Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Nope. as we all know .. Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. the US Navy in wartime conditions has never had a major naval battle end in decisive loss.
actually since you took the Pearl Harbor bait as expected, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not supposed to be a pure sneak attack. goes against all that Samurai code nonsense. in the days leading up to Dec 7th the Japanese embassy was receiving a document in parts that was supposed to be delivered to the White House on Dec 7th at 2 pm EST exactly by the Japanese ambassador.
the document was not a declaration of war. it was a formal letter breaking off diplomatic relations with the US. it was supposed to be delivered just before the attack began. they fucked up and didn't get the last critical page translated into English in time.
Pearl Harbor was a failure of US intel and assessment, in a peacetime setting but with known tensions between the US and Japan. General Marshall and the chief of the Navy should have assessed the situation and had the US pacific fleet on patrol, not sitting in Pearl Harbor. Marshall did advise Gen. Short and Adm. Kimmel of rising tensions but did not order the fleet out to patrol or the Army Air Corps on high alert.
if Marshall had done that, Pearl Harbor would have been vastly different. first, the bulk of the fleet would be on patrol and not caught at anchor. second, air patrols would have spotted the attack force before they reached Pearl Harbor. without the element of surprise the Japanese attack would have been far less effective, and it's possible that the US fleet with one or more carriers at sea and the battleships with them could have defeated the Japanese force.
the US did in fact detect the attack. the Army had just installed a radar post in Hawaii and it was operational on Dec 7th. the operators detected a large group heading toward Pearl Harbor but mistook the group for a scheduled flight of a B-17 squadron due to arrive at the air base at Pearl. two problems ... first the radar showed the force approaching from the west where the B-17s coming from the mainland would be coming in from the east. and the timing was wrong, it was 8 am and the B-17s weren't scheduled to arrive until that afternoon. if the operators had realized this and alerted the Navy and Army Air Corps yet again Pearl Harbor could have been vastly different.
Roy, you could use the WWII example of England helping us out in the Pacific. We didn't have enough carriers ourselves. They were nice enough to have a few out there to help out till we got the sleeping giant awake.
Nice benefit was they had armoured tops to they faired better with kamakazi attacks.
Thank the Aussies (where's saltlick to blow their horn?) for bolstering the fleet.
A swing and a miss! British fleet carriers did not arrive in the Pacific until 1944 when the United States had several carriers involved in the war with Japan. Many more than Britain or Japan had by that point. Prior to 1944, a few British aircraft carriers operated in the Indian Ocean as a defensive measure never really engaging the Japanese navy. The early years of World War II in the Pacific was all about trying to stay ahead of the Japanese (by both the USA and Great Britain) until production produced the necessary ships which is what my OP was all about. We are not providing enough ships and/or maintaining what we have against a serious threat. Any war with China will be fought 4,000 miles away from Hawaii by ship. No, Virginia, England did NOT help out with aircraft carries in the early days of the war.
Got to call you out on strikes with this one. The original claim was about STRATEGIC losses. Though Taffy 3 was destroyed, it was NOT a strategic loss. It was a tactical loss that meant very little as the Japanese fleet did not exploint their victory by attacking that American army on the beach of PI. Remember, that was their strategic mission and they failed. I suggest you read "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" for a more detailed accounting of what happened.
The attack on Pearl Harbor, though a tactical loss, worked in the favor of the United States. It galvanized the people of the USA like nothing else could. It guaranteed that Japan would be completely defeated. There would be no negotiated surrender by Hirohito.
As for the declaration of war. Yeah, that much is correct. According to the Japanese code, they should have declared war minutes before the attack but didn't. They handed FDR a moral victory.
An aircraft carrier (ignoring the obvious) is any structure at sea that can land, maintain, arm, and launch aircraft against an enemy. Yes, Midway was an aircraft carrier but with limited aircraft and supplies.
According to the UK Guardian, China has militarized three islands off their coastline. Defensive batteries, runways, troops, offensive missiles, and planes. They can't be sunk and they have the effect of extending Chinese claims of territorial waters hundreds of miles into the ocean.
The claim about US aircraft carriers is almost true but lacks context. The US has 11 aircraft carriers. At any time, two are in being overhauled or repaired. That leaves 9. One is probably undergoing training and may not have a full fighting force on board. That leaves 8. We have to man two coasts whereas the Chinese have only one. Divide the fleet and you have four aircraft carriers in the Pacific but we probably hedge out bets with five in the Pacific. FYI, the Gerald Ford is not combat ready yet.
Got to call you out on strikes with this one.The original claim was about STRATEGIC losses. Though Taffy 3 was destroyed, it was NOT a strategic loss. It was a tactical loss that meant very little as the Japanese fleet did not exploint their victory by attacking that American army on the beach of PI. Remember, that was their strategic mission and they failed. I suggest you read "The Last Stand of the Tin C an Sailors" for a more detailed accounting of what happened.
How can you call a strike on a hashtag? You gotta explain that. As I stated on this thread, I was wondering where that it fell in dilberts 3 points.
So, go put your nose in the corner for 10 minutes
I would suggest you tell others of Hornfishcers (sp) works since i've read them.
An aircraft carrier (ignoring the obvious) is any structure at sea that can land, maintain, arm, and launch aircraft against an enemy. Yes, Midway was an aircraft carrier but with limited aircraft and supplies.
According to the UK Guardian, China has militarized three islands off their coastline. Defensive batteries, runways, troops, offensive missiles, and planes. They can't be sunk and they have the effect of extending Chinese claims of territorial waters hundreds of miles into the ocean.
The claim about US aircraft carriers is almost true but lacks context. The US has 11 aircraft carriers. At any time, two are in being overhauled or repaired. That leaves 9. One is probably undergoing training and may not have a full fighting force on board. That leaves 8. We have to man two coasts whereas the Chinese have only one. Divide the fleet and you have four aircraft carriers in the Pacific but we probably hedge out bets with five in the Pacific. FYI, the Gerald Ford is not combat ready yet.
just a technicality... USN has 20 carriers, 9 of 10 of which are
are gator ships.
Having a Carrier task force (fleet) roll up on your coastline has always been akin to a nest of angry hornets landing on one's head - no doubt. The F/A18 Hornets (and variants) are not to be trifled with fo sho. However, the good folk at Russia's missile building empire appear to be saying: Nyet!They even decided, perhaps through some benevolent gesture or as a warning, to change up the game a might.
There is no plausible reason that the Kinzhal would need to be deployed against Ukraine, given that its air defenses have already been suppressed.
It is Russia's single most advanced conventional weapon – 13 times as fast as a tomahawk, with 3x the payload.
...
FWIW: It is land, sea and air launch capable. Also, the "depot" they destroyed was buried deep, deep in the ground and was considered/designed to be able to survive a nuclear strike.
Having a Carrier task force (fleet) roll up on your coastline has always been akin to a nest of angry hornets landing on one's head - no doubt. The F/A18 Hornets (and variants) are not to be trifled with fo sho. However, the good folk at Russia's missile building empire appear to be saying: Nyet!They even decided, perhaps through some benevolent gesture or as a warning, to change up the game a might.
Worth reading: FWIW: It is land, sea and air launch capable. Also, the "depot" they destroyed was buried deep, deep in the ground and was considered/designed to be able to survive a nuclear strike.
None of this means Jack Shit.
The important thing is, are they using the correct pronouns when addressing each other.
just a technicality... USN has 20 carriers, 9 of 10 of which are
are gator ships.
The helo carrier is not a fleet carrier. No catapult, no arresting gear, and small to boot. My LPH was 18,000 tons. The modern Wasp LHD is 40,000 tons. The USS Gerald Ford displaces over 100,000 tons. When a Harrier landed on our flight deck, the ship had to ballast fuel and water to get rid of the list. In a pinch, an amphib could ferry aircraft to some remote locations but they couldn't really fight along the way.
The point is that Ronald Reagan envisioned a 600 ship navy and now we have less than a 300 ship navy. The people who poo-poo, think that quality supersedes quantity. Maybe...but if one of your ten operational carriers is damaged enough to be removed from the theater, that is 10% of your aircraft off the board. It wasn't too long ago when we 14 aircraft carriers plus the support ships. Those hybrid ships (littoral) that can do this and do that, can't do any one thing very good. Some have already been taken out of service. Others are being overhauls to replace the gee-whiz technology that was so hyped. With the deadlier weapons loads available now we need a smaller class of ship with a solid punch like a corvette or coastal vessel.
Having a Carrier task force (fleet) roll up on your coastline has always been akin to a nest of angry hornets landing on one's head - no doubt. The F/A18 Hornets (and variants) are not to be trifled with fo sho. However, the good folk at Russia's missile building empire appear to be saying: Nyet!They even decided, perhaps through some benevolent gesture or as a warning, to change up the game a might.
Worth reading: FWIW: It is land, sea and air launch capable. Also, the "depot" they destroyed was buried deep, deep in the ground and was considered/designed to be able to survive a nuclear strike.
i've read various reports about these hypersonic missiles, both cruise missiles and this Kinzhal device which can be launched from aircraft. it depends on who you ask as to how effective they are, and that includes our own hypersonic devices which we've tested as well.
for fixed land based sites they appear to be nearly unstoppable at hypersonic speeds however for these so-called "carrier killer" missiles i recall reading that the accuracy isn't sufficient to strike a carrier at flank speed and engaging in evasive maneuvers, in large part due to effects of the sheer speed. it creates some sort of plasma-like shock wave that affects the guidance systems. the key is how well you compensate for these effects, and one report stated the Russians and presumably Chinese have to drastically slow the missile at the last second to get pinpoint accuracy.
if true this means that with conventional warheads these missiles may not be very effective against Navy ships (carriers). the bad news is if you deploy a tactical nuke all you need is close enough to take out a task force.
this video talks about some of the issues with these devices including the plasma effect where communications are affected meaning satellite data for guidance wouldn't be available. toward the end they discuss Russian devices and some of the claims Russia has made about them.
China threatened the U.S. Navy on Friday with "serious consequences" after a warship passed through the South China Sea near the contested Paracel Islands.
For the second day in a row, Beijing accused the U.S. of violating the sovereignty and security of the island, which it currently occupies but which Taiwan and Vietnam also lay claim over.
The U.S. rejected China's accusations and said its passage through the waters is permitted under international law and falls under a "freedom of navigation operation," which challenges attempted restrictions by all three nations to enforce a policy of permission or advanced notice by any military vessel before it can pass by.
An infographic titled "South China Sea a hotbed of sovereignty disputes between China, coastal countries" created on Jan. 6, 2023.
"Unlawful and sweeping maritime claims in the South China Sea pose a serious threat to the freedom of the seas, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, free trade and unimpeded commerce, and freedom of economic opportunity for South China Sea littoral nations," spokesperson Lt. j.g. Luka Bakic for the U.S. 7th Fleet said in a statement.
"The United States challenges excessive maritime claims around the world regardless of the identity of the claimant," he added.
The guided-missile destroyer USS Milius passed the islands for a second day in a row after China first took issue with its passage Thursday.
A general view shows the USS Milius (DDG-69), a multi-mission capable guided missile destroyer ship docked at the Manila South Harbor.
China’s Ministry of National Defense accused the U.S. of "undermining the peace and stability of the South China Sea."
"The act of the U.S. military seriously violated China’s sovereignty and security, severely breached international laws, and is more ironclad evidence of the U.S. pursuing navigation hegemony and militarizing the South China Sea," ministry spokesperson Tan Kefei claimed. "We solemnly request that the U.S. immediately stop such actions of provocation, otherwise it will bear the serious consequences of unexpected incidents caused by this."
The spokesman added that China would take "all necessary measures" to safeguard its security but did not elaborate on the threat.
An aerial view of Qilianyu islands in the Paracel chain, which China considers part of Hainan province, on Aug. 10, 2018.
Beijing repeated its claim that it drove away the U.S. ship from the waters — a description of subsequent events that the Navy again said was inaccurate.
Bakic said the vessel was "not driven away" and "continued on to conduct routine maritime security operations in international waters."
"The United States will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as Milius did today," he added. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
