REVS Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 Chuckle chuckle, but my mates from the Australian navy say that our diesel-electric subs are so quiet that they have been habitually surfacing next to US carriers during exercises saying "excuse me, but you're dead". Now, that doesn't constitute a win, especially when we don't own no nukes, but it's nice to sink a capital ship or two before you sink us. I reckon China is about as unconquerable, and unsinkable, as the US, so why not call it quits real early? No-one wins modern wars. But lotsa citizens lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Mahone Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 And I say your mates are full of sh!t mate! -Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 We are quietly pointing out to the Chinese that there is lots of Lebensraum much closer to their waters, populated by a bunch of mateys that don't have nukes, and only have diesel subs. Hi, mom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuka Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 Hi Mom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuka Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 Hey Mk IV, the chinese can all stay at Maces place. He's got a spare room! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 Best hide the cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Head Mahone: And I say your mates are full of sh!t mate! -Head<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And I'm sure the moderator will be enthusiastic about high intellectual conversation like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Mahone Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: And I'm sure the moderator will be enthusiastic about high intellectual conversation like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, and your stupid ass "hi mom" crap is the height of intellectuality as well! -Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Best hide the cats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How utterly racist! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 26, 2001 Author Share Posted April 26, 2001 Truly ruly. Diesel-electric subs are infinitely quieter than very noisy nuclear subs. They can shut down to as close to noise-zero as a sub can hope to be. A nuke sub's reactor is a very noisy thing, and is easily detectable. All they're good for is strategic nuke deployment. But if you want to sneak up on a really big US capital ship, what you need is a very quiet, conventionally powered diesel-electric sub running on the whisper-quiet electric bit. At that stage, and over the last few joint military exercises, our friendly allies have run in the Pacific, I'm happy to say that Dubya's team has lost a capital ship to those rotten people from Down Under each time. Check the facts; they might make you think. Thank God we're allies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 Ditka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triggerhappy Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Head Mahone: And I say your mates are full of sh!t mate! -Head<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, he's absolutely right. A German diesel-sub fleet managed to do exactly that a few years ago - surface next to a US aircraft carrier that was their exercise target during a navy maneuver. Those sonar ops on the defense fleet really had a hard time explaining how that could have happened. BTW: During the exercise the carrier was sunk several times. Not only by the subs but also by a Tornado strike force with Kormoran missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Head Mahone: Yep, and your stupid ass "hi mom" crap is the height of intellectuality as well! -Head<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I've missed that you're a fan of Shane McGowan. My Irish is a little bit rusty, but doesn't mean Mahone something like Sh!t? Or was it butt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 26, 2001 Author Share Posted April 26, 2001 I think carriers are the classic case of the capital ships which you used to win the previous war, but which are the first to go down in the next war. Didn't the hapless Poms have the 'Prince of Wales' and the "Renown' as the lynchpins of their Asian defence in WWII, and when both went to the bottom on the same day, Singapore fell and the British stratey in the far-east died in no time at all? I'd suggest that all US carriers are sitting ducks at the moment. Sorry about this, but there's evidence to support the notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaSCa Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 As someone who operated the "very noisy reactor" on a nuclear attack submarine for 4 years I have to disagree with Rev's characterization of the role of the modern SSN. They are really extremely quiet and hard to detect. We routinely 'sank' the 'enemy' taskforce during exercises, usually several times. The only reason we didn't get a carrier as well was because we were restricted to an operational 'zone' (for safety reasons, there were other subs in the fray) and the carrier refused to enter it. We were never detected by a surface vessel or aircraft. That being said it does not suprise me that a diesel sub could penetrate the skimmer's sonar screen. Diesel boats are very quiet and scary things. For coast defense and relatively short ranged operations (compared to nukes) they are very effective. So 'good on you, Mate!', or your Mates anyway. As we used to say in the fleet: There are two kinds of ships...submarines and targets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Mahone Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Sorry, I've missed that you're a fan of Shane McGowan. My Irish is a little bit rusty, but doesn't mean Mahone something like Sh!t? Or was it butt?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its "ass" actually Scipio. Pogue Mahone means kiss my ass in Irish. I also missed that you’re a home brewer as well. Do you brew "all-grain" batches? --------------------------------------------- To REVS and Triggerhappy: Don't worry yourselves about my knowledge on subs. I know all about the silent diesels and the loud reactors on the nukes. In fact my boss was a sonar tech on a nuke some years ago. I just like to though trash on the line of off topic threads. Besides, I thought my first post was pretty funny! -Head Mahone (or Head Ass as Scipio pointed out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesreidau Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 I know there was a US admiral taken on a South African new Diesel Electric and shown the bottom of a US carrier, while it was going about it's every-day business. Apparently it scared the ****e out of him I believe that the ausie subs have been kind enough to put noise emmiters on their subs during exercises to give the Kiwis and US a fighting chance or somefink. I should go ask my father, this is his business PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedlam Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 I did hear about the U.S. Carrier being sunk in a naval exercise a while back. I didn't realize that the Aussies and the Germans did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 26, 2001 Author Share Posted April 26, 2001 To CaSCa, I bow to your greater experience on this issue, but I think it's useful even on this forum to make the point that the hero capital ships of the last war are the turkey shoots of the next war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 The point about the Prince of Wales and Repulse (not Renown) is well-made. It ties in very well with the similar attack at Pearl Harbour. The cretinous decisions by the British government, ordering two battleships without air cover, to sail and attempt to intercept a numerically superior fleet, showed the ignorance that was widespread throughout American and British governments. A pre-war report actually claimed that the Japanese could not see very well because they had 'slitty eyes'! No-one anticipated the effectiveness of naval-based air power against conventional capital ships. Japan's 'Long Lance' torpedo was simply the finest of its time and this was amply displayed both at Malaya and at subsequent carrier engagements (vs Lexington at Coral Sea, for example). Lexington was sunk by a single torpedo to the bow. US torpedoes had a success rate (the percentage or torpedoes that hit and went bang as opposed to hit and didn't) of around 10% compared to 80-90% for the Long Lance. As for the Singapore debacle - I think the finger can be firmly pointed at General Percival for this monumental cock-up. However, when citing the P of W and Repulse incident, bear in mind that aerial warfare was very new. Even though attacks by aeroplanes on ships had been carried out before, the Japanese were pioneers of carrier warfare - although their fire control left something to be desired. Warships of the time carried few anti-aircraft guns - certainly too few to repel 50 or 60 bombers attacking from both sides at once. Lessons were learned the hard way - through thousands of deaths and hundreds of ships lost. Later in the war, of course, even U-boats bristled with flak - a testament to the very sudden arrival of the naval aircraft and its effectiveness. And please, don't describe us as 'hapless poms'. It insults the 2,000 men who died on the P of W and Repulse - when the blame can be squarely laid on ignorance and poor command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soddball: Lexington was sunk by a single torpedo to the bow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> sorta true, but the damage was under control. the only reason it sank was because there was no CO2 system to prevent gas fumes from building up and igniting. then she had to be abandoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshik Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 U.S. vs. Australia: Who Would Win? I'm afraid the U.S. would be in trouble, if faced with a conventional war against Australia. It is a well-known fact that the Australians have successfully spliced the genes of kangaroos with Australian Special Forces troops, creating a race of fierce kangaroo-warrior men who can jump really high, move fast, and have razor-sharp claws that are capable of slicing their opponents into tiny bits. This was dramatically portrayed in the 1995 movie "Tank Girl". Here's a reference for you: Tank Girl Oh, and then there's Mad Max. But that's another story... -Joshik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joshik: U.S. vs. Australia: Who Would Win? I'm afraid the U.S. would be in trouble, if faced with a conventional war against Australia. It is a well-known fact that the Australians have successfully spliced the genes of kangaroos with Australian Special Forces troops, creating a race of fierce kangaroo-warrior men who can jump really high, move fast, and have razor-sharp claws that are capable of slicing their opponents into tiny bits. This was dramatically portrayed in the 1995 movie "Tank Girl". Here's a reference for you: Tank Girl Oh, and then there's Mad Max. But that's another story... -Joshik<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> but in CC2 the us had killer dolphins! lets see the diesals fight them blockade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubbies Phan Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 I think the US would almost immediately capitulate after being bombarded with so many "G'day mates." [ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Cubbies Phan ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaSCa: We were never detected by a surface vessel or aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure about that? There could have been a Orion or Viking overhead that you never would know about until its too late. That being said, a sub in your operational area will ruin any admirals day. Two diesel subs pretty much changed the Brits plans in the Falklands. ASW in the US Navy has been going down hill every since the end of the Cold War. Its hard, time consuming, and not very sexy compared to other areas. If you really want to have fun with the US Navy, mine the approaches to the Taiwan Straits. The only losses in Desert Storm were to mines. Another area the US Navy has neglected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts