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

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#101

Post by eru »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #42
lionhearted wrote: post #28

Actually a pretty good article, despite the inaccuracies noted here in other comments. The author uses some hyperbole and makes some errors, but still an interesting discussion regarding phalanx vs. maneuver warfare. While we're picking on individual parts, though - > For missile silos, just target the enemy’s silos with lots of missiles and you can duke it out and win (just like the phalanx). If he puts his missiles…

He misses the point entirely with missile silos. The backbone of the modern nuclear arsenal is the ballistic missile submarine. Far more mobile and far harder a target than any railborn missile.

Rails are quite easy to sabotage.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#102

Post by eru »

philwelch wrote: post #85
DrCatbox wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard this kind of storytelling before, where the outcome of the WW2 is attributed to the failure of the German army on the eastern front and the discussion is focused on finding factors for that failure. However such a storytelling tends to discard or fade the importance of Russian endevaours, ingeniuity and sacrifice. Another kind of storytelling would focus in finding factors which made Russia the ultimate…

Russia's success hinged on two things: their massive geographic advantages and the use of scorched earth tactics. I don't want to minimize the fact that Russia bore a lot of casualties (more than any other country) in the process of defeating the Germans and pushing east, but frankly most wars are won and lost by the factors that existed before the first shot is fired, including population, logistics, and geography.…

Yes. The last chance for the Germans to win was in the first world war. And that would have been only by keeping Britain and America out of the war, and minimizing involvement with France.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#103

Post by eru »

hugh3 wrote: post #59
isleyaardvark wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Oh, you could have stayed in the trenches---but don't order any attacks. Just wait for your enemies to be dumb enough to attack first. Just bleed them dry with defence.

(I heard that the Belgian king was held in high esteem by the normal Belgians for not ordering those suicidal attacks.)

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#104

Post by gaius »

zacharycohn wrote: post #98
gaius wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And accuracies measured in hundreds of metres.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. "Real-world data show that some high-quality GPS SPS receivers currently attain better than 3 meter horizontal position accuracy" [1], and military GPS is even more accurate. [1] http://www.pnt.gov/public/faq.shtml#accurate

Umm, that back in the time the missile silos were planned, there was no GPS? That combined with the relatively low-yield warheads meant that hardened silos were a viable weapon - they were likely to survive a first-strike.

Thanks for the downvote tho'.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#105

Post by dmm »

philwelch wrote: post #85
DrCatbox wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard this kind of storytelling before, where the outcome of the WW2 is attributed to the failure of the German army on the eastern front and the discussion is focused on finding factors for that failure. However such a storytelling tends to discard or fade the importance of Russian endevaours, ingeniuity and sacrifice. Another kind of storytelling would focus in finding factors which made Russia the ultimate…

Russia's success hinged on two things: their massive geographic advantages and the use of scorched earth tactics. I don't want to minimize the fact that Russia bore a lot of casualties (more than any other country) in the process of defeating the Germans and pushing east, but frankly most wars are won and lost by the factors that existed before the first shot is fired, including population, logistics, and geography.…

The south most certainly could have won the civil war. Why not?

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#106

Post by hugh3 »

philwelch wrote: post #94
hugh3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" a…

1000 anti-ship missiles cost far less than an aircraft carrier with crew and aircraft aboard. There are a number of non-nuclear powers with the ability to launch 1000 anti-ship missiles against an American task force.

How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles? And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier?

Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of the war.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#107

Post by paganel »

crikli wrote: post #11
_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…

"Manoeuvre warfare is fantastically effective when the circumstances allow for it, but the available conditions, technology and personnel can sometimes make it ineffective. For instance, the German Blitzkrieg was extraordinarily effective against the static French defences in 1940, but the same forces and tactics came unstuck in 1941 when faced with a vicious winter and the Russian scorched earth style of defence." N…

> Encirclement and passage was one of the lessons the American military learned (sort of) from Stalingard that they later executed in the island hopping campaigns of the Pacific.

I was just reading Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy) last night, more exactly a chapter called "Fortresses are generally more injurious than useful":

> But when the prince has not a good army, then fortresses whether within his territory or upon the frontiers are either injurious or useless to him; injurious, because they are easily lost, and when lost are turned against him; and even if they are so strong that the enemy cannot take them, he will march by with his army and leave them in the rear; and thus they are of no benefit, for good armies, unless opposed by equally powerful ones, march into the enemy’s country regardless of cities or fortresses, which they leave in their rear. We have many instances of this in ancient history; and Francesco Maria did the same thing quite recently, when, marching to attack Urbino, he left ten hostile cities behind him without paying the least attention to them.

You can very well replace "fortress" with "battleship" and the idea is the same.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book, and you're mentioning somth about the US Army learning from the Germans' mistakes. Well, I can tell you that they certainly did not learn anything from reading Machiavelli, otherwise they wouldn't have trusted Karzai in Afghanistan (there's a chapter called "How dangerous it is to trust to the representations of exiles"), not to mention trying to conquer peace by bribing everyone involved in ruling present Afghanistan (there's also a chapter for it: "Republics and princes that are really powerful do not purchase alliances by money, but by their valor and the reputation of their armies") or not doing anything about Abu Ghraib ("How dangerous it is for a republic or a prince not to avenge a public or a private injury").

Here's the English translation of this great book: http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=775

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#108

Post by derleth »

dmm wrote: post #105
philwelch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia's success hinged on two things: their massive geographic advantages and the use of scorched earth tactics. I don't want to minimize the fact that Russia bore a lot of casualties (more than any other country) in the process of defeating the Germans and pushing east, but frankly most wars are won and lost by the factors that existed before the first shot is fired, including population, logistics, and geography.…

The south most certainly could have won the civil war. Why not?

Men, money, and manufacturing: The North had all of them, the South had none.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#109

Post by akdubya »

smallblacksun wrote: post #83
akdubya wrote: post #65

Any battle tech that's an order-of-magnitude cheaper to kill than to produce is destined for obsolescence. You can see this happening now with main battle tanks, which are easily knocked out by IEDs and increasingly sophisticated man-portable missiles. It will be interesting to see what happens to the manned air superiority fighter over the next couple of decades now that unmanned drones are being deployed on a wide…

Few M1s have been destroyed or badly damaged by insurgents in Iraq. Their use has declined since the invasion not because they are too vulnerable, but because they are less useful without enemy tanks to engage and using them against infantry in urban environments risks heavy civilian casualties.

I was thinking less about the conflict in Iraq than the conflict in and around Israel, where small groups of insurgents have over the past decade mounted increasingly sophisticated attacks on Israeli armor in the open. The deterrent factor here is just as important as the ability to blow stuff up.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#110

Post by carpo »

eru wrote: post #103
hugh3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh, you could have stayed in the trenches---but don't order any attacks. Just wait for your enemies to be dumb enough to attack first. Just bleed them dry with defence. (I heard that the Belgian king was held in high esteem by the normal Belgians for not ordering those suicidal attacks.)

But then when they don't attack you have 2 armies sitting and waiting until the supplies run out (assuming the other learns you are not going to attack back). So when one realizes they will run out first, or another army is coming to cut their lines, or the city behind them is starving, or one side drops mustard gas into the other trench ... what do you do?
Post reply on HN