Jump to content

US Stingers


jpratt88

Recommended Posts

Sburke your joke about the Ford goes double for the Gabrielle Giffords. I'm sorry she got shot and proud she survived, but she had no role in Navy affairs and represented a land locked state. In exchange she was given a ship normally named after cities. 

Lucas your idea has merit in certain scenarios (either WW3 or 1989, or both). There happy? Agreement.

 

Unfortunately this is just the Ukraine in 2017.  Yet again you're going full Red Storm Rising (or whatever WW3 novel you want to cite) which Ukraine 2017 isnt. If the Northern Fleet doesn't sail, NATO has no reason to destroy it. Like the amount of resources needed to attack Murmansk or a Bastion in force are ludicrous  (look again to Archer Light, I believe they employed at least 3 carrier groups, 50 surface combatants and 30+ submarines in their attempt at the end of the book). It's not worth it to NATO to attack if the fighting is in Ukraine. It's not worth it to Russia to lose an irreplaceable fleet that won't make a difference for a fight 2000 miles away. I urge you yet again to look at my actual analysis compounded from multiple sources on the ability of the Russian Fleets to sortie. It's just not possible for them to have any effect in 2017 away from their own shores.

Commence with the name calling please.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Look. This is getting increasingly acrimonious. Views are entrenched and none of us is going to shift our positions much further as i think must be obvious to all of us at this point. Everyone has raised valid points and opinions but we are never going to agree on this one.  Given the circumstances we can either let this degenerate into a flame war which will get locked down by the forum moderators or we can agree to disagree and shut this down ourselves now .

I suggest we all agree to disagree and leave it there. Do the rest of you agree that this is the most sensible social option given current conditions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I suggest we all agree to disagree and leave it there. Do the rest of you agree that this is the most sensible social option given current conditions?

absolutely yes!  Now which is your favorite warship?

 

i did like the earlier vote for Kirov. Yeah she was ahead of her time I think. Definitely created a threat that had to be considered. I also loved the Kiev class ships when I was pulling out my 2nd fleet counters 

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

absolutely yes!  Now which is your favorite warship?

 

i did like the earlier vote for Kirov. Yeah she was ahead of her time I think. Definitely created a threat that had to be considered. I also loved the Kiev class ships when I was pulling out my 2nd fleet counters 

Depends on period but for moderns I'd have to go for a Nimitz Class Carrier for force projection. I just love those Fleet Command boardgames but only ever purchased 6th and 7th Fleet. Would love to get my hands on one or two of the others.

Now, here's one for you. Your favorite naval miniatures rules. Mine is WWII Micronaughts th game Uninspiring title but streamlined mechanics. a decent emphasis on the human factor and lots of fun to play although I seem rather prone to suffering magazine explosions. Just wish I could find something like them for modern. Harpoon was too complicated althogh the PC version is good enough. Shipwreck was ok but a bit dated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey without me looking it up what was the difference between Iowa and S. Dakota class BBs? Pz what engagement were you referring to on your battleship pick out of curiousity?

The big difference is the South Dakota is basically a smaller Iowa, built to still be more or less treaty compliant.  Because they were laid down earlier, they saw more active service and tend to have more interesting history than the Iowa class.

In reference to the engagement, It's the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.  The USS South Dakota and USS Washington both showed up, but the South Dakota basically had a massive electrical failure, leading to most of the shooting being carried by the Washington.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to fill out her record, she also attacked a US ship, ramming the USS Indiana in 1944. :D  Even better she was damaged by depth charges from a British destroyer which had just been cut in two by King George V.  Who the heck teaches naval personnel to drive?

 

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to fill out her record, she also attacked a US ship, ramming the USS Indiana in 1944. :D  Even better she was damaged by depth charges from a British destroyer which had just been cut in two by King George V.  Who the heck teaches naval personnel to drive?

 

To be fair, the Washington did not hit the destroyer, and the Indiana was at fault in the 1944 collision.  

Ship on ship collisions though seem appallingly common in World War Two histories.  Too many fast moving ships under difficult conditions I suppose.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rate of collisions has supposedly increased in recent years despite what you'd assume. The reason being more water traffic and people are more willing to try risky maneuvers/rely on radar instead of good old fashioned seamenship. During one of my summer cruises in college I heard that our sister ship had to make an emergency maneuver around a surfacing SSBN that had missed it's escorts. Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So either side will have a crappy time of it if they try early CAS -  US will lose frames to ground AA (primarily) and RUS will lose frames to US air AA and ground SAM?

Eventually, and it won't take long,  the flexibility and numbers of US air will win out. 

It sounds like some interdiction strikes will be feasible (albeit costly) for both sides but that loitering frames will be too obvious and easy a target for any sane pilot to do. 

It would make sense that RUS could get in some hard work with a surprise attack, say 1-2 days margin at tops,  but after that it becomes far too contested.

ADA cuts both ways, and the RUS air force has far less depth in numbers and capability, hence is brittle to counter attack? 

 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kinophile said:

So either side will have a crappy time of it if they try early CAS -  US will lose frames to ground AA (primarily) and RUS will lose frames to US air AA and ground SAM?

Eventually, and it won't take long,  the flexibility and numbers of US air will win out. 

It sounds like some interdiction strikes will be feasible (albeit costly) for both sides but that loitering frames will be too obvious and easy a target for any sane pilot to do. 

It would make sense that RUS could get in some hard work with a surprise attack, say 1-2 days margin at tops,  but after that it becomes far too contested.

ADA cuts both ways, and the RUS air force has far less depth in numbers and capability, hence is brittle to counter attack? 

 

Did you read the rest of this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...