• 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.

Run the whole thing out of the Med under the watchful eyes of the Soviets?
 
And I would have said because we are no longer conducting close air support in Iraq the carriers no longer play in the Persian Gulf. No mission, close to too many enemies and too crowded so another Vincennces incident could occur or another suicide boat on a screening vessel of the carrier group.

Wear and tear and the additional cost sounds like a pansy excuse- you know- you keep claiming cost over rides defense in the liberal world.... :roll:

Seems all your running around with your hair on fire is for nought. You have no clue how many subs are with-in striking range- you seem to think the russian ships are super sub hunters when our subs are so quiet so compare them to listening for a flashlight.

I remember the cold war days- any rumor of a Soviet anything sent the Defense Industry into a frenzy, Congress demanding a 'gap' must be closed when the real story was the noisy, leaky, inaccurate, soviet ships/tanks/aircraft were behind what we already had in inventory.

My first hand knowledge of the wolf crying Cons came with the T62 MBT the Warsaw Pact had. Oh what big,bad armored vehicles they were!

Until the Israelis blew them apart by the dozens with Centurion and M60 tanks- tanks we already had on the front line... :roll:



Maybe your "first hand knowledge" isn't what it once was. The T62 was an improvement over the T55 but not much and the Russians were never satisfied with it. That's why before the first T62 came off line they were already working on their next tank, the T64.

I'm guessing you are talking about the Yom Kipper War? Yes The Israelies had some M60's but it wasn't their main battle tank. They had more of our old M48's at the time. But regardless, they had the edge in training and they made the Syrian Army pay dearly for their lack of training. The equipment edge wasn't the deciding factor.
 
Obama must be a genius when it comes to fighting a war. Order 1/5th of your surface warships in the Mediterranean Sea to return home before the shooting starts.


"<The guided missile destroyer USS Mahan (DDG-72) has left the Eastern Mediterranean en route to its homeport at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., according to several press reports.

Mahan’s departure leaves four destroyers left to undertake an anticipated limited strike on Syria.


Mahan had a planned ballistic missile defense (BMD) deployment extended in the U.S. 6th fleet area of operations while it waited for the U.S. to take action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad for an alleged chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.

Four destroyers — USS Stout (DDG-55), USS Ramage (DDG-61), USS Barry (DDG-52) and USS Gravely (DDG-107) — are left in Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) in range of Syrian targets.

There are also likely U.S. submarines in the region to assist in the attack, although the Navy does not typically discuss the positions of its submarine force. '<

Continue.-> Destroyer USS Mahan Leaves Eastern Mediterranean | USNI News
I don't see how it's a big deal. If the there was a real threat from a formidable enemy naval power, we'd have a hell of a lot more than a few destroyers out there.
 
Maybe your "first hand knowledge" isn't what it once was. The T62 was an improvement over the T55 but not much and the Russians were never satisfied with it. That's why before the first T62 came off line they were already working on their next tank, the T64. I'm guessing you are talking about the Yom Kipper War? Yes The Israelies had some M60's but it wasn't their main battle tank. They had more of our old M48's at the time. But regardless, they had the edge in training and they made the Syrian Army pay dearly for their lack of training. The equipment edge wasn't the deciding factor.

Oh my first hand knowledge is holding up well enough. Unlike the West, the Soviets didn't just upgrade a tank to death like we did the M48-M60's (you do know an M60 is just an upgraded M48 right?) they brought out whole 'new' tanks with new designations. but again my point was as a grunt facing the T62 at the Fulda Gap we were told the tank was superior to our M60s and had us greatly outnumbered. Even after the 73 war we were told the T62 was superior, just poorly used...

But all soviet tanks of that era suffered from the same problems- cramped fighting compartment that hindered crew efficiency and caused excessive fatigue. Poor transmissions that ate themselves up, and high alloy engines that catch fire when hit. They also had a fatal design flaw mating the turret to the hull and had to store main gun ammo around the turret ring due to lack of room inside the tank hull.

That didn't stop the gap guys from screaming the T62 was a diesel driven wraith... :roll:

You are thinking of the '67 war when it comes to M48's not upgraded. By 1973 the M48's were brought up to M60 standards but the Israeli armor forces included large numbers of Centurions. Rather than claim superior training it was more like poor high command leadership... on the battle field the Israelis were fighting to the death and taking massive losses. Not until the Egyptian high command decided to leave the protective curtain of the SAM 6 umbrella did the Israelis have success in the Sinai. Without air support the Israelis were being torn apart, and unable to rescue the reservists manning the Bar-Lev line, and unable to push the Egyptians back all the while taking huge losses. Syria's big problem was a poor battle plan that drained their air defense system to the point the Israeli air force could operate over the Golan. In the beginning the Israeli armor was being wiped out, they fought bravely but were wiped out.

I'm not knocking the Israelis but it was more a case of disastrous command decisions on both sides that shaped that battle. You might enjoy a good book on the subject- "The Eve of Destruction" by Howard Blum.
 
All right, you win. I'm ignorant and there were no trouble in both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

After over thirty five years membership with the USNI I've canceled my membership and will never read another issue of "Proceedings" again.

>" ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN THE PERSIAN GULF — Desert dust blew over the flight deck of this aircraft carrier in powdery milk-colored waves, clogging plane engines, air intake valves, sight scopes and nostrils. Mixed with the slick residue of dripping hydraulic oil and grease from arresting cables, the landing surface was slippery enough to entice maintenance hands into body surfing.

The fierce sandstorms that have slowed military operations in the Iraqi desert this week are also affecting air and naval operations. The sand, it seems, gets in everything, even ships at sea.

In the dark, windowless Tactical Flag Command Center, Rear Adm. John M. Kelly removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes. Illuminated by the glow of intelligence read-outs and a muted television, Kelly listened grimly to his aides.

"The Connie's deck is really getting clobbered," Cmdr. Larry Martin told his relief of conditions on the nearby USS Constellation, so lashed by wind and sand that one of its planes had just landed on the Lincoln instead. He rattled off names of airports in friendly Persian Gulf nations where carrier aircraft would be allowed to land if they got shut out by the increasingly foul weather.

A few jets returned from airstrikes with damage to their canopies and engines. Shaken by the extended sorties over dust-shrouded enemy territory, pilots told of harrowing winds and whiteouts through which they would never have flown if there weren't ground troops in need of their cover.

"We're maneuvering the carriers to get away from it as much as we can but sometimes there's no place to run," the admiral conceded. Six cycles of launches and recoveries had to be canceled on the three carriers, grounded by airborne grit, lightning and wind shear..."<
Sandstorm Complicates Operations On Carriers - Sun Sentinel

What you read does not matter, what you should do is stop commenting on the military since you so clearly have no clue about military matters. Let's recap in full:

1: You claimed the surface force was being reduced by 20 %, when in fact it is getting larger.

2: When called on that, you claimed they could not operate in the Red Sea or Gulf, despite having done so(note the moving goalpost). You further ignored that in the battle group is a cruiser and multiple destroyers.

3: when pointed out that carriers can operate in both places, you claimed they could not because, OMG, the wind.

4: When that argument is destroyed by the fact that amazingly, ships can turn, you bring up a sandstorm.

5: I will now destroy that argument.

Carrier ops are not easy. They require 100s of people to perform a nonchoreographed dance every time, and do it perfectly in bad conditions. Even the smallest mistake tends to end in injury or death. And despite this, vyvliv ops are the norm for carriers at sea. No one claims it will be easy, and the challenges tend to mount. A sandstorm is a thankfully rare challenge, so rare that a civilian paper actually covered the fact when one did happen. And yet, despite it being rare and people having to learn fast how to handle it, as your source points out:

Spurred on by the imperatives of war, the war managers shuffled takeoffs and landings to make use of windows of calm, scratching less than 20 percent despite conditions many described as the worst they'd experienced in their flying lifetimes.

Worst conditions many had ever seen, and still managegd a sortie completion rate of 80 %.
 
I don't see how it's a big deal. If the there was a real threat from a formidable enemy naval power, we'd have a hell of a lot more than a few destroyers out there.

The intent of the thread is to show what a poor state the U.S. Navy is in today.

Whereas the past 11 Presidents before Obama were able 24/7 for over sixty years were always able to keep a large number of U.S. Navy warships, amphibious ships and auxiliaries in the 6th Fleet AOR.

Remember 9-11-12 and Benghazi, and there was only one destroyer on station covering the entire 6th Fleet AOR.
 
The intent of the thread is to show what a poor state the U.S. Navy is in today.

Whereas the past 11 Presidents before Obama were able 24/7 for over sixty years were always able to keep a large number of U.S. Navy warships, amphibious ships and auxiliaries in the 6th Fleet AOR.

Remember 9-11-12 and Benghazi, and there was only one destroyer on station covering the entire 6th Fleet AOR.

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...
 
If they can turn they should get on with it
turn round and come back to port
 
Remember 9-11-12 and Benghazi, and there was only one destroyer
c'mon dood just that one ship could have launched a cruise missile unto the target the former seal was lazing
(if he could have transmitted accurate GPS coordinates?) and stopped the attack?
Guess they were told to 'stand down' eh ? :tongue4:
 
What you read does not matter, what you should do is stop commenting on the military since you so clearly have no clue about military matters. Let's recap in full:

1: You claimed the surface force was being reduced by 20 %, when in fact it is getting larger.

2: When called on that, you claimed they could not operate in the Red Sea or Gulf, despite having done so(note the moving goalpost). You further ignored that in the battle group is a cruiser and multiple destroyers.

3: when pointed out that carriers can operate in both places, you claimed they could not because, OMG, the wind.

4: When that argument is destroyed by the fact that amazingly, ships can turn, you bring up a sandstorm.

5: I will now destroy that argument.

Carrier ops are not easy. They require 100s of people to perform a nonchoreographed dance every time, and do it perfectly in bad conditions. Even the smallest mistake tends to end in injury or death. And despite this, vyvliv ops are the norm for carriers at sea. No one claims it will be easy, and the challenges tend to mount. A sandstorm is a thankfully rare challenge, so rare that a civilian paper actually covered the fact when one did happen. And yet, despite it being rare and people having to learn fast how to handle it, as your source points out:



Worst conditions many had ever seen, and still managed a sortie completion rate of 80 %.

Re: 1.
I made the claim now show me where I'm wrong. I'm using information from the U.S. Navy. By midnight tonight there will only be four destroyers in the 6th Fleet AOR. A 20 % reduction of U.S. Navy warships had occurred.

Re: 2.
Here's what I said in post #24.

>"I know it's been done before but why don't we do it any more ? (In reference to carrier operations being conducted.)

There are two reasons. It takes a large area to maneuver and carry out carrier flight operations. SOP is to put the carrier into the wind. The Navy still hasn't figured out how to control the direction of the wind. The Persian Gulf like the Red Sea are too small to carry out full carrier operations.

But the biggest problem was all of the dust and sand that commonly is blowing across the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. It just does too much damage to our aircraft and our ships electronics."<

Even during the Iraq war the Navy stopped carrying out carrier operations in the Persian Gulf because the lack of space for maneuvering, the heavy merchant ship traffic, the threat of sea mines and the damn sand storms.

The Nimitz CSG has many of those same problems in the Red Sea. Could the Nimitz carry out 100 % carrier flight operations ? No, even if they were in the middle of the Pacific they couldn't because for the past three years almost every deployed carrier has been unable to put it's entire carrier air wing into the air to carry out combat operations. It use to be if you could put 90 % of the aircraft in the air the squadron / wing was combat ready. Today because of Obama's pre sequestration cuts, if you can put 50 % of the aircraft in the air, you meet Obama's combat readiness standards.

BTW: 50 % of the deployed P-3 Orion squadrons can't fly either. No funds for maintenance and spare parts. I suppose the funding has been redirected for sensitivity training classes ? Even those have been exempt from cuts.

Re: 4. The link to the article I provided quotes a captain of a carrier who said during a sand storm that the carrier had no where to run. The Persian Gulf like the Red Sea are small confined areas that are close to meeting the definition of being landlocked.

Re: 5. See #4.

Now I'm going to be a nice guy and provide a link to Marinetraffic so you can see in live time the position of most merchant shipping in the world. Now you know how busy the Red Sea is and is extremely crowded because every ship that transits the Suez Canal has to travel through the Red Sea.

But you will notice that they no longer show the ships in the Red Sea or around the Horn of Africa. They stop doing it a couple of years ago because those damn Somali pirates were using the same website to locate ships to attack. But check out how crowded things are in the Persian Gulf. Have fun-> Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions
 
Oh my first hand knowledge is holding up well enough. Unlike the West, the Soviets didn't just upgrade a tank to death like we did the M48-M60's (you do know an M60 is just an upgraded M48 right?) they brought out whole 'new' tanks with new designations. but again my point was as a grunt facing the T62 at the Fulda Gap we were told the tank was superior to our M60s and had us greatly outnumbered. Even after the 73 war we were told the T62 was superior, just poorly used...

But all soviet tanks of that era suffered from the same problems- cramped fighting compartment that hindered crew efficiency and caused excessive fatigue. Poor transmissions that ate themselves up, and high alloy engines that catch fire when hit. They also had a fatal design flaw mating the turret to the hull and had to store main gun ammo around the turret ring due to lack of room inside the tank hull.

That didn't stop the gap guys from screaming the T62 was a diesel driven wraith... :roll:

You are thinking of the '67 war when it comes to M48's not upgraded. By 1973 the M48's were brought up to M60 standards but the Israeli armor forces included large numbers of Centurions. Rather than claim superior training it was more like poor high command leadership... on the battle field the Israelis were fighting to the death and taking massive losses. Not until the Egyptian high command decided to leave the protective curtain of the SAM 6 umbrella did the Israelis have success in the Sinai. Without air support the Israelis were being torn apart, and unable to rescue the reservists manning the Bar-Lev line, and unable to push the Egyptians back all the while taking huge losses. Syria's big problem was a poor battle plan that drained their air defense system to the point the Israeli air force could operate over the Golan. In the beginning the Israeli armor was being wiped out, they fought bravely but were wiped out.

I'm not knocking the Israelis but it was more a case of disastrous command decisions on both sides that shaped that battle. You might enjoy a good book on the subject- "The Eve of Destruction" by Howard Blum.

The hull on a M48 and a M60 are just about the same, the turrets, not so much.

Your post said M60's not M48's. Israel just didn't have all that many of them. Of the ones they had fact is many of the Israel tankers preferred the M48 over the M60. Perhaps because they had more experience with them but it was said the steel was harder because it was older (never made sense to me) and the silhouette was lower.
 
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...

Do you know how stupid you sound ?
 
ha your link makes it look like everyone is steering clear of grid 139
 
The hull on a M48 and a M60 are just about the same, the turrets, not so much. Your post said M60's not M48's. Israel just didn't have all that many of them. Of the ones they had fact is many of the Israel tankers preferred the M48 over the M60. Perhaps because they had more experience with them but it was said the steel was harder because it was older (never made sense to me) and the silhouette was lower.

My post said M60 because those as well as the Centurion was the front line Israeli MBTs of the '73 war where they faced the T62. FYI both the M48 and M60 had a series of turrets fitted through the years. The M60/ M48E's were superior due to a diesel engine and a bigger caliber main gun. The silhouette difference was mainly due to an enhanced turret shape MUCH appreciated as well as a cupola that allowed the tank commander the ability to use his MG with some cover. A stock M48 had a 9cm main gun, the M48E/M60 the 10.5.

But do some research, like I said the M60 vs the T62... hands down the M60 was the superior MBT, the higher turret allowed for negative elevation on the main gun so it could use the dunes for hull down fighting while the T62 had to expose itself to engage.

As far as experience goes- an experienced 'tread head' knows an bigger accurate main gun beats the crap out of a smaller one.
 
c'mon dood just that one ship could have launched a cruise missile unto the target the former seal was lazing
(if he could have transmitted accurate GPS coordinates?) and stopped the attack?
Guess they were told to 'stand down' eh ? :tongue4:

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.
 
'tread head'
So size does matter ;)
why are you goin' on and on? The Israelis whooped ass Then captured a slew of T-62's and only used a few of them cuz the
American tanks they were being provided were superior?

Soviet weapons are inferior but they always tried to make it up with superior numbers?
If the Red Army had ever had flooded across the west German frontier back in the day they'd have all been destroyed before they made it too the Ardennes?
 
My post said M60 because those as well as the Centurion was the front line Israeli MBTs of the '73 war where they faced the T62. FYI both the M48 and M60 had a series of turrets fitted through the years. The M60/ M48E's were superior due to a diesel engine and a bigger caliber main gun. The silhouette difference was mainly due to an enhanced turret shape MUCH appreciated as well as a cupola that allowed the tank commander the ability to use his MG with some cover. A stock M48 had a 9cm main gun, the M48E/M60 the 10.5.

But do some research, like I said the M60 vs the T62... hands down the M60 was the superior MBT, the higher turret allowed for negative elevation on the main gun so it could use the dunes for hull down fighting while the T62 had to expose itself to engage.

As far as experience goes- an experienced 'tread head' knows an bigger accurate main gun beats the crap out of a smaller one.

FYI, I know all I need to know about an M60.

But the trend now is back toward the smaller guns on the smaller vehicles. A 105 will do just about everything a 120 will but weighs less, costs less, saves space. More bullets to shoot.
 
Sure, if you've got superior targeting abilities

Is there a reason you left out the "just about"? But really, you don't even need that. Both of them shoot flat. Very flat.
 
So size does matter ;) why are you goin' on and on? The Israelis whooped ass Then captured a slew of T-62's and only used a few of them cuz the American tanks they were being provided were superior? Soviet weapons are inferior but they always tried to make it up with superior numbers? If the Red Army had ever had flooded across the west German frontier back in the day they'd have all been destroyed before they made it too the Ardennes?

when it comes to size ask your wife... ;)

The issue was the defense industry and their lap dogs in Congress would hold up inferior Warsaw Pact equipment, Soviet Ships, subs and aircraft as a 'gap' that had to be closed no matter the cost.

Now the Israelis and the T62 conversions. It was far cheaper to convert the abandoned T62s with improved engines and the 10.5 rifled cannon for compatibility than replace their losses with 100% imports. Those tanks are reserve only, you wont see them on the Golan. Since the '73 war the domestic Merkava has replaced most front line tanks with a rather unique design.

Well I was never privy to the Warsaw Pact battle plan, how ever Higher told us the objective of the Soviets in our sector would be Frankfurt and cutting the airbridge to the States. Parts of the Autobahn were capable of being emergency air strips for transport aircraft. When I transferred back to CONUS my Bn was sent to FRG to participate in Reforger. We flew into England on a C-5B, transferred to turbo props German aircraft and flew in just north of Frankfurt.

So why the Ardennes?
 
FYI, I know all I need to know about an M60. But the trend now is back toward the smaller guns on the smaller vehicles. A 105 will do just about everything a 120 will but weighs less, costs less, saves space. More bullets to shoot.

Actually it is all about air transportable to face 3rd tier armies. No way a 10.5 rifle works as well as a 120mm smoothbore facing 1st tier armor. No way a lightly armored but smaller vehicle goes up against a MBT and lives. Afghanistan is landlocked so sea transport of Abram tanks is problematic. The far lighter Stryker vehicles can be flown in to face an enemy not rich in heavy armor. But the Stryker would not have done well in the battle of 73 Easting in 1991.
 
Actually it is all about air transportable to face 3rd tier armies. No way a 10.5 rifle works as well as a 120mm smoothbore facing 1st tier armor. No way a lightly armored but smaller vehicle goes up against a MBT and lives. Afghanistan is landlocked so sea transport of Abram tanks is problematic. The far lighter Stryker vehicles can be flown in to face an enemy not rich in heavy armor. But the Stryker would not have done well in the battle of 73 Easting in 1991.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom