But the English can not give up the strategic pass to control the Mediterranean Sea, in exchange for any other overseas territories, although the UK may save their homes and the capital will give up this territory. Napoleon had declared that he wanted to Wei Siwa River [Translator's Note: Vistula, the river in Poland.] to regain local control [Translator's Note: Pondicherry, southeast of the federal government for the Indian Territory. eighteenth century for the British on several occasions and France the object of contention.] that place. If he can control the English Channel, as the combined fleet in 1779 was short-term control of it as his occupation of the British coast to a place like Gibraltar would doubt it?
order to keep in mind that history can provide us with strategic research materials, but also to the historical facts to illustrate the principles of war by the fact that, to cite two examples, which occurred at a time, than the book is also involved in the start of the time earlier. once in power between East and West in the Mediterranean during the two big contests, including one to the world-famous Empire at stake. One might propose that these two big contests, what happened to all the hostile fleet from each other so in the near Actium and Lepanto met? This is purely a coincidence? or because of repeated and may have been once again arise a situation? [author Note: The 1827 Turkish Western powers and the battle between the Navarino is carried out in this neighborhood.] If the latter is to work out this situation is worth it, because if someone like Anthony again as the Oriental or Turkish maritime power, they strategic issues will be similar. Now it seems, is indeed the center of sea power primarily in the United Kingdom and France, and there is an overwhelming tendency is to the West. But if there is a chance, it is now Russia in addition to controlling the control of the Black Sea lowlands, but also occupied the entrance to the Mediterranean, then, the current strategy of sea power conditions may be changed completely. Now, if the West agreed to rise up against the East, Britain and France would immediately stop the fight, as did in 1854, they went to Levant region [Translator's Note: refers to the Levant area along the Asian countries and the eastern Mediterranean island, including from the Greek by the generalized Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt's Mediterranean coast. narrow, including only some of these areas in Asia area.] to, or, as the United Kingdom in 1878 alone to the same; the event of such changes proposed by the East will be the same as the previous two, in the half-way confrontation with the West.
Figure 1 in the world, the Mediterranean
history of a very striking and very important period, people do not realize that sea power has on the strategic importance and impact. now we can not find enough material for detailed study of sea power on the second Punic War [Translator's Note: Punic Wars with Carthage, the Roman rule of the right to fight the war the western Mediterranean, a total of three times. win the war the western Mediterranean, the results of the hegemony of Rome. because Carthage was Phoenician colony, while the Romans called the Phoenicians as the Punic (Poeni), so the history of these three wars called the Punic wars.] Outcome; But for now some signs of the legacy. there are good reasons to assert that the sea Right in the Punic War was a decisive factor. For this, we can not have been based only on the available facts of war handed down to form a correct judgments. because, as usual, it has been contemptuously ignored Navy records of some meetings of the Institute; to sign in from a few, according to some well-known historical period for the possibility of understanding, draw some false assumptions, it is necessary to become familiar with the details of all naval history. control the sea no matter how effective the implementation of does not mean the enemy's single ship or small sub-fleet can not be slipped out of port, can not always cross the ocean, not harassment, assault on a long and undefended coastline point, can not enter the ports are blocked. On the contrary, history has shown No matter how much difference between the two naval strength of the poor, the weaker party in a way is always possible to escape this blockade and control. So it full control of the Roman fleet of marine or control the key part is not contradictory, Catalan Sealand Junqiang Jun Bo Mier Is not the fourth year of the war won a brilliant victory at Cannae, succeeded in bringing a group of 4,000 soldiers and elephants landed in southern Italy it? seventh year of the war, suddenly Bomierka ducked off the coast of the Roman fleet at Syracuse once again appeared at that time controlled by the Hannibal Taranto. but also to the Carthage Hannibal sent several ships to pass the official document. even the last Han Nigeria pulled the remnants of his African and safely evacuated. But all this can not prove that the Government may continue to give Hannibal of Carthage to support. In fact, Hannibal did not get this support, however, the These facts will naturally cause the government has supported the Carthaginian Hannibal impression. so there is need for careful investigation has made it clear by the fact, confirmed to a good ...
No comments:
Post a Comment