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

We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

butwhatfor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 245 posts

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#81

Post by onepointsixC »

kevmo wrote: post #38
GuardianCaveman wrote: post #30

My uncle flew Cobra helicopters in Vietnam and the us developed a new anti air system and he was supposed to fly against it to demo its effectiveness. I don’t recall the story well but he flew nap of the earth and in a certain manner he knew would counter the aa system and embarrassed the hell out of the bluefor test team and engineers who said he cheated. A friend in the army did an excercise at Bragg where Special…

Check out the most expensive War Games in history -- the USA got annihilated, and there were a lot of hurt feelings. The Lt. Gen. quit in the middle of the games, because he kept winning and they kept changing the rules to force a USA victory. Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated elec…

This story is a lot less impressive when you start learning the details.

Such as the fact that the motorcycle messengers traveled at the speed of light to instantaneously transmit orders. The fact that the salvo of cruise missiles came from boats which could not carry them, and the fact that simulator's fleet defenses were turned off to prevent them from targeting commercial air and commercial shipping.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#82

Post by onepointsixC »

GuardianCaveman wrote: post #30

My uncle flew Cobra helicopters in Vietnam and the us developed a new anti air system and he was supposed to fly against it to demo its effectiveness. I don’t recall the story well but he flew nap of the earth and in a certain manner he knew would counter the aa system and embarrassed the hell out of the bluefor test team and engineers who said he cheated. A friend in the army did an excercise at Bragg where Special…

While the first sounds fine, I don't see how you could reasonably consider the second one anything but a complete waste of everyone's time.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#83

Post by afterburner »

pmontra wrote: post #15

In other wargames: You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2]. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste... [2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...

> there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China

With a proper counterattack, they can be liberated. The war isn't over just because the attacker says so.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#84

Post by hef19898 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #51
fmajid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborg... General Van Riper used low-tech but effective techniques like using motorcycle messengers to transmit orders in a way that could not be intercepted by US ELINT/COMINT or blocked by jamming. We are lucky Saddam did not have inventive Marine generals, because any general smart enough to be effective would have been eliminated as a potential threat to his r…

> because any general smart enough to be effective would have been eliminated as a potential threat to his regime. Saved our asses in the European theater, in WWII. Hitler was an insecure micromanager. His generals represented generations of military expertise. They were really good. There's a number of places where Germany could have won the war, but were short-circuited by der dumkopf fuhrer

Hitler's problem, IMHO and only militarily, was that he was right more often than not in 39 and 40. He failed to figure out why, so. As a result, he thought working against military expertise was the silver bullet. That, and that there never was a real chance to win a conventional war against the allies.

Another general that comes to mind os Field Marshal Haig. He wanted a break through on the Western Front in WW1. He got a war of attrition, which worked for him and not for the Germans. So he thought going for a break through was the way to go. It worked in the end, but for the wrong reasons.

That being said, a lot of German WW2 generals are over hyped, first on their memoirs and then by anti-communist "propaganda".

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#85

Post by onepointsixC »

fmajid wrote: post #40
rm445 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These large-scale war games aren't just an opinion or a white paper though. Maybe better to ask something like how often an unconventional win in a war game could actually be replicated by an adversary in real life. I seem to recall a similar response to massed small boats (simulating) taking out a U.S. carrier in war games a few years ago. Implying that the Persian Gulf is far more dangerous than previously understo…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborg... General Van Riper used low-tech but effective techniques like using motorcycle messengers to transmit orders in a way that could not be intercepted by US ELINT/COMINT or blocked by jamming. We are lucky Saddam did not have inventive Marine generals, because any general smart enough to be effective would have been eliminated as a potential threat to his r…

You're missing the part where those motorcycle messengers move at the speed of light, that the speed boats used were tiny commercial ones which could have never loaded let alone fired the heavy cruise missiles used and that blue force's defenses were off because the simulator otherwise would unintentionally target civilian shipping and aviation.

If the Iranians could have they would have done so already. There's a reason why they had resorted to militias and sectarian violence in Iraq instead.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#86

Post by enriquto »

kevmo wrote: post #77
enriquto wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story is absolutely bonkers. If the wikipedia page is true, this paints a very ridiculous state of US high brass. I refuse to believe that a major military nation may engage in such petty stupidity. Thus my conclusion is that the whole summary of the events is carefully crafted to misled future enemies of their true capabilities.

Powerful countries have done dumb stuff all throughout history. It's one reason why empires don't last. Burying your head in the sand only makes you part of the problem.

> makes you part of the problem.

Fortunately for everybody, I have no influence on any military nor political force anywhere. Or any relevant responsibility for that matter. The world is safe from my wrong opinions.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#87

Post by onepointsixC »

jabl wrote: post #22
TwoNineA wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans also got lucky that George Best and Wade McClusky were able to hit the carriers knowning that most attempts in the battle so far have utterly failed.

It seems that the Americans were very lucky at Midway indeed, with the dive bombers avoiding running into fighters, and the hangar decks filled with loaded and fuelled bombers waiting to be spotted once the attacks were over. Which made them extremely vulnerable to anything hitting the hangar decks, and even a few hits were enough to doom the ships. Not entirely unsurprising that upon entering the jet age the USN dem…

Midway had it's fortunate moments, but IJN didn't have much of a chance from the get go due to the absurd USN ship production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ag2x3CS9M

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#88

Post by lifeisstillgood »

kevmo wrote: post #38
GuardianCaveman wrote: post #30

My uncle flew Cobra helicopters in Vietnam and the us developed a new anti air system and he was supposed to fly against it to demo its effectiveness. I don’t recall the story well but he flew nap of the earth and in a certain manner he knew would counter the aa system and embarrassed the hell out of the bluefor test team and engineers who said he cheated. A friend in the army did an excercise at Bragg where Special…

Check out the most expensive War Games in history -- the USA got annihilated, and there were a lot of hurt feelings. The Lt. Gen. quit in the middle of the games, because he kept winning and they kept changing the rules to force a USA victory. Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated elec…

Curiously the Japanese Navy War Gamed their attack on Midway in a similar fashion, and the "USA" team placed their carriers exactly where Nimitiz did a few weeks later, and sank the Japanese fleet.

The top brass then "re floated" and announced the US Navy must sail from Pearl and so be ambushed, as per plan.

So, yeah, risk management is everything

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#89

Post by marvin »

nostrademons wrote: post #14
jacksonkmarley wrote: post #8

This is a good article, and the story is certainly emotionally appealing, with the maverick who goes against the prevailing wisdom being proven correct in the end. I wonder how this sort of story would look when put into the context of a large scale investigation into military strategy and dissenting voices. When these contrarians pop up are they usually right? Maybe there are heaps of them and 9 out of 10 times conv…

Taken from the universe of all ideas, a random contrarian idea is usually wrong. Taken from the universe of contrarian ideas pushed by domain experts and backed up by successful experiments, they're usually right. Paul Graham recently wrote an essay on this: http://paulgraham.com/newideas.html Ernest King (the red team commander in the second wargame) wasn't a random newbie: he eventually served as Chief of Naval Ope…

If leaders and strategists around the world could take one single lesson from the Covid pandemic, it should be that you must never, never underestimate the power of mental inertia and the status quo.

It leaves all but an elite few in the dust when reality suddenly changes in what's perceived to be an instant. Most normally competent people will behave as complete morons for the 6-12 months it takes them to understand the new reality. Of course, reality has been changing for a long time, but in principle there's still time to react when it becomes obvious to well-placed observers.

I'm sure that an organization that's able to internalize that lesson will have an immense strategic advantage in a conflict against a peer force. Whether that be a virus, a military adversary or a competing industrial entity.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#90

Post by germinalphrase »

saberdancer wrote: post #79
GuardianCaveman wrote: post #30

My uncle flew Cobra helicopters in Vietnam and the us developed a new anti air system and he was supposed to fly against it to demo its effectiveness. I don’t recall the story well but he flew nap of the earth and in a certain manner he knew would counter the aa system and embarrassed the hell out of the bluefor test team and engineers who said he cheated. A friend in the army did an excercise at Bragg where Special…

You have to take into account that some of these exploits are possible exactly because you are in an exercise and can work around the rules. Flying nap of the Earth with a Cobra probably works because he knew the location where the AA system was located, there were no other "combatants", no air cover or spotters/infantry along the route to inform the AA that helicopter is flying low. SF story about circling back is f…

At least during Vietnam (and according to “The SOG Chronicles”), it seems like the special forces guys were really out there in areas the US didn’t exactly admit to going (Cambodia, Laos). As such, taking them down probably wouldn’t cause much of a counter reaction.
Post reply on HN