Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Jeune Ecole was the preferred French naval doctrine in the late 19th century as a way for France to potentially counter- the strength of the British Royal Navy at the time. In a nutshell, the idea was that flotilla's of smaller, powerfully armed ships could attack and counter the big battleship fleets popular at the time.

Jeune Ecole
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeune_%C3%89cole

Seapower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History

The time period of the late 19th to the early 20th century saw great changes in the abilities and power of naval weapons, armor, and propulsion. It was a time of great confusion and uncertainty on how military power could be used to project power. At the time, no one was really sure what the way forward would be. Into this space came two competing schools of naval doctrines that a nation could follow.

In Hindsight, we can see that Mahan's Seapower theory gained dominance and was the preferred doctrine of major (and wanna-be major powers), but the Jeune Ecole was there as an alternative.

1. Can you envision a scenario where the Jeune Ecole school would/could of become dominant?

2. What in your mind would a hypothetical engagement between the two schools look like?

3. What technology leaps would have been necessary in the early 19th century to make Jeune Ecole the dominant doctrine?

Jeune École doctrine is basically a similar concept to what post-ww2 naval doctrine is, as well as the concepts behind the German U-boat combat in WW2. Its about fighting an asymmetrical war by avoiding taking your enemy's main force head on and instead focusing on their supply lines as well as destroying any parts of there forces which do become separated.

In a sense, the theory has become the dominant school for anybody facing a much stronger opponent. More in that the ideas behind it are widely used today than a direct continuation of the doctrine itself.

Interesting point Grey.

It could be argued that "Modern" naval doctrine is a combination of the two schools as the focus is still on protecting and maintaining the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) which is a very Seapower/Mahan approach to the command of the Sea. However, the methods for maintaining and attacking the SLOCs is more of a Jeune Ecole approach using indirect approaches with aircraft, missiles, submarines, etc.