Of equal importance in this time of relative peace when conservatism in all things military creeps through the culture, Hughes reminds us with this case that the nature of maneuver warfare requires a significant degree of audacity, where high reward and high risk go hand in glove. Hughes expends extensive effort to establish the validity of this idea. Each form of warfare has its own time and place of application. . . . If correct these linked ideas require both careful examination and a comprehensive effort to understand the ramifications for the Navy in the future. Simply put, naval tactics are power warfare aimed at destruction. . . .
Naval tactics are invariably attrition-oriented.
This article suggests that he now accepts these concepts, albeit in a lukewarm manner. This then seems to imply that the astute naval commander needs to focus on more than obtaining a favorable ratio of ships destroyed or put out of action. One of the most intriguing, and most studied, battles in twentieth-century naval history is the battle of Jutland. An extraordinarily complex naval engagement, it illustrates the dilemma inherent in attempting to define with labels such actions. The tactical problem could possibly be characterized as straightforward efforts by each side to destroy the enemy's ships, a good example of power warfare.