Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Pistolenschutze, Feb 7, 2007.
I found this a long time ago. Sorry about the quality, its a photo of a photo
I am detecting thread creep. Screw the subs... we're talking Battleships, baby!
Bring on the commies and the democrats (sorry for the redundancy)!
Sorry Pat LOL
But the power that not only the Navy shows, but the power of all the US Military has and shows all time has been rendered usless by the peace nicks.
The peace nicks have given this country the image that we are nothing more than a paper tiger to a lot of countries it seems.
But on the other hand, it sure would be nice to see our weapons displayed in a more blatand way than what we do now. The Agies crusier is a fine example, so are our fleet of subs. When looking at either one of them,, you don't SEE anything more than a sub or cruiser. Very docile looking, unless ya know what they are capable of.
That was the neat thing about the battle ships of the past, and maybe the future. All of that firepower on display, in a baligerant way even, for all to see. But I'm sure that those peace nicks would call that an unnessary use of psychological warfare
I read about this idea years ago.
Take a large cargo ship. Have 155mm howitzers on the deck. Use this a fire support ship. Modern container ships could hold a large number of 155mm howitzers.
Modern 155mm ammunition is devastating:
1. A standard round is 100 pounds of steel and high explosives.
2. There are carrier rounds (improved conventinal munitions /icm rounds) that carry submunitions. These can be anti-personnel or dual purpose anti-armor grenandes. This round can also deliver mines, both antipersonnel, and anti-tank. This round is the artillery equivalent of the cluster bomb.
3. Smoke rounds.
4. White phosphorus rounds. These can be used for quick smoke, and for incendiary work.
Such a vessal would not equal a battelship, but could easily equal the firepower of a cruiser. And it could be put together quickly with out the cost of regular manning. When needed a cargo ship could be leased. Artillery battalions would be assigned to man the guns. As the campaign moves inland the arillery battalion goes ashore and continues it's mission.
Sorry, Marlin, but peacenics had nothing to do with ruining our military power, since they are never around where it's being deployed. If the peacenics had any effect at all, then we would not now have the greatest military power on earth, period.
What has ruined our military power is assymetrical warfare, aka insurgency, or guerilla fighting. We can't use our heavy weapons against civilians who occasionally fire a burst or toss a grenade and then go back to their day jobs as though nothing had happened.
The whole nature of fighting international conflicts has changed. We're no longer up against large mechanized armies which present easily identified targets, but that's not all. We now see factors such as "netwar," and we see cell phones as bomb triggers. We see that a good portable satellite uplink is likely cheaper than a decent piece of field artillery, and thousands of times more powerful. Your internet connection? Remember that the internet was invented by our military (DARPA), to link military computers, and is now an important part of strategic and tactical considerations.
Just by way of history, there was an insurgent war right here on the North American continent, a bit over two hundred years back. Remember who won? (Hint: the winners didn't wear red coats.)
As for parking some big piece of naval hardware within sight of some unfriendly coastline just for show, forget it -- too risky; if it's within easy line of sight, it's an easy target.
Of course, we need to keep the big stuff handy, but what we should be doing is preparing more small, rapid-deployment units. Counter-insurgency needs to be more like civilian police work than the large mechanized military that we're accustomed to using. And, it sure wouldn't hurt for us to learn the local language while we're at it.
A large surface ship is too vulnerable from submarine attack. Consider the sinking of the Argentine heavy cruiser during the Falkland Islands war and the recent surfacing of an undetected Chinese sub within torpedo distance of an American Carrier. How many eggs should be put into one vulnerable basket?
You make a very valid point, cl. The nature of war changed greatly in the late 20th century, and it continues to change. More and more often conflicts are relatively small, regional, and are insurgencies rather than large scale, national army v. national army contests. Mahan noted long ago that the nation that controls the seaways controls the world, and that is still a valid dictum to this day. Yet today, the need is not so much for large battle groups protecting a few powerful capitol ships, but rather smaller, faster task groups assembled from less expensive (and face it, more expendable) ships armed to provide whatever firepower is appropriate to a particular conflict. I think we will see even more of that in the years to come. It should be noted as well, that the pure warmaking power--even exclusive of nuclear weapons--that may be incorported in even a modern strike destroyer is truly awesome.
Separate names with a comma.