Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#51

Post by eftpotrm »

Symmetry wrote: post #15
crikli wrote: post #10

I've observed a principle that militaries build to win the last total war they fought. This is why guys like Billy Mitchell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell ) were ignored about the importance of air power leading up to WWII. The status quo was to gear up for another WWI, complete with entrenched and barely mobile front lines. But of course the German Blitzkreig, a brilliant archetype of maneuver warfare…

But it was the Siegfried Line[1] in WWII that let the Germans concentrate their whole army against the Poles and defeat them before turning west, and that let them attack where the French weren't rather than have to defend the current border. So German tactics in WWII were dependant on the same static defenses that the French used, but they took that and added a maneuver component instead of replacing it entirely. Ma…

The Siegfried Line was made enormously more effective by general malaise in the Western armies (then under French command) though; in spite of being relatively weak and unfinished it went largely untroubled. There were some small incursions into western Germany but they weren't substantial.

What makes this particularly galling is relative strengths of the two armies at the time; the Allied forces in northeastern France had significantly more tanks (for example) available there than the Germany army had in total, let alone defending the western front. It's far from impossible that a serious, concerted attack on western Germany in the 1939-1940 'phoney war' period could have had enough success to significantly alter the course of the war and turn it significantly into a land war in western Germany for much of the period.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#52

Post by ghshephard »

bluekeybox wrote: post #40
lionhearted wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place. Actually, I think you're mistaken, but let's think this through - There's 200 countries in the world, roughly. Call the current world powers America, China, UK, Russia, and maybe a couple other European countries. In…

You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing. > And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare. The key word is "usually". How usually is usually? When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning? There was none. True, major attacks are rare, but when they do come, I would say about 50% of them are without warning. Yes, they are usually preceded by som…

I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about (though from a casual scan it appears to be something to do with the security of nuclear arms, and relative risk of those arms being compromised in a domestic uprising, versus destroyed by a foreign power) - but on HN, we have a tradition of civil discussion, so the comment, ""You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing."" is inappropriate here.

You may have a delightfully convincing and logical treatise on this topic, but if you lose your audience in the first sentence, we won't get the benefit of it.

A casual scan of the parent's commentary indicates some semblance of cognitive analysis of the issues at hand, so it's not even clear to me your analysis of their (lack of) thinking before exposition is accurate, and, regardless, you could have worded your position somewhat more politely - perhaps by identifying the flaws in their logic, rather than making a claim of lack of thought on their part.

A civil apology would go a long ways towards recovering traction in your discussion with them and convincing the readers of this thread of your good will.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#53

Post by hugh3 »

zeteo wrote: post #19
pragmatic wrote: post #3

The relevant part (to us hackers) is the use of maneuver warfare vs "phalanx" fighting. Think of Msft, Oracle, IBM, Apple as the phalanx fighters. They lock shields and charge, spending millions (billions) of dollars (instead of soldiers). The problem is their tactics are clumsy. Imagine all the Microsoft VP's circling the wagons around really bad _implementations_ (the ideas aren't bad) - I'm sure you can thing of s…

The phalanx was a really bright idea for its day. The Greeks were able to defeat much larger Persian armies (Marathon, Plataea) with their phalanxes. And the phalanx was a crucial part of Philip II and Alexander's combined arms system and their maneuver warfare. "Phalanx" vs. "maneuver warfare" is, at best, a false dichotomy.

Indeed, this was my main issue with the article. As technology has developed, the advantage has switched back and forth from attackers to defenders, and from big heavy stuff to rapid manueverable stuff.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#54

Post by ramchip »

stcredzero wrote: post #25
_djo_ wrote: post #7

This is not exactly convincing. Battleships, far from being a ridiculous idea, were a logical and necessary step for any navy wishing to project power at sea. They were so heavily armoured and gunned that for a long time, from the late 19th Century to just before WWII, the only realistic defence against a battleship was another battleship. While the Battle of Jutland may seem silly, the alternative would have been a…

Battleships, far from being a ridiculous idea, were a logical and necessary step for any navy wishing to project power at sea. They were so heavily armoured and gunned that for a long time, from the late 19th Century to just before WWII, the only realistic defence against a battleship was another battleship. Or, playing the "wolf card" amidst the fog of war and a resourcefully laid smokescreen with a bunch of smaller…

> Autonomous Air Independent Propulsion submersible drones

Isn't this basically an electric torpedo?

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#55

Post by hugh3 »

latch wrote: post #23
fraserharris wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aircraft carriers are somewhere in between. The aircraft they carry are part of maneuver warfare.

except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious high priority. Ever see Independence Day or, more recently, Battle LA? Didn't you find it stupid that once the command ship are destroyed, the enemy essentially dies? This is what aircraft carrie…

except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious high priority

There are 190-odd countries in the world. The US Navy's aircraft carriers are extremely effective against at least 185 of 'em.

All the countries with a "remotely comparable force" also have nuclear weapons, so if the US ever winds up in a full-on shooting war with one of them then it's all over for both sides anyway.

No aircraft carrier has actually been sunk since World War 2. So they can't be that vulnerable.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#56

Post by yxhuvud »

stcredzero wrote: post #39
latch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the scale I'm talking about. You don't need a fleet of $500 million USD submarines. 11 US aircraft carriers? 11 missiles. $100+Billion vs $15 Million. 30000 soldiers vs 0. During the cold war this is the strategy that Russia took - let the US build expensive ships, they build [relatively] cheap missiles. The Chinese are doing the same with the Dong Feng missiles.

Yes, but if China also built the fleet, then it would be in a position to project power farther from its shores. If all you wanted to do is keep the carrier group away from your own shore, then capable missiles would suffice.

China is doing it's best at ramping up their fleet. It is just that they focus on making better ships instead of making many ships, at the moment.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#57

Post by Symmetry »

eftpotrm wrote: post #51
Symmetry wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it was the Siegfried Line[1] in WWII that let the Germans concentrate their whole army against the Poles and defeat them before turning west, and that let them attack where the French weren't rather than have to defend the current border. So German tactics in WWII were dependant on the same static defenses that the French used, but they took that and added a maneuver component instead of replacing it entirely. Ma…

The Siegfried Line was made enormously more effective by general malaise in the Western armies (then under French command) though; in spite of being relatively weak and unfinished it went largely untroubled. There were some small incursions into western Germany but they weren't substantial. What makes this particularly galling is relative strengths of the two armies at the time; the Allied forces in northeastern Fran…

Its very true that it wasn't yet as strong as it was designed to be nor was it as strong as the Maginot line. It only had to be enough, though. If Germany's western border had been completely unfortified there would have been no way that the Allies wouldn't have attacked. And even the unfinished wall represented a huge investment for Nazi Germany. If you haven't already I'd recommend reading "The Wages of Destruction" on the economy of Nazi Germany, its a fascinating book for a number of reasons.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#58

Post by lupatus »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #50
crikli wrote: post #10

I've observed a principle that militaries build to win the last total war they fought. This is why guys like Billy Mitchell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell ) were ignored about the importance of air power leading up to WWII. The status quo was to gear up for another WWI, complete with entrenched and barely mobile front lines. But of course the German Blitzkreig, a brilliant archetype of maneuver warfare…

I don't know how much I agree with the statement "even the Cold War was really just the US and Russia building to re-win WWII until Russia ran out of cash". Not that it matters for this discussion, because I think its clear that the U.S. military is still trying to design itself for a Cold War scenario, and encountering huge problems when faced with asymmetrical opponents.

I think the USA are doing smashingly well against their current crop asymmetrical opponents. Wikipedia has the GWOT American casualties count (military and civilian) at 8800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror#Casualties). Far more American citizens than that died the last time we faced a serious asymmetrical opponent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars).

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#59

Post by hugh3 »

isleyaardvark wrote: post #22
werpon wrote: post #8

Big warships could accomodate bigger cannons. Bigger cannons could deliver bigger shells further, enabling your warships to hit the enemy while keeping out of their range. These capital ships aren't being built today because missiles and fighter planes suddenly negated their advantage, not because they weren't a good idea to begin with. IMHO it's an overwhelming act of condescension pretending to be smarter than thou…

> IMHO it's an overwhelming act of condescension pretending to be smarter than thousands of admirals and military advisors, many of them with lots of real world experience fighting wars and stuff. I thought the same thing, but then I remembered that the military leadership and tactics during The Great War were pretty damn lousy (e.g. trench warfare). For some reason it seems like it's surprisingly common for wide var…

then I remembered that the military leadership and tactics during The Great War were pretty damn lousy (e.g. trench warfare)

What's so lousy about trench warfare? I mean, yes, it sucks, but it's a Nash equilibrium given the technology at the time (very good machine guns, lousy tanks and aircraft). If your enemy has trenches, you need trenches too. What else would you have done?

Post reply on HN