Talk:United States Navy

"Largest Navy in the world"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 I think it's fair to say that the "larger than the next 13 navies combined" in terms of tonnage is now outdated in light of China's vast naval buildup and can probably now be removed.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)

Continued

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

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)

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)

Naval postal history

@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.

There is a US naval post office aboard nearly every US Navy ship, each with its own postal officer and postmark bearing the ship's name.

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.

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)

• 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)

USS Oklahoma, postal cover signed by Admiral John Wainwright, US Navy, postmarked 5 March 1932

• 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)

References

Vice Admiral for 53 Rd Fleet

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

Multiple US Military Maritime branches

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I actually really like incorporating "primary", however, it's the use of the term "maritime" that precludes use 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 its military and its budget is higher than the Departments of the Army and Airforce. The Marine Corps doesn't have military primacy over the Navy as a branch simply because of service seniority; branch seniority has to do with Depatment etiquette and combined with 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 with the establishment of the Revenue Cutter Service (the name of the USCG until restructuring in 1915), which was 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 this would be the case. However, each service has unique but fully maritime functions that they specialize in (even in warfare.) Travelingsponge (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 being executed determines which branch is lead and which branches are in support. All three are jointly "the Naval Service" of this country, and 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 branch known as the Navy 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)