The United States and Great Britain Naval Innovation - Essay Example

Compare and contrast US naval innovation with that of Great Britain. What is the dichotomy and why? Use evidence from (REQUIRED READINGs) to substantiate your argument. Name University Date Sentence Outline Question Compare and contrast US naval innovation with that of Great Britain. What is the dichotomy and why? Use evidence from (REQUIRED READINGs) to substantiate your argument. Introduction Naval warfare was an important element in deciding the outcome of the first two World Wars. Where it not for this warfare the two nations would not have been able to fight over the control of the world’s waterways. For this reason, the reader should know how naval warfare enabled the First World War to spread quickly throughout the world. Thesis The Brits invested in the innovation of naval weaponry for the purpose of defending their fleet while the US innovation was concerned more with attack-based weaponry. Major Points In spite of being allies during the first World Wars, US and the Great Britain had different approaches and strategies, dictated by their rationale and motivation. Point 1: Different retaliation strategies to the German submarine threat Great Britain responded to the German threat through treaties that would, hopefully, restrain the development of submarine warfare. The United States, in the contrary, saw the need to directly retaliate to the German submarine threat. The German threat was the sole reason the US engaged in the First World War. Point 2: The Versailles Treaty (A war to end all wars) together with the Washington and London Treaties Great Britain lobbied for countries to abolish the development and use of submarine warfare. The London and Washington treaties both sought to discourage other countries from developing submarine technology. This gave them a false sense of security. The United States did not heed the treaties that Great Britain recommended. They saw the need to build submarines and the advantage of using them in battle. Their naval officers highlighted the benefits of submarines during naval warfare. Point 3: Difference in budgeting for war Great Britain adopted more of a penny-pinching style during the interwar period and this diminished the funds allocated to naval weaponry innovation. The United States, during the interwar period, funded their innovation pursuits as they strived to build submarines that would engage in naval warfare comfortably. Conclusion In conclusion, Great Britain adopted a defense-based approach whereas United States was concerned with offensive-based equipment to counter the threats posed by nations like Japan. This was evidenced by the different retaliation strategies to the German submarine threat, the Versailles treaty and different strategies for budgeting for war. US came into World War I immediately after Germany resorted into using submarines in naval warfare. By using submarines, the Germans nearly forced Great Britain out of the first war. For this reason, countries had to invest into the innovation of new weapons to counter the threat of their adversaries. The United States, after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, began to see the need of engaging in naval warfare. The attack forced the issuance of orders, by the US Navy, to discriminate against Japanese air and naval warfare. Following the raids on their vessels, the British Navy marshaled the US Navy to abolish the use of submarines in naval warfare. However, the United States did not approve the abolition of the submarine1. The US created a submarine section in its naval force as they planned to protect themselves from an ambitious Japan. Capt. Thomas C. Hart argued that “the submarine will be an extremely valuable weapon…..” The submarines at the disposal of the US Navy, during the First World War, were not seaworthy and not as useful. Great Britain, unlike it counterpart the US, saw the need for a capital ship and valued the decisive nature of a fleet. This approach, according to Correlli Barnett, was misguided and resulted into the disastrous Washington treaty2. The Washington treaty showed the ‘penny-pinching’ side of the British government who were reluctant in investing in naval shipping. The treaty sought to restrict or ban other significant countries from pursuing their submarine goals. The treaty, if agreed upon, gave the British a false sense of security if war was to occur again. The lack of interest in anything navy-based caused them to underestimate the threats of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Their racial attitude against the Japanese was also a contributing factor. They overestimated their own strengths, together with those of the US, in holding back the Japanese naval threat3. The British naval innovation received criticism, both in the submarine and naval warfare sections. They failed to consider submarine innovation, assuming that the Versailles agreement had abolished this type of warfare. The Versailles treaty, together with the subsequent London treaties, reinforced the Britain’s false assumption regarding submarine warfare. This assumption led to British officers holding the antisubmarine warfare in low esteem. The innovation in submarine warfare was geared towards the elimination of submarines during war. The development and use of ASDIC, or sonar, was emphasized in order to eliminate any submarine threat in the case of war4. The US Navy submarine officers, as early as the first war, had suggested the construction of a fleet of submarines. These submarines would be powerful with great range, fast and could withstand adverse ocean conditions. These submarines, according to the officers, would be decisive during wars. Other than submarines, the US navy also worked on torpedoes. The submarine was viewed as the only solution in deterring and countering the threat of the Japanese5. The innovations on the US submarines concentrated on long cruising radius, fuel consumption and ample storage of ammunition and supplies. During naval warfare, the US submarines would act as auxiliaries to the battleships. Therefore, their speeds would match those of the battleships; 16-18 knots6. In short, the US wanted a submarine that could operate against the Japanese. The prospect of having a submarine capable of disrupting Japanese commerce at sea was not possible in 1921. As a result, the US decided to concentrate on naval aviation which was regarded as a more realistic pursuit than submarines. Britain’s pursuit of the Washington treaty explains the slow innovations and development of sonar and other naval technologies. The British doctrine did not allow for innovation in the naval industry as it did not align with their overall battle strategy. In terms of continental warfare, the British sought to have continental allies who would help them in fighting their continental opponents7. They preferred air power and classic strategy when it came to continental warfare. In defending against threats, the British relied heavily on their air power and strategy. In preparation of the Second World War, Britain developed a mobile base plan that gave it superior strategic advantage over their rivals. The Mobile Naval Base Defense Organization (MNBDO) enabled the British to “generate sea power through forward basins in an austere theater”8. In response to the threat posed by Japan, the US government saw the need to finance the development of naval technology. The US aim was to outgun any threat during the event of war. Their naval technology, in comparison to that of Germany, was not effective. To resolve this, the US Navy started improving their submarines by developing the S-class submarine that was an improvement of the earlier unseaworthy submarines. The S-class, despite being an improvement, was slow; its range was limited and was accident-prone9. The limited nature of the S-class submarines was confirmed after their voyage from New London to Manila. Britain’s naval division was constrained, fiscally, during the interwar period. The Royal Navy, which was the foremost navy in the world, suffered during this period. The navy lacked in terms of personnel and this left the navy behind when compared to Japan and the United States. The lack of attention and esteem in the naval aviation led to its decline in the Royal Navy10. The naval aviation section lacked both in terms of operational and strategic requirements. Other than being neglected as a section, Great Britain had the largest existing carrier tonnage at the time. The size of the carrier prevented the construction of new carriers and aircraft. In conclusion, Britain and the United States identified the importance of naval warfare during the First and Second World War. However, they both adopted different strategies in arming themselves against naval threats. The U.S adopted an attack mentality through increased innovation efforts into naval technology. The US navy, throughout the war period, constantly improved their strategic advantage over their rivals during war. Their innovation was geared into creating naval weapons that were able to counter those of their enemies. In the contrary, the British adopted a precautionary route as it sought to protect its naval fleet through the creation of sonar technology. This technology enabled the British fleet to identify and neutralize submarine threats. Additionally, the Brits were on the forefront of lobbying against the use of submarines during war. These treaties were a ruse for their fiscal difficulties during the war. Bibliography Kuehn, John T. “Perspectives from Great Britain, Japan, and Germany.” Excerpt from The Influence of Naval Arms Limitation on U.S. Naval Innovation During the Interwar Period, 1921–1937, ch. 8, 263–88. PhD diss., Kansas State University, 2007. Talbott, J.E. “Weapons Development, War Planning and Policy: The US Navy and the Submarine, 1917–1941.” Naval War College Review (May–June 1984): 53–71. Read More