World War I, U.S. Naval Operations in
World War I, U.S. Naval Operations in. As a direct response to the war in Europe, the Naval Act of 1916 required the United States to construct a battle fleet equal to that of Britain and able to gain command of the sea. President Woodrow Wilson hoped that this radical change in naval policy would strengthen his hand in efforts to arrange a negotiated peace. The United States entered the war in 1917 before this ambitious program was very far advanced. Thereafter, the peculiar exigencies of naval operations caused its abandonment. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral and noncombatant merchant shipping on the high seas (attack without warning) led to the U.S. intervention. German leaders expected this response, but believed that a maritime strategy, interrupting the flow of supplies to the Allies, would force a decision on the western front within six months, long before U.S. assistance could affect the outcome. This challenge led the United States to concentrate on naval construction to thwart the submarine offensive—building antisubmarine craft to engage the German U‐boats and merchant ships to replace those destroyed at sea. This program forced postponement in constructing battleships and cruisers, the most important elements of a battle fleet.
Adm. William S. Benson, the chief of naval operations, and others wished to continue the 1916 building program, seeking to gain postwar political leverage, but Adm. William S. Sims, sent to London to establish liaison with the British Admiralty, offered counsel that helped fix naval policy for the remainder of the war. Soon grasping the severity of the submarine depredations, Sims urged immediate support of the antisubmarine war. Following British strategy, he became a strong advocate of the convoy, that is, forming groups of merchant ships and escorting them with naval vessels through submarine‐infested waters. This recommendation was accepted in Washington, forcing suspension of the 1916 building program in favor of antisubmarine craft and merchant vessels.
The first move of the Navy Department was to send available reinforcements to European waters. Six destroyers were sent to Queenstown, Ireland, to join the British antisubmarine force there. Others soon followed, helping to escort merchantmen to British ports. U.S. destroyers were later dispatched to the Mediterranean Sea, assisting the Allied fleet there to protect communications with Asia. Beside destroyers, the United States built small submarine chasers, of which 235 reached European waters. In all cases, ships under Sims's control operated under Allied commanders. Thus, American vessels were effectively integrated into the Allied navies, especially the Royal Navy. This approach meant that the U.S. Navy, unlike the army, which resisted integration into European commands, was able to make an early, sustained, and significant contribution to the Allied cause.
In 1918, Admiral Benson pushed for the development of a strong escort service based at the French port of Brest to cover the arrival of the American Expeditionary Force. This force soon became larger than the one at Queenstown that protected commerce. The British continued to stress escort of merchant shipping, but the U.S. Navy Department concerned itself primarily with American army troop transports. Sims supported the Admiralty view, which strengthened the impression that his was unduly pro‐British. Fortunately, conflicts over this questions were kept within reasonable bounds; sufficient resources were found to maintain both types of escort duty. No loaded American troop transports were sunk en route to Europe, although several empty vessels were torpedoed while returning to the United States.
The inter‐Allied antisubmarine campaign eventually contained the German undersea offensive, although the U‐boats were never defeated decisively. Allied tonnage losses were cut from 875,000 tons in April 1917 to about 260,000 tons in April 1918. Effective management techniques and merchant ship construction were sufficient to preserve maritime communications.
During 1918, Admiral Sims devoted considerable attention to the Allied Naval Council, founded to coordinate inter‐Allied naval campaigns. Allied shipping losses in the Mediterranean, especially to Austrian submarines operating from the Adriatic ports of Pola and Cattaro, led Sims to urge offensive naval operations in that theater, particularly raids on enemy bases and barrages to interdict the passage of submarines through choke points such as the Strait of Otranto at the southern end of the Adriatic. This endeavor led to nothing because the Italian Navy effectively opposed operations that might endanger its ships. The Italian government wished to preserve its fleet as leverage in support of postwar territorial claims. Nevertheless, U.S. naval vessels, including thirty‐six submarine chasers, supported the barrage between Otranto and Corfu.
During 1918, the U.S. Navy made two other contributions to the naval war. U.S. super‐battleships (Dreadnoughts) were sent to the North Sea, becoming the Sixth Battle Squadron of the British Grand Fleet. These vessels helped to continue to contain the German High Sea Fleet in its bases. A more ambitious enterprise was the construction of the huge North Sea Mine Barrage, which the Navy Department sponsored despite initial British resistance. The Anglo‐American Mining Squadron laid a belt of 75,000 naval mines between the Orkney Islands and the coast of Norway. About 240 miles long and 15 to 35 miles wide, it was intended to force U‐boats to proceed to the Atlantic Ocean through the English Channel, a dangerous passage. The barrage was not completed until just before the armistice of November 11, too late for a thorough test. Four U‐boats were confirmed lost, and perhaps an equal number more were also destroyed.
Although the U.S. Navy did not conduct independent operations and maneuvered few vessels other than those on antisubmarine duty, it lent notable support to the victory at sea in World War I. Admiral Sims, critical of his superiors' skepticism about his recommendations, precipitated a postwar congressional investigation of the Navy Department, complaining that it had moved slowly and inefficiently during the crises of 1917. Nevertheless, because of its effective antisubmarine work and the protection of the troopships, the U.S. Navy emerged from the war with enhanced prestige and valuable experience that would prove useful during World War II despite the naval disarmament treaties of the interwar years.
[See also Sea Warfare; Strategy: Naval Warfare Strategy; World War I: Military and Diplomatic Course.]
Adm. William S. Benson, the chief of naval operations, and others wished to continue the 1916 building program, seeking to gain postwar political leverage, but Adm. William S. Sims, sent to London to establish liaison with the British Admiralty, offered counsel that helped fix naval policy for the remainder of the war. Soon grasping the severity of the submarine depredations, Sims urged immediate support of the antisubmarine war. Following British strategy, he became a strong advocate of the convoy, that is, forming groups of merchant ships and escorting them with naval vessels through submarine‐infested waters. This recommendation was accepted in Washington, forcing suspension of the 1916 building program in favor of antisubmarine craft and merchant vessels.
The first move of the Navy Department was to send available reinforcements to European waters. Six destroyers were sent to Queenstown, Ireland, to join the British antisubmarine force there. Others soon followed, helping to escort merchantmen to British ports. U.S. destroyers were later dispatched to the Mediterranean Sea, assisting the Allied fleet there to protect communications with Asia. Beside destroyers, the United States built small submarine chasers, of which 235 reached European waters. In all cases, ships under Sims's control operated under Allied commanders. Thus, American vessels were effectively integrated into the Allied navies, especially the Royal Navy. This approach meant that the U.S. Navy, unlike the army, which resisted integration into European commands, was able to make an early, sustained, and significant contribution to the Allied cause.
In 1918, Admiral Benson pushed for the development of a strong escort service based at the French port of Brest to cover the arrival of the American Expeditionary Force. This force soon became larger than the one at Queenstown that protected commerce. The British continued to stress escort of merchant shipping, but the U.S. Navy Department concerned itself primarily with American army troop transports. Sims supported the Admiralty view, which strengthened the impression that his was unduly pro‐British. Fortunately, conflicts over this questions were kept within reasonable bounds; sufficient resources were found to maintain both types of escort duty. No loaded American troop transports were sunk en route to Europe, although several empty vessels were torpedoed while returning to the United States.
The inter‐Allied antisubmarine campaign eventually contained the German undersea offensive, although the U‐boats were never defeated decisively. Allied tonnage losses were cut from 875,000 tons in April 1917 to about 260,000 tons in April 1918. Effective management techniques and merchant ship construction were sufficient to preserve maritime communications.
During 1918, Admiral Sims devoted considerable attention to the Allied Naval Council, founded to coordinate inter‐Allied naval campaigns. Allied shipping losses in the Mediterranean, especially to Austrian submarines operating from the Adriatic ports of Pola and Cattaro, led Sims to urge offensive naval operations in that theater, particularly raids on enemy bases and barrages to interdict the passage of submarines through choke points such as the Strait of Otranto at the southern end of the Adriatic. This endeavor led to nothing because the Italian Navy effectively opposed operations that might endanger its ships. The Italian government wished to preserve its fleet as leverage in support of postwar territorial claims. Nevertheless, U.S. naval vessels, including thirty‐six submarine chasers, supported the barrage between Otranto and Corfu.
During 1918, the U.S. Navy made two other contributions to the naval war. U.S. super‐battleships (Dreadnoughts) were sent to the North Sea, becoming the Sixth Battle Squadron of the British Grand Fleet. These vessels helped to continue to contain the German High Sea Fleet in its bases. A more ambitious enterprise was the construction of the huge North Sea Mine Barrage, which the Navy Department sponsored despite initial British resistance. The Anglo‐American Mining Squadron laid a belt of 75,000 naval mines between the Orkney Islands and the coast of Norway. About 240 miles long and 15 to 35 miles wide, it was intended to force U‐boats to proceed to the Atlantic Ocean through the English Channel, a dangerous passage. The barrage was not completed until just before the armistice of November 11, too late for a thorough test. Four U‐boats were confirmed lost, and perhaps an equal number more were also destroyed.
Although the U.S. Navy did not conduct independent operations and maneuvered few vessels other than those on antisubmarine duty, it lent notable support to the victory at sea in World War I. Admiral Sims, critical of his superiors' skepticism about his recommendations, precipitated a postwar congressional investigation of the Navy Department, complaining that it had moved slowly and inefficiently during the crises of 1917. Nevertheless, because of its effective antisubmarine work and the protection of the troopships, the U.S. Navy emerged from the war with enhanced prestige and valuable experience that would prove useful during World War II despite the naval disarmament treaties of the interwar years.
[See also Sea Warfare; Strategy: Naval Warfare Strategy; World War I: Military and Diplomatic Course.]
Bibliography
Elting E. Morison , Admiral Sims and the Modern American Navy, 1942.
E. David Cronon , The Cabinet Diaries of Josephus Daniels, 1913–1921, 1963.
Thomas G. Frothingham , The Naval History of the World War, 3 vols., 1971.
David F. Trask , Captains and Cabinets: Anglo‐American Naval Relations, 1917–1918, 1972.
William S. Sims , The Victory at Sea, ed. David F. Trask, 1984.
Mary Klachko with and David F. Trask , Admiral William Shepherd Benson: First Chief of Naval Operations, 1987.
Paul G. Halperin , A Naval History of World War I, 1994.
David F. Trask
More From encyclopedia.com
About this article
World War I, U.S. Naval Operations in
NEARBY TERMS
World War I, U.S. Naval Operations in