Professionalism which navy had the most?

[Joe]

I'm just curious as to which Navy's were the most squared away and professional. I spent 23 years in the U.S. Army as a Tanker (19 Kilo) and considered modern American tank commanders and crews to be among the best in the world and standing close to that of the WWII German crews who were amazing (We actually had a bust of Michael Wittman on a plinth in our barracks).

I know little however than what I've gleaned from a few books I've read. In my less than educated opinion the Brits were the best, I'm unsure of the other Navy's though being an American I'd like to think our seaman and officers were good.

So lay some knowledge on me my NA brothers.

Sabres out! Sabres ready!

Edited March 8, 2015 by Joe

[Guest raat]

this thread has the makings for a flame war.......

[Joe]

Well let's hope people choose to be adult and carry on a conversation. Let's act as if we are all in the same room sharing a beer and talking honestly and treating eachother with respect.

[Austrum]

I think we just need to make sure to keep things historical.

 

That being said, without any real historical background or even alot of knowledge, I would strongly guess England.  Why?  Because they are on an island and everything they were rested upon their Navy's ability to function at high efficiency.  I mean you cannot move troops across the sea, unless you have a strong Navy to protect them, you cannot engage in meaningful commerce unless you have a strong Navy to protect it and you cannot have a massive world spanning empire, unless you have a strong Navy to secure it.  None of the other major powers had this sort of naval influence so in my opinion, it just stands to reason that England had the best Navy during the Age of Sail.

[maturin]

The United Provinces were arguably even more maritime-focused as an economy.

 

But even the Dutch can't boast the continuity of Britain's naval tradition. Great Britain was a maritime naval power without interruption, for a period of several centuries. The Royal Navy didn't suffer from the same wax and wane as the French, Spanish and Dutch. While casting absolutely no aspersions on either of Britain's main rivals, it means a lot if your institutions and personnel base remain functioning without periodic setbacks. The French navy had very high standards of professionalism and was very technologically advanced in many ways. But from time to time it fell into ruin and had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

 

I leave aside other powers such as Portugal, Sweden, Denmark and Russia because of their smaller size, or because their fleets weren't the lifeblood of an essentially maritime state, but simple accessories to their inland territorial ambitions.

[Crankey]

A hard question to answer as invariably all Nations had their 'Aces'.

 

Late comers to the table the US adopted British methods and indeed had British officers on loan during times of peace to help them build and train their fledgling naval might.

[Comandante Gómez]

A hard question to answer as invariably all Nations had their 'Aces'.

 

Late comers to the table the US adopted British methods and indeed had British officers on loan during times of peace to help them build and train their fledgling naval might.

 

+1

 

I think that the virtue and vice are not the crew aboard the ship, for me all were professional men whose know their work. The problem, in my opinion is the administration of the armada made by the kingdom or goverment. 

 

 

 

¡Saludos!

[Thonar]

I'm just curious as to which Navy's were the most squared away and professional. I spent 23 years in the U.S. Army as a Tanker (19 Kilo) and considered modern American tank commanders and crews to be among the best in the world and standing close to that of the WWII German crews who were amazing (We actually had a bust of Michael Wittman on a plinth in our barracks).

 

I would really like to know how you would compare them or how you will support such a statement...

 

@Navy:

Hard to say when we look through the whole history.

No doubt the Royal Navy is a strong competitor (even when I need to say that the "downfall" of the Royal Navy was pretty fast), but you have a lot of other "navies" worth mentioning too:

- Romans

- Dutch

- Spanish

- Vikings

- Athens

 

The US-navy might be today the strongest, but it hasn't proven itself the most professional of our time yet.

[Brigand]

(Topic moved to Tavern)

 

This question is very hard to answer, without at least mentioning a time frame. Typically, nations with navies are split up in two categories: maritime powers and naval powers, there is a distinction between the two: maritime powers depend on the sea for their very survival, whereas naval powers have no vital interests at sea, but use their naval strength to advance national power.

 

Countries such as Britain and the Dutch Republic where maritime powers, France is, on the other hand, a naval power.

 

Since maritime powers depend on the sea for the countries survival, there is a lot of maritime knowledge and advancement outside the navy. When a war is declared, such countries have a large body of able seamen to draw from.

 

~Brigand

[Kontreadmiral]

The United Provinces were arguably even more maritime-focused as an economy.

 

But even the Dutch can't boast the continuity of Britain's naval tradition. Great Britain was a maritime naval power without interruption, for a period of several centuries. The Royal Navy didn't suffer from the same wax and wane as the French, Spanish and Dutch. While casting absolutely no aspersions on either of Britain's main rivals, it means a lot if your institutions and personnel base remain functioning without periodic setbacks. The French navy had very high standards of professionalism and was very technologically advanced in many ways. But from time to time it fell into ruin and had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

 

I leave aside other powers such as Portugal, Sweden, Denmark and Russia because of their smaller size, or because their fleets weren't the lifeblood of an essentially maritime state, but simple accessories to their inland territorial ambitions.

Denmark didn't have a small navy, infact we had one of the biggest. Denmark was a major maritime power, and the navy was highly professional.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Kontreadmiral

[Elysion]

With out knowing too much about this, i would guess britain simply as a consequence of their greater need. Navies are important for running a global empire. Protecting shipping, moving troops around. When you are stretched all over the place even a minor power can cause you problems, so having precise logistical skill and ensuring that you get the most out of each of your ships capabilities seems to be the natural tendency. This requires consistent standards which can be depended upon.

[5KnuckleChuckle]

With the little knowledge I have and if we are talking about the golden age of sail when the top dogs were Spain, Portugal, France, England, The Netherlands, etc. I would say the English were terrible early on but later became the best. Early on people could buy ranking positions in the English navy and the crews were not what you would class as professional, far from it. It didn't take them too long to see they were easily outclassed and discontinued the idea of purchased positions and started to train crews in gunnery etc. This soon changed things up to where the English became one of, if not, the best, navy in the world at that time. To be honest, I have no concrete knowledge of how "professional" the other navies were though my feeling is the Spanish were probably one of, if not the, best up to this point. The only thing I know of the French navy was that their main tactic was basically the mission above all else. They would run from enemy ships in pursuit of finishing whatever mission they happened to be on. If they were close enough they would fire and run, basically the mission was all important. Of course this holds no real relevance when assessing the proficiency/professionalism of the French crews. Don't know anything about the naval histories of the Dutch or Portugal.....

[thomas aagaard]

How do you define professionalism?

 

Most modern american soldiers properly think being clean shaven is a sign of professionalism.
In the Modern danish army beards are common...

[Joe]

The formulation of a professional tanker is probably different than a sailor or infantryman (whom we nicknamed crunchies) Some of the things I was taught and fostered in my crew and the crews of the 3 other tanks in my platoon are surely the same regardless of service or period.

In no certain order but that of what springs to my mind.(And I've been hitting the hooch tonight so in the morning I'll edit this)

1. Fighting spirit, and determination, a wish to meet with and destroy ones enemy.

2. Sacrafice, a willingness to place personal needs beneath that of fellow soldiers.

3. Knowledge of equipment, a thorough understanding of how your equipment works, the ability to use it at an almost muscle memory level of effort and the ability to maintain it at peak efficiency.

4. Command discipline, following orders and staying within R.O.E (rules of engagement).

5. Unit leadership integrity, the ability of all soldiers or sailors to step up and lead regardless of rank and maintain unit integrity regardless of casualties.

6. Knowledge of the enemy, how does he fight, what are his motivations, what equipment will he use, what are his strengths and weaknesses.

7. Pride in and love of ones platoon/company/squadron/ship etc. I took great pride in being Cavalry, of wearing a Stetson with crossed Sabres and wearing my Spurs when in dress uniform. So a fighting man should cherish his unit or ships history and seek to add to but never shame it's good name or that of his fellow soldiers or sailors.

8. Meat eater, a certain willingness to and even hope for combat. A soldier or sailor who is in a combat unit or fighting ship and is a fobbit or a plant eater is of little use. Though on a large ship this might be possible based on the job performed and not be a hindrance or danger to his fellow sailors.

9. Strategic and tactical knowledge, how best to use what you have in a way that offers maximum kinetic effect on ones enemy. For instance the implementation of a basic L shaped ambush, when to use it and who to use it on. Strategic knowledge would be big picture stuff, but still good for even the lowest ranks to understand so they can step up and lead if casualties make it necessary and attain the goals aligned with the strategic outlook.

In short a professional soldier, sailor, marine, airman would see his duty as a career not just a job. I've read that in the British navy when you signed up it was for life but I might be wrong. In the war of 1812 American sailors were on 2 year contracts, and as a whole, American sailors were treated better by their officers and had more rules protecting the average sailor from abuse.

I'm sure some of this is universal to all branches of service and the era in which they operated but not sure how much of it applies to sailors. Im not sure How much of this an 18th or 19th century sailor would have or need considering some were pressed into service.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Joe

[Thonar]

1. Fighting spirit, and determination, a wish to meet with and destroy ones enemy.

2. Sacrafice, a willingness to place personal needs beneath that of fellow soldiers.

3. Knowledge of equipment, a thorough understanding of how your equipment works, the ability to use it at an almost muscle memory level of effort and the ability to maintain it at peak efficiency.

4. Command discipline, following orders and staying within R.O.E (rules of engagement).

5. Unit leadership integrity, the ability of all soldiers or sailors to step up and lead regardless of rank and maintain unit integrity regardless of casualties.

6. Knowledge of the enemy, how does he fight, what are his motivations, what equipment will he use, what are his strengths and weaknesses.

7. Pride in and love of ones platoon/company/squadron/ship etc. I took great pride in being Cavalry, of wearing a Stetson with crossed Sabres and wearing my Spurs when in dress uniform. So a fighting man should cherish his unit or ships history and seek to add to but never shame it's good name or that of his fellow soldiers or sailors.

8. Meat eater, a certain willingness to and even hope for combat. A soldier or sailor who is in a combat unit or fighting ship and is a fobbit or a plant eater is of little use. Though on a large ship this might be possible based on the job performed and not be a hindrance or danger to his fellow sailors.

 

Sorry, but I have the urgent subjective feel that the term "professionalism" doesn't even fit to half of what you describe there:

 

1. That is about morale and, based on the personal experience of David Kilcullen, not a measurement of "professionalism".

Young soldiers who have never seen a fight might run through enemy fire without as much hesitation as more experienced soldiers (because they don't know how it is when someone is getting hit). This doesn't mean they are more professional.

 

2. That is a good character of a warrior... but not necessarily a measurement of the professionality of an army. A captain might sacrifice a few sailors by closing a bulkhead, but saving this way his ship. The willingness to sacrifice the own life for a greater good is a good attribute for a single soldier, but in several situations it can be plain stupid. Thus I wouldn't count it into professionality, while I don't doubt the usefullnes of the attribute itself.

 

3. Yep.

 

4. Not necessarily. Yes, orders are important... but stupidly following them doesn't expresses professionality.

An example: The German army of the second world war is always depicted as a harsh disciplined army in movies in which soldiers can't think for themselves, while in fact it is the army that offers its leading personal the most freedom in their decisions up to squad/ team-level.

There was a moment, I think it was in the German-French war, as a General-Staff-Officer made a mistake. The Kaiser was enraged about it and the General tried to defend himself "But my Kaiser, I followed your orders!", the Kaiser replied "I haven't made you to a General because I wanted you to follow my orders, I made you General because I wanted you to know when you don't have to follow my orders."

Flexibility, creativity and freedom to lead are also important factors of professionality.

 

5. Yes.

 

6. Part of the decision-making-process but not necessarily a measurement of professionality (while the decision making process probably is). A simple sailor doesn't need to know the doctrines of the enemy navy and can still be a professional sailor.

 

7. Not necessarily a measurement of professionality IMO. Pride in what someone does is for sure important as the social environment is, but too much pride can also become a problem, when different branches/ units/... need to work together.

 

8. No. Sorry, but that is the old discussion "How important are support troops?"

Logistics, communications, intelligence, ... are as vital as the actual combat troops. There is a saying: "Amateurs think about tactic, professionals about logistics.".

The soldiers in support branches can be as vital and as professional as every combat-wishing warrior, they might not be as professional as combat-troops when it is about combat, but you wouldn't use a combat-troop-soldier to manage your logistics, wouldn't you?

Everyone needs to fulfill his duty in a professional army and a certain wish to fulfill this duty outside of training isn't wrong, but reducing this wish to mere combat is probably too close-minded.

 

I don't say you're wrong, but that I, personally, can't share the majority of your thoughts as a measurment for professionalism.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Thonar

[Joe]

Sorry, but I have the urgent subjective feel that the term "professionalism" doesn't even fit to half of what you describe there:

 

1. That is about morale and, based on the personal experience of David Kilcullen, not a measurement of "professionalism".

Young soldiers who have never seen a fight might run through enemy fire without as much hesitation as more experienced soldiers (because they don't know how it is when someone is getting hit). This doesn't mean they are more professional.

 

2. That is a good character of a warrior... but not necessarily a measurement of the professionality of an army. A captain might sacrifice a few sailors by closing a bulkhead, but saving this way his ship. The willingness to sacrifice the own life for a greater good is a good attribute for a single soldier, but in several situations it can be plain stupid. Thus I wouldn't count it into professionality, while I don't doubt the usefullnes of the attribute itself.

 

3. Yep.

 

4. Not necessarily. Yes, orders are important... but stupidly following them doesn't expresses professionality.

An example: The German army of the second world war is always depicted as a harsh disciplined army in movies in which soldiers can't think for themselves, while in fact it is the army that offers its leading personal the most freedom in their decisions up to squad/ team-level.

There was a moment, I think it was in the German-French war, as a General-Staff-Officer made a mistake. The Kaiser was enraged about it and the General tried to defend himself "But my Kaiser, I followed your orders!", the Kaiser replied "I haven't made you to a General because I wanted you to follow my orders, I made you General because I wanted you to know when you don't have to follow my orders."

Flexibility, creativity and freedom to lead are also important factors of professionality.

 

5. Yes.

 

6. Part of the decision-making-process but not necessarily a measurement of professionality (while the decision making process probably is). A simple sailor doesn't need to know the doctrines of the enemy navy and can still be a professional sailor.

 

7. Not a necessarily a measurement of professionality IMO. Pride in what someone does is for sure important as the social environment is, but too much pride can also become a problem, when different branches/ units/... need to work together.

 

8. No. Sorry, but that is the old discussion "How important are support troops?"

Logistics, communications, intelligence, ... are as vital as the actual combat troops. There is a saying: "Amateurs think about tactic, professionals about logistics.".

The soldiers in support branches can be as vital and as professional as every combat-wishing warrior, they might not be as professional as combat-troops when it is about combat, but you wouldn't use a combat-troop-soldier to manage your logistics, wouldn't you?

Everyone needs to fulfill his duty in a professional army and a certain wish to fulfill this duty outside of training isn't wrong, but reducing this wish to mere combat is probably to close-minded.

 

I don't say you're wrong, but that I, personally, can't share the majority of your thoughts as a measurment for professionalism.

Great reply, well thought out. Have to agree on the German army of WWII we studied their efforts in detail while in ROTC. One of the many great attributes the German army had was that soldiers were taught to think for themselves and thus loss of an officer or non com didn't freeze the unit in place and create confusion and disorganization like it would in many other army's.

I always found it fascinating that some army's soldiers were preferred to be ignorant as it made them more passive and less likely to think for themselves they would of course follow every order (especially if they were threatened with execution like in the Soviet army.)

[juv95hrn]

I would like to add that in many wars the British blockaded their opponents in port. This meant that their sailors and crews got more training, practice and experience while being at sea, even if just cruising outside the shore of an enemy naval base. The blockaded counterparts (often the french) could practice gunnery but few sailing manouvers.

 

It is also a fact that french gunnery would more often aim at sails to lessen the advantage of british sailing and manouvering skills. Also the sails were easier to hit for their inexperienced crews. I'm not suggesting this was a very successful tactic but these facts indicate that French crew experience was often lower than British. And since France was a major naval power (the second after Britain) my guess would be that in general the British crews and officers were the most profficient ones.

 

Now there are a whole lot of other different factors of course but these facts haven't been mentioned yet I believe.

 

Looking forward to testing this game out!

[thomas aagaard]

An example: The German army of the second world war is always depicted as a harsh disciplined army in movies in which soldiers can't think for themselves, while in fact it is the army that offers its leading personal the most freedom in their decisions up to squad/ team-level.

There was a moment, I think it was in the German-French war, as a General-Staff-Officer made a mistake. The Kaiser was enraged about it and the General tried to defend himself "But my Kaiser, I followed your orders!", the Kaiser replied "I haven't made you to a General because I wanted you to follow my orders, I made you General because I wanted you to know when you don't have to follow my orders."

Flexibility, creativity and freedom to lead are also important factors of professionality.

 

Sense the German Empire was not formed until after the franco-prussian war that can't be true ;-)

I believe The story is abut Frederick the great and one of his officers during the Prussian 7 year war. (what the Americans usual call the french and Indian war)

but the point is still good. From mid 19th century and until the middle of WWII German officers at all levels was expected to think for them self and if needed also know when orders no longer made sense.  The command style was also focus on the goals and let the officers do the planing them self.

Company commanders was also expected to know the first name of all his men. During war The Platoon commanders should know about their families, name of wives and children and be able to talk with the soldiers about problems on the homefront. 

[Saintduiex]

I'll only say it on this thread, but the English, hands down.

[Thonar]

Sense the German Empire was not formed until after the franco-prussian war that can't be true ;-)

I believe The story is abut Frederick the great and one of his officers during the Prussian 7 year war. (what the Americans usual call the french and Indian war)

but the point is still good. From mid 19th century and until the middle of WWII German officers at all levels was expected to think for them self and if needed also know when orders no longer made sense.  The command style was also focus on the goals and let the officers do the planing them self.

Company commanders was also expected to know the first name of all his men. During war The Platoon commanders should know about their families, name of wives and children and be able to talk with the soldiers about problems on the homefront. 

 

Why can't it have happened in the German-French War (as we Germans call it, in the Anglossphere it is known as the Prussian-French War)?

Also: The Kaiser was declared as Kaiser in January 1871, the Constitution of the German Empire was declared in April 1871 and only in May 1871 the German-French-War ended.

I might to remember that it was a General-Staff-Officer, and the General-Staff just existed since the early/mid 19th century, so the 7-years-war is maybe out of question.

Still: I don't even know if this anecdote is true at all, but it is a nice one to explain a certain way of thinking (and actually one that differs from the understanding of Officers who were educated in the third Reich, thus also my theory that the Wehrmacht was a downfall in the German armies, and it differs from the General believe of the German army).

I could be wrong about it, tough, no doubt.

 

Otherwise, the same leading-principles are still in place today and were even enhanced ("Inner Leading"), but the principal is not "goal-oriented", as you call it, but "intent-oriented".

 

Sincerely,

Thonar

[shifty]

Isn't there a simple metric? Take all naval battles where a weaker side won the battle and count which country did that most. It has got to be an amalgamation of professionalism of officers, crews and shipbuilding.

Edited March 12, 2015 by shifty

[Thonar]

Isn't there a simple metric? Take all naval battles where a weaker side won the battle and count which country did that most. It has got to be an amalgamation of professionalism of officers, crews and shipbuilding.

 

Well, it's not that easy, because you need to answer the question: Which one was the weaker side? How to measure strength in a battle? In which relation to eachother are professionalism, numerical strength, quality of training, ...

[Rolf81]

I have no doubt about it that the Royal Navy was the most professional navy at the end of the age of sail. The high standard in the officer corps and having gotten priority by government in funding over the army (island nation) are the biggest reasons for this.

Early on in the 1600´s during the British-Dutch wars the battles were hard fought and often a close call. The biggest disdvantage for the Dutch was that although they were highly professional as seafarers, there was no big standing navy. The Dutch navy consisted of ships from 5 different admiralty´s and when neccessery a supreme commander would be appointed for the combined fleet. There was rivalry between the admirals of the different admiralty´s what was sometimes carried into battle. When needed the Dutch fleet was beefed by adding armed merchant vessels to the fleet. Although they used big east indiamen, they were outclassed by their opponents in the line.