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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. They actually went all around the Mediterranean, and potentially even further if some fairly obscure evidence is to be believed. They may have even landed in Brazil.

And the Romans utterly utterly slaughtered them.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. They actually went all around the Mediterranean, and potentially even further if some fairly obscure evidence is to be believed. They may have even landed in Brazil.

And the Romans utterly utterly slaughtered them.

Only after the Romans learned how to make boats from the Carthaginians.

And the Roman Empire was a land empire that fell.

Because all things fall.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. They actually went all around the Mediterranean, and potentially even further if some fairly obscure evidence is to be believed. They may have even landed in Brazil.

And the Romans utterly utterly slaughtered them.

Indeed. Because of size and organization. The Pheonicians were also primarily traders. Rome was a military giant. Even if they werent great sailors, you'll still steamroll anybody smaller than you if you put effort in.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. They actually went all around the Mediterranean, and potentially even further if some fairly obscure evidence is to be believed. They may have even landed in Brazil.

And the Romans utterly utterly slaughtered them.

Indeed. Because of size and organization. The Pheonicians were also primarily traders. Rome was a military giant. Even if they werent great sailors, you'll still steamroll anybody smaller than you if you put effort in.

Rome was logistics.
They could bring alot more to bear than there rivals for a time.
And they took naval warfare. Then turned into into a land formation fight and ranged weaponry.

Rome was not a naval power. They did not trust the sea.
But they could still sail if required.

 jhe90 wrote:
Rome was logistics. They could bring alot more to bear than there rivals for a time.

That goes for their land battles too. Rome had incredible reserves of manpower and enough industry to equip new legions quickly. None of their rivals could do something like that, though some could raise huge armies. The Phoenicians largely relied on mercenaries as I recall, something that works as long as you pay and are victorious - once you start losing many old mercs will look for a way out and any new units will be worse equipped, worse led, worse trained and so on.

Spetulhu wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Rome was logistics. They could bring alot more to bear than there rivals for a time.

That goes for their land battles too. Rome had incredible reserves of manpower and enough industry to equip new legions quickly. None of their rivals could do something like that, though some could raise huge armies. The Phoenicians largely relied on mercenaries as I recall, something that works as long as you pay and are victorious - once you start losing many old mercs will look for a way out and any new units will be worse equipped, worse led, worse trained and so on.

Also displine and cross unit training.
Two legions could integrate battle plans and tactics quickly, fight ad one unit with similar training and general strategy with strict command chains and organization. Multi legion battles where regular.

A force of various mercs, not so much, all independent, trained differently or experiences in different battles.
Doffrwnt story. And not same ability to adapt command structure as well less structured.

The discussion of the strengths of Republican Rome are interesting but rather a big tangent from the viability of the fleet carrier in the 21st century.

Then let's loop them back.

One of the other things that keeps the Carrier relevant is its political value. A carrier (and accompanying assets) represents a certain easily quantifiable level of national interest and intent. A government committing a carrier o a theatre sends a clear message that they are very interested in the outcome of a situation and are willing to take steps to ensure a favourable outcome.

This is one of the things that makes America a true super power. Not just one, but sometimes two or three of their massive supercarriers, with their escorts, accompanied by Marines can find their way to any coastline in the world in a manner of days after the outbreak of a crisis.

Its much like how Rome used to demonstrate its interest in affairs by the presence of one or more legions nearby.

 Ketara wrote:
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'.

You misunderstood me, as i never said there was no notion of replacing battleships in part. That reading of my statement makes little to no sense in the context of the rest of my point.

However, I didn't know Jeune Ecole reached the extent of envisioning a fleet design that would dominate the seas without battleships. I only knew it in the context of specific counters to battleships. So I stand corrected on that point, cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
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.

The Chinese have spent a substantial pile of cash in primary industries in Africa, and securing sea lanes to bring resources back to China. Ever wonder why the Chinese took a sudden interest in resolving the Sri Lankan crisis, and accepted humiliating India and harming that relationship? Because they wanted to take a lead position in Sir Lankan politics, because of Sri Lanka's critical location in the trade route from Africa to China.

China is now a modern economy, which means to fuel their economy they need resource flows from outside their borders. It is then natural to want force project capability to protect those assets. It is not merely prestige. And nor do Chinese carriers have to be competitive with US carriers to be a valuable asset. Not every military operation is about butting heads with the US. It isn't always about the US, you know.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And the Roman Empire was a land empire that fell.

Because all things fall.

Not the Spanish Inquisition.

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
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'.

You misunderstood me, as i never said there was no notion of replacing battleships in part. That reading of my statement makes little to no sense in the context of the rest of my point.

However, I didn't know Jeune Ecole reached the extent of envisioning a fleet design that would dominate the seas without battleships. I only knew it in the context of specific counters to battleships. So I stand corrected on that point, cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
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.

The Chinese have spent a substantial pile of cash in primary industries in Africa, and securing sea lanes to bring resources back to China. Ever wonder why the Chinese took a sudden interest in resolving the Sri Lankan crisis, and accepted humiliating India and harming that relationship? Because they wanted to take a lead position in Sir Lankan politics, because of Sri Lanka's critical location in the trade route from Africa to China.

China is now a modern economy, which means to fuel their economy they need resource flows from outside their borders. It is then natural to want force project capability to protect those assets. It is not merely prestige. And nor do Chinese carriers have to be competitive with US carriers to be a valuable asset. Not every military operation is about butting heads with the US. It isn't always about the US, you know.

Yes older carrier. Not a super carrier but its enough to intimidate some African nations and keep those trade routes opn, safe and hold people to there promises in a particularly unstable and changeable part of the world

Its got enough leverage for those needs.

I should also like to point out that for all the people who've claimed that carriers are too big a target, absolutely none of them have come up with a viable alternative that provides similar capabilities for the cost. Just about every other type of combination of vessel (Soviet-style KUG or American SAG centered around a battlewagon) is either as vulnerable to the very same anti-ship missiles (actually, even more so) or are unable to turn out a similar kind of sustained firepower (much has been made of the converted Ohio SSGNs or those Kalibr-firing corvettes, but unlike carrier aviation they have to return to ports to reload their offensive payloads). Carrier aviation also has the benefit of providing long-range over-the-horizon detection capability for defensive and offensive capabilities (providing guidance data to AAW interceptors like the AIM-120D AMRAAM and SM-6 against sea-skimming anti-ship missiles flying below the horizon is a capability of the E-2D Super Hawkeye) and striking at targets well beyond the ranges of other surface vessels.

They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

I mean that completely ignores reality. And also that there are more than two countries in the world.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

I mean that completely ignores reality. And also that there are more than two countries in the world.

Indeed there are six.

Texas.
Greater Texas (aka the US)
Norte Texas (Canada)
Mexico (central and south America)
Australia
Not Texas (everywhere else).

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And the Roman Empire was a land empire that fell.

Because all things fall.

Not the Spanish Inquisition.

They fell unexpectedly.

As Britain has proved, having one of the world's best aircraft carriers counts for nothing if you don't have any warplanes to put on it!

What a shambles

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And the Roman Empire was a land empire that fell.

Because all things fall.

Not the Spanish Inquisition.

They fell unexpectedly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

And here we are returning to the crude notion that war is just about hard counters. A can kill B, therefore B is totally worthless and militaries should just be loads and loads of A. Except the real world doesn't work that way.

Just go back and read the thread. There's some really good stuff in there. You will learn things. You will leave the thread with an opinion that is vastly better informed than what you just posted. That can only be a good thing. Please do it.

 sebster wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

And here we are returning to the crude notion that war is just about hard counters. A can kill B, therefore B is totally worthless and militaries should just be loads and loads of A. Except the real world doesn't work that way.

Just go back and read the thread. There's some really good stuff in there. You will learn things. You will leave the thread with an opinion that is vastly better informed than what you just posted. That can only be a good thing. Please do it.

In his defense, if major powers are going at it, such that carrier groups are being attacked, nukes are definitely, if not likely, going to eventually be used. Major powers haven't fought a duirect war in decades with a fear that would occur being a major driver to it not happening. Nuclear deterrance indeed worked.

If nuclear deterrance hasn't worked in the scenario, then odds are death from above is only a matter of time, and major sea battles would be one reason for it.

on the positive, in a short period of time I'd proffer fleet groups would have the capacity to actually defend themselves from old style missiles. THAAD's been deployed and hell I worked on THAAD so thats er...decades technology.

Slightly OT, but still relevant as it concerns naval warfare, but this youtube video, by a former British Admiral, on the subject of naval warfare of the future, is quite interesting if you have 90 minutes to spare

It's one of my favourites. The intro finishes at 5 minutes 22 secs

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

And here we are returning to the crude notion that war is just about hard counters. A can kill B, therefore B is totally worthless and militaries should just be loads and loads of A. Except the real world doesn't work that way.

Just go back and read the thread. There's some really good stuff in there. You will learn things. You will leave the thread with an opinion that is vastly better informed than what you just posted. That can only be a good thing. Please do it.

In his defense, if major powers are going at it, such that carrier groups are being attacked, nukes are definitely, if not likely, going to eventually be used. Major powers haven't fought a duirect war in decades with a fear that would occur being a major driver to it not happening. Nuclear deterrance indeed worked.

If nuclear deterrance hasn't worked in the scenario, then odds are death from above is only a matter of time, and major sea battles would be one reason for it.

on the positive, in a short period of time I'd proffer fleet groups would have the capacity to actually defend themselves from old style missiles. THAAD's been deployed and hell I worked on THAAD so thats er...decades technology.

I have thought that it is possible for 2 nuclear armed countries to have an open war without the use of nukes. Neither is willing to escalate the combat beyond conventional warfare because that would mean total annihilation for both. The stalemate would only be broken if one side was losing the war badly(IE: a direct invasion of the other's homeland with defeat imminent)

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

And here we are returning to the crude notion that war is just about hard counters. A can kill B, therefore B is totally worthless and militaries should just be loads and loads of A. Except the real world doesn't work that way.

Just go back and read the thread. There's some really good stuff in there. You will learn things. You will leave the thread with an opinion that is vastly better informed than what you just posted. That can only be a good thing. Please do it.

In his defense, if major powers are going at it, such that carrier groups are being attacked, nukes are definitely, if not likely, going to eventually be used. Major powers haven't fought a duirect war in decades with a fear that would occur being a major driver to it not happening. Nuclear deterrance indeed worked.

If nuclear deterrance hasn't worked in the scenario, then odds are death from above is only a matter of time, and major sea battles would be one reason for it.

on the positive, in a short period of time I'd proffer fleet groups would have the capacity to actually defend themselves from old style missiles. THAAD's been deployed and hell I worked on THAAD so thats er...decades technology.

As I've said before to everybody, nobody, and I mean nobody will nuke a city in a time of war. That's an end of the world scenario that no nations wants to enact.

But if a US carrier fleet is in the middle of the Pacific? Dropping one nuke on them could be a tempting move. America would obviously be mad as hell, but that could be chalked up as a military loss, and not a civilian catastrophe.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

And here we are returning to the crude notion that war is just about hard counters. A can kill B, therefore B is totally worthless and militaries should just be loads and loads of A. Except the real world doesn't work that way.

Just go back and read the thread. There's some really good stuff in there. You will learn things. You will leave the thread with an opinion that is vastly better informed than what you just posted. That can only be a good thing. Please do it.

In his defense, if major powers are going at it, such that carrier groups are being attacked, nukes are definitely, if not likely, going to eventually be used. Major powers haven't fought a duirect war in decades with a fear that would occur being a major driver to it not happening. Nuclear deterrance indeed worked.

If nuclear deterrance hasn't worked in the scenario, then odds are death from above is only a matter of time, and major sea battles would be one reason for it.

on the positive, in a short period of time I'd proffer fleet groups would have the capacity to actually defend themselves from old style missiles. THAAD's been deployed and hell I worked on THAAD so thats er...decades technology.

As I've said before to everybody, nobody, and I mean nobody will nuke a city in a time of war. That's an end of the world scenario that no nations wants to enact.

But if a US carrier fleet is in the middle of the Pacific? Dropping one nuke on them could be a tempting move. America would obviously be mad as hell, but that could be chalked up as a military loss, and not a civilian catastrophe.

I am sure that if a nuke ever gets launched at any American military asset, no matter what it is or who is in charge of the codes, that you'd see plenty of our own nukes go flying in retaliation.

It's very possible two neculear powers to fight in open war and not use nukes. If India and Pakistan can mange to not nuke each other, than so can China and the US.

I'd be far more worried about DPRK launching one, or one of Russia's shoddily kept warheads being stolen my terrorists.

But it would be a proportionate response in my opinion.

No nation on Earth could stand back and do nothing if one of its cities got turned to ash, but losing military assets is different to civilian assets, because people know the risks if you join the military. It's a different mindset. During the Cold War, if the KGB killed a CIA agent, then the normal response was to kill a KGB agent in return. Both sides understood the 'rules.'

So, in this hypothetical situation, America loses a carrier fleet in the middle of nowhere, and the proportional response would be to nuke a Chinese military asset/base/airfield in retaliation, but NEVER a civilian target.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But it would be a proportionate response in my opinion.

No nation on Earth could stand back and do nothing if one of its cities got turned to ash, but losing military assets is different to civilian assets, because people know the risks if you join the military. It's a different mindset. During the Cold War, if the KGB killed a CIA agent, then the normal response was to kill a KGB agent in return. Both sides understood the 'rules.'

So, in this hypothetical situation, America loses a carrier fleet in the middle of nowhere, and the proportional response would be to nuke a Chinese military asset/base/airfield in retaliation, but NEVER a civilian target.

Given how densely populated China is, it would be pretty impossible to nuke a Chinese base without also catching a lot of people in the crossfire. Nor would the chinese know that we are "only nuking a base". Any use of a nuke aggressively would result in open season.

You can't really compare using 1 nuke vs a specific military target with the Tit-for-tat with spies. Those Spies weren't getting slapped with nukes. Being a spy is also illegal, nobody is surprised if a spy gets killed because that's been the rules forever. Spies can be killed on sight.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They have been obsolete since the first ICBMs existed. All they exist for now is so the US and China can have dick-waving contests.

And here we are returning to the crude notion that war is just about hard counters. A can kill B, therefore B is totally worthless and militaries should just be loads and loads of A. Except the real world doesn't work that way.

Just go back and read the thread. There's some really good stuff in there. You will learn things. You will leave the thread with an opinion that is vastly better informed than what you just posted. That can only be a good thing. Please do it.

In his defense, if major powers are going at it, such that carrier groups are being attacked, nukes are definitely, if not likely, going to eventually be used. Major powers haven't fought a duirect war in decades with a fear that would occur being a major driver to it not happening. Nuclear deterrance indeed worked.

If nuclear deterrance hasn't worked in the scenario, then odds are death from above is only a matter of time, and major sea battles would be one reason for it.

on the positive, in a short period of time I'd proffer fleet groups would have the capacity to actually defend themselves from old style missiles. THAAD's been deployed and hell I worked on THAAD so thats er...decades technology.

As I've said before to everybody, nobody, and I mean nobody will nuke a city in a time of war. That's an end of the world scenario that no nations wants to enact.

But if a US carrier fleet is in the middle of the Pacific? Dropping one nuke on them could be a tempting move. America would obviously be mad as hell, but that could be chalked up as a military loss, and not a civilian catastrophe.

But any nukes used in such a manner would not be ICBMs. The nature of ICBMs means that you have no idea what the target is when it is launched. From the point of view of the US, a launch of an ICBM from China aimed at a carrier fleet in the pacific would be identical to an ICBM launched at the US mainland until they had enough of a trajectory to extrapolate from. And waiting for such data as to do that cuts into your response time.

So without using ICBMs, what else does china have? It could drop an atomic bomb, but such a bomber could be intercepted. It could launch smaller missiles, assuming the carrier fleet is in range and such deployment vehicles haven't been destroyed.

A Speedboat full of explosives holing a carrier...Or a silkworm...Or Excoet...WHY CANT WE DEFEND OUR SHIPS....WE ARE WEAK.....WE DEMAND ANSWERS!!!!!

Hell. You have your nukes and I'l accept the ability to drop 'mine' type objects along major sea lanes and at the mouths of home ports where Carriers are berthed.

Watch the collective outrage as carrier commanders refuse to put to sea until the 'mines' are all gone. Watch as politicians are hounded out of office.

Nukes are irrelevant.