Live data from Hacker News

We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

butwhatfor.com

171–180 of 245 posts

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

#171
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it was ever their goal to straight up fight the US. They just wanted the US standing navy ruined so that they could go about their business in the Pacific. I don’t think they counted on a few early problematic outcomes, and the US will to enter a fight over the loss of a few soldiers at Pearl Harbor.

Their naval plans specifically aimed for effectively a second Battle of Tsushima. Basically, harass the American strike force from afar to whittle them down as they steam towards the Home Islands in a decisive, epic showdown, and once the Americans lose that engagement and see their entire fleet sunk, they give up and go home. (The Kantai Kessen plan). The entire war, the Japanese were still waiting for the big decis…

I sometimes get the impression that the last time "decisive" battles worked was during the Napoleonic Wars. And even then the Russian campaign played as much a role as did Waterloo. After that everybody trying to force decisive battles got wars of attrition wich were ultimately lost.

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?

Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike…

Locating carriers to day? Easy, satellites and radar. Tag the group leaving port, track it 24/7. Or sonar. The days a surface fleet can hide are gone.

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why the US doesn’t produce a bunch of WW2 style carriers with light aircraft or helicopters. I’m aware the US has several helicopter carriers, but I would imagine we could build dozens of the things for the price of a nuclear carrier. Obviously they wouldn’t stand up to a near peer competitor but they could be useful for small scale conflicts with far less advanced militaries, which seems to be the pattern l…

The USAF is the "light carrier" fleet. One B-52H can carry 20 air launched cruise missiles.

I think this is likely the most underappreciated comment on this thread.

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike…

Locating carriers to day? Easy, satellites and radar. Tag the group leaving port, track it 24/7. Or sonar. The days a surface fleet can hide are gone.

Ok let’s say you have a satellite and you somehow find US ships. Then what?

And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk.

Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc.

Now what do you do?

Idk why people think that the U.S. Navy hasn’t considered these things. As if China is going to just build some missiles and launch them and that’s that. Whenever you think things are that easy, you should wonder if you have a grasp on the scenario.

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

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?

Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike…

> First, how do you even locate the carrier groups?

Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology.

I'm not sure what the current level of coverage these things have, but it seems that today the technology exists to track surface naval assets day and night, and through clouds, at a somewhat affordable cost (for a superpower wannabe). So the trick of hiding a carrier battle group in the vast ocean might no longer work.

> the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles.

Considerably more difficult for ballistic missiles. I would also imagine that missiles in principle could be relatively affordable if they were mass-produced; today they are expensive because they are expensive to develop and there's no demand for a huge number of them. So you could saturate the defenses with enough missiles that even if many were shot down, at some point a sufficient number of them are going to get through.

> Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces.

Of course, but that goes the other way as well; if those carriers launch strikes against a big modern opponent you're also in for a big time war. I just hope neither side commits such a folly.

> It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.

Of course not. Then again, China probably doesn't build those missiles because they think US carrier groups will easily shoot them down. Both sides certainly have smart people, as well as ossified bureaucracies gunning for the last war.

Note I'm not saying the time of carriers is gone. But it's been 80 years since carriers became the kingmakers of naval force projection, and technology has developed quite a bit since, and there (luckily!) has been no major conflict testing out these new developments. I just think it's foolish to be very certain one way or another.

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

#176
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Japan was certainly aware that in a long drawn-out war they had no chance against the industrial might of the USA. The attack on Pearl Harbor was essentially a gamble that by crippling the US Pacific fleet they could sue for peace on terms favorable to them. That is, the USA would leave them alone to continue their imperial ambitions in the Pacific region, and crucially, stop the trade embargo that had quite effectiv…

I’ve heard that USA appeared quite weak in 1940, and Axis strategists laughed with disbelief when they heard the accurate industrial capacity reported. I’m not disagreeing with you —- Japanese military strategists were immense gamblers. I wonder if only a minority of their analysts judged it this way.

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would point out that 94% of residents voted for statehood.

Fair, but what fraction of the population was natives at that point?

I can't find a number for 1959, but in 1970, it was 58%.

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

#178
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Most people think the Eastern front was an act of lunacy. In reality it was an act of utter necessity. Hitler's only chance of potentially winning WW2 (if there ever was a real chance) was to capture more oil in Eastern Europe. They were running on the fumes of synthetic oil created from coal at that point. Stalin knew Hitler's objectives well because of how hard Hitler was pushing for oil in negotiations be…

I think many people fail to understand that during WW2 the Wehrmacht was often forced to rely on horse carts for transporting supplies to the front. They didn't have fuel for trucks.

They didn't largely have trucks either. The 'blitzkrieg' part with tanks and motorized infantry was a small fraction of the entire army. The rest marched on foot or were transported on trains.

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

#179
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...

The Reagan seems to be a particularly unlucky carrier, because she also got stalked by a Chinese sub for several days [1] And then there was German U24 "sinking" the USS Enterprise in an exercise in 2001... Maybe carriers are particularly vulnerable to diesel submarines.

[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a1...

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

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.

Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.

Well yes, but then again no surface navy comes even close to the USN in terms of power projection capability, so it wouldn't upset the status quo in any way.

But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"

Post reply on HN