For example he repeats the Story of General Mitchell and the Sinking of the Captured German Battleship in 1921. General Mitchel should have been court Martial for what he did. The US navy wanted to see how a Battleship sinks WITH ALL THE WATER TIGHT DOORS OPEN. This was to have a better idea on how to build ships (Including Carriers in addition to Battleships). To this target Mitchell sent in his planes while the ship was STANDING STILL, The water tight doors all OPEN, with bombs even the Navy of 1921 knew would sink the Ship. Mitchell wanted the Publicity of sinking the Ship, while the Navy wanted to see HOW a ships sinks (The Navy did it recently with one of its retired Conventional Carriers, just to see how it sinks if a Missile hits it, so the Navy can design new ships to minimize the damage). Mitchell did this stunt right after he bombed Miner workers on Strike in West Virginia to show it could be done.
The author also attacks the use of Motorbikes as communication devices, for they could be hit by planes. The problem with this is that Iran/Iraq would mix the messengers with its normal traffic. The US Air power will have to go after EVERYONE who is driving to get these messengers. Just hard to eliminate, which is why General Paul van Ripen opt them in the War Game he played as Iran/Iraq. It is easier to destroy Radios and Phone Lines then EVERY vehicles. And if Radios are only used to RECEIVE, they are also not detachable. One way to use BOTH is to use the motor bike to transmit any messages, after they have moved a good bit away from the military group sending the message. You have a delay in transmission, but the fact the transmission will NOT give away the position of the Military unit is an advantage.
As to the Carriers themselves, do to their flat deck, they are easier to sink then an old fashion battleship IF IT IS HIT. The US Navy has viewed the Mediterranean sea AND MOST OTHER COASTAL AREA as to dangerous for Carriers since the 1960s (if NOT earlier, for example in 1946 the US moved the New Jersey, a battleship, to the waters off Greece rather than sending a Carrier, this was enough for Stalin to tell his fellow communists in the Balkans to abandon support for the Greek Communists).
Now Modern Carries have better protection then WWII Carriers, but it could take only one well place bombs to sink Carriers during WWII, while Battleships needed to be hit by torpedoes OR a Large number of Bombs. For example the Japanese Battleship Yamoto when it appear heading for Okinawa. As the Yamoto Sailed to Okinawa the US Navy launched over 400 planes against her (Almost all Dive Bombers or Torpedo places for the Japanese were offering no Air Cover. While the US Navy claims the Yamoto was hit by 8 Bombs and 8 Torpedoes, these the the MINIMUM number that the Navy found could have hit the Yamoto, more bombs could have hit. Compared this with the Japanese Carriers in Midway, all sunk with four bomb hits or less (One was hit by one bomb and sunk). Carriers were NOT designed to take hits.
People forget the first battle between a Carrier and a Battleship ended up ended up with the CARRIER SUNK (The was the HMS Glorious during the Invasion of Norway in 1940). The reason it was sunk it stayed in areas of the Sea where the Germans could get a ship to where the Carrier was within hours as oppose to days. This is true of the Persian Gulf as it was in the North Sea during WWII. It is NOT a Carrier friendly area. We would be better off pulling the Iowa Class Battleships out of retirement to patrol the Persian Gulf then putting a Carrier in the Gulf. The Carriers should stay in the Arabian Sea WHERE IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR IRAN TO HIT THEM. This means in flight refueling and a longer flight time, but the Carriers are safe.
Can the Iranians defeat a US Air Attack? NO, if the US Keeps its Carriers in the Arabian Sea. If that is the case they is NOT much the Iranians can do. The Missiles they have have a limited range, and even if launched at Maximum range the Navy can detect them and destroy them OR just move the Carriers out of the Way. On the other hand the Carriers are used from the Persian Gulf, then the Missiles the Iranians have can hit them from shore base locations. It be a shooting galley for the Iranians.
My guess is the US will attack Iran but with Air Power only. The Iranians will retaliate by closing down the Shipping of oil through the Persian Gulf. This will hurt the Iranians (who import most of the fuel they use, while exporting crude oil), but the US will be hurt worse do to the huge increase in the price of Oil. I fully expect the Shiites in Iraq will revolt and this will be a problem with a growing shortage of oil AND the Carriers the other side of the Persian Gulf. Remember Iraq is at present a net oil importer, most is from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which will be tempted to sell the oil elsewhere at much higher prices IF THE IRANIANS LEAVE THEM SHIP THE OIL THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PERSIAN GULF (Which I doubt).
I do NOT expect a land invasion. First the US has no troops to send (They are recovering from Iraq or are in Iraq). Second, that would require moving US Surface ships into the Gulf and the US Navy will avoid that until the Iranians Missiles are accounted for (i.e. Destroyed). Thus no invasion, so why attack? Bush is caught in a Box, he is blaming the Iranians for supporting the insurgency in Iraq. He wants the Insurgency to end, but withdrawing is NOT acceptable. With an Invasion of Iran also impossible, he is left with an Air Assault. Thus Bush will attack Iran for he dislikes his other two options less.
The Battle of Blair Mountain (where the Air Force dropped its bombs):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_MountainAre Carries obsolete:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1048Sinking of the HMS Glorious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_GloriousThe Sinking of the Yamoto, 8 Bombs 8 Torpedoes:
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/sunk.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
