Steven James Forsberg wrote in message ...
B

: Page 56
: "The carrier was clearly the major surface ship. There was some debate
: over the primary duty of these ships, whether they were mainly for
: offensive purposes in attacking enemy naval bases or for defensive use
: dealing with air and submarine threats to high-value convoys.
: ...
: The emphasis on convoy escort was clear. As Fraser put it to the fifth
: sea lord in 1948: "Planning can only proceed on something we know we
: must do; escort safely our convoys." This view did not find complete
: acceptance among Fraser's colleagues, especially the airmen, who
: instinctively demanded a more theoretically "offensive" role."

This was to be a longstanding debate during the cold war. Take for
example the U.S. arguments over proper naval strategy wrt a Soviet invasion
of Germany - the "Let's go bomb Murmansk" crowd versus the "sensible GIUK
gap blockade" group. Many naval aviators were not happy with contingency
plans that had most carrier 'strike' aircraft deploying for use from
NATO airfields while the ASW and interceptors stayed at sea to do blockade
and/or escort duty. They formulated a counter strategy that had the carrier
groups sailing into the Norwegian Sea to launch attacks on Soviet facilities
in the far north.
What would have actually been done if war had broken out? Probably
the Gap blockade/escort mission, even if some folks (Lehman, the aviator
SecNav) had fits. It was certianly an issue that kept staffs busy,
however.

regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------


From other books by Eric Grove and Norman Friedman, I've got the
impression that the "hold on to GIUK gap" option was seriously
considered only for a decade from the late 1960's. Falling back to the
GIUK gap is essentially giving up Norway to the Soviets, IMHO.
Exercise 'Main Brace' in 1952 envisaged NATO's Striking Fleet going up
the Norwegian Sea to attack the Soviet Northen Fleet 'at source'. I
believe other exercises up to the late 1960's were more or less
similar, although with some flavour of "flexible response".

Regards,