Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 135

Thread: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

  1. #101
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Too bad your intent failed miserably since you proved to be painfully ignorant of what you where talking about. I still am laughing at you not knowing ships could turn...
    Dogs can't look up.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    If anybody wanted a force of Abram tanks in Afgan there has been plenty of time to get them there by now.

    Strykers would have done well in 1991. It's not a tank so it doesn't have quite the capabilities in some areas but the difference in the battle wasn't the difference between a 105mm and 120mm gun tube. I have no clue as how you claim a smaller vehicle goes up against a MBT and lives, that doesn't make any sense. At all. A 105 mm round will destroy an M1 MBT and any other vehicle produced. Generally speaking in armor battles, who shoots first, lives.
    It isn't the ability to get 'a force' of 68 ton Abrams MBTs into land locked Afghanistan after decade, it is how would an ATTACKING force get enough there in a timely fashion. They could have been built there in 10 years but that wasn't the issue. The trend to smaller and less well armed is a reaction to no longer facing the Warsaw Pact in the Fulda Gap- that was what the Abrams was designed to do- but fighting irregularly armed light infantry/border bandits in 3rd tier nations.

    re read what I typed- I am not the one saying a 10.5 rifle cannon or hi/lo pressure gun in a light armored vehicle can go toe to toe with MBTs. I am not the one saying ANY combination you listed can go toe to toe and FYI the M1A1's took multiple hits from Iraqi tanks and survived, the 10.5 rifled cannon can not penetrate the M1A1's composite armor.

    During GWI the Abrams survived friendly fire hits from other M1a1's to the front hull and turret composite armor. It took side hits from the 12cm smoothbore cannon's APFSDS DU rounds- far superior to the rifled cannon's APFSDS 10.5.

    Generally speaking in armor vs armor battles the guy with the bigger gun can shoot first from much farther away and live. Ask the Sherman tank crews of WWII when facing Panther and tiger tanks. (Given the fact a 12cm Main gun has twice the effective range of a 10.5... I'd say the 10.5 is a distinct handicap in a big dawg battle)

  3. #103
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    How about this Tank?


  4. #104
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    It isn't the ability to get 'a force' of 68 ton Abrams MBTs into land locked Afghanistan after decade, it is how would an ATTACKING force get enough there in a timely fashion. They could have been built there in 10 years but that wasn't the issue. The trend to smaller and less well armed is a reaction to no longer facing the Warsaw Pact in the Fulda Gap- that was what the Abrams was designed to do- but fighting irregularly armed light infantry/border bandits in 3rd tier nations.

    re read what I typed- I am not the one saying a 10.5 rifle cannon or hi/lo pressure gun in a light armored vehicle can go toe to toe with MBTs. I am not the one saying ANY combination you listed can go toe to toe and FYI the M1A1's took multiple hits from Iraqi tanks and survived, the 10.5 rifled cannon can not penetrate the M1A1's composite armor.

    During GWI the Abrams survived friendly fire hits from other M1a1's to the front hull and turret composite armor. It took side hits from the 12cm smoothbore cannon's APFSDS DU rounds- far superior to the rifled cannon's APFSDS 10.5.

    Generally speaking in armor vs armor battles the guy with the bigger gun can shoot first from much farther away and live. Ask the Sherman tank crews of WWII when facing Panther and tiger tanks. (Given the fact a 12cm Main gun has twice the effective range of a 10.5... I'd say the 10.5 is a distinct handicap in a big dawg battle)
    I made a mistake in my post. I meant to say "against a MBT and can't live". Sorry. I was in a hurry, had to go to a high school football game.

    Sagger and Tow type missiles alone mounted on PC type vehicles or even wheeled vehicles have destroyed more tanks than I would ever be able to count. Maybe you forgot about those.

    When the M1 was first produced it was equipped with the 105mm gun. Same as the M60 because there just was no need for a 120mm. The slight, very slight edge gained in range and energy just wasn't worth the cost and the reduction of rounds carried per tank. However politics being what it is the Army was directed to make the change to appease NATO and let them make some money off us.

    The size of the gun has next to nothing to do with who shoots first. Even in desert tank battles not very many tank battles have been fought anywhere near maximum effective ranges. Terrain relief, closing rates, concealment,... whatever doesn't lend itself to any tank unit wanting to engage it's enemy on the very outer limits of it's effective capabilities. Not that once in awhile it doesn't happen, but it's not preferred.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    I made a mistake in my post. I meant to say "against a MBT and can't live". Sorry. I was in a hurry, had to go to a high school football game. Sagger and Tow type missiles alone mounted on PC type vehicles or even wheeled vehicles have destroyed more tanks than I would ever be able to count. Maybe you forgot about those. When the M1 was first produced it was equipped with the 105mm gun. Same as the M60 because there just was no need for a 120mm. The slight, very slight edge gained in range and energy just wasn't worth the cost and the reduction of rounds carried per tank. However politics being what it is the Army was directed to make the change to appease NATO and let them make some money off us. The size of the gun has next to nothing to do with who shoots first. Even in desert tank battles not very many tank battles have been fought anywhere near maximum effective ranges. Terrain relief, closing rates, concealment,... whatever doesn't lend itself to any tank unit wanting to engage it's enemy on the very outer limits of it's effective capabilities. Not that once in awhile it doesn't happen, but it's not preferred.
    ATGMs are a whole 'nother breed of cat but the chobham armor is designed with HEAT rounds in mind. FYI the rifled cannon HEAT round is not as effective as the same caliber smooth bore HEAT round due to spinning distorting the penetrating cone. SAGGER was considered a stopgap weapon as the operator had to see the missile AND target. He had to fly the missile into the target- that was found to be difficult to do under battlefield conditions. It took dozens of missiles to score a hit. The SAGGER warhead can not penetrate the M1A1 tank's armor except in the rear. Same with the RPG. The same can not be said about a Stryker or M60 MBT. The Israeli M60 tanks were knocked out by the RPG/Saggar teams in '73- the Abrams was not by the RPG in '91.

    Back to main guns- the original fitting of a 10.5 rifled cannon in the M1 was NOT because it was within a curly hair of the 12cm smooth bore cannon in performance- it was because the armor command was quite hide bound. However running the 10.5 Abrams beside the British Chieftain and the West German Leopard2 showed the vast superiority of the 12cm smooth bore over a 10.5 rifled cannon.

    I guess you never read about the 3rd AD in WWII Europe when deciding what determines who wins and who burns alive in a tank battle. The 'best' way to fight the Panther or Tiger tank was to have a company of Shermans keep the panther/tiger busy by blowing up infront of it while a plt of tanks attempted to sneak up on the German from the rear.

    Given the new computer assisted sighting systems, the desert is a great place for a 12cm chobham armored MBT to pick off a homogeneous steel 10.5 rifled cannon armed MBT at will.

    Like I said the 12cm smooth bore cannon has twice the eff range and mother of gawd energy compared to the rifled 10.5. I guess you don't know much about the development of the 10.5 the M60 used- it is a British design we pay a licensing fee to put in our tanks so it was 'letting them make some money' off us as well.

  6. #106
    double secret probation AngryOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Phx,Az
    Last Seen
    03-31-14 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,917

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    All that aside, thar ain't nuthin' like having the depleted uranium rod punch right through the armour
    destroy everything inside punch through the other side and just keep right on going...
    Overkill is always the best kill


  7. #107
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    I do believe the US Navy has enough missiles in the area to accomplish the mission.
    What mission with what anticipated outcome is that exactly?

  8. #108
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    ATGMs are a whole 'nother breed of cat but the chobham armor is designed with HEAT rounds in mind. FYI the rifled cannon HEAT round is not as effective as the same caliber smooth bore HEAT round due to spinning distorting the penetrating cone. SAGGER was considered a stopgap weapon as the operator had to see the missile AND target. He had to fly the missile into the target- that was found to be difficult to do under battlefield conditions. It took dozens of missiles to score a hit. The SAGGER warhead can not penetrate the M1A1 tank's armor except in the rear. Same with the RPG. The same can not be said about a Stryker or M60 MBT. The Israeli M60 tanks were knocked out by the RPG/Saggar teams in '73- the Abrams was not by the RPG in '91.

    Back to main guns- the original fitting of a 10.5 rifled cannon in the M1 was NOT because it was within a curly hair of the 12cm smooth bore cannon in performance- it was because the armor command was quite hide bound. However running the 10.5 Abrams beside the British Chieftain and the West German Leopard2 showed the vast superiority of the 12cm smooth bore over a 10.5 rifled cannon.

    I guess you never read about the 3rd AD in WWII Europe when deciding what determines who wins and who burns alive in a tank battle. The 'best' way to fight the Panther or Tiger tank was to have a company of Shermans keep the panther/tiger busy by blowing up infront of it while a plt of tanks attempted to sneak up on the German from the rear.

    Given the new computer assisted sighting systems, the desert is a great place for a 12cm chobham armored MBT to pick off a homogeneous steel 10.5 rifled cannon armed MBT at will.

    Like I said the 12cm smooth bore cannon has twice the eff range and mother of gawd energy compared to the rifled 10.5. I guess you don't know much about the development of the 10.5 the M60 used- it is a British design we pay a licensing fee to put in our tanks so it was 'letting them make some money' off us as well.
    Well, we've gone from this; "No way a lightly armored but smaller vehicle goes up against a MBT and lives" to this "SAGGER warhead can not penetrate the M1A1 tank's armor except in the rear". And when we look at the numbers, we had M1 destroyed by things other than IED's. Also you may want to check out the latest and greatest on RPG's. The newer ones can and have penetrated the M1. And sorry, the 120mm is not twice the gun the 105mm is. But as a reminder, I never said the 105mm could do everything a 120mm could do. What I said was and still say, when everything is considered; cost, reduced combat load per tank, increased supply problems and so on it's not worth the trouble.

    You do a lot of guessing about me and so far all of it wrong. But please continue, it makes me grin.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  9. #109
    Invictus


    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,141

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    20 % of our destroyers have departed the 6th Fleet AOR.
    There are currently four US guided-missile destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea. Each has a complement of ~45 cruise missiles. SOP is to have two Ohio-class SSGN cruise-missile submarines in the Mediterranean. Probably the USS Florida and USS Georgia. Each submarine is equipped with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. With overflight clearance from regional allies Turkey and Jordan, the two US carrier battle groups currently in the Fifth Fleet AOR (Nimitz/Truman) could easily strike Syria with cruise missiles from the Red Sea. Each carrier also has ~90 heavily armed fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Turkey hosts a very large US airbase at Incirlik. In addition, US-based B-2 strategic bombers and B-1 bombers based in Qatar could also strike Syria with cruise missiles. Even with the departure of the USS Mahan, the US military can apply more than enough force projection in-theater.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    There probably wasn't enough money to refuel the USS Mahan at sea...
    No need for US warships to return stateside to refuel. The amphibious landing ship USS San Antonio (2000 Marines) is currently docked and refueling in Haifa, Israel. The large Italian naval bases at Taranto and Naples are also available.

  10. #110
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: 1/5 th of the USN surface warships depart the Mediterranean Sea.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    They wouldn't even need to hit the target, detonate a 2,000 lb. warhead of a Tomahawk cruise missile lets say 1.200 feet over the bad guys and after they pooped their diapers they would have took off running.

    If an Arleigh Burke destroyer would have been on station off of the Libya coast like there should have been, it does have a pea shooter known as a 5"/54 dual purpose gun. Three rapid fire savos using HE Com projectiles with time fuses and detonating them 300 feet above the target would have had Al Qaeda running for their lives.

    There were more than a dozen responses that could have been used to save these Americans lives in Benghazi. But as we all know, it was all about a You Tube video.
    Yes, if a destroyer had teleported to the Libyan coast and psychically known which building to fire a salvo over the top of, lives might have been saved.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •