Mahan, Corbett, and Economy of Force in the Command of Sea and Air

Julian Corbett and Alfred T. Mahan each proposed theories for command of the sea. Their work illustrated that different strategic and operational mediums required distinct frames of reference. In this thesis, I examine Mahan and Corbett's concepts and their possible contributions to modern airpower theory. Mahan and Corbett examined Great Britain's naval mastery at its apparent peak; an environmental context that parallels the United States' current command of the air. Mahan and Corbett viewed the medium of the sea from different vantage points, however, resulting in considerable differences in the strategic implications each drew from their studies. Mahan felt that naval forces could locate and destroy each other on the sea. Thus, the only method to command the sea was to destroy opposing naval forces. Once gained, command of the sea provided an inherent, continuing advantage that a nation could use to economically isolate an enemy nation and reduce its capability to challenge sea command. These concepts are applicable to airpower theory, and suggest that enemy air forces must be the first targets of an air campaign to allow freedom of action for follow-on airpower effects, ensuring those enemy forces are unable to return. Finally, nations should use command of the air to deter future challengers.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.