Aircraft carriers for everyone!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Serb
Really? I've never quoted War Nerd and never discussed the outcome of this exercise.

WTF?
Explain yourself, Patroklos.

As I read it, he was talking about discussions with you in other threads.

[Serb]

Then you read it wrong, because I've never dredged up that single, limited exercise in restricted waters.

[Kuciwalker]

No, I'm pretty sure I read it correctly. You need to take that up with Patroklos.

(And I know you did take issue with his post; you just took the wrong issue.)

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Anywho, anyone Admiral worth his salt could have just pulled the carriers farther away from the shore. Out in deeper waters, with less restriction on manuever, the bigger USN ships are gonna kill the lighter ships(assuming a SH-60 doesn't just act as a spotter for a CG or DDG's 5 inch several miles away)

Last time i checked it planes were faster than carriers.
In any case, suicide planes has a range of X while a battle range of a planes on a carrier is about X/2.5 or so i suppose (because they need to fly forth and back and some extra fuel too). So it's fair enough to assume that in most cases carriers will be in a battle range of a suicide planes. And suicide planes are just a poor man's cruise missiles but they're much worse - they shine on a radars like a christmas tree while the real ones are sthealthier than a stealth planes, and i bet they're slower too, slower than a P-700 "Granit" (Mach 2.5) for sure. So, you can't expect that carriers will survive against any real attack if they didn't survive even against that joke.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Except of course the whole point of an exercise is to try new doctrine and see if it works before implementing it for real. For all you know the US fleet was testing some out there idea and it was proven wrong, oh well. Note you never hear about the other side of that exercise, and note nobody ever published the rules both forces had to follow.

So, you reject the facts by making your own closed-world assumption? ROFLMAO Nice way to discuss something on forums.

Anyway, you're totally wrong

http://www.slate.com/id/2080814/

http://nothoughtcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/06/challenge-of-paul-van-riper.html

First, it should have been a 100% free exercise. So, there was no penatly to the guys with carriers. Of course, military staff will try not to publish such a major failure, but it was leaked anyway (see the links).
The rules were simple: this was to be an unscripted, "free-play" exercise, with both sides free to adapt and improvise, and no prohibition against Red winning. In other words, a fair, objective, experiment, designed to produce results as close to the real world as possible.

Second, rules were actually rigged during war games in favor of a Blue team "Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue, and on several occasions directed [Red Force] not to use certain weapons systems against Blue. It even ordered him to reveal the location of Red units."

Third, The objective was to test (and, if all went well, to validate) a set of new combat theories based less on massive force and more on speed, agility, highly accurate weapons, and supremely coordinated command and control. These theories—known as "military transformation" and "effects-based operations"—would serve as the underlying strategy of the real war against the real Iraq that's happening now. (Read this.)
Obviosly, it didn't mean dropping a defence screen around carriers or something like that. So, the nature of the war games didn't lower a carrier's defence, as you wanted to imply.

Fourth, that doctrine was implemented anyway despite that it's failed as it is on these war games - see above and this: Officially, the war game was a great success; the theories were proven sound.

So, how do you feel now, Mr. I-Think-I'm-Totally-Right?

Originally posted by Patroklos That Russia fielded a decidedly inferior force at sea because it opted for a land focused force. That means its fleet was in fact inferior, and the tactics it used were opted for out of neccesity, not because they thought they were better.

Though it turned out your land based forces were a joke anyways, so it was an wash for you in the end on all counts (except strategic missles).

That "joke" was more enough to kill even a bigger joke - NATO land forces in Europe. Since it was a more important task than controlling the sea, i'll prefer to say that USSR fleet (not Russian btw) was "good enough for the given tasks". USA fleet wasn't able to do anything significant so to defend Europe so it was inefficient.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As I read it, he was talking about discussions with you in other threads.

No, i didn't. Who the hell is Serb to all of you? Do you all love him? Or maybe you're a members of his fan club? When i make a post in off-topic, everyone starts to jump and call: "Serb! Serb!" You can't live without him so much? Can you make my fan club too? Pretty please?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Serb


The Russian Navy has Ushakov.

Lord Nelson just copy/pasted Ushakov's ideas.

Yea yea, and Russians taught Lithuanians basketball, and Popov invented radio before Marconi, and soviet cars were better

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ellestar

That "joke" was more enough to kill even a bigger joke - NATO land forces in Europe.

That is far from proven and thank god it was not tried.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ellestar

Last time i checked it planes were faster than carriers.
In any case, suicide planes has a range of X while a battle range of a planes on a carrier is about X/2.5 or so i suppose (because they need to fly forth and back and some extra fuel too). So it's fair enough to assume that in most cases carriers will be in a battle range of a suicide planes. And suicide planes are just a poor man's cruise missiles but they're much worse - they shine on a radars like a christmas tree while the real ones are sthealthier than a stealth planes, and i bet they're slower too, slower than a P-700 "Granit" (Mach 2.5) for sure. So, you can't expect that carriers will survive against any real attack if they didn't survive even against that joke.

Kamikazes didn't inflict any serious harm on USN Capital ships during WW2, why would they do so now when Damage Control and AAW capabilities of the USN has increased not decreased?

Russian maritime tradition is older than your country

"Far Older"? Bull****. Peter the Great wasn't that long before American Independence.

Not exactly. First Russian large maritime operation was in 907 a.d. When Russian prince Oleg gathered 2000 (two thousand ships with 40 crew members per ship) ships and after a naval raid laid seige on Constantinople.

Oh, you mean when the Swedish Norsemen were running the area?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
and Russians taught Lithuanians basketball,

No.

and Popov invented radio before Marconi,

Yes.

and soviet cars were better

No.


Any other questions?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar
"Far Older"? Bull****. Peter the Great wasn't that long before American Independence.

Peter the Great was about 80 years earlier than American Independence. And 80 years is more than a 1/3 of your total history as an independent state. you think it's "not that long"?

Oh, you mean when the Swedish Norsemen were running the area?

Oleg was indeed a Rurick, but he was a RUSSIAN Prince, not Swedish or Martian or whatever.
So, the Russian power projection at the beggining of the 10th century was pretty good (if not unprecedented).
No maritime tradition, my ass. Who do you think discovered Antarctica? Harry Potter? Now take a map and check where is Antarctica and where is Russia.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb

No maritime tradition, my ass. Who do you think discovered Antarctica? Harry Potter?

some Estonian German dude. A few days before some Brit got there. It was then found again, a few months later, by some wayward American sealer from Stonington, Connecticut.

None of the three was particularly honored in their respective country's (assigning the Estonian to Russia for whose navy he sailed) so Im not sure any of the three really establishes a maritime tradition.

I doubt very much that the Brits would hang THEIR maritime tradition on their antartic exploration

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


some Estonian German dude. A few days before some Brit got there. It was then found again, a few months later, by some wayward American sealer from Stonington, Connecticut.

Educate yourself!

Although myths and speculation about a Terra Australis ("Southern Land") date back to antiquity, the first confirmed sighting of the continent is commonly accepted to have occurred in 1820 by the Russian expedition of Mikhail Lazarev and Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Serb


Educate yourself!

Although myths and speculation about a Terra Australis ("Southern Land") date back to antiquity, the first confirmed sighting of the continent is commonly accepted to have occurred in 1820 by the Russian expedition of Mikhail Lazarev and Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

Yeah! He was a baltic German dude!

Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen (also known as Russian: Фаддей Фаддеевич Беллинсгаузен; Faddey Faddeyevich Bellinsgauzen) (September 20, 1778–January 13, 1852) served as a naval officer of the Russian Empire and commanded the second Russian expedition to circumnavigate the globe. During this expedition Bellingshausen became one of three Europeans to first see the continent of Antarctica.

Born to a Baltic German Born to a Baltic German family in Lahetaguse manor (in German: Lahhentagge) in Saaremaa (Ösel) in Estonia

He was just born in Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Gottlieb_von_Bellingshausen

Also from your article Serb:

The first confirmed sighting of Antarctica can be narrowed down to the crews of ships captained by three individuals. According to various organizations (the National Science Foundation,[5] NASA,[6] the University of California, San Diego,[7] and other sources[8][9]), ships captained by three men sighted Antarctica in 1820: Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen (a captain in the Russian Imperial Navy), Edward Bransfield (a captain in the British Navy), and Nathaniel Palmer (an American sealer out of Stonington, Connecticut).

Serb and the "Educate yourself" !

[Serb]

Originally posted by PLATO


Yeah! He was a baltic German dude!

Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen (also known as Russian: Фаддей Фаддеевич Беллинсгаузен; Faddey Faddeyevich Bellinsgauzen) (September 20, 1778–January 13, 1852) served as a naval officer of the Russian Empire and commanded the second Russian expedition to circumnavigate the globe. During this expedition Bellingshausen became one of three Europeans to first see the continent of Antarctica.

Born to a Baltic German Born to a Baltic German family in Lahetaguse manor (in German: Lahhentagge) in Saaremaa (Ösel) in Estonia

He was just born in Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_...Bellingshausen

Both Lazarev and Bellingshausen were born in RUSSIAN EMPIRE, were RUSSIAN citizens and a RUSSIAN officers, who commanded a RUSSIAN ships during a RUSSIA-sponsored expedion. The fact that Bellingshausen was not an ethnic Russian, doesn't change things a bit. Russia is a Motherland for about two hundred ethnicities.

Also from your article Serb:

The first confirmed sighting of Antarctica can be narrowed down to the crews of ships captained by three individuals. According to various organizations (the National Science Foundation,[5] NASA,[6] the University of California, San Diego,[7] and other sources[8][9]), ships captained by three men sighted Antarctica in 1820: Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen (a captain in the Russian Imperial Navy), Edward Bransfield (a captain in the British Navy), and Nathaniel Palmer (an American sealer out of Stonington, Connecticut).

Is it so hard to dig a bit deeper?

The point in question lies within twenty miles of the Antarctic mainland. Bellingshausen's diary, his report to the Russian Naval Minister on 21 July 1821 and other documents, available in the Russian State Museum of the Arctic and Antarctic in Saint Petersburg, Russia, were carefully compared with the log-books of other claimants by the British polar historian A. G. E. Jones in his 1982 study 'Antarctica Observed'. Jones concluded that Bellingshausen, rather than the Royal Navy's Edward Bransfield on 30 January 1820 or the American Nathaniel Palmer on 17 November 1820, was indeed the discoverer of the sought-after Terra Australis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Gottlieb_von_Bellingshausen

Serb and the "Educate yourself" !

PLATO trying to pwn Serb -

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb


Educate yourself!

Although myths and speculation about a Terra Australis ("Southern Land") date back to antiquity, the first confirmed sighting of the continent is commonly accepted to have occurred in 1820 by the Russian expedition of Mikhail Lazarev and Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

educate yourself about colloquial english, then. I did not mean "a few days before the estonian dude got there, the brit got there" I meant " the estonian dude got there a few days before the brit dude got there" I phrased it as I did for style. I think it was quite comprehensible.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb


Both Lazarev and Bellingshausen were born in RUSSIAN EMPIRE, were RUSSIAN citizens and a RUSSIAN officers, who commanded a RUSSIAN ships during a RUSSIA-sponsored expedion. The fact that Bellingshausen was not an ethnic Russian, doesn't change things a bit. Russia is a Motherland for about two hundred ethnicities.

There were certainly many nationalities there. Lenin called pre-1917 Russia "a prison house of the nationalities"

IIUC Lenin is more widely respected now than he was under the EEVIL Eltsin, right?