The argument for oil emphasizes easier refuelling, smaller crews, and the problems coal dust creates for increasingly technical warships. Coal-fired ships also spent precious rest periods coaling, cleaning, and manually shifting fuel to preserve trim. Oil could be stored lower in the hull and transferred at sea more readily, while coal's supposed contribution to protection disappeared as it was consumed. A state that has lost command of the sea will also lose access to food and other essentials. Fuel security therefore belongs within the wider problem of maritime communications rather than as an isolated reason to retain coal.
Notable Point · 2:49:16-2:58:37
Oil fuel, logistics, and command of the sea
A Second World War-era naval strategy text treats oil fuel as a logistics question inseparable from sea control.