If you want to quote an actual example of sea denial that worked you should of cited the allied submarine blockade of Japan in WWII. In that case the allies could afford to produce and man a large fleet of Submarine's from bases close to Japanese maritime sea lanes. The Japanese simply didn't have the technology and manpower to combat allied submarines.
Leftyhunter
LOL are you serious? We didn't win WW2 because of sea denial, but because we built a blue water navy that decimated them for sea control, not sea denial. The submarine war was a sideshow in comparison.
In comparison the German WW 2 navy never challenged for sea control, Britain enters WW2 with the arguably the largest navy in the world, and the largest merchant marine. Britain alone loses 11.7 million tons of shipping to U Boats during the war, never to be the naval or merchant marine force it was entering the war. Churchill says ‘The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril."
The United states who had a far larger economy to devote, built a submarine force that sunk less then 6 million tons of Japanese shipping compared to Germany who sunk over twice as much allied merchant tonnage. (over 14 million tons) Again the results compared to the naval disadvantage Germany entered the war with, was widely successful, no other submarine campaign has came remotely close in destroying merchant marine forces
Though as usual you seem to wish to make silly false arguments that have nothing to do with the ACW, this seems to be the anything but ACW forum to you. Your comparing results that were less then half as much, seems to do little except go further off topic. And has little to do with the philosophy a navy was built around, as we in WW2 didnt focus on a sea denial instead of a sea control philosophy at all....... Perhaps you missed the building the Essex class aircraft carriers, the largest class of blue water CV's ever built, whose purpose is sea control.
And again it seems you who haven't studied history or all, or have a lack of reading comprehension. I asked for examples of revolutionary countries that won from naval superiority..........and you provide none, but play on words to "assisted" and only "assisted" from third parties which has little to do with a revolutionary counties naval philosophy at all, but instead some third parties...….. If you cant answer whats asked, refrain from disingenuous false answers....... But please continue to go further and further off topic with statements that dont hold water anyway.
Not sure where you think your silly argument is relevant to New Orleans or the ACW anyway......the purpose of a philosophy a naval strategy is based on is however relevent. The CSA like the US in the revolution never tried to build a blue water navy to rival Britain's for sea control, because they knew they couldn't, so they also resorted to primarily raiding for attempting some measure of sea denial. So the naval philosophies of the two seem to be similiar and relates to an actual CW philosphy.
Unless your discussion of naval philosophy relates directly to the CW, please try to stay to how it relates to CSA or New Orleans defense
Sea denial is a strategy utilized by the have nots to this day, in the case of the Soviet Union or China they mabye are even haves as a nation, but so far behind in naval strength its the only real viable option for them to pursue, and would have been the most appropriate for the Confederacy as well. The point of sea denial isn't to win the war in itself, but that they have recognized they are going to live or die by a land war, not a naval one, the same as the United States pursued in the revolution