Changes

==The Navy War: Convoys Overcome the U-Boat Blockade<ref> The Navy was not officially part of the AEF, but it transported all the soldiers and convoyed critical supplies.</ref>==  

==The Navy War: Convoys Overcome the U-Boat Blockade<ref> The Navy was not officially part of the AEF, but it transported all the soldiers and convoyed critical supplies.</ref>==  

Preparedness efforts in 1916 resulted in an Army that was too small, and, paradoxically, a Navy that was too large. Caught up with the Mahanian doctrine of the decisive surface battle, the Navy sought and was given the budgeting for a "fleet second to none"--that is, a fleet larger than Britain's. The goal was to defend against the far-fetched notion of a simultaneous war against Britain and Japan. That was a "worst case" scenario that overlooked the real "worst case" of control of the Atlantic by German submarines. From 1916 to 1918, manpower expanded by a factor of 9, and Navy yards began building big ships. Even after 1917 the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral William Benson, seemed more troubled by the hypothetical long-term threat posed by Britain and Japan rather than the submarines that were torpedoing Allied ships.,ref> By contrast in World War II, Roosevelt, working closely with Churchill again, was committed to building up the British forces, to the point of transferring old destroyers and new airplanes to them, much to the dismay of US military leaders.</ref> He decided to keep most of his big ships out of European waters--and most of the Navy never saw action during the war. Benson's doctrine was faulty, but Admiral [[William Sims]], US naval commander in London, correctly grasped the situation. In cooperation with Franklin Roosevelt, and with strong support from the British, including Munitions Minister [[Winston Churchill]], Sims refocused naval strategy on the U-boat threat.  

Preparedness efforts in 1916 resulted in an Army that was too small, and, paradoxically, a Navy that was too large. Caught up with the Mahanian doctrine of the decisive surface battle, the Navy sought and was given the budgeting for a "fleet second to none"--that is, a fleet larger than Britain's. The goal was to defend against the far-fetched notion of a simultaneous war against Britain and Japan. That was a "worst case" scenario that overlooked the real "worst case" of control of the Atlantic by German submarines. From 1916 to 1918, manpower expanded by a factor of 9, and Navy yards began building big ships. Even after 1917 the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral William Benson, seemed more troubled by the hypothetical long-term threat posed by Britain and Japan rather than the submarines that were torpedoing Allied ships.<ref> By contrast in World War II, Roosevelt, working closely with Churchill again, was committed to building up the British forces, to the point of transferring old destroyers and new airplanes to them, much to the dismay of US military leaders.</ref> He decided to keep most of his big ships out of European waters--and most of the Navy never saw action during the war. Benson's doctrine was faulty, but Admiral [[William Sims]], US naval commander in London, correctly grasped the situation. In cooperation with Franklin Roosevelt, and with strong support from the British, including Munitions Minister [[Winston Churchill]], Sims refocused naval strategy on the U-boat threat.  

In strategic terms, the purpose of merchant shipping was to deliver so many tons of cargo per month. Convoys cut the flow of cargo in several ways.<ref> see Paul G. Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) ch 11</ref> The ports could load only so many ships a day; loaded ships had to wait for the last ship to be loaded before sailing. The convoy moved at the speed of the slowest ship, and some ships lacked the navigational skills to stay in formation. The need to synchronize movement well in advance precluded merchants ships from adjusting quickly to particularized opportunities to move cargo from here to there.  

In strategic terms, the purpose of merchant shipping was to deliver so many tons of cargo per month. Convoys cut the flow of cargo in several ways.<ref> see Paul G. Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) ch 11</ref> The ports could load only so many ships a day; loaded ships had to wait for the last ship to be loaded before sailing. The convoy moved at the speed of the slowest ship, and some ships lacked the navigational skills to stay in formation. The need to synchronize movement well in advance precluded merchants ships from adjusting quickly to particularized opportunities to move cargo from here to there.  

The only advantage to convoys was that they got through. A single convoy of 30 ships was almost as hard for a U-boat to locate than a single ship. Therefore a convoy system meant there were far fewer targets that got spotted, and then they had armed escorts that could fight back. The Royal Navy, however, wanted to hoard its destroyers to protect its precious battleships. It made a strong argument using a paper-stone-scissors analogy. Submarines could sneak up on a big battleship and sink it with a torpedo, but the torpedo would probably miss a small destroyer. They could circle and sink subs with a new defensive weapon, the depth charges (drums of TNT set off by water pressure at a certain depth.) Finally the battleships with their heavy guns could sink destroyers from far away, but were too clumsy to circle and sink subs. A complete battle fleet therefore had to have a mix of all three ships, and to detach destroyers for convoy duty would gravely weaken the fleet. The admirals who wanted to hoard their destroyers for the battle fleet were wrong, and were overruled in 1917. Single merchant ships could not survive a year. The life expectancy of a cargo ship traveling alone on the north Atlantic run, including time in port, was nine months. In 1917, 1,300 British ships were lost to subs, and another 840 were attacked and escaped. By contrast the convoy losses were strikingly small: of 16,600 ships convoyed in 1917- 18, only 102 were torpedoed.<ref> Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) p. 365</ref>. The supplies they brought into Britain and France were desperately needed by the armies at the front, and by the civilians at home. It was therefore necessary to assign destroyers to escort convoys. While this involved vast amounts of busywork that distracted the fighting sailors who wanted to blast away at German battleships or aggressively hunt down U-boats, it was the proper way to win a war.  

The only advantage to convoys was that they got through. A single convoy of 30 ships was almost as hard for a U-boat to locate than a single ship. Therefore a convoy system meant there were far fewer targets that got spotted, and then they had armed escorts that could fight back. The Royal Navy, however, wanted to hoard its destroyers to protect its precious battleships. It made a strong argument using a paper-stone-scissors analogy. Submarines could sneak up on a big battleship and sink it with a torpedo, but the torpedo would probably miss a small destroyer. They could circle and sink subs with a new defensive weapon, the depth charges (drums of TNT set off by water pressure at a certain depth.) Finally the battleships with their heavy guns could sink destroyers from far away, but were too clumsy to circle and sink subs. A complete battle fleet therefore had to have a mix of all three ships, and to detach destroyers for convoy duty would gravely weaken the fleet. The admirals who wanted to hoard their destroyers for the battle fleet were wrong, and were overruled in 1917. Single merchant ships could not survive a year. The life expectancy of a cargo ship traveling alone on the north Atlantic run, including time in port, was nine months. In 1917, 1,300 British ships were lost to subs, and another 840 were attacked and escaped. By contrast the convoy losses were strikingly small: of 16,600 ships convoyed in 1917- 18, only 102 were torpedoed.<ref> Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) p. 365</ref>. The supplies they brought into Britain and France were desperately needed by the armies at the front, and by the civilians at home. It was therefore necessary to assign destroyers to escort convoys. While this involved vast amounts of busywork that distracted the fighting sailors who wanted to blast away at German battleships or aggressively hunt down U-boats, it was the proper way to win a war.  

A new way to fight uboats was by airplanes. The Navy began an aviation program, sending rickety biplanes out on over 20,000 anti-submarine missions. They sank no subs but did begin a tradition that would come to dominate the Navy.<ref> Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) pp. 425-6</ref>. Sims did get the American destroyers, which were used to escort US troop ships. British destroyers protected the merchant convoys and aggressively sought out U-boats. Berlin's response to the Allied measures was simply to build more U-boats. They would have been a much greater threat if they had used "wolf- pack" tactics (sending groups of uboats against the convoys) or had threatened the escorts with their powerful surface fleet. As it happened, Germany's U-boats were neutralized and its battle fleet stayed in harbor. The troopships did get through; accidents and torpedo attacks killed only 1300 sailors and 700 troops.<ref> Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) pp. 420-1, 427, 436-7.</ref>  

A new way to fight uboats was by airplanes. The Navy began an aviation program, sending rickety biplanes out on over 20,000 anti-submarine missions. They sank no subs but did begin a tradition that would come to dominate the Navy.<ref> Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) pp. 425-6</ref>. Sims did get the American destroyers, which were used to escort US troop ships. British destroyers protected the merchant convoys and aggressively sought out U-boats. Berlin's response to the Allied measures was simply to build more U-boats. They would have been a much greater threat if they had used "wolf- pack" tactics (sending groups of uboats against the convoys) or had threatened the escorts with their powerful surface fleet. As it happened, Germany's U-boats were neutralized and its battle fleet stayed in harbor. The troopships did get through; accidents and torpedo attacks killed only 1300 sailors and 700 troops.<ref> Halpern, ''A Naval History of World War I'' (1994) pp. 420-1, 427, 436-7.</ref>

 

==The Air Services==  

==The Air Services==  

In April 1917 the Aviation Section of the Army Signal Corps comprised 65 very junior officers and 1,120 enlisted men. with 200 obsolete airplanes at two airfields. The Navy had 39 pilots and 54 planes--and no aircraft carriers. The impetus for expansion came from the French, who proposed an American air arm of 4,500 aircraft for the 1918 campaign, with 2,000 replacements a month. With a tangible goal in hand that was well-suited to the American taste for technology and adventure, the Congress appropriated the vast sum of $640 million.<ref>British statistics suggest that planes lasted six months. Pilots lasted 10 to 16 weeks before they were shot down or lost their touch and were grounded. Lee Kennett, ''First Air War'' (1999), pp 94, 167 </ref>  

In April 1917 the Aviation Section of the Army Signal Corps comprised 65 very junior officers and 1,120 enlisted men. with 200 obsolete airplanes at two airfields. The Navy had 39 pilots and 54 planes--and no aircraft carriers. The impetus for expansion came from the French, who proposed an American air arm of 4,500 aircraft for the 1918 campaign, with 2,000 replacements a month. With a tangible goal in hand that was well-suited to the American taste for technology and adventure, the Congress appropriated the vast sum of $640 million.<ref>British statistics suggest that planes lasted six months. Pilots lasted 10 to 16 weeks before they were shot down or lost their touch and were grounded. Lee Kennett, ''First Air War'' (1999), pp 94, 167 </ref>