| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 2031 ( 3-May-2008 04:02:54) |
Joshua Kintner wrote: Then you will also recall that the REFORGER convoys got through. |
||
|
Joshua Kintner |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 415 ( 3-May-2008 07:25:29) |
Then you will also recall that the REFORGER convoys got through. But only in effective numbers AFTER the Backfire staging bases were put of comission from hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a squadron of 688s that had snuck in close to the Russian coastline. Of course speaking about that particular tactic, a single Ohio, one of four converted, can put up 72 Tomahawks, which should suffice for temporarily at least disabling five or six airfields. Adding onto that though, what really sucks is that if the cluster bomb munitions ban is passed over in Europe, then the Rockeye warheads will no longer be avilable for the tomahawks, which really sucks because they are useful when attacking airfields. |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4211 ( 3-May-2008 14:29:57) |
The US isn't party to any ban on cluster bombs, so they're still an option for US forces regardless of what Europe does. OTOH, it's not obvious
that cluster bombs are the right solution for taking out airfields. Gulf War 1 experience tends to suggest that hitting the aircraft shelters and other point
targets works better than scattering bomblets all over the place. That's probably why modern incarnations of Tomahawk all have unitary warheads.
PS: Rockeye is not a generic term for cluster bombs -- it's a specific aircraft-dropped weapon and was never a Tomahawk warhead option. |
||
|
Michael Hoddy |
|||
|
Posts: 182 ( 3-May-2008 18:21:21) |
a single Ohio, one of four converted, can put up 72 Tomahawks Maybe I missed some new piece of info, but to my knowledge, each of the 22 converted silos on an Ohio SSGN can house 7 TLAMs, so the number is more like 154 possible missiles per boat. |
||
|
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 2032 ( 4-May-2008 03:05:45) |
Joshua Kintner wrote: Unfortunately you miss the point. So, let me make it with more clarity. Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. |
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4519 ( 4-May-2008 03:49:20) |
wabpilot wrote: |
||
|
wabpilot |
|||
|
Posts: 2033 ( 5-May-2008 02:14:32) |
Admiral Beez wrote: General Nathan Bedford Forest, better known for his terrible post-war career was right about one thing, "whoever gets there firstust with the mostust
wins."
|
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4521 ( 5-May-2008 17:57:35) |
But what about Vietnam...surely in the 1960s and 1970s no one had a better handle on logistics, but the USA got beat on tactics (both at home and in country)?
|
||
|
Dolphinstriker |
|||
|
Posts: 1840 ( 5-May-2008 18:24:45) |
But what about Vietnam...surely in the 1960s and 1970s no one had a better handle on logistics, but the USA got beat on tactics (both at home and in country)? The US didn't get beaten in Viet Nam in military terms, it won the tactical war. It got beaten politically and psychologically; the American public and leadership wasn't prepared to pay the price to win ultimate victory in Viet Nam, and that soon became apparent, thanks to the news media, to the Viet Namese communists. |
||
|
Nightwatch2 |
|||
|
Posts: 3551 ( 5-May-2008 19:06:00) |
Joshua Kintner wrote: not sure what your point is. The thread first asked about how effective the anti-carrier tactics of the Soviets would have been, and you have shifted somewhere into the Battle of the North Atlantic in general. Not sure the tactics in a piece of fiction, however entertaining, are particularly relevant. So let me ask, what is your point or question?
Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
|
||
