What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Lessens from the history of Naval warfare

Munin

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
95
Points
83
One of the things that intrigued me to this issue is the words of mitt Romney about the US fleet not having enough ships and Obama's answer that you don't count the individual numbers but the projection of power of the whole force ("not counting bayonets and horses")

The question is if our modern navy idea of big carriers isn't becoming obsolete?

Considering that navies have a tendency to be very conservative, a long time all naval powers where so conservative that they kept believing battleships where the ships that win wars. The grand admiral Yamamoto (before WWII) said that a battleship in modern warfare is as usefull in modern warfare as a samurai sword, that it is considered the battleships as elaborite religious scrolls which old people hang up in their homes, they are purely a matter of fate and not reality"


This is a very interesting documentary about the evolution of navies during wars and how battleships became obsolete. Also 1 interesting event is discussed where there was an naval armsrace between the US and Great Britain, possibly leading to a conflict between the US and GB. If Hitler wouldn't have existed, WWII might have been between different powers. (And those who say it was "just an armsrace", then consider that the cold war was also "just an armsrace")

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otvrS-AYq80]The Battleships - The Darkness Of The Future - YouTube[/ame]


I wonder if we still make the mistake to be overconservative? Carriers have been the centerpiece of modern navies, the question is if they are still as usefull as we claim them to be or have they become our modern "battleship mistake". Since there haven't been any modern naval wars, we might not know

The biggest similar weakeness I see of a carrier is that 1 cheap and small ship like a submarine can sink it, it makes you think when a ship only a very very small fraction of the cost and crew can sink a 6.3 billion dollar ship or doesn't it?

So are Carriers the new Battleships and are we potentially making the same mistake again?
 
Last edited:
OP
Munin

Munin

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
95
Points
83
the other interesting fact is that our greatest potential enemy happens to concentrate its efforts on the small ship that can sink a carrier

I made a topic about this potential enemy a long time ago: http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/65406-what-is-china-up-to-2.html


I think we might forget that the 2 most effective naval weapons of WWII were both the carrier and the submarine. The submarine brought GB to the brink of defeat: this is something we tend to forget, that it was not only the carrier that proved to be so effective

submarines also sunk multiple carriers (both in the pacific & in the european theatre) & sunk the pride battleship of the GB fleet (which was the 2nd biggest fleet in the world at the time). It maybe not saying much if English ships or others are sunk, but then you might think again about one famous carrier that was sunk by a cheap submarine: the USS Yorktown

this is an old article that proves my point
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced | Mail Online


So are the aircraft carriers the new battleships, the ships that project power that we believe in almost religiously?
Are they as cost efficiënt as we pretend them to be?
 
Last edited:

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,585
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Granny says remind `em of dat when dey's droppin' bombs on San Francisco...
:mad:
Analysts: China Aircraft Carrier Landing Poses No Direct Threat
November 26, 2012 - Western analysts say China's recent landing of a Russian designed fighter jet on an aircraft carrier, though significant, poses no immediate regional or international security threats.
In reports published Sunday, China's state-run news agencies said the navy landed several Chinese-made J-15 jets on the carrier Liaoning in the past week. The reports said the warplanes also took off successfully. Chinese military analysts described the daytime landings and take-offs as a "landmark" in the navy's efforts to develop the combat capability of the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier.

Bonnie Glaser, senior Asia Adviser at the Washington D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told VOA while this is a significant achievement for China, it needs to be put in perspective. "The landing took place in good weather and it took place in the daytime. It is significantly more difficult to land an aircraft on a carrier at night and in bad weather."

The China Daily quoted a military researcher as saying it will take at least two years for the J-15s to become fully operational. He also predicted the Liaoning will need four to five years to achieve full combat capability.

Asia security analyst Michael McKinley of the Australian National University told VOA the landing and takeoff event represents China's infancy in naval aviation and is a long process of gaining operational confidence. "It's not significant in terms of current or even short-term naval capabilities. China is a long way off of being able to project and deploy significant naval aviation power beyond its coastal fringe."

The plane
 

Warrior102

Gold Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
16,554
Reaction score
4,121
Points
183
So are the aircraft carriers the new battleships, the ships that project power that we believe in almost religiously?

No, they're not the "new battleships." Completely different mission/capabilities.

Carriers project power over hundreds of miles. For examplpe, we sat 200 miles off the coast and bombed Libya.

Battleships were used for shore bombardement. When I was aboard USS Iowa, the best we could get a round was 26 miles.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
57,367
Reaction score
20,082
Points
2,280
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
The "battle carrier group" is an expensive anachronism left over from WWll

We have more than enough land bases around the world to handle all of our fighters and bombers. :cool:
 

Warrior102

Gold Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
16,554
Reaction score
4,121
Points
183
The "battle carrier group" is an expensive anachronism left over from WWll

We have more than enough land bases around the world to handle all of our fighters and bombers. :cool:

Although I enjoyed my tour in Japan, there are many Japanese who are ungrateful that Americans are stationed there. They frequently protest, demand we leave, etc. Not large numbers - just the usual small group of rabble rousers. I think we should leave Japan. We should also pull the Army out of Germany as well. Think of how much that would save.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
57,367
Reaction score
20,082
Points
2,280
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
I agree with pulling out of both Germany and Japan.

The people there a sick of us being there and want us gone.

But there are many other countries willing to host our bases.

For a hefty price........... :cool:
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,915
Points
48
Location
My Shack
I was here before the great naval battle was won.
You could not show your naval on TV.
Danged conservatives.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
57,367
Reaction score
20,082
Points
2,280
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
I assume you are referring to the "navel" :cool:
 
OP
Munin

Munin

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
95
Points
83
Although I enjoyed my tour in Japan, there are many Japanese who are ungrateful that Americans are stationed there. They frequently protest, demand we leave, etc. Not large numbers - just the usual small group of rabble rousers. I think we should leave Japan. We should also pull the Army out of Germany as well. Think of how much that would save.

Well the bases aren't there for Japan, they re only there for the US to project naval power over the rest of the world


Imagine the Russians having their naval base on US shore, you wouldn't be happy either
 

Warrior102

Gold Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
16,554
Reaction score
4,121
Points
183
Well the bases aren't there for Japan, they re only there for the US to project naval power over the rest of the world

If we left Japan, the Japanese would be speaking Chinese or North Korean
 
OP
Munin

Munin

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
95
Points
83
Well the bases aren't there for Japan, they re only there for the US to project naval power over the rest of the world

If we left Japan, the Japanese would be speaking Chinese or North Korean

I think the Japanese might already have recovered militarely from WWII, don't you think? Japan has the second biggest pacific naval power, only a close second to China (that s not counting the US as it is a foreign naval power)

I red an interesting article about Japans naval capabilities recently:
http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index....-capabilities-&catid=114:workboats&Itemid=209
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-03/08/content_12138336.htm
 
Last edited:
OP
Munin

Munin

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
95
Points
83
Initially they might have been there for the cold war if I can think of any reason, indeed to counter US enemies. But that would have been mostly the USSR. China and North Korea Never had a naval buildup that could counter the navy of the US
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,585
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Warrior wrote: Although I enjoyed my tour in Japan, there are many Japanese who are ungrateful that Americans are stationed there. They frequently protest, demand we leave, etc. Not large numbers - just the usual small group of rabble rousers. I think we should leave Japan. We should also pull the Army out of Germany as well. Think of how much that would save.

munin wrote: Well the bases aren't there for Japan, they re only there for the US to project naval power over the rest of the world

Imagine the Russians having their naval base on US shore, you wouldn't be happy either


Uh, methinks dey'd be mollified...

... if' our GI's would just quit rapin' dey's womens...

... think mebbe, huh?
:eusa_eh:
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
50,875
Reaction score
14,316
Points
2,190
Location
Western Va.
The US has a weak ineffective leadership and a incoherent foreign policy. It follows that foreign countries that used to depend on or at least tolerate the US Military presence now want American Troops out of their countries. Look for it to happen all over the world.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
228,948
Reaction score
54,207
Points
2,190
Carriers are vulnerable to attack in open Naval warfare. We haven't had such warfare in 65 years.

Yes, if we had an attack by sub or cruise missile a carrier could be taken out. But the countries that have such capabilities are not about to mess with the US Navy

In the meantime, carriers provide the best means to project our power abroad on short notice.

So, no, they are not obsolete
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top