Appendix
The “Green Pamphlet”
War Course
Strategical Terms and Definitions Used in Lectures on Naval History
Naval Strategy
Introductory.
Naval strategy does not exist as a separate branch of knowledge. It is only a section of a division of the art of war.
The study for officers is the art of war, specialising in Naval Strategy.
The true method of procedure then is to get hold of a general theory of war, and so ascertain the exact relations of Naval Strategy to the whole.
Theory of war.
War is a form of political intercourse, a continuation of foreign politics which begins when force is introduced to attain our ends.
Objects
We seek our ends by directing force upon certain objects, which may be ulterior or immediate.
Immediate objects (also called “Primary”) are the ends of particular operations or movements. But it must be remembered that every primary object has also its ulterior object; that is, every operation must be regarded, not only from the point of view of its special object, but also as a step to the end of the campaign or war.
Strategy is the art of directing force to the ends in view. Classified by the object it is Major Strategy, dealing with ulterior objects; Minor Strategy, with primary objects.
This also means that every operation of an army or fleet must be regarded in a double light, i.e., it must be planned and conducted in relation (1) to the general progress of the war; (2) to the object to which it is immediately directed.
Major Strategy.
Major Strategy (always regarding the ulterior object) has for its province the plan of the war, and includes: (1) Selection of the immediate or primary objects to be aimed at for attaining the ulterior object; (2) Selection of the force to be used, i.e., it determines the relative functions of the naval and military forces.
NOTE.—Major Strategy in its broadest sense has also to deal with the whole resources of the nation for war. It is a branch of statesmanship. It regards the Army and Navy as parts of one force, to be handled together; they are instruments of war. But it also has to keep in view constantly the politico-diplomatic position of the country (on which depends the effective action of the instrument), and its commercial and financial position (by which the energy for working the instrument is maintained). The friction of these two considerations is inherent in war, and we call it the deflection of strategy by politics. It is usually regarded as a disease. It is really a vital factor in every strategical problem. It may be taken as a general rule that no question of grand strategy can be decided apart from diplomacy, and vice versa. For a line of action or an object which is expedient from the point of view of strategy may be barred by diplomatic considerations, and vice versa. To decide a question of grand strategy without consideration of its diplomatic aspect, is to decide on half the factors only. Neither strategy or diplomacy has ever a clean slate. This interaction has to be accepted by commanding officers as part of the inevitable “friction of war.” A good example is Pitt’s refusal to send a fleet into the Baltic to assist Frederick the Great during the Seven Years War, for fear of compromising our relations with the Scandinavian Powers.
Minor Strategy.
Minor Strategy has for its province the plans of operations. It deals with—
(1) The selection of the “objectives,” that is, the particular forces of the enemy or the strategical points to be dealt with in order to secure the object of the particular operation.
(2) The directing of the force assigned for the operation.
Minor Strategy may be of three kinds:—
(1) Naval, where the immediate object is to be attained by a fleet only.
(2) Military, where the immediate object is to be attained by an army only.
(3) Combined, where the immediate object is to be attained by army and navy together.
NOTE.—It will be seen that what is usually called Naval Strategy or Fleet Strategy, is only a sub-division of a division of strategy, and that, therefore, strategy cannot be studied from the point of view of naval operations only.
NOTE.—Naval Strategy, being only a part of General Strategy, is subject to the same friction as Major Strategy, though in a less degree. Individual commanders have often to take a decision independently of the central government, or headquarters; they should, therefore, always keep in mind the possible ulterior effects of any line of action they may take, endeavouring to be sure that what is strategically expedient is not diplomatically inexpedient.
EXAMPLE.—Boscawen’s attack on De la Motte on the eve of the Seven Years War.
Nature of Object
Nature of object. Offensive and defensive.
The solution of every strategical problem, whether of Major or Minor Strategy, depends primarily on the nature of the object in view.
All objects, whether ulterior or not, may be positive or negative.
A positive object is where we seek to assert or acquire something for ourselves.
A negative object is where we seek to deny the enemy something or prevent his gaining something.
Where the object is positive, Strategy is offensive.
Where the object is negative, Strategy is defensive.
EXAMPLE.—When Togo attacked Rojesvensky his primary object was offensive, i.e., to capture or destroy the Russian Fleet. His ulterior object was to maintain the defensive function which had been assigned to the Japanese Fleet.
NOTES.—This is a good example of true defensive; that is, Togo’s operations, though drastically offensive in action, were all strictly within the strategical defensive sphere assigned to him.
Relation of offensive to defensive.
The Offensive, being positive in its aim is naturally the more effective form of war (i.e., it leads more directly to a final decision), and, as a rule, should be adopted by the stronger Power.
The Defensive, being negative in its aim, is naturally the stronger form of war; i.e., it requires less force, and, as a rule, is adopted by the weaker Power.
NOTE.—The general truth of this proposition is not affected by apparent exceptions where the contrary appears to be true.
The Offensive must not be confused with the Initiative. It is possible to seize the Initiative, under certain conditions, by taking a defensive position from which the enemy is bound to dislodge us or abandon the operation.
In most cases where the weaker side successfully assumes the offensive, it is due to his doing so before the enemy’s mobilization or concentration is complete, whereby the attacking force is able to deal in succession with locally inferior forces of the enemy.
The advantages of the Offensive are well known.
Its disadvantages are:—
(1) That it grows weaker as it advances, by prolonging its communications.
(2) That it tends to operations on unfamiliar ground.
(3) That it continually increases the difficulty of retreat.
The advantages of Defence are chiefly:—
(1) Proximity to base.
(2) Familiar ground.
(3) Facility for arranging surprise by counter attack.
NOTE.—In modern Naval warfare these advantages—that is, the advantages of fighting on your own ground—are specially high as giving greater facility for the use of mine and torpedo.
The disadvantages are mainly moral or when the enemy’s objective or line of operations cannot be ascertained, but this disadvantage can be neutralised when it is possible to secure an interior position.
General Characteristics of the Defensive
True Defensive means waiting for a chance to strike.
NOTE.—When the Dutch burnt our ships at Chatham, we were not acting on the defensive, we had laid them up and were doing nothing at all.
The strength and the essence of the defensive is the counter-stroke.
A well designed defensive will always threaten or conceal an attack.
A general defensive policy may consist of a series of minor offensive operations.
The maxim is: If you are not relatively strong enough to assume the offensive, assume the defensive till you become so—
(1) Either by inducing the enemy to weaken himself by attacks or otherwise;
(2) Or by increasing your own strength, by developing new forces or securing allies.
Except as a preparation or a cover for offensive action the defensive is seldom or never of any use; for by the defensive alone we can never acquire anything, we can only prevent the enemy acquiring. But where we are too weak to assume the offensive it is often necessary to assume the defensive, and wait in expectation of time turning the scale in our favour and permitting us to accumulate strength relatively greater than the enemy’s; we then pass to the offensive, for which our defensive has been a preparation.
As a cover or support for the offensive, the defensive will enable us to intensify the attack; for by assuming the defensive in one or more minor theatres of operation we can reduce our forces in those theatres to a minimum, and concentrate to a maximum for the offensive in the most important theatre.
Offensive Operations Used With a Defensive Intention
(A) Counter attacks.
(B) Diversions.
(A) Counter attacks are those which are made upon an enemy who exposes himself anywhere in the theatre of his offensive operations. It is this form of attack which constitutes what Clausewitz calls the “surprise advantage of defence.”
(B) Diversions are similar operations undertaken against an enemy outside the limit of his theatre of offensive operations.
Diversions are designed to confuse his strategy, to distract his attention, and to draw off his forces from his main attack. If well planned, they should divert a force greater than their own. They should, therefore, be small. The nearer they approach the importance of a real attack the less likely they are to divert a force greater than their own.
It is only their power of diverting or containing a larger force than their own that justifies the breach of the law of concentration which they involve.
This power depends mainly on suddenness and mobility, and these qualities are most highly developed in combined expeditions.
NOTE.—Diversions must be carefully distinguished from eccentric attacks. Eccentric attacks are true offensive movements. They have a positive object, i.e., they aim to acquire something from the enemy; whereas diversions have a negative object, i.e., they aim at preventing the enemy doing or acquiring something. Being in the category of the weaker form of war, eccentric attacks are usually made in greater force than diversions.
EXAMPLES.—Diversion.—Our raid on Washington in 1815. Landing force, about 4,000 men. Object, according to official instructions, “a diversion on the coasts of United States of America in favour of the army employed in the defence of Canada”; i.e., the intention was negative—preventative—defensive.
2. Eccentric Attack.—Operations against New Orleans in 1815. Intended force 15,000 to 20,000 men. Object, “to obtain command of embouchure of the Mississippi, and, secondly, to occupy some important and valuable possession, by the restoration of which the conditions of peace might be improved, &c.”; i.e., the intention was positive—to acquire. Compare Rochefort Expedition (diversion) and Belleisle (eccentric attack) in the Seven Years War.
Note 2.—This distinction gives a threefold classification of combined expeditions, as used by Elizabethan strategists.
Raids = Diversions.
Incursions = Eccentric attacks.
Invasions = True direct offence.
Compare these with Sir John Ardagh’s classification (Report of Royal Commission on Reserve Forces, 1904):—
“Raids,” not exceeding 10,000 men.
“Small expeditions,” not exceeding 50,000 men.
“Dangerous invasion,” not exceeding 150,000 men.
Nature of Ulterior Object
Limited and unlimited wars.
From the nature of the ulterior object we get an important classification of wars, according to whether such object is limited or unlimited.
(1) War with limited object (“limited war”) is where we merely seek to take from the enemy some particular part of his possessions, or interests; e.g., Spanish-American War, where the object was the liberation of Cuba.
(2) War with an unlimited object is where we seek to overthrow the enemy completely, so that to save himself from destruction he must agree to do our will (become subservient); e.g., Franco-German War.
NOTE.—Ulterior objects are not necessarily the same in their nature as the immediate (primary or secondary) objects which lead up to them; e.g., ulterior objects may be offensive, while one or more of the immediate objects may be defensive, and vice versâ.
EXAMPLE 1.—Japanese position in the late war. Ulterior object of the war (to drive Russians from Manchuria) was offensive (positive). Function or ulterior object of the fleet (to cover the invasion) was defensive (negative). Its primary object to effect this was to attack and destroy the Russian naval force. This was offensive (positive).
EXAMPLE 2.—In the Spanish-American War the ulterior object of the war was (for the Americans) to eject the Spanish Government from Cuba. This was offensive. The ulterior object of the fleet was to prevent the Spaniards sending reinforcements or interfering with the intended American invasion. This was defensive. The primary object of the fleet was to bring the Spanish Fleet to action. This was offensive.
System of Operations
Having determined the nature of the war by the nature of its object (i.e., whether it is offensive or defensive and whether it is limited or unlimited), strategy has to decide on the system of operations or “plan of the war.”
This depends upon:—
(1) The theatre of the war.
(2) The means at our disposal.
1. Theatre of the War.—Usually defined as “all the territory upon which the hostile parties may assail each other.” This is insufficient. For an island power the theatre of war will always include sea areas. Truer definition: “geographical areas within which lie the ulterior objects of the war and the subordinate objects that lead up to them.”
A “theatre of war” may contain several “theatres of operations.”
2. Theatre of Operations.—Is generally used of the operations of one belligerent only.
An “operation” is any considerable strategical undertaking.
A “theatre of operations” is usually defined as embracing all the territory we seek to take possession of or to defend.
A truer definition is, “the area, whether of sea or land or both, within which the enemy must be overpowered before we can secure the object of the particular operation.”
Consequently, since the nature of the war varies with the object, it may be defensive in one theatre of operations and offensive in another.
Where the operations are defensive in character any special movement or movements may be offensive.
Objective
Objective
An objective is “any point or force against which an offensive movement is directed.” Thus where the object in any theatre of operation is to get command of a certain sea in which the enemy maintains a fleet, that fleet will usually be the objective.
Lines of Operation
Lines of operation.
A line of operation is “the area of land or sea through which we operate from our base or starting point to reach our objectives.”
Lines of operation may be exterior or interior. We are said to hold the interior lines when we hold such a position, in regard to a theatre of operations, that we can reach its chief objective points, or forces, more quickly than the enemy can move to their defence or assistance. Such a position is called an interior position. “Exterior Lines” and “Exterior Position” are the converse of these.
Lines of Communication
Lines of communication.
This expression is used of three different things:—
(1) Lines of supply, running from the base of operations to the point which the operating force has reached.
(2) Lines of lateral communication by which several forces engaged in one theatre of operations can communicate with each other and move to each other’s support.
(3) Lines of retreat, which are lines of supply reversed, i.e., leading back to the base.
These three ideas are best described by the term “lines of passage and communication,” which we had in use at the end of the eighteenth century.
Ashore, lines of passage and communication are roads, railways, waterways, &c.
At sea, they may be regarded as those waters over which passes the normal course of vessels proceeding from the base to the objective or the force to be supplied.
In Land Strategy the great majority of problems are problems of communication. Maritime Strategy has never been regarded as hinging on communications, but probably it does so even more than Land Strategy, as will appear from a consideration of maritime communications, and the extent to which they are the main preoccupation of Naval operations.
Maritime Communications
The various kinds of Maritime Communications for or against which a fleet may have to operate are:—
(1) Its own communications, or those of its adversary (which correspond to the communications of armies operating ashore). These tend to increase in importance strategically with the increasing hunger of modern fleets (for coal, ammunition, &c).
(2) The communications of an army operating from an advanced oversea base, that is communication between the advanced and the main base.
(3) Trade Routes, that is the communications upon which depend the national resources and the supply of the main bases, as well as the “lateral” or connecting communications between various parts of belligerents’ possessions.
N.B.—Such “lines of passage and communication” are the preoccupation of Naval Strategy; that is to say, problems of Naval Strategy can be reduced to terms of “passage and communication” and this is probably the best method of solving them.