Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fact check: Did Ryan really say the U.S. Navy is close to being smaller than in 1913? (Original Post) ArcticFox Oct 2012 OP
I recall he said before ww 1 nt msongs Oct 2012 #1
Yeah, 1914-1918. So, 1913 would be the year before. ArcticFox Oct 2012 #3
He did say that XemaSab Oct 2012 #2
Yup. Fearless Oct 2012 #4
1908 we were second-largest sea power ArcticFox Oct 2012 #5
He's probably talking about the number of active ships bhikkhu Oct 2012 #6
Politifact judged ruled: Pants on Fire - link below Tx4obama Oct 2012 #7
As I remember pre WWI American Navy was significant for its time. gordianot Oct 2012 #8
Yes it was. sofa king Oct 2012 #16
Didn't Romney say that in the 47% video? justice1 Oct 2012 #9
Question: Rincewind Oct 2012 #10
Yes, Sir, He Did The Magistrate Oct 2012 #11
yeah, and our fleet of zeppelins and bi-planes is practically nil. uncle ray Oct 2012 #12
Obama= Anti-Zeppelin dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #15
Wow, that one is so lame treestar Oct 2012 #13
it's a RW meme about quantity. it's absurd on its face. NuttyFluffers Oct 2012 #14
He meant "navy beans" are smaller Donkees Oct 2012 #17

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
2. He did say that
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:26 AM
Oct 2012

My immediate thought was that before WWI, naval power was the only way of controlling the world. We didn't even have airplanes then.

There are parts of the world where a good naval force is essential for regional control, but most of the world today is controlled with aircraft, missiles, and satellites.

The idea that we need enough little boats for a beach landing like at Normandy is laughable.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
4. Yup.
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:44 AM
Oct 2012

And he proves again that he's a fish out of water (so to speak). He doesn't have a clue about national security.

bhikkhu

(10,724 posts)
6. He's probably talking about the number of active ships
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:45 AM
Oct 2012

which you can look at here: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4c.htm

But, needless to say, the navy we have today would make short work of the navy we had then - there's much more to defence than the number of ships!

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
7. Politifact judged ruled: Pants on Fire - link below
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:57 AM
Oct 2012

Navy wouldn't be the smallest it's been since 1917
The line that the Navy would be the smallest its been since 1917 is just not accurate. Politifact judged it “pants on fire.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

gordianot

(15,245 posts)
8. As I remember pre WWI American Navy was significant for its time.
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 02:01 AM
Oct 2012

Remember Teddy Roosevelt and his big stick the Great White Fleet? Other than Japan the United States was one of the few Naval powers that fought and won a protracted Naval War. The United States Navy had an excellent reputation.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
16. Yes it was.
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 09:23 AM
Oct 2012

Battleships were the name of the game back then. The Atlantic Fleet of the US Navy in 1913 had more battleships in it than the Germans brought to Jutland in 1916.

There were two other USN fleets afloat at the same time. Many of the battleships in the US line were pre-Dreadnoughts which would prove to be of dubious use in the coming war, but the US Navy was already large enough to match any potential enemy (except the British) on any ocean.

The US Navy also had the rare luxury of actual combat experience, having trounced the Spanish fleets in 1898. That meant that in 1913 the upper leadership of the US Navy was fairly well prepared to expand and reorganize to meet the demands of the war when they finally entered it in 1917, with many ship captains having started their careers with the battles of Manilla Bay and Santiago.

We attached one battleship division (comprised of our oldest, slowest, coal-burning battleships because the British were short of fuel oil) to the British Grand Fleet in 1917, which effectively ended any chances of the Germans challenging allied naval supremacy for the remainder of the war. Aside from a few feints, they never even tried after that.

So four or five battleships of the US Navy of 1913 were powerful enough to give the allies of World War I total supremacy in naval surface warfare. Behind it were three US fleets that were never needed. Most of those ships never fired a shot in anger.

One of them, the USS Utah, saw more action after it was converted to a target ship and then mistaken for an aircraft carrier by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

(Edit: I should add that one USN task force of today built around a single aircraft carrier, properly supplied, could destroy every major warship afloat in 1913, likely without sustaining damage or even casualties. So there's that, too.)

The Magistrate

(95,255 posts)
11. Yes, Sir, He Did
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 04:56 AM
Oct 2012

And I, for one, am shocked by the dearth of 'protected cruisers' and 'torpedo boat destroyers' in our navy today....

NuttyFluffers

(6,811 posts)
14. it's a RW meme about quantity. it's absurd on its face.
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 08:01 AM
Oct 2012

1000 tugboats is not superior to 1 aircraft carrier, but that's the snake oil they're selling.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fact check: Did Ryan real...