Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard stages mock attack

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by CAC, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:34 AM.

  1. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ....is it that important to the US anymore? we are not as dependent on their oil as much, I thought?....however, the Middle East oil does affect the economy of the world
     
  2. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    .....the US military constantly updates/reevaluates/etc it's strategy and tactics---for many scenarios and countries ....
    .....tiny Israel was ''surrounded'', outnumbered in all categories, and with a very narrow, vulnerable front, beat the Middle Easterners --many times
    ...so, I wouldn't worry too much about Iran/etc
     
  3. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ...I was on the Nassau.....and the Inchon.....of course, we thought the Nassau was very ''modern''' ...now they are all decommissioned..I never looked it up, but how big is our Gator Navy now? compared to back then?
     
  4. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..I agree....when I first read about it, I thought it was very ''odd''
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    We still get 20% of our oil from the Mid-East, not near the 60%+ of the 70's. But, without it, we would be paying a lot more at the pump.

    So yes, we are still dependent on it, just not like we used to be.
     
  6. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    You miss the point.

    Beating them is not the problem. Losing an aircraft carrier to do so, would be a devastating loss of prestige to the US.
     
    CAC likes this.
  7. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,360
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Nail - hammer - hit
     
  8. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    no-I don't miss the point.......you are doing it again--you don't think realistically---you think there will be NO losses in a conflict???!!!!
     
  9. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..the US ''lost prestige'' at Pearl Harbor--lots of ships/planes pounded, damaged, lost ......
    ..Britain lost prestige at Dunkirk
    etc etc
    .....'''''prestige'''''???!!! we lost that a long time ago--at Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, etc etc = irrelevant
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Realistically, the US should not lose a supercarrier to Iran.

    Realistically, if the US did lose a supercarrier to Iran, the US lost.

    It is not that there will or will not be losses, but how the public perceives those losses.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2020 at 8:45 AM
    belasar likes this.
  11. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Quite relevant...Foolish not to think otherwise.

    We lost Vietnam, because we became over confident, Tet was the equivalent to us losing a supercarrier.

    We lost Somalia, because Delta & Rangers had their asses handed to them when they got overconfident...Another "supercarrier" & another "war" lost.
     
  12. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,360
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    It’s not just prestige...every time something like happens it tells the bad guys that the US is not invincible...that they are human. To quote an academic giant “If it bleeds, we can kill it”
     
  13. Carronade

    Carronade Ace Patron  

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,562
    Likes Received:
    467
    When I was on the Seapig, we were not too pleased with the Nassau. We did a six month Med/IO float, one of the LPHs relieved us, and Nassau was supposed to do the next one; but she was pulled out of the amphib rotation to be a "Harrier carrier", so we had to take it, making 12 out of 18 months deployed.

    Funny thing, my first ship was the Albany (CG-10) which was flagship of 6th Fleet, based in Italy. She came home in 1980 to be decommissioned, and by the time she hauled down the flag, I was on my way back to the Med on Saipan.

    The gator fleet is smaller now, largely due to the increased capacity of the LHA/LHDs. You may recall the amphibious ready groups used to have either an LPH, LPD, LSD, and two LSTs or an LHA, LPD, and one LST. The twenty Newport-class LSTs were retired without replacement. The current LPDs and LSDs are considerably larger than the ones you and I knew.

    We could wiki it, but off the top of my head there are about eight LHDs, two America-class LHAs, about ten LPDs and twelve LSDs.

    We briefly had a sensible delineation between LHDs (Helo and well Deck) and LHAs (no well deck), but they are now putting well/vehicle decks into the next America but still calling it an LHA. I sometimes wish I could understand the logic of today's designations, but it would probably make my head explode.
     
    bronk7 and belasar like this.
  14. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Think you are confused. LPHs did not have well decks. The Tarawa class LHAs did have well decks, while the flight 0 America class did not have a well deck.
     
  15. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ...you are correct--they did have the different ships in the MEUs back then
    ....I was on 2 LSTs in 88 and 89-Manitowoc and Sumter--but that was in South America--not a MEU
    ...I've got a ''postcard'' of an LST, Inchon and I think the LPD --all together....
    ..my first time with the FMF was on the Inchon Med Cruise 1987 [ I think! hahahah ] ..yes, must've been 87' as I left Hawaii end of 86....we were off Beirut for about 30 days because of the hostages there.....had Delta Force on the Inchon
    ....were you on the Saipan Med late 86'?

    ..seems like the force is not as ''strong'' or as ''capable'' without the LSTs ...with the helo carriers and the LSTs/etc, the MEUs had more options/etc
     
  16. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ..no one said anything about being over confident
    ..so, you are saying if we lost a carrier, the US population would want the US to stop fighting????!!!! WOW!
    ...no, it would be nothing like TET
    ..their fake carrier was nothing but a dog and pony show

    ..we ''lost'' in Somalia somewhat for one if the same reasons of Nam and Beirut: we could not politically put in MASSIVE forces and start a HUGE, ''unrestricted'' war....we really didn't ''lose'', though
    ..caps for emphasis
     
  17. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ...the carrier would be only part of many forces/etc--working together...many forces specifically defending/etc the carrier...I'm pretty sure the captain, admirals, etc would be doing their best to not let the carrier sink
    hahahahah
     
  18. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ...lose because we lose ONE carrier???!!!!! ..those Iranians must be good
    ..so Iran loses nothing????!!!!!!!!???
     
  19. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,123
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    there it is again!! unrealistic...we lose a carrier and Iran is unscathed
     
  20. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,567
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Huh? Where did I ever say the Iranians were unscathed?

    In Korea we inflicted far more casualties than we incurred, and you said we lost Korea.

    In Vietnam we inflicted far more casualties than we incurred, and you said we lost Vietnam.

    In Somalia, we inflicted far more casualties than we incurred, and you said we lost Somalia.

    So, apparently, it is not simply about casualties inflicted vs. Incurred.
     

Share This Page