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

191–200 of 245 posts

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

#191

Post by Marazan »

monocasa wrote: post #42
Marazan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Millennium Challenge was a farce but _the Millennium Challenge was completely right_. The point of the millenium challenge was to see if modern advances in C3 could allow a numerically inferior force to the one used in Desert Storm could invade Iraq successfully. What they discovered was against a tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways then America would ta…

I was under the impression that the Millennium Challenge's red team was playing as Iran, not Iraq. A "tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways" particularly known for their use of speedboats blended with more traditional military material is the Revolutionary Guard's MO.

Yes, Red team played like peak Iran - but the actual purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to wargame Iraq no matter what might have publicly been said.

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

#192

Post by AdrianB1 »

jabl wrote: post #31

Well, in retrospect it's easy to say that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete. But with the information available at the time, I don't think it really was that clear back in 1932. Back then, no capital ship had been sunk let alone been severely damaged(?) by aircraft. Aircraft, and in particular naval aircraft, at the time were flimsy biplanes, with monoplanes slowly entering the scene. Sinking a bat…

Flimsy planes don't sunk battleships, torpedoes do and this was proven in WW1. By the time of WW2, torpedoes were even better, also the planes carrying it. If you include bombers, it was obvious that planes can sink battleships and destroyers.

The article is about dismissing proven danger as being unrealistic. All you need to do is to have some radar stations (and not to ignore it) and patrol aircrafts and a good alerting system so you can raise your planes in the air. It is that simple.

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

#193

Post by AdrianB1 »

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…

Flying noe was used in several missions in WW2, it was a known tactic so you cannot say "it only works because ...". A fast plane or helicopter flying noe is detectable, but until the people detecting it can inform the people that can intercept, the mission can be over and the aircrafts returning to base.

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

#194

Post by AdrianB1 »

This is not a story about a war as much as a story about organizations that know better. You can see these cases in various circumstances, from the military to governments to private companies where incompetent decision makers dismiss anything they don't like.

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

#196

Post by stevehawk »

geenew wrote: post #138
afterburner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is a kind of spooky comment that could be made in a future where war has already broken out. Not to be melodramatic, but we should all keep in mind how terrible a war would be.

it doesn't matter how terrible our side thinks it would be if the other side has decided it is going to happen.

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

#197

Post by stevehawk »

DocTomoe wrote: post #179
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...

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...

diesel subs are quieter than nuclear subs and can often hide in an audio blind spot behind boats. "Blind Man's Bluff" is a great read on submarine warfare after World War 2 and a lot of the things that go with it. Ship stalking is a some what regular thing by all sides.

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

#198

Post by stevehawk »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #193
saberdancer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Flying noe was used in several missions in WW2, it was a known tactic so you cannot say "it only works because ...". A fast plane or helicopter flying noe is detectable, but until the people detecting it can inform the people that can intercept, the mission can be over and the aircrafts returning to base.

i think part of the point is - in some circumstances you can not fly low because you open yourself to certain types of engagement, and that for a particular test you could be certain that incoming helicopters wouldn't be that low.

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

#199

Post by jeltz »

Marazan wrote: post #191
monocasa wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that the Millennium Challenge's red team was playing as Iran, not Iraq. A "tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways" particularly known for their use of speedboats blended with more traditional military material is the Revolutionary Guard's MO.

Yes, Red team played like peak Iran - but the actual purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to wargame Iraq no matter what might have publicly been said.

But why the amphibious assault then? And why did they give Iraq, a land locked nation, a navy? Red team were assigned equipment like a peak Iran but were forced to play like a demoralized Iraq. It does not make sense unless there was politics involved.

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

#200

Post by larrydag »

fatbird wrote: post #120
cpleppert wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conflicts you mentioned were against non-peer adversaries. The belligerents had no naval or offensive air power to speak of.

People here keep citing the wargames with retired Gen. Riper, who sank the USN repeatedly from the perspective of a non-peer adversary using non-technological methods to organize, and disposable, low value swarming assets to overwhelm American defenses. Both Iraq and North Vietnam had patrol boat navies and the wherewithal to invest in attacking a carrier, but didn't.

This was the Millenium Challenge in 2002. Another interesting war simulation that seems the U.S. did not learn their lesson.

https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...

Post reply on HN