USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
US Foreign Policy 3.0: We're The Mets of International Diplomacy
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Well I am not sure I'd call WW2 a real offensive war on our part.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Aircraft carriers were at the heart of the war in the Pacific.
Perhaps I'm misreading this comment, but the island hopping takeovers to push Japan back toward ther mainland I would think constitutes an offensive strategy.
Perhaps I'm misreading this comment, but the island hopping takeovers to push Japan back toward ther mainland I would think constitutes an offensive strategy.
Less than that. Anti-ship missiles already have greater range than F-35Cs + their weapons. It's like boxing with someone who's 6'9" - they can reach you, but you can't reach them.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Yeah, originally I had a much larger timeframe in there, I think like 50 or 60 years. But that just seemed too long given the changes we're seeing in the last 15-20 years of advancements in naval hardware and weapons.
Are you thinking we'll see fewer ships altogether or a different type of ship? Or both?
I figure air superiority is shifting from manned flights to UAVs fairly rapidly and especially after what we've seen in Ukraine. The biggest problem is going to be CAS I would think. Do we have any great CAS options flying remotely yet? I know we have hellfires, but you look at what a UAV carries vs. an F35 or A10 or any rotary option and I just don't think it's there.
True, but Japan attacked first and you could make a strong argument that these maneuvers, while not directly defensive, were in retribution/retaliation. Not trying to split hairs here, but I think my point stands. In general, conscripted soldiers on purely offensive assaults do less well than when they're on the defense.
Current Russian conscripts were not attacked at Pearl Harbor (what would the Russian equivalent be here?) and don't have that righteous anger driving them. Some reports even indicate that they didn't even know they'd be involved in offensive operations until they were ordered forward.
Last edited:
In other US Navy news:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...vy will reportedly,being only seven years old.
These are brand new ships. The oldest is only 7 years old. What a complete disaster.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...vy will reportedly,being only seven years old.
These are brand new ships. The oldest is only 7 years old. What a complete disaster.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Right, I think there is a difference between "conscripted because the country was attacked" and "conscripted because the country wanted to go do something for no explicit reason". Harder to motivate for the latter; look at WW2 versus Vietnam.
Maybe WW2 counts as a "defensive" war in the sense that we were defending the status quo. The Axes and Japan were clearly the aggressors, regardless of whether the battle lines were traveling east or west.
MichVandal
Well-known member
That's already happened. From the US using drones for stikes all over the place to DIY drones being used to attack US supporters- we have been on the leading edge of this kind of war as it's played out.
Ukraine is both learning what worked for us as well as what worked for insurgents in terms of drones.
The more surprising part is how bad the ruskies have been at anti-drone electronic warfare. Not that they are doing nothing- but it's not enough to avoid some pretty interesting videos we all get to watch.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Morale is a big factor in unit cohesion which is key to performance. I suspect mercenary forces throughout history, prior to ethno-national armies, were lousy soldiers, regardless of all the adolescent romanticism. Who was good? Steppe hordes with a world to win and Judeans or Muzzies driven by the wrath of god.
Last edited:
MichVandal
Well-known member
WWII works because it was easy to frame Japan and Germany as the bad guys. Especially when you look at the masses of people who enlisted prior to being called up- it would be interesting to see the numbers of those who were in combat vs. support roles.
Vietnam was harder to define them as such horrible people- especially when drafted people got over there and noticed it wasn't exactly clear there, either.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
It is getting more difficult to put white and black hats on sides with the information revolution, because it becomes obvious to all but the worst partisan idiots that people are people and wars are state-sanctioned mass murder. So you either have to try to completely blind and deafen your population, or you recruit solely from the lowest farthest right portion of your society whose entire personality centers on slavish self-abnegation before religious and political authority and violent sexual fantasies to compensate for their failure in real life.
In a case like Ukraine is starts out easy because the invader is the proximate causes of all the murder. But the longer the war continues the more the atrocities pile up on both sides because in war half the population reverts to primate bloodlust with torture and rape.
If you want a bright line, take any national leader who orders an invasion and draw and quarter them on global streaming. Putin, Dubya, Saddam, Sharon, Galtieri, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, all those dudes who invaded Israel in 1947, etc...
After many hours of slow death holding ones entrails, the other leaders will get the idea.
In a case like Ukraine is starts out easy because the invader is the proximate causes of all the murder. But the longer the war continues the more the atrocities pile up on both sides because in war half the population reverts to primate bloodlust with torture and rape.
If you want a bright line, take any national leader who orders an invasion and draw and quarter them on global streaming. Putin, Dubya, Saddam, Sharon, Galtieri, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, all those dudes who invaded Israel in 1947, etc...
After many hours of slow death holding ones entrails, the other leaders will get the idea.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Right, but there's a difference between air superiority and CAS via drones than taking out singular targets.
MichVandal
Well-known member
In terms of the drone weapons- I wonder if they can be told to wait to go off until they pass though the cages that the russians are using against some anti-tank weapons. Those are designed to either set a weapon off early, or disrupt it going off at all. But, in theory, the drones can be told that there's a cage to delay the trigger to make sure it's hitting the vehicles hull. Or perhaps the designers can have a mini-weapon to penetrate that.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
I think the Red-Green-Takes-On-Raytheon cages have been ineffective at best. More important are the active armor defenses. Those at least have a chance at working. But I suspect it doesn't matter much since Javelins go through the top of the turret and there hasn't been much in the way of active armor installed on most that I've seen.
With regards to the UAVs, I'm sure most missiles have or could have a delayed fuse incorporated readily on new systems. Not sure about modifying already deployed weapons.
- Status