Good News for the RN!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Joseph
Actually we should have 15 carriers. 8 for the west coast and 7 for east coast. The Pacific and India oceans are a lot bigger than the Atl. and the Med. When I was in, we had 2 in WestPac, 1 in Hawaii, 2 in overhaul, 1 in SRA, and the other 2 were doing ops off of Calif, Washington etc.

The USN is in the process of keeping most of the fleet in the Pacific. Indeed, there was serious talk of basing a carrier out of Guam, though I don't know if anything came of it.

[Patroklos]

They are bigger, but there are economic and strategic reasons for having an even distribution of forces in CONUS.

As of right now 7th and 3rd fleet provide very little support to the Persian Gulf. In fact, when I deployed with Enterprise in May-Nov 06, she actually left her battlegroup to participate in ops off of NK. This is an Atlantic carrier mind you.

There are differences between two areas though. The Pacific fleet has the potential for a globe devastating war, while CENTCOM has actual threats being fought, even if they are somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (relative to a China war).

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Numbers matter. They are not all that matters, but they matter.

Except, there is about 95% less of them. Ford/Toyota/GMC/Honda are far more effective at killing Americans.

Piss-poor argument. Under that rationale, you should have won Vietnam. And the Germans really won WW2 and WW1. And the French should have won in Indochina and Algeria...

It doesn't matter who gets the most killed. It's who ends up with their tail behind their tail first. As the way it stands, you can still kill 100 insurgents for every GI and you'll still lose.

[snoopy369]

That's because there are what, 50 million iraqis, of which an unable to be determined number, but probably at least 1% (500,000) are insurgents; and we don't have half a million troops over there. So they have numbers over us

[Patroklos]

Piss-poor argument. Under that rationale, you should have won Vietnam. And the Germans really won WW2 and WW1. And the French should have won in Indochina and Algeria...

We can go over this in another thread if you wish, but for now please explain what any of that drival has to do with the effectivness of a particular weapon system???

you can still kill 100 insurgents for every GI

I am glad you agree our GIs are 1000+% more effective in combat than insurgents.

As it is, we are probably killing far more than 100 insurgents per GI killed.

[dannubis]

Probably...

Unfortunately this is true in all the ways you can interpret this.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We can go over this in another thread if you wish, but for now please explain what any of that drival has to do with the effectivness of a particular weapon system???

I'm not arguing weapons systems with you. I'm arguing a particular statement of yours regarding the effectiveness of naval air power in a war against insurgents. I would take it that's what you are arguing yourself if it weren't for the fact you are littering your posts with pointless gung-ho statements which impresses nobody but yourself.

I am glad you agree our GIs are 1000+% more effective in combat than insurgents.

As it is, we are probably killing far more than 100 insurgents per GI killed.

More chest-thumping which is in no way helping your argument. Hooray, you're a patriot!

Btw, if GIs are 1000+% more effective, how is it then that a group of ragtags require the only remaining superpower on earth to have "carriers and huge conventional armies" to fight them as you advocated earlier?

Seems to me your idea of "effectiveness" goes smack against reality.

Bring 'em on cowboy!

[Patroklos]

I'm not arguing weapons systems with you.

Then you are talking to yourself, because everyone else here is.

pointless gung-ho statements

Which ones were those? Pointing out that insurgents on the business end of naval air power probably have a different perspective on it than you?

effectiveness of naval air power in a war against insurgents.

Air power is designed to kill enemies, which right now are insurgents. Is your position that air power is not effective against killing insurgents?

I know why your panties are in a bunch, and it is because your projecting. Nobody here said anything about naval air power solely winning an insurgency or any war for that matter.

FACT. Naval air power kills insurgents. Dispute it if you want.

More chest-thumping which is in no way helping your argument. Hooray, you're a patriot!

You put the numbers out there, I just pointed out what they mean. In fact, the only one chest thumping is you.

Btw, if GIs are 1000+% more effective, how is it then that a group of ragtags require the only remaining superpower on earth to have "carriers and huge conventional armies" to fight them as you advocated earlier?

Who said they required it? We could hunt insurgents with battle axes, but if you want to have the have a 1.5% casualty rate and a .1% percent fatality rate, super power level weapons make that happen.

Oh yeah I forgot, the killing fields Iraq are robbing America of the flower of their youth right

The only thing anyone has said in regards to naval air power is it is helpful and effective. So much so, that realistically given the expectations of today's citizens, a requirement for many a mission.

Then again, I can think of nothing else naval air power is used for, we obviously base the existence of 11 carrier battlegroups on nothing else than fighting insurgencies.

You care to add anything useful or just troll some more?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then you are talking to yourself, because everyone else here is.

Then why have you replied to me, let's see, four times now?

Which ones were those? Pointing out that insurgents on the business end of naval air power probably have a different perspective on it than you?

Air power is designed to kill enemies, which right now are insurgents. Is your position that air power is not effective against killing insurgents?

So the objective of air power is to kill people? Interesting. I thought (and assumed someone so seemingly knowledgeable about the art of war like you also did) that air power just like every other aspect of warfare was designed to win wars and wars aren't necessarily won by the one who kills the most.

I know why your panties are in a bunch, and it is because your projecting. Nobody here said anything about naval air power solely winning an insurgency or any war for that matter.

FACT. Naval air power kills insurgents. Dispute it if you want.

Nobody is disputing that they kill insurgents or non-insurgents or dogs or cats. You got all uptight just because I mentioned that I didn't think naval air power was being decisive in Iraq. Apparently that struck a chord.

You put the numbers out there, I just pointed out what they mean. In fact, the only one chest thumping is you.

Yeah, my chest already hurts...

Who said they required it? We could hunt insurgents with battle axes, but if you want to have the have a 1.5% casualty rate and a .1% percent fatality rate, super power level weapons make that happen.

Oh yeah I forgot, the killing fields Iraq are robbing America of the flower of their youth right

*cough* strawman *cough*

The only thing anyone has said in regards to naval air power is it is helpful and effective. So much so, that realistically given the expectations of today's citizens, a requirement for many a mission.

Then again, I can think of nothing else naval air power is used for, we obviously base the existence of 11 carrier battlegroups on nothing else than fighting insurgencies.

You care to add anything useful or just troll some more?

Considering I haven't questioned the need for 11 carrier battle groups I can't but wonder what is the point of that statement other than yet another strawman. Keep to the argument cowboy.

[Patroklos]

[quote]

I thought (and assumed someone so seemingly knowledgeable about the art of war like you also did) that air power just like every other aspect of warfare was designed to win wars and wars aren't necessarily won by the one who kills the most.

Your wrong. A singular weapons system has a particular job to do within an overall strategy to win a war.

The battery in my car has a specific job, to supply electric power, which contributes to the goal of making my car go. It can be working perfectly fine, but it matters not if the alternator is broken.

You got all uptight just because I mentioned that I didn't think naval air power was being decisive in Iraq.

No, what you said was this...

"And yet naval air power has been real effective against Iraqi insurgents"

The fact is naval air power is devastatingly effective killing insurgents. Now you've changed your story to effective in Iraq, presumably meaning the insurgency in general. That doesn't matter in evaluating naval air power solely, as there is alot more to fight against in an insurgency than just the individual insurgents themselves.

Its like telling me Tigers were not effective against Soviet tanks. That is obviously false, they shredded Soviet tanks, and that fact is true regardless of who won the overall war.

*cough* strawman *cough*

So what do you attribute our ridiculously low casualty rate to if its not our weapon systems/training?

Considering I haven't questioned the need for 11 carrier battle groups I can't but wonder what is the point of that statement other than yet another strawman. Keep to the argument cowboy.

hmmm...

"Btw, if GIs are 1000+% more effective, how is it then that a group of ragtags require the only remaining superpower on earth to have "carriers and huge conventional armies" to fight them as you advocated earlier?"

Why not try to understand your own position before attacking someone else's for a change

But to revisit your quote again, our GIs are 1000+% more effective than insurgents because of super power type weapons like carriers.

[Patroklos]

The funny thing is I hate brown shoes, so I am not saying this stuff out of personal pride.

Chest thumping for airdales, Riiiiiiiight.....

[Chemical Ollie]

Air power is crap for fighting insurgents, as they tend to mix up with civilians, which means you need something with more pinpoint accuracy. Dead civilians don't bring you closer to victory, it will only create more insurgents.

[Patroklos]

Air power is crap for fighting insurgents, as they tend to mix up with civilians, which means you need something with more pinpoint accuracy. Dead civilians don't bring you closer to victory, it will only create more insurgents.

Fighting insurgents in cities exclusively with GIs leads to lots of dead GIs, thus reduced homefront support, and lost wars.

What we actually have is a mix of the two. Combined arms

[Lancer]

Hearts and minds are the thing. If you can cut those out, the enemy dies.

[Patroklos]

Thats a pretty gruesome way to go about it.