Interesting read on the size of the US Navy over its history:

[Posteritatis]

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

That page lists the number of hulls the Navy has had for any particular year between 1886 and last year, further breaking it down by how many of each particular type of ship it was fielding.

Romney's statement that the Navy is at its smallest - in terms of raw hull numbers - at any point since before the First World War is certainly technically true, but as the president pointed out the makeup of today's smaller fleet is rather dramatically different. Also, if someone puzzled things out by Navy's size in terms of tonnage at any particular point the modern one would still be colossal.

I may be wrong, but I believe the current US navy out-displaces any several other fleets combined, and just might be able to claim that for all the world's navies put together even if that might be a close one. In any case, it's far and away the largest one afloat today in terms of physical size and numbers, and anyone claiming it isn't the most powerful armed force ever to exist with the exception of the American or Russian nuclear arsenals is simply kidding themselves. It could be half its current size without seriously challenging its primacy.

Anyway, my own personal rant there aside, I thought the history buffs around here at least might find that page interesting. Surprising at points, too - the numbers during the Second World War are just staggering.

[Posteritatis]

1. (Also, I'm wondering if Romney actually wants three dozen battleships now..) (nt)

[WCGreen]

2. First of all, there were a whole mess of ship that did nothing but transport

troops from here to over there...

[Posteritatis]

3. Those are covered in the listings for the most part

A lot of them would be amphibious ships (obviously), and quite a few would be auxiliaries. In practice during wartime most of them are civilian ships pressed into service.