Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. MahanMahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
History
Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan
Mahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
Naval art and science; Naval strategy; Sea-power
Why then was the fleet stationed in Port Arthur? Because, expecting the
Japanese attack to fall upon Port Arthur, the purpose of the Russian
authorities was not to use the fleet offensively against the enemy’s
navy, but defensively as a fortress fleet; defending the fortress by
defensive action, awaiting attack, not making it. That is, the function
of the fortress was conceived as defensive chiefly, and not as
offensive. Later, I hope to show that the purpose, the _raison d’être_,
of a coast fortress is in itself offensive; because it exists chiefly
for the purpose of sheltering a fleet, and keeping it fit to act
offensively. For the present, waiving the point, it will be sufficient
to note that the conception of the fleet by the Russians, that it should
act only in defense, led necessarily to imperfect action even in that
respect. The Port Arthur division virtually never acted offensively,
even locally. An observer on the spot says: “In the disposition of their
destroyers, the authorities did not seem disposed to give them a free
hand, or to allow them to take any chances.” And again, “The torpedo
boats were never sent out with the aim of attacking Japanese ships, or
transports. If out, and attacked, they fought, but they did not go out
for the purpose of attacking, although they would to cover an army
flank.” These two actions define the rôle indicated by the expression,
“Fortress Fleet.” The Japanese expressed surprise that no attempt by
scouting was made to ascertain their naval base, which was also the
landing place of their army; and, although the sinking of the two
battleships on May 15 was seen from Port Arthur, no effort was made to
improve such a moment of success, and of demoralization to the enemy,
although there were twenty-one destroyers at Port Arthur; sixteen of
which were under steam and outside. So, at the very last moment, the
fleet held on to its defensive rôle; going out only when already damaged
by enemy’s shells, and then not to fight but to fly.
It is a curious commentary upon this course of action, that, as far as
any accounts that have come under my eye show, the fleet contributed
nothing to the defense of the fortress beyond landing guns, and, as the
final death struggle approached, using their batteries in support of
those of the fortress; but the most extreme theorist would scarcely
advocate such an end as the object of maintaining a fleet. The same guns
would be better emplaced on shore. As far as defense went, the Russian
Port Arthur fleet might as well have been at Cronstadt throughout.
Indeed, better; for then it would have accompanied Rozhestvensky in
concentrated numbers, and the whole Russian navy there assembled, in
force far superior, would have been a threat to the Japanese command of
the sea much more effective, as a defense to Port Arthur, than was the
presence of part of that fleet in the port itself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account