Gary Brecher Sure has a Fixation With Aircraft Carriers...

[That NOS Guy]

Calvary was still in large scale use during the GPW by the Soviets, and to a lesser extent, the Germans. Again, that's the nature of the steppe. There's a reason the song is called "O Field, My Field" after all.

[Coiler]

I think it's telling that even an amateur like me, who doesn't have even a tenth of the knowledge that others on this board do, can still blow big holes in the War Nerd's arguments, in both this column and the others.

Oh, Mr. War Nerd, you may want to read a book called The World's Worst Warships, written by naval historian Antony Preston. Here's what it says about the small, fast ships you love so much:

If proof were needed that the small FAC has had its day, navies are turning to larger corvettes with a length in the region of 62 metres. This solves some of the problems of habitability and seakeeping, and is the only way to improve defences against helicopter-attack. It is ironic that the Israelis, who did so much to preach that the days of the frigate and destroyer were numbered, were the first to break ranks by ordereing the 86-metre Sa'ar V corvettes in 1989. A number of 'anti-missile missile' symstems and gun-based close-in weapons systems (CIWS) are appearing in this new generation of corvettes-regarded as too large only 20 years ago. If there is one lesson to be derived from the story of the steam torpedo boat, the MTB and the FAC, it is that no 'ultimate weapon' lasts very long. The only surprise is that the alleged supremacy of small strike-craft keeps recommending itself to the dissidents and 'Young Turks' in the naval community.

Emphasis added. I just couldn't resist.

I also wonder if the War Nerd is being deliberately dishonest and trying to sound iconoclastic and/or "cool" with his beliefs, or if he's sincere and just ignorant?

[Starglider]

I also wonder if the War Nerd is being deliberately dishonest and trying to sound iconoclastic and/or "cool" with his beliefs, or if he's sincere and just ignorant?

Based on his usual output, I'd say most likely a combination of the two.

[Big Orange]

I also wonder if the War Nerd is being deliberately dishonest and trying to sound iconoclastic and/or "cool" with his beliefs, or if he's sincere and just ignorant?

Based on his usual output, I'd say most likely a combination of the two.

He also likes to try to hype up loony African warlords, is ignorantly disparaging about Britain's conduct in WWII and wanking up bowmen on horseback.

[Sidewinder]

War Nerd EPIC FAILs to get the real reason knights on horseback, and battleships, became obsolete. It's not because they became ineffective- as others have pointed out, cavalry remained effective up to WWII, while the Iowa class battleship remains an effective bombardment platform to this day- it was because keeping them effective against evolving threats, became cost-prohibitive. I remember reading this line regarding knights: "The mounted knight was better than any one mercenary infantryman, but he was not better than TEN, and he was still more expensive than them [ten mercenary infantrymen]." Hell, some believe the Washington Naval Treaty was a BLESSING to the world's navies, as a battleship's construction cost was skyrocketing- becoming unaffordable- as each nation tried to build one that's bigger and better than its rival's.

[Adrian Laguna]

I don't know, but his opinions have utterly no military validity, and should simply be ignored in the same way any other glorified pontificating troll with no real knowledge is.

Ignored? But then you'd be missing out on the comedy! What he says is bullshit more often than not, but it's also pure hilarity more often than not. I consider myself a fan.

[Sidewinder]

If proof were needed that the small FAC has had its day, navies are turning to larger corvettes with a length in the region of 62 metres. This solves some of the problems of habitability and seakeeping, and is the only way to improve defences against helicopter-attack. It is ironic that the Israelis, who did so much to preach that the days of the frigate and destroyer were numbered, were the first to break ranks by ordereing the 86-metre Sa'ar V corvettes in 1989.

Lots of small ships made sense before Petr Ufimtsev proposed an object's radar cross section (RCS) was a result of its shape, NOT its size. Afterwards, the world's naval designers realized they did NOT have reduce a ship's size to reduce its RCS.

Then there's his mistake of linking a ship's cost to its size. I believe other, more knowledgeable people have stated the majority of a ship's construction costs is spent on its ELECTRONIC systems, e.g., radar, sonar, communications, encryption, fire control... all very complex systems that consume energy as hungrily as they do money. Trying to save on those systems is NOT an option if you do NOT want your ship to be ass-raped by enemies with superior systems, e.g., the enemy destroyer's captain being alerted to your many small ships BEFORE you detect his ship (thanks to reconnaissance planes/satellites transmitting real-time images to his ship), and using the info available to him (the data from the recon planes/satellites, plus data from the destroyer itself, which can mount and provide power to a larger, more powerful radar arrays) to program targeting coordinates to his cruise missiles, and then massacre your many small ships BEFORE you can hit him. In short, a navy might as well buy a bigger ship, one that can mount and provide power to radars/sonars large enough to be useful, instead of buying VERY EXPENSIVE radars/sonars that must be miniaturized to fit on a smaller ship WITHOUT sacrificing performance.

"The bigger they are, the harder they fall." True, but many people overlook the other side of this saying: "The bigger they are, the harder it is to MAKE THEM FALL." With the exception of tumblehomes and other brain-dead designs, bigger ships tend to be more survivable (how many hits it takes to sink the ship) and durable (how long can the ship be at sea before it must be refueled/resupplied/replenished).

And don't forget the cost of training the crews, or the disability benefits you're supposed to provide if anyone is injured, or the death benefits you're supposed to provide a dead crewmember's widow/widower/children. You're not suggesting the HUMAN BEINGS who operate your "expendable" ships are expendable themselves, are you?

[Sarevok]

Big ships can at least swat down most incoming planes and missiles with their powerful radars, extensive electronic suites and vast missile arsenals.

What exactly is a fast attack crap going to do when a bunch of Mig-21s swoop down with a pair of Styx missiles on each ? Or hell what about those pesky helicopters taking potshots with almost one shot = one dead FAC certainty ?

[erik_t]

A MiG-21 with a pair of Styx would swoop in the same sense as a thrown rock. I invite you to think a little harder before you suggest something so comical. Two SS-N-2 weigh very nearly as much as an empty MiG-21F!

[HamsterViking]

Hey, on the whole "longbows killed knights" thing: no. That is a myth. I may be an amature on the subject, but I've studied warfare in the European Renaissance enthusiastically for several years. From everything I've read, longbows changed little in the way of battlefield tactics at the time. Armor got heavier, more sophisticated, and more expensive, and that solved the problem for the knights. The longbow didn't see widespread use outside of England. Contrast that with the pike, which was used by few pesant rebels no one cared in the mountains, and then became one of the most widely used weapons in Europe. Knights in heavy armor continued to have a place on the battlefield until feudalism started to fall apart and "pike and shot" infantry made the knight's traditional shock tatics suicidal.

War Nerd EPIC FAILs to get the real reason knights on horseback, and battleships, became obsolete. It's not because they became ineffective- as others have pointed out, cavalry remained effective up to WWII, while the Iowa class battleship remains an effective bombardment platform to this day- it was because keeping them effective against evolving threats, became cost-prohibitive. I remember reading this line regarding knights: "The mounted knight was better than any one mercenary infantryman, but he was not better than TEN, and he was still more expensive than them [ten mercenary infantrymen]." Hell, some believe the Washington Naval Treaty was a BLESSING to the world's navies, as a battleship's construction cost was skyrocketing- becoming unaffordable- as each nation tried to build one that's bigger and better than its rival's.

Absolutely true! Even in the face of guns, knights just kept using better armor until it got to the point where the armor just got way too expensive. Add to that the heavy warhorse that they needed to be effective on the "modern" battlefield, and it's just too much. One book I read even said that knights would avoid fighting in some battles because they didn't want to risk their expensive horses and armor. It was the heavy warhorse that was dropped due to costs first, not the heavy armor. Once knights as we know them went theway of the dodo, they were replaced by lighter cavalry that still wore the same kind of heavy armor! They were considered light cavalry because they rode lighter warhorses, didn't carry lances, and used differant tactics.

Wait... I thought this was a thread about carriers?

--and knowing is half the battle!

The other half is violence!

[Thanas]

Hey, on the whole "longbows killed knights" thing: no. That is a myth. I may be an amature on the subject, but I've studied warfare in the European Renaissance enthusiastically for several years. From everything I've read, longbows changed little in the way of battlefield tactics at the time. Armor got heavier, more sophisticated, and more expensive, and that solved the problem for the knights. The longbow didn't see widespread use outside of England. Contrast that with the pike, which was used by few pesant rebels no one cared in the mountains, and then became one of the most widely used weapons in Europe. Knights in heavy armor continued to have a place on the battlefield until feudalism started to fall apart and "pike and shot" infantry made the knight's traditional shock tatics suicidal.

Actually, heavy armored knights continued to be fielded until the 17th century and saw use in the Thirty Years war. Also, that the longbow was not used outside of England is wrong. There are several mercenaries who used longbows or comparative eastern bows. England fielded the most of them, yes, but that was because they had a decent training and recruiting system in place. Longbows also prompted the french to develop gunpowder in return, so there is at least one huge change in battlefield tactics.

That said, you are of course correct that little changed in battlefield tactics overall, but by the same token I might claim that this is true for all of the middle ages and late antiquity as well until the advent of the swiss gewalthaufen.

[HamsterViking]

Actually, heavy armored knights continued to be fielded until the 17th century and saw use in the Thirty Years war.

Knights used as late as the Thirty Years War? Really? I'd like to know more about this, since I've read a lot on the subject abut never once heard of this. You're going to get me back into reading about renaissance warfare aren't you?

Also, that the longbow was not used outside of England is wrong. There are several mercenaries who used longbows or comparative eastern bows. England fielded the most of them, yes, but that was because they had a decent training and recruiting system in place.

I never said that they weren't used outside of England, just not adapted as enthusiastically. My point was that if it were as revolutionary as some people claim, it wold clearly have seen wider use, but you seem to understand that.

Longbows also prompted the french to develop gunpowder in return, so there is at least one huge change in battlefield tactics.

Hm, never heard of that. Of course, that may just be because most of what I've read is about how things were after gunpowder already hit the scene.

That said, you are of course correct that little changed in battlefield tactics overall, but by the same token I might claim that this is true for all of the middle ages and late antiquity as well until the advent of the swiss gewalthaufen.

Now that I think of it, yeah, that's true. Warfare only seemed to change a little at a time from the age of pointed sticks and big rocks to the age of pikes and muskets. Of course, I never argued against that, I was just talking about the fact that longbows are not responsible for disappearance of knights from the battlefield.

[Thanas]

Actually, heavy armored knights continued to be fielded until the 17th century and saw use in the Thirty Years war.

Knights used as late as the Thirty Years War? Really? I'd like to know more about this, since I've read a lot on the subject abut never once heard of this. You're going to get me back into reading about renaissance warfare aren't you?

Not knights per se, but you may be familiar with the french gendarmes, the german Reiter etc.
Which were all successors to the knights in armor etc. You can even see this in the thirty year's wars in the battle of Lützen.

I never said that they weren't used outside of England, just not adapted as enthusiastically. My point was that if it were as revolutionary as some people claim, it wold clearly have seen wider use, but you seem to understand that.

It was revolutionary in that it allowed a single archer the reach and power of something otherwise only seen in the east or via artillery pieces.

Now that I think of it, yeah, that's true. Warfare only seemed to change a little at a time from the age of pointed sticks and big rocks to the age of pikes and muskets. Of course, I never argued against that, I was just talking about the fact that longbows are not responsible for disappearance of knights from the battlefield.

On that we agree.

[PeZook]

It's hilarious that the guy attempts to show some authority on the subject of war, and yet his claims are so easily seen through by a comparative dilletante like me.

Even a casual read of a historical book concerning itself even in small part with Agincourt and Crecy would immediately show that he repeats myths about both battles: neither of those were won thanks to The Longbow (Of Doom!), but rather skillful strategic maneuver and command from the English, as well as overconfidence and poor co-ordination from the French. Besides, as Thanas said: heavily armored knights were fielded and used with effect for a very long time afterwards. If they became obsolete by the XVIth century, they'd be extinct by the XVIIth. Tradition and inertia can only carry you through so many catastrophic slaughters on the battlefield.

Of course, cavalry in some form was still viable for much longer. Hell, there were IIRC 16 confirmed cavalry charges, almost all of them effective, during the 1939 September Campaign. None of them against tanks, of course, but this shows that cavalry vs. infantry wasn't a suicidal option even in the age of the machine gun.

His opinion on the Eilat sining is totally laughable and destroys any credibility he might have. A five-minute Google search reveals the Eilat to be a thoroughly obsolete WWII destroyer, so it's like comparing a Matilda tank with an RPG-7 wielding Somali infantryman and declaring armor is dead and should be ditched.

Yeah, I guess I hate the War Nerd as well

[Thanas]

Of course, cavalry in some form was still viable for much longer. Hell, there were IIRC 16 confirmed cavalry charges, almost all of them effective, during the 1939 September Campaign. None of them against tanks, of course, but this shows that cavalry vs. infantry wasn't a suicidal option even in the age of the machine gun.

There were also cavalry fights in the caucasus iirc.

Yeah, I guess I hate the War Nerd as well

I respect him because he was one of the few who didn't drink the Iraq war kool-aid and who didn't go along with the french-bashing. So yeah, he is not that good, but he is still way above your average RAHRAHUSA!!! idiot, something he definitely is not.

[Beowulf]

Something he apparently missed about the Harpoon is that it wasn't originally designed as a anti-surface ship weapon, but rather a weapon to be used against surfaced submarines. Without the pop-up manuever, a Harpoon would have hit absolutely nothing vital on a submarine. With it, it has the opportunity to strike down into the pressure hull, which kills the submarine.

[erik_t]

It's true that Harpoon was originally conceived as a weapon for use against surfaced submarines, but this was extremely early in the design process. Quoting Designation-Systems:

In 1965 the U.S. Navy began studies for a missile in the 45 km (25 nm) range class for use against surfaced submarines. The name Harpoon was assigned to the project (i.e. a harpoon to kill "whales", a naval slang term for submarines). After the sinking of the Isreali destroyer Eilat in 1967 by Soviet-built anti-ship missiles, the U.S. Navy saw the need to develop a dedicated anti-shipping missile, and therefore Harpoon's primary mission became surface ship attack. The development project was formally begun in 1968, and the missile designator ZAGM-84A was allocated in 1970 after the Navy had issued a formal RFP (Request For Proposals). In June 1971, McDonnell Douglas was awarded the prime contract for Harpoon, and the first test missile flew in October 1972.

Recall that in 1965, only the asstastic November and perhaps a couple Hotel II could sail and fight submerged (the Soviets had some additional SSGNs, but these had to surface to fire). By 1970, when the RFP was actually issued, there was a much larger variety of Soviet submarines that would never need to surface and be subject to Harpoon fire.

[Sea Skimmer]

By 1970 the Soviets had sixteen Juliett class SSGs and no less then twenty nine Echo class SSGNs all of which had to not only surface to fire Shaddock missiles, they had to stay on the surface for as long as a half hour to guide the missiles with an onboard radar. The poor little massively huge radar on the things could unfortunately only guide the missiles in paired salvos, thus the long time to fire no more then eight missiles. Because Shaddock could be fired from far outside even the aircraft ASW screen of a carrier this was a serious threat, but if you had a plane with a missile that could dash out from its screening position you’d stand a good chance of sinking the sub.

By 1970 a very few Charlie class SSGNs had arrived that could fire when submerged, but the Starbright missiles they fired had a range of only about 35 miles, which meant normal carrier air ASW patrol could be effective already. What was more a Charlie was actually too slow to engage a carrier group in a satisfactory manner. It wasn’t until the Oscars that the sub launched missile threat really got crazy. Of course commie subs could always have attacked submerged with torpedoes, but that falls under the coverage of the normal close ASW screen.

Harpoon did become more general purpose, but the anti sub role certainly remained high on the list and still defined criteria like the warheads penetration capability.

[HamsterViking]

Actually, heavy armored knights continued to be fielded until the 17th century and saw use in the Thirty Years war.

Knights used as late as the Thirty Years War? Really? I'd like to know more about this, since I've read a lot on the subject abut never once heard of this. You're going to get me back into reading about renaissance warfare aren't you?

Not knights per se, but you may be familiar with the french gendarmes, the german Reiter etc.
Which were all successors to the knights in armor etc. You can even see this in the thirty year's wars in the battle of Lützen.

Oh, yeah, I knew about Reiters and a few things like that, but forgot about gendarmes. But those were all still differant enough from knights for us to say that knights were gone weren't they? None of them used the same tactics that relied on the heavy warhorses and heavy armor did they? The knight as we know it was gone, and had been replaced with more professional heavy cavalry that wasn't as heavy and used differant tactics.

I never said that they weren't used outside of England, just not adapted as enthusiastically. My point was that if it were as revolutionary as some people claim, it wold clearly have seen wider use, but you seem to understand that.

It was revolutionary in that it allowed a single archer the reach and power of something otherwise only seen in the east or via artillery pieces.

But it wasn't one single weapon that changed the face of warfare as it was known, as some people claim. I'll concede that longbows are, in fact, awesome weapons for their time, and I got carried away in my vendetta against lonbow myths. My point remains though, longbows were not responsible for the disappearance of knights on the medieval battlefield.

[CmdrWilkens]

Not knights per se, but you may be familiar with the french gendarmes, the german Reiter etc.
Which were all successors to the knights in armor etc. You can even see this in the thirty year's wars in the battle of Lützen.

Oh, yeah, I knew about Reiters and a few things like that, but forgot about gendarmes. But those were all still differant enough from knights for us to say that knights were gone weren't they? None of them used the same tactics that relied on the heavy warhorses and heavy armor did they? The knight as we know it was gone, and had been replaced with more professional heavy cavalry that wasn't as heavy and used differant tactics.

You still had heavy armor designed to deflect glancing blows from musket fire at range and the principal weapon was the saber instead of the lance but armored men on horesback riding at high speed in a charge against the enemy seeking to engage them at melee range using the force of the charge and leverage advantage of horesback to strike through exposed flanks....yeah you still had that. Cavalry was basically designed to be used to, and I'm being horribly simplistic, try to crack one of your opponents flanks while your pike and shot units faced off against your enemies pike and shot units.

The same mode of heavy cavalry operation would be seen until well into the era of the rifled musket and breechloader before you begin to see more of a shift towards dragoon style as a mode of use, that is saber as a secondary weapon and a high rate of fire carbine as a primary weapon allowing for rapid movement, dsimount, engagement and remount. Obviously cavalry versus cavalry clashes complete with saber charges are sitll present (Stuart in the American Civil War was paticularly fond of them and fought a series of actions against Stoneman and Pleasonton during the 62 and 63 campaigns including Brandy Station in paticular)

So anyway the basic role of heavy cavalry: use of shock and speed to disrupt the flanks by charge to range of melee. That role essentially never disappeared but became secondary only with the advent of repeating carbines and didn't truly die until armor took over the role. The difference between feudal knights and the heavy cavalry of the Early Modern Era and into the Enlightenment era was largely in weapons choice and in the weight of armor used.

[Thanas]

Oh, yeah, I knew about Reiters and a few things like that, but forgot about gendarmes. But those were all still differant enough from knights for us to say that knights were gone weren't they? None of them used the same tactics that relied on the heavy warhorses and heavy armor did they? The knight as we know it was gone, and had been replaced with more professional heavy cavalry that wasn't as heavy and used differant tactics.

Why? The gendarmes were heavy enough - in fact way heavier than your average medieval knight. As Wilkens said, tactics didn't change that much.

But it wasn't one single weapon that changed the face of warfare as it was known, as some people claim. I'll concede that longbows are, in fact, awesome weapons for their time, and I got carried away in my vendetta against lonbow myths. My point remains though, longbows were not responsible for the disappearance of knights on the medieval battlefield.

Certainly not.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I made a fool of myself in another thread, but I endeavour to improve.

I held off from contributing to this thread since I wasn't entirely sure that the weapon in question existed. I have since discovered that it does exist, at least in the sense that it has been physically tested (i.e. actually fired). As to its usefulness, I would say that such a weapon is certainly plausible. It's advantages would appear to lie in sheer range and the ability to come down on the target from above, as opposed to traditional sea-skimming and cruise missiles. The major question, with regard to its ability to perform, is whether the terminal guidance system is up to the job. If they can verifiably hit a warship with it, then we have an actual anti-ship ballistic missile. Overall, this weapon is plausible.

What actually bewildered me about this weapon is the claim that it is unstoppable. As far as I can figure out, this weapon's invincibility would have to be based on speed or on the angle of attack. Speed alone would be believable (if the Dong-Feng 21 really can manage Mach 10), since it seems surprising that a warship could not fire a SAM straight up. And despite many claims, it is possible to figuratively hit a bullet with a bullet. Successful intercepts took place in the Falklands War and in Operation Praying Mantis. If US GMD capabilities are what they are claimed to be, and can be applied to the defence of warships, then the threat of the DF-21 will be offset. The appearance of laser weapons represents interesting possibilities for warship defence.

As a side point, as far as I can see, the only thing one can realistically do about a carrier is shoot down its aircraft. Attacking the carrier itself is simply too difficult to be worthwhile, not only because of the escorts, but because of its mobility. The minute a carrier actually becomes vulnerable (possible submarine presence, one or more escorts disabled, etc) it will simply turn and run. Submarines pose the greatest threat to carriers, but speed issues offset this (diesel subs don't have the speed, and nuclear subs risk detection if they try). Massed air attack requires a decent satellite capability and significant deployment of valuable resources, with little hope of success. Fighters must be deployed to keep the airwing occupied, while fighter-bombers or bombers must be used to peel away the escorts. One factor in their favour is that modern anti-ship missiles (air-launched Harpoon = 185km, apparently) generally have longer ranges than ship-based SAMs, (RIM-162 = 50+km, apparently). The best the defender can hope for is a few downed F-18s and a sunk or crippled Arleigh-Burke or two. The price will be some fighter losses at the very least, with bomber losses dependant on how well they kept the airwing tied up. By the time they achieve this, the carrier is running for open sea anyway.

[Starglider]

Question for people who know more about this than me; how effective are anti-missile defences against stealth cruise missiles? I would think something like the AGM-129, but built with contemporary LO technology instead of early 80s stealth would cut the detection range down to the point where a relatively small swarm attack could overwhelm a CVBG. Until recently the US was basically the only nation with decent LO tech but judging by recent UAV developments it is proliferating rapidly, so this option should be viable for most states in the near future.

[Sidewinder]

What actually bewildered me about this weapon is the claim that it is unstoppable. As far as I can figure out, this weapon's invincibility would have to be based on speed or on the angle of attack. Speed alone would be believable (if the Dong-Feng 21 really can manage Mach 10), since it seems surprising that a warship could not fire a SAM straight up.

I think the issue is NOT whether a warship can fire air defense weapons straight up (vertical launch systems are proliferating like crazy), but whether the RADAR on a warship can detect a ballistic missile diving straight down at it. Of course, when one military manages to make an antiship ballistic missile WORK, another will manage to mount a radar that lets a warship detect a ballistic missile diving straight down at it, and we'll ask ourselves, "the chicken or the egg?" again.

I think the best way to deal with these defenses is to SIMULTANEOUSLY attack a warship with OVERWHELMING numbers of ballistic and sea-skimming missiles (assuming an antiship ballistic missile works).

[Nephtys]

What actually bewildered me about this weapon is the claim that it is unstoppable. As far as I can figure out, this weapon's invincibility would have to be based on speed or on the angle of attack. Speed alone would be believable (if the Dong-Feng 21 really can manage Mach 10), since it seems surprising that a warship could not fire a SAM straight up.

I think the issue is NOT whether a warship can fire air defense weapons straight up (vertical launch systems are proliferating like crazy), but whether the RADAR on a warship can detect a ballistic missile diving straight down at it. Of course, when one military manages to make an antiship ballistic missile WORK, another will manage to mount a radar that lets a warship detect a ballistic missile diving straight down at it, and we'll ask ourselves, "the chicken or the egg?" again.

I think the best way to deal with these defenses is to SIMULTANEOUSLY attack a warship with OVERWHELMING numbers of ballistic and sea-skimming missiles (assuming an antiship ballistic missile works).

Basic google shows the weapon to be an IRBM. Which is not an anti-ship missile. It's an anti-city missile. Claims of skimming the ocean are ridiculous. Claims of stealth are ridiculous. Any rocket that's flying supersonic is going to be damned obvious. And also, basic google says the missile is twenty plus years old. I don't follow these things in the slightest, but any basic sense tells you that magic DF-21 missile doesn't work like that article writer says.