Carriers!: “The Queens of the Sea” … and/or naval chessboard? (fwd)

January 2nd, 2009

From Thu Jun 19 14:05:05 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom3.ecnet.net: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:04:25 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom3
>To: marhst-l@qucdn.queensu.ca, mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Carriers!: “The Queens of the Sea” … and/or naval >chessboard? (fwd)
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>My e-mail still isn’t receiving (until I get rid of another 3MB from
> my account, but I thought you folks might enjoy this post from times
> past. 🙂
>
>Lou Coatney
>
>———- Forwarded message ———-
>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 21:46:49 -0600 (CST)
>
> > I would love to hear your naval version. I am a bit skeptical of calling
> > airpower the queen though. But then I usually think of “strategic
> > bombing” when I think of airpower.
>
>OK, David, here’s my (WWII era) naval assignments to the chessboard:
>
>Pawns: Destroyers — workhorses of the sea. Sentinels/guardians.
> They travel and fight best in squadrons.
>
>Knights: Submarines — you never know where they’re going to
> plop down … “pop up.” 🙂 They love to penetrate pawn/
> destroyer lines/screens.
>
>Bishops: Light cruisers adept at slashing attack and dedicated
> to complementing (or killing) destroyers/pawns.
>
>Rooks: Heavy cruisers — also farther-ranging than destroyers/
> pawns and heavier/orthogonal hitters than light cruisers.
> (Somehow, 8″ guns seem more “orthogonal,” and 6″ guns seem
> more “diagonal,” anyway.)
>
>Queen: Aircraft carrier — “fast carriers,” far-ranging and strategic
> in capability like submarines. OK! OK! So carriers are not
> mere combination gun platforms of 8″ and 6″ guns — despite
> their pre-WWII attempts at gun armament. However!: think
> of them as the combined (sea)plane strength of a light and
> heavy cruiser … ? NAAAAAAAAAAAAH 🙂
> I suppose that sub-mariners could make a good case that
> flattops are just bigger/juicier targets, now, and that
> the most powerful pieces on the board should be sub-marine,
> but my opinion *is* WWII era.
>
>King: Battleship — the main battle line. The weapon of last
> resort. Slow. HEAVY. (Larry Clemens? Anyone? What is
> the term for battlewagons, reflecting their commitment being
> their nation’s ultimate throw of the dice? The *capital*
> ship?)
>
>I had considered Rooks as the battleships and the King the
> invasion and/or merchant fleet, but ….
>
>(Sir! This is my cruiser. This is my carrier! This is for
> probing. This is for … ummm … the Harrier? 🙂 )
>
>Lou Coatney, Admiral of the Checkered Sea
> mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
>Also, is that maritime/naval list in existence yet? Does
> anyone have the address?
>
>Thanks.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

Purpose
The Mahan Naval Discussion List hosted here at NavalStrategy.org is to foster discussion and debate on the relevance of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world.
Links