It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USS Iowa: that will teach the Iranians a lesson

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Sorry GhostITM - What is it your trying to prove. Nobody can predict what the future holds and what you think might happen in the region is no justification for a pre-emtive attack on Iran. If left to there own devices they might even bring democracy to there own country. They've done it before so give them a chance before you go sticking your nose in where its not wanted and screw things up even further........

America is the most powerful nation on Earth or so you keep saying, so what possible threat could Iran be to you with or without Nuclear weapons. It's not like Iran would even resort to using them as they know what the consequences would be. The total destruction of there own country. Iran has plenty of conventional weapons even now and how many countries have they invaded lately-none. The only country attacking other countries is American and on a pack of lies and the upcoming war with Iran will be no exception.

Orangetom i'ts ok for Bush to use religion in his speeches but not anyone else. The main difference between Bush and Chavez is that Chavez speaks the truth and Bush doesn't and nearly everyone outside of America can see this. Let's face it Bush and the rest of his administration are evil and corrupt and that's a fact.

Sir Wing Commander - I'm not defending Great Britain's foreign policy, if the past is anything to go by. They are just as guilty as America. (Checkout my other post) The main difference being we are not contemplating attacking Iran because we can see that it would be catastrophic for not just the middle east but also possibly the rest of the world. Beggars belief how you could even think it let alone go through with it, considering both Afghanistan and Iraq have been a complete disaster. But then do some of you Americans even care. You government shoots from the hip and ask questions later......

You American's who support Bush and soak up his propaganda like a sponge are becoming so paranoid and the countries you call the axis of evil have attacked no one. Individuals from those countries might have done, but that alone does not justify attacking and completely destroying there country and killing thousands of innocent people. The invasion of both Afghanistan and iraq has increased the threat of terrorism ten fold and attacking Iran will just lead to a even bigger and wider conflict.

My other post

An Iranian History Lesson for you American's who support an attack on Iran.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those Who Do Not Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It......l

Take Care
Kindred

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.




[edit on 25-9-2006 by kindred]




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   


Oh... and does anyone think the US is even interested in a diplomatic solution?


Generally, I have to agree with Rich, but, I think everybody is somewhat missing the point regards Naval warfare and the BB; especially as concerns the grade of weapons technology used today. In a situation such as Itan, any BB would be less than useless for other than standoff weapons. Forget the 16s. Max on a 16" gun is 35 miles using rocket assisted projectiles, and around 22 miles with increment bags and standard shells. 16's are bag guns, and the max rate of fire using all turrets and bbls with skilled crews is abouta 7 minute turnaround. Accuracey on any Naval gun is impecible, and a BB turret is completely capable of consistently dropping a shell into a 55 gal. drum at max range whe the co-ord are accurate.

BUT--a BB can be easily sunk these days via a Silkworm or other cruiser. Yes, bombs and warheads are smaller these days, but pack more Boom per pound than they ever have. The point I'm making with Naval tactics is that actually sinking a ship is not the point anymore--disabling it to the point of ineffectivness is, and that is much too easily done in the case of a BB. Boat-wise, modern Carriers and 8" cruisers are far more effective than an Ohio-class BB.

For what it's worth, having been an eyewitness to shelling from the New Jersey in 'Nam, a 16 is devestatingly effective. Within 800 to 1000 yards of impact. the burst will lift you a good 3 feet off the ground and the shockwave takes your breath. Be that as it may, and awesomely powerful as it was, 'Nam should be considered as the last shell bombardment use of BBs in warfare. Weapons technology has totally outstipped it's effectiveness in modern warfare.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Sorry GhostITM - What is it your trying to prove. Nobody can predict what the future holds and what you think might happen in the region is no justification for a pre-emtive attack on Iran. If left to there own devices they might even bring democracy to there own country. They've done it before so give them a chance before you go sticking your nose in where its not wanted and screw things up even further........


It was meant as a "What if" scenario. If the US decided to tell the rest of the world, when trouble happened, to fix it themselves "we're not interested", what would or could happen. The UN is a waste of space, hopeless. Europe can't decide whether it's "arthur or martha" half of the time, Russia and China would just make things worse and the Middle East is a given as to what happens there.

I'm not calling for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, but for all your US bashing and such, you want to take a real good look at the country you live in and it's history in the area. You also want to be a little less blaise about Iran. They're not as straightforward or honest as you seem to think they are. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. Nor do I trust the present US administration to do the right thing most of the time. If you think democracy will appear in Iran, you must have your head in the sand. You don't understand these people (at least those in power), and if you think they had a democracy before, you've misunderstood them completely. The Shah's regime, nor the one before it, wasn't a democracy...... only in name.



The main difference between Bush and Chavez is that Chavez speaks the truth and Bush doesn't


Please, do you honestly believe this??!!!. Neither man tells the truth, but before you go and hold Chavez up as a bright shining light, take a real good look at his own country and the way he runs it. It's a dog's breakfast and as corrupt as you can make it. Chavez is nothing more than a tinpot dictator from a basket case of a country.....regardless of how much oil it has. His opinion matters jack.

BTW.....I'm Aussie, so please, make no presumptions as to where posters come from, OK.






[edit on 25-9-2006 by GhostITM]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Kindred, its not a war anymore. its an occupation of the country that I belive is pointless. One thing I have found to be true, The middle east will never have peace. The best thing we can do to preserve our way of live is take out any military Iran has. I don't want to see women and children die... Unless they are shooting at us. Oh and another thing, Two weeks and they WOULD surrender. All we need to do is keep dropping the bombs
Iraq had the largest military in the gulf right? Look at what happend to them. Kinda like point.... click... and BOOM!!!



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred

Orangetom i'ts ok for Bush to use religion in his speeches but not anyone else. The main difference between Bush and Chavez is that Chavez speaks the truth and Bush doesn't and nearly everyone outside of America can see this. Let's face it Bush and the rest of his administration are evil and corrupt and that's a fact.
[edit on 25-9-2006 by kindred]



Kindred,
I think the idea is that George Bush uses religion in his speaches...its ok for Hugo Chavez to use religion but not in such a cheap histronic personal attack. I have never heard George Bush use his religion or religious beliefs in such a cheap histronic personal attack. Even the most liberal politicians in this country for once and to their credit recognized this trespass and cheap drama technique. This also does not speak well for the United Nations.

It would do Hugo Chavez much good to keep this up and have it broadcasted more often to show the distinguished caliber ie..character.

If I want this kind of stuff of Hugo Chavez or your posts I listen to the usual suspects of Hollywood stars...ie political experts. It is refered to among many of us as "Drama Queens." and also describes the very low caliber of which our political process is degenerating into now days while claiming the high ground or even moral high ground by default.
This drama queen buisness also describes the very low caliber of our Institutions of higher learning...and the drama queens they are turning out now days too.

THere are those of us here in the USA who are not intrested in drama and drama queens from either party nor from the institutions of higher learning.
This includes the technique of name calling and labeling. This tactic passing for excellence belies its origins.

Once again I degress from the topic of the Battleship...my apologies to the room for this breech of protocol.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It would be a big mistake for several reasons.


3) Just remember about the British losing large warships do to French made Exocet missiles in their little South American mini-war


I agree with every point, bar number 3. In 1982, the ships we lost were no bigger than the ships we have now. It wasn't the size that did them in, it was a complete lack of CIWS that doomed us to damge by those Frog missiles. We learned our lesson, but it had nothing to do with size


I agree with every point except your central thesis.


Actually, it was size, or lack of it, that helped doom the Typ 42s and their companions.

The warhead on an exocet (which is truly outdated now, anyway) wouldn't do squat to a US battlewagon (Battlecruiser, actually, they were never classified as Battleships, Washington Treaty, I think). Unless you managed a direct hit on the bridge (and the captain would be in CIC anyway), which your lasers might facilitate, but then, who's going to point the thing?

What doomed Bismark? A lucky torpedo to the steering gear by a FAA pilot. What domed Yamato (and Musashi)? Zero air cover (that would be a totasl lack of air cover, as opposed to air cover by Zeroes
)

Plus, there was too much aluminium floating around San Carlos Water. The armour belt on a 16/18/20 inch Battleship is simply too great (not to mention watertight compartments) for an exocet to puncture, particularly when it is the secondary (internal) damage which is more dangerous than the hole above the waterline.

But Phalanx would have been a great help. Chaff saved at least one ship and then there were handy Royals to fly helos as bait!

No, when it comes to capital ships, the biggest mistake was to scrap the Vanguard and the second biggest was not to replace the Melbourne. (Forgetting to armour the Hood was foolish and sending Repulse and PoW without planes was just silly.)



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
We already have such a missle boat in the modified Ohio class submarines...concealable tomahawk missle platforms. And a bit more to boot.

Also many of today Frigates also carry the tomahawk missle and I believe another poster already mentioned this.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Good Grief..olde man...you must catch pure hell down under from other Aussies for your point of view.

I have found the attitude of many Aussies similar to many Canadians and Europeans. Hence my opening statement.

I too do not trust my government in many things ..either political party. They will both lie and deceive the public when convenient.

THe same applies to other governments as you aptly stated.

I think that at some time in the future you folks are going to have problems as have the English, Spanish and other Europeans. Some of the more radical factions seem to be looking and waiting for a opportunity to demonstrate this ability.
I wonder how much it will take for the aveage Aussie to catch on....especially the Aussie politician. I also wonder how much of this awareness is being kept from the average Aussie...or even from the news media.

I dont mean or say this to be insulting because many Americans are still asleep at the wheel here. They are satisfied with their television programming, behind the wheels of thier automobiles, shopping centers et al, etc etc.

Nevertheless..I wonder how much hell you are catching from other Aussies??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
You could say that some of you Europeans are truly ignorant and are living on a different planet.
Well, stereotyping is pretty ignorant...you both live in the same planet...you did notice that?



You do realize had Neville Chamberland not rolled right over and given Germany a free pass WWII might never have been fought, and England spared much if not all of that destruction, right?
The humilliating conditions of WWI led to the rise of power of Hitler, WWII was just the continuation of WWI...

America was extremely isolationist until Pearl Harbor
Reports said the president at the time wanted to go at war, and even reports of knowledge of the attack to Pearl Harbor being ignored...so much for "isolationist"

and Churchill was practically begging us to get in and had we WWII would have likely been a lot shorter with a lot less destruction.
Had you come sooner Hitler probably wouldn't have attacked Russia...the reason of his defeat. So you can't just assume the war would have been shorter, history would be quite a different way.

Had we waited longer, England and perhaps even America would all be "speaking German" so to speak, because Hitler would have gotten the bomb, and forced us into capitulation.
Hitler wasn't faring well in Russia, you can't just assume he would have rolled over the world either...



And spare me the horrible US foreign policy trip or US companies exploit the mid east because England and the rest of Europe are just as guilty.
Well you might disagree, but the US foreign policy is terrible in every aspect, it's policy not longer aproved anywhere around the world, and guesss what, even though you might not like it, there is more world than just the US...

The 1948 Arab Isreali war, the Arabs were led in part my former British and former SS officers.
And former nazi scientists working for the US both in the US and Germany...proving what??

Anyway...returning to the topic at hand...besides the "fear factor" of a BB in the straights...wouldn't its rather large RCS make it a liability to whatever stealthier ships escorted it? Like one big bullseye?

Please do not forget the probable range this ships will face should they enter the straits of Hormuz to keep it open. I think Iran is aiming for a "shotgun" kind of strategy...wait until ships enter range, and then launch as many missiles as possible, wait and see how many are hit (if any) re arm, and fire again.
Also there is some data on stealthy missile boats...which I believe would be the only threat the Iranian navy would pose to the US, sneak a couple of them, hit targets of opportunity, and sneak away.

Wouldn't it be smarter instead of using a bulky and old design as a battleship, to use more modern ships with longer ranges, such as Subs and Destroyers? I'll have to check the data on that, but I believe a Tomahawk has quite a longer range than the guns of the Battleship, not to forget accuracy. The navy should aim for effectiveness, and I doubt a battleship would be more effective than most ships and subs the US navy has...



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
You could say that some of you Europeans are truly ignorant and are living on a different planet.
Well, stereotyping is pretty ignorant...you both live in the same planet...you did notice that?


You do realize had Neville Chamberland not rolled right over and given Germany a free pass WWII might never have been fought, and England spared much if not all of that destruction, right?
The humilliating conditions of WWI led to the rise of power of Hitler, WWII was just the continuation of WWI...

America was extremely isolationist until Pearl Harbor
Reports said the president at the time wanted to go at war, and even reports of knowledge of the attack to Pearl Harbor being ignored...so much for "isolationist"

and Churchill was practically begging us to get in and had we WWII would have likely been a lot shorter with a lot less destruction.
Had you come sooner Hitler probably wouldn't have attacked Russia...the reason of his defeat. So you can't just assume the war would have been shorter, history would be quite a different way.

Had we waited longer, England and perhaps even America would all be "speaking German" so to speak, because Hitler would have gotten the bomb, and forced us into capitulation.
Hitler wasn't faring well in Russia, you can't just assume he would have rolled over the world either...



And spare me the horrible US foreign policy trip or US companies exploit the mid east because England and the rest of Europe are just as guilty.
Well you might disagree, but the US foreign policy is terrible in every aspect, it's policy not longer aproved anywhere around the world, and guesss what, even though you might not like it, there is more world than just the US...

The 1948 Arab Isreali war, the Arabs were led in part my former British and former SS officers.
And former nazi scientists working for the US both in the US and Germany...proving what??

Anyway...returning to the topic at hand...besides the "fear factor" of a BB in the straights...wouldn't its rather large RCS make it a liability to whatever stealthier ships escorted it? Like one big bullseye?

Please do not forget the probable range this ships will face should they enter the straits of Hormuz to keep it open. I think Iran is aiming for a "shotgun" kind of strategy...wait until ships enter range, and then launch as many missiles as possible, wait and see how many are hit (if any) re arm, and fire again.
Also there is some data on stealthy missile boats...which I believe would be the only threat the Iranian navy would pose to the US, sneak a couple of them, hit targets of opportunity, and sneak away.

Wouldn't it be smarter instead of using a bulky and old design as a battleship, to use more modern ships with longer ranges, such as Subs and Destroyers? I'll have to check the data on that, but I believe a Tomahawk has quite a longer range than the guns of the Battleship, not to forget accuracy. The navy should aim for effectiveness, and I doubt a battleship would be more effective than most ships and subs the US navy has...


I was addressing the previous post on all americans being ignorant and on another planet. If you don't like sterotyping, take it up with the previous poster.

I didn't address Russia in WWII regarding US involvment, because that would have taken a dissertation to examine. You maybe right. Any number of "alternative" history scenario's could be played out with the russian.s However: my initial point of England not going throught the blitz had the US become involved prior to Dunkirk is probably still valid.

I didn't say I supported the current administration, but I do think that we are in a war that is a clash of civilizations, and must be fought, feeling towards US policy not withstanding.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Alrighty then

Please stay on topic and not digrees into a political discussion or personal sniping. If you wish to debate the politics of the situation there are numerous threads to do so.

Thanks



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Here's an interesting tangent:

Sic these beauties on North Korea, a country with negligible air and missile power. What do you all think of that? Creeping barrages uprooting fortified bunkers and whatnot.

DE



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Now there's an interesting thought. As far as I know, without researching it, the DPRK has a patrol-type navy of FAC-Gs that every now and again crosses the maritime DMZ and takes a few shots at ROK OPVs and IPVs.

Durng the Korean War the Commonwealth assets working offshore had a train-busting "cup". Most of the Commonwealth cruisers were of identical 6 and 8-inch design (being British built) and they used to aim at the NK trains southbound with men and material. Highest scores were awarded for hitting the locomotive and not the carriages, apparently.

I'd hesitate to say they lack missiles, given where a fair chunk of their foreign currency earnings come from. They probably don't have something precise enough to hit an Iowa, but I wouldn't necessarily want to bet on it.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I'd hesitate to say they lack missiles, given where a fair chunk of their foreign currency earnings come from. They probably don't have something precise enough to hit an Iowa, but I wouldn't necessarily want to bet on it.


Commonwealth foh lahf, firstly.

As for their missiles...well, if they COULD hit the Iowa or the Wisconsin, would it be damaged or sink? Probably not. And with the added fun of the Tomahawk tubes and PHALANX, I'd put the odds of hits or damage at slim-to-nil.

North Korea has an apparently ungodly amount of artillery all fortified, of questionable Soviet knockoffery. I can't think of anything better to dig them out with.

DE



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
You posted:

"North Korea has an apparently ungodly amount of artillery all fortified, of questionable Soviet knockoffery. I can't think of anything better to dig them out with. "

This is like dumb...not your statement ....but the concept of fortified artillery. Modern artillery today is all mobile. They do drills on how fast they can move the gun from the towed position behind a truck to the ready to shoot position. This is a standard drill...then take the gun down quickly and move out. This is very very necessary today because the portable radar sets can pick up incoming artillery shells and get a bead on them back to the source or location from which they have been fired. You have to be able to scoot and shoot ..or shoot and scoot...quickly....very quickly. You really have to do some hustling to get this done ...and survive. 'Everyone has to know thier jobs.
Another scenerio is for you to be in a convoy enroute to some destination and someone in trouble calls for fire support...you have to be able to move and set up quickly and accurately...lives are at stake. Field artillery today is the tracked type..the 155 mobile howitzers and the towed howitzers....155mm too as I recall.
There is also some kind of mobile rocket launchers...as field artillery called MLRS. Supposed to be very accurate too..many different kinds of rocket loadouts for this unit. It too is highly mobile.

The American 155mm towed howitzer is capable of tactical nukes. It has been this way for many many years. They just have out new and better howitzer designs than years ago...much improved.

Fortified/fixed artillery is a target...waiting to be hit.

As far as the Iowa..goes..I dont think it would be as useful as say ..these new small diameter glide bombs...capable of being launched from as far as 60 miles away. Not as cheap either. To vulnurable..in todays enviornment with todays weapons.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Orangetom
NK has such amounts of fixed/towed artillery behind DMZ that SK/US forces can't hope to knock them out before the guns vaporize Seoul (with conventional ammo)



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
OT, with North Korea, we're not dealing with a modern foe. We're dealing with a ton Soviet throwback nutcases. The objective would be, optimally, arrive on site, and launch a massive pre-emptive strike on missile sites and fixed artillery in order to knock them out as fast as possible, before shells start raining down on Seoul.

DE



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Defending Seoul is a waste of time, people, and materials. It is so close to the border a mobile force can be across the border in a couple of hours.
While I dont think this would be made public, I believe one of the strategys will be to trade space and Seoul for time...to regroup. Any responsible Government would have made these plans from the start. They are just to close to the border.

As to dealing with a guy like they describe in the media..this leader in NK. I wish it wasnt this way in life..but occasionally you have to make clear to others...so that they let others know..you will not blink. We have not had leadership like this in a long time. You have to let them know that properly stimulated..you can be a bigger nut than they ever thought of being. I wish life was not this way..but it is in fact is this way. Dont let them see you blink or sweat.

Some of you may have experience in that of which I speak. This is the problem with the more radical of the Muslims...they think and are convinced we will blink. With our current leadership ..they are correct. This guy in NK is picking up on this too. It is obvious to me he is counting on it.
Dont let them see you blink or sweat.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Orangetom
NK has such amounts of fixed/towed artillery behind DMZ that SK/US forces can't hope to knock them out before the guns vaporize Seoul (with conventional ammo)


Seuol / Inchon are > 20 miles from the border - that puts them out of range of a lot of older NK tubes , and the ones that can still fire @that range will have to be massed [b]very close to the DMZ - putting thier unporoected crews at the mercy of MLRS and other cluster munitions -+ carpet bombing of the availiable

counterbattery fire from the south only has to saturate each firing posiotion with artlrey scaterable mines or anti personel rounds to knock out the crews / render the sites unusable

you are vastly overestimating the NK ability to fire continously en-mass , at a level requred to devastate Seuel .



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Current estimates put NK artillery strength at 8300 pieces, saturating them with first strike will be difficult, especially in a future situation where you have to use main power of airforces (SK, USAF, USN, Japan) to knock down any known/possible nuclear assets.

Even 10% of those guns are cabable of killing 1000s or 10000s of civilians in a second strike option. (if targetted against residential targets)

Not to speak of NK first strike where each gun may get 3-5 to even 10 shots before counter batteries are able to zero in.




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join