Hi OP,
Good question. First point is any group are restricted by the searoom and how far offshore they need / want/ can stay, I presume.
Interesting discussion. I have no knowledge of US carrier group systems etc, but there's some interesting things in the article, which are relevant to our interests...
Quote:
It's a nice idea, but kinda naive. Most war games aren't neutral at all. They're supposed to showcase a new weapon or doctrine.
Thought there were more reasons than that...
Quote:
The fact that big surface ships are dinosaurs is something that's gotten clearer every decade since 1921.
That was the year Billy Mitchell finally got the chance to prove what he'd been saying for years: large surface ships without air cover had no chance against aircraft. Mitchell had made himself the most hated man in the Armed Forces for saying this, but he wouldn't shut up. Finally, thanks to the huge surplus of military vessels left over from WW I, he got his chance. A German battleship, the Ostfriesland, and three surplus US battleships were anchored off Virginia to see what Mitchell's rickety little biplanes could do to them. You have to remember how big and tough these "dreadnoughts" seemed to people back then. They had the thickest armor, the biggest guns, the deadliest reps of any weapon on land or sea. The idea that aircraft could sink them was a joke for most people. Of course, the Navy brass knew, and tried everything to stop the tests. They knew all too well what was going to happen--and it wasn't good for their careers.
The little biplanes buzzed out...and sank every ship. First a destroyer, then the huge German battleship, then all three US battleships.
Err, no.
1. Mitchell's targets were anchored, and it needs to be said, entirely undefended.
2. (Not a lot of people know this) The first sinking attempts failed. Go on, look it up. The famous photo of the big-bang on the upperworks - was a phosphorous bomb (IIRC) hardly going to take out a battleship, but it
looked good.
3. For all the heat Mitchell took after he was given a completely unrealistic chance to 'prove'
something that no contemporary bomber could do. In 1921 bombers weren't capable of sinking a battleship, except in this 'arms tied behind the back eyes-closed' manner. (Maybe a torpedo could do it, by the 1921 flavour of torpedo 'plane was not very good, and, yes, dive bombers were getting there in terms of weight carrying, but again not to carry a AP bomb in '21 - but a high-level bomber? The B-17s in the Pacific adequately proved they couldn't do it a decade later.) That Mitchell 'proved' his case remains bizarre, and we are lucky as a result.
Quote:
The British didn't pay any attention to Mitchell's demonstration. Their battleships were better made, better armed, and better manned. With an impregnable British stronghold in Singapore and the RN patrolling offshore, what could those little Japanese monkeys do?
Three days after Pearl Harbor, the British found out.
Err, wrong again. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was inspired by the revolutionary attack by the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm at Tarranto sinking the cream of the Italian fleet. Given the loss of two aircraft and one crew, it has to be one of the most cost effective raids in history; and destroyed the Italian fleet's credibility as a 'Fleet in Being'.
Bismarck had been sunk, after being slowed by a torpedo hit. The Brits had been the first people in history to sink a ship by dive bombing, with
Koningsberg sunk by the under-rated and misunderstood Blackburn Skuas.
The
Prince of Wales and
Repulse were meant to have air cover, but there was a screw up, and to that degree, the Admiral in charge was tactically foolish to continue.
Quote:
The signs have been there all along. In the Falklands War, the Argentine Air Force, which ain't exactly the A Team, managed to shred the British fleet, coming in low and fast to launch the Exocets. And they did all this hundreds of miles off their coast, with no land-based systems to help.
The British task force wasn't 'shredded' and the Argentinean pilots were a darn sight more dedicated than the A Team, and did a job any air arm would be proud of. But hey, a quick swipe based on inadequate research is fine, eh? I'm no expert on the Falklands War, but the lessons on air-ship engagements were hard for both sides.
Quote:
Only thing is, it won't be the brass who die. It'll be the poor trusting kids on those carriers who'll die, the poor suckers who thought they'd get free training and a world tour, or even get the chance to "defend America."
Again, cheap and inaccurate. A carrier task force is one of the few places where a senior officer really is in the 'front line'. The Admiral in the
Prince of Wales and
Repulse group went down with his ship.
Finally I'm no expert, as I say, on current US carriers and tactics. But in W.W.II the British, Japanese and Americans all proved (in different ways with armoured an unarmoured, CAP and no CAP, deck park and no deck park etc) how you could fight a carrier under unbelievable air and surface attack. The loss rate was bad, but not everything went down, and very few were sunk with a 'lucky' hit. (Possibly the most intense 'compressed' fighting was HMS
Illustrious in the Med. Again - look it up.) I presume modern carriers as well as being a LOT bigger are tougher built, too.
I may be wrong, and I hope there's a discussion here...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
