Sea denial: Difference between revisions
→top: UK's Royal Navy was mentioned by name, but not Germany's navy |
Aadirulez8 (talk | contribs) m v2.05 - Autofix / Fix errors for CW project (Link with encoded space) |
||
(31 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Military term}} |
|||
'''Sea denial''' is a military term describing attempts to deny the enemy's ability to use the sea without necessarily attempting to [[sea control|control the sea]] for its own use. It is a less ambitious strategy than sea control and can potentially be carried out by [[asymmetrical warfare]] or by maintaining a [[fleet in being]] that threatens offensive operations without actually conducting them. |
|||
{{war}} |
|||
'''Sea denial''' is a military term for preventing an enemy from using the sea. It is a [[naval warfare]] subset of [[anti-access/area denial]] (A2/AD) strategies,<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Till |first=Geoffrey |title=Seapower. A Guide for the Twenty-First Century |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2018 |isbn=9781315621210 |edition=4th |pages=193–197}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Speller |first=Ian |title=Understanding Naval Warfare |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2018 |isbn=9781315227818 |edition=2nd |pages=118–132}}</ref> and does not necessarily mean that the denier itself will use the sea. It is a parallel concept to [[sea control]], which implies that that controlling force cannot be successfully attacked. |
|||
Vego describes sea denial as "preventing partially or completely the enemy’s use of the sea for military and commercial purposes".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vego |first=Milan |title=Maritime strategy and sea denial, theory and practice |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2019 |isbn=978-1-351-04772-2 |edition=1st |location= |pages=18}}</ref> |
|||
⚫ | During [[World War I]] and [[World War II]], |
||
[[Julian Corbett|Corbett]] states that the object of sea denial is defensive. It is a less ambitious strategy than sea control and is often carried out by a weaker power.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Corbett |first=Julian Stafford |title=Some Principles of Maritime Strategy |publisher=[[Adansonia Press]] |year=1911 |isbn=9780080366937 |pages=144}}</ref> It is possible to pursue sea denial in one area of operation while pursuing sea control in another. |
|||
⚫ | |||
Sea denial can act as a direct complement to sea control. A nation may achieve sea control in its littorals, while enforcing sea denial outside the littorals, as was seen with the [[Soviet Union]] during periods of the [[Cold War]]. |
|||
⚫ | Modern sea denial |
||
== |
== Methods == |
||
Sea denial is achieved in many different ways. The method depends on factors such as geography, ambition, and capabilities. Geographically it is easier to conduct sea denial operations in [[Choke point|choke points]] such as narrow waters, straights, or congested waters. |
|||
Example techniques include [[naval mines]], [[anti-ship missiles]], [[Unmanned combat aerial vehicle|drones]], and [[submarines]]. |
|||
Barrier operations seek to hinder access to certain areas. Commerce raiding requires the enemy to put resources into escorting merchant ships. [[Asymmetrical warfare]] can involve attacking expensive ships with low cost uncrewed vessels. A [[fleet in being]] can threaten offensive operations without actually conducting them.<ref name=":1" /> |
|||
== History == |
|||
⚫ | During [[World War I]] and [[World War II]], Germany pursued sea denial using [[U-boat|U-boats]]. Owing to the substantial superiority of the [[Royal Navy]]'s surface forces, Germany's [[Imperial German Navy|Imperial Navy]] (in World War I) and ''[[Kriegsmarine]]'' (in World War II) had little hope of sea control, but with [[Submarine|submarines]], the Germans hoped to choke off their access to seaborne commerce. In both wars, the United Kingdom successfully resisted the German strategy with a combination of [[Rationing in the United Kingdom|strict rationing]] and anti-submarine weapons and techniques. |
||
During the [[Cold War]], the [[Soviet Union]] invested heavily in submarines and would likely have pursued a similar strategy of sea denial had tensions with [[NATO]] escalated to open warfare. |
|||
⚫ | |||
Today the term A2/AD has gained traction, and refers to a sort of sea denial strategy where a state aspires to challenge access to certain areas while hindering freedom of movement in an adjacent area. It can include a combined effort of navy, air force, and army. The army deploys missiles and sensors. The air force deploys assets to gather intelligence, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance and target ships with airborne weaponry. The navy deploys sea mines, surface ships, and submarines in a layered defence and distributed lethality.<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
⚫ | |||
== See also == |
|||
* [[Fleet in being]] |
* [[Fleet in being]] |
||
* [[Sea control]] |
* [[Sea control]] or [[command of the sea]] ( same article ) |
||
* [[Commerce raiding]] |
* [[Commerce raiding]] |
||
''' |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
== Bibliography == |
|||
⚫ | |||
* Corbett, Julian S. 2018. ''Some Principles of Maritime Strategy''. Bd. 1911. Adansonia Press. |
|||
⚫ | |||
* Speller, Ian. 2019. ''Understanding Naval Warfare''. 2. edition. Routledge. |
|||
* Till, Geoffrey. 2018. ''Seapower. A Guide for the Twenty-First Century''. 4th edition. Cass Series: Naval Policy and History. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abdingdon Oxon, OX14 4RN: Routledge.{{navy-stub}} |
|||
{{Warship types of the 19th & 20th centuries|state=collapsed}} |
|||
{{Military and war}} |
|||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{navy-stub}} |
|||
⚫ |
Latest revision as of 19:09, 24 November 2024
Part of a series on |
War (outline) |
---|
Sea denial is a military term for preventing an enemy from using the sea. It is a naval warfare subset of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategies,[1][2] and does not necessarily mean that the denier itself will use the sea. It is a parallel concept to sea control, which implies that that controlling force cannot be successfully attacked.
Vego describes sea denial as "preventing partially or completely the enemy’s use of the sea for military and commercial purposes".[3]
Corbett states that the object of sea denial is defensive. It is a less ambitious strategy than sea control and is often carried out by a weaker power.[4] It is possible to pursue sea denial in one area of operation while pursuing sea control in another.
Sea denial can act as a direct complement to sea control. A nation may achieve sea control in its littorals, while enforcing sea denial outside the littorals, as was seen with the Soviet Union during periods of the Cold War.
Methods
[edit]Sea denial is achieved in many different ways. The method depends on factors such as geography, ambition, and capabilities. Geographically it is easier to conduct sea denial operations in choke points such as narrow waters, straights, or congested waters.
Example techniques include naval mines, anti-ship missiles, drones, and submarines.
Barrier operations seek to hinder access to certain areas. Commerce raiding requires the enemy to put resources into escorting merchant ships. Asymmetrical warfare can involve attacking expensive ships with low cost uncrewed vessels. A fleet in being can threaten offensive operations without actually conducting them.[2]
History
[edit]During World War I and World War II, Germany pursued sea denial using U-boats. Owing to the substantial superiority of the Royal Navy's surface forces, Germany's Imperial Navy (in World War I) and Kriegsmarine (in World War II) had little hope of sea control, but with submarines, the Germans hoped to choke off their access to seaborne commerce. In both wars, the United Kingdom successfully resisted the German strategy with a combination of strict rationing and anti-submarine weapons and techniques.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union invested heavily in submarines and would likely have pursued a similar strategy of sea denial had tensions with NATO escalated to open warfare.
Since World War II, the most notable example of a sea denial involved the so-called 'Tanker War,' wherein Iran and Iraq sought to close the Persian Gulf.
Today the term A2/AD has gained traction, and refers to a sort of sea denial strategy where a state aspires to challenge access to certain areas while hindering freedom of movement in an adjacent area. It can include a combined effort of navy, air force, and army. The army deploys missiles and sensors. The air force deploys assets to gather intelligence, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance and target ships with airborne weaponry. The navy deploys sea mines, surface ships, and submarines in a layered defence and distributed lethality.[1]
Modern sea denial addresses area denial weapons, for example in the context of a land power using land-based missiles to strike sea targets. Such missiles can follow cruise missile (terrain-skimming) or ballistic missile trajectories.
See also
[edit]- Fleet in being
- Sea control or command of the sea ( same article )
- Commerce raiding
References
[edit]- ^ a b Till, Geoffrey (2018). Seapower. A Guide for the Twenty-First Century (4th ed.). Routledge. pp. 193–197. ISBN 9781315621210.
- ^ a b Speller, Ian (2018). Understanding Naval Warfare (2nd ed.). Routledge. pp. 118–132. ISBN 9781315227818.
- ^ Vego, Milan (2019). Maritime strategy and sea denial, theory and practice (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-351-04772-2.
- ^ Corbett, Julian Stafford (1911). Some Principles of Maritime Strategy. Adansonia Press. p. 144. ISBN 9780080366937.
Bibliography
[edit]- Corbett, Julian S. 2018. Some Principles of Maritime Strategy. Bd. 1911. Adansonia Press.
- Speller, Ian. 2019. Understanding Naval Warfare. 2. edition. Routledge.
- Till, Geoffrey. 2018. Seapower. A Guide for the Twenty-First Century. 4th edition. Cass Series: Naval Policy and History. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abdingdon Oxon, OX14 4RN: Routledge.