In the good old days, one could buy a small corvette complete for about $1,000. What a boon that must have been for budget and defense committees, to say nothing of naval staffs! That was nearly 170 years ago. Somewhat later Fulton installed the first steam engine in a ship, and we had to get used to iron as a shipbuilding material. Life was going to be difficult for both seamen and budget specialists, because from that time on, inexpensive warships were a thing of the past. The technique of ship construction, as well as propulsion and weapons, have since that time been in a constant state of flux, with the rate of development increasing from a slow pace to its present dizzy tempo. Hence navies have been in a continuing state of renovation for a hundred years, and costs have risen with reckless abandon. Before World War I, the cost of a division of large battle units was the same as the nominal price of a single present- day 3,000-ton destroyer. If you consider the subsequent currency devaluation, the battleship of those days cost about the same as a modern destroyer.
Expensive Equipment
It is true that there has been a constant striving for simplicity and low cost as design factors. This has been successful up to a point. However, so many new devices and weapons have been invented that all savings in space and money have been eaten up by the innovations. As recently as thirty years ago, the navigation aids for a minesweeper consisted of a good old magnetic compass, a couple of Peildiopter (range and bearing device), the hand lead, which had scarcely changed for. some thousand years, and perhaps the Thompson’s sounding machine for soundings at high speed. Total cost: a mere thousand marks. Today the corresponding vessel carries a gyrocompass, a fathometer, radar, radio direction finder, and a modern navigation system, such as Decca or Loran, to ascertain the ship’s position by radio beacon from the shore stations. Total price: in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The weapon situation is even more difficult. A modern, fully automatic gun of 100- to 127-mm. caliber, such as is carried on all destroyers or escorts, cost about as much as the whole ship used to cost. It is true that the single gun, with its firing speed of about one shell per second, replaces a whole battery of earlier construction.
In recent years, antisubmarine warfare has seen great progress. It began with simple depth charges and now has depth charge launchers with complicated fire-control units, homing torpedoes, sensitive acoustic listening gear, and electronic sonar.
Under these conditions it is quite unfeasible for smaller nations to acquire and operate all the types of ships used by large navies. They cannot build full-scale fleets, from the super-carrier costing over a billion marks, and atomic-powered rocket-launching submarines costing over a hundred million marks, to cruisers, destroyers, and MTB’s. They can scarcely hope to keep pace in any real sense with the development of weapons and devices.
Use of Surface Craft
Under these circumstances, it is quite appropriate to ask whether small navies have any meaning whatsoever. In view of the tremendous progress in aircraft, rockets, and guided missiles, the question arises as to the viability of surface craft. Even in our country, where not too many people have a clear notion of the extent to which they are dependent on sea transport for food and raw materials, one often encounters this question. The answer is found in the fact that now as always, the sea is the most economical and effective transportation route for bulky goods and that it connects all continents. Air transport of course does the same thing, but its kilometer-ton cost is a hundred times greater. Every country that is dependent on large quantities of imports has a lively interest in maintaining the freedom of this most productive highway over the sea. Hence we must continue to maintain a far-flung series of warships in order to protect the supply lines against any potential aggressor. These ships must be organized into navies and fleets, in order to permit rational operations and training. Aspects of combat will continue to change and develop, we will travel more under water and in the air, but the fleets will remain. Western Europe must have a special interest in them; for it is nothing but a bridgehead and must be supplied from the sea.
What Are “Small Navies”?
It is not easy to define the term “small” in the sense of this discussion. As late as the turn of the century, fleet strength was expressed in terms of battleships, whose heavy artillery and strong armor made them far superior in day fighting to any other ships. It is true that torpedo boats could already be dangerous in night actions. In World War II, the battleship had to make way for the aircraft carrier, which with its bombers and torpedo-planes could attack the enemy from a much greater distance. However, the carrier is no longer the only criterion of fleet strength even though it continues to be the most useful vessel. Of the world’s some sixty navies, the United States is incontestably the strongest. In round numbers they have 900 ships in commission. This is a fleet which can operate in any naval theater and concentrate its forces in the shortest possible time for either attack or defense.
Surface operations on the oceans by any other nation are futile against this power. It is true the Soviets have a fleet of some 35 cruisers ready or in construction, but they have completely neglected the carrier. Thus they have put all their efforts in submarine construction, of which they now have nearly 500. This is a powerful and obvious threat to western sea lanes, especially in the Atlantic, and must be considered in relation to the question of the small navies. The Soviets have in addition about 150 destroyers, 1,500 smaller craft, and 3,600 naval aircraft— clearly the second most powerful navy.
Fleets of the Great Powers
At the other end of the scale are navies like those of Honduras with one frigate, Lebanon with three small patrol vessels, Iraq with four patrol vessels and a yacht. This type of fleet does not come within the scope of our discussion, though they can unexpectedly change their significance. Thus the Syrian Navy until recently had only three patrol boats. However, in Latakia, the Syrian naval base, twelve Soviet MTB’s and two submarines were recently stationed and the port was built up. A similar development took place in Egypt, where half of the ten escorts were lost in the Suez conflict, but subsequently the fleet grew by at least two Soviet destroyers, six submarines, four subchasers, four minesweepers, and a dozen MTB’s. The same thing could happen in Albania. However, the Soviets spare Western nerves by keeping as quiet as possible about such build-ups of combat strength. In contrast they raise a great hue and cry when a destroyer is loaned to the German Federal Republic, as though the immediate effect were that of a torpedo aimed straight at the Kremlin.
For purposes of this analysis, neither the very small nor the great navies come into the picture. In the latter category we can list, in addition to the United States and the Soviet Union, only Great Britain and France. The British Empire (including Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan, and India) possesses a fleet of fourteen aircraft carriers, 24 cruisers, 133 destroyers, about sixty submarines, and other small and supporting vessels in proportion.
France has a less ambitious fleet, with four carriers in service and two under construction, two battleships, six cruisers, 22 destroyers, some seventy frigates, about eighteen submarines in service and fourteen under construction, 127 minesweepers, and additional auxiliary vessels and landing craft. The well- balanced, well-trained, and effective French Navy ends our enumeration of great fleets. A long-range planned construction program will see to it that its position is maintained.
It must be considered that the major threat to maritime traffic is the submarine. Only in specific maritime theaters lying closer to the enemy bases is the danger from air attack greater. In addition, shallow waters provide an area for modern mines with mixed detonaters, reacting to magnetism, sound, and pressure, which are very difficult to sweep. These weapons offer a rich field of activity for the fleets of small countries, and they should concentrate on the corresponding types of ships. Those who are in the immediate vicinity of the presumed adversary must likewise build up a certain fighting power; for one cannot defend oneself exclusively with minesweepers and submarine chasers.
Fleets of the West
With the great number of navies and the varying geographical character of their countries, it is only natural that they should not all have a similar development. The South American ABC-States used to have one or two battleships apiece, of which the Chilean Almirante Latorre (ex-British Canada) was still in existence as a participant in the Battle of the Skagerrak. Now they have or are planning to have one escort carrier each. This is an appropriate measure, since as the nucleus of a “hunter-killer-group” which hunts submarines, these vessels can perform a useful service in protection of commerce. The three navies have, in addition, a few cruisers, good destroyers, escort vessels, minesweepers, and submarines.
The Netherlands Navy is similarly articulated, with one carrier, two light cruisers, fourteen destroyers, nine submarines, twenty frigates and submarine chasers, 68 minesweepers, and some landing ships and auxiliary craft. All this represents a fighting strength in excess of the missions peculiar to the immediate approaches to the coastal area.
Due to historical reasons and as a result of its military-geographical situation, the Swedish fleet is constituted somewhat differently. Their two coastal armored ships can be useful in special situations of the cliff area. The three cruisers can scarcely be used in the Baltic; they could, however, be used in convoy duty from Sweden to the Kattegat, particularly if they were rearmed with missiles. In addition, they have seventeen destroyers, 28 submarines (plus six under construction), 24 frigates and patrol boats, 58 minesweepers, and—important for the Baltic—thirty or more rapid MTB’s. Combined with a strong coastal defense and air force, a good army and civil defense, this is a power which is capable of defending Swedish neutrality and making things unpleasant for a much stronger adversary. It is worth noting that shelters in the rock have been made for the mass of the ships, so that a surprise attack, even with atomic weapons, would not destroy them. It is also remarkable that the country often called a welfare state has actually a very strong armament program and a will to defend itself.
Fleets in the Mediterranean
Not quite so powerful is the naval armament of Turkey, which is in a geographical position comparable to that of the U.S.S.R. Here the emphasis is on land and air forces. The navy still has the battle cruiser Yavuz, the old German Goeben, which still looks astonishingly modern, but is no longer quite suitable for our times. In addition, the fleet has eight destroyers, seven submarines, some thirty minesweepers, and a number of minelayers and small auxiliary vessels. The principal mission is the defense of the straits through which the Muscovites have sought to force their way for centuries. If they remain closed, a significant part of Soviet naval strength, including a fifth of their submarines, remains locked in the Black Sea.
Naturally the Turkish fleet does not stand alone; the American Sixth Fleet will support it with its tremendous fighting power. On the other hand, the Greek fleet, consisting of a cruiser, sixteen destroyers and frigates, four submarines, nineteen minesweepers, and a number of auxiliary and landing craft, will have its hands full to protect the supply lanes to its own country, even discounting political opposition. Similarly, the Italian fleet will be entirely devoted to escort missions. It has three cruisers, five destroyers, 42 frigates, six submarines, something over 100 minesweepers, and a number of smaller and auxiliary vessels. As soon as the cruisers are rearmed with missiles, they will be able to carry out good escort missions in the Mediterranean in deep water where there is no mine danger.
The Japanese fleet, the third strongest (after the United States and Britain) at the outset of the war, was, like the German fleet, wiped out in the catastrophe of 1945, and is likewise coming back as a small navy. It presently has thirteen destroyers in service and under construction, three submarines, and numerous small vessels. Because of the country’s complete dependence on imports from overseas, it is planned to increase the number of destroyers and frigates. There is also talk of constructing an escort carrier and some cruisers.
It is to be noted that in all navies the existing destroyers are often no longer the unit that is to attack large enemy ships with torpedoes and protect its own with gunfire. It is rather the smallest all-round combat ship that is capable of fighting aircraft as well as submarines, can lay mines in great numbers, protects merchant vessel convoys as well as landing forces and carrier fighting groups. It is a dangerous adversary for all types of combat ships from cruiser to MTB and can bring its guns into action against shore targets in support of its own army flank or in an offensive. The destroyer and the frigate are becoming the all-purpose units; hence there is an endeavor to arm both of them with antiaircraft missiles. In the United States they are already attaining a size of about 5,000 tons, and will thus be successors to the earlier small or light cruisers.
West German Planning
The Federal Republic has from the beginning planned most soberly and has renounced all ship types that will not be definitely used by us. As it is, there are plenty of tasks incumbent on us by our situation on two seas. Aside from a school ship of some 4,800 tons, which, contrary to many press reports, is a training ship and not a cruiser, the type chosen as the largest unit would be the 3,000-ton destroyer as all-round combat vessel. The Federal Republic has obligated itself to produce twelve of these. For actual escort service these will be supplemented by six escorts of 1,700 to 1,800 tons. These could be called frigates. Offensive power in this defense set-up is provided by forty MTB’s and twelve submarines of 350 tons. In view of our very shallow water passages, 54 minesweepers constitute a minimum. A number of landing craft will supply coastal areas outside the harbor areas, transport troops by sea, and maintain lines to the islands. A small naval air arm of 58 first-line planes (in addition to reserve aircraft, rescue planes, and helicopters) will serve for armed reconnaissance and antisubmarine warfare.
German-Danish Partnership
These tasks are all essential to the life of our people and can scarcely be avoided within the framework of the NATO alliance, since each partner has similar missions within his own coastal area. All members have a common responsibility for AS warfare in the Atlantic, for in the event of a conflict this would be the major hunting ground of the overgrown Soviet submarine fleet. The Federal Republic’s Navy will make its most effective and significant contribution if in cooperation with the Danish Navy (eighteen frigates, twenty MTB’s, submarines, 36 minesweepers) it so defends the Danish straits that the Soviets are contained in the Baltic. If these narrows are closed, it means that there will be 100 to 150 fewer submarines to sow destruction in the Atlantic. It can be said that a future battle for the Atlantic will be decided 50% in the Danish straits. This is the meaning of the reconstituted little German fleet with its limited mission—to help bring up supplies over the North Seas; in co-operation with army and air forces as well as with the forces of its allies, to defend the strategically most important position at the entrance to the Baltic. The Soviets talk about the “aggressive” Bundesmarine, but they keep very quiet about the actual numbers of forces involved. The summary on the next page shows clearly who is planning aggression in the Baltic. However, the blatant Soviet propaganda is the best proof that the two little fleets in the western corner of the Baltic are a source of worry to them, even when they have the good taste to compare these fleets to little pooches yapping at an elephant. Moreover, we can see clearly that these big statements are highly revealing, and that up to now the barking has found its chorus exclusively to the east of the Iron Curtain.
Effective Co-operation
It would take too long to describe all the small navies of the NATO and Soviet blocs. They are similarly constituted, i. e., of destroyers, frigates, sub-chasers, MTB’s, submarines, minesweepers, and auxiliary vessels. There is one difference—the fleets of Poland and the Soviet Occupied Zone are under the sharp control of the Soviets, while those of the NATO are completely independent in their internal affairs, lend mutual assistance in matters of training, and in all exercises co-operate excellently with equal rights.
|
W. Germany1 |
Denmark |
Poland & Sov. Zone |
Sov. Baltic Fleet |
Cruisers |
— |
— |
— |
8 |
Destroyers, Escorts, Frigates |
1 (18) |
18 |
10 |
70 |
Minesweepers, etc. |
40 (54) |
36 |
160 |
over 300 |
Submarines |
2 (12) |
4 |
8 |
130-150 |
MTB’s |
12 (40) |
20 |
19 |
200 |
Naval Aircraft |
20 (58) |
— |
ca. 200 |
over 1300 |
1 In parentheses: planned goals. |
By exchange of knowledge and experience within the NATO navies, it will be made possible for the little navies to keep up-to-date without being weighed down by expenses. They are accordingly capable of looking after their own local problems and in this way they can lighten the tasks of the great fleets in their primary oceanic missions. A good example of the division of labor is afforded by the Belgian Navy, which has soberly and clearly concentrated on minesweeping, and its fifty excellently manned minesweepers are making a valuable contribution to the security of supply lines. Here as in other small fleets the exact knowledge of one’s own waters and their peculiarity makes their performance especially valuable.
If one counts all the forces of the small NATO navies, they come to a most respectable number of vessels which can make life miserable for a lot of submarines, sweep many mines, and thereby keep free hundreds of miles of shipping lanes. By themselves, many of the small navies had scarcely any longer a raison d'être; they have found it anew in the alliance with the great sea powers.