No description available.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

This work presents a study of shipbuilding and timber management in the Royal Dockyards in the period 1750 – 1850, focusing on an archaeological investigation of ship timber marks. The first chapter outlines the concept of timber marking in shipbuilding contexts, stressing the multi-disciplinary approach to the study highlighted in the available archaeological and documentary evidence by which the practice of timber marking can be understood. Chapter two outlines the background to timber marking in the Georgian era and the development of the practice within the broader advances made in shipbuilding, technology and design prior to the end of the 17th century. Chapter three outlines the developments in shipbuilding and the introduction of systems to control and standardise the management of timber in the Royal Dockyards in the 18th century. In the latter half of the 18th century we will see the attempts of naval reformers to develop these systems of timber management and pave the way for the sweeping changes made at the beginning of the 19th century. Chapter four highlights these changes with the introduction of the Timber Masters and looks at the nature of timber management and the marking of timbers as identified in documentary sources. This evidence lays the foundation for the understanding of timber marking in the 19th century as witnessed in the archaeological record. The remaining chapters present the much more extensive archaeological evidence for timber marking among several high profile assemblages. The main assemblages presented in Chapters 5 to 9 show the diversity of timber marking practices and how they relate to the working processes of the Royal Dockyards. The research offers new insights into the understanding of shipbuilding and the management of timber in the Royal Dockyards between 1750 and 1850 and explores the possibilities for further avenues of study.

This study examines Churchill's struggle during the summer of 1940 to preserve Britain's naval superiority worldwide, through the neutralization of the French fleet and by securing the active participation of the United States. Sources consulted included autobiographies of the participants, especially those by Churchill, Reynaud, Baudouin, and Weygand, document collections, and British and American official histories. This study is organized to give a chronological analysis of Churchill's efforts from 10 May to 2 September 1940, ending with the United States' acceptance of the destroyers-for-bases agreement. This act committed them to shared strategical responsibilities with Great Britain. The thesis concludes that Churchill's efforts in this period laid the foundation for later Allied victory.

The United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy developed during the interwar period a doctrine that addressed the problems inherent in the substitution of naval gunfire for artillery support in an amphibious assault. The invasion of Betio Islet, Tarawa Atoll, in November of 1943 was the first test of this doctrine. It has been said many times since the war that the doctrine basically passed this test and that lessons learned at Tarawa increased the efficiency with which the Marine Corps and Navy applied the prewar doctrine during the rest of the war. An analysis of the planning and execution of naval bombardments in the Central Pacific Campaign, after the invasion of the Gilberts, does not support this claim. This analysis leads the researcher to three conclusions. First, the Japanese developed defenses against many of the effects of the gunfire support doctrine that blunted much of the force of American firepower. American planners were slow to recognize the implications of these changes and, consequently, were slow to react to them. Second, many naval commanders responsible for providing naval gunfire support for Central Pacific operations still equated tonnage of ordnance to effectiveness of bombardment, regardless of their frequent references to "the lessons of Tarawa." Finally, strategic concerns and outright ignorance played a large part in determining the use of naval gunfire, the first taking precedence over the "lessons" and the second leading to the ignoring of the "lessons" all together.

U.S. naval expansion is considered to be inevitable. When it is discussed at all, especially in recent scholarly works, it merits at most a few paragraphs briefly mentioning that in the late nineteenth century the United States constructed a modern navy. It is portrayed as if U.S. leaders mostly favored greatly expanding the nation’s naval power and that little to no serious opposition existed among government leaders. Naval expansion, however, fundamentally altered U.S. foreign policy. It represented one of the most significant shifts in the Gilded Age, an era often thought of as a forgettable period in U.S. politics with no major political events taking place. If anything, naval expansion should be the single most discussed political decision to come out of this period and President Benjamin Harrison should be remembered for his role in this development. After all, there are few presidential actions from this period that continue to greatly affect U.S. policy today, and Harrison and his fellow naval expansionists deserve more than a footnote in history.

This thesis investigates the progress of technological development during the interwar period of 1919 to 1939. The interwar period was a time of slashed military budgets and isolationist policies. However, despite political, financial, and organizational handicaps, each branch of the military made significant progress in the development of military technology, and the air corps and navy achieved significantly better results. The reason these two branches were able succeed was through a combination of organizational policy and the development of an overarching goal for their respective branch. Within this thesis, I investigated each of the major military branches during the interwar period, specifically the United States Army, Army Air Corps, and Navy. The air corps is considered a separate branch despite being a segment of the army due to its different strategic goal and its growing independence during the interwar period. In my research I found that the army made by far the least technological progress, but did make significant strides in terms of the development of individual components for larger projects. For example, the army developed the M1 rifle and state-of-the-art shock absorbers for tanks. The air corps succeeded in transforming from a small army auxiliary made up of woodand-fabric biplanes into a largely independent branch of the military made up of all-metal monoplane bombers. The navy developed the aircraft carrier and aircraft to accompany the new ships, in addition to making substantial upgrades to existing ships. These upgrades included strengthening ships against torpedo attacks, making engines more efficient, and adding antiaircraft guns to the ships‟ arsenals

This dissertation offers a framework for understanding the strategies of states engaged in competition for regional hegemony. Although international relations literature refers extensively to such competition and obliquely to states' strategies, to date little has been done to show how states' strategies in such competition may be analyzed. Drawing on a variety of strategic literature, this dissertation synthesizes a theoretical approach to analyzing the strategies of states engaged in regional security competition. Employing insights drawn from business strategy, this dissertation argues for an essentially asymmetric understanding of fundamental policy goals for states engaged in competition for regional hegemony, with one state attempting to maintain a dominant position and another attempting, by focusing limited resources, to supplant it. The competition is understood metaphorically (based on an anecdote from the end of the Cold War) as a “race with no finish line,” with the reigning hegemon attempting to extend the race and the challenger attempting to create a finish line and cross it. With homage to realism, liberalism, and constructivism, possible state goals are categorized as belonging to three realms: security, welfare, and intangible goals. These are used as metrics for a state's success or failure in any given competitive scenario, as well as the resources at its disposal. Drawing on military strategic literature, this thesis then applies decision-cycle analysis to state competitive behavior. The conclusions from this analysis are then synthesized into a framework for analysis of similar regional competitive scenarios, the first such framework yet devised for such purposes. A case study: the “Dreadnought Race” between Britain and Germany prior to World War One, is then examined, in which states' performance is analyzed in the competitive scenario in light of the above strategic precepts.