Good News for the RN!

[Lancer]

Yeah, but since the terrorists want us dead, plus all the women and children they can kill just because we're a different religion, it's tough to get too sentimental about the enemy.

[dannubis]

Are you doing something different then ?

Patroklos just said in so many words an American life is woth more than in Iraqi one?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
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.

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.

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

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.

Do you actually understand exactly what I'm arguing with you? Apparently you don't. Let me refresh your memory:

And yet naval air power has been real effective against Iraqi insurgents... yep, reeeeal effective!

The one and only point I've made which you keep strawman-ing because you can't answer it. I repeat for the second time: I'm not arguing a particular weapons systems which you seem hell-bent on insisting we debate. I am not questioning the ability of a particular ship or plane to drop a bomb and kill someone. I am talking about overall war strategy and how naval air power in conjunction fits into this.

I care not if each carrier plus its 60+ aircraft have the capability of killing X number of insurgents, that is pointless as it does not define who wins wars. Likewise, a weapons systems' job is pointless if it does not contribute to its ultimate objective: to win. Which is why if 11 carriers can't stop a group of ragtag insurgents, then maybe some other strategy is needed. You mentioned Tiger tanks during the Second World War and my argument is equally applicable: so what if Germany had the most powerful tank in the war if the country's many other failings made it lose? Same with the US in Vietnam as one can argue the overall superiority of every single weapons system in its arsenal viz-a-viz the Vietcong or the level of training of its soldiers. War is a much more complex affair than who fights better and who has the shiniest toys. By failing to take this into account, the only thing you demonstrate is a complete ignorance on the subject, just limiting yourself to a childlike morbid fascination of whose bomb makes the biggest bang (thus explaining the silly chest-thumping).

In conclusion, stop weaseling yourself out of answering my point.

[Chemical Ollie]

Some people needs to study War-nerd a little more

[MOBIUS]

Crap names but they are needed to replace our current three carriers. Without carriers, we could not have retaken the Falklands.

What we should be getting rid off however is Trident, because it is totally unnecessary and is ****ing up our budget for more important stuff like ensuring our troops in Afghanistan are adequately equipped for the job at hand.

[Patroklos]

Do you actually understand exactly what I'm arguing with you?

I do, and your original point was addressed. You moved the bar, and it is funny watching you wax on about something nobody in here is talking about but you even though I explained this too you using your own words.

HINT: The question of whether air power can win wars was answered in 1947. Nobody has advocated that debunked view in this thread, to include me, and it is confusing as to why you convolute our arguments with the axe your grinding.

I am not questioning the ability of a particular ship or plane to drop a bomb and kill someone.

Again, you said:

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

Not, I repeat not, insurgenCY. One is a finite physical thing; one is vaporous hard to pin down idea/entity.

I am talking about overall war strategy and how naval air power in conjunction fits into this.

If you wish to discuss this now (not that I didn't already address this to your positions detriment) fine, but don't pretend that was your original point, or if it was that you didn't communicate it poorly.

I care not if each carrier plus its 60+ aircraft have the capability of killing X number of insurgents, that is pointless as it does not define who wins wars.

You don't think Iraqi insurgency leaders are keenly aware of their status of forces? If the number of insurgents at their disposal is not important or useful to them, why do they recruit them at all?

Please, pretty please, name me a conflict where the number of the rank and file taken out had no influence on the course of the conflict.

Likewise, a weapons systems' job is pointless if it does not contribute to its ultimate objective: to win.

Contribute. Note you said contribute, not achieve. If you think the insurgents available to various factions in Iraq is not one, if not their prime, measurement of their ability to wage war then you are stupid. There are two ways to get rid of insurgents. 1.) remove the factors/circumstances that aid in recruitment and 2.) kill/deter the ones already active. A combined approach is best. Naval aviation can be quite helpful in the second.

Which is why if 11 carriers can't stop a group of ragtag insurgents, then maybe some other strategy is needed.

Not that we ever used 11 carriers, or justified their existence on fighting the Iraqi insurgents. Nor has anyone, anywhere, said carriers alone could defeat the Iraqi insurgents.

Or do you think naval aviation is what is broken, that if we remove it from the equation things will magically stabilize under rainbows and gummy bear trees?

If you have been reading this thread instead of making up odd rebuttals to nonexistent arguments you would not have missed the part where I explained that naval aviation has little to do with the Iraqi insurgency anyways. Now that we have air bases in Iraq, the USAF does most of the work. A progression that was supposed to happen, because shock, it was designed that way.

The Navy does supply significant air support to Afghanistan.

You mentioned Tiger tanks during the Second World War and my argument is equally applicable: so what if Germany had the most powerful tank in the war if the country's many other failings made it lose?

It matters in that at least, in that instance, they had a weapon that was effective against the enemy. Do you think Germany’s enemies would have preferred the Germans with Tigers or without them? I am sure the Soviets were just thrilled to lose a couple thousand tanks and crews, and I bet the shattering of entire Corps had no effect on their plans that were beneficial to Germany’s war effort Is it the fault of the Tiger crews, techs, manufactures that other people in other places dropped the ball? How can you criticize them for something they had no influence on? The manufactures you can as they had their hand in a lot of stuff. You can even criticize the decision to build them in the first place do to resource depletion, but once there their record speaks for themselves.

Your position is ridiculous.

Same with the US in Vietnam as one can argue the overall superiority of every single weapons system in its arsenal viz-a-viz the Vietcong or the level of training of its soldiers.

That is a stupid assertion, even the lefties here maintain the Viet Cong were defeated. But do you think peace talks at various stages of that war would have even occurred if North Vietnam was economically and militarily intact? What events brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table almost every time?

War is a much more complex affair than who fights better and who has the shiniest toys. By failing to take this into account, the only thing you demonstrate is a complete ignorance on the subject, just limiting yourself to a childlike morbid fascination of whose bomb makes the biggest bang (thus explaining the silly chest-thumping).

Oh yes, the complex mechanics of war where apparently weapon systems are not necessary

Stop projecting. Nobody here has made the argument you are trying to debunk. If you can find one instance of anyone here claiming that naval air power, or air power period, could solely defeat the insurgency in Iraq, or any enemy for that matter, go ahead. You can’t, but it will be funny to see what you come up with.

What was stated is that naval aviation is effective in accomplishing the missions it was designed for (and other is wasn’t). Even more so in combination with other weapons systems designed for other missions and none military actions such as diplomacy. I am sorry if CVNs can’t build power plants or make parliaments get along on top of what they already do, but you seem to hate gold plating as it is.

Ball point pens are also equipment critical to the war effort, are their design and function also a failure? Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I also recommend you not scarp you whole car the next time you get a flat tire. Sure the over all mission of you driving might be unaccomplished, but it’s not the rest of the car’s fault.

What we should be getting rid off however is Trident

Agreed.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by thesilentone


Remember that the UK has stood side by side with the US since 9/11. And also remember that I believe poland was helping with a region iraq that had oil, and under agreement would share in some of the spoils of war. The poles were then moved to a more violent region with no such spoils, that sends really bad signals to your allies and that's not the only example.

Actually, the Poles were sent to the least violent sectors of Iraq, outside fo Kurdistan. And what did the Poles do? They hung out in their base because they(and the Ukrainians, and the Spanish, and the Misc.) didn't bother to bring Arab interpeters with them. Woo.

The dissenters in nato, i can understand the US being annoyed but at the end of the day they had no obligation to join in - it's their choice.

I am not talking about NATO participation in Iraq at all. I'm sayign that even if NATO did participate, they would not have contribute in a signifigant manner. (France would have been the only NATO ally besides the UK that would send 5-digit numbers of troops)

Homeland politics plays a big part, you shouldn't look down on them unless they go back on an obligation or treaty. However, none of that says that europe is at risk from invasion, which for many countries, and this thought will only increase in the future: is the purpose many wish armies to uphold.

Again, I'm not referring to participation in Iraq. I'm referring to our allies and whether or not they wish to be taken seriously on the world stage. And when India has a larger and more capable navy than the RN, that sends a signal that the UK(and others) are to be scoffed at.

Edit: regarding your islam/30 year war comment, don't forget islam has had a similar catholic/protestant internal conflict ever since muhammed died (sunni/shia).

Since the 30 years war ended up being a church/state conflict(Catholic France came in on the side of protestant German Princes, remember?) that's a bit of a incorrect statement.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Agathon
What a waste of money, by a country still dreaming of past glories and playing at pretend-to-be-relevant.

Hilarious that they will be giving them these names.

The last HMS Queen Elizabeth missed the greatest naval battle of the first world war, a battle it was designed to fight, by being in dry dock IIRC.

The HMS Prince of Wales, was battered by the Bismarck, suffered multiple failures, and now rests off of the Malay coast courtesy of Japanese aircraft.

You'd thing that the stain of failure would have removed these names from contention.

Hey Aggie, guilty of hypocrisy as ever!

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MOBIUS Without carriers, we could not have retaken the Falklands.
---

Fez would have loved that

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Joseph
The chief threat is CHINA . Why do you think China is building it's military to take on ours.

Everyone panic!!!! Soon your daughters will be lying comatose in opium dens while lascivious orientals rob them of their virtue!!!!!!!!!!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I do, and your original point was addressed. You moved the bar, and it is funny watching you wax on about something nobody in here is talking about but you even though I explained this too you using your own words.

HINT: The question of whether air power can win wars was answered in 1947. Nobody has advocated that debunked view in this thread, to include me, and it is confusing as to why you convolute our arguments with the axe your grinding.

Again, you said:

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

Not, I repeat not, insurgenCY. One is a finite physical thing; one is vaporous hard to pin down idea/entity.

If you wish to discuss this now (not that I didn't already address this to your positions detriment) fine, but don't pretend that was your original point, or if it was that you didn't communicate it poorly.



You don't think Iraqi insurgency leaders are keenly aware of their status of forces? If the number of insurgents at their disposal is not important or useful to them, why do they recruit them at all?

Please, pretty please, name me a conflict where the number of the rank and file taken out had no influence on the course of the conflict.

Contribute. Note you said contribute, not achieve. If you think the insurgents available to various factions in Iraq is not one, if not their prime, measurement of their ability to wage war then you are stupid. There are two ways to get rid of insurgents. 1.) remove the factors/circumstances that aid in recruitment and 2.) kill/deter the ones already active. A combined approach is best. Naval aviation can be quite helpful in the second.

Not that we ever used 11 carriers, or justified their existence on fighting the Iraqi insurgents. Nor has anyone, anywhere, said carriers alone could defeat the Iraqi insurgents.

Or do you think naval aviation is what is broken, that if we remove it from the equation things will magically stabilize under rainbows and gummy bear trees?

If you have been reading this thread instead of making up odd rebuttals to nonexistent arguments you would not have missed the part where I explained that naval aviation has little to do with the Iraqi insurgency anyways. Now that we have air bases in Iraq, the USAF does most of the work. A progression that was supposed to happen, because shock, it was designed that way.

The Navy does supply significant air support to Afghanistan.

It matters in that at least, in that instance, they had a weapon that was effective against the enemy. Do you think Germany’s enemies would have preferred the Germans with Tigers or without them? I am sure the Soviets were just thrilled to lose a couple thousand tanks and crews, and I bet the shattering of entire Corps had no effect on their plans that were beneficial to Germany’s war effort Is it the fault of the Tiger crews, techs, manufactures that other people in other places dropped the ball? How can you criticize them for something they had no influence on? The manufactures you can as they had their hand in a lot of stuff. You can even criticize the decision to build them in the first place do to resource depletion, but once there their record speaks for themselves.

Your position is ridiculous.

That is a stupid assertion, even the lefties here maintain the Viet Cong were defeated. But do you think peace talks at various stages of that war would have even occurred if North Vietnam was economically and militarily intact? What events brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table almost every time?

Oh yes, the complex mechanics of war where apparently weapon systems are not necessary

Stop projecting. Nobody here has made the argument you are trying to debunk. If you can find one instance of anyone here claiming that naval air power, or air power period, could solely defeat the insurgency in Iraq, or any enemy for that matter, go ahead. You can’t, but it will be funny to see what you come up with.

What was stated is that naval aviation is effective in accomplishing the missions it was designed for (and other is wasn’t). Even more so in combination with other weapons systems designed for other missions and none military actions such as diplomacy. I am sorry if CVNs can’t build power plants or make parliaments get along on top of what they already do, but you seem to hate gold plating as it is.

Ball point pens are also equipment critical to the war effort, are their design and function also a failure? Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I also recommend you not scarp you whole car the next time you get a flat tire. Sure the over all mission of you driving might be unaccomplished, but it’s not the rest of the car’s fault.

Agreed.

You just don't quit...

What's worse is that now you're arguing semantics, insurgency vs insurgents considering that my point should have been pretty obvious from the start. I'm not going argue semantics as it is recourse for those who can't argue substance, which is apparent from your endless nonsensical diatribe which frankly, I am too bewildered to even began to decipher. What the hell are you arguing about?

I'll just take one example as answering your entire post -while tempting- is ultimately an exercise in futilty. You make a feeble analogy about ball point pens, that since they're vital to the war effort and the war effort is a failure (thanks for admitting that ) then ball point pens are a failure.

Tell me, when have I argued that?

When have I said, carriers or even air power is a failure? That it's useless? That it serves no purpose?

Never.

What I see here is just one giant strawman of Wicker Man proportions just because you're not smart enough to admit you don't have a point and never have had one. My criticism was simple: air power is not being effective in Iraq. It might be great against Soviet submarines. Or against Soviet surface ships. Or to bomb targets on the ground. But it is not being effective for the particular requirements of the current conflict in Iraq.

The rest of your rant is sheer nonsense and I wonder if anyone else reading this ridiculous debate thinks otherwise. "Status of forces", "rank and file numbers"... what the holy blazes does that have to do with what I've been arguing???

What's most funny (and pathetic at the same time) is the lengths you went to just because my original comment struck your chest-thumping chord and god forbid your nationalist fervor let such a comment dent your country's honor. Hilarious to say the least.

In conclusion: thank you for amusing me. You can keep strawman-ing all you want for all I care, but that still won't change the fact that you never tackled my reply head on. As it is, my point stands: air power has not been effective in Iraq.

-MZ

[Patroklos]

Master Zen, what is truly hilarious is the complete obliviousness you have to the boot stomping you have received here.

What's worse is that now you're arguing semantics, insurgency vs insurgents considering that my point should have been pretty obvious from the start.

If that’s what you meant, then that’s what you should have said. Don’t get pissy with someone for reading what you typed and then responding to it, especially given the context of the discussion up to your inane comment.

It could have been a simple “oops, meant insurgency as a whole” and you would have avoided this whole embarrassing rant of yours that amounts to being pissed because we can’t read your mind.

There is a distinct difference between an insurgent, and an insurgency. You are wrong on either count regardless, but you can accept this basic point and avoid the further imitating of a two year old.

I'm not going argue semantics as it is recourse for those who can't argue substance, which is apparent from your endless nonsensical diatribe which frankly, I am too bewildered to even began to decipher. What the hell are you arguing about?

Oddly enough you have been on Poly long enough to know what this string of words actually means. So does anyone reading. Direct admission of ignorance on what you’re talking about would have saved you more face, but if you want to go the two year old route go right ahead.

I'll just take one example as answering your entire post -while tempting- is ultimately an exercise in futility.

Poly Translation = “oh ****, I have nothing to say in response so I will pretend it is beneath me to answer.”

You make a feeble analogy about ball point pens, that since they're vital to the war effort and the war effort is a failure (thanks for admitting that ) then ball point pens are a failure.

Actually MZ, I aked if you consider it a failure. I use gel pens btw.

But I am glad you find the analogy feeble, as it uses your logic test. You can avoid this embarrassing self deprecation in the future by patiently, slowly, saying the words to yourself in your head before speaking. Similar to how you count on your fingers no doubt.

When have I said, carriers or even air power is a failure? That it's useless (we will get to this in a sec)? That it serves no purpose?

Has anyone accused you of this? We could have, as the original OP debate on the RN revolved around justifying new carriers for ground support, and how currently they are incapable of providing it initially from the sea and use American air support in general against insurgents in Iraq (continually requesting it despite the ineffectiveness you attribute to it). If you think these ships are incapable of rendering this support then you are invalidating the only real reason Britain has for building them, but nobody went down that road.

I myself only addressed your original statement, that naval air power is useless against insurgents in Iraq. But there you go again, trying to expand the debate, again. You have been talking about Iraq the whole time, don’t try and expand it to the rest of the carrier’s missions now. We are concerned with naval air power’s ability to kill insurgents, the debates topic set by you.

Have you stuck with a single line of thought in this whole thread?

First its insurgents, then its the whole insurgency.

First it’s the mission of naval air power, then it is the strategy of the whole Iraqi War.

Now, as we shall see, its air power in general apparently.

The sad part is every time you expand the scope of the argument in the hope it will be amorphous enough for you the wiggle away you just contribute to the ridiculousness of whatever position you adopted for the fist time in that post.

You made a stupid simplistic statement, were wrong, and now are unable to admit it. Not that anyone requires you to, is patently obvious judging from your temper tantrum above.

-----

Now back to your quoted remark. Talk about semantics

You stated very clearly that the goal of all weapons systems is to win wars, so if that doesn’t happen what is it…? Common now, you can do it. No? Alright, please have a seat and pay attention.

“Air power has not been effective in Iraq.”

Ineffective (ĭn'ĭ-fìk'tĭv)
-adjective.
1. not effective ; not producing results; ineffectual:

Synonyms:

Unproductive
Unsuccessful
Useless
Vain
Futile

The quote of course was your vain attempt to accuse me of saying I somehow stated you think carriers are useless overall, something I never said. But the exercise is useful even if we restrict it to Iraq. You think air power (in general, as you can’t help yourself, so now helicopters, UAVs, the whole thing) is useless in Iraq.

The English language is a *****, which I figured you might have noticed when you ****ed up the insurgents/insurgency. Honestly, that has to be one of the most pathetic squirms I have ever seen here, until the ineffective/useless one you just made.

That, my dear sir, is priceless

My criticism was simple: air power is not being effective in Iraq.

Oh dear, here we go again

No MZ, your criticism was much simpler, and was this…

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

…but if you want to run with this new attempt to escape the prison of humiliation you’ve built for yourself go ahead, it can only end in your further shame.

Let’s start with you explaining why extensive global airlift capabilities are not helpful when waging war on the other side of the world for starters. Then explain why extreme tactical mobility afforded by helicopter transports, let alone fire support form easily loiterable gunships is somehow detrimental to our goals.

Status of forces", "rank and file numbers"... what the holy blazes does that have to do with what I've been arguing???

Yes, I just can’t understand what the relevance the condition of insurgents could be to a discussion on the effectiveness of naval air power on said insurgents.

and god forbid your nationalist fervor let such a comment dent your country's honor.

Yes, my nationalist fervor in justifying the construction of Royal Navy carriers as an American. Oh, wait….

As it is, my point stands: air power has not been effective in Iraq.

As stated, this was not your original point. But you correct as in it does stand, debunked just like the first one.

Now, for your own sake, and for the poor people who return to this thread thinking they will find something interesting but instead stumble on your vain attempt to pretend you have something important to say, excuse yourself.

[Master Zen]

As I have no intention of continuing an ad nauseum argument, I'll let the thread speak for itself and let people decide who "won"... if there's anyone else left reading your crap.

My treat:

[Patroklos]

As I have no intention of continuing an ad nauseum argument, I'll let the thread speak for itself and let people decide who "won"... if there's anyone else left reading your crap.

Poly Translation = “oh ****, I have nothing to say in response so I will pretend it is beneath me to answer.”

Good day to you

[Master Zen]

My my someone urgently needed the ego boost