World War III is near, long speech by Chinese Defense minister

[FreeMason]

Ummm...

7th fleet: 40-50 ships

Persian Gulf: 93,000 square miles

Come again?

There are only two areas for combat that would occur in the Persian Gulf.

The straight of hormuz (approx. 100 miles across at the widest) and the coast near to Iraq.

Especially if you're going to attack with fishing vessels.

50 ships operating in this are would make it very crowded.

 

[Kelzie]

Allow me to ellaborate, if memory serves correctly.

The area this took place in is called the "5th Fleet Area of Operations".

At the present there are 7 ships operating in the Fifth Fleet AO. This doesn't constitute the Fifth Fleet. This is merely a carrier force and two expeditionary groups.

http://www.navy.mil/palib/news/.www... the Persian Gulf. That is absolutely wrong.

 

[Kelzie]

There are only two areas for combat that would occur in the Persian Gulf.

The straight of hormuz (approx. 100 miles across at the widest) and the coast near to Iraq.

Especially if you're going to attack with fishing vessels.

50 ships operating in this are would make it very crowded.

It was no specific country and that's two miles per ship.

 

[FreeMason]

What does it matter how many ships are in there right now? You said the 7th fleet could not fit inside the Persian Gulf. That is absolutely wrong.

Well on the statement of the Persian gulf I'm thinking in terms of where you'd be concerned...there won't be any Naval conflict in the center of that Gulf.

And concerning how many ships are there now, is to show you that your wargames article has the wrong word.

2/3rds of the fleet would be approximately 30 ships.

30 ships did not engage in that excersise.

And a Naval war would have expanded the fleets to approximately 200 ships each.

So actual excersises would have much more problems for the fishermen warship destroyers to deal with.

 

[FreeMason]

It was no specific country and that's two miles per ship.

Two miles per ship is not much maneuvering room, and I guess suddenly we're forgetting that there's other naval traffic, other obsticles (and if we want to be specific, the Stratights of Hormuz pinches out at less than 40 miles).

Trust me, if there were a battle in the Persian gulf, Naval wise, it'd be in the Straights of Hormuz.

That's the only place the Navy is at full alert in the world.

The reason is because the area is so constricting that a Carrier Battle Group needs to go in a few at a time. (I'm unaware of what the depth of the straight is but this will limit movement as well, which might push it closer to shore than the actual bredth of the straight would suggest). And they are so close to shore at times they need to be concerned with possible attacks the likes your article was talking about.

 

[Kelzie]

Well on the statement of the Persian gulf I'm thinking in terms of where you'd be concerned...there won't be any Naval conflict in the center of that Gulf.

And concerning how many ships are there now, is to show you that your wargames article has the wrong word.

2/3rds of the fleet would be approximately 30 ships.

30 ships did not engage in that excersise.

And a Naval war would have expanded the fleets to approximately 200 ships each.

So actual excersises would have much more problems for the fishermen warship destroyers to deal with.

You...do realize that the ships weren't actually there, right?

 

[FreeMason]

Oh ok...so everything you were arguing just flew out the window.

It's one thing to conceptualize on paper.

It's another thing to put men out there and pull it off.

It should seem easy to surround an entire Army and destroy it.

But it's only been done once...in the entire history of warfare. By Hannibal in the 2nd Punic War.

That's the only time in the history of the world, that one army completely surrounded another army.

The second time wasn't a complete surrounding, but should be mentioned due to its near completeness, was by General Schwarzkopf in the Gulf war. He almost completely surrounded the Iraqi Army, but failed to do so.

Yet, on paper, why can't it be done?

 

[Kelzie]

Oh ok...so everything you were arguing just flew out the window.

It's one thing to conceptualize on paper.

It's another thing to put men out there and pull it off.

It should seem easy to surround an entire Army and destroy it.

But it's only been done once...in the entire history of warfare. By Hannibal in the 2nd Punic War.

That's the only time in the history of the world, that one army completely surrounded another army.

The second time wasn't a complete surrounding, but should be mentioned due to its near completeness, was by General Schwarzkopf in the Gulf war. He almost completely surrounded the Iraqi Army, but failed to do so.

Yet, on paper, why can't it be done?

It wasn't "on paper" it was a multi-million dollar simulation. Something our military takes very seriously. It was the second fleet, in case you were interested.

 

[FreeMason]

The second fleet wouldn't actually be in the Persian Gulf...that's the Atlantic Fleet, but also operates in the Pacific.

They probably chose it just because it was easy to have a large selection of ships (it's also the largest Fleet).

Either way, a simulation, and a war, are two entirely different things.

You can take any average fat Halo2, Day of Defeat, Call of Duty, player, throw him into Iraq, and he'll get his butt kicked...yet, he's been playing the "best in simulation technology to date"...probably longer than most people have been training in the military.

Again, it's "on paper", even if it's digital.

The use of these simulations? To know what to expect.

Everything will need to unfold and be smoothed out in the field, but at least you can expect something, and watch for it.

Reminds me of Adm. Nimitz's comment on the war in the Pacific.

"We were prepared for everything, but the Kamikazes".

Never expected it, but had we had a simulation with a smart jack like the guy you mentioned, and thought to himself "well I'm out gunned, let me see what happens when I just fly planes into their ships"....maybe we'd have expected it, and been better prepared.

 

[Kelzie]

The second fleet wouldn't actually be in the Persian Gulf...that's the Atlantic Fleet, but also operates in the Pacific.

They probably chose it just because it was easy to have a large selection of ships (it's also the largest Fleet).

Either way, a simulation, and a war, are two entirely different things.

You can take any average fat Halo2, Day of Defeat, Call of Duty, player, throw him into Iraq, and he'll get his butt kicked...yet, he's been playing the "best in simulation technology to date"...probably longer than most people have been training in the military.

Again, it's "on paper", even if it's digital.

The use of these simulations? To know what to expect.

Everything will need to unfold and be smoothed out in the field, but at least you can expect something, and watch for it.

Reminds me of Adm. Nimitz's comment on the war in the Pacific.

"We were prepared for everything, but the Kamikazes".

Never expected it, but had we had a simulation with a smart jack like the guy you mentioned, and thought to himself "well I'm out gunned, let me see what happens when I just fly planes into their ships"....maybe we'd have expected it, and been better prepared.

Not quite sure what you are talking about. I'm assuming it is some kind of computer game that has nowhere near the effort, knowledge, money, or technology that our military put's into their war games. Is that your only point?

 

[teacher]

I would hardly count 2/3 of our fleet at the hands of fishing boats 90%. Would you?

Oh now that is just going too far. Quit jerking my chain, I'm gonna cry like a 7 year old girl. That was on paper, in computers. I'm talking about real life, like say, oh, I don't know, the Gulf war. Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world. Before that war the left was talking about us running out of body bags. Didn't quite work out like that. We've proven our worth in battle, where it counts. Now that nerd in your link states that Iran would wipe out our Navy. That our carriers won't last 5 minutes. That's just friggin silly. People can go on and on about how we will be easily defeated. Our military will go on and on winning big. A little war game is fun to debate. Just doesn't seem to pan out in real life though.

 

[Kelzie]

Oh now that is just going too far. Quit jerking my chain, I'm gonna cry like a 7 year old girl. That was on paper, in computers. I'm talking about real life, like say, oh, I don't know, the Gulf war. Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world. Before that war the left was talking about us running out of body bags. Didn't quite work out like that. We've proven our worth in battle, where it counts. Now that nerd in your link states that Iran would wipe out our Navy. That our carriers won't last 5 minutes. That's just friggin silly. People can go on and on about how we will be easily defeated. Our military will go on and on winning big. A little war game is fun to debate. Just doesn't seem to pan out in real life though.

There's no need to get cranky with me. It happened. There's no denying that. It was a big deal to happen to our military. No denying that. It could possibly happen in the future. No denying that. Arrogance is a very dangerous thing.

 

[FreeMason]

Actually, CoD is the Military's Simulation for ground combat.

As is the various other war games such as SoCom and whatever that game is that takes place in Iraq (how tacky).

All of them use the simulation programs that the Army uses in testing concepts.

Like I said, paper's good for visualizing, but for actually determining feasibility, no.

So this exercise showed our Navy's vulnerability to "fishing boats with bombs."

Oh hell I'll just use a cliche' example.

Have you seen that movie Glory? It's a horrible movie, very historically inaccurate, but the part I am referring to is dead-on.

Some private is "discharging his rifle" and he's a pretty good shot...so the Colonel steps up to decide to test him.

The Colonel starts yelling in his face and shooting his gun off in the Private's ear while the Private tries to reload...and scares the crap out of him until he just drops his weapon.

The movie probably pulled that from other doccuments I don't know if the Colonel of the 54th ever actually did that himself.

So how does a bunch of "Fishing boats with bombs" perform under heavy missile fire, 5in HE fire, and .50 calibur fire?

Intense...it wouldn't be a shot in the dark.

It'd be the most sophisticated targeting equipment locking-on to the boat and firing approximately 5,000 rounds per minute (a CIWS maintenance man once told me a rough estimate of the actual rate of fire but I've forgotten it).

In fact, let me re-itterate part of his story.

They were testing the Phalanx out with a plane dragging a cable, at the end of the cable was the target.

The Phalanx is so good that the gun shot the target off the bat, and followed the cable up towards the plane before it was shut-down.

To be able to hit a cable travelling at about 300mph is incredible.

 

[Kelzie]

Actually, CoD is the Military's Simulation for ground combat.

As is the various other war games such as SoCom and whatever that game is that takes place in Iraq (how tacky).

All of them use the simulation programs that the Army uses in testing concepts.

Like I said, paper's good for visualizing, but for actually determining feasibility, no.

So this exercise showed our Navy's vulnerability to "fishing boats with bombs."

Oh hell I'll just use a cliche' example.

Have you seen that movie Glory? It's a horrible movie, very historically inaccurate, but the part I am referring to is dead-on.

Some private is "discharging his rifle" and he's a pretty good shot...so the Colonel steps up to decide to test him.

The Colonel starts yelling in his face and shooting his gun off in the Private's ear while the Private tries to reload...and scares the crap out of him until he just drops his weapon.

The movie probably pulled that from other doccuments I don't know if the Colonel of the 54th ever actually did that himself.

So how does a bunch of "Fishing boats with bombs" perform under heavy missile fire, 5in HE fire, and .50 calibur fire?

Intense...it wouldn't be a shot in the dark.

It'd be the most sophisticated targeting equipment locking-on to the boat and firing approximately 5,000 rounds per minute (a CIWS maintenance man once told me a rough estimate of the actual rate of fire but I've forgotten it).

In fact, let me re-itterate part of his story.

They were testing the Phalanx out with a plane dragging a cable, at the end of the cable was the target.

The Phalanx is so good that the gun shot the target off the bat, and followed the cable up towards the plane before it was shut-down.

To be able to hit a cable travelling at about 300mph is incredible.

Completely irrelevant. They never fired on the fishing ships.

 

[FreeMason]

Oh wait...so now the situation gets even more rediculous.

When was this "simulation" anyway?

Because today in the the Straights of Hormuz any vessel approaching a certain distance of the Navy Warships will be fired upon.

If we were say in ... open war with China...every ship that approaches our warships would be fired upon.

But now you just revealed that these fishing boats weren't fired upon.

So technically...it was a fault in our stop-gap, not a fault in technology.

 

[Kelzie]

Oh wait...so now the situation gets even more rediculous.

When was this "simulation" anyway?

Because today in the the Straights of Hormuz any vessel approaching a certain distance of the Navy Warships will be fired upon.

If we were say in ... open war with China...every ship that approaches our warships would be fired upon.

But now you just revealed that these fishing boats weren't fired upon.

So technically...it was a fault in our stop-gap, not a fault in technology.

Don't blame me because the military is fallible. That was my entire point. And it was in 2002.

 

[FreeMason]

Don't blame me because the military is fallible. That was my entire point. And it was in 2002.

Yeah, the Navy's not making that mistake in the real world...so really it's not an applicable statement...and this thread discusses world war III.

The idea of there being a world war III requires the enemy to survive long enough for it to be a global war.

That'd mean our Navy will have to meet its match...fishing boats won't cut it.

 

[Kelzie]

Yeah, the Navy's not making that mistake in the real world...so really it's not an applicable statement...and this thread discusses world war III.

The idea of there being a world war III requires the enemy to survive long enough for it to be a global war.

That'd mean our Navy will have to meet its match...fishing boats won't cut it.

Hence, the point of war games. To show possible problems, ie. fallabilities.

And fishing boats obviously cut it.

 

[FreeMason]

Yeah, but Kelzie, Fishing Boats wouldn't have done crap to the US Navy in WW2...we'd have blown them out of the water if they were coming too close.

And...today...same thing.

The only reason the Cole happend, we weren't at War.

 

[Kelzie]

Yeah, but Kelzie, Fishing Boats wouldn't have done crap to the US Navy in WW2...we'd have blown them out of the water if they were coming too close.

And...today...same thing.

The only reason the Cole happend, we weren't at War.

Obviously not.

 

[FreeMason]

Kelzie you just got finished saying that they never fired upon the Fishing boats...so obviously yes...today...that tactic would not work.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Ask and ye shall receive. You'd like this guy teach. He thinks outside the box too.



http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html

And my bad. He sunk 2/3 of our fleet. Not 1/3.

I ACTUALLY FOUND THIS ARTICLE VERY INTERESTING. I also kinda found it odd that a Russian based newspaper(the exile) would post such a story. Also van Ripen is a general in the marine corps not a admiral in the navy which kinda makes this war game useless since someone of no afluence in the navy wants to experiment with a navy war game.

USMC General named Paul van Riper, the hero of the story for most readers. Even the Army Times, when it broke the story, admitted that van Riper has a reputation as an "asshole" who has a grudge against hi-tech scenarios like the one the military was testing. He also has a reputation as a guy who lives for the chance to make the brass look bad in war games.

Also why would someone count this war game even credible since even the Russians think this guy is a total a$$hole and that lives for the chance to make the brass look bad in a war game?

Also this war game was done with the US naval fleet without any air support which is a fallacy in its own cause its all predicated on air support from carrier battle groups. And it was done with 1940's technology with 1940's naval fleet. This war game has no predication on todays naval fleet. First off if a bunch of little fishing boats were maneuvering around our modern big sitting ducks then they would be greeted by each of the ships defenses ranging from 12in guns to 50cal machine guns pointed right at these little fishing boats. Not to mention we have guided missle cruise ships that can level a place the size of Yankee stadium and can deliver a missle the size of MOAB to hit within a meter of homeplate. I am sure a fishing boat that can be seen will be no problem. Also with air support this little war game will be even more tantilising.

Also this war game makes me laugh as it never describes exactly how these little vessels are able to sink these big sitting ducks as they call them. What do these fishing boats have? A bunch of torpedos strapped to it? If so then the general must have known all he needed to do was swarm this boat with machine gun shells and chances are this little fishing vessel wouldnt last very long.

However, maybe I am the only military guy who has common sense?

Or maybe I read the wrong link?

 

[SKILMATIC]

There's no need to get cranky with me. It happened. There's no denying that. It was a big deal to happen to our military. No denying that. It could possibly happen in the future. No denying that. Arrogance is a very dangerous thing.

So is stupidity.

 

[FreeMason]

I ACTUALLY FOUND THIS ARTICLE VERY INTERESTING. I also kinda found it odd that a Russian based newspaper(the exile) would post such a story. Also van Ripen is a general in the marine corps not a admiral in the navy which kinda makes this war game useless since someone of no afluence in the navy wants to experiment with a navy war game. Also why would someone count this war game even credible since even the Russians think this guy is a total a$$hole and that lives for the chance to make the brass look bad in a war game?

Also this war game was done with the US naval fleet without any air support which is a fallacy in its own cause its all predicated on air support from carrier battle groups. And it was done with 1940's technology with 1940's naval fleet. This war game has no predication on todays naval fleet. First off if a bunch of little fishing boats were maneuvering around our modern big sitting ducks then they would be greeted by each of the ships defenses ranging from 12in guns to 50cal machine guns pointed right at these little fishing boats. Not to mention we have guided missle cruise ships that can level a place the size of Yankee stadium and can deliver a missle the size of MOAB to hit within a meter of homeplate. I am sure a fishing boat that can be seen will be no problem. Also with air support this little war game will be even more tantilising.

Also this war game makes me laugh as it never describes exactly how these little vessels are able to sink these big sitting ducks as they call them. What do these fishing boats have? A bunch of torpedos strapped to it? If so then the general must have known all he needed to do was swarm this boat with machine gun shells and chances are this little fishing vessel wouldnt last very long.

However, maybe I am the only military guy who has common sense?

Or maybe I read the wrong link?

No, you read the link, I didn't bother to read the link, thanks for summing-up in one post what took me 20ish...maybe I'll go read it now for kicks and giggles because...it sounds funny.

 

[SKILMATIC]

No, you read the link, I didn't bother to read the link, thanks for summing-up in one post what took me 20ish...maybe I'll go read it now for kicks and giggles because...it sounds funny.

O your welcome. I usually can do this all the time. It just takes liberals and socialists a little longer to understand. :2wave: