More Changes to the Rules of the Road
By Lieutenant Commander T. J. Cutler, U. S. Navy
In this discussion, the proposed change to a particular rule will be presented, followed by comments on the effect that this change will have upon the international rules themselves, as well as upon the correspondence between inland and international rules. To be best understood, one should have a copy of the international rules close by.
On 1 June 1983, the International Rules of the Road (formally entitled the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea—commonly referred to as the ColRegs) are scheduled to undergo yet another change. These most current amendments were drawn up by the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) and subsequently adopted by the full assembly. Copies of the proposed changes were sent to participating nations, and a period of six months was established for the lodging of objections. In order to prevent the adoption of a proposed amendment, an objection must have the support of one-third or more of the member nations. No objections have been carried.
Some of these changes are intended to overcome shortcomings in the ColRegs that have become apparent through practical application of the rules established in 1977. But a great many of the changes were inspired by the new U. S. Inland Rules of the Road which went into effect in December 1982. While the new inland rules were modeled after the ColRegs, and every attempt was made to make the two identical—or at least equivalent—there are differences. Some were the result of unique requirements perceived as necessary for inland waterways, but many of the differences came about as attempts to correct weaknesses believed to exist in the ColRegs. The Maritime Safety Committee of IMCO reviewed these suggested improvements to the international rules and subsequently adopted many of them.
Rule 1(c)
Amend to read:
"(c) Nothing in these Rules shall interfere with the operation of any special rules made by the government of any State with respect to additional station or signal lights, shapes or whistle signals for ships of war and vessels proceeding under convoy, or with respect to additional station or signal lights or shapes for fishing vessels engaged in fishing as a fleet. These additional station or signal lights, shapes or whistle signals shall, so far as possible, be such that they cannot be mistaken for any light, shape or signal authorized elsewhere under these Rules."
Prior to this proposed change, the ColRegs specifically mentioned special lights for warships, convoy vessels, and fishing fleets, but failed to include day shapes. Since lights and shapes are equivalent in purpose, the drafters of the new inland rules included "shapes" everywhere that "lights" appeared. This change in turn modifies the ColRegs in the same manner and causes the international and inland rules to read virtually the same in this area.
Rule 3(c)
Substitute the sentence immediately before sub-paragraphs (i) to (vi) by the following:
"The term 'vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre' shall include but not be limited to…"
This expands the definition of vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver by no longer limiting it to those specifically listed, but instead allowing for interpretation by including the caveat "but not to be limited to." This brings the rule more into line with the inland rules.
Rule 3(g)(v)
Substitute the word "mineclearance" for the word "minesweeping."
Simply changes the older term to the more modem one. The new inland rules retain the older term "minesweeping."
Rule 10(b)(iii)
Delete the word "the" before the word "side" in the second line and insert instead the word "either."
To remove any potential misinterpretation, this rule will be changed to specify that a vessel entering a traffic separation zone from either side must enter at a small angle to the traffic flow. This change is more semantic than substantive. There is no effect on the relationship between inland and international rules since the inland ones do not address "Traffic Separation Schemes."
Rule 10(d)
Add the following sentence to the present text:
"However, vessels of less than 20 metres in length and sailing vessels may under all circumstances use inshore traffic zones."
Under the current version of the ColRegs, all vessels defined as "through traffic" are required to use traffic separation zones. This causes a problem in that smaller craft and sailing vessels, which are generally less maneuverable than larger, power-driven ones, are required to travel in these heavy traffic lanes; yet, in Rule 10(j), they are specifically prohibited from impeding the passage of other vessels. This inconsistency is removed by the above change which permits the smaller and sailing craft to use the adjacent "inshore traffic zones" which lie outside the bounds of the traffic separation lanes.
Rule 10(e)
Amend to read:
"(e) A vessel other than a crossing vessel or a vessel joining or leaving a lane shall not normally enter…"
By adding the phrase "or a vessel joining or leaving a lane" to the current wording, this rule is now clarified since Rule 10(b)(iii) permits vessels to enter or exit traffic separation zones at points other than the normal entrances or terminations. This additional phrase removes the inconsistency by recognizing that entering and exiting vessels are going to cross zone boundaries.
Rule 10(k)
Add the following additional paragraph:
"(k) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when engaged in an operation for the maintenance of safety of navigation in a traffic separation scheme is exempted from complying with this rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation."
This gives vessels that are servicing buoys, dredging channels, or performing other duties required for maintaining safe navigation in a traffic separation zone certain limited rights to deviate from zone rules insofar as is necessary to complete the particular task at hand.
Rule 10(l)
Add this additional paragraph:
"(1) A vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when engaged in an operation for the laying, servicing or picking up of a submarine cable, within a traffic separation scheme, is exempted from complying with this Rule to the extent necessary to carry out the operation."
The privilege of limited deviation from the rules is extended to vessels involved in handling underwater cables within a traffic separation zone.
Rule 13(a)
Amend to read:
"(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II…"
The current wording of the ColRegs refers only to "this Section" rather than "Part B, Sections I and II" as above. Since "overtaking" is the subject of Rule 13 and the intent of this sub-rule is to establish the priority of the overtaking situation, the limitation to Section II by the phraseology currently employed is undesirable. The proposed change more clearly defines the intended embodiment and removes any possibility for confusion. The inland rules, when drafted, avoided the ambiguity found in the ColRegs by simply using the phrase "Rules 4 through 18," which concisely says the same thing as the proposed change above.
Rule 22(d)
Add a new paragraph:
"(d) In inconspicuous, partly submerged vessels or objects being towed: a white all-round light, 3 miles…"
Rule 22 defines the minimum ranges at which the various navigation lights must be visible. Because, later in the rules, the proposed changes include additional white lights for vessels or objects that are being towed while partially submerged, the minimum visibility for these new lights must be established here. Since these additional lights already exist in the inland rules, enactment of this change to the ColRegs will cause the two sets of rules to be that much more alike.
Rule 23(c)
Amend to read:
"(c)(i) A power-driven vessel of less than 12 metres in length may in lieu of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule exhibit an all-round white light and sidelights;
(ii) a power-driven vessel of less than 7 metres in length whose maximum speed does not exceed 7 knots may in lieu of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule exhibit an all-round white light and shall , if practicable, also exhibit sidelights;
(iii) the masthead light or all- round white light on a power-driven vessel of less than 12 metres in length may be displaced from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel if centreline fitting is not practicable, provided that the sidelights are combined in one lantern which shall be carried on the fore and aft centreline of the vessel or located as nearly as practicable in the same fore and aft line as the masthead light or the all-round white light."
Rule 23 requires lights for power-driven vessels under way and not engaged in any special operations. The proposed paragraph (c)(i) above is taken verbatim from the inland rules and simply allows vessels less than 12 meters in length to carry a single 360° white light in lieu of the two (225°) masthead Lights and stem light required of larger vessels. This change would permit vessels legally configured under U. S. rules to enter international waters without a configuration change.
Paragraph (c)(ii) retains the rule currently found in the ColRegs which makes the same allowance as in paragraph (c)(i) above, but further allows a vessel to dispense with sidelights if it is not practical to carry them. In order to qualify for this exemption, a vessel must not only be less than seven meters long, but must not have a maximum speed greater than seven knots. This allowance is not included in the inland rules.
Paragraph (c)(iii) is a new addition to the ColRegs and is not included in the inland rules.
Rule 24(a)(i) and (c)(i)
Insert "or (a)(ii)" after "in Rule 23(a)(i)" and delete "forward."
This proposed change would eliminate a significant difference between the international and inland rules with regard to towing and pushing. Currently, the inland rules permit the two or three vertical white lights signifying towing or pushing operations to be displayed at either the forward or after masthead light location. The international rules do not permit this option, but instead require the lights to be displayed at the forward masthead light location only. This change would grant the option currently found in the inland rules to international waters as well.
Rule 24(d)
Change the words "paragraphs (a) and (c)" in the first line for the words "paragraph (a) or (c)."
Paragraph (a) Of Rule 24 discusses requirements for vessels towing, while paragraph (c) addresses vessels pushing. Since a vessel would not normally be involved in both operations simultaneously, the use of the word "or" instead of "and" is more appropriate and less apt to cause confusion or misinterpretation. The inland rules use the more correct word "or."
Rule 24(e)
Amend lead-in sentence to read: "A vessel or object being towed, other than those mentioned in paragraph (g) of this Rule, shall exhibit…"
Paragraph (g) of Rule 24, after also being amended, would require unique lighting requirements for partly submerged vessels or objects while being towed. The proposed change to paragraph (e) above inserts the phrase "…other than those mentioned in paragraph (g) of this rule…" to ensure clarity by here recognizing the provisions of paragraph (g). This additional wording already exists in the corresponding inland rule.
Rule 24(g)
Amend to read:
"(g) An inconspicuous, partly submerged vessel or object, or combination of such vessels or objects being towed shall exhibit:
(i) if it is less than 25 metres in breadth, one all-round white-light at or near the forward end and one at or near the after end except that dracones need not exhibit a light at or near the forward end;
(ii) if it is 25 metres or more in breadth, two additional all-round white lights at or near the extremities of its breadth;
(iii) if it exceeds 100 metres in length, additional all-round white lights between the lights prescribed in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) so that the distance between the lights shall not exceed 100 metres;
(iv) a diamond shape at or near the aftermost extremity of the last vessel or object being towed and if the length of the tow exceeds 200 metres an additional diamond shape where it can best be seen and located as far forward as is practicable."
This proposed change was inspired by—and closely corresponds to—the inland rules. There are differences in wording, but the requirements are essentially the same. The provisions currently found in paragraph (g) of the ColRegs have been relocated to paragraph (h) in order to maintain the correspondence between the international and inland rules.
Rule 24(h)
Amend to read:
"Where from any sufficient cause it is impracticable for a vessel or object being towed to exhibit the lights or shapes prescribed in paragraph (e) or (g) of this Rule, all possible measures shall be taken to light the vessel or object towed or at least to indicate the presence of such vessel or object."
As previously discussed, this paragraph is essentially the same as paragraph (g) in the current version of the ColRegs, but has been redesignated to correspond with the inland rules. In essence, it exempts towed vessels from displaying sidelights and sternlight, or the special lights for partially submerged vessels, if it is not practical to do so, but enjoins the mariner to do what he can to alert other vessels to the presence of his tow.
Rule 24(i)
Add the following new paragraph:
"(i) Where from any sufficient cause it is impracticable for a vessel not normally engaged in towing operations to display the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) or (c) of this Rule, such vessel shall not be required to exhibit those lights when engaged in towing another vessel in distress or otherwise in need of assistance. All possible measures shall be taken to indicate the nature of the relationship between the towing vessel and the vessel being towed as authorized by Rule 36 in particular to illuminate the towline."
This also is a direct adaptation of the inland rules, and exempts a vessel from displaying the towing light configuration if that vessel is providing the tow as an emergency measure. This relieves vessels not normally engaged in towing from carrying additional lights, but allows any vessel to provide assistance to another vessel in need without violating the rules.
The reference to Rule 36 calls attention to the authorization of additional lights including search lights to be used to alert vessels to unusual circumstances.
This new international version specifies illuminating the towline, whereas the inland rules suggest illuminating the tow; otherwise the two are virtually identical.
Rule 25(b)
Amend "12 metres" to read "20 metres."
Prior to this change, the inland and international rules differed as to the limiting length for sailing craft to combine the side and stem lights in one lantern at or near the top of the mast. The inland rule specifies less than 20 meters, while the current ColRegs set the limit at only 12 meters. This change would align both at 20 meters.
Rule 27(b) (Preamble)
Substitute the word "mineclearance" for the word "minesweeping" in the first sentence.
Simply changes the older term to the more modem one. The new inland rules retain the older term "minesweeping."
Rule 27(b)(III)
Insert the words "light or" between "masthead" and "lights."
In discussing the requirements for vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver, the current version of the ColRegs omits recognition that some vessels are required to display only a single masthead light instead of two. This proposed change rectifies the omission. The inland rules do not include this rectification, and are worded the same as the current version of the international rules.
Rule 27(c)
Amend to read:
"A power-driven vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course shall, in addition to the lights or shapes prescribed in Rule 24(a), exhibit the lights or shapes prescribed in sub-paragraphs (b)(i) and (ii) of this Rule."
The lights and shapes prescribed in Rule 24(a) are those required of towing vessels, and the lights and shapes of "sub-paragraphs (b)(i) and (ii) of this Rule" are those required of vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver. The current ColRegs read virtually the same, except that the order of presenting these two groups of lights/shapes is reversed, i.e., the restricted maneuverability ones are mentioned before the towing ones. This change does not alter the substance of this rule, but rather makes it more logically constructed since the towing lights are basic to the situation described, and restricted maneuverability is a modification of that. The inland rules are written in the same format as the current version of the international rules, so acceptance of this change would cause the two to be different in this case.
Rule 27(d)
Replace the words "paragraph (b)" with the words "sub-paragraphs (b)(i), (ii) and (iii);"
Delete existing sub-paragraph (iii);
Renumber existing sub-paragraph (iv) to (iii) and change it to read: "…(iii) when at anchor, the lights or shapes prescribed in this paragraph instead of the lights or shapes prescribed in Rule 30…"
The subject of Rule 27(d) is dredging operations which restrict a vessel's ability to maneuver. Sub-paragraph (iii) is redundant since the requirement to show masthead, side and stem lights when making way is covered earlier by a reference to paragraph (b), which includes this same requirement. Inspired by the inland rules, this proposed amendment deletes sub-paragraph (iii), renumbers sub-paragraph (iv) accordingly, and makes some grammatical changes in the wording of the new sub-paragraph (iii).
Rule 27(e)
Amend to read:
"(e) Whenever the size of a vessel engaged in diving operations makes it impracticable to exhibit all lights and shapes prescribed in paragraph (d) of this Rule, the following shall be exhibited:
(i) three all-round lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen. The highest and lowest of these lights shall be red and the middle light shall be white;
(ii) a rigid replica of the International Code flag "A" not less than 1 metre in height. Measures shall be taken to ensure its all-round visibility."
As now written, the ColRegs permit the rigid code flag as an alternative "day shape," but allow no equivalent for night. This means that a vessel must either display the rather elaborate system of lights prescribed in paragraph (d) or, if unable to do so, simply forego night operations. This change, inspired by the inland rules, provides the needed nighttime equivalent.
Rule 27(j)
Amend to read:
"A vessel engaged in mineclearance operations shall in addition to the lights prescribed for a power-driven vessel in Rule 23 or for a vessel or anchor in Rule 30 as appropriate, exhibit three all-round green lights or three balls. One of these lights or shapes shall be exhibited near the foremast head and one at each end of the foreyard. These lights or shapes indicate that it is dangerous for another vessel to approach within 1,000 metres of the mineclearance vessel."
Recognizing that in modern mineclearance operations a vessel may not necessarily be under way, this proposed change inserts anchoring as an option and changes the danger zone from the previous 1,000 meters astern and 500 meters on either side to a simple 1,000-meter radius around the mine clearance vessel. The inland rules do not reflect these revisions and will be different from the international rules when this change becomes effective.
Rule 27(g)
Amend to read:
"(g) Vessels of less than 12 metres in length, except those engaged in diving operations, shall not be required to exhibit the lights and shapes prescribed in this Rule."
Taken directly from the inland rules, this proposed change extends the exemption (from displaying restricted maneuverability and not under command lights/shapes) currently allowed for vessels less than seven meters to those less than 12 meters in length. The phrase excepting vessels engaged in diving operations is also new to the international rules.
Rule 29(a)(iii)
Amend to read:
"(a)(iii) when at anchor, in addition to the lights prescribed in sub-paragraph (i), the light, lights or shape prescribed in Rule 30 for vessels at anchor…"
As currently written, the international rules are somewhat vague in this sub-paragraph. The new wording above does not alter meaning but more clearly states the requirement for anchor lights, in addition to the lights which specifically identify pilot vessels when the latter are anchored in a duty status. This preferred wording already appears in the inland rules.
Rule 30(e)
Delete "or aground" in the first line and amend the last line to read: "shapes prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Rule."
This proposed change removes the references to vessels aground from this sub-paragraph so that now it deals only with vessels less than seven meters in length at anchor. Vessels aground are treated separately in the newly created following sub-paragraph. These changes come directly from the inland rules.
Rule 30(f)
Add the following new paragraph:
"(f) A vessel of less than 12 metres in length, when aground, shall not be required to exhibit the lights or shapes prescribed in sub-paragraphs (d)(i) and (ii) of this Rule."
Taken directly from the inland rules, this proposed change would exempt craft less than 12 meters long from the requirement to display lights and day shapes for vessels aground. Under the current rules, this exemption applies only to vessels less than seven meters in length and is addressed in sub-paragraph 30(e).
Rule 33(a)
Replace in the last line "required" with "prescribed."
This proposed change would cause the international and inland versions of this rule discussing sound signal equipment to read identically.
Rule 34(b)(iii)
Add "to these Regulations" after the words "Annex I."
Once again, the purpose here is to clarify and align with the inland rules. No change in meaning results from this additional wording.
Rule 35(d)
Insert a new paragraph (d) and renumber paragraphs (d) to (i) as (e) to (j) as appropriate:
"(d) A vessel engaged in fishing, when at anchor, and a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre when carrying out her work at anchor, shall instead of the lights prescribed in paragraph (g) of this Rule sound the signal prescribed in paragraph (c) of this Rule."
This additional paragraph, which does not appear in the inland rules, prescribes for the vessels specified above the sounding of one prolonged—followed by two short—blasts on the ship's whistle, instead of the bell and/or gong ringing, normally sounded by a vessel at anchor in low visibility conditions.
Rule 36
Add the following to the present text:
"Any light to attract the attention of another vessel shall be such that it cannot be mistaken for any aid to navigation. For the purpose of this rule the use of high intensity intermittent or revolving lights, such as strobe lights, shall be avoided."
These additional sentences further modify the types of lights that can be used to attract the attention of other vessels. These modifications do not appear in the inland rules, and the portion which deals with strobe lights is likely to be contested by the United States.
Rule 37
Replace the word "prescribed" with "described."
This proposed change would cause the international and inland versions of this rule discussing distress signals to read identically.
The remainder of proposed changes deals with the physical configuration of vessels, and are of interest only to vessel owners who must ensure that their vessels comply with these rules.
Commander Cutler is currently executive assistant to the Department of Seamanship and Navigation at the Naval Academy. He was co-author of the Professional Note "The New (and Improved) U. S. Inland Rules of the Road" (December 1981 Proceedings, pp. 111-119).
Naval War College: The Right Way
By Captain S.C. Kozlowski, U. S. Navy
In 1960, I stood as the guidon bearer in my company of officer candidates on the grounds of the Naval War College. The occasion was a major recognition ceremony for a purpose now forgotten.
In 1973, I visited the War College. As an aide to Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Force Atlantic (ComCruDesLant), I was coordinating matters related to his change of command. ComCruDesLant, on short notice, was relocating from Newport, Rhode Island, to Norfolk, Virginia, in conjunction with the shore establishment realignment of those years. At the same time, the Naval War College was beginning to revise its curriculum to provide for the contemporary educational needs of the men and women of our Navy.
During the early years of my career, my professional education desire was to remain an unanswered choice on my preference card. However, after promotion to lieutenant commander, my detailer advised me of my selection to attend one of the war colleges, but timing and other priorities prevented me from attending the Naval War College.
On completing my command of the USS John Paul Jones (DDG-32) in December 1982, I was advised that my original post-command orders to the Naval Sea Systems Command would be modified. Before going to that tour, I would attend the new Post Command Course at the Naval War College, to commence 7 February 1983. After 23 years of service, I finally was to participate in professional study that included military history, strategy, policy, and naval operations.
The benefactor of my assignment was Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James D. Watkins, who, on 15 November 1982, advised all commands by NavOp 125/82 that commanders and captains completing command at sea, and those who have completed a command at sea and are now serving in post-command assignments, would be considered for Naval War College attendance. In an earlier discussion of officer pipeline training reductions in September 1982, Admiral Watkins stated that the purpose of those reductions was "to enhance professionalism in the art of naval warfare through expanded utilization of the Naval War College."
His idea was to combine the best professional schooling with officers who had recently completed successful command tours. The resulting catalytic action, he believed, would enrich both the curriculum and the professional skills of the seasoned officers, better preparing them for increased responsibilities, particularly in the area of being able "to plan for and execute employment of naval forces in support of national objectives."
The CNO was correct; this concept of professional development is essential for the post-command officer. In conjunction with war-gaming, the educational experience is at the graduate level. The synergistic effect of placing 14 to 20 officers, representing a cross-section of line officer communities in an atmosphere conducive to thought and study is, as the CNO anticipated, highly productive.
Traditionally, the wisdom that these officers gained in command was either lost or degraded as they were reassigned to less autonomous duties or even retired. This "turning point"—the post-command tour—has been identified as an opportunity to build upon such a commander's station in life. He is highly qualified to serve in ways that are more creative and productive. He can be inspired to be a better contributor to Navy goals, rather than relate sea stories of uncertain value.
Fourteen post-command senior officers attended this first course, three captains and 11 commanders, five of whom were selected for promotion to captain while at the War College. We were provided study materials, given every necessary accommodation, and introduced to our first speaker without delay. Seven hours of class time that first day and significant reading assignments for the next set us on a good course. The Post Command Course can be divided into five general areas of study: Soviet Maritime Operations, International Law, and Rules of Engagement; Naval Missions and Tactical Considerations; Naval Planning and Gaming; Policy and Strategy; and Defense Economics and Decision Making. In three weeks' time, we had covered a great range of subjects. The carefully chosen readings and assignments were engrossing, and the classroom periods were as stimulating as they were informative. This all-too-brief experience was followed by three weeks of war game operations.
Our class enjoyed representation from nearly every operational community within the Navy. (Table I lists the commands held by the class members.) Its membership was all Navy, but the civilian and military faculty, in conjunction with guest speakers, introduced Marine Corps, Air Force, and Army subjects. This approach provided diversified presentations and increased our interaction with the other services. Student participation in the seminar approach to the course was essential to the examination of many subject areas.
Table 1: Attendees of the First Post Command Course |
Cdr. Kellie S. Byerly, USN; USS Robison (DDG-12) Capt. John A. Byers, USN; USS Spartanburg County (LST-1192) Cdr. Richard A. Catone, USN; Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron 11 Capt. Richard C. Davis, USN; USS Kirk (FF-1087) Cdr. Frederick A. Holk, Jr., USN; Patrol Squadron 5 Capt. John M. Huling, USN; USS Schofield (FFG-3) Capt. Stanley C. Kozlowski, USN; USS John Paul Jones (DDG-32) Capt. Lyle J. Lewis, USN; Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron 1111 Cdr. Dennis V. McGinn, USN; Attack Squadron 27 Cdr. Peter D. Reiniger, USN; Patrol Squadron 46 Capt. Harry P. Salmon, USN; USS Indianapolis (SSN-697) Capt. Don A. Sharer, USN; Fighter Squadron 11 Cdr. James K. Tolbert, USN; USS Mount Baker (AE-34) Capt. Malcolm S. Wright, USN; USS Will Rogers (SSBN-659) |
It is vital to sustain one's leadership role through the development of principles, based on lessons learned. A post-command curriculum with such a legacy of command experiences should inspire our future naval leaders to develop their roles in a positive manner. A special atmosphere of mutual support was appreciated as our former roles and educational backgrounds complemented the needs of our seminars and the coverage of many subjects. We longed for more, but the time simply was not available.
The faculty continuously provided fertile grounds for thought-provoking discussions. Our thoughts were well-directed toward the course objective. The dedication, preparedness, and credibility of the faculty members are noteworthy. Their lectures were not the mechanical presentations of technical data of a fleet school or the required subjects in various "pipelines" that all too often are merely endured.
Our enthusiasm for this course was a result of the subjects, the war-gaming practice, the able faculty, and the rapport with other students. The subjects comprise a lengthy list. Some have been covered at many other levels, but even the apparently familiar ones were illuminating. An incomplete list of those that stood out include: Soviet Maritime Strategy, Case Studies in Rules of Engagement, Peacetime and Wartime International Law, Chinese Foreign Policy, Clausewitzian Principles, Single Integrated Operations Plan, Strategic Connectivity, SLBM Employment, Theater Nuclear Warfare, Strategic Mobility, Strategic Nuclear Warfare, NATO Forces, and Defense Guidance. A highlight of the course, which summarized the importance of the interaction of most of the above topics, was a session with the President, Naval War College, Rear Admiral James E. Service. He related his experiences as a battle group commander, using as an instructional scenario the incident in the Gulf of Sidra between U. S. and Libyan forces. Importantly, it is not only deterrence and warfighting, but also achieving war termination, that are the objectives of these studies.
War-gaming is a particularly rewarding experience and takes many forms. Our class specifically worked on the tactical employment of forces in a manner similar to the tactical situations that our combat systems training commands and the type commanders employ. A crisis action game was most worthwhile—somewhat like those experienced in readiness exercises and fleet exercise scenarios, but again specially enhanced by the staff who provided a national structure to enable examination of decision making at various levels in conjunction with our national command and control. Ultimately, a computer-assisted theater-level war game was planned and played on the War College's newly installed Navy War Gaming System.
The attention given this post-command course became even more evident through the guest speakers who traveled to Newport to participate not only in the War College curricula, but also to give personal attention to our class. There were at least two each week, and they gave informative accounts of their special projects and encouraged an exchange of ideas and rationales.
In class, at a working breakfast or lunch, and in after-lecture discussions with the visitors, the students reached a better understanding of our flag officers' reasoning. In a similar way, a few hours were devoted with the members of the War College's Strategic Studies Group in order to gain an appreciation of their development in maritime strategy.
We have been a part of an interim program—i.e., one of four scheduled six-week sessions, involving seminars and war gaming, with emphasis on theater or global tactical and strategic levels. Throughout, close interaction with the Naval War College staff and students is envisioned. A second interim program will consist of two 12-week sessions, with the post-command officers attending full Naval Operations trimesters. In the long term, an increased number of post-command officers will attend the entire ten-month Naval Warfare Course. Significantly, the attendance at the Post Command Course will grow from our current 14 officers to 50 or even 70 officers.
Our short class was programmed to interact with the regular Command and Staff Course students during the various war game periods. Our experience-sharing with them was spontaneous and productive. Their preparations in naval planning contributed to our interest in the war game objectives and results. About half their number consisted of naval officers, and the other half consisted of Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers, as well as some civilians in government. The Naval War College objectives were being realized by everyone in these courses. The war-gaming experience permitted us to best focus our experience, in keeping with one of the course objectives. Our increased awareness of such war-gaming facilities reassured us that we are progressive in our warfighting methods.
As an aside, I think it is important to note that every wardroom and command ashore periodically receives the Naval War College Review. Most often, the majority of officers in a given command will not sufficiently indulge in this professional reading because of the exigencies of his job, particularly in the fleet, where literary time is a luxury or because other professional needs have a higher priority. The well-researched and timely articles of this publication are illuminating in addressing our national policy and strategy. Authorship includes past and present students, and it is of benefit to appreciate that many writers are among the faculty. Supported by our Navy's historical collections and an outstanding library with extensive literary works, the setting is perfect for our military professionals to gather information, test it, and generate original thought. The Naval War College Review is an important facet of our Navy's professional literature that represents the quickening pulse of the Naval War College.
The Navy has created a professional and useful learning experience with this first Post Command Course. It has been a self-motivating period. Our understanding of policy and strategy—as well as a know ledge of the abundant sources which enhance such understanding—has been widened. This is certainly the right way to increase the dividends that our War College can pay.
Captain Kozlowski served in the USS Constellation (CYA-64), USS Whitehurst (OE-634), USS Porterfield (DD-682), USS Edson (00-946), USS Myles C. Fox (00-829), and USS Oklahoma City (CG-5). He assumed command of USS John Paul Jones (DDG-32) in June 1980. Before reporting for duty at the Naval Sea Systems Command, Captain Kozlowski attended the first Post Command Course at the Naval War College.
The Bear Plays the Waiting Game
By Rear Admiral Thomas Hamilton, U. S. Navy (Retired)
Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, I received a notice to report to Captain Arthur Radford, who was Director of Naval Aviation Training. He explained to me his idea that he wanted to use competitive athletics and training in athletic skills to increase the abilities of combat pilots for the Navy. He felt that the use of various sports could quicken the eye, improve the judgment, the reaction time, get better mobility and precision, and also teach necessary skills like swimming to our pilots, because these pilots would have to fly most of the time over water.
I told him that I concurred completely and thought these methods would be a valuable addition to the present training. I suggested he send someone to the joint meeting of the NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association to tell them the idea and find out who would want to serve.
Soon after that, Captain Radford called for me again and said, "I'm ordering you to go out and make this presentation to the coaches and NCAA." As it coach, I had some previous knowledge of the people and had a lot of acquaintances there. So, I did make the trip to Detroit and made the presentation to the assembled group. The reaction was very good and many said right away that they'd like to serve. I told them to get their applications in to the Bureau of Aeronautics.
I took the train back to Washington and went to work the next day at Anacostia, where I was stationed. Who should be there but Bear Bryant? He was then the assistant football coach at Vanderbilt University. He said, "I heard your talk, and I'm ready to go to war."
I said, "I will see that your name will be one of the first to be considered, but I have nothing to do with it except to make the presentation. You go back to Nashville, and I'll make sure you're called among the first selected."
Within the next week, I received orders to come over to Captain Radford's staff and was put in charge of the preflight schools and the physical training section. I'd been in this job less than a week when who should show up again but Bear Bryant? He said; "I haven't heard from you! I have left home; I'm not going back. I can't go back now; I've told all my friends that I've gone off to war." So he lived in our home for about three weeks, and we put him to work answering the phone and working as a civilian until we could finally process him and get him in the Navy.