| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - US Naval Power in the late 19th Century
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


US Naval Power in the late 19th Century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2011 at 16:57
They were superior to Spanish Armed Forces, anyways. I don't know why Americans like to play the victims.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 04:41
Penguin, in what way were the Americans superior to the Spanish? It certainly wasn't infantry armament, nor in mobile artillery. And the Spanish had the numbers. Could it have been leadership? Particularly that of the former Assistant Secretary of the Navy who had, within a single year, positioned the Navy for combat? His name was Theodore Roosevelt, and he had resigned his position just a few months earlier to become the deputy commander of the 1st Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, which fought at Las Guasimas and Santiago as infantry. While Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt had chosen Admiral Dewey to command the Asiatic Squadron of the Pacific Fleet. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 11:44
In what way? In the navy. 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 12:27
The birth of American military and naval primacy can not be assigned to any period other than World War II and the exigencies demanded by that conflict. Therein the rise of the technological intensity that would give primacy. As lirelou correctly pointed out, the Great White Fleet was more or less "imposed" upon a reluctant Congress by the wiles of Theodore Roosevelt in his capacity first as secretary of the navy and later as president--nor should one forget the fate of naval production during the WWI after the end of that conflict. No better example of traditional animosity by the American establishment to military innovation prior to World War II can be put forth as example than the famous courtmartial of Billy Mitchell in 1925.
 
As for the Spanish American War, its organization and the problems of deployment are a veritable soap opera and can be interpeted as the last example of militia as army within an American context. As for the navy...given the fact that the U.SS Maine "blew up" consequent to defective boilers in all probability...the notion that it possessed any sort of superiority in terms of modernization is an utenable posit. Alfred Thayer Mahon had yet to "sell" his theory at large by the 1890s.
 
By the way it was Spain and not the US that "declared" war on 23 April 1898 consequent to the US call for a blockade of the island on the 11th. The American declaration followed on the 25th.


Edited by drgonzaga - 05 Mar 2011 at 23:41
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 12:30
Ridiculous. The U.S. had a navy in the war against Spain, already. And a very impresive navy it was, that destroyed easily the obsolete Spanish fleet.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 12:32
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

The Spanish navy was pure crap. Ony two of their ships were even armoured, and they had no capability to defend themselves at the range in use. Basically at Manila Bay the Spanish ships were just sitting ducks while the US used them for target practice.
 
Iowa (11,000 tons) was indeed not an unreasonable ship for her time, but completely outpowered by the 9 Majestic class ships (15,000 tons) in the Royal Navy. In 1900, in total the US navy had five pre-dreadnought battleships. The Royal Navy had forty. Nobody yet had dreadnoughts of course.


Agreed. The U.S. navy may have been inferior to the British but was a technological marvel if compared to the Spanish.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 19:53
n view of lirelou's detailed analysis of the army and Dr G's similar comment, can I point out that the US Navy appears to have been well ahead of the army in moerdinsation 1918-1939, especially after the Washington conference in 1923. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#Terms
 
As a result by 1939, cnsidering only large ships the relative sizes of the US and Royal Navy fleets was
Battleships and battlecruisers:  RN  15  USN 15
Aircraft carriers;  RN 7  USN  5
Cruisers: RN 66 USN 37
I think the disparity was greater in smaller vessels. The RN had 184 destroyers and 60 submarines.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:18
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

They were superior to Spanish Armed Forces, anyways. I don't know why Americans like to play the victims.


I don't know what you mean when you said, "play the victims"? Civil government held the purse strings and the military usually had to make do with obsolete equipment most of the time, including the US navy, which was after all practically reduced to a brown water navy after the US civil war.

Why had the US navy benefited by the late 19th century is purely by chanced agreement between two of the most very important people in the US at that time, Admiral Mahan and then Mahan's biggest supporter, Teddy Roosevelt!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:23
I mean that Americans want to convince they played in disadvantage. They have never fought in disadvantage at all, since 1848. In fact, since then, the U.S. always have fought wars against enemies with inferior technology. Only the war of 1812 was fought in disadvantage by the Americans, and was lost. In all the other wars since, Americans have always fought with the best gear.

Obsolete equipment? Maybe, but during the 1898 war, in comparison to the Spanish navy, the American was superb.



Edited by pinguin - 05 Mar 2011 at 22:25
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Ridiculous. The U.S. had a navy in the war against Spain, already. And a very impresive navy it was, that destroyed easily the obsolete Spanish fleet.


Hopefully i don't come across as an @r$e?

Pinguin, i think what you are saying is that compared to the standards of the Americans hemisphere, our navy was superb, and what lirelou and the good doctor seem to be saying is that as a world class navy, it had not rated as anything worth mentioning until Mahan and the Spanish American war came along. And even then it still rated in the lower top 5.

Might this be a correct interpretation? If incorrect, then please forgive my presumptive interpretation!




Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 22:30
The U.S. navy was superior not only to any on the Western Hemisphere but also to many in Europe, including the one of the Spanish empire.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:11
Penguin, you may be right, but if they were superior, the roots of that superiority lay in the hearts and minds of their leadership. Some examples: Dewey sailed from Hong Kong in anticipation of war being declared, and caught the Spanish fleet while it was still in harbor once it was. The U.S. Army task force that sailed for Cuba did not attempt a landing near Havana, as had every other attempt to take the island, but put ashore at Daiquiri, near Santiago, after having conferred with Cuban Insurrectos. This gave them the opportunity to disembark the army without interference from the Spanish, which given the confused manner in which the disembarkment took place, was intelligent foresight. The U.S. Navy made one rash attempt to force San Juan harbor in Puerto Rico, and suffered damage from El Morro's guns as a result. Nelson A. Miles was not so foolish as to expect some quick victory. While the Navy insisted he disembark at Fajardo, he opted to place Puerto Rico's cordillera central between himself and the bulk of Spanish forces, and therefore landed his first troops at Guanica. And while the Spanish, after an initial panic, responded, he set about landing small deception forces near Ponce, then another sizable element near Guayama, thereby confusing Puerto RIco's governor general as to where his main attack was coming from. All previous British and Dutch attacks against Puerto Rico had landed in San Juan or its surroundings.

So, of there was any superiority, it lay with the human element, and not any superior Yanqui technology, which by the way is one of the oldest arguments of the Perfecto Idiota so ably pilloried by young Vargas-Llosa and his team.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I mean that Americans want to convince they played in disadvantage. They have never fought in disadvantage at all, since 1848. In fact, since then, the U.S. always have fought wars against enemies with inferior technology. Only the war of 1812 was fought in disadvantage by the Americans, and was lost. In all the other wars since, Americans have always fought with the best gear.



 Fought with the best gear have we. I mean this respectfully when i say this, but you know next too nothing about the penny pinching government from back then. The fictional character of Ebeneezer Scrooge could have learned something from our government back then! Of course we have fought at disadvantages in the past. For example, the campaign of General Scott's pitiful little army invading Mexico during the Mexican American war, was thought to be a crazy idea by the best European military minds of the day and they expected a massacre to take place soon after his troops landed. Technological superiority played very little part in it. I feel, more ought to be owed to General Scott's leadership and diplomatic tact at handling the Mexican population, a well trained officer corps. and their grasp of the importance for artillery, but most importantly, the political turmoil that Mexico was in at the time.

The Civil war as well, hardly was there any disparity between opposing forces in the opening years. They were evenly matched, nearly identical. Indeed, the South benefited the most at first, when they gained most of the officer corps that had seen action and gained valuable experience form the Mexican-American war. Technology had to play a lot of catch up in that war and even then, Northern industry far from the lines of battle, the blockade and the grinding down of the Confederates forces by General U.S. Grant's forces is what had finally brought it to an end! And guess what, that was known as the Anaconda plan. And guess who foresaw it implementation as being necessary in bringing the war too an end favoring the Union? Yup, the same brilliant mind of General Scott who over saw the US invasion of Mexico from the previous war!

Now, i will grant you this, the US push westward and war in the plains, that lasted most of the 19th century, saw this US fight at a technological advantage more often than not, while they never used more than five percent of the national effort at any one time in bringing the plains war to an eventual end near the time the 20th century started.


Edited by Panther - 05 Mar 2011 at 23:21
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:31
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Penguin, you may be right, but if they were superior, the roots of that superiority lay in the hearts and minds of their leadership. Some examples: Dewey sailed from Hong Kong in anticipation of war being declared, and caught the Spanish fleet while it was still in harbor once it was. The U.S. Army task force that sailed for Cuba did not attempt a landing near Havana, as had every other attempt to take the island, but put ashore at Daiquiri, near Santiago, after having conferred with Cuban Insurrectos. This gave them the opportunity to disembark the army without interference from the Spanish, which given the confused manner in which the disembarkment took place, was intelligent foresight. The U.S. Navy made one rash attempt to force San Juan harbor in Puerto Rico, and suffered damage from El Morro's guns as a result. Nelson A. Miles was not so foolish as to expect some quick victory. While the Navy insisted he disembark at Fajardo, he opted to place Puerto Rico's cordillera central between himself and the bulk of Spanish forces, and therefore landed his first troops at Guanica. And while the Spanish, after an initial panic, responded, he set about landing small deception forces near Ponce, then another sizable element near Guayama, thereby confusing Puerto RIco's governor general as to where his main attack was coming from. All previous British and Dutch attacks against Puerto Rico had landed in San Juan or its surroundings.

So, of there was any superiority, it lay with the human element, and not any superior Yanqui technology, which by the way is one of the oldest arguments of the Perfecto Idiota so ably pilloried by young Vargas-Llosa and his team.


By the way, don't quote spanish words nobody in the english speaking word knows. Translate, Insurrectors by insurgents, cordillera central by central montains. With the Perfect Idiot, it has nothing to do with the discusion. Please, read it before comments.

With respect to the Spaniards, there was a human factor in difference, of course, but was not a matter of armies. Spain had underfounded its military for too long already. If they had founded the Isaac Peral submarines, for instance, perhaps they could had blew up Yankee pride from theirs roots, but they didn't.





Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:34
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

...
 Fought with the best gear have we. I mean this respectfully when i say this, but you know next too nothing about the penny pinching government from back then. The fictional character of Ebeneezer Scrooge could have learned something from our government back then! Of course we have fought at disadvantages in the past. For example, the campaign of General Scott's pitiful little army invading Mexico during the Mexican American war, was thought to be a crazy idea by the best European military minds of the day and they expected a massacre to take place soon after his troops landed. Technological superiority played very little part in it. I feel, more ought to be owed to General Scott's leadership and diplomatic tact at handling the Mexican population, a well trained officer corps. and their grasp of the importance for artillery, but most importantly, the political turmoil that Mexico was in at the time.

The Civil war as well, hardly was there any disparity between opposing forces in the opening years. They were evenly matched, nearly identical. Indeed, the South benefited the most at first, when they gained most of the officer corps that had seen action and gained valuable experience form the Mexican-American war. Technology had to play a lot of catch up in that war and even then, Northern industry far from the lines of battle, the blockade and the grinding down of the Confederates forces by General U.S. Grant's forces is what had finally brought it to an end! And guess what, that was known as the Anaconda plan. And guess who foresaw it implementation as being necessary in bringing the war too an end favoring the Union? Yup, the same brilliant mind of General Scott who over saw the US invasion of Mexico from the previous war!

Now, i will grant you this, the US push westward and war in the plains, that lasted most of the 19th century, saw this US fight at a technological advantage more often than not, while they never used more than five percent of the national effort at any one time in bringing the plains war to an eventual end near the time the 20th century started.


What's next? I bet you are going to try to convince us that the U.S. military had inferior weapons than American Indians, and that's why Custer lose.... LOL
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:37
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

...


Now, i will grant you this, the US push westward and war in the plains, that lasted most of the 19th century, saw this US fight at a technological advantage more often than not, while they never used more than five percent of the national effort at any one time in bringing the plains war to an eventual end near the time the 20th century started.


What's next? I bet you are going to try to convince us that the U.S. military had inferior weapons than American Indians, and that's why Custer lose.... LOL


Ummm....HELLO!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:41
Indeed, but they were also in advantage with respect to Mexicans in 1848 and the Spanish empire in 1898. In fact, the only people that since managed to give a lesson to the U.S. were the vietnamese, but that cost them 2 millions of victims! A Pyrrhic victory for the brave Vietnamese people. And yes, Cuba managed to scare americans, too, but only with the help of Soviet nuclear missiles.
In short, the U.S. only fight wars that is certainly to win.


Edited by pinguin - 05 Mar 2011 at 23:41
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2011 at 23:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Indeed, but they were also in advantage with respect to Mexicans in 1848 and the Spanish empire in 1898. In fact, the only people that since managed to give a lesson to the U.S. were the vietnamese, but that cost them 2 millions of victims! A Pyrrhic victory for the brave Vietnamese people. And yes, Cuba managed to scare americans, too, but only with the help of Soviet nuclear missiles.
In short, the U.S. only fight wars that is certainly to win.


HUH? That made no sense compared with your previous statements. Anyway, self interests dictates that nations only go to war when they feel certain they will win, neither do they expect to lose it. You ought to know that so much better than i do, considering that Chile had done the same thing by invading Boliva and defeating it's alliance with Peru, the very thing you keep harping on the US about!


Edited by Panther - 05 Mar 2011 at 23:57
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:17
Garbage! In terms of the military and disposable forces actually, and you Penguin are simply disregarding the facts so as to once again trot out your "perfidious yankees" theme. Even Admiral Pascual Cervera y Topete clearly understood that Spanish politicians frustrated his every effort to organize an effective naval campaign [as they had done his program for modernization in the early 1890s] addressing the US Blockade...but that's another topic entirely. Nor can one simply ignore the actual role of the mambises in clearly facilitating a US landing on the island of Cuba. Cervera's original naval plans for the sea campaign were brought to naught by the very politicians that had crippled his earlier efforts at consolidation even prior to his Atlantic crossing, who blared everywhere that his forces were in Santiago harbor! Oh you wax and wane all you want over a "splendid little war", but what you can not do is proclaim the nonsense of the "big bully" picking upon the raquiticos of the neighborhood. Anyway, if you know your history of Tampa, you would fully grasp the inane nature of American mobilization in 1898. In fact one of the principal consequences of the Spanish American War was the recognition of the US government as to just how disorganized its military arm really was. You can not disregard this reality and this summation tells it all:
 

The lessons of the Spanish-American War were many. The army underwent reforms on sanitation, equipment, and structure in the post-war years. Under Secretary of War, Elihu Root, the structure of the entire volunteer system was changed. In 1903, Congress passed the Dick Act and officially recognized the National Guard as the "organized militia." The Militia Act of 1903 made the National Guard subject to federal training and mobilization guidelines and eligible for federal funds. It replaced the Uniform Militia Act of 1792--that had made the states responsible for maintaining their militia units--and made the federal government responsible for the National Guard.

The Army had a lot to learn. "The situation found the country unprepared with any large stock of arms, ammunition, clothing, supplies and equipment," charged the Dodge Commission's "Report on the Conduct of the War." In the prewar period no long-range plans or preparations had been made to move a sizable body of troops by water. The United States did not possess a single troopship.

In December 1898 Nelson A. Miles, the Commanding General of the Army, made a sensational public charge that refrigerated beef supplied to the Army during the Spanish-American War had been "embalmed" with harmful preservative chemicals. Miles also criticized canned boiled beef that the troops universally reviled for its poor quality, tastelessness, and often nauseatingly spoiled condition. Official inquiries found no evidence of harmful chemicals in either type of beef but concluded that use of the easily spoiled canned beef in the tropics was a serious mistake. Despite these findings, the myth of embalmed beef persisted in the public imagination.

The Army also was unprepared for a sudden increase in personnel. Just three decades after the Civil War, the regular Army numbered 28,000 soldiers patrolling the West and pulling garrison duty in 80 posts. The National Guard had the men -- 114,000 of them. They were not highly trained, nor did they have good equipment. But they were available, even if the Constitution prevented them from fighting outside of the country. President William McKinley made them federal volunteers. Many of the participating National Guard regiments kept their state identities by reporting at full strength and then appointing their own officers.

The "Rough Riders," initially commanded by Col. Leonard Wood, was one of 16 special federal volunteer regiments authorized from the nation at large. The Army's ranks swelled to 168,929 men in May. By August, 274,717 men were in uniform.

As a result of the war, the Army replaced the position of commanding general, which had no direct ties to the troops in the field, with the General Staff Corps that could directly deal with matters such as training, supplying and mobilizing soldiers. The chief of staff became the Army's top soldier in 1903. The Army War College was created that same year to, among other objectives, "regulate and develop existing means of military education and training." Women became official members of the American military for the first time when the Army Nurse Corps was formed in 1901, wrote Judith Bellafaire in a paper for the new Women in Military Service for America Memorial. The Navy Nurse Corps was formed in 1908.

The Spanish-American War showed that the US Navy was much better prepared to fight than the US Army. Within a short time, naval victories in the Philippines and Cuba, coupled with the landing of the US Army in Cuba, led to the end of the war. A peace treaty between Spain and the United States was signed in December, 1898. Cuba was granted its independence, but the United States decided to keep the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico for a few years. America now had an overseas empire.

Three US Navy Rear Admirals and Commodores had combat commands during the Spanish-American War. In the western Pacific, Commodore George Dewey led the Asiatic Squadron in the 01 May 1898 Battle of Manila Bay as well as during subsequent operations in the Philippines. The Navy's main force in the Caribbean campaigns, the North Atlantic Squadron, was under the command of Rear Admiral William T. Sampson. In view of the possibility of war with Spain, a Flying Squadron was formed on 18 March 1898 for mobile operations in the defense of the the eastern seaboard in the Atlantic and in the Caribbean, Commanded by Acting Commodore Winfield Scott Schley, the squadron consisted of USS Brooklyn (ACR 3), USS Massachusetts (BB 2) and USS Texas, USS Columbia (C 12) and USS Minneapolis (C 13). Schley was senior officer present during most of the 03 July 1898 naval battle off Santiago de Cuba. However, Sampson had made the arrangements under which the battle commenced and arrived on the scene toward the end of the fight. All three officers received post-war honors, with Dewey being advanced to the senior rank of Admiral of the Navy.

The intensification of international rivalries led most of the Great Powers to seek additional protection and advantage in diplomatic alliances and alignments. By the early years of the twentieth century, the increasingly complex network of agreements had resulted in a new and precarious balance of power in world affairs. This balance was constantly in danger of being upset, particularly because of an unprecedented arms race, characterized by rapid enlargement of armies and navies and development of far more deadly weapons and tactics. While the United States remained aloof from "entangling alliances," it nevertheless continued to modernize and strengthen its own armed forces, giving primary attention to the Navy — the first line of defense.

The Navy's highly successful performance in the Spanish-American War increased the willingness of Congress and the American public to support its program of expansion and modernization. For at least a decade after the war, Theodore Roosevelt, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, and other leaders who favored a "Big Navy" policy with the goal of an American fleet second only to that of Great Britain experienced little difficulty in securing the necessary legislation and obtaining the funds required for the Navy's expansion program.

For the Navy another important result of the War with Spain was the decision to retain possessions in the Caribbean and the western Pacific. In the Caribbean the Navy acquired more bases for its operations such as that at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. The value of these bases soon became apparent as the United States found itself intervening more frequently in the countries of that region to protect its expanding investments and trade. In the long run, however, acquisition of the Philippines and Guam was even more significant, for it committed the United States to defense of territory thousands of miles distant from the home base.

American naval strength in the Pacific had to be increased immediately to insure maintenance of a secure line of communications for the land forces that had to be kept in the Philippines. One way to accomplish this increase, with an eye to economy of force, was to build a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, so that Navy ships could move more rapidly from the Atlantic to the Pacific as circumstances demanded. Another was to acquire more bases in the Pacific west of Hawaii, which was annexed in 1898. Japan's spectacular naval victories in the war with Russia and Roosevelt's dispatch of an American fleet on a round-the-world cruise lasting from December 1907 to February 1909 drew public attention to the problem. But most Americans failed to perceive the growing threat of Japan to United States possessions in the western Pacific, and the line of communications to the Philippines remained incomplete and highly vulnerable.

The Navy fared much better in its program to expand the fleet and incorporate the latest technological developments in ship design and weapons. The modernization program that had begun in the 1880's and had much to do with the Navy's effectiveness in the Spanish-American War continued in the early 1900's. Construction of new ships, stimulated by the war and Roosevelt's active support, continued at a rapid rate after 1898 until Taft's administration, and at a somewhat slower pace thereafter. By 1917 the United States had a Navy unmatched by any of the Great Powers except Great Britain and Germany.

 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Mar 2011 at 00:23
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:22
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


HUH? That made no sense compared with your previous statements. Anyway, self interests dictates that nations only go to war when they feel certain they will win, neither do they expect to lose it. You ought to know that so much better than i do, considering that Chile had done the same thing by invading Boliva and defeating it's alliance with Peru, the very thing you keep harping on the US about!


It seems doc woke up from his nap with a headache... LOL, anyways.

Chile and the invasion of Bolivia and Peru?

Indeed, that was a war against the pretension of both those countries. We just deffended our interests in the region, given the fact the territories in dispute weren't well defined at the end of the Spanish Empire. And remember that the capture of territories only happened at THE SECOND WAR against Peru and Bolivia, when our country was already feed up with thouse naughty neighbours. Argentina also tried to have a war against our in 1978, but it chicken out.

For instance, that was a lesson to those countries that kept invading us since the times of Tiahuanaco. And remember that the Spanish were lead to my country by the Incas. Revenge has to come. And a revenge it was also the colaboration of Chile with Britain against Argentina during the Falkland war.

In all these wars Chile fought at inferiority of conditions but with smarter strategies and logistic.

Being small you must know how to fight and how to play smart.






Edited by pinguin - 06 Mar 2011 at 00:24
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:27
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Garbage! In terms of the military and disposable forces actually, and you Penguin are simply disregarding the facts so as to once again trot out your "perfidious yankees" theme. Even Admiral Pascual Cervera y Topete clearly understood that Spanish politicians frustrated his every effort to organize an effective naval campaign [as they had done his program for modernization in the early 1890s] addressing the US Blockade...but that's another topic entirely. Nor can one simply ignore the actual role of the mambises in clearly facilitating a US landing on the island of Cuba. Cervera's original naval plans for the sea campaign were brought to naught by the very politicians that had crippled his earlier efforts at consolidation even prior to his Atlantic crossing, who blared everywhere that his forces were in Santiago harbor! Oh you wax and wane all you want over a "splendid little war", but what you can not do is proclaim the nonsense of the "big bully" picking upon the raquiticos of the neighborhood. Anyway, if you know your history of Tampa, you would fully grasp the inane nature of American mobilization in 1898. In fact one of the principal consequences of the Spanish American War was the recognition of the US government as to just how disorganized its military arm really was. You can not disregard this reality and this summation tells it all:
 


Garbage indeed. That was how the Spanish Navy looked at 1898. Particularly after been blew up by the Americans.
And the Spanish politicians were guilty of it, absolutely. The typical Spanish incompetence drove that empire and navy to the collapse.
As I mentioned before, Spanish had high tech (think Isaac Peral), but they were so scrooge they didn't invest in theirs military forces.


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:32
Jumping Jimminy! What a load of guano that apologia pro patria sua...what about that little technicality of Chilean forces invading Antofagasta without a declaration of war?
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 00:34
Most people in Antofagasta were Chileans, if you don't know.
In fact, it is the same excuse used by the Americans for the indepence of Texas: First invade, then get away.


Edited by pinguin - 06 Mar 2011 at 00:42
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 01:31
I'm not sure why the concept of imperial expansion seems to hit such a raw nerve in many Americans. It was a game all were playing in 1898, and indeed it was seen as a noble thing. When the US took on Spain, they were merely playing catch-up; the new kid on the block that wanted all the nifty toys the bigger kids had. The question was, how to get in on the game? A lot of real estate was being grabbed up and spoken for by that date. The US could have snatched something from Britain or France, but in those days these countries would have been formadable foes. Hawaii was a no-brainer, but what after that? Well, Spain represented the ideal solution. It was a much smaller country, with less industry, rather rag-tag armed forces- low hanging fruit if you will. And they owned just the thing: stepping stones accross the Pacific, and islands in the Caribbean for plantations, military bases, and what have you.
 
And so they grabbed it. In fact, most US conflicts, with the exception of the Second World War, and to an extent the War of 1812, were geopolitcal grabs for land and strategic position, based on the calculation that the power imbalance was extreme enough that defeat was unthinkable.
 
This was the game that all played. The US has been a little more fortunate over the years, as geography has allowed a bit more picking and choosing, and hence more self advantage. Most European countries (Russia a notable exception) have now fessed up to their pasts, both the good and the bad. This still seems to be touchy in the US.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 01:55
1812 maybe, but for Second World War the U.S. was the leading industrial and military power worldwide. So, not even there it played the small guy at all.
And, indeed, the U.S. tried to make the Western Hemisphere its own personal backyard, capturing as much as it could from the declining Spanish empire, but also grabbing lands, not only from Mexico but from Colombia as well (Panama anyone?). It also shown its power by the gunboat policy.
Too bad the master plan failed when Latinos decided to move smarter... and moved to the U.S. LOL

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 08:59
As long term source of modern power the laboratory, factory floor and institutions for education can be seen as relevants as the tanks, planes and gunboats, since the later are only means to achieve something, and get outdated at a fast rate. In itself a great military seems to be a burden.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 11:26
Indeed, from gas chambers to nukes, science has contributed a lot to kill humans beings in mass. And militaries found out how many little toys they could buy from mad scientists.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 17:12

Of course, whatever is produced in a country, has to be used, or else it is "money out the window". The use of military means is either active,,in armed conflicts, or "passive", as threats or "argument" in politics, to make others do what You want them to.  Therefore the "Scrooge" attitude of considering each expenditure however small on military may be justified and can serve a powers long time interest.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 17:14
But fertilizers should be used in agriculture rather than for killing people. 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 17:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

1812 maybe, but for Second World War the U.S. was the leading industrial and military power worldwide. So, not even there it played the small guy at all.
It's military position wasn't very good at all, though the navy was formidable. Anyway the real point in this context is that it didn't start the war but was attacked.
 
Worth considering how much the Captain's analysis also applies to Japan and Germany, also countries that had never achieved much of an Empire.

 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.