Carrier

Deep Space Nine
User avatar
KuvahMagh
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:30 am
Location: Canada

Re: Carrier

Post by KuvahMagh »

OK. Suez sitch - I'll address it. What exactly is the point that you are making? If the US boned out in that scenario (and we did,) how does that negate the scenario I regarding France, or anything else for that matter?
You say France is a bad ally because of the way it has handled itself, I pointed out that the US Government has done worse than just not get involved, they get involved on the other side. The point is, anyone can find a few minor diplomatic difficulties and turn it into a huge issue even when it isn't. In the Suez Crisis case the US was right, such an invasion could have brought the Soviet Union in, although unlikely which would have started a War, the fact remains though that they essentially turned on 3 allies to protect themselves. Besides all that, if I were France and the US called me up and asked if they could fly some planes over top of me or do anything else in the general area of me I'd be pretty cheesed off.
The US never officially went to war at all
Sorry that should read "The US did not begin its "peace action/conflict" until 1963. US Advisers and Analysts were present from 1950 onward and while they did provide support to the French and South Vietnam they were not bailing them out as has been said. Three different Presidents would be in Vietnam before the Second Indochina War began in 1963, 9 years after France left the region altogether as per the terms of the 1954 Geneva Accords, which the US refused to sign, clearly showing they had their own agenda in the area well before the War and were determined not to let anything stand in the way of it, even when America did finally get involved it was for its own reasons, not to bail an ally out.
There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
-Elie Wiesel

Dreaming in Color Living in Black and White, Sitting in a Grey Day Leaning on a Bright New Tomorrow.
-Billy Ray Cyrus
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Mikey »

KuvahMagh wrote:You say France is a bad ally because of the way it has handled itself, I pointed out that the US Government has done worse than just not get involved, they get involved on the other side. The point is, anyone can find a few minor diplomatic difficulties and turn it into a huge issue even when it isn't. In the Suez Crisis case the US was right, such an invasion could have brought the Soviet Union in, although unlikely which would have started a War, the fact remains though that they essentially turned on 3 allies to protect themselves. Besides all that, if I were France and the US called me up and asked if they could fly some planes over top of me or do anything else in the general area of me I'd be pretty cheesed off.
Yep. I'm not denying that the US has done things at least as bad as what I had mentioned - it just wasn't part of my topic of conversation. As far as the the F-111 incident, it was merely the use of airspace en route, and I can only imagine that France's true reason was to flex some figurative muscle and say, "Hey - we're still relevant, OK?"
Sorry that should read "The US did not begin its "peace action/conflict" until 1963. US Advisers and Analysts were present from 1950 onward and while they did provide support to the French and South Vietnam they were not bailing them out as has been said. Three different Presidents would be in Vietnam before the Second Indochina War began in 1963, 9 years after France left the region altogether as per the terms of the 1954 Geneva Accords, which the US refused to sign, clearly showing they had their own agenda in the area well before the War and were determined not to let anything stand in the way of it, even when America did finally get involved it was for its own reasons, not to bail an ally out.
Of course the US had its own agenda - no First World power has ever done ANYTHING without its own agenda. The spark for the brushfire, so to speak, was the overthrow at Dien Bien Phu. If the French presence was uninterrupted, fears of the Red Menace spreading down the peninsula would have been much more relaxed. And the "advisers and analysts" included spec ops who were actively involved in training and directing South Vietnamese militia at least as early as '56. Here's where you should be proud - part of the origin of that particular brand of spec ops was "The Devil's Brigade" of WWII, of which a percentage comprised Canadian troops.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15380
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Carrier

Post by Teaos »

Wait wait wait wait wait... is someone here defending The Maginot Line? :lol:
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Mikey »

I was witing for you to see that. :)
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Bryan Moore
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2730
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:39 am
Location: Perpetual Summer Camp
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Bryan Moore »

Teaos wrote:Wait wait wait wait wait... is someone here defending The Maginot Line? :lol:
Had the Maginot Line been implemented pre-WWI, we wouldn't have had that conflict. Pre-WWII, we had an expensive speedbump.
Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away, don't you hear me calling you?
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Aaron »

Tsukiyumi wrote: What, you mean when they forcibly boarded and sunk it? Greenpeace should invest in some environmentally-friendly deck guns...
Hardly, they used divers and mined the hull.
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Aaron »

Teaos wrote:Wait wait wait wait wait... is someone here defending The Maginot Line? :lol:
The Maginot Line worked exactly as designed, the Germans did an end run around it yes but that does not negate it's effectiveness. It forced the Germans to use a difficult route for their invasion and really only the Allies disasterous and ineffective response time doomed France (and their abysmal armoured tactics). Parts of the LIne held out for months because the Germans didn't have the required weapons to breach it.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Although no military expert to be sure, I tend to be with General Patton when he said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."

All the men and resources expended on the Maginot line... how many tank divisions could France have fielded with that effort? Enough to turn the Germans back...? Maybe.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Mikey »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Although no military expert to be sure, I tend to be with General Patton when he said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."

All the men and resources expended on the Maginot line... how many tank divisions could France have fielded with that effort? Enough to turn the Germans back...? Maybe.
Even if they just bought Shermans and M18's from the US, it would have been a very signifcant number, and the relative speed of the M18's would have been a huge factor.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Carrier

Post by Captain Seafort »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Although no military expert to be sure, I tend to be with General Patton when he said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."
Fixed fortifications are only a problem when they become a crutch. When used as a sally-port for an attack, or in conjuction with a mobile strategic reserve in defence, they are a great asset, forcing the enemy either to commit far more than the typical one-to-three ratio to launch a successful attack, or in the best cases forcing him to abandon the idea of a direct assault alltogether. As the Maginot line did.
All the men and resources expended on the Maginot line... how many tank divisions could France have fielded with that effort? Enough to turn the Germans back...? Maybe.
None - because the concept of armoured divisions wasn't part of French doctrine - they only started forming them in early '40, and the fourth (under a certain Colonel De Gualle) was partially-formed when the attack came. Overall the French had more and better tanks than the Germans, but they were split up in penny-packets in infantry support roles rather than concentrated, as was Pz Gp Kleist.

What the French needed wasn't more tanks, but a better doctrine and deployment. A decent strategic reserve, even an infantry one, able to move to Sedan when the Germans first attacked and throw their infantry back across the Meuse would have been at the very least a severe problem for the Germans - they had problems securing a bridgehead as it was.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Aaron »

GrahamKennedy wrote:Although no military expert to be sure, I tend to be with General Patton when he said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."
When they are the sole policy. France and the Allies failure at the start of the war was their poor combined arms doctrine, rather than combining infantry and AFV's together as the Germans (and we do now) did in a large formation, they parceled them out in little units to infantry formations or used them in a unit with nothing but tanks. The Germans also had a radio in every vehicle, allowing them to coordinate their efforts on the move. Much of the Allied equipment at the start of the war was superior to the Germans but was badly used.

Parts of the line held for months as did the various ones in Italy and a certain fortress in Belguim had to be attacked by glider troops because the Germans lacked the firepower to take it conventionally.
All the men and resources expended on the Maginot line... how many tank divisions could France have fielded with that effort? Enough to turn the Germans back...? Maybe.
The French had all the kit they needed, they used it in a poor fashion.
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Aaron »

Mikey wrote: Even if they just bought Shermans and M18's from the US, it would have been a very signifcant number, and the relative speed of the M18's would have been a huge factor.
You think they should have bought vehicles that didn't exist at the time? :?

The US wouldn't have sold them anyway. Remember, isolationism.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Mikey »

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Mikey wrote: Even if they just bought Shermans and M18's from the US, it would have been a very signifcant number, and the relative speed of the M18's would have been a huge factor.
You think they should have bought vehicles that didn't exist at the time? :?

The US wouldn't have sold them anyway. Remember, isolationism.
I didn't say that they should have bought them AT THE SAME TIME as the Maginot Line was built.

And, we were selling enough to England via Lend/Lease.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Carrier

Post by Aaron »

Mikey wrote:
I didn't say that they should have bought them AT THE SAME TIME as the Maginot Line was built.

And, we were selling enough to England via Lend/Lease.
France had fallen before then.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Carrier

Post by Deepcrush »

I'm just getting back but this thread pissed me off. To many people trying to think in modern terms about carriers in ST. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS! :madashell:

First off, Carriers 'In Universe' for Star Trek are shown in the worst possible light as the writers carry the "Battleships Only" idea. As we have seen the IQ needed for the use of combined arms does not exist in ST. Writers who couldn't beat a broken brick in a spelling test are trying to show a style of warfare that makes zero sense. The proper deployment of a Carrier in ST would be in support of large fleet actions during war or border patrol during peace time. Reasons to follow, but not yet. A carrier in ST would in no way need to be built like one of modern concern. They don't need a runway for craft to launch and by no means would they have to be useless or easy targets in ship to ship combat. They just wouldn't be the best. The carrier's best use would be as a C&C ship using its craft to support skirmish units or pick off wounded ships to allow your big guns to continue on elsewhere. To say a carrier is useless in battle is just plain stupid. There is a use and a very important use even though it is a far different one. A carrier could be something as simple as a GCS that has been modified to carry craft instead of sci-depts. GCS have massive launch bays and cargo bays. Some simple changes would make for a nasty surprise.

Second off, the craft as I have spoken. The word fighter fails to really explain them. They are not fighters, call them F/B's for terms of use but they are not stand alone fighter craft. Nor are they true bombers, bombers don't dogfight but we've seen the craft do this. They have also been shown to carry PTs and act in swarms to overtake an enemy ship. The marquis used a group of them to bring down a Galor class starship. One of those couldn't even dent a Galor but in numbers were able to mass fire PTs and Phasers which combined to their victory. Now a Galor is not much but the G'H Bugs are even weaker. I would bet that a small group of F/Bs would do well to engage at Bug. If the Bug rams one then you lose a pilot or two but you'd take out the Bug or damage it so badly that your other F/Bs wouldn't have to much trouble to finish the Bug off. In short, use the craft as fighter/bombers and mix both roles into one. They can't win the battle for you but they can do a fair share of hurt and give your enemy that many more targets to have to deal with.

Lastly, proper use of the two. The carrier as said should act as a C&C ship / support ship. A couple of these in a battle would really help organize the actions of the fleet overall. The f/b should act in mass waves. When the two fleets meet and come together send your f/b wings to attack escorts and cruisers. Don't send them in first as this will just get them picked apart for no good reason. Each f/b carries 4 or 6 PTs, so a wing of them being about 50 in number could bring 200 to 300 PTs onto a target. That would hurt! A squadron against an escort ship (Bug, Breen, BoP, and the likes) and pair or trio of squadrons against a cruiser. For the big bang you would gather your hole wing and use it on an enemy battleship. The key is making sure that the F/Bs are used as support. Not the main attack force. Keep them back until you've mixed it up with the enemy. In SoA the fighters did fair harm to the cardis but Dukat soaked up the losses not because they weren't doing any harm but because he had 2000 ships on the way and he didn't have to care about the toll. If Sisko would have attacked with everything at once and used his fighters to zip about hitting targets of opportunity then he could have faired better.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Post Reply