Ryan: "I just don't understand" bayonet remark

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The nuke thing doesn't matter. To quote someone, can't remember who, "Oh darn now we can only destroy the world 32 times over."

Remember, nuclear weapons have advanced as well. I'm sure the exact stats are highly classified but they're several times more powerful than the WW2 stuff. Coincidentally comparing the nuclear weapons the world has seen in action and the ones we currently have is like comparing an AR-15 to a bayonet.

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Looking at the list of navy ships, there appears to be some new destroyers under constuction.

The PCU Michael Monsoor and PCU Zumwalt look interesting if you do a search. Would they qualify for what we'd call a 'battleship' during WWII?

No.

"Battleships" were considered war wagons that were used mainly for 2 things:

Shore bombardment and Ship to Ship fighting.

We don't really do Ship to Ship anymore....not since WW2 really. Especially since one well placed nuke can wipe out an entire fleet.

BB's became pretty much obsolete by the 60's. Carrier's with air power became much more dominate, and then with the invention of cruise missiles that where ASM's (Anti Ship Missile) also made ship to ship fighting non-existent (and single RGM-84D, Harpoon cruise missile can take out a medium sized ship if it strikes it in the right place). Then TLAM (cruise missile that can take out targets over land) cruise missile made the shore bombardment obsolete too.

Destroyers are mostly used for AAW support or ASU support (Anti Air and Anti Submarine), and are used to support a carrier group.

As was said, aircraft carriers might look like they carry a hard punch, and they do.......but they are also the key to your fleet. need other ships to help keep it protected.

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Looking at the list of navy ships, there appears to be some new destroyers under constuction.

The PCU Michael Monsoor and PCU Zumwalt look interesting if you do a search. Would they qualify for what we'd call a 'battleship' during WWII?

Newer DDGs. The one's now have one 5 inch cannon and a bunch of missile bays. These two will have like 80 bays..I would think it qualifies but I'm not sure if they could keep up a sustained barrage as a battleship could.

When the big guns were firing, more than 58,000 pounds or 29 TONS left the battleship each minute!

reply to post by eriktheawful


I get what you're saying, but, looking at Wiki ( ), I got the notion that they somehow filled that role, at least partially:

The Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is a planned class of United States Navy destroyers, designed as multi-mission ships with a focus on land attack. The class is a scaled-back project that emerged after funding cuts to the larger DD-21 vessel program. The program was previously known as the "DD(X)". The class is multi-role and designed for surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. They take the place of battleships in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support,[8] though the requirement was reduced to allow them to fill this role.
en.wikipedia.org...

Hopefully, they will prove worthy of more funding.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by pavil

 

We fly our troops in commercial style aircraft. We ship our materials UPS. Scrap the entire Navy and our safety won't be compromised at all. In fact, hatred against us would be reduced if our big bad ships are not all over looking menacing to the world population.

Thank god you are not in charge of our military and defense.........

This one post alone pretty much does away with anything you have posted before, hate to say it.....

But its clear you have absolutely NO idea what role military plays in our safety......

If you think for one second that another country with its eye on the super power football wouldnt take full advantage of the US with no naval presence and no way to protect its inerests at home or abroad at sea, then you have a seriously delusional view of how the world works....

There are bad men out there, regardless of how spotless a rep your country has, that would take that opportunity in a milisecond.........

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Looking at the list of navy ships, there appears to be some new destroyers under constuction.

The PCU Michael Monsoor and PCU Zumwalt look interesting if you do a search. Would they qualify for what we'd call a 'battleship' during WWII?

Newer DDGs. The one's now have one 5 inch cannon and a bunch of missile bays. These two will have like 80 bays..I would think it qualifies but I'm not sure if they could keep up a sustained barrage as a battleship could.

When the big guns were firing, more than 58,000 pounds or 29 TONS left the battleship each minute!

edit on 23-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

You sir, just hit the nail on the head.

5 inch ammo is a LOT cheaper than missiles. A LOT cheaper.

Ask me how many times on my 3 ships I served on we fired the 5 inch.....then ask me how many times we fired our Terrier missiles.

5 inch: all the time. DLRP rounds. Bullets are cheap.
Terrier weapons system: once in a great while, mainly after a upgrade to the system to test that it was working, and then not many weapons.
Cruise missiles? Never. We never fired one, hehehe.

Oh, by the way, the ships I were on? Coontz class destroyers. Terrier SM2 missile capacity: 40. Actual load: 38 (one missile on either rail were T-SAMS or test missiles that were dummys full of electronics).

So....new DD's......and they have a capacity of 80 missiles? Not bad, not bad. That's twice what we hand.

How fast would they go?

Like water through a hose if there were a lot of incoming hostiles. And once you've fired all your missiles? You're screwed.

Oh, but yah, you have the 5 inch. LOTS of those rounds. Would take a while to run out.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by earthdude
Hey old guys, Russia is not going to invade anymore. The cold war is over. Get out of your trench!

Hey young newbies, Kruschev said the Russians would take us over from within. Manchurian candidate anyone? Someone who would seduce young paduans to put down their light sabers in an unguarded moment....

edit on 23-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Manchurian candidates were the CIA. Does Russia control the CIA now?

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I get what you're saying, but, looking at Wiki (

), I got the notion that they somehow filled that role, at least partially:

The Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is a planned class of United States Navy destroyers, designed as multi-mission ships with a focus on land attack. The class is a scaled-back project that emerged after funding cuts to the larger DD-21 vessel program. The program was previously known as the "DD(X)". The class is multi-role and designed for surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. They take the place of battleships in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support,[8] though the requirement was reduced to allow them to fill this role.
en.wikipedia.org...

Hopefully, they will prove worthy of more funding.

Right, but they are still not "Battleships".

Take a look. Even the Navy knows that they are not. They are called "DDGs" (means a Destroyer with Guided Missiles).

Battleships are BBs. And what makes a Battleship?

Two things: Size......and Big Guns. heh.

Trust me, I'll NEVER forget the first time I saw one from Bow on when I was pulling into Norfolk. I was standing at parade rest on the centerline for sea and anchor detail, and I saw the the Wisconsin bow. It looked like this HUGE whale sitting int he water, with these HUGE guns pointed at us. The size was over whelming, and I'd be on aircraft carriers.

My ships were only 53 feet wide, hehehe.

Anyways, the Navy knows what a BB is: A ship as big as an aircraft carrier, but completely covered with weapons.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

You sir, just hit the nail on the head.

5 inch ammo is a LOT cheaper than missiles. A LOT cheaper.

Ask me how many times on my 3 ships I served on we fired the 5 inch.....then ask me how many times we fired our Terrier missiles.

5 inch: all the time. DLRP rounds. Bullets are cheap.
Terrier weapons system: once in a great while, mainly after a upgrade to the system to test that it was working, and then not many weapons.
Cruise missiles? Never. We never fired one, hehehe.

They can hit 30 knots plus...

This below backs up what you just said above...There could very well be a need for a new battleship class..smart projectiles and all.

Battleship

Missiles are high value target weapons. You can't fire million dollar missiles at hundred dollar targets for long, and expect to have any war reserve left. You can't get missiles off an assembly line at 100 per day. You CAN'T AFFORD to fire 1,000 Tomahawks/Harpoons at a Third World army. You CAN AFFORD to build massive shotgun rounds for battleships that cover a large portion of the sky with 10mm steel balls and 3" flechettes to knock down distant missiles. You can afford to sabot 1000 # 11" rounds for a 16" gun to give you 80 km range, even if you use Army Copperhead technology for the 11" rounds. A half-ton 11" round is the same weight as a Tomahawk warhead; it moves faster with more metal for fragmentation and can be built with a penetrator nose that would drive deep into anything before detonating.

If sanity takes hold in the Pentagon and two battleships are recommissioned, the Marine Corps or the ARMY should fund further firepower upgrades. I'd have the Tomahawks removed and replaced with 6 MLRS "six packs" and 2 ATACMS missiles per side. Why? MLRS and ATACMS are ground support weapons, not strategic attack systems. I'd keep Tomahawks on the little ships. I'd double the number of Phalanx 20mm Close In Weapons Systems to 8, at least double their magazine capacity to 6,000 rounds, and play with some other anti-missile/rocket/torpedo/mine ideas for more cheap protection. The center 5" mount on each side would be replaced with a Slammer Six style 70mm HYDRA rocket launcher that can fire 240 17 # HE warheads into six football fields within 10 km of the ship in less than a minute. And the cost is peanuts, compared to virtually anything else. That's more weight of metal (240 x 17 # = 4080 #) than a single AP 16" round (2900 #) or 2 HE 16" rounds (1900 # each). It's far more than any salvo of 5" rounds (4080 divided by 70 = 58 rounds) could hope to be delivered in a timely fashion.

Battleships also can provide revolutionary long-range firepower by firing ramjet rounds, an idea suggested by Carlton Meyer. Ramjets are quite simple in operation (fuel sprayed into a chamber where incoming air has been heated by the intakes, the chamber and friction), but tricky to utilize because you need a high initial speed (Mach 2 at least) to start the ignition process. The launcher to get the round to ignition speed is the expensive component, UNLESS you already have a launcher available like 16 inch guns aboard the Iowa (BB-61) and Wisconsin (BB-64). The cost per round is rather low since it needs few moving parts (fuel pump and nozzle from fuel tank to spray fuel into the ignition chamber, some sort of device to allow the heated air to build up before putting fuel in the chamber) and the potential for speed/range is enormous, since it moves at speeds up to Mach 5.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by earthdude
Hey old guys, Russia is not going to invade anymore. The cold war is over. Get out of your trench!

Hey young newbies, Kruschev said the Russians would take us over from within. Manchurian candidate anyone? Someone who would seduce young paduans to put down their light sabers in an unguarded moment....

edit on 23-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Manchurian candidates were the CIA. Does Russia control the CIA now?

That's news to me.
The novel written in 1959 had a different story line.
The candidate was an American that was taken prisoner during the Korean War and taken to Manchuria, where he was brainwashed by Chinese and Soviet intelligence agents.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by buster2010

 

Face it. Obama ran on leftist premise of reducing our military capabilities, and "not weaponize" space. This is what his base expects of him. He has set about reducing our nuclear capabilities while Russia keeps theirs. He has determined to cripple the US both economically and militarily.
A rat for Russia

He said reduce military spending not defense spending go learn the difference then come back. And he hasn't cut spending but froze it at current levels.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I wonder if we actually do have fewer bayonets today than when we used horses in combat.

I haven't seen any stats provided yet.

I was just reading up on bayonets, and they are still issued today, and most of today's assault rifles used by armed forces have bayonet lugs for mounting those bayonets.

Maybe the president should have picked a better example to use than bayonets? Something like a musket, that they don't really use any more.

edit on 23-10-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Bayonet charges are much less common Also the Army at one point discouraged soldiers from using knives in CQC as they were no longer trained. Ryan is a twit, when I lived in WI he was a total fool. Oh wait ....

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by earthdude
Hey old guys, Russia is not going to invade anymore. The cold war is over. Get out of your trench!

Hey young newbies, Kruschev said the Russians would take us over from within. Manchurian candidate anyone? Someone who would seduce young paduans to put down their light sabers in an unguarded moment....

edit on 23-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Manchurian candidates were the CIA. Does Russia control the CIA now?

That's news to me.
The novel written in 1959 had a different story line.
The candidate was an American that was taken prisoner during the Korean War and taken to Manchuria, where he was brainwashed by Chinese and Soviet intelligence agents.

Manchurian candidate was a program run by the CIA. Not the book or movie you are thinking of.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Mmmmmm. They still have not gotten the ships faster. All though they do get to that speed faster than my ships used to.

They use jet turbines as engines. My ships used 1200 PSI boilers. Four of them. We did power runs ranging from 36 knots to 42 knots. But it took a long time to build up to that speed.

But let me tell you.....there is NOTHING like standing on something that is 513 feet long, 53 feet wide, and moving through the water that fast, with the deck trembling under your feet, and seeing a rooster tail shooting up from the stern over 20 feet into the air. Makes you feel like you can take anything on.

reply to post by buster2010
I went to the TruTV website and read what they have to say about it. The said, 'some believe' and 'some theorize'.

When I google searched CIA manchurian candidate, the hits were a parade of conspiracy websites and TruTV.
I didn't see any news organizations with stories on it.

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by pavil

 

We fly our troops in commercial style aircraft. We ship our materials UPS. Scrap the entire Navy and our safety won't be compromised at all. In fact, hatred against us would be reduced if our big bad ships are not all over looking menacing to the world population.

You are not understanding what I am saying. OTHER nations can not ship their troops around by ship, which is the only way to really do a massive deployment halfway around the world because there is a U.S. Navy. You can fly a limited amount of men and material around, but you can't shift divisions around that way easily. Only France, the U.K. and the U.S. have demonstrated the ability to air and sea lift large military forces far from their homes.

People will hate the U.S. regardless of what we do. If there ever is a major war, the nation who has command of the seas, air and space will eventually dominate the war. You can't build a navy fast enough when you need it, it has to be there in the first place.

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Obama's remarks were undignified in the extreme and unbefitting a president.
"We have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on." It was immature, really bush-league.
Our society has become so ignorant that rude, snotty, and mannerless people are looked upon as "assertive" or "confident".

Seriously...it was like watching some smarmy, know-it-all college brat.

I prefer an ignoramus for President, as long as he is polite.
I really like a guy to make up his own words like "strategery."
Fool me once and I can't be fooled again.

I never saw a group who despise and resent education as much as these tea drinkers.
Education is a bad thing, some kind of lie told by evil dooers. It's kind of mentally ill.

Of course we have fewer ships now thats because we have an air force now ( which we didn`t have in 1916) which has taken over doing a lot of what the navy did in 1916.
we have sattilites and missiles now which have taken over doing a lot of what the navy did in 1916.
we don`t need massive armadas sitting off the coast and bombarding the enemy with ship batteries, we have missiles that can do that and aircraft that can do more damage than an entire fleet of 1916 warships.
The falkland island war proved that ships have been sitting ducks for a long time now.

reply to post by Jordan River


Take over from within does not mean invade...it means infiltrate, bring down the constitution etc. these things really happen in the real world...outside of college classrooms.

Originally posted by ararisq
Romney brought it up because he wants to win Virginia and Obama has been decimated the port cities of Virginia. That is why it is in the news. It doesn't mean Romney disagrees but he wants people in Virginia to recognize that Obama has hurt their economy.

Is Romney saying that Obama has hurt the economy in Virginia because they are no longer producing as many naval vessels? If that is indeed the case then does Romney believe that we should produce things in excess when they are no longer necessary? Is it necessary to have as many ships as we did during WW2?

It's unfortunate that people are (I'm guessing) losing their jobs over this decrease in the Naval fleet. It is also unfortunate that people are unwilling to make changes when changes are necessary. A suitable analogy (although in horrible taste, stop reading here if you do not want to read potentially offensive material) would be a company that sells rape whistles secretly wishing women got raped so that they don't lose any profits (Bo Burnham reference).

I would love to know why America became the world police and why our government has stuck its nose so far up other countries asses that it can see out the other side.