Talk:Brown-water navy

Factual accuracy dispute
I'm removing the notice, since there IS no discussion on the talk page... --207.216.10.77 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are also no sources on the article page. I'm going to redirect this article shortly.ALR 07:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES EXIST NOW. 03/07


 * Please do not "redirect" this article without discussion. ➥the Epopt 06:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is insane, anyone with basic knowledge of Naval Forces knows that the given deifinition of Brown, Green and Blue water fleets in this article is dead on. I swear this demand to have everything come with a citation is driving me nuts, you might as well demand a citation for the London article to prove it is in the UK. Get a grip or half the articles in wikipedia are going to be little numbers in boxes after every word. --Spoonman.au 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it can be frustrating at times, having to hunt down references for things that you know through (for example) your own professional training, but its necessary for the benefit of people who aren't trained/knowledgeable in the subject, so they know that the author actually knows what they're talking about rather than just reporting what "everyone knows" or that they've picked up from some random source. (After all, even people who work in a particular field sometimes make mistakes about meanings and technical terms that they should be familiar with).  I've edited several articles based on my own areas of expertise, but if I hadn't given proper references, people would have had to take it on trust that I actually knew what I was writing about.  Besides, in this specific case (which isn't my area of expertise at all, just going on what various wiki articles say), it seems the use of the terms has evolved over time, and may have different meanings in different navies.  So in this case it would be particularly important to have citations for statements about who invented/used/modified the terms.  Wardog (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ERROR
PBR does not stand for "patrol boat rigid". Who thought that one up??? It stands for patrol boat riverine. Even the PBR page here says that. Won't let me change it though.

30' PBR (Patrol Boat River)Mk1 and Mk2 fiberglass hull made around Seattle, WA, with two diesel engines driving two hydrojets

(70.48.27.151 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War
Are there any current U. S. Navy units on the Tigris and the Euphrates that might be considered a revival of the Brown-water Navy? Eddieuny 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much to add beyond that I have seen things about river patrols being done, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.86.95 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Brown Water Navies in the Vietnam & US Civil War
Although techically any US Navy water craft operating on inland waterways can be loosely called part of a "brown water navy", the terms were not officially applied until the American Civil War and the Vietnam War a century later. In both undeclared wars the USN activated "brown water navies" to wrest control from the enemy the use of inland water ways. In both wars the US Navy faced determined enemies that utilized their inland waters (rivers, etc.) to smuggle war material to and from their designated bases. During the Civil War (officially designated the "war of rebellion" (hence the nick-name "Johnny Rebs" (short for Rebel) the US Navy's enemy was the Confedercy (Southern states) who used blockade runners to break thru USN blockades. The Confedercy consisted of both conventional (cavalry, artillery, infantry, and naval forces) and guerilla forces (insurgents). During the Vietnam War the USN conducted the same type of warfare, only this time instead of block-aiding the South (Confedercy of a century earlier) the USN attempted to intercept Northern resupplies entering the South via the inland waterways.

In order to accomplish these missions, the USN in both wars activated 'complete self supporting separate navy fleets: Brown Water Navys. In both wars the US Navy built and manned river monitors to engage, defeat, and wrest control of the rivers from enemy forces. In South Vietnam (RVN-Republic of South Vietnam) the enemy also consisted of conventional (NVA-North Viet Army) and insurgent forces (VC-Viet Cong). The USN deployed 11 inch turret mounted river battleships (Monitors) during the Civil War and the USN deployed 105mm turret mounted river battleships (Program 5 Monitors) in South Vietnam to supply the needed firepower to accomplish those missions. Additionally, the USN in RVN used ATCs to transport US Infantrymen (US Army only, not the USMC), and operated as "river aircraft carriers", consisting of a landing deck for dedicated Brown Water Navy helicopters (such as the H-A-L units, US Navy Helicopter Attack squadrons). BWN squadrons were complete with barracks ships, repair ships, destroyers (ASPB-Assault Support Patrol Boats), river patrol boats (PBR-Patrol Boat River), and PCF-Patrol Craft Fast (Swift Boats) which operated on both the rivers and the ocean.

When the American Civil War & Viet Wars ended both USN Brown Water Navies were deactivated. Like the snipers of those conflicts, Brown Water Navies were considered simply "needed" only during those wars; to be disbanded upon the end of hostilities. As in the case of the US military snipers, they were officially created in 1968/69 for the USMC (USA schools began in the 1980s) in the United States (Overseas US military snipers were trained in the combat zone (in country). With todays 21st century US Navy riverine forces, they were officially created in 2006.  This modern US Navy riverine force of approximately 3 squadrons is a permanent and readily deployable inland water ways river force.  Unlike the Vietnam/Civil war riverine forces which were totally self supporting and in steady combat with conventional and guerrila forces, this new 21st century force comes under the US Navy's "Navy Expeditionary Combat Command" and is equipped, designed, and readily deployable to provide MSO (Maritime Security Operations) & SFA (Security Force Assistance) with the primary mission(s) of preventing terrists and associated criminal activity from utilizing the inland waterways of the troubled area.

Consequently, since US military operations in South West Asia (Desert Storm (1991), Enduring Freedom (2001-), Iraqi Freedom (2003-), etc.) did not utilize self containing (self supporting) fully armed US Navy "battle fleets" (cannon armed Monitors as one such example) to wrest control from a determined conventional/guerrilla enemy but only used lightly armed river vessels manned by integrated US military personnel to patrol inland water ways prior to the activation in 2006 of the USN's "Navy Expeditionary Combat Command", Southwest Asia riverine operations would become off topic, and need to be expanded on their respective websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Geographic Bias
Just because the term is American doesn't mean that other nations have not adopted Riverine forces. Certainly the British did so in India, the other foreign powers in China during the same time as the Sand Pebbles did (see HMS Amethyst), as well a Switzerland presently. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then add that information to the article. TaintedMustard (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Early History
Why is the early history completely left out? All these were early forms of brown-water warfare and should be mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.194.82 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There was the victory on Ramesses III of ancient egypt over the sea people using boats in the Nile delta: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#Reign_of_Ramesses_III).
 * There were the romans using boats to support the defence of their borders on the Danube and Rhine.
 * There were the vikings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings), traveling the rivers of eastern Europe for raids and conquest.

Origin of the term
The article claims that the term "brown-water navy" originated in the American Civil War. The only reference cited in support of this claim (without any page number) does not support this. I have conducted a full-text search through that book and not found any reference to a primary source mentioning the term "brown-water navy." I have therefore removed the claim from the section on the Civil War.

I also have never encountered it in sources on U.S. naval history after 1865. In addition, Google NGram does not provide any (!) evidence for the use of the term before the 1940s. Its take-off seems to have been during the 1960s-80s. So it looks like this is fairly recent terminology. The claim that it originated in the Civil War should probably be removed from the top paragraph of the article - or it should be backed up with actual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdn1899 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)