US Stingers

[Currahee150]

At least he didn't essentially say he was going to get wasted...

Edited February 8, 2016 by Currahee150

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I for one, am claiming resounding and total victory, and am holding a parade to that effect.  

Just some parting thoughts though, for the millionth time:

Re: Blue in the Face

Any good idea is the result of a process of challenge and discussion.  If your ideas, when challenged offer very little traction, it is worth sitting down and reconsidering if you might be off about some things.  Repeating it again at louder volume is rarely effective.

Re: IRAQ AGAIN

Look re-read accounts of OPERATION DESERT STORM  and tell me for Pete's sake if you think VLADIMIR PUTIN is an even bigger strategic fool than bloody SADDAM HUSSEIN!!!!!!

Fools don't become the total ruler of major nation states for decades on end.  People make miscalculations, but calling them fools indicates a superficial level of understanding.

So.  Riddle me this.  Iraqi had an air force, and a large amount of chemical weapons, in addition to a smallish naval force capable of limited regional operations.  Logically he had to prevent a US build up to allow for the war to end on his terms.  What did his air force and navy attempt to do and why?  "Nothing because he's a fool!" answers will be discarded out of hand.

Further on those lines, Hitler understood he had to knock the US out of World War Two.  Why didn't he load up ships with strumtruppen or whatever and try to take New York?  Surely it would have bought time, as would have fully developing an America Bomber.  

Could it be there's other considerations beyond simply having an action that might be a good idea when it comes to military thinking?

[VladimirTarasov]

Saddam had chemical weapons and he didn't use them? That's not true, I for one believe he would had caused lots of damage if he did. His air force was inferior to any NATO countries' Saddam stood no chance.

[Currahee150]

He had chemical weapons. Ask the Iranians. Or the Kurds. He didn't use them on the coalition because it is not inconceivable that H3 airfield would have received a visit by an F-117 toting a B83 nuclear bomb if he had.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Vladimir

I'm referencing the 1991 conflict.  Saddam had an extensive chemical weapons stock before, during, and after.  

Re: Rhetorical Questions

Again though, the Iraqi air force was capable of conducting offensive operations.  It would not have lasted long, but it could have done some damage to the building coalition and bought time.  Why was it not committed?  

[Codename Duchess]

Yeah but there's a sort of trainwreck element to it, and it's led to some really interesting posts on naval warfare and stuff.  It's entertaining at least.

Agreed. Let's talk about ships more. Don't tell the SWOs that an Aviator likes them though, they're insufferable as is.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Black shoed devils they are and all.  

[sburke]

The only element I see as being within the scope of what the back story to CMBS would potentially include is Russian mine laying off Odessa. I would question whether the US Navy would bother to try a landing there as opposed to simply unloading in Greece and motoring up. What is the risk versus the timing?  The US would have to assume mines so you'd need to clear a path at minimum before getting into position to land forces. 

Considering the the time it would take to get forces into place in central Ukraine, I don't think I see the rationale to bother forcing anything in the Black Sea. In addition that would free up US fleet air to concentrate on an offensive capacity and not worry so much about defending troop transports. 

To to be honest though I am more looking forward to a possible Polish contingent.  They would be the likeliest candidate to be first NATO boots on the ground and would be a lot of fun to game with.

 

[VladimirTarasov]

Sburke, Good catch Greece sounds smarter and more effective. Although internally I'm not sure if the Greek people would support that. It looks to me NATO's strategy would be to block any Russian ships getting through to the Mediterranean. As for the Anti ship systems in Syria would be a threat, Considering the fact Russia has a fleet of ships in the Caspian sea, Ready to unleash cruise missile hell onto Injirlik base in Turkey, If NATO action is taken from there. Our ships there should be able to hold their own for a while, Just because of the sole fact that ship battles might be ignored on purpose. But if NATO is serious, Inevitably those ships would be over run. A loss in the Mediterranean is for sure, It's just a matter of taking out as much of the opposition as possible. 

[LukeFF]

So, about those Stingers...

[Currahee150]

I think we can consider this topic thoroughly derailed!

[sburke]

Stingers?!  What? 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think we can consider this topic thoroughly derailed!

Or better yet, perhaps it has been torpedoed.  

So while we're waiting, what's everyone's favorite surface combatant class and specific ship?  No carriers plz.  

I'll go first.  I think the South Dakota class of battleships was one of the finest big gun ships to ever enter operation.  That said if I have to pick a specific vessel, the USS Washington (BB-56) takes the cake though, as one of the few Battleships to go in a serious guns vs guns fight to the sinking of a like classed ship.   

[sburke]

Too hard, but I love the look of a lot of the Japanese fleet.  Crazy superstructures.

Emotional favorite - Fletcher class destroyers- my father served on the USS The Sullivans during the Korean war and I inherited his framed picture of her.

[Currahee150]

Hmm...

I think the Kirov BCGN is pretty sick. Looks like a true warship. As for WWII, I think the Pensacola class cruiser looks cool, and I love the Alaska class battlecruiser. British BBs look cool too - Rodney looks impressive, and the KGVs have ten(!) 14" cannons in their weird configuration.

[Codename Duchess]

Ticonderoga class, just because this never gets old*.  I guess DDGs can too, but it's not the same.  Funny story, I was on a CG off San Diego as a Midshipman back in school.  After a certain distance they warned they were going to energize the SPY-1 radars and we should put our phones away.  I was a little slow on the draw and sure enough it got totally fried.  Worked when we got back to port though.

Pretty sure if I think on it though I can come up with something odd.  But if I can't choose a CV/CVN, I'll choose the next best thing (besides its air wing)

*Disclaimer - Anime isn't really my thing but it's a great clip for demonstration purposes**

**It's not even that far off really.  There's a red button in Aegis ships that is the "Press in case of war" button.  It basically unleashes HAL-9000, and anything not on the proper IFF stuff within [max range of a Standard Missile] dies, and dies horribly.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Codename Duchess

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I said surface vessels.  

All the same the Macon and Akron are totally awesome. I have to wonder if they'd not met their respective fates if they'd turned into a thing.  Doubtful, but at least on some level I can be amused by thoughts of a mega-Macon dropping Wildcats and Dauntlesses.

Totally +1 to the Fletcher class.   On a similar note, the Battle off Samar remains one of those moments that defies reasonable comment.    

[sburke]

going way off tangent but what the heck - when I was in 5th/6th grade my buddy and I both collected WW 2models.  He did a mix of stuff, but all mine was ships.  My pride and joy was a model of USS Hornet that included B 25's.  I had Arizona, Missouri, Prinz Eugen (funny can't remember if I had Bismarck, but I always loved the German Cruisers) a motorized version of HMS Hood, a liberty ship, a U Boat, a Nuclear missile sub (I think a Polaris sub in those days).  I decided at an early age that the Bristish won hands down on ship names, but I felt that way ever since getting into sailing ships.  Indomitable, Achilles, Lysander- those are just outstanding names.  States just don't cutit for me.. or Presidents.

We used to have Wasp, Hornet, Enterprise, Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown..... now we have the Gerald R Ford.. at least the Enterprise will return with CVN 80

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

My pride and joy was a model of USS Hornet that included B 25's.

I too had that model.  I really liked it.  I also had a Missouri, and had the pleasure of walking the decks of the real thing when she was still moored up in Bremerton.
 

I mostly did airplanes though.  My grandfather on my mother's side was a radioman on SBDs and later TBFs (and got a purple heart flying in each of those types!) and that got me all interested in Naval aviation.  I also grew up down the road from Boeing so was also quite into B-17s and the like.   

British ship names are pretty awesome.  I got a collection of old ship recognition guides when I was a young boy, and I used to pilfer the British section of it for names for ships in various games that let me rename vessels.  

I like the state/city names though.  It added a distinctly yankee flavor to things.  The battles/original frigate names were awesome though.  I think naming carriers after anyone but Nimitz level folks is a giant mistake.  

 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I will have to go with the New Jersey.  I have a block of her deck with a commemorative plate mentioning damage sustained during the Korean War while she was commanded by my Great Uncle Captain Francis McCorkle during 1951 and 52.

[sburke]

Never got to see her, but when I was a kid, both Iowa and Wisconsin were part of the reserve fleet in Phila.  Used to go up there a lot.  Living in SF had been pretty cool while Alameda was still active.  We do still have the Hornet as a museum.

[sburke]

Interesting Wiki note.  My father talked about having to shoot up fishing boats that refused orders to stand clear.  In one case at least it was clearly carrying explosives when they fired on it and it blew sky high.  Never heard about the MiG incident, but he probably never knew.    Article below doesn't say whose MiGs, but it implies Russian.

Following the refit, The Sullivans stopped at Buckner Bay, Okinawa and then proceeded to rejoin Task Force 77. Upon her arrival on 16 November 1952 she resumed screening activities and plane guard duty. She supported the carriers as they made the northern-most stab at North Korean supply lines, approaching within 75 miles (120 km) of the Soviet base at Vladivostok, Russia. MiG-15 fighters approached the task force, but combat air patrol Grumman F9F Panthers downed two of the attackers and damaged a third in history's first engagement between jet fighters over water. The destroyer arrived back at Sasebo, Japan on 5 December 1952. From Sasebo she joined United Nations forces on 14 December 1952 in blockading the Korean coasts. Her mission was to interdict seaborne traffic and bombard shore targets to support United Nations ground troops and interdict enemy supply operations. Arriving in Area "G" the following day, The Sullivans made contact with the enemy on the 16th off Songjin, North Korea which was an important rail terminus and supply center. For the next few days, she bombarded railroad trains and tunnels. She frequently opened fire to destroy railroad rolling stock, depots and prevented repairs to railroad tracks and buildings.

[Doc844]

HMS Warspite for me.  My grandad served on her during WW2 and she was a beautiful ship.  When I was ALOT younger my dad used to tell me my grandads stories, the good ones that is and as I got older, when he'd had a drink he would tell me some of the not so good ones.  

[Codename Duchess]

Anyone here play World of Warships? 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I for one, am claiming resounding and total victory, and am holding a parade to that effect.  

Just some parting thoughts though, for the millionth time:

Re: Blue in the Face

Any good idea is the result of a process of challenge and discussion.  If your ideas, when challenged offer very little traction, it is worth sitting down and reconsidering if you might be off about some things.  Repeating it again at louder volume is rarely effective.

Re: IRAQ AGAIN

Fools don't become the total ruler of major nation states for decades on end.  People make miscalculations, but calling them fools indicates a superficial level of understanding.

So.  Riddle me this.  Iraqi had an air force, and a large amount of chemical weapons, in addition to a smallish naval force capable of limited regional operations.  Logically he had to prevent a US build up to allow for the war to end on his terms.  What did his air force and navy attempt to do and why?  "Nothing because he's a fool!" answers will be discarded out of hand.

Further on those lines, Hitler understood he had to knock the US out of World War Two.  Why didn't he load up ships with strumtruppen or whatever and try to take New York?  Surely it would have bought time, as would have fully developing an America Bomber.  

Could it be there's other considerations beyond simply having an action that might be a good idea when it comes to military thinking?

Our resident Quintus Varus speaks again You arrogant, arrogant man. You think that a well read and somewhat informed civilian avoid acknowledging that I do, in fact have a fair point cannot have a valid opinion - just because he is a civilian, not a trained military professional. You completely miss the point yet again or choose to do so. And you twist my words and statements in order to support your own arguments rather than admitting that I actually have a fair case on the matter of possible Russian strategy.  A wiser man would know that under estimating the enemy is ne of the cardinal sins of warfare. I may be over estimating the Russians but it is far better to respect the enemy and thus avoid falling into a trap through your own arrogant hubris. 

As Varus found out at Teutoburger Wald

And then from your own military history there was

Matthew Fetterman. Thought he could "ride through the whole Sioux Nation with 80 men" despite being advised to the contrary, Massacred along with his entire command and even had the defeat named after him. The Fetterman Massacre

George Armstrong Custer. Ignored advice to wait before attacking the Indian Camp at the Little Big .Horn. Massacred along with a large part of his command

 

General Lloyd Fredendall of whom one of his contemapories General Truscott said "Small in stature, loud and rough in speech, he was outspoken in his opinions and critical of superiors and subordinates alike. He was inclined to jump to conclusions which were not always well founded. Fredendall rarely left his command post for personal visits and reconnaissance, yet he was impatient with the recommendations of subordinates more familiar with the terrain and other conditions than he.^{[2]" Underestimated Rommel and indeed considered incompetent by some of the British generals he worked qwith. Including General Anderson. Did not listen to the advice given him by those who had fought the Germans and Irwin Rommel before Walked into the well known disaster at Kasserine Pass}

^{General Douglas MacArthur. Certainly on of he great commanders of US military history and indeed one of the great captains of all time. However, during the Korean War. Nevertheless, despite CIA intelligence warnings about the Red Chinese he still managed to walk into a devastating ambush on the Yalu River and was handed one of the greatest defeats in US military history.}

^{All these commanders had one thing in common. An arrogant belief in their own infallibility and that, in every case, led them into a stunning military disaster. Now, you may claim to have "won" the debate but hat does not in any way make you |"right" It just means I have other things to do than waste my time on arrogant fools.}

^{By the way, should I be proven right and should you be the one in command of US forces in Ukraine I pity the unfortunate soldiers under your command who would be the ones to pay the price of your arrogant folly in underestimating the Russians. Just as he soldiers of Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler who also committed the mistake of underestimating the Russians also had to pay the price f their leaders' folly}

^{And regarding Desert Storm I was, as any history buff would know, referring to the period immediately after the invasion of Kuwait (August/September 1990)when, as we knew at the time and as the historical accounts tell us there were grave concerns in regard off a possible Iraqi attack into Saudi Arabia.  In the case of the Kuwait War Saddam could have at least attempted to attack into Saudi Arabia between August and early October to at least disrupt the buildup. He might have lost militarily but it is possible he could have won politically by inflicting such heavy losses as to sap will on the US home front to a such an extent that anti war demonstrations forced the government to quit. That is how you win wars against the US. Jeez I kind of expected you to KNOW this - it is part of US military history and you probably studied it at West Point - so I should not need to tell you this! Jeez!}