LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by TamDigital
Role playing in the bath?
Role playing in the bath?
Well, the aircraft carrier wasn't even an issue until WWII anyway, and such naval aircraft as there were in WWI wouldn't have been very effective against shipping. I disagree somewhat with the idea that because fleet engagements were few in number they weren't of great strategic importance prior to WWII; naval warfare has always been about the SLOCs (Sea Lines of Communication) and Jutland had a huge strategic impact. Although the RN lost more ships and men than the High Seas Fleet, the punishment they inflicted on the HSF caused them to retreat to harbour and not emerge in force for the remainder of the war. That basically left the HSF with no effective way to block the SLOCs (i.e. convoy routes) other than subs, which were, at the time, pretty primitive designs with limited operational range, slow speed etc. It reduced the Kriegsmarine's ability to attack commerce massively.
I'd agree completely that in WWII, submarines and carriers ultimately proved far more important in the long term, but it shouldn't be forgotten that this was largely due to the maintenance of a significant capital ship force that either destroyed German capital assets (such as Bismarck), or kept them penned up until they could be destroyed later or were scuttled (Graf Spee and latterly Tirpitz). Don't write off the impact that a breakout by capital ships could have, though, even against an escorted carrier, if they were allowed to get close enough (see the loss of HMS Glorious ).
It's also worth noting that during the initial stages of WWII, the air gap in mid Atlantic was massive; if a capital ship could break out into the Atlantic, she'd be able to operate largely with impunity from air attack. Escort carriers didn't really come into service until late 1941 (HMS Audacity, the first, undertaking her first operation in September of that year), so convoys had no organic air defence against an attack by a capital ship. Such escorts as there were, were usually corvettes, converted trawlers, the odd obsolete WWI vintage destroyer or armed merchant cruisers. The fate of any such vessel when confronted by a capital ship is well illustrated by the fate of HMS Jervis Bay or that of HMS Rawalpindi.
In that environment, the prospect of a ship like Bismarck or Tirpitz loose in the Atlantic was justifiably feared. It's also worth noting that although Bismarck had her steering gear crippled by air launched torepedo it required several capital ships and their escorts cornering her and pounding at her for hours to sink her (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck ).
I'd argue that keeping the remaining German capital assets penned in instead of roaming the Atlantic was actually an important part of the Battle of the Atlantic (the Germans had originally intended their capital ships, both battleships and pocket battleships, to operate as commerce raiders) and again limited the German navy to submarine operations only. In that sense, the impact of the RN's battleships may have been largely negative, but it was still an effect worthy of consideration. Imagine if, in addition to the problem of battling the submarine threat, which was nearly enough to finish us, the convoy escorts had had to face concerted attacks by capital ships like Bismarck. Don't get too hung up on the idea that these ships were slow, or unwieldy either - Bismarck was designed for 29 knots and made 30.1 on her first sea trials.
Hardly; I like the discussionI could go into huge discourse over their uses and how effective they were (having done it as an A Level history coursework piece) but it would bore you.
Congrats you! Enjoy the sewerpipe...RN me
i knew how hood sunk since my mum and dad used to have a lot of 2nd world war books about ships/battleshow do u guys know so much about some of these ships, all in the navy or jsut google it then act as if u know
dad used to be in merchant navy and when he was young he used to read them
As I said earlier they WERE important but they were few and far between. I would never play down the importance of these engagements. To do so would not only be historically wrong and also highly disrespectful to those who served and lost their lives in such harsh conditions. As I have said I am off into the RN and hold the people who serve/have served in the highest regard.
Which has always been the main reason for large powerful capital ships. Stike fear into the enemy, whilst improving home morale by showing your citizens that you have the latest technology to defend them with.
Good discussion though, must say I am enjoying it. Been a long time since I delved into this kind of history!
the MLRS can't carry nukes, it carries a bomblets and would require large amounts of modification to carry nukes. Even the extended range variants dont carry nukes.
The MLRS carries a small variety of weapons, and doesn't require large modifications for nukes. It can carry 2 ATACMS, 644 bomblets, or mine / rocket variations - though that's what I think is true, feel free to correct me. I'm in the Sappers, not the Gunners! Just out of interest, what is your Military experience?
Like I say, there is a chance I could be wrong.
Sorry if this is too OT, if it is, OP, feel free to say!
During the D-Day landings and following days the Germans where absolutely stunned by the weight (and accuracy) of firepower that battleships could lay down. These were experienced soldiers who had seen an awful lot of artillery bombardments before.
If you want to see some truly devastating weapons watch Future Weapons on discovery (or one of those channels).
GPS guided artillery that is accurate to 10 yards at 22 miles. Higher trajectory allows the round to be fired over or around buildings so people can't hide from it.
MLRS that fly to 69,000 feet over 50 miles and are capable of air burst or bunker busting - accurate to 10 yards.
NLoS howitzer (Non Line of Sight) automatic arming, loading, charge preparation and firing. Accurate to within 10 yards over 16 miles. Faster rate of fire than manned guns and 20 tonnes instead of 40 (so can be put into a C130). Automated self defense system.
Honestly you don't wanna mess with the US in a conventional war in the coming years.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
The US should be so lucky... See Iraq and Afghanistan to see what happens when you engage the US in unconventional warfare. That's the future not the US's fancy doo dah weapons.
An Atlantean Triumvirate, Ghosts of the Past, The Centre Cannot Hold
The Pillars of Britain, Foundations of the Reich, Cracks in the Pillars.
My books are available here for Amazon Kindle. Feedback always welcome!
Depends. You fight a guerilla war against a nuke.
It's only going to take so long before one of these Countries get too cocky and push the line. A dirty bomb in New York, would mean a REAL nuke elsewhere.
Quote me on that.
Very unlikely imo. Where exactly would they nuke?
America and the UK have gone to great lengths not to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
As where they would do it, take a map of the middle east and throw a dart.
well would they risk killing the millions of inocents for a few thousand bad people
The UK would no way retaliate with a Nuclear bomb to any dirty bomb.
Chuckskull, I'm interested in why you say that - please expand more and state your sources.
Whenever pushed about nuclear strikes the response is always "keeping all options on the table". Particularly in the case of Iran.
My source is the newspaper, but a quick google found http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...776250,00.html detailing the US's Nuclear strategy.
Personally I dont think the UK would ever lauch a nuke unless backed into a corner. The US openly admits it would lauch a pre-empitive strike, if it believed a non-friendly state had gained the ability to lauch one themselves.
You have to remember a nukes main purpose at the moment is as a psychological weapon (Mutally Assured Destruction and alike), which is more to with not ruling out a strike than, the desire to lauch one.
That is far closer to my personal viewpoint - and thanks for the link.
I agree - we maintain the Nuclear force as a deterrant rather than a threat, and with the introduction of the near-due new nuclear strategy (replacing trident), we should see this maintained into the forseeable future.
The UK is militarily weak - we may have a high standard of training, and man-for-man are probably the best force in the world - but lack numbers and budget. There are at least 5 countried in this world that would royally screw us over if they desired - and a fearless coalition of several smaller countries could do equally fatal damage to our country.
We really would have to be on the floor and desperately weak before we pressed that "big red button". One nuke fired in return at us would wipe out London.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
