• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

ItAin'tFree said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
How about this Tank?

fo2g4j.jpg
 
notquiteright said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
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

35l6q8m.jpg
 
notquiteright said:
I do believe the US Navy has enough missiles in the area to accomplish the mission.
Click to expand...

What mission with what anticipated outcome is that exactly?
 
notquiteright said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
APACHERAT said:
20 % of our destroyers have departed the 6th Fleet AOR.
Click to expand...
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.

APACHERAT said:
There probably wasn't enough money to refuel the USS Mahan at sea...
Click to expand...
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.
 
APACHERAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Simpleχity;1062286671 said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

No biggie simplexity, but there are no longer Carrier Battle Groups, they are called Carrier Strike Groups. They made the change during the G.W. Bush administration I believe when Gates was Sec. Def. You'll also notice there are less escorts than back when they were CBG.

" Proceedings" ran a comment on the change but I didn't read it.
There's always the theory that the word "battle" was politically incorrect. :roll:

More likely originally CBG were organized to do battle with enemy fleets, But since post WW ll the carrier's aircraft have mostly been used for conducting strike missions against land targets.

I hope your not as bad as Redress. I'm quite aware that ships don't have to travel 3,000 miles to refuel. An Arleigh Burke destroyer range at 20 knt. is only 4,400 miles. But remember back when once a ship left it's homeport it was always refuel at sea ? Which was brought up during the investigation of the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. Why did the Cole had to go to a some what unfriendly foreign port to refuel ? Because almost half of the Navy's oilers were decommissioned during the Clinton administration. The fleet was over downsized.
 
apdst said:
We're going to launch missiles through Jordanian airspace? I can't see that happening.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should read and/or watch the Communist News Network, also known as CNN
U.S. increasing military forces in Jordan - CNN.com

-- Due to security concerns in Jordan, which borders the Syrian civil war, a combat-equipped detachment of about 700 U.S. troops will remain in the country following training exercises that ended this week, President Barack Obama told Congress on Friday.

In a letter to comply with the War Powers Act, Obama notified Congress that the detachment staying behind at the request of the Jordanian government included "Patriot missile systems, fighter aircraft, and related support, command, control and communications personnel and systems."
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sending in one Texas Ranger would have been better than doing nothing.

One Al Qaeda attack, one Texas Ranger.
 
notquiteright said:
Ahh yes, more wailing and arm flailing... you really think the Russians are going to attack our ships?

Oh there is more than enough money to refuel the USS Mahan, you are just wolf whistling. You keep harping on some sensitivity training but for the life of me I can't see why a carrier can't do that at sea and why a couple of months makes that big a difference. I didn't forget how to be a grunt 2 months after leaving the service. We are not there to invade or bomb syria back to the stone age. You are stuck pretending it is 1968 instead of 2013.
Click to expand...

I love how these Obama Supporters/Progressives are suddenly these warmongering, bloodthirsty armchair Generals.
 
Bronson said:
I love how these Obama Supporters/Progressives are suddenly these warmongering, bloodthirsty armchair Generals.
Click to expand...


I don't see all "Obama Supporters/Progressives are suddenly these warmongering, bloodthirsty armchair Generals". They are simply pointing out the rather odd negativity of the right wing toward military action now that a Dem is President. In fact most of the progressives are against military action in Syria but that doesn't mean they can't note the hypocrisy of so many on the right.

After 12 years of war, most Americans are against stepping into yet another conflict. The reasons why they are against the proposed attacks on Syria are however quite diverse.
 
Somerville said:
I don't see all "Obama Supporters/Progressives are suddenly these warmongering, bloodthirsty armchair Generals". They are simply pointing out the rather odd negativity of the right wing toward military action now that a Dem is President. In fact most of the progressives are against military action in Syria but that doesn't mean they can't note the hypocrisy of so many on the right.

After 12 years of war, most Americans are against stepping into yet another conflict. The reasons why they are against the proposed attacks on Syria are however quite diverse.
Click to expand...

Nothing odd or negative about not supporting military action that will not solve anything but will create additional problems. We've seen it in Libya already, now the same Dem President wants to raise the stakes with the same type nonsense in Syria. Supporting our enemy that we are at war with is stupid.
 
Bronson said:
I love how these Obama Supporters/Progressives are suddenly these warmongering, bloodthirsty armchair Generals.
Click to expand...

Laughing and I love the hyper rhetoric some on the right use.

I did my time under a ruck so I have more than just armchair experience. :roll:

Now unlike the warmongering, bloodthirsty chickenhawk neo-cons of the Iraqi War, I never said invade.

Back when Clinton launched a few missiles in retaliation no self respecting Con called that blood thirsty did they?

So you seem to be making crap up.... but then again that seems to be a Con tactic.... :peace
 
APACHERAT said:
Sending in one Texas Ranger would have been better than doing nothing.

One Al Qaeda attack, one Texas Ranger.
Click to expand...

Yes! I like that! :thumbs:

Good evening, APACHERAT! :2wave:
 
polgara said:
Yes! I like that! :thumbs:

Good evening, APACHERAT! :2wave:
Click to expand...

Hi Polgara :2wave:

The original historical phrase is "One riot, one Texas ranger."

Historically before recent liberal revisionist history. it was about an illegal boxing prize fight match and the local Mexicans going from being lazy pinto beans to becoming Mexican jumping beans on the streets of El Paso and the surrounding area.

The local authorties telegraphed the Governor of Texas requesting help. A couple of days later the train rolled into El Paso and one Texas Ranger got off the train. The local officials asked where are the other Rangers ? The Texas Ranger said "One riot, one Texas Ranger."

In the past twenty or so years the liberal historians (revisionist) have been attacking the Texas Rangers history because they never have been politically correct. No other American law enforcement agency has shot and killed so many Mexicans than the Texas Rangers. The Texas Rangers is one of the oldest law enforcement agencies in America. Before the creation of the U.S. Border Patrol, it was the Texas Rangers who protected the border along the Rio Grande. And they did a better job than the federal government ever has.

The Texas Rangers were the elite "peace officers" and Indian fighters of America. They are Americana.
It's a disgrace that the liberal revisionist are targeting the Texas Rangers.
But isn't that what liberal revisionit do, attack Americana ?
 
apdst said:
Jordan: No attacks on Syria from our soil - CBS News
Click to expand...
Point 1) IIRC, in mid-June the USS Kearsarge and the USS San Antonio docked in the Jordanian port of Aqaba as part of Exercise Eager Lion 2013 which is an annual exercise with allies in the region. Before the warships departed for Eilat, Israel however, around 300 US Marines from the 26th MEU remained in Jordan. Their task was to assist in training Syrian rebels in Jordan. The first unit of these US trained rebels entered Syria from Jordan only a few days before the gas attack on August 21.

Point 2) Granting overflight rights to US cruise-missiles is technically not launching an attack from Jordanian soil.
 
APACHERAT said:
I hope your not as bad as Redress. I'm quite aware that ships don't have to travel 3,000 miles to refuel. An Arleigh Burke destroyer range at 20 knt. is only 4,400 miles. But remember back when once a ship left it's homeport it was always refuel at sea ? Which was brought up during the investigation of the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. Why did the Cole had to go to a some what unfriendly foreign port to refuel ? Because almost half of the Navy's oilers were decommissioned during the Clinton administration. The fleet was over downsized.
Click to expand...

I can see where you would consider me bad, having made your arguments look stupid. Right now in the area within strike range we have 2 carrier groups and 4 additional destroyers, plus unknown numbers of subs. Sending home a destroyer that is already 8 months deployed and overdue to go home is just stripping our forces...

By the way, there is now a carrier in the Red Sea and Arabian Gulf performing flight ops, despite you thinking we don't do that.
 
Simpleχity;1062289358 said:
Point 1) IIRC, in mid-June the USS Kearsarge and the USS San Antonio docked in the Jordanian port of Aqaba as part of Exercise Eager Lion 2013 which is an annual exercise with allies in the region. Before the warships departed for Eilat, Israel however, around 300 US Marines from the 26th MEU remained in Jordan. Their task was to assist in training Syrian rebels in Jordan. The first unit of these US trained rebels entered Syria from Jordan only a few days before the gas attack on August 21.

Point 2) Granting overflight rights to US cruise-missiles is technically not launching an attack from Jordanian soil.
Click to expand...

That article is from 28 August.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom