It's actually really annoying how threads with interesting topics that I like to read opinions on eventually devolve into members dog piling on Jimmy123x.

Ok, got it...you don't like another member or his opinions, but do you guys have to gum up an entire thread every time you don't agree with an opinion? Now I gotta read all your dumbass posts aimed at him and not the original topic? I mean seriously, chill the fuck out. It turns into the ultimate thread drift.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:




As for little kim, we could take out every single military offensive postion he has as well as every missle building site with a volley of short to medium range missles from 2 destroyers OR a volley of bombs from 2 B52's before he ever had the chance to launch a single fighter jet.

I wonder why this has never occurred to SECDEF Mattis?

Maybe you would be so good as to contact the Pentagon Joint Chief’s Duty Officer with the idea and the plans and details. By happy coincidence, GEN. Dunford is in S. Korea now, probably hoping you will call.

Because at this point, having Navy vessels parked off of his coast is a simple show of force or power without exciting a war which as we all know is a last resort. I don't think anyone disagree's that it wouldn't take much to take out all of N Korea's offense, especially since they don't have any allies to really deal with. It would go something like Israels 7 day war did. Over and done before the enemy even realized it began.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Oh Jimmy123, da shrimp boat cap'n is waxing poetic about the military's requirements?

Bahaha, love it when an armchair historian lets us know what we should be doin'!

Please, do tell us. Please.

Be respectful. The maven has spoken.

WELL, when one takes THIS rhetorical QUESTION and completely blow it out of proportion and then state how completely inept one is by personally attacking someone's career that one knows absolutely nothing about from someone that has the reading comprehension skills of a 1st grader, of course I am going to respond and correct that person about MY career.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL ENTIRE POSTING RHINOWSO BLEW OUT OF PROPORTION:

"You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare. England doesn't have any functioning ones. Russia only had 1 that was never reliable. With missle technology launched from either subs or destroyers, are aircraft carriers and their aircraft as necessary as we once thought>"

Jimmy123 - I think the forum would benefit from a powerpoint brief or maybe a small handout pamphlet that would explain your posts; that way you wouldn't need to explain / backpedal / re-imagine your posts later in the threads...? Just a thought.

Nothing is / was blown out of proportion - I simply disagree with you and believe you don't have any relevant experience or factual data to back up your opinion.

How do you disagree with a question??? It is not an OPINION it is a QUESTION!!!!! There is no back peddling, I asked a question! "You start to wonder how effective aircraft carriers are in modern warfare?" "are aircraft carriers as necessary as we once thought?" Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a first grader would clearly see they are both questions.

As for little kim, we could take out every single military offensive postion he has as well as every missle building site with a volley of short to medium range missles from 2 destroyers OR a volley of bombs from 2 B52's before he ever had the chance to launch a single fighter jet.

If you don't understand the strategic advantages of having a self-sustaining, fully operational and weapons equipped, mobile military airfield in a radius of anything between 13 and 400 miles off your coast, then military strategy and dominance is not a yachtsman forté.

I'm not disagreeing that THERE ARE advantages to having an air craft carrier. My question WAS "are aircraft carriers as effective or necessary as we once thought". This DOES NOT mean they are obsolete or IN-effective at certain roles. It just questions if they're AS effective as they once were. DUH.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
It's actually really annoying how threads with interesting topics that I like to read opinions on eventually devolve into members dog piling on Jimmy123x.

Ok, got it...you don't like another member or his opinions, but do you guys have to gum up an entire thread every time you don't agree with an opinion? Now I gotta read all your dumbass posts aimed at him and not the original topic? I mean seriously, chill the fuck out. It turns into the ultimate thread drift.

Thank You. I feel the same way. The ENTIRE purpose of a FORUM is to have various view points and opinions so people can read them and formulate their own opinion. Turns out we have several 70+ year olds that have been set in their own ways for so long, that the only persons opinion that could ever be correct is their own.

fo·rum

NOUN
a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
"it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"
synonyms: meeting · assembly · gathering · rally · conference · seminar · [more]

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:




As for little kim, we could take out every single military offensive postion he has as well as every missle building site with a volley of short to medium range missles from 2 destroyers OR a volley of bombs from 2 B52's before he ever had the chance to launch a single fighter jet.

I wonder why this has never occurred to SECDEF Mattis?

Maybe you would be so good as to contact the Pentagon Joint Chief’s Duty Officer with the idea and the plans and details. By happy coincidence, GEN. Dunford is in S. Korea now, probably hoping you will call.

Artillery.

The NorKs have THOUSANDS of artillery tubes aimed at downtown Seoul. ANY military move by the west would precipitate an artillery barrage, the likes of which haven't been seen since WWI, obliterating Seoul and killing hundreds of thousands to millions of South Koreans.

We could not destroy them all in a 'first strike,' as they are all dug into caves and fortified positions. Any attempt to attack these arty sites would likely result in an automatic fire order on the South.

There IS NO 'easy' military solution to North Korea. If there were, we would have instituted one years ago.

Looking at the basic specs, the USS Gerald Ford is nearly 4x the length of the Chinese carrier mentioned above.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:
Looking at the basic specs, the USS Gerald Ford is nearly 4x the length of the Chinese carrier mentioned above.

As mentioned before, every other carrier out there is more akin to a US LHA / LHD. Smaller in size and aviation capacity, unable to sustain cyclic operations of any reasonable size.

So in comparison, our 10+ CVNs have no rival (closest being the French 'carrier' Charles de Gaulle - but they still only carry about 1/3 to 1/2 the number of planes - and they have one ship - and they really, really don't like flying at night).

Then we have another 9+ LHD/LHAs, which equal any other "carrier" out there - especially once the F-35B comes on line (GASP).

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:Poke the Eagle, Ching-Chong.

I agree with most everything you've said, otherwise did you have to stick a racial insult in there?

Really? Americans have called our enemies denigrating terms for as long as this country has been in existence.

Ching-chong is racial slur? I'd posit it is a derogatory term based upon the tonal quality of the language.

Perhaps you may wish to walk back some of your own comments or stereotyping before you wax all elitist:

A woman's appearance

quote:

Good grief, she's got the 70's era turtleneck, femnazi-short hair, weaselly hatchet face, along with the self-righteous attitude, she'd fit right in with Berkeley or, New England.

Neanderthals

quote:

If true this is from Dagestan...that's a fucked-up part of the world. Neighbors to Chechnya, Neanderthal shit like bride kidnapping are common place.

Those minorities

quote:

Minorities, oh, we love them, fight the power right, just get back over the bridge when the sun goes down, mkay.

And finally, about our allies, Afghan officers AWOL in the US:

Afghani's oh, Afghani's

quote:

You'll find them at one of three places: the Mall, strip club or, McDonald's.

And although I didn't necessarily disagree with what you said in those posts, did you have to take shots at a women's appearance, people from Dagestan, minorities and Afghani's? I mean, you've disparaged a pretty good bevy of folks.

You're a long time member here, also. I've got no bone to pick with you. I appreciate your knowledge base and sharing. The difference I think is thou protesteth a bit too much here with a yard that requires some cleaning.

BTW, this is where I get "Ching-Chong" from:

China Lee

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jager,

I remember watching a documentary of the Russian/USSR military back in the '80s, and it was quite a dreary existence. Families lived on the naval ships, and there were clothes hanging to dry all over the ship.

I can't remember all of the downers, but there were many. I do remember they didn't have socks, but they did wrap their feet in some type of material like an Ace bandage.

However, I surely hope we never go up against them or the Chinese, especially if they team up. A strong leader and/or a healthy dose of nationalism could up their military potential way above and beyond what it is today.

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
I remember watching a documentary of the Russian/USSR military back in the '80s, and it was quite a dreary existence.

The Russian people have endured privation a lot longer than we have. They have shown enemies their resolve and perseverance over time, as have the Chinese. Could be a coin toss who buries us.

There was just a report released stating that NATO would be currently unable to stem an attack from Russia - and that they could have Western Europe wrapped up in approximately 36 hours if they were serious. Similar reports have been issued since 2014.

More tanks

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
I remember watching a documentary of the Russian/USSR military back in the '80s, and it was quite a dreary existence.

The Russian people have endured privation a lot longer than we have. They have shown enemies their resolve and perseverance over time, as have the Chinese. Could be a coin toss who buries us.

There was just a report released stating that NATO would be currently unable to stem an attack from Russia - and that they could have Western Europe wrapped up in approximately 36 hours if they were serious. Similar reports have been issued since 2014.

More tanks

Kick our ass trying to intervene in Europe or the South China Sea? Sure.

But thankfully neither nation could easily 'bury' us, due to natural boundaries, aka Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Aside from pressing the big red button, of course, and then it's lights out for 90% of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
I do remember they didn't have socks, but they did wrap their feet in some type of material like an Ace bandage.

It's not necessarily that they didn't have access to socks. Foot wraps in lieu of socks used to be very commonplace in much of the world, especially in military use. They have some advantages, namely that they're easier to produce and to repair than socks, they're more wear-resistant than socks, and since they unfold into a single thin layer of cloth, they're easier to clean and to dry than socks.

Their use in most of the West waned in the early-to-mid 20th century, but continued on in Eastern Europe. In fact, the Russian military just discontinued the use of foot wraps in the late 2000s.




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK67zXzwngA

quote:

It is not an OPINION it is a QUESTION!!

It was an opinion formulated as a question. Typical passive-agressive tactic.

quote:

Then we have another 9+ LHD/LHAs, which equal any other "carrier" out there - especially once the F-35B comes on line (GASP

Our gator navy probably out-carriers the rest of the world by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
I remember watching a documentary of the Russian/USSR military back in the '80s, and it was quite a dreary existence.

The Russian people have endured privation a lot longer than we have. They have shown enemies their resolve and perseverance over time, as have the Chinese. Could be a coin toss who buries us.

There was just a report released stating that NATO would be currently unable to stem an attack from Russia - and that they could have Western Europe wrapped up in approximately 36 hours if they were serious. Similar reports have been issued since 2014.

More tanks

I think that's true. I think they could have Western Europe wrapped up in 36 hours. But I'm sure they couldn't keep it wrapped up for long. England, France, and US would send troops, planes, ships, subs and everything else there in a NY minute.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
I do remember they didn't have socks, but they did wrap their feet in some type of material like an Ace bandage.

It's not necessarily that they didn't have access to socks. Foot wraps in lieu of socks used to be very commonplace in much of the world, especially in military use. They have some advantages, namely that they're easier to produce and to repair than socks, they're more wear-resistant than socks, and since they unfold into a single thin layer of cloth, they're easier to clean and to dry than socks.

Their use in most of the West waned in the early-to-mid 20th century, but continued on in Eastern Europe. In fact, the Russian military just discontinued the use of foot wraps in the late 2000s.




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK67zXzwngA

Damned if I don't learn something on here every single day!

quote:

England, France, and US would send troops, planes, ships, subs and everything else there in a NY minute.

False. You have no understanding of logistics.

Why did we not act to stem Russian aggression in the Crimea?

The short answer is: we couldn't.

The reasons and explanations are long and complex but boil down to logistics.

Fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan at the end of a 3000 mil supply chain is one thing. Fighting a large, modern, well equipped and reasonably well trained opponent at the end of a 3000 mile supply chain, when he has only 500 miles or so at most, would be impossible.

We have virtually no forces remaining in Europe. If Ivan comes thru the Fulda Gap now what we have left wouldn't even be a speed bump.

We have virtually no ability to take a defended beachhead. Our pre-positioned afloat heavy equipment needs intact port facilities to debark, and airport facilities capable o handing civilian airliners to bring in troops to man the equipment.

Our forces are focused on fighting low to medium intensity conflicts. A Russian MRD would laugh at a Stryker-equipped brigade, and run right over it. We have heavy formations but virtually no ability to deploy them into non-permissive environments.

A carrier, or several carriers, off the coast of Libya or Iran is one thing. Facing down the entirety of Russian land based air is another. As part of a combined force they would be a valuable addition. If Western Europe falls and WE have no land based air it would be a different proposition.

Your limited understanding of military issues is understandable, most people have no idea about them either.... but your inability to even look at a map and do some basic research is a troubling indication of where this country is headed.

During the Cold War, we had massive stockpiles of weapons in Western Europe. The idea was (and I'm grossly simplifying it here) that, at the first sign of a Soviet invasion, we would slow them as much as possible at the Fulda Gap. While our men were dying in place buying us time, we would fly thousands of troops over on civilian airliners and match them up with the pre-positioned equipment. These would then roll into the area to confront the Soviet forces. Hopefully, they could hold out until heavy-lift ships arrived at intact ports and unloaded follow-on reinforcements.

Even then, it was never a sure thing if we could stop the Sovs. Fortunately, we never had to find out.

Today, all that equipment is gone. If the Ruskies really wanted to roll through to France, it would take them longer today than it would have 30 yrs ago (when they could have massed in East Germany and the Warsaw Pact countries), but we would be VERY hard-pressed to counter them in any significant numbers.


Carriers are still useful, but aren't the solution to every problem. They are great for getting somebody's attention (they kept the Libyans in check pretty well), but they aren't the ideal solution to stopping a major Asian or European land offensive.

Most people can't grasp the logistics chain and how long it takes to move armies into new AOs.

Units roll in and out of Afghanistan / Iraq quickly because they aren't bringing much - they simply assume vehicles / aircraft / equipment already there from the unit they are replacing (to a large degree) - so you are simply moving bodies to take over the fight with stuff already there.

You also bring up an excellent point about carriers and our military in general - focused on the current low intensity / low threat conflicts - all the services have had to do it due to the length of the current conflicts and the limited $$$ to spend for future acquisitions.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
During the Cold War, we had massive stockpiles of weapons in Western Europe. The idea was (and I'm grossly simplifying it here) that, at the first sign of a Soviet invasion, we would slow them as much as possible at the Fulda Gap. While our men were dying in place buying us time, we would fly thousands of troops over on civilian airliners and match them up with the pre-positioned equipment.

Today, all that equipment is gone.

Not all. We still have equipment prepositioned at several spots in Europe, just not as much as during the Cold War.

For example...

Norway:
https://www.inquisitr.com/2809...undreds-of-us-tanks/

Netherlands:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w...rtive-russia-n696436

We also have other prepositioning depots in Germany and Belgium.

quote:

While our men were dying in place buying us time, we would fly thousands of troops over on civilian airliners and match them up with the pre-positioned equipment

The yearly practice exercise for this was called REFORGER: REturn of FORces to GERmany.

The last one was held in 1993. It's been almost a quarter century since we even practiced that, and the last several were mostly virtual computer exercises. I was in REFORGER 91 and all that we deployed was our battalion staff to simulate maneuvering the rest of the battalion.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Not all. We still have equipment prepositioned in Europe, just not as much as during the Cold War.

For example: https://www.inquisitr.com/2809...undreds-of-us-tanks/

You do realize that article actually uses a lot of words to say exactly NOTHING, right?

The "massive stockpile" mentioned here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...sian-aggression.html

...is less than 90 M1s and less than 150 M3s... an infantry brigade... and they h=used a conventional port to debark the equipment. If Europe had fallen we wouldn't be able to do that anywhere near the front, extending our supply lines thru either Scandinavia, if it held, or Spain... IF they allowed us to use their ports.

We have virtually no maneuver forces in Western Europe, we have virtually no stockpiles, we haven't practiced reinforcing Europe in almost a quarter century. A USMC MEU up in Norway would make exactly ZERO difference if the Russians decided to take Europe, less difference even that that Stryker brigade. That's the reality.