-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
More ways to lose a Destroyer than December 7th
- Thread starter C-pher
- Start date
Then the Army will deside they need them back.
"In short, this enormously expensive ship cannot fulfill its primary mission: provide naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps."
Since when was "naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps" EVER a "primary mission" for a DESTROYER?
Destroyers were created to - surprise - DESTROY motor torpedo boats and, later, submarines. Their primary mission was always escorting convoys and task forces; later they were given radar and took on air defense roles.
Although they certainly escorted landing craft and supported landings because of their shallow draft (including fire support in the Pointe du Hoc area on D-Day, IIRC), they were NEVER given that as a primary role.
And Wisconsin is already a museum in Norfolk and has been for years.
Since when was "naval surface fire support for the Marine Corps" EVER a "primary mission" for a DESTROYER?
Destroyers were created to - surprise - DESTROY motor torpedo boats and, later, submarines. Their primary mission was always escorting convoys and task forces; later they were given radar and took on air defense roles.
Although they certainly escorted landing craft and supported landings because of their shallow draft (including fire support in the Pointe du Hoc area on D-Day, IIRC), they were NEVER given that as a primary role.
And Wisconsin is already a museum in Norfolk and has been for years.
Battleships have proven themselves to be terriffic sources of off-shore fire power, and an inexpensive way to project power. While there have been no major surface engagements since the Battle of Leyte Gulf towards the end of WWII, armed surface ships have their place.
The new destroyers are part of the material acquisition process that ensures that more than a few people get rich. Also the Navy high command is full of aviators.
Another thing the Navy wants to do according to what I recently read, is to create something more than a master of arms, but less than a Navy SEAL, a new type of rating which the Navy is referring to as Naval Infantry. I already thought that is what the Navy had the Marine Corps for but apparently this naval infantry concept has captured the hearts and minds of more than a few at the Pentagon.
There are also some indicators and some defense analysts who suggest that China wants to build a blue water navy....still the cheapest way to project power world-wide.
Regards,
Mark
The new destroyers are part of the material acquisition process that ensures that more than a few people get rich. Also the Navy high command is full of aviators.
Another thing the Navy wants to do according to what I recently read, is to create something more than a master of arms, but less than a Navy SEAL, a new type of rating which the Navy is referring to as Naval Infantry. I already thought that is what the Navy had the Marine Corps for but apparently this naval infantry concept has captured the hearts and minds of more than a few at the Pentagon.
There are also some indicators and some defense analysts who suggest that China wants to build a blue water navy....still the cheapest way to project power world-wide.
Regards,
Mark
As the writer emphasized twice. The people who will be most affected by these idiotic deicisions are the grunts on the ground.
I'd love to have a time machine and bring them back to WW I where indirect fire truely was used for the first time by the Germans and how bad a lack of indirect fire can be disastorours as demonstrated by the British with their feild guns (direct fire weapons).
I'd love to have a time machine and bring them back to WW I where indirect fire truely was used for the first time by the Germans and how bad a lack of indirect fire can be disastorours as demonstrated by the British with their feild guns (direct fire weapons).
Iowa is minus one turret.
These ships required a huge crew. Spare parts for much of the machinery probably has to be hand-crafted.
These are very, very expensive ships to run. Beautiful ships. And very capable ships. But given the cost, I'd much rather see another division or two of army troops instead.
These ships required a huge crew. Spare parts for much of the machinery probably has to be hand-crafted.
These are very, very expensive ships to run. Beautiful ships. And very capable ships. But given the cost, I'd much rather see another division or two of army troops instead.
This is and was a frequent line of discussion on science.military.naval for the last 12 years I tracked the board.
Agreed; the DD was never meant to be a primary naval gunfire platform. Although there was one that served the purpose very well at Normandy: the CO deliberately beached his ship to get in close enough to suppress German coastal artillery.
I remeber that BB naval gunfire was very effective in Lebanon a while back.
IIRC, someone once told me that the fire control computers for the 16 inch guns were gear-analog systems from the 40's. The hand-cut gears were so accurate that the navy never bothered to convert to digital in the 60s, 70s or 80s.
I do remember seeing one of the last BBs pull into Bremerton WA for mothballing. Very impressive.
Agreed; the DD was never meant to be a primary naval gunfire platform. Although there was one that served the purpose very well at Normandy: the CO deliberately beached his ship to get in close enough to suppress German coastal artillery.
I remeber that BB naval gunfire was very effective in Lebanon a while back.
IIRC, someone once told me that the fire control computers for the 16 inch guns were gear-analog systems from the 40's. The hand-cut gears were so accurate that the navy never bothered to convert to digital in the 60s, 70s or 80s.
I do remember seeing one of the last BBs pull into Bremerton WA for mothballing. Very impressive.
Similar threads
