William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[wm]

You either have a strange idea of what's "serious" or there's a lot of naval history for you to catch up with.

The so far final engagement with more than one ship on either side was in 1973, and it was a very interesting one.

I find the Battle of Latakia to be small potatoes in terms of naval conflict. The Israeli corvettes run about 1000 tons in displacement and are less than 300 feet long. By comparison, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer has ten times the displacement and is about twice as long. The USS Missouri displaced 45,000 tons at almost 900 ft of length, and a WWI Koenig class battleship was about 26,000 tons and 575 ft. So, I guess my use of serious irelates to a combination of the number of vessels involved and their size.

[Fuchs]

I guess my use of serious irelates to a combination of the number of vessels involved and their size.

Even then you should pay attention to the Battle of Surigao Strait.

[wm]

Even then you should pay attention to the Battle of Surigao Strait.

I did; you might recheck my post to Carl. Most of the surface fighting was destroyer torpedo runs by the US IIRC. Fuso was sunk that way. Yamashiro was sunk by battleship gunnery but that was combat of unequals as Yamashiro was a pre-WWI battleship fighting against 3 of the most modern battleships the US had.Of the 6 US BBs in action, one fired no rounds and another fired just one full salvo.

[Fuchs]

(...) but that was combat of unequals as (...)

Skagerrakschlacht/Battle of Jutland was a battle of unequal forces as well.
The German High Seas Fleet blew up some vulnerable battlecruisers, but it had no chance against the squadrons of new 15" armed QEs and Rs which came into action only at very long ranges.
The vastly weaker side slipped away after blunting the vulnerable vangaurd of the enemy.


In short; by not accepting Surigao as a serious naval ship/ship battle you discount almost every battle but Jutland, and possibly even Jutland as not serious. The same goes for the "size of ships" criterion. By today's standards the ships of the line at Trafalgar were corvettes or small frigates!


@carl
"they go and take the chance of getting killed or they don't go and definitely get hung or shot at dawn."

You understand this is bollocks, right?

[carl]

@carl
"they go and take the chance of getting killed or they don't go and definitely get hung or shot at dawn."

You understand this is bollocks, right?

Not at all. That is the ultimate step. Depending on the severity of the fight, armies will graduate the penalties they mete out but they can always take that ultimate step. Every army I've read about did that, kill their deserters, depending upon how hard the fight was.

That won't always keep things in line though since it really is prophylactic step. There are always more men than people in authority and if the men decide to act en-masse there is little those in authority can really do. The trick is to keep things from getting that bad and, to be cold blooded about, executions are one of the tools used if need be there.

[Fuchs]

Not at all. That is the ultimate step. Depending on the severity of the fight, armies will graduate the penalties they mete out but they can always take that ultimate step. Every army I've read about did that, kill their deserters, depending upon how hard the fight was.

Nonsense.
The quote was clearly in a context implying that such extreme punishments without due trial were commonplace. Now you're moving goalposts and talk about what some of the most extreme armies did at their worst times.

At best you used a hyperbole, now you're defending it as if it was a sensible statement.

Here's another piece of nonsense of yours

I do know the difference between Southwest Airlines and the military is nobody at Southwest can order you to die and you can quit anytime you want and they won't put you against the wall and shoot you for desertion.

See? "military". Not 'extreme dictatorship's military that's desperate because it's losing badly', no "ultimate step" stuff or anything like that. You contrasted civilian jobs with military jobs in general.


You do realize we can still read, copy&paste what you wrote? How could you possibly think you could get away with this incoherent counter-factual nonsense?


To serve in a military which readily shoots its own men because of whatever is clearly different from working in a non-military job in a Western democracy.
But so is working as a civilian in that military's country, too.


P.S.: Nobody in a military "can order you to die".

P.S.2: I've been in here for what? Six years? And there are still people who want to pull off the most simple rhetoric tricks like moving goalposts on me? Don't you guys make any notes?

[carl]

Nonsense.
The quote was clearly in a context implying that such extreme punishments without due trial were commonplace. Now you're moving goalposts and talk about what some of the most extreme armies did at their worst times.

My statement was simple, plain and true. Armies, every one that I've read of, kill their deserters if they feel the need. With due process or without, commonplace or not, they do it. That is a simple fact.

See? "military". Not 'extreme dictatorship's military that's desperate because it's losing badly', no "ultimate step" stuff or anything like that. You contrasted civilian jobs with military jobs in general.

No, that is the difference between military and civilian. You can be ordered to go out and die in a military organization and you can't quit if you feel like it. A banzai charge was effectively an order to die, gloriously maybe in the eyes of Imperial Japanese militarists, but it was an order to go out and die. When the Union soldiers got the warning order for the attack at Cold Harbor they knew that for many of them it was an order to die. They didn't write their names on pieces of paper and pin them to their uniforms for nothing. At Waterloo a unit was ordered by some peer to attack in line when a cavalry unit was plainly in sight on the flank of their route. That was an order to die. They did as they were ordered and most of them did.

So yea, soldiers can be ordered to die. And soldiers can't leave when they feel like it. There may be some exceptions to the leave when they feel like it part but in general it's a no go, especially in war.

[carl]

I did; you might recheck my post to Carl. Most of the surface fighting was destroyer torpedo runs by the US IIRC. Fuso was sunk that way. Yamashiro was sunk by battleship gunnery but that was combat of unequals as Yamashiro was a pre-WWI battleship fighting against 3 of the most modern battleships the US had.Of the 6 US BBs in action, one fired no rounds and another fired just one full salvo.

I think you have mixed up your battleships. The newest of ours in that fight was I think the West Virginia, launched in 1921. All had been considerably modified of course and the West Virginia was sunk on Dec 7 and brought back to life.

[wm]

I think you have mixed up your battleships. The newest of ours in that fight was I think the West Virginia, launched in 1921. All had been considerably modified of course and the West Virginia was sunk on Dec 7 and brought back to life.

You answered your own point--Except for the Arizona, the battleships sunk/damaged at Pearl in 1941 were all substantially recapitalized, which was also my point about new--particularly with regard to fire control radar. The reason that the three other battleships were only minimally engaged at Surigao Strait was that, being without the new radar, they were unable to derive timely firing solutions to engage the Japanese.

Skagerrakschlacht/Battle of Jutland was a battle of unequal forces as well.
The German High Seas Fleet blew up some vulnerable battlecruisers, but it had no chance against the squadrons of new 15" armed QEs and Rs which came into action only at very long ranges.
The vastly weaker side slipped away after blunting the vulnerable vanguard of the enemy.

Most of the British fleet never got into action. The first engagement between Beatty's and Hipper's battlecruisers was pretty much of an even match. The 4 QE battleships supporting Beatty did not get in range. In the main event, only 2 of Jellicoe's battle squadrons were really engaged. Capital ships (heavy cruiser and above) in the two fleets numbered 45 Brit to 27 German while capital ship loss was 6 Brit to 2 German.

The same goes for the "size of ships" criterion. By today's standards the ships of the line at Trafalgar were corvettes or small frigates!

Trying to compare an 18th century sail-powered ship of the line to a 20th century diesel powered armored battleship or even a guided missile frigate is comparing tree frogs to kangaroos.

[carl]

You answered your own point--Except for the Arizona, the battleships sunk/damaged at Pearl in 1941 were all substantially recapitalized, which was also my point about new--particularly with regard to fire control radar. The reason that the three other battleships were only minimally engaged at Surigao Strait was that, being without the new radar, they were unable to derive timely firing solutions to engage the Japanese.

You said "3 of the most modern battleships the US had". None of those battleships were modern. None could be considered among the most modern the US had. All were old and refurbished.