Sea control and sea denial - and the difference between naval and land warfare

[@Kimjongilmao]

I think I’ve watched all of your videos now. You have such a great lecturing style and you’re very compelling to listen to! Thank you so much for putting your time and expertise into these

[@PpAirO5]

Agree.

[@bodstrup]

If ‘that part of the ocean’ contains oil or gas - I do see nations going to war over a spot in the ocean 😀

[@77LCJ]

The war is almost always won on land, but it can be lost at sea or in the air.

[@anderspuck]

That’s true.

[@CorePathway]

I would make a distinction: In both Desert Storms the US & Allies pummeled the Iraqis MERCILESSLY. Sure the ground forces took the ground but without much resistance. The US especially now is casualty-adverse and therefore will not allow ground troops to engage in a fair fight; it’s always gonna be overwhelming force under an uncontested sky and ludicrous levels of naval support if applicable.

[@77LCJ]

@@CorePathway That is understood and true. But the point remains that it was the taking of the ground, that was significant. So the inability to provide that amount of support from air/sea would mean that the forces operating in those domains lost the war if that such support was needed to capture the ground. Whereas tha availability of such support would provide the army the opportunity to win the war. The ground forces wins wars, the rest of us (naval officer myself) makes that possible or looses wars. Of course there are ecxeptions, mostly because of geografical oddities.

[@FoxDren]

the War is almost always won by Diplomats and Politicians sat behind a desk or around a table. the wholesale slaughter of young men is simply a sideshow

[@edwardblair4096]

The sinking of the Moscva (sp?) and further actions on Snake Island show how you can engage in Sea Denial operations even if you don't have a navy of your own.

[@hydrolifetech7911]

Moskva sinking perfectly exemplified the two concepts in the video and the mentioned disparity of costs involved.

[@edwardblair4096]

Another case to study is China's power projection in the South China Sea. They are building up the infrastructure to be able to claim both military and economic sea control of as much of the South China Sea as they can get away with. While technically Sea Control and Sea Denial might only apply in times of war, posturing, such as building new islands, holding joint sea exercises, etc. , will shape how the various players think about starting or conducting any wars that come up.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

Sea control and sea denial are Russia's Achilles heel. They need four fleets for control. Baltic/Atlantic, easily blocked by Norway and Denmark. Black Sea, blocked by Turkey. Pacific, far from its main population centres and logistic supply chain. Arctic, limited by sea ice.

[@tomvobbe9538]

What a good channel. I think it's going to blow up. Though you could improve your audio a bit. It's a little echoey

[@afleser]

Very informative and well constructed story. Thankyou

[@aldosterone2348]

Explanation very well conducted and especially very actual in the Black Sea

[@FoxDren]

"you can't occupy territory at sea" pretty sure China, the USA and portugal will dispute you on that claim

[@paolom2376]

nice ...defense and attack as a different balance even beyond clausewitzian interpretation in the sea especially

[@Italian_Military_Archives]

Thank you for explaining in simple terms these two pivotal concepts

[@sebastianbruns6212]

Excellent!

[@anderspuck]

Thanks.

[@TzunSu]

As a Swede, i must say it somewhat rankles to hear a Danish naval officer talking about the importance of sea denial, after bottling us into the Baltic for the last 800 or so years ;) Goddamn Öresundstull!

[@PpAirO5]

Hi, neighbour 🇩🇰🤝🇸🇪 😁

[@nigeldeforrest-pearce8084]

Excellent and Outstanding!!!

[@matikramer9648]

Thank you

[@HarryWHill-GA]

Ex Scientia Tridens (From Knowledge Seapower)

[@Cptnbond]

Any comments on sea denial by having sea area excluded for military exercises. If I remember correctly, Russia blocked almost all Ukrainian coastlines the days before the invasion to keep anyone out and possibly prepare a landing. Strangely enough, it never happened. Are there any established rules about how large such an area can be and how long this can be used in international water?

[@77thTrombone]

As an ex-US Navy guy, it remains mildly astounding that the Russian ships go out to sea, launch missiles, and return to port as a complete task. That is so [lightweight*]. * Not my first choice of descriptors. I'll give an obfuscated hint at my non-mysogynistic first choice: _Урваджіня._ This is a misspelling (to use more Cyrillic, fewer Latin letters) of a place name that's seen fighting recently. Every time the place name was said, I heard it something like this.

[@sogerc1]

I wonder how many subscribers @anderspuck had when he released this video.

[@morstyrannis1951]

The UA recent sea drone attacks are a text book example of inexpensive sea denial.

[@j.jwhitty5861]

Whomever controls space controls the land and sea 🙂

[@roberthenry3757]

Hey glad to see You wearing T-shirt again.

[@lorax8172]

This just became more pertinent

[@ludmilascoles1195]

Gee you will be talking about a 'fleet in being' next 😊

[@KimReneJensen]

Bad arguments all the way

[@kjfjdkiflfkd]

Algo

[@kjfjdkiflfkd]

Algo

[@Modric-nk9oq]

Best video i have ever seen ✌️

[@tedferkin]

Oh, I thought you were leading up to a pun.. "On land it's about gaining and keeping land, at sea you cannot do this " was where I thought you were going.

[@PpAirO5]

😄

[@Taladar2003]

Couldn't peace time in itself be considered a sort of sea denial for certain types of naval operations?

[@lexpox329]

How do hypersonic missiles change the situation in regard to cost of sea denial?

[@justalonesoul5825]

It's still pretty much the exact same reasoning, those missiles are not something completely new, they are just quite faster. Thus, more expensive missiles which require much more expenses to be able to counter properly and timely. On a side note, I cant help but to find that designation ridiculous. Missiles have been "hyper"sonic for a very long time. S-300 systems used 9M96E2 flying at Mach 6.5 already in 1998...

[@FoxDren]

"the united states is the greatest naval power in the world" the many many failures of the US Navy during war games (even when they have changed the rules to benefit themselves) would disagree with you there.

[@SilvanaDil]

That's quite ignorant. A war game concludes because a sub got in position to be able to shoot at a carrier. In real life, does the sub take the shot? Does the shot sink the carrier? Does the USA then pound that smaller military? (The last one is: yes.)

[@sogerc1]

And also, US aircraft carriers don't rely on tugboats.