Author Topic: Military History  (Read 4558 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 14652
  • babble on
Re: Military History
« Reply #50: June 09, 2015, 04:24:32 PM »
I wonder if a 16 inch gun has the range to hit Atlanta from offshore?

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 25265
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Military History
« Reply #51: June 09, 2015, 04:41:12 PM »
OK, so it was the Missouri and Wisconsin in Desert Storm. Iowa's turret accident was in 1989.  The New Jersey was active for Vietnam and Lebanon, firing shells into the Beqaa Valley (!).  And it is Lehman, not Leaman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa-class_battleship

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56928
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Military History
« Reply #52: June 09, 2015, 06:44:14 PM »
i remember reading about battles where not a shot was fired, it was all a maneuvering game.    I assume most of you have been to the Manassas battle field, the introduction movie talks about how people brought picnic baskets to watch the battle, and by the end of the day their innocence was a thing of the past.

Part of the difficulty of Union troops retreating back to DC was caused by the carriages and civilians who were cluttering the roads back to the city.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56928
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Military History
« Reply #53: June 09, 2015, 06:45:46 PM »
I wonder if a 16 inch gun has the range to hit Atlanta from offshore?

Could be a mindfact but I remember reading that a WWII battleship could shoot a projectile the size of a small VW over 20 miles and hit a target.    My son and I incorporated this into a road trip on the PA Turnpike.    He was amazed.

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1140
Re: Military History
« Reply #54: June 10, 2015, 09:17:10 AM »
Could be a mindfact but I remember reading that a WWII battleship could shoot a projectile the size of a small VW over 20 miles and hit a target.    My son and I incorporated this into a road trip on the PA Turnpike.    He was amazed.

I remember the VW quote at one point, but then I thought about it and remembered they were 16" guns.  I wonder if that 20 miles quote is related to Big Bertha or one of the other rail based cannons?  Seems to me that given the rocking of waves, it'd be hard to get 20 miles accurately, even with the draft of the ship and the relatively low movement from the waves.

**In reading, it seems the quote varies a bit. Crater the size of a VW beetle up to 27 miles away, shell the weight of a VW bug, etc.  The range on the guns is listed as 27 miles, so that much is accurate. No idea which is the most accurate but at 2700lbs for the shell, I'm guessing 'hurling a shell that weighs as much as a VW over 20 miles' is the most properly true.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450
Re: Military History
« Reply #55: June 10, 2015, 09:19:45 AM »
it's pretty efficient if you think about it, parking one of those off shore to hurl shells that cost a fraction of what a missile does seems to make sense (of course keeping one of those at sea costs an ungodly amount of money)

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 44295
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Military History
« Reply #56: June 10, 2015, 09:21:25 AM »
I wonder if a 16 inch gun has the range to hit Atlanta from offshore?
Range of the Mark 7 16in gun was about 23 miles.  So, doubtful.

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1140
Re: Military History
« Reply #57: June 10, 2015, 09:27:40 AM »
it's pretty efficient if you think about it, parking one of those off shore to hurl shells that cost a fraction of what a missile does seems to make sense (of course keeping one of those at sea costs an ungodly amount of money)

For a minute I was thinking about the efficiency of parking in downtown DC if the ship fired your car downtown from 20 miles away. Tough to stick the landing but beats the damned gridlock.

And to be on point, I know with computer assisted aiming, they were actually pretty ridiculously accurate.  But a C130 Gunship provided far more precise targeting at a much cheaper cost to operate and a much smaller cost to pride/morale/national sense of whatever if it was taken down.  Given the engagements they had, losing a battleship at any time after 1945 would have been seen as an unbelievable and completely unnecessary cost in human life and specie. 

The big boat appeals to the same mindset that loved guys on horses charging in.  The Light Brigade should have made it clear to every military commander with a pulse that when you send horses against grapeshot, you get strawberry jam.  But the cavalry held on.  Eventually, just having armored cav as an option was enough to let some commanders think 'Hey, these things would be great in the jungle.' They saw when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The problem with the military is when you spend decades training to use equipment and you fight mock scenario after mock battle with air burst M80's to mark casualties, there comes a point where you -really- want to see what the sweet new hammer you got from the tool store can really do.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450
Re: Military History
« Reply #58: June 10, 2015, 09:30:07 AM »
a C130 requires being able to loiter requires a complete lack of air defense

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1140
Re: Military History
« Reply #59: June 10, 2015, 10:34:19 AM »
a C130 requires being able to loiter requires a complete lack of air defense

Decent AA guns are a pretty rare thing and would be knocked out by Apaches or F16s prior to putting a 130 on station.  The role is CAS for ground troops in close engagements.  Spectres have a level of accuracy you just don't get by the fast movers.  They've been used in Afghanistan and Iraq against the insurgents in support of Special Forces regularly.  I would not be surprised if they're being used against ISIS now because that's pretty much right in the wheelhouse for the birds and fits what the 16th SOS has done for more than 40 years.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450
Re: Military History
« Reply #60: June 10, 2015, 10:39:13 AM »
of course, they're great when you don't have to worry about any chance of ground fire. If you have a capable enemy (Iran or NK- in a war with China or Russia I doubt ground troops would even play a role) I wonder how well a converted cargo plane would fair.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 44295
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Military History
« Reply #62: June 11, 2015, 07:08:19 AM »
Decent AA guns are a pretty rare thing and would be knocked out by Apaches or F16s prior to putting a 130 on station.  The role is CAS for ground troops in close engagements.  Spectres have a level of accuracy you just don't get by the fast movers.  They've been used in Afghanistan and Iraq against the insurgents in support of Special Forces regularly.  I would not be surprised if they're being used against ISIS now because that's pretty much right in the wheelhouse for the birds and fits what the 16th SOS has done for more than 40 years.
The problem is that it operates at 5-10k feet, which means it's technically within range of unguided rockets and SAMs.

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1140
Re: Military History
« Reply #63: June 11, 2015, 10:18:41 AM »
The problem is that it operates at 5-10k feet, which means it's technically within range of unguided rockets and SAMs.

Absolutely correct. It's not designed to provide anything on a modern battlefield between two nation states.  However, as air support for special forces, there's nothing in the inventory that comes close to the accuracy and firepower it delivers combined with the ability to stay on station. 

Man portable guided missiles are expensive as hell and rare in the hands of terrorists. If that weren't the case we'd see a lot more folks who are willing to die for their cause randomly sitting at the end of some runway and dropping a random passenger plane.  That would get so much more coverage and terror than shooting down a military target in an actual engagement zone.

That said, the earlier comment about wars today being fought by drones is the most on point in my mind and that is what will end up retiring platforms.  It's just too attractive an option politically to deploy force in a way that doesn't require boots on the ground, doesn't put (our) lives at risk and doesn't cause the negativity in the press that losing a manned airplane would.  That's a very worrisome thing in my mind because it makes it very, very, easy for the hawks to order the button to be pressed over and over and over and over while still sounding sane, civil and antiwar.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450
Re: Military History
« Reply #64: June 11, 2015, 10:25:43 AM »
it's already happening - drone assassination are relatively common and can be done in places where it's not politically possible to fly a manned aircraft, or where dropping a helicopter full of special forces would be an unpalatable risk 

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 44295
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Military History
« Reply #65: June 11, 2015, 10:38:42 AM »
it's already happening - drone assassination are relatively common and can be done in places where it's not politically possible to fly a manned aircraft, or where dropping a helicopter full of special forces would be an unpalatable risk 
Eh, it's a little different. For one, the drone really has one option: Kill or don't kill. Your SF units have much more. Capture, kill, embed, site exploitation, intelligence development, etc.

What I'd much rather see is a an automated version of a AC-130 or B-52 that can simply release bombs whenever it's ordered to by a drone pilot. So, effectively, you have 27k lbs worth of JDAM's available for CAS whenever you want. Call it in, drone pilot puts in the coordinates, bomb is released, boom.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450
Re: Military History
« Reply #66: June 11, 2015, 10:47:04 AM »
large platform drones are already happening

Quote
This week the Israeli Air Force (IAF) held a ceremony spotlighting the "operational acceptance" of its biggest unmanned aerial vehicle, the 4.5-ton Heron TP, or "Eitan." The far-flying UAV, with a wingspan almost as long as a 737 airliner, appeared on the runway with a comparatively diminutive F-15 alongside it. The IAF already rushed this UAV into action during the 2008–'09 war in Gaza, so the ceremony really served as a reminder to Iran that its drone fleets can reach the nation.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5056/4346921/

as far as boots on the ground, would anyone short of Osama result in a helicopter landing in the middle of a Paskistani city? drones carry much less political risk

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 44295
  • thanosdidnothingwrong
Re: Military History
« Reply #67: June 11, 2015, 10:53:51 AM »
large platform drones are already happening


http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5056/4346921/

as far as boots on the ground, would anyone short of Osama result in a helicopter landing in the middle of a Paskistani city? drones carry much less political risk

Sure. Depends on the expected intel windfall. Or what they might be recovering. If you thought the target had WMDs of some kind, you wouldn't want to drone it.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19450
Re: Military History
« Reply #68: June 11, 2015, 10:55:47 AM »
if the target is sitting in an apartment in islamabad, you might consider it

Offline dracnal

  • Posts: 1140
Re: Military History
« Reply #69: June 11, 2015, 11:07:47 AM »
Biggest problem I have with the drones is the toll on the operators.  Essentially there's little political risk/cost to use them, so they get used. The operator goes to work, kills people, then comes home and is expected to be normal with their family.

That's not a good recipe for mental health.  It's something I've discussed with my Dad and he agrees. He had three combat tours, four years in Vietnam and flew over 960 combat missions.  If he says that you need to be able to separate family and work, I'm going to listen to him.


Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56928
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Military History
« Reply #71: June 13, 2015, 03:52:37 PM »
Tomorrow (June 14) is Flag Day and the birthday of the Army.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 22922
  • This is Howie do it...
Re: Military History
« Reply #72: June 13, 2015, 04:26:55 PM »
Tomorrow (June 14) is Flag Day and the birthday of the Army.

Every day is Flag Day at VaRK's...  :thumbs:

Offline Mathguy

  • Posts: 7546
  • Whoa That Was A Good One ! Poke His Brain Here !
    • Outer Banks Beach House
Re: Military History
« Reply #73: June 13, 2015, 05:12:39 PM »
Vark - I could have guessed you didn't like the Army

Every day is Flag Day at VaRK's...  :thumbs:

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 56928
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Military History
« Reply #74: June 13, 2015, 05:57:11 PM »
Every day is Flag Day at VaRK's...  :thumbs:

I'm all in on Memorial Day and Veteran's Day.    The rest of the days are game day decisions.     I like to display the flag for not so well known days  ...   like Iwo Jima invasion, start of the Leyte Gulf goin' on, September 11, Flag Day and the like  ..   sometime the the boys next door will ask, "What is today for?"    We discuss the history of the day.