- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PACOM Chief wants the Army to create ship-killing units
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:00 am to Topwater Trout
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:00 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
yep and probably more powerful than almost all other navy's combined
1
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:46 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
BTW, you've not lived until you've had drainage tubes pulled out of your chest
Had them pulled from my stomach a couple of months ago. I feel your pain.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:57 am to Spaceman Spiff
There used to be such a thing in the Army as Coast Artillery so there is a precedent.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 11:06 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Up until WWII, the army was in the business of sinking ships with land based systems. They called it "Costal Defense Artillery".
the exact designation was the Coast Artillery Corps...and because of the odd setup, Patriot Missiles belong to the Army and not the Air Force...
My father's WW2 discharge papers read "HQ Battery, 777th AAA SW Bn (SP), CAC"
Posted on 11/17/16 at 11:07 am to Jim Rockford
Yes, the precedent is there. Now the question, are new installations going to made for this? Island bases? Not many coastal bases in the US so I wonder just what the plan would be.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 11:15 am to slackster
Granted, it didn't work very well, but...
quote:
the Gustav Gun weighed in at a massive 1344 tons, so heavy that even though it was attached to a rail car, it still had to be disassembled before moving so as to not destroy the twin set of tracks as it passed over. This 4-story (12 meters) behemoth stood 20 feet wide (7 meters) and 140 feet long (47 meters). Its 500 man crew, commanded by a Major-General, needed nearly three full days (54 hours, to be exact) to set it up and prep for firing. With a maximum elevation of 48 degrees, the Gustav shell could fire shells weighing seven tons to a range of 47 kilometers (29 miles). The caliber was 80 cm, and Gustav could fire 1 round every 30 to 45 minutes.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 11:17 am to 19
That is one hell of a gun. I love our old battleships and their 16" guns that fired shells weighing approximately what a VW weighs...for a distance of 20+. Good stuff!
Posted on 11/17/16 at 11:36 am to Spaceman Spiff
It's good thinking. An over the horizon system anti-sea deployed by land units is a game changer. Go for something infantry based make the army pay for it, Marines take it over.
Unless they ruin it again.
Other countries are coming up with these solutions against us. Invest in knowing how to, to defeat it more easily.
And then sell the stripped down version to China's competitors.
Unless they ruin it again.
Other countries are coming up with these solutions against us. Invest in knowing how to, to defeat it more easily.
And then sell the stripped down version to China's competitors.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 11:42 am to Spaceman Spiff
There has never been a more refined, lethal force than the United States Army.
THIS WE'LL DEFEND!
THIS WE'LL DEFEND!
Posted on 11/17/16 at 12:54 pm to King Teal
quote:
There has never been a more refined, lethal force than the United States Army.
You mudhens can think that all you want but the US Army is terrible at anticipating the needs of soldiers in a future combat scenario.
Lethal absolutely...refined?... my arse
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 11/18/16 at 2:50 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:fricking squid...
Tigeralum2008
Posted on 11/18/16 at 3:31 am to TDcline
quote:
Even from land, there aren't many Army bases within 6 hours of an ocean.
LOL whaaaaaaaaaaaat
try again
Posted on 11/18/16 at 3:38 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Yes, the precedent is there. Now the question, are new installations going to made for this? Island bases? Not many coastal bases in the US so I wonder just what the plan would be
It would be a 100% mobile system. Most likely mounted on what HIMARS is mounted on.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:03 am to rmnldr
Amongst the pride members have in their respective services and the general ignorance of 99% of the population that never serve, people forget one thing:
The United States Army is 'the military' and the rest of the branches bring their own unique attributes to support the land war.
There is one common denominator in any conflict abroad, big and small, and it is "boots-on-the-ground". The Marines can do that as well, but not in a sustained manner. The Army is the only branch that has perfected the business of war in EVERY aspect, from the behind-the-scenes that the public has no idea about, to the most visible, the infantryman actually putting the steel on target (armor and FA, as well).
The Army wages total war, and always will. This is why expanding the role of the ones who are already experts on killing makes perfect sense.
The United States Army is 'the military' and the rest of the branches bring their own unique attributes to support the land war.
There is one common denominator in any conflict abroad, big and small, and it is "boots-on-the-ground". The Marines can do that as well, but not in a sustained manner. The Army is the only branch that has perfected the business of war in EVERY aspect, from the behind-the-scenes that the public has no idea about, to the most visible, the infantryman actually putting the steel on target (armor and FA, as well).
The Army wages total war, and always will. This is why expanding the role of the ones who are already experts on killing makes perfect sense.
This post was edited on 11/18/16 at 4:05 am
Posted on 11/18/16 at 5:47 am to Spaceman Spiff
I'm pretty sure that ADM Harris is well aware of the capabilities that the Navy possesses.
His may have stumbled upon some Navy knowledge in his 38 years in the Navy.
He said exactly why he wanted the Army to do this: a cross domain solution.
His may have stumbled upon some Navy knowledge in his 38 years in the Navy.
He said exactly why he wanted the Army to do this: a cross domain solution.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:16 am to PairofDucks
Link?
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:26 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
“I believe that the army can do a lot in cross-domain fires,” the admiral said in remarks delivered at an event sponsored by Defense One on November 15 held in Washington D.C. “I think the army should be in the business of sinking ships with land-based surface-to-ship missile systems,” he noted.
The Diplomat
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:29 am to Spaceman Spiff
So are we saying that you can't fire artillery at ships now? What about all the tank killing missiles are they not capable at being fired at ships whatsoever? Do hell fires and whatever else the army helicopters carry not work at all on ships? Do Air Force dumb bombs, A-10 30mm guns, etc. not work on ships at all anymore?
As said, there's no reason for the army to need this right now. First off, what kind of fleet are they talking about? Most boats the army will ever run into are like 50ft or smaller patrol boats that they already have plenty of items that could take them out.
As said, there's no reason for the army to need this right now. First off, what kind of fleet are they talking about? Most boats the army will ever run into are like 50ft or smaller patrol boats that they already have plenty of items that could take them out.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:32 am to baldona
Read my reply right above yours. You're arguing with a bunch of incorrect information.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:36 am to PairofDucks
quote:
PairofDucks
Thank you, sir
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News