Expert’s warning to US Navy on China: Bigger fleet almost always wins

[beijingwalker]

Expert’s warning to US Navy on China: Bigger fleet almost always wins​

Analysis by Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 10:05 AM EST, Tue January 17, 2023

A Type 54A frigate of the Chinese navy leaves the Baltic Sea via the Kiel Canal.
Joerg Waterstraat/SULUPRESS.DE/dpa/AP

Seoul, South KoreaCNN —
As China continues to grow what is already the world’s largest navy, a professor at the US Naval War College has a warning for American military planners: In naval warfare, the bigger fleet almost always wins.

Writing in the January issue of the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine, Sam Tangredi says if history is any lesson, China’s numerical advantage is likely to lead to defeat for the US Navy in any war with China.

Tangredi, the Leidos Chair of Future Warfare Studies at the US Naval War College and a former US Navy captain, looked at 28 naval wars, from the Greco-Persian Wars of 500 BC, through recent Cold War proxy conflicts and interventions. He found in only three instances did superior technology defeat bigger numbers.

“All other wars were won by superior numbers or, when between equal forces, superior strategy, or admiralship,” Tangredi wrote. “Often all three qualities act together, because operating a large fleet generally facilitates more extensive training and is often an indicator that leaders are concerned with strategic requirements,” Tangredi wrote.

The three outliers – wars from the 11th, 16th and 19th centuries – aren’t likely familiar to all but the most ardent of scholars, but others that show where numbers beat technology certainly are.
Take the Napoleanic wars of the early 1800s, for example.

“French warships were superior in the technology of ship design and construction, but ultimately, it was the large numbers of Royal Navy ships that prevented Napoleon from crossing the (English) channel,” Tangredi wrote.

Pacing threat​

Pentagon leaders have identified China as the US military’s “pacing threat.” But fleet size numbers show that the US military can’t keep pace with China’s naval growth.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) surpassed the US Navy in fleet size sometime around 2020 and now has around 340 warships, according to the Pentagon’s 2022 China Military Power Report, released in November. China’s fleet is expected to grow to 400 ships in the next two years, the report says.

Meanwhile, the US fleet sits under 300 ships, and the Pentagon’s goal is to have 350 manned ships, still well behind China, by 2045, according to the US Navy’s Navigation Plan 2022 released last summer.


So to compete, US military leaders are counting on technology.

That same Pentagon document says, “the world is entering a new age of warfare, one in which the integration of technology, concepts, partners, and systems — more than fleet size alone — will determine victory in conflict.”

But Tangredi points to World War II in the Pacific, where Japanese technology began as the better of America’s, as an example of why the Pentagon’s conclusions don’t necessarily hold true.

“Imperial Japan entered the war with some superior technologies: the Zero fighter, Long-Lance torpedo, and aerial torpedoes that could strike in shallow water,” Tangredi wrote in Proceedings.

“However, it was the overall might of US industry and the size of the US fleet (particularly its logistics and amphibious ships) that ground out victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy,” he said.

‘Attrition is a real thing’​

Alessio Patalano, professor of war and strategy at King’s College in London, praised Tangredi’s work.

“His research is a very good way to push back on the silly assumption that mass doesn’t matter in war at sea,” Patalano said.

He stressed two key points.

A larger size means more leaders looking to gain the edge in their commands.

“A larger fleet tend to be more competitive, in training personnel development, and operational capacity,” Patalano said.

And he said a large industrial base is essential, especially in being able to build new units after incurring casualties in battle.

“In naval war, attrition is a real thing, so the ability to replace is vital,” Patalano said

Tangredi’s look at the World War II aircraft carrier fleets shows the stark numbers. Both the US and Japan began the war with eight carriers, he said.

“During the war, Imperial Japan built 18 carrier-equivalents … while the United States built 144. Unless the United States decided not to fight, Japan never had a chance,” he wrote.

Shipbuilding was a US strength when it was the world’s industrial giant in the 1940s. That title now falls to China.

“Most analysts doubt that the US defense industry — which has consolidated and shrunk since the end of the Cold War — could expand quickly enough to meet wartime demand,” Tangredi wrote.

Replenishing ammunition stocks​

Indeed, there is worry US industry cannot keep up with the demand of providing weapons assistance to Ukraine to fight Russia’s invasion while keeping US weapons arms inventories at adequate levels.

Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander of US Fleet Forces Command, last week called on the nation’s defense industries to step up their game, saying “you’re not delivering the ordnance we need.”

“It’s so essential to winning. And I can’t do that without the ordnance,” Caudle said at a symposium in Washington, adding that the US is “going against a competitor here, and a potential adversary, that is like nothing we’ve ever seen.”

In an online forum last week, Caudle’s boss, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, also noted the numbers problem the US faces in a potential Pacific conflict.

“The United States Navy is not going to be able to match the PLAN missile for missile,” Gilday said.

And if the US Navy can’t match China’s missile for missile, or ship for ship, Tangredi wonders where it can find an edge.

“US leaders must ask themselves to what extent they are willing to bet on technological — without numerical — superiority in that fight,” he wrote.

“I do not say that a smaller, technologically superior fleet could never defeat a much larger fleet, I only say that — with the possible the exception of three cases in the past 1,200 years — none has.”

Expert's warning to US Navy on China: Bigger fleet almost always wins | CNN

As China continues to grow what is already the world's largest navy, a professor at the US Naval War College has a warning for American military planners: In naval warfare, the bigger fleet almost always wins.

edition.cnn.com

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

Surely they can pull another Midway with their rainbow navy right?

 

[beijingwalker]

 

[jhungary]

First of all, biggest fleet NOT ALWAYS wins. A few battles comes into mind, Trafalgar (When British force out ship with 27 to 33 ship of the line), Battle off Samar (The entire Taffy Task Force weighed less than one battleship in battle, and it's a 9 vs 20 duel), Battle of Lake Erie (5 Schooner vs 2 Ship of the Line) just to name a few on top of my head.

Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle off Samar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Lake Erie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So for that, the "expert" was wrong.

On the other hand, ship number is not the deciding factor of any war, firepower is.

 

[dbc]

Surely they can pull another Midway with their rainbow navy right?

then you have nothing to worry about

 

[gambit]

Surely they can pull another Midway with their rainbow navy right?

Absolutely we could...

 

[beijingwalker]

In WW2， Japan can never match US mighty industrial and manufacturing power, but in today's world, the shoe is on the other foot

 

[gambit]

In WW2， Japan can never match US mighty industrial and manufacturing power, but in today's world, the shoe is on the other foot

Manufacturing is delayed resources, meaning it takes time to get from home to battle fronts. In battles, whatever got destroyed must be dealt with immediately, else the front will continue to progress in ways you will not like. WW II was the first time fleets fought each other without seeing each other, and most likely the last time fleets fought each other while seeing each other. With regards to the casualties results (post 6) from Midway, the critical difference is that today, the US wields lopsided naval air power, and that is not counting the allies'.

 

[beijingwalker]

Manufacturing is delayed resources, meaning it takes time to get from home to battle fronts. In battles, whatever got destroyed must be dealt with immediately, else the front will continue to progress in ways you will not like. WW II was the first time fleets fought each other without seeing each other, and most likely the last time fleets fought each other while seeing each other. With regards to the casualties results (post 6) from Midway, the critical difference is that today, the US wields lopsided naval air power, and that is not counting the allies'.

Japan almost decimated US navy in 1941 and fast spreaded its power all across the pacific, but stilll succumbed to unrivaled US industrial and manufacturing might years later.

 

[gambit]

Japan almost decimated US navy in 1941 and fast spreaded its power all across the pacific, but stilll succumbed to unrivaled US industrial and manufacturing might years later.

It was the Battle of Midway, not manufacturing, that turned the war in the Pacific. Once those four JPNese carriers were destroyed, JPN was forced to reorient to homeland defense. From that point on, we can say that US manufacturing capabilities took over the war.

Battle of Midway ‑ Location, Outcome & Significance

The Battle of Midway was an epic WWII clash between the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy that played out six months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. Navy’s decisive victory in the air‑sea battle (June 3‑6, 1942) dashed Japan’s hopes of neutralizing the United States as a naval...

www.history.com

As a result of the U.S. victory in the Battle of Midway, Japan abandoned its plan to expand its reach in the Pacific, and would remain on the defensive for the remainder of World War II.​

​

Battle of Midway

www.cs.mcgill.ca

Even more important, though, was the irredeemable loss of four of Japan's fleet carriers. These ships would not be replaced, unit for unit, until early in 1945. In the same span of time, the U.S. Navy commissioned more than two dozen fleet and light fleet carriers, and numerous escort carriers. Thus, Midway permanently damaged the Japanese Navy's striking power, and measurably shortened the period during which the Japanese carrier force could fight on advantageous terms.​

Note the highlighted -- unit for unit. And the time it took for the new units to become combat ready.

 

[beijingwalker]

It was the Battle of Midway, not manufacturing, that turned the war in the Pacific. Once those four JPNese carriers were destroyed, JPN was forced to reorient to homeland defense. From that point on, we can say that US manufacturing capabilities took over the war.

Battle of Midway ‑ Location, Outcome & Significance

The Battle of Midway was an epic WWII clash between the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy that played out six months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. Navy’s decisive victory in the air‑sea battle (June 3‑6, 1942) dashed Japan’s hopes of neutralizing the United States as a naval...

www.history.com

As a result of the U.S. victory in the Battle of Midway, Japan abandoned its plan to expand its reach in the Pacific, and would remain on the defensive for the remainder of World War II.​

​

Battle of Midway

www.cs.mcgill.ca

Even more important, though, was the irredeemable loss of four of Japan's fleet carriers. These ships would not be replaced, unit for unit, until early in 1945. In the same span of time, the U.S. Navy commissioned more than two dozen fleet and light fleet carriers, and numerous escort carriers. Thus, Midway permanently damaged the Japanese Navy's striking power, and measurably shortened the period during which the Japanese carrier force could fight on advantageous terms.​

Note the highlighted -- unit for unit. And the time it took for the new units to become combat ready.

You can argue, but still one battle doesn't win a war, otherwise Japanese would have already won it in 1941, it all boills down to a country's overall industrial might in the end. Russia beat Nazi Germany after years of struggle, Russia's victory was not achieved by better weapons than German's, but by its industrial capability, Russia outbuild Germany multiple times towards the end of the war.

 

[gambit]

You can argue, but still one battle doesn't win a war, otherwise Japanese would have already won it in 1941, it all boills down to a country's overall industrial might in the end. Russia beat Nazi Germany after years of struggle, Russia's victory was not achieved by better weapons than German's, but by its industrial capability, Russia outbuild Germany multiple times towards the end of the war.

Where did I even implied that? Did I said that the Battle of Midway won the Pacific? What would happen if the US lost at Midway? Most likely, that island hopping campaign would not happen, so by the time the US replace its carriers, JPN would have secured most if not all of Asia.

 

[beijingwalker]

Where did I even implied that? Did I said that the Battle of Midway won the Pacific? What would happen if the US lost at Midway? Most likely, that island hopping campaign would not happen, so by the time the US replace its carriers, JPN would have secured most if not all of Asia.

If you don't mean that, it's good, we both agree that a single battle won't win a war. It's all boils down to a country's overall industrial and manufacturing capability, either in US vs Japan or Russia vs Germany case.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Expert’s warning to US Navy on China: Bigger fleet almost always wins​

Analysis by Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 10:05 AM EST, Tue January 17, 2023

A Type 54A frigate of the Chinese navy leaves the Baltic Sea via the Kiel Canal.
Joerg Waterstraat/SULUPRESS.DE/dpa/AP

Seoul, South KoreaCNN —
As China continues to grow what is already the world’s largest navy, a professor at the US Naval War College has a warning for American military planners: In naval warfare, the bigger fleet almost always wins.

Writing in the January issue of the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine, Sam Tangredi says if history is any lesson, China’s numerical advantage is likely to lead to defeat for the US Navy in any war with China.

Tangredi, the Leidos Chair of Future Warfare Studies at the US Naval War College and a former US Navy captain, looked at 28 naval wars, from the Greco-Persian Wars of 500 BC, through recent Cold War proxy conflicts and interventions. He found in only three instances did superior technology defeat bigger numbers.

“All other wars were won by superior numbers or, when between equal forces, superior strategy, or admiralship,” Tangredi wrote. “Often all three qualities act together, because operating a large fleet generally facilitates more extensive training and is often an indicator that leaders are concerned with strategic requirements,” Tangredi wrote.

The three outliers – wars from the 11th, 16th and 19th centuries – aren’t likely familiar to all but the most ardent of scholars, but others that show where numbers beat technology certainly are.
Take the Napoleanic wars of the early 1800s, for example.

“French warships were superior in the technology of ship design and construction, but ultimately, it was the large numbers of Royal Navy ships that prevented Napoleon from crossing the (English) channel,” Tangredi wrote.

Pacing threat​

Pentagon leaders have identified China as the US military’s “pacing threat.” But fleet size numbers show that the US military can’t keep pace with China’s naval growth.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) surpassed the US Navy in fleet size sometime around 2020 and now has around 340 warships, according to the Pentagon’s 2022 China Military Power Report, released in November. China’s fleet is expected to grow to 400 ships in the next two years, the report says.

Meanwhile, the US fleet sits under 300 ships, and the Pentagon’s goal is to have 350 manned ships, still well behind China, by 2045, according to the US Navy’s Navigation Plan 2022 released last summer.


So to compete, US military leaders are counting on technology.

That same Pentagon document says, “the world is entering a new age of warfare, one in which the integration of technology, concepts, partners, and systems — more than fleet size alone — will determine victory in conflict.”

But Tangredi points to World War II in the Pacific, where Japanese technology began as the better of America’s, as an example of why the Pentagon’s conclusions don’t necessarily hold true.

“Imperial Japan entered the war with some superior technologies: the Zero fighter, Long-Lance torpedo, and aerial torpedoes that could strike in shallow water,” Tangredi wrote in Proceedings.

“However, it was the overall might of US industry and the size of the US fleet (particularly its logistics and amphibious ships) that ground out victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy,” he said.

‘Attrition is a real thing’​

Alessio Patalano, professor of war and strategy at King’s College in London, praised Tangredi’s work.

“His research is a very good way to push back on the silly assumption that mass doesn’t matter in war at sea,” Patalano said.

He stressed two key points.

A larger size means more leaders looking to gain the edge in their commands.

“A larger fleet tend to be more competitive, in training personnel development, and operational capacity,” Patalano said.

And he said a large industrial base is essential, especially in being able to build new units after incurring casualties in battle.

“In naval war, attrition is a real thing, so the ability to replace is vital,” Patalano said

Tangredi’s look at the World War II aircraft carrier fleets shows the stark numbers. Both the US and Japan began the war with eight carriers, he said.

“During the war, Imperial Japan built 18 carrier-equivalents … while the United States built 144. Unless the United States decided not to fight, Japan never had a chance,” he wrote.

Shipbuilding was a US strength when it was the world’s industrial giant in the 1940s. That title now falls to China.

“Most analysts doubt that the US defense industry — which has consolidated and shrunk since the end of the Cold War — could expand quickly enough to meet wartime demand,” Tangredi wrote.

Replenishing ammunition stocks​

Indeed, there is worry US industry cannot keep up with the demand of providing weapons assistance to Ukraine to fight Russia’s invasion while keeping US weapons arms inventories at adequate levels.

Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander of US Fleet Forces Command, last week called on the nation’s defense industries to step up their game, saying “you’re not delivering the ordnance we need.”

“It’s so essential to winning. And I can’t do that without the ordnance,” Caudle said at a symposium in Washington, adding that the US is “going against a competitor here, and a potential adversary, that is like nothing we’ve ever seen.”

In an online forum last week, Caudle’s boss, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, also noted the numbers problem the US faces in a potential Pacific conflict.

“The United States Navy is not going to be able to match the PLAN missile for missile,” Gilday said.

And if the US Navy can’t match China’s missile for missile, or ship for ship, Tangredi wonders where it can find an edge.

“US leaders must ask themselves to what extent they are willing to bet on technological — without numerical — superiority in that fight,” he wrote.

“I do not say that a smaller, technologically superior fleet could never defeat a much larger fleet, I only say that — with the possible the exception of three cases in the past 1,200 years — none has.”

Expert's warning to US Navy on China: Bigger fleet almost always wins | CNN

As China continues to grow what is already the world's largest navy, a professor at the US Naval War College has a warning for American military planners: In naval warfare, the bigger fleet almost always wins.

edition.cnn.com

Just a hypothetical scenario.

Reality is the US has no intension of fighting China.

 

[gambit]

If you don't mean that, it's good, we both agree that a single battle won't win a war. It's all boils down to a country's overall industrial and manufacturing capability, either in US vs Japan or Russia vs Germany case.

You just do not like the idea that the US is most likely to prevail in any naval battle against the PLAN.