![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "tadaa" wrote:
If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid. ....with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid.
...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries... Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble ![]() if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "tadaa" wrote:
Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble ![]() strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the stick in short order. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble ![]() strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have used a stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I really don't see what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Estonia etc. So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger navy would have been in 1939? Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the stick in short order. Well now that the focus has sifted from Europe to places further away there has been increased attention paid to power projection (airlift, naval troop carriers). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "tadaa" wrote:
Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble ![]() a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have used a stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I really don't see what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Estonia etc. So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger navy would have been in 1939? The other European countires could have shut down Germany's sea power quite easily, kept *any* U-boats from going out to harass convoys, and gotten a lot more support in during the 1940-1942 years. If they had hd carriers available, they could have had strong fighter support across all of Europe during the entire war, and D-Day could have happened a couple of years earlier. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article , "tadaa" wrote: Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble ![]() strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the stick in short order. Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were preparing to surrender. Al Minyard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were preparing to surrender. That's just ridiculous trolling. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Alan Minyard
writes On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939? Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the stick in short order. Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were preparing to surrender. Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships, three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate. A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to Germany... -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"tadaa" wrote in :
If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid. ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries... Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble ![]() maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way, both having a millirary force designed not only for combating an invation force, but also halting that invation force from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching throught to the rest of europe. In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way you are going to get a large enough number of troops to barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea. Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places where such a landing of force is possible. The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters, ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based much of our invation defence of these tactical points on fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops. We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though modernised of course). In later years their tactial value came under heavy attack themselves and only a handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great part with a special commando force with small and agile attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle. It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least) doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one you won't see until it's too late. It's also part of Norways will to having a closer participation in conflicts around the world -- units which can be sent anywhere. Regards... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
"tadaa" wrote in : If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid. ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries... Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into trouble ![]() maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy. Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way, both having a millirary force designed not only for combating an invation force, but also halting that invation force from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching throught to the rest of europe. In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way you are going to get a large enough number of troops to barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea. Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places where such a landing of force is possible. The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much more effective today than they were then. The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters, ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based much of our invation defence of these tactical points on fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops. Forts have done sooo well against modern armies. Remember their inability to stop an invasion in WWII? Remember the Maginot Line? We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though modernised of course). In later years their tactial value came under heavy attack themselves and only a handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great part with a special commando force with small and agile attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle. It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least) doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one you won't see until it's too late. It's also part of Norways will to having a closer participation in conflicts around the world -- units which can be sent anywhere. Regards... The successful defense of Oslo would be a major accomplishment for the current Norwegian armed forces, the rest of the country would be taken quite easily. Norway, not unrealistically, counts on the US for its defense. Al Minyard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |