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

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#141

Post by DifE-Q »

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…

The previous and current nuclear strategy consists of a concept called TRIAD. Land, Sea and Air nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

They all have their advantages and disadvantages and strategic uses. Taken together they are a complete package of nuclear strike capabilities. Nothing about it is obsolete as the author suggests.

Battleships also are hardly obsolete and also have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, when the Missouri class battleships were retired in the 90's, it was met with a great deal of opposition by the marines. No other weapon in the military arsenal could provide beach bombardment like the battleship; and certainly not for the low cost. The marines were promised a replacement - they are still waiting.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#142

Post by lotharbot »

paganel wrote: post #107
crikli wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 a…

A strong defensive emplacement (such as a fortress) provides some advantages, even to a mobile army. If your opponent chooses not to attack it, he has granted you the initiative -- you can move your forces out to attack his at the time of your choosing.

Of course, a battleship, being mobile, does not suffer from the disadvantage of being easy for your opponent to bypass. And a battleship, carrying a stupidly large armament, has the advantage of being able to blow up lots of your opponent's stuff. Its primary disadvantage is its expense, which is why you don't see fleets consisting of only battleships.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#143

Post by hollerith »

philwelch wrote: post #90
smallblacksun wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, they're harder to fit on the streets.

And they ruin streets.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#144

Post by philwelch »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #121
derleth wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The South had enough of an industrial base to sustain a 1:1 kill ratio for years. Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war, causing most of their capacity to be diverted to fighting, instead of to industrial build-up and R&D. The time was ripe to replace slavery with automation, and instead they blew it all on a swinging dick attack on Fort Sumter.

The time was ripe to replace slavery with automation

Remember the Jevons paradox--any technological advance that increases the efficiency a given good can be utilized (including labor) results in an increase in the demand for that good. This is why slavery was even around back then--it was on its last legs until the cotton gin made it profitable again.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#145

Post by philwelch »

ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #115
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 certainly couldn't have won the Civil War in the sense of invading and subduing the North. I think odds are good they could have "won" a political victory, in the sense of dragging the conflict out with superior generalship (which they had) until people in the North got tired enough of it and the North simply gave up and recognized the Confederacy, which was all they really wanted in the first place.

It's one thing to concede defeat and peacefully coexist with a tiny country in southeast Asia. That's not a hard sell, politically. A country that represents half of your former territory, borders your capital and has a very long border with you, and has a history of warfare against you is not so easy.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#146

Post by MartinCron »

lupatus wrote: post #58
icarus_drowning wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ).

I would consider Vietnam largely asymmetrical. Wouldn't you?

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#147

Post by dtegart »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #130
philwelch wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Britain had the naval and air power to hold off Germany. Russia had sprawling territory and the winter; Britain had the English Channel. Germany would have been better served to win the North Africa campaign; that might have actually left Germany with a defensible position. On the other hand, the entire purpose of the Nazi regime was to conquer eastern Europe, enslave or exterminate its population, and resettle Germa…

> Britain had the naval and air power to hold off Germany. Russia had sprawling territory and the winter; Britain had the English Channel. Germany would have been better served to win the North Africa campaign; that might have actually left Germany with a defensible position. I firmly believe that the only possible route to German victory would have been capture of Gibraltar soon after the French campaign. German ind…

The entire Rock of Gibraltar was turned into a fortress during the war. The civilian population was evacuated, and additional tunnels and artillery placed in the rock. I am not sure that the German siege weapons could have reduced a block of granite into rubble.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#148

Post by derleth »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #121
derleth wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The South had enough of an industrial base to sustain a 1:1 kill ratio for years. Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war, causing most of their capacity to be diverted to fighting, instead of to industrial build-up and R&D. The time was ripe to replace slavery with automation, and instead they blew it all on a swinging dick attack on Fort Sumter.

> Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war

True, except I'd replace 'cold war' with 'continued legislative compromise'; the North was damnably willing to compromise with the South, allowing them to get much of what they wanted with rather little sacrifice. There was, in fact, a compromise in the works when the South attacked Fort Sumter and, from a larger perspective, a lot of 19th Century American politics prior to the Civil War was an increasingly desperate dance done by the North to placate the South to prevent the inevitable war.

> The time was ripe to replace slavery with automation

Read the Cornerstone Speech, given by the Vice President of the CSA. It lays out the reasons they wanted to secede and slavery was foremost among them. Slavery, by that point, wasn't just an economic engine, it was a cultural imperative. Preserving slavery was so ingrained in the Southern mindset that I feel fairly certain the plantation owners would have gone through a certain amount of economic dislocation if that meant keeping the slaves and the social system built on slaves.

Besides, even if you're right, the CSA still would never have allowed former slaves equal rights. Not without a race war that successfully toppled the post-slavery CSA establishment by force of arms. In the real world, it took the direct threat of Federal force of arms to ensure the reality of Civil Rights in the South nearly a century after the Civil War. (Admittedly, this is at least partially because Reconstruction didn't go on long enough or go nearly far enough.)

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#149

Post by arethuza »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #132
jsmcgd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point of order: In retrospect we can clearly see that the RAF was losing the Battle of Britain. It was within weeks of being completely eliminated by the Luftwaffe, when Hitler, quite unexpectedly for the British, switched to a strategic bombing campaign of major population and industrial centres. If the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, then naval supremacy and invasion would have followed. Invasion would have left very…

The United states was already giving overt aid to Britain at that point. Had RAF lost and the German invasion of Britain seemed realistic, the USAF would have joined in to prevent that. While it would have taken only weeks to end the RAF, Germany didn't have the shipping capacity to maintain an invasion, and it would have taken months to build. Also, few considered air power to be actually capable of fighting battles…

"Had RAF lost and the German invasion of Britain seemed realistic, the USAF would have joined in to prevent that."

I've never heard that before - do you have any references? The Nazis declared war on America, not the other way round.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#150

Post by [deleted] »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #132
jsmcgd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point of order: In retrospect we can clearly see that the RAF was losing the Battle of Britain. It was within weeks of being completely eliminated by the Luftwaffe, when Hitler, quite unexpectedly for the British, switched to a strategic bombing campaign of major population and industrial centres. If the Luftwaffe had air supremacy, then naval supremacy and invasion would have followed. Invasion would have left very…

The United states was already giving overt aid to Britain at that point. Had RAF lost and the German invasion of Britain seemed realistic, the USAF would have joined in to prevent that. While it would have taken only weeks to end the RAF, Germany didn't have the shipping capacity to maintain an invasion, and it would have taken months to build. Also, few considered air power to be actually capable of fighting battles…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN