The obvious always bear stating, I guess...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
A nuclear submarine is noisier than a submarine working on batteries...And then there is 'environmental fatigue' and so to believe that a nuclear submarine can continue endlessly is not quite correct.
Of course and I didn't write or even imply endlessly -- long enough with adequate supplies on board to do the job, though, is a capability. The number available is a factor and it is in our favor.
Quote:
US is refurbishing the submarine base at Guam.
Yes, and that's a political commitment to reassure the Pacific Rim and a time distance saving effort. Both those factors are beneficial but not critical.
Quote:
CBGs may be good targets... Just because we cannot observe a submarine unlike a CBG, it does not mean that it is near invincible.
Nothing is invincible; any system can be defeated. Most of us are well aware of that and the Nuke boats -- as India will discover -- have their own problems. Still, on balance, they are the inevitable future of sea warfare in major conflicts for the next forty years or so, barring an unseen or not openly known and revolutionary discovery.
The surface stuff is all necessary, certainly for less than total warfare but also for later stages of major conflicts and for operations outside the primary sea battlespace. Bases are also necessary, no question. Those things are not at issue; the issue is one of where things are located and when they are used. Thus it is not a question of needs and capabilities, simply one of employment.
All you say is correct, is well known to most including me and does not change my assessment -- or, I suspect, that of the US Navy. You and others who wish to make China a threat that it is not (to the US, not necessarily true for closer neighbors to the Middle Kingdom... :wry:) may certainly do so.
Even if you are most likely wrong... ;)
Nope. You got that wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
If Kennedys are to be blamed, one could start with John Foster Dulles.
The action in question is the war and US involvement therein, not the political stupidity that allowed -- allowed, not caused -- that war.
You can go back further and blame Truman and Dean Acheson for not supporting the OSS / Ho Chi Minh overtures for US support and for aiding France in their effort to 'retake' Indo China. Certainly Dulles and the Eisenhower administration also bear some blame for the political debacle that was Viet Nam. However, they, on the advice of Matthew Ridgeway, then Army Chief of Staff, ruled out any direct combat commitment of US forces.
The Kennedy's (I use the plural because Bobby was the brain and driving force...) committed to combat action -- so they, for the US, essentially started the war. Lyndon Johnson of course initiated the major commitment so he gets some blame, a bunch in fact, and Nixon's flawed withdrawal plan was not error free to say the least -- but make no mistake, the Kennedy's started the war we all know and love...
Around the spring of '43. We're slow starters...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
When last was a 'crunch time'?
Actually, we started the mobilization effort in September of '39, got far more serious in November of '40 but it was the mid '43 before we got totally serious.
Quote:
Will the next enemy allow you the time to get the Henry Ford style human and industrial production lines into operation?
Note the last time, it took us almost four years to really get involved -- some would say it was really the winter of 1944 before we got up to speed. So no, I doubt anyone thinks even a fourth or fifth that time will be available in the future. I personally suspect that a week or two is probably the most time we'll have, thus my earlier comment:
"Excessive bother of the wrong kind will not invoke a sleeping giant scenario -- you're as dated as Carl and those pundits and think tanks I warned him to eschew. That was then, this is now. No sleeping giant, no fire up the industrial base. Those days are indeed gone. What is not gone is the ability to simply remove the leash IF and when warranted. Not a lot of Troops on the ground required, very few in fact."
Note that I do not include any of our subsequent wars or interventions as crunches. None were, all were minimum effort soirees essentially aimed at US domestic politics and not at any serious effort in international affairs. They are minimum efforts and they also produced far less than even good, much less optimum, results. One gets what one pays for...
The US political establishment will only provide maximum reaction to what it perceives as a maximum threat, lesser threats we'll attempt to disrupt or channelize with the least possible effort. As you know, politicians assess both threats and effort differently than do military people.
Regardless, we have considerable capability that is rarely displayed and even more rarely understood and we have not since WW II allowed more than a small fraction of that to be used; the Armed Forces have been kept on a very short leash and other nations have actually been handled relatively gently. Thus my 'remove the leash' comment above.
Quote:
This was the game plan I was speaking of. As observed by von Schell in 1930 during his time at Fort Benning. Sorry if I was not too clear on that.
I understood. In those days, we did tend to have long term plans. Among other things we've lost here, it seems that ability has also fallen to political expediency thus my also earlier comment that "there is no standard US game plan."
Sadly... :(
Good for them if they do it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
I can't remember their stated goal, maybe 2020??
Lesse, we did that in 1969, so say they're fifty years behind us in that. Figure maybe half that for most other things, that means they're about 25 years from catch-up time. You and I will both be gone. Well, you may not be, I hope not -- but I certainly will be. So now you know why I'm not worried. ;)
Neither is the Abn MSG kid of mine who's way younger than bofus. He stays abreast of all that stuff and sees stuff we don't; he says "No worries at this time."
Quote:
Yes, in true Commie fashion they will wait as long as possible before they use the military in a direct manner, more likley they will try to control us economically by using their "Rare Earth Policy" at least that is my non-expert opinion.
I'm sure they will do both those things. Doubt they'll succeed economically though they will almost certainly do a little harm. As for the other, they likely will think and plan that way but mayhap like their USSR predecessor, that'll become OBE. We'll have to wait and see.
What I'm not sure of is what you're asking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Are you sure that's true? It takes a long time to get production lines built and up to speed, even back then. In mid-43 everything was already in place and beginning to ramp up. We were already totally serious. The Navy checked the Japanese with ships that were almost all launched before the start of the war. The services knew war with Japan was coming and built up as best they could early. We were better men then than we are now but even then we couldn't turn it on all that fast.
I think ( ??? ) you said what I said.
Yes, it takes a long time to get production line up to speed -- 1939/1940 to 1943/1944 is three to five years anyway you count the start and end.
Yes, by 1943 everything was in place and totally serious. Before that things were coalescing and production was ramping up and most everyone was getting more serious by the day -- but it was 1943 before the Draft picked up almost everyone, the WPB controlled civilian employment in war industries, rationing was extended to most items and the services had learned that incompetent commanders had to be rapidly relieved and uniformly did that. All the efforts of many people from 1939 until then culminated in a reasonably good and serious effort by most Americans and the Nation by late 1943.
Not so on the Navy, a lot of the pre-war ships were lost for some good and bad reasons. The Navy was very slow in getting ready for WW II. In fact, the Maritime Adminsitration with its 1936 shipbuilding standardization and building plan was ahead of the Navy and helped the Navy get their late 1939 plan going and that only because it became obvious there was going to be a war and Franklin was adamant that we be involved. The only big class building and arriving prior to the war that fought heavily in the Pacific was the Gleaves Class and they weren't the best destroyers around, That 1939 plan saw the Fletchers, Clevelands, Baltimores, South Dakotas and Essexes but they didn't start arriving in the fleet until mid 1942 as didThe Atlantas and the Independence class CVLs (which FDR had to browbeat the Navy into ordering; then as now, they wanted BIG Carriers -- more people, thus bigger budget slice...). Most of the program didn't hit the fleet until '44. The Navy effectively won in the Pacific with those 1939 Program ships while most of the pre-war ships were assigned to the Atlantic Fleet where the combat was far less demanding. Also note the Navy and the Marines knew war with Japan was coming and prepared for it as best they could -- and that only seriously after 1939 and even then slowly. The Army OTOH did not want war with Japan and tried to ignore the Pacific...
You're correct that we didn't turn it on all that fast and that we couldn't even do that well today -- except for aircraft and some other stuff; certainly not for ships, tanks, artillery and the like, though...