#liberal as ever
15 messages in this thread
<Where are the big enemies?>
Are you forgetting China, the former Soviet block countrys?
Also, the larger navy with smaller ships will cost us more than the carrier
force we currently have. And yes, i have seen the numbers when i was in the
navy.
—Stephen—
===On Auto Pilot 1.77 With Intel "All over my desk"===
It depends how large that Navy is. And if we got in a real war, not some
public relations romp against Iraq – I mean come on, they're hardly a credible
enemy – I bet carriers would be going down like flies.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – Warped again?
Paul,
Actually…not. Carriers are NEVER alone. They have a huge defensive
radius that is filled with support ships, aircraft and submarines.
Trying to work in someplace like the Persian Gulf is what causes them
problems…it's too small for their full array of defensive setups.
Don
Oh well, perish the thought that we should ever have to do anything in the
Persian Gulf.
Have you ever heard the phrase that the military is always preparing to fight
the last war? That didn't come out of nowhere.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – Warped again?
Paul,
That was the point…you claimed that carriers are easy targets, my
comment about the persian gulf was that even a large body of water like
that…is too small for a carrier task force to put out their full deployment
of defensive screens.
In other words…carriers are not easy targets…they are VERY hard to
get to. Not impossible…but extremely costly in terms of equipment and
personnel. So costly…that no enemy would be willing to risk the lose of that
much resource (in theory…it's not been tried).
Don
It's not been tried because their either… A–Scared to. B–Too smart to.
C–Both A and B.
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
Stephen,
Exactly…which tell me the tactic is working…it's desired effect has
been achieved.
Don
Paul,
"IF" we ever get into a shooting war with China or the old Soviet countrys,
who by the way still have the largest navy in the world, then i think we all
will be very glad to have the Supper Carriers on our side. The carrier battle
groups we have now have been, and will continue to be the best deterent to
anyone wanting to start a war with us or our allies. Untill you wittness, first
hand, the firepower and the defensive capabilities of the battle groups, then i
don't think anyone can trully appreiciate their real value.
===Stephen===
>It depends how large that Navy is. And if we got in a real war, not some
>public relations romp against Iraq …
Comments like this tend to upset me a little, because you obviously don't know
what you are talking about. While it is true that due to a poor navy and
airforce, Iraq was not much of a threat to the our Navy, there army was very
large and capable. Don't let our easy victory fool you, it was not a result of
a weak Iraqee army, but a very good use of strategy and tactics on our side
that lead a capable army to loose its will to fight.
>I bet carriers would be going down like flies.
The Soviet submarine force and Soviet Naval Aviation was for some time the only
credible threat to US Carrier Battle groups. Weither or not our carriers would
have been "going down like flies" in a conflict with the Soviets is a matter of
speculation. I can tell you though, that when I was in we constantly worried
about this threat, and were ready to give them a fight if necessary. I
personally think in an all out war we would have lost some of the currently
deployed carriers at the beginning, because they operate in "lone" battle
groups, but combined two and three carrier groups would have had a very good
survival rate. I can't say for sure weither or not any of the nations of the
former USSR form any kind of threat to the US Navy, but it is my guess they do
not, and it would take a long time for them to build up to becomming a
crediable threat.
._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu
| | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360
Michael,
That was well said. But people need to know that the Soviet Union's navy is
still there. True, some of it spread around to the former republics, but it
would not be very hard to gather it again and throw it against anyone they
choose. We also need to understand that the Chinese have bought a number of
these ships. I don't know about anyone else, but i do not entirely trust China
or any of the former eastern block nations, and until they prove that they
really do not pose a threat to my country, i never will.
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
Stephen,
All quite true. The world is still a danger place, and we count completely
discount the Russians just because they seem friendly now.
._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu
| | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360
Michael,
My point exactly…;^)
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===
My point is that for various reasons we were able to defeat the Iraqi forces
with a comparatively miniscule deployment of soldiers. Yes, this was because
of a variety of factors.
Otoh, I've read that Desert Storm is probably the last war in which stationary
fuel and munitions depots will be viable.
Mr. Zombie – now 76375,1776 – Warped again?
>My point is that for various reasons we were able to defeat the Iraqi >forces
>with a comparatively miniscule deployment of soldiers. Yes, this was >because
of a variety of factors.
Comparatively miniscule compared to what? Compared to WWII maybe, but the
Persian Gulf saw a very large deployment of US forces. I don't have the numbers
on me though.
._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu
| | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360
If i remember correctly it was something like 485,000. This was just U.S.
troops, not counting the other countries contributions…small as they were…
—Stephen—
===On AutoPilot 1.77–With Intel "All over my desk"===