Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
After all, tanks and helicopters have yet to replace infantry.

Well... once we get massive Mechas:


Helicopters and tanks are fethed.

But until then...

 sebster wrote:

Actually my statement was absolutely and completely true. Read it again. You bolded it, so here it is again;
"Nobody thought for one second about replacing their battleships with mine layers and torpedo boats"

Jeune Ecole did have a focus on a variety of counter measures to the battleship, but at no point did anyone suggest just making a navy out of specific anti-battleship counter measures.

Precisely....and neither did I? In the same regard absolutely nobody had a fleet entirely made of battleships, nobody proposed a navy entirely of torpedo boats.

But that isn't what you said now, is it? That's either a complete strawman or misunderstanding (of you or me, I'm not entirely sure).

You said nobody thought about 'replacing' battleships with torpedo boats. Replacing, that is to say, substituting. Inserting another ship type in the place of. The logical assumption (given the context) is that you are talking about the strategic and battlefield roles of the battleship. In other words, you are saying (to very clearly lay out what I am understanding your original statement as) 'No naval authorities in any country ever considered replacing, in part or in full, their battleships with torpedo boats with the intent of the torpedo boats undertaking the same strategic and tactical role'.

To which I say, untrue. That was very much the entire point of the Jeune Ecole. I wasn't planning on throwing references around particularly (this is a webforum instead of an online journal, after all), but if you'd like to consult Theodore Ropp's work on Theophile Aube, the French Minister of Marine, you will find proof to the contrary. The torpedo boat was not seen purely as a 'battleship counter'. That's merely one facet of the Jeune Ecole.

One has to consider precisely what it was a battleship actually did. It killed ships of any size/class (which the torpedo boat could do), it could function autonomously overseas to project power (which the torpedo boats of the 80's could actually do if accompanied by a 'mother' ship), it could destroy commerce (which was one of the primary functions of the French torpedo boats). The last is coastal bombardment. The French made very specific moves towards trying to enable torpedo boats to do this, one called the Gabriel Charmes was outfitted with a 5.5 inch cannon. The intent was that torpedo boats would be able to undertake 'command of the sea' in the Mahanian sense, which was very much the strategic province of the battleship.

When Aube came to power in '86, he stopped construction work on four battleships. In their place, he tried to order six large and ten small cruisers (for overseas work), twenty large torpedo boats designed to hunt other torpedo boats, fifty bateaux-canon (the torpedo boats equipped with guns), a hundred regular torpedo boats, and three 'mother ships' for the torpedo boats. He also began to trial melinite shell, explicitly to permit the bateaux-canon to perform coastal bombardment, and restarted experimentation on submarines (see the work of Gustave Zede). All this with the intent that they would 'replace' the battleship.

What happened? It failed. Aube wasn't in power long enough, the trials didn't go well enough, and a number of key supporters like Charmes died in the period. But that's only the most extreme example of the Jeune Ecole, and frankly? The query wasn't whether or not someone succeeded in replacing the battleship with the torpedo boat. Success is immaterial.

The assertion you made was whether or not somebody 'thought for one second' about doing it. To which the answer is very clearly that not only did they consider it, they made attempts to do it.

Tangential relevant to the conversation and in keeping with my love of obscure history, I present to you New Zealand's greatest ever warships; the Defender Class torpedo spar boat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defender-class_torpedo_boat

This fantastic warship was designed to ram the enemy with a torpedo attached to its prow. I cant imagine why the design never saw combat...

ingtaer wrote:
Tangential relevant to the conversation and in keeping with my love of obscure history, I present to you New Zealand's greatest ever warships; the Defender Class torpedo spar boat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defender-class_torpedo_boat

This fantastic warship was designed to ram the enemy with a torpedo attached to its prow. I cant imagine why the design never saw combat...

just got to get it past the escorts, the potential light flanking cruiser sqaudrens and then past the targets secondary armament of lighter rapid fire guns.
and then... then hit with the torpedo.

but iys on your ship you just blew up...

yep. war winning that

Spar torpedoes sound daft, but somebody managed to blow up a sloop with one in the US Civil war. You have to remember that when they were first mooted (prior to the propelled Whitehead) guns fired exceptionally slowly, quite inaccurately, and with short range. If you could chuck half a dozen smaller faster boats with spar torpedoes at a battleship, you stood a chance at getting right up next to it.

In which case, the spar torpedo would be lowered to a point under the waterline from a distance, where the force of explosion would find it easier to find a path through the hull of the ship then the water behind your (now rapidly disappearing) small boat.

It sounds crazy in theory, but did make a kind of sense. There were a lot of torpedo variations back then, from the Brennan to Newport's.

True but older warships often still had manned deck guns, or those built into belt armour. still could take a few down.


(later those guns got swapped for pure armour in turret mounts above the armour belt)

 Ketara wrote:
Spar torpedoes sound daft, but somebody managed to blow up a sloop with one in the US Civil war. You have to remember that when they were first mooted (prior to the propelled Whitehead) guns fired exceptionally slowly, quite inaccurately, and with short range. If you could chuck half a dozen smaller faster boats with spar torpedoes at a battleship, you stood a chance at getting right up next to it.

In which case, the spar torpedo would be lowered to a point under the waterline from a distance, where the force of explosion would find it easier to find a path through the hull of the ship then the water behind your (now rapidly disappearing) small boat.

It sounds crazy in theory, but did make a kind of sense. There were a lot of torpedo variations back then, from the Brennan to Newport's.

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

 Ketara wrote:
Spar torpedoes sound daft, but somebody managed to blow up a sloop with one in the US Civil war. You have to remember that when they were first mooted (prior to the propelled Whitehead) guns fired exceptionally slowly, quite inaccurately, and with short range. If you could chuck half a dozen smaller faster boats with spar torpedoes at a battleship, you stood a chance at getting right up next to it.

In which case, the spar torpedo would be lowered to a point under the waterline from a distance, where the force of explosion would find it easier to find a path through the hull of the ship then the water behind your (now rapidly disappearing) small boat.

It sounds crazy in theory, but did make a kind of sense. There were a lot of torpedo variations back then, from the Brennan to Newport's.

Whilst what you say is true, consider the context. NZ was defended by four of these (one at each major port each hundreds of miles from another) and very few coastal guns. That's it. Against any navy that was capable of invading (these boats were built as consequence of the so-called 'Russian Scare' whose warships were equipped with 10-inch guns) these would do nothing. So it was indeed an entire National Defence plan built around torpedo boats, whose plan is somehow steaming into enemy fire, alone, to ram an enemy ship to blow it up. With nothing to defend against any other ships that the enemy might have brought along. That takes a special kind of mind to plan, somehow get approved, paid for and deployed. They were also called the Torpedo Branch of the Armed Constabulary which belongs in a Monty Python sketch.

Oh, I'm not saying that those particular torpedo boats were going to defend a whole country. I'm not even saying these specific boats were a good idea when they were built.

I was just pointing more to how the concept of a spar torpedo generally wasn't entirely crazy when it was first devised twenty years beforehand.

The battle of Lissa mucked about with things when the Austro-Hungarians navy managed to ram an Italian fleet to death in the Med. That made naval planners very confused on how to proceed, and things like steam rams and spar torpedoes stayed in vogue even after they were no longer a good idea.

 Darkjim wrote:
Russia says new UK aircraft carrier 'a convenient target'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40442058

A lot of yah boo sucks between the various high-rankers, interesting though.

They're just grumpy that the French wouldn't give them their carriers after what happened in Ukraine.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Our brand new, shiny aircraft carrier (£6 billion to build) sets sail for sea trials.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40402153

But to get straight to the point, as a keen student of military history, I've been watching youtube videos on anti-ship missiles, and they scare the gak out of me

So are aircraft carriers turning into floating bullseyes, or will they endure for a few more years?

I don't want to see my hard earned tax money end up on the bottom of the ocean.

Especially the Chinese anti-naval missiles fired from a mobile platform outranges carriers...
Is this also marks the viable return of Battleships with UAV tech and cruise misssile battery

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
After all, tanks and helicopters have yet to replace infantry.

Well... once we get massive Mechas:

Spoiler:

Helicopters and tanks are fethed.

But until then...

Spoiler:

Eh... huge vertical profile makes them easier to spot than a tank and they have less manoeuvrability than a helicopter. The complexity of their propulsion systems and the suspension that would need to be built in also limits the weight you can use for armour and weapons systems so they'll probably end up being easier to kill than their equivalent spend in tanks and copters.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
After all, tanks and helicopters have yet to replace infantry.

Well... once we get massive Mechas:

Spoiler:

Helicopters and tanks are fethed.

But until then...

Spoiler:

Eh... huge vertical profile makes them easier to spot than a tank and they have less manoeuvrability than a helicopter. The complexity of their propulsion systems and the suspension that would need to be built in also limits the weight you can use for armour so they'll probably end up being easier to kill than their equivalent spend in tanks and copters.

You would need Japanese Mecha that can launch 5000 missiles per volley. Then conventional warfare will change.

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
After all, tanks and helicopters have yet to replace infantry.

Well... once we get massive Mechas:

Spoiler:

Helicopters and tanks are fethed.

But until then...

Spoiler:

Eh... huge vertical profile makes them easier to spot than a tank and they have less manoeuvrability than a helicopter. The complexity of their propulsion systems and the suspension that would need to be built in also limits the weight you can use for armour so they'll probably end up being easier to kill than their equivalent spend in tanks and copters.

You would need Japanese Mecha that can launch 5000 missiles per volley. Then conventional warfare will change.

But at that point why not just build 500 helicopters or tanks armed with 10 missiles each? You don't lose the whole payload if one copter goes down and can spread the launch sites of the missiles around to make it more difficult for anti-missile systems to track and counter your strike without wasting the missile fuel dispersing from their initial launch site to achieve a spread and variety of attack angles.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
After all, tanks and helicopters have yet to replace infantry.

Well... once we get massive Mechas:

Spoiler:

Helicopters and tanks are fethed.

But until then...

Spoiler:

Eh... huge vertical profile makes them easier to spot than a tank and they have less manoeuvrability than a helicopter. The complexity of their propulsion systems and the suspension that would need to be built in also limits the weight you can use for armour so they'll probably end up being easier to kill than their equivalent spend in tanks and copters.

You would need Japanese Mecha that can launch 5000 missiles per volley. Then conventional warfare will change.

But at that point why not just build 500 helicopters or tanks armed with 10 missiles each? You don't lose the whole payload if one copter goes down and can spread the launch sites of the missiles around to make it more difficult for anti-missile systems to track and counter your strike without wasting the missile fuel dispersing from their initial launch site to achieve a spread and variety of attack angles.

Pretty sure the sci-fi Rule of Cool applies to real life conflict, too.

If the Japan/Russia or Japan/China or Japan/NK tensions go hot and the JSDF unveils her Gundam Battalion, the enemy will be too busy trying to get selfies with the mechas to fight effectively.

 Frazzled wrote:
Carriers are fine against the People's Republic of Slabovia, but they have not been tested against a first rate power since their inception.

Coral Sea? Midway? Are you familiar with the Pacific War during World War 2?

That aside, the modern aircraft carrier will be around for a long, long time. Aircraft carriers are not a super weapon system that sails around on its own. Its part of a system. It has supporting ships and subs that sail around it everywhere it goes, and on a network using the state of the satellite and communications technology. Its also a moving target. And while subs seem pretty scary, remember that most torpedoes have a range of 10 miles, so in the vast expanse of the ocean a sub has to get nearly within point blank range, while avoiding the carrier's accompanying subs, as well as being tracked in the air by the new P-8A Poseidon. Google it. It finds, tracks, and can sink subs from 30,000 feet.

Now that's not to say sub's are obsolete either, they too, like the carrier, are part of a system. A system no one has like the US.

Every now and then I see an argument over who's got the best fighter or tank etc, and the reality is none of them will decide a battle in a void. Its a combination of weapons and tactics that wins, and I just don't see anyone with the capability the US has developed and continues to developed. I don't care if its in the North Sea, Persian Gulf, or South China Sea, the US is going to dominate because of the system, not any particular weapon.

I would say the far-ish future of carriers will involve mostly cheaper ones loaded with drones, supplementing long range manned aircraft based in the US are far away bases. But they will still be around.

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carriers are fine against the People's Republic of Slabovia, but they have not been tested against a first rate power since their inception.

Coral Sea? Midway? Are you familiar with the Pacific War during World War 2?
.

To be clear I meant post WWII.

I wonder how they would fair against an attack by stealth aircraft.

 Frazzled wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carriers are fine against the People's Republic of Slabovia, but they have not been tested against a first rate power since their inception.

Coral Sea? Midway? Are you familiar with the Pacific War during World War 2?
.

To be clear I meant post WWII.

I wonder how they would fair against an attack by stealth aircraft.

So... since they're inception, just 20 years later.

What 1st Rate powers have fought a war since then though? We haven't had a US Army M1A2 throw down with a Russian T-90 yet, so I guess those are obsolete as well? I mean we both possess anti-tank missiles that can kill each others tanks, so there is no sense in the hundreds of millions we spend on them, right?

Tanks have been in combat on multiple occasions. As time as moved on their role has changed and they have become more vulnerable to attack, especially air attack.

 Frazzled wrote:
Tanks have been in combat on multiple occasions. As time as moved on their role has changed and they have become more vulnerable to attack, especially air attack.

Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

As has been pointed out numerous times in here, just because technology exists that can destroy a military target, does not make that target obsolete. An aircraft carrier, and it's attached battle group provides many, many, tangibles to the JFC (Joint Force Commander). Until technology proceeds to the point where a Carrier Battle Group can be neutralized with it being incapable of providing any military value of import, they will be useful.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Tanks have been in combat on multiple occasions. As time as moved on their role has changed and they have become more vulnerable to attack, especially air attack.

Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

As has been pointed out numerous times in here, just because technology exists that can destroy a military target, does not make that target obsolete. An aircraft carrier, and it's attached battle group provides many, many, tangibles to the JFC (Joint Force Commander). Until technology proceeds to the point where a Carrier Battle Group can be neutralized with it being incapable of providing any military value of import, they will be useful.

Only if they don't exceed the cost.

Again, they've not actually fought anyone in multiple decades. How a carrier group would stand up to a concentrated pounding by say one or two hundred Chinese antiship missiles remains to be seen.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Tanks have been in combat on multiple occasions. As time as moved on their role has changed and they have become more vulnerable to attack, especially air attack.

Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

As has been pointed out numerous times in here, just because technology exists that can destroy a military target, does not make that target obsolete. An aircraft carrier, and it's attached battle group provides many, many, tangibles to the JFC (Joint Force Commander). Until technology proceeds to the point where a Carrier Battle Group can be neutralized with it being incapable of providing any military value of import, they will be useful.

The thing is a carrier battle group is yes it can be attacked. But its defences are immense. And it can unload a hell ton of fire power on anyone inside maybe 1000 miles.
Its also in a short time of being sited, mobile and moving at flank, classified, but over 30 knots!
If you add a growing circle from first detect to hunt. It wodens to hundreds of square miles, to thousands, quickly.

Plus as said, its formidable AA defences and outer cap patrols keep anyone outside a good 100mile envelope..

If they where obsolete why would US build more. China want them, be in demand second line for sale and UK spend billions on em.

 djones520 wrote:
Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

Desert Storm.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Tanks have been in combat on multiple occasions. As time as moved on their role has changed and they have become more vulnerable to attack, especially air attack.

Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

As has been pointed out numerous times in here, just because technology exists that can destroy a military target, does not make that target obsolete. An aircraft carrier, and it's attached battle group provides many, many, tangibles to the JFC (Joint Force Commander). Until technology proceeds to the point where a Carrier Battle Group can be neutralized with it being incapable of providing any military value of import, they will be useful.

Only if they don't exceed the cost.

Again, they've not actually fought anyone in multiple decades. How a carrier group would stand up to a concentrated pounding by say one or two hundred Chinese antiship missiles remains to be seen.

Considering the vast majority of those Anti-ship missiles that the Chinese have, has an operational range of 50ish kilometers, good luck getting them to the Carrier, that has a defense net of as pointed out, up to a thousand miles.

In true warfare, casualties are going to happen. You civvies have kind of forgotten that. If the Chinese expend their entire anti-ship missile capability to take down a single carrier, well that's a price we'll likely pay. When the other 7 or so we've got are then able to operate with impunity, it's a trade we won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

Desert Storm.

No, not even close. The Iraqi's most modern battle tank in Desert Storm was 20 years old at that point, or using 20 year old technology, in the case of the Lion of Babylon tanks. The Soviets/Russians had already been replacing their T-72's with the T-80 five years prior to Desert Storm. In contrast, the M1 Abrams was state of the art at the time.

Unless you assets around the world or alliances to help defend, I don't think having a carrier is worth it. In most cases, its simply prestige. The UK and France do have overseas territories to defend (as small as they might be) so its reasonable to have them. Russia does not, so its a bit of a waste for them to have any, and the same goes for China. China only wants them for prestigious reasons. They have seen the US sail around the South China Sea and it represents the US's global reach. China doesn't have overseas territories beyond the South China Sea, which can be covered by aircraft from the mainland. They see the influence the US has pulling one up, and would like the same effect sailing around the South and East China Sea.

But having them is one thing. Using them is another. I don't believe for a minute that China's military strength will ever be measured by their carriers. They will be paper tigers because China hasn't developed a matured system to use them. The US has been at it for 80 years. China would have to actually engage in some wars to properly learn how to use their weapons, and they will lose the first big one they fight.

Why do you think it would be a single carrier?

KTG17 wrote:
Unless you assets around the world or alliances to help defend, I don't think having a carrier is worth it. In most cases, its simply prestige. The UK and France do have overseas territories to defend (as small as they might be) so its reasonable to have them. Russia does not, so its a bit of a waste for them to have any, and the same goes for China. China only wants them for prestigious reasons. They have seen the US sail around the South China Sea and it represents the US's global reach. China doesn't have overseas territories beyond the South China Sea, which can be covered by aircraft from the mainland. They see the influence the US has pulling one up, and would like the same effect sailing around the South and East China Sea.

But having them is one thing. Using them is another. I don't believe for a minute that China's military strength will ever be measured by their carriers. They will be paper tigers because China hasn't developed a matured system to use them. The US has been at it for 80 years. China would have to actually engage in some wars to properly learn how to use their weapons, and they will lose the first big one they fight.

China wants them for force projection reasons. They are trying to expand their economic base to the ocean, and they need a navy to defend it. If you want a true blue water navy, you need carriers. It's that simple.

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

Desert Storm.

No, not even close. The Iraqi's most modern battle tank in Desert Storm was 20 years old at that point, or using 20 year old technology, in the case of the Lion of Babylon tanks. The Soviets/Russians had already been replacing their T-72's with the T-80 five years prior to Desert Storm. In contrast, the M1 Abrams was state of the art at the time.

What are you talking about? The Adrams entered service in 1980. Does that mean in 2017 the Abrams is obsolete and junk today? Of course not, its still an ass-kicking tank. Just because one had more capabilities than the other doesn't mean they weren't modern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
China wants them for force projection reasons. They are trying to expand their economic base to the ocean, and they need a navy to defend it. If you want a true blue water navy, you need carriers. It's that simple.

No I know they would like them for force projection, but to where? If its beyond the South China Sea, then fine, but I dont think that is their goal. And if its just within the China Seas, then land based aircraft can cover that.

In their case its prestige.

If they had assets in the South Pacific, or Indian Oceans, then sure. But they don't.

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Not since the early Israeli wars have we seen a conflict of a modern tank against a modern tank.

Desert Storm.

No, not even close. The Iraqi's most modern battle tank in Desert Storm was 20 years old at that point, or using 20 year old technology, in the case of the Lion of Babylon tanks. The Soviets/Russians had already been replacing their T-72's with the T-80 five years prior to Desert Storm. In contrast, the M1 Abrams was state of the art at the time.

What are you talking about? The Adrams entered service in 1980. Does that mean in 2017 the Abrams is obsolete and junk today? Of course not, its still an ass-kicking tank. Just because one had more capabilities than the other doesn't mean they weren't modern.

The Abrams has constantly been updated throughout its life. The M1A2 variant that we operate now is worlds beyond the M1A1 that we used in 1991 (the oldest variant at the time was 4 years old). The best tank the Iraqi's had was 1971 technology, the worst was late 40's, where the US and its allies were using 1986+ technology.

The only instance of a modern tank shooting at a modern tank in Desert Storm were the few unfortunate friendly fire incidents we had.