Thai navy joins pirate patrol

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

No carriers? That's discounting one of the most important and decisive naval weapon in World War II; who has ever voluntarily sailed into combat without them?

In World War II fleets wouldn't be detected when they're 'in your face', there were amazing inventions such as recon aircraft (Even on cruisers and battleships) and shipborne radar that fixed this problem, much as they do nowadays.

And torpedoes can't technically fly without a rocket...

i know carriers were the turning point of naval warfare, ut im talking about good old fashion gunships. basically not counting ANY aircraft including recon, then yea youd detect fleets pretty dam close.

And respectfully, what are you smoking? we have intercontinental ballistic missles. we have missles that can travel anywhere in thw world. such as NUKES. You must be forgetting that subs have ICMB nukes. one missle = one dead fleet. plus, you can detect a fleet ANYWHERE in the world now thanks to satelites. WWII fleets had NOOOONE of that. hell, they still used celestial navigation. a battleship can throw a shell a HELL of a lot farther then it can pick up ships back then. So, assuming there isnt any recon of any sort, and lets just say its a little rough conditions, then Youll be in each others face before you get ahold of each other. there wasnt any kind of missles on those ships. Except for dumb rockets. those they did have. that meant that they had to rely on guns and torpedoes. i would pay whatever it took if i could see a giant WWII fleet battle. ones with all aspects. attacks by guns, torpedoes, and planes too. except THIs time the gunships will actually be in the fight as opposed to the normal Long range plane vs plane vs ship battles. that would be marvelous. very entertaining.

Itd be exciting to see the battle. and i have this wierd thrill about seing ships sink. i think watching the titanic when i was like 4 helped develop that. Its interesting to me to see giant behemoths like the Titanic and Yamato go under. i dont know why. and i also like to envision myself inside the actual ship when its sinking. Wierd thrill, i guess.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i know carriers were the turning point of naval warfare, ut im talking about good old fashion gunships. basically not counting ANY aircraft including recon, then yea youd detect fleets pretty dam close.

Well then you should focus on WWI, or that German fight they named that Battleship after. Because if you disregard Aircraft when discussing WWII you might as well discount Submarines or Radar as well.

And respectfully, what are you smoking? we have intercontinental ballistic missles. we have missles that can travel anywhere in thw world. such as NUKES. You must be forgetting that subs have ICMB nukes. one missle = one dead fleet. plus, you can detect a fleet ANYWHERE in the world now thanks to satelites.

Assuming the Recon Sats have not been taking out by ASAT birds or Hunter Killer Sats or blinded by ground based lasers. The US, and the USSR spent a lot of time and money on finding ways to do it, the threat go so real that they had to make a treaty to outlaw such weapons less one side use them and then launch a nuclear attack while the other side was blinded. (BTW the 1st successful satellite intercept was way back in the early '70s, by an manned armed spacecraft no less).

ICBMs can be taken out too. The SM-3 has proven that capability.

WWII fleets had NOOOONE of that. hell, they still used celestial navigation.

Incorrect while Celestial Navigation was important (its still used, read above to guess why) they did have radio navigation like the British GEE system..

a battleship can throw a shell a HELL of a lot farther then it can pick up ships back then. So, assuming there isnt any recon of any sort, and lets just say its a little rough conditions, then Youll be in each others face before you get ahold of each other. there wasnt any kind of missles on those ships. Except for dumb rockets. those they did have. that meant that they had to rely on guns and torpedoes. i would pay whatever it took if i could see a giant WWII fleet battle. ones with all aspects. attacks by guns, torpedoes, and planes too. except THIs time the gunships will actually be in the fight as opposed to the normal Long range plane vs plane vs ship battles. that would be marvelous. very entertaining.

Itd be exciting to see the battle. and i have this wierd thrill about seing ships sink. i think watching the titanic when i was like 4 helped develop that. Its interesting to me to see giant behemoths like the Titanic and Yamato go under. i dont know why. and i also like to envision myself inside the actual ship when its sinking. Wierd thrill, i guess.

Look up The Battle of Surigao Strait. Just about the only time such a thing happened in WWII. However the US Battleships utilized Radar for detection and fire control, the Japanese did not- take a wild guess how it turned out...

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well then you should focus on WWI, or that German fight they named that Battleship after. Because if you disregard Aircraft when discussing WWII you might as well discount Submarines or Radar as well.

Assuming the Recon Sats have not been taking out by ASAT birds or Hunter Killer Sats or blinded by ground based lasers. The US, and the USSR spent a lot of time and money on finding ways to do it, the threat go so real that they had to make a treaty to outlaw such weapons less one side use them and then launch a nuclear attack while the other side was blinded. (BTW the 1st successful satellite intercept was way back in the early '70s, by an manned armed spacecraft no less).

ICBMs can be taken out too. The SM-3 has proven that capability.

Incorrect while Celestial Navigation was important (its still used, read above to guess why) they did have radio navigation like the British GEE system..

Look up The Battle of Surigao Strait. Just about the only time such a thing happened in WWII. However the US Battleships utilized Radar for detection and fire control, the Japanese did not- take a wild guess how it turned out...

well, i love the Air aspect of WWII, but it was the last major war where major head-to-head gun battles.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

well, i love the Air aspect of WWII, but it was the last major war where major head-to-head gun battles.

A head to head gun battle was one of the things the British feared most during the Falklands war. The ARA General Belgrano (Fmr. USS Phoenix CL 46) was feared that if it got within gun range of the British task force her longer range guns would devastate them, her armor was believed to be able to be able to protect her from all but a determined attack using modern weapons. Torpedoes or an airstrike would have been the TF's only reliable method of sinking her as their naval guns lack the range to engage and their Exocets like most ASMs lacked armor piercing warheads.

I think that last Gun vs. Gun battle involving regular naval forces was in the 1990s between North and South Korea. In Vietnam there were a few gun vs gun battles between ships I think (mostly armed junks and sampans against US patrol boats.)

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

A head to head gun battle was one of the things the British feared most during the Falklands war. The ARA General Belgrano (Fmr. USS Phoenix CL 46) was feared that if it got within gun range of the British task force her longer range guns would devastate them, her armor was believed to be able to be able to protect her from all but a determined attack using modern weapons. Torpedoes or an airstrike would have been the TF's only reliable method of sinking her as their naval guns lack the range to engage and their Exocets like most ASMs lacked armor piercing warheads.

I think that last Gun vs. Gun battle involving regular naval forces was in the 1990s between North and South Korea. In Vietnam there were a few gun vs gun battles between ships I think (mostly armed junks and sampans against US patrol boats.)

nothing on a scale comparable with WWII though.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

nothing on a scale comparable with WWII though.

Well the Falklands was the last time two evenly matched naval and air forces met in battle. And the forces on both sides were quite large.

UK:
2 x CVs
1 x ACV (Atlantic Conveyor)
6 x DDGs
17 x FFs
5 x SSNs
1 x SSK
8 x Anphibs
5 x Minesweepers
3 x Armed Auxiliaries
+/-54 x Auxiliaries

28 x Sea Harriers
32 x Sea Kings
~80 x Helicopters
~15 x Maritime Patrol
4 x Heavy Bombers
~20 x Tankers
~6 x assorted aircraft

1 x Marine Brigade
1 x Inf Brigade

Arg:
1 x CV
1 x CL
2 x DDG
5 x DDs
3 x FFs
4 x PCs
2 x SS
1 x Anphib
26 x Auxiliaries

92 x Fighters and light attack jets
12 x Carrier Attack Jets
24+ x Lighter bombers
8 x Medium Bombers
~60 x Support Aircraft
8 x ASW Aircraft (6 Carrier Based)
~25 x Helicopters

2 x Mech Inf Brigades
2 x Arty Brigades
1 x Marine Battalion
1 x Marine Arty Battalion

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well the Falklands was the last time two evenly matched naval and air forces met in battle. And the forces on both sides were quite large.

UK:
2 x CVs
1 x ACV (Atlantic Conveyor)
6 x DDGs
17 x FFs
5 x SSNs
1 x SSK
8 x Anphibs
5 x Minesweepers
3 x Armed Auxiliaries
+/-54 x Auxiliaries

28 x Sea Harriers
32 x Sea Kings
~80 x Helicopters
~15 x Maritime Patrol
4 x Heavy Bombers
~20 x Tankers
~6 x assorted aircraft

1 x Marine Brigade
1 x Inf Brigade

Arg:
1 x CV
1 x CL
2 x DDG
5 x DDs
3 x FFs
4 x PCs
2 x SS
1 x Anphib
26 x Auxiliaries

92 x Fighters and light attack jets
12 x Carrier Attack Jets
24+ x Lighter bombers
8 x Medium Bombers
~60 x Support Aircraft
8 x ASW Aircraft (6 Carrier Based)
~25 x Helicopters

2 x Mech Inf Brigades
2 x Arty Brigades
1 x Marine Battalion
1 x Marine Arty Battalion

still, considering all gun vs gun battles in WWII it still isnt on a scale with WWII

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

still, considering all gun vs gun battles in WWII it still isnt on a scale with WWII

I would say forces involved are about equal to those involved in some of the naval battles in the Solomons and Guadalcanal campaigns or the Java sea battles.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I would say forces involved are about equal to those involved in some of the naval battles in the Solomons and Guadalcanal campaigns or the Java sea battles.

i meant total

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i meant total

Short of a war between China and Russia/India or the entire mid east attacking Israel and the US that not going to happen in the current political climate.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Short of a war between China and Russia/India or the entire mid east attacking Israel and the US that not going to happen in the current political climate.

exactly. WWII is Insanely interesting to me. Its every aspect of all eras of naval combat rolled into one. not to mention the tech on land and all the oeprations and attacks. fascinating to me.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

still, considering all gun vs gun battles in WWII it still isnt on a scale with WWII

Yet WWII doesn't even come close to WWI when it comes to the scale of gun battles.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Yet WWII doesn't even come close to WWI when it comes to the scale of gun battles.

Thats obviously because they didnt HAVE anything but guns. at least, nothing as POWERFUL as the guns back then.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Thats obviously because they didnt HAVE anything but guns. at least, nothing as POWERFUL as the guns back then.

Submarine attacks (both gun and torpedo), air attacks and mines accounted for more ships sunk than gunfire by surface ships in WWI.