|
Cyrano4747 posted:Imagine the unholy shitstorm that would've happened had MacArthur crossed into China, as he wanted. The Coldest Winter does an amazing job of showing how nuts MacArthur was.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Imagine the unholy shitstorm that would've happened had MacArthur crossed into China, as he wanted. The Coldest Winter does an amazing job of showing how nuts MacArthur was. That's one of the things I really don't get about MacArthur. Even during WWII he often comes across as highly incompetent (Defense of the Philippines comes to mind), yet he was (and is?) revered as a great general. I understand that Soldiers liked him because he shied away from assaulting strong Japanese positions head on, but a lot of his generaling seems to have been based on "What could go wrong?" and "Those Intelligence estimates are way too high.".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's one of the things I really don't get about MacArthur. Even during WWII he often comes across as highly incompetent (Defense of the Philippines comes to mind), yet he was (and is?) revered as a great general. I understand that Soldiers liked him because he shied away from assaulting strong Japanese positions head on, but a lot of his generaling seems to have been based on "What could go wrong?" and "Those Intelligence estimates are way too high.". There's pretty much two parts to this: 1) you're right, the guy is way over-rated in a lot of regards. 1941 and early 1942 were kind of rough for the US, and the government needed heroes, so they gave him a medal of honor basically for not getting himself captured. 2) like most other command-level generals of that era, he was way better at strategic level planning, coordination, and diplomacy than he was at actual battlefield decisions. In a similar vein, Eisenhower was more of a bureaucrat than a soldier in WW2. In MacArthur's case he had the foresight to realize that the Philippines were really indefensible with what he had on hand and had a really good plan in place to retreat to the Bataan peninsula in case of hostilities and hole up there until reinforcements could arrive. That part of his plan worked REALLY loving well, and turned what would have otherwise been a really short campaign for the Japanese into a multi-month affair involving some really lovely combat against dug-in, prepared defenders on a narrow front. The only problem was that relief never came due to the Navy not wanting to lose irreplaceable CVs in a prolonged slugging match at the way far end of their supply chains. In retrospect they were probably right on that one. He was also pretty good at the inter-service stuff, and recognized that the different branches had different skillsets that were better employed in specific areas. His strategy of using (mostly) the Army and Army Airforce to push up the New Guinea - Philippines axis while having (mostly) the USMC and Navy Air clean out the assorted islands and atolls was really sound and solved a lot of logistical and supply issues. Same deal with the island-hopping aspects of those campaigns. Deciding to just bomb major Japanese hardpoints into poo poo and then move on while the garrisons starved to death or surrendered on their own time table avoided all sorts of unnecessary combat and saved a bunch of time and lives. He could have just as easily decided to invade Truk, as an example, which would have been a really nasty and pointless battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Here's a link to a virtual tour of Sea Shadow, a relic of the latter part of the Cold War, a Stealth ship: http://www.hnsa.org/seashadow/ For much of its life the Sea Shadow sat inside the HMB-1, a big floating/submersible drydock, to evade prying eyes. I used to see this weird-shaped beast floating in Suisun Bay on the way to San Francisco and wonder what the hell it was--the house for a floating test-bed for naval Stealth technology! The HMB-1 was also used as part of a mission to retrieve a sunken Soviet sub.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Another article about the F-35. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/30/a-tale-of-two-airplanes/ The comments are, as always, terrible.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Another article about the F-35. I think it's well known here that I hate the F-35, think that LockMart are a bunch of incompetent fools, and that Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich are both rolling over in their graves at what has happened to their company. That said, the "well we haven't used x in Afghanistan but we have used y, therefore x is completely useless and we should immediately cancel it, but we should buy 100,000 copies of y" is lazy logic that appeals to emotion. There is more to what the military does than Afghanistan and counterinsurgency; also we're leaving fairly soon, so it clearly makes complete sense to restructure our entire military establishment to effectively engage in counterinsurgency in a landlocked geopolitical backwater in Central Asia. e: I should add that canning the C-27 program when they did is stupid and that the whole program should've been given to the Army in the first place. Still doesn't make that logic any less flawed. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 09:22 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I think it's well known here that I hate the F-35, think that LockMart are a bunch of incompetent fools, and that Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich are both rolling over in their graves at what has happened to their company. This is Canada 1000x. People seriously asked me why we need new jets, right to my face, while our guys were running sorties into Libya in F-18s from the late 70's. 'we don't need high speed cool jets for peacekeeping' I guess because that's all Canada has ever done. I didn't know WW1, WW2, Korea, Afghanistan and Libya were peacekeeping/UN observer missions.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Found this guy's page the other day: http://www.steehouwer.com/ His site design is basically pure 1997 but some of his photos are pretty spectacular: This one caught my eye first, for obvious reasons:  (today I learned F-16 HUDs are green.  )These are all from RIAT 2011 but he's apparently at every air show or event that exists in the world. (Red Flag 2012 is his most recent)     (all of them click for big)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Flanker posted:This is Canada 1000x. People seriously asked me why we need new jets, right to my face, while our guys were running sorties into Libya in F-18s from the late 70's. I was about to post "In Canada this is in the form of "why do we need fighter jets to intercept 50 year old Soviet bombers  " but you beat me to it.Armyman25 posted:The comments are, as always, terrible. I was amused by this one: quote:Sell India or Japan the Kitty Hawk and or Enterprise — both countries have a naval history. India started in WW2– when it was the Royal Indian Navy and of course Japan and the Imperial Navy. I think both of those countries are more than capabile of containing the PRC Navy. Logically one would think the next conflict in the area would start as a territorial dispute then expanding to a more protracted sea/latorial war. God help the LCS’s without air support. Read the “Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors” or “Twilight of the Fleet” to understand what happens to a naval force w/o air cover. Both India and Japan have experience operating carries and air craft at sea. What happened to SATO. Is it still functioning? Should not leave out the PI. As the PRC becomes more or a threat to their territorial waters they will either give in to China or ask for our assistance. My bet is the PI stands up for itself. And our ace in the hole is the Auzzies and New Zenlanders. New Zealand should change its name to New Zenland
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
I'm not sure it's really politically feasible to give your allies ships prone to breaking themselves and sinking at any moment. But then all I know about the Big E is secondhand from former and current Navy people, including ones who've served on her. Then again when the stories are 100% consistent "this thing is a total shitbox," it makes you believe. e: speaking of the Enterprise, if you look at the bow it has little downward-sloping ramp things at the very end of the catapults: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29.jpg I heard something about how those are in some way relevant to operating F-4 but I have no idea if that's true or why. So what are those things? Psion fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
This was my first thought; my impression is that the US navy doesn't retire carriers until they are ready for the scrapyard. Then again, I know its been 70 years, but the idea of giving the Japanese carriers is hilarious, like giving the Germans submarines.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm not sure it's really politically feasible to give your allies ships prone to breaking themselves and sinking at any moment. Those downwards ramps used to be level with the flight deck and were needed for the extra runway length because the F4 was such a fatass.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
I think they're used to catch the catapult shoes  but my 9 year old mind rationalized them as ramming claws after one too many episodes of Robotech. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Psion posted:I'm not sure it's really politically feasible to give your allies ships prone to breaking themselves and sinking at any moment. Or ships powered by, you know, a bunch of nuclear reactors burning highly-enriched uranium.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Or ships powered by, you know, a bunch of nuclear reactors burning highly-enriched uranium. Yeah, that's a good point too. I think Kitty Hawk is oil-fired, though. But seriously those things are old and beat to poo poo; there's a reason it isn't in active service (or are decomissioning this year, in the case of the Enterprise)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Leaving aside also the minor fact that Japan has people who at some point in their life operated propeller driven planes off of straightdeck carriers. They do not have experience in running a supercarrier and its airgroup.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Leaving aside also the minor fact that Japan has people who at some point in their life operated propeller driven planes off of straightdeck carriers. They do not have experience in running a supercarrier and its airgroup. Y'know, I'm pretty sure America also has people who, at some point in their life, also operated prop-driven planes off of straightdeck carriers. Yet we also have supercarriers and their airgroups. Was there more you want to add, or...?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
We just gotta be worried if the Japanese don't bother mounting arrestor gear. Too soon?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
McNally posted:Y'know, I'm pretty sure America also has people who, at some point in their life, also operated prop-driven planes off of straightdeck carriers. Yet we also have supercarriers and their airgroups. We didn't stop developing tactics or training after our carriers were all blasted to the bottom or dismantled?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
McNally posted:Y'know, I'm pretty sure America also has people who, at some point in their life, also operated prop-driven planes off of straightdeck carriers. Yet we also have supercarriers and their airgroups. The 1940's was the last time the Japanese Navy operated carriers, any institutional experience with carrier operations they got is long gone.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Yes, I get that. My point was maybe he should have said that in his post. I think a better reason, though, would be "the Japanese aren't allowed to have aircraft carriers."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah I don't get why a Self Defense Force should have a carrier. I wonder what public sentiment in Japan would be? Probably happy but only if it's not nuclear powered.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:The 1940's was the last time the Japanese Navy operated carriers, any institutional experience with carrier operations they got is long gone. That's not quite true. They don't fly planes off of carriers, but they do have a few Helicopter Carriers.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Psion posted:e: speaking of the Enterprise, if you look at the bow it has little downward-sloping ramp things at the very end of the catapults:
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
So basically the F-4 was a fatass. Neat stuff. also we're spending way too much time debunking some moron's comment on the rest of the internet, but the JSDF doesn't need a carrier for power projection against China, what with China being a short hop across the East China Sea, like 300 miles from the south end of Japan. It's a little different for the US, with Shanghai and Pearl Harbor being a little under 5000 miles apart. e: I am a highly qualified armchair admiral and/or general, therefore my opinions are completely valid at all times. Or I've just spent five minutes dicking around in Google Maps - your call.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Beardless posted:That's not quite true. They don't fly planes off of carriers, but they do have a few Helicopter Carriers. The Japanese navy is making a comeback.  There is also plenty of speculation about them operating them and their keen interest in the F-35 Lightening II, but that's basically just idle fantasy chat at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Is this the right place to put this? http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/01/some-pilots-wont-fly-f-22s-until-cause-of-oxygen-deprivation-in-cockpit-solved/?hpt=hp_t3
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
LP97S posted:The Japanese navy is making a comeback. When were the Japanese ever gone? Since the USSR collapsed the Japanese with their Arleigh Burkes and F15s would have easily trounced the navies and air forces of all their neighbours combined.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:When were the Japanese ever gone? 1945 to 1954.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
LP97S posted:The Japanese navy is making a comeback. They're not even looking at the C or B versions apparently, so it's not really an issue.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:They're not even looking at the C or B versions apparently, so it's not really an issue. Well the F-35 can't really fly or land on carriers, or most bases, so it's more non-issue for more than just Japan.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Imagine the unholy shitstorm that would've happened had MacArthur crossed into China, as he wanted. The Coldest Winter does an amazing job of showing how nuts MacArthur was. The great thing is after Eisenhower took office and MacArthur was out, Eisenhower repeated the threat of nuclear engagement and it was one of the reasons a cease fire was signed in '53. Just think what would have happened if the US knew the USSR didn't really care to get involved in Korea. loving scary.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Psion posted:Yeah, that's a good point too. I think Kitty Hawk is oil-fired, though. But seriously those things are old and beat to poo poo; there's a reason it isn't in active service (or are decomissioning this year, in the case of the Enterprise) The 'prise is a very tired ship that would have been retired long ago if sufficient CVN hulls had been available. I don't know about the Kitty Hawk but she's also a decade or more beyond useful life. CVs only make sense if you have a CVBG (including subs) to defend them, AND fixed-wing assets to operate off them that justify a big-deck, which probably excludes the F-35 at the moment. If you really want to look at Pacific seapower I think the story these days is the explosive growth in China's grey-hull fleet (056 corvettes, 054a frigates, the 052c destroyer Arleigh Burke equivalent). On the other side the US is retiring its last OHP frigates, trashing several CGs early that are apparently too beat up to sell, and replacing them with essentially unarmed LCS. We're restarting DDG-51 III production, but slowly, and DDG-1000 is still capped at (I think) three hulls. It's gotten so silly that to maintain a "300-ship Navy" they've started counting the hospital ships as combat vessels. So even our new super super CVNs won't do much good without grey-hull missile sponges to shield them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The 'prise is a very tired ship that would have been retired long ago if sufficient CVN hulls had been available. I don't know about the Kitty Hawk but she's also a decade or more beyond useful life. Considering the Kitty Hawk was decommissioned in 2009, I think you're right.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Considering the Kitty Hawk was decommissioned in 2009, I think you're right. The Perry class frigates that are being / have been decommissioned are obsolete sensor-wise and their attack / defense capabilities are limited, but many of their hulls have life to go and are being sold to friendly navies. I suspect the Kitty Hawk is far too used up even if we wanted to sell / someone wanted to buy her. The Ticonderoga cruisers being retired early are specifically -not- being sold and will be scrapped / shot for practice instead, which implies they wore out early (I haven't seen a better reason given publicly.)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Total long shot just in case one of you nerds has got this tucked away, and I know it's not airpower but it's still Cold War: can anyone find me the years of commission and decommission for the Delta I and II series SSBNs? I'm writing a paper on SSBNs and I want to have a graph of SSBNs in service by country over time. Trouble is, I can't find specific data on the Delta I and II boats. Everything else is easy to get hold of--the 41 For Freedom, the Ohios, Vanguards, Yankees, even the Delta III and IV series, but for some reason I cannot find the specific years for the Delta I and IIs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Consulted my "modern submarine warfare" book, delta Is were built between 1972 and 1977 (18 total), Delta IIs were built between 1974 and 75 (4 total). The book is old enough they might have still been in service so no decommission dates.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
I should clarify: we're going full sperglord here, I'm looking for the years of commission and decommission for each individual boat in the series.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
Whoaa ok that's beyond the scope of this book.. Seems like something Jane's would have, though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I should clarify: we're going full sperglord here, I'm looking for the years of commission and decommission for each individual boat in the series. Do you have access to college databases? I can try checking there soonish [holy gently caress I need to stop procrastinating on my own paper].
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 07:53
|
|
