Talk:United States Navy

It light of a recent edit and subsequent revert, that leaves the lead current only as of 2015, it might be worthwhile to update and expand this item in the lead. While the USN was the largest, the China PLAN has taken over that distinction as of 2021. But as pointed out in this article from The Diplomat, it's not that simple and straight-forward. While China has a greater overall number of combat vessels, they are largely on the smaller end of the scale in both size and capability. Those numbers seem to be China's only advantage. The US still has more carriers, large combatants, a sizable Coast Guard and of real note; allies. Along with the UK, Commonwealth Nations and NATO, the US is allies with no less than 6 Pac-Rim nations with navies. China's only allied navy is North Korea. I thought I would I post this here and see what discussion and edits it may lead to. - wolf 18:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

A notation regarding this issue was added to the lead History of the United States Navy today, by user ERAGON. So again, perhaps there should be some discussion on this. (@Fnlayson:... any thoughts?) - wolf 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I did use the term "raw number of ships" for that reason, as I'm aware that by other metrics- such as power projection- the USN remains the most powerful. A qualifier could be added to that statement regarding power projection perhaps. I also just tweaked the start date for US naval supremacy to 1943 rather than 1945, as that was the date it overtook the rest of the world combined in terms of ship count.--ERAGON (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be best to simplify the text to something like "largest navy in the world based on tonnage" to avoid most ships debates. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That works for me.--ERAGON (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

A quick comment. I think it's fair to say that the "larger than the next 13 navies combined" in terms of tonnage is now outdated in light of China's vast naval buildup and can probably now be removed. Skyrover 19:46, 23 June 2021 (GMT)

• Yes that statement is a few years old but the date is clearly stated. Without supercariers, China's total tonnage has not changed that much in comparison to the US's total. But the comparison should updated with newer data. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Garuda28: you just decided to remove that now, with no further additions or discussion? - wolf 01:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Whoops. Totally missed this conversation. Took from (https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-navy-with-355-ships-and-counting-says-pentagon). Self reverting now. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, np & thanks. I agree that the statement as is might be problematic (others have edited it out as well), I just figured that if it is to be changed, then more clarification should be added. But that's just imo. This would need some input from others as well, I would think. Cheers - wolf 13:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Swatjester: — Okay, thanks for looking out. Yes, I realize some of the information (about how naval history is gathered) is less than adequately sourced. I was in the process of finding reliable sources that cover the material in question specifically. For now, if it's doable, I will only include the generic information about names, ranks, addresses etc, and notable examples (Pearl Harbor) which is straight forward info, which I believe the sources provided cover more than adequately. Below is what I propose to include, with what will be left out striked out.

While at sea the principle method used for crew members to communicate with family, friends and others has always been through the naval mail system. Letters sent by crew members date back since the beginning of the navy, and are often referenced by naval historians and collectors as a supplementary source of information. Reliable accounts about naval history is usually established by historians and journalists who consult letters, logbooks, official documents and newspapers.

 

Letters and other correspondence sent by commanders, officers and crew members bear names, ranks, signatures, addresses, ship's postmarks and often confirm dates and locations of various ships and crew members during various battles and other naval operations. Among the more notable examples of Naval postal history include letters sent from the USS Arizona before and on December 7 1941.^[1][2][3]

Yeah it's not that the material itself is inappropriate, it's just that it needs better sourcing and clarity of language supporting claims like "has always been..." and "the principal method". Those two in particular seem to be pretty significant claims that merit directly attributing sourcing; most of the rest of it is pretty uncontroversial. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your prompt reply. I'll go ahead and re-include the basic stuff, and as said, look for sources that specifically address the issues in question. If necessary, we can change phrases like, "has always been", changing it to "has often been", and "the principal method", can be changed to a "method sometimes used", which the examples themselves can easily substantiate. If you have the time, or inclination, any insights and sources you can come up with would be more than welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

• I've 'unearted' some images that you might appreciate that can be included in the article. Just as an aside, people often take for granted how history is put together, and in the case of Naval History, usually don't realize that the historical accounts are primarily the product of accounts from the commanders and crew members themselves, as they provide the logbooks, dated correspondence and other such documents. This is why, imo, a brief section on this advent would do the US Navy article justice, because after all, the life force of the US Navy are the commanders and crews. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who is vice admiral for 53rd fleet 2600:1007:B061:6A74:0:45:7583:A901 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The US Navy is one of multiple US Maritime branches Travelingsponge (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The intro should accurately read "The United States Navy (USN) is one of the two maritime service branches of the United States Armed Forces, and one of the eight uniformed services of the United States."

This edit highlights the unique structure and strength of US maritime/naval employment.The USN and USCG are both maritime military branches. Title 14 of US Code (14USC101) states "The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." This article must reflect how the USN fits into US maritime joint strategy.

Citing the US Navy as "the" maritime branch is based on opinion not US Law or historic Defense readiness/combat operations carried out by the US Coast Guard in every major American conflict, including both World Wars, and Vietnam. Most concerning for this article is that it robs the US Navy of historical partnership with a coequal military branch and discounts current US strategic policy outlined in the Tri-Service Document Advantage At Sea published in 2020 highlights the joint operability of the US's three Naval Services (Navy/Marines/Coast Guard). Details regarding this document can be read on the following USN website: https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2449829/navy-marine-corps-coast-guard-release-maritime-strategy/ Travelingsponge (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless someone beats me to it, I am going to revert your edit. You are correct to start a discussion here. While that discussion proceeds, the article status quo should remain in place. Do not re-add your preferred text without first obtaining consensus for the change here. See WP:BRD.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Trapist the monk for engaging in the talk section and pointing out the WP:BRD process. I look forward to working here with the Wiki community on this topic, and reviewing provided sources. As I have already cited multiple official sources, including US Law and joint sevice documentation, can you speak to reverting to the previous wording. Travelingsponge (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the previous wording implies a level of co-equality between the Navy and the USCG, which only has it's military responsibilities in limited scenarios. On that logic, we should count the Army in that number by virtue of the Army Transportation Corps' several Maritime Operations offices, and the fact that the U.S. Army has more boats in service than the Navy does, and even Coasties refer to the "Army's Navy". Since this is the article about the Navy and not the USCG, the appropriate resolution would be to reword it as "The United States Navy (USN) is the primary maritime service branch of the United States Armed Forces...". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is due to the fact that this is the USNs page that specificity is needed. It's a matter of accuracy, not pride. The USN and USCG are separate and co-equal branches of military, with mission sets that overlap in many maritime areas. Maritime as defined by Dictionary.com is "associated with the sea or waterways to the sea in relation to navigation, shipping, etc.:" The Coast Guard and Navy are both branches with primary maritime focus. The Navy's mission is to fight and win America's wars at sea, and to train to fight and win America's wars at sea. The Coast Guard's mission is to promote, enforce and defend US interests and sovereignty throughout the maritime domaine during times of peace and war. To miss this point is to not fully appreciate the USN's focussed role in our National Defense; this is critical because it is different than tge way other countries manage their maritime defense. Neither service (USN or USCG) is superior to the other. The argument that the Army could be defined as a maritime branch because it has numerically more vessels than the Navy does not actually make logical sense; the Army's mission and culture is 100% ground forces focused. Additionally, all branches of the military are co-equal. Travelingsponge (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And that's exactly my point why we need to include the word primary, and the reason I used the Army example -- the paragraph in the lede is not making arguments about whether they are co-equal for legal purposes, but about which one is the primary maritime branch of the Armed Forces (which is the Navy). Otherwise if the criteria is merely "is a co-equal service branch and has some degree of maritime mission" we'd have to include the Army as well (FWIW while I personally spent much of my Army career in units with small boat missions including a combat deployment in Iraq doing riverine operations, I have no illusion that our branch has anything other than a tertiary role after the Navy and the USCG, but we absolutely do have a small but historically relevant maritime missionset that we've demonstrated from Santiago in 1898 through the 21st century). In any event, by funding (USN FY23 ~$245B vs USCG FY23 $13B), by personnel count (USN ~438,500 active + reserve vs USCG 57,000 active/reserve/civilian), by tonnage of combatant vessels, by warhead count, by seniority of service, and by historical custom, the U.S. Navy has always been the lead maritime service of the U.S. and it would be misleading to represent otherwise. In the current version, the word primary being missing implies that no other branch has a maritime mission which is not great.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually really like incorporating "primary", however, use of the term "maritime" precludes its use. Size and funding alone doesn't make the Navy the primary maritime service, it simply points to its primary mission being more costly. That logic would point to the Depatment of the Navy being the "primary military department" because it's military and it's departmental budget is higher than the Departments of the Army and Airforce. The Marine Corps is senior to the Navy, but it doesn't have military primacy over the Navy as a branch simply because of service seniority; branch seniority has to do with inter Depatmental etiquette and is based on the USMC's historical claims to date of establishment. The claim that the USN "has always been the lead maritime service" is historically inaccurate. After the disbanding of the Continental Navy, the US was without a naval service until 1790. In that year the Revenue Cutter Service (the name of the USCG until restructuring in 1915), became the sole US naval/maritime branch until 1794 when the USN was re-established. Since 1794 I would agree the USN has been the primary naval warfare branch, but not the primary maritime branch. If both USN & USCG served identical functions in the national defense (w/ USCG simply being a mini USN) than US Navy would be primary. However, each service has unique, but fully maritime, functions that they specialize in (even in warfare.) Travelingsponge (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any issue with saying the Navy is the maritime service. It is clear that it is the primary naval/maritime/sea service, with both the Coast Guard (when in the DoN) and the Marine Corps (when doing naval things) operating in support of it. Aerospace8672 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The USMC and USCG do not function generically in support of the USN. All three branches function together in support of United States strategic maritime goals at all times. The specific operation/mission being executed at any given time determines which branch has lead and which branches are in support. All three are jointly "the Naval Service" of this country; this is not simply opinion to be agreed with or discounted, it is published tri-service strategic doctrine (Advatage at Sea, December 2020); previously cited and linked here again: [1]https://news.usni.org/2020/12/17/u-s-maritime-strategy-advantage-at-sea.

It is important to not conflate the US Navy branch with the Deparment of the Navy. The branch exists inside of the DON, just as the USMC does. The co-equal branch of the USCG resides in DHS (unless transfered to DON.) The common misconseption that the USMC is subodinate to the USN is the reason there was a strong push to rename the DON "The Department of the Navy and Marine Corps" which can be read about on the USN wiki page. Travelingsponge (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I find myself agreeing mostly with the original poster. If the word "maritime" is used, then the navy must be considered one of multiple maritime services. I do slightly disagree with the original edit though, and believe the word "two" should be omitted from it. It seems obvious after reviewing the cited materials that both the Marine Corps and US Coast Guard are both clearly maritime branches with distinct missions that support the national defense. The Coast Guard is definitely a military branch at all times per the US code cited, regardless of the department it resides in (DHS or transfer to DON/DOD), and 100% of its mission focus is maritime. The Marine Corps specializes in coastal and littoral combat, and culturally has always been a maritime branch. Neither the USMC or USCG are ever in the Navy, but all three work together to protect America's maritime interests in specialized ways. Reading the linked joint service strategy it's obvious that each of the three service's leadership consider each other's separate branches to be maritime and co-equal. I suggest the edit read "The US Navy is one of the maritime branches of the US armed forces..." or "The US Navy is the largest maritime branch of the US armed forces..." The first would be most accurate and my preferred. However, the second option would be a way to convey a singular status for the Navy that is at least accurate (if a singular distinction is desired for some reason.) Curious4more (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very good point made by Curious4more. Reviewing the Marine Corp's wiki page, it uses very similarly worded language as the Navy sentence being discussed here, stating that the Corps "is the maritime land force".

First - the definite article here makes sense because maritime is clarified by land force.

Second - this and numerous other sources make clear that the Marine Corps is a maritime armed force with a specialized mission, skill set and culture that is definitely maritime.

Regarding the suggested changes to the original edit by Curious4more, I like either, but prefer the largest because the Navy's page should provide a maximum amount of distinctive (but accurate) verbiage regarding that specific branch. Travelingsponge (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We should keep in mind that our article on Navy -- the general term, not country specific -- defines a Navy as A navy, naval force, military maritime fleet, war navy, or maritime force is the branch of a nation's armed forces principally designated for naval and amphibious warfare; namely, lake-borne, riverine, littoral, or ocean-borne combat operations and related functions. It includes anything conducted by surface ships, amphibious ships, submarines, and seaborne aviation, as well as ancillary support, communications, training, and other fields. We further define naval warfare as Naval warfare is combat in and on the sea, the ocean, or any other battlespace involving a major body of water such as a large lake or wide river By these definitions, only the USN, not the USCG or USMC, would count as a "maritime force". Likewise, our article on generic Coast guards defines those as A coast guard or coastguard is a maritime security organization of a particular country. There is a significant difference between maritime security and maritime warfare, as we've already established in this discussion. I would reword to "The United States Navy (USN) is the maritime warfare branch of the United States Armed Forces, and one of the eight uniformed services of the United States."⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Coast Guard wiki article quote referenced above is cut short at a very odd place. Immediately following what was quoted the article goes on to justify my point by stating, "The term (Coast Guard) embraces a wide range of responsibilities in different countries, from being a heavily armed military force with customs and security duties, to being a volunteer organization tasked with search and rescue without law enforcement authority."

Later in the article it states, "The coast guard may... be a branch of a country's military, a law enforcement agency, or a search and rescue body. For example, the United States Coast Guard is a specialized military branch with law enforcement authority."

In other words, the article is saying that some countries' CGs fulfill some of those missions; ours just so happens to fulfill all of them. In fact some maritime nation's don't have a Coast Guard at all, they just use their navy to fulfill all of those maritime roles; by your reasoning those countries would infact have no Navy, but instead a Coast Guard (which some how would not be considered maritime or military.)

While I love Wikipedia, for obvious reasons it should not be used as a sole resource.

For example, our USN article oddly links the word "maritime" to the "naval warfare" article, which is clearly not what the word "maritime" means, and is somewhat circular reasoning for this debate.

I have already referenced numerous resources (specifically official military doctrine, laws and US government documents) that clearly point to the fact that the mighty United States has more than one maritime branch of its armed forces.

In order to justify using "the maritime branch..." in the US Navy wiki article, what is needed (without using personal opinion or wikipedia as examples) are references to support the statement that "only the USN counts as a US maritime force, not the USCG or USMC."

Wikipedia currently lumps the term "maritime force" into its genaric world navy definition. However, what this really points to, is that our nation actually has multiple naval forces, as opposed to supporting the idea that the U.S.A. only have a single maritime force.

Simply put, the U.S. is not the same as other nations; general global definitions need to be appropriately interpereted and applied to the specific nation being discussed. For example, our neighbor to the north Canada, has a Navy that very closely resembles the structure and mission of the US Coast Guard. Meanwhile, the purely civilian Canadian Coast Guard is a life saving organization (with no military or LE roles), and it more closely matches the non-military British CG model. For the Canucks, both their Navy and CG are maritime, but only one is a maritime military branch.

Unless someone somehow can argue that the Canadian Navy (which is structured and functions similarly to the USCG) is not a maritime military force, then it must be acknowledged that the US has multiple maritime branches (the USN/USCG/USMC). Travelingsponge (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply