quote:

Originally posted by XcontrolD:

The very threat of a MEB sized Amphibious Assault caused Saddam Hussein to split his forces...and send a large number of Divisions to Protect the impending assault from the Sea on the coast of Kuwait.

This assault never happened, because of the many "practice landings...on the coast of Saudi Arabia....and a good "disinformation campaign"...Saddam thought we were going to land a MEB in Kuwait.

He divided his forces...allowing the attacking ARMY Divisions...to face Half of the enemy that they would have otherwise faces.

This saved lives.

Are we allowed to talk about that? Though I've never been briefed, I assumed that phase of Desert Shield/Storm (I will not give the nomenclature assigned to this mission) was Classified and thus have never mentioned it.

Also, I'd like to ask you a question that you would be even better able to answer than I would. I remember reading somewhere that we (USS Missouri) fired the VERY FIRST Tomahawks of Desert Storm. I know we were ONE OF the first, I'm just not sure if we were the very first.....though, I suppose it would make sense, as it would have presented the Missouri as the highest threat to a missile counterattack, which due to her hardened nature, she would be much more likely to survive than other missile platforms.

Please pardon me, everyone. I'm just now reading the whole thread, and thus responding to very old posts in the order I see them.

I'll try to keep it to a minimum.

quote:

Are we allowed to talk about that? Though I've never been briefed, I assumed that phase of Desert Shield/Storm (I will not give the nomenclature assigned to this mission) was Classified and thus have never mentioned it.

I don't know what is 'Classified' about it. It has been common knowledge for years.

Heck, even old Stormin' Norman did quite a lot of bragging about it at news briefings. (after the fact of course, Norman did a good job of keeping the press in the dark prior to operations. Just exactly where they needed to be kept.)

Tonight, Nat Geo reran their Break It Down episode about scrapping a Russian Akula Submarine (aka Typhoon). I know intellectually that it's a good thing, but it's still sad to see such a giant piece of Technology that they were so proud of come to such an ignominious end. You Battleship guys will at least be able to go visit the museum pieces for years to come.

quote:

The problem here is that smaller ships, which as I keep saying are a heck of a lot cheaper - and of course really can be in two places at once as you can build several of them for the price of one battleship, are just as effective in this regards today.

That was a lesson learnt by the British with regards to Carriers in the Battle of the Atlantic, during WWII. At first we tried to defend Convoys, using large fleet Carriers and as a result lost HMS Courageous and HMS Ark Royal (well technically this was on th eConvoy run for Malta in the Med). Only the use of Escort Carriers, small Converted Merchant Men, cheap and easy to construct, and in almost disposable if one was lost that enabled us to keep using aircover for our convoys.

Using the Fleet Carriers to escort ships to Malta was a logical option, given that unlike the battle of the Atlantic the primary threat to shipping was aircraft in the Mediterranean.

It should also be noted that the carriers in the Med were not just escorting the convoys, they were also trying to fly in aircraft for Malta's air defence. Because of the need to get as many fighters to Malta as possible, the use of the biggest carriers was required. In fact the need was so great that Winston Churchill asked President Roosevelt not once, but twice, for the loan of one of the American Carriers to fly Spitfires from.

The USS Wasp conducted two missions in the Med as a result, both times launching some 47 Spitfires in conjunction with British Carriers. (The first run saw most of the fighters shot up shortly after landing. This prompted a request to use the Wasp for a second time to 'sting' the Germans. The second run was more successful, bolstering Malta's air defences and denying the Axis powers from gaining air supremacy).

The Mediterranean theatre also differed from elsewhere in the world. There were two major British fleets (One stationed at Gibraltar with the other at Alexandria in Egypt). Unfortunately the middle of the Med was relatively close to shore, and well within the range of land based aircraft. It was also well within the cruising distance of the Italian fleet - which had several modern Battleships at its disposal.
This meant that when either of the two British fleets put to sea they had to include both Carriers for air defence and Battleships to tackle any of the Italian ships that might come out. Even so the British Admirals were under orders not to take the Battleships within range of Axis airfields.

(Note; British Carriers had thick armour plating on the landing deck, a result of them normally being used near hostile air-fields. This armour allowed British carriers to survive air attacks better than their American counterparts - which lacked this armour. At least this was until later in the war, when American carriers started to be constructed with armoured flight decks. The trade off was that British Carriers could carry fewer aircraft.)

The situation elsewhere in Europe was and always has been different. The reason why Britain became a Superpower in the 1700's was because the geographic position of Britain allowed it to cut off Northern Europe from all trade at will. In fact the basic principle of Britain's sea-defence was based in the fact that it just needed two fleets - one on the English Channel, which could cut off anything trying to get into the Atlantic (or coming from the Atlantic). With a second fleet in the North* to cut off anything trying to go North around Britain.

(*The second fleet, based at Scappa Flow, dates to the early 20th century/late 19th century. Prior to this the North sea fleet was based on the south east coast of England. By WW1 Scappa Flow was the location of the main British Home-fleet, but only because France was at this point an ally. During WW2 the fleet remained at SF to keep it out of range of German aircraft, with Destroyers and Aircraft defending the channel).

As such the home fleet was usually operating within the range of RAF fighter and Coastal Command, and as such had less need to have carriers to provide air-defence.

An examination of the use of British Battleships and Carriers during WW2 shows that the Battleships usually sailed around and did next to nothing. While the Carriers sailed around doing most of the really hard work.

The Mediterranean carriers took part in the sinking of the Bismark, and conducted the attack on the Italian surface fleet in the Battle of Taranto (Out of six Battleships one was sunk and two damaged). The Battle of Cape Matapan saw the Italian fleet loose 5 ships - 3 heavy cruisers and 2 destroyers - to the 3 British Battleships. While the sole Italian Battleship was badly damaged by air-attack from the sole British Carrier. In fact not only did none of the British BB's ever see their Italian counterparts (let alone fire on them) but they would never have sunk the ships they did had air attacks not crippled one of the Italian cruisers. The Italians (not realising that the British fleet was heading towards them) sent a group of ships to help the crippled cruiser out. It was these ships that the BB's sunk.

Basically the British Carriers were directly responsible for sinking one Italian Battleship and crippling three others. The British BB's only got to shoot at a single BB - The Bismark - which they failed to sink. (Depending on who you listen to the Bismark was either scuttled by the crew or sunk by a torpedo launched from a Destroyer. But she was not sunk by the British BB's).

Everything that the BB's sunk ended up being engaged by them as a direct result of the actions of the Carriers.

Regarding the first Tomahawk missiles fired during the 1991 Gulf War, there is a plaque on the forward deck of the USS San Jacinto which states that it fired the first missiles. When I toured the ship they were very proud of that, however I really haven't researched the event that closely.

I'll try to find some documentation, but I can't promise anything.

From
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan2.htm

"17 Jan DOD announces that over 100 TOMAHAWK cruise missiles were launched at pre-programmed targets by 9 U.S. Navy ships in the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea. USS SAN JACINTO (CG 56) fired the first TOMAHAWK missile from the Red Sea between 0100-0200 Gulf Time; moments later, USS BUNKER HILL (CG-52) fired the first TOMAHAWK missile from the Arabian Gulf. "

Thank you muchly Oso. Saved me from having to do the search.

There is another old naval movie on TCM right now; Pursuit of the Graf Spee. It's from 1957 and I probably haven't seen it for 30 years. It's somewhat cheesier than what I remember from when I was a kid, but has a lot of naval action.

BTW, for all you Limeys, I have a question; What the heck is the Snotty? What rank does that equal in the US structure? I've heard that from the Horatio Hornblower series, but WTF? How did that originate?

In this context Snotty is Royal Navy slang for a Midshipman, the origin for the term is probaly due to this story.

It was the habit of these young Boys, some as young as 11, most about 13 in the 17th and 18th centuries, of wiping thier noses on the sleeves of their uniform as they had no Handkerchiefs. If this was because of illness or tears from the shock of leaving home and joining a ship isn`t known. but Snot is the name that we use for what you Yanks call Boogers. It`s said that three buttons were added to the uniform sleeve later to prevent this.

We also use Snotty, to mean someone that has a jumped up opinion of themselves, if that arrived into useage because of this I don`t know, imagine season sailors of years of service taking orders from a 13 year old saying " I don`t like this Snotty`s attitude".

We have the latter usage, too, but not the Naval one.

quote:

Originally posted by mrfatso:
In this context Snotty is Royal Navy slang for a Midshipman, the origin for the term is probaly due to this story.

It was the habit of these young Boys, some as young as 11, most about 13 in the 17th and 18th centuries, of wiping thier noses on the sleeves of their uniform as they had no Handkerchiefs. If this was because of illness or tears from the shock of leaving home and joining a ship isn`t known. but Snot is the name that we use for what you Yanks call Boogers. It`s said that three buttons were added to the uniform sleeve later to prevent this.

We also use Snotty, to mean someone that has a jumped up opinion of themselves, if that arrived into useage because of this I don`t know, imagine season sailors of years of service taking orders from a 13 year old saying " I don`t like this Snotty`s attitude".

There were two types of Midshipmen. Young boys between the ages of 11 - 19 who were training to be officers. And much older 'boys' in their twenties upwards, who had failed to pass the lieutenants examination or who had been promoted from the lower decks - that is common sailors promoted. (Which was unusual, but not unheard of in the Royal navy. At least one British Admiral during the Napoleonic wars had started out being impressed into service as a regular sailor and passed up the ranks).

The youngest Midshipmen seem to have been between 10-12 years old. Before this they either studied on land or served as cabin boys - basically servants to the Captain. The youngest boy I've heard of on a British warship was around five years old.
Ideally Midshipmen started at sea young, then spent a year or two studying on land (usually studying mathematics, which was required for navigation) at around the age of 12-13. Then they would return to a ship to serve until around 19 and then take the Lieutenants exam.

The lieutenants examination was the worlds first examination to confirm that an individual had the skills needed to perform his job.

In order to become an lieutenant (a full officer) an individual had to be 19 years old, have spent 11 years at sea (four of which as a Midshipman or masters mate) and be capable of showing to a board of senior officers (Captains and/or Commanders) that they knew their trade through a verbal examination and by providing logs to show that they were capable of navigating a ship. Then, if they passed, their warrant and promotion had to be confirmed by the Admiralty in London. By the late 1700's the Navy, which had no practical way of preventing midshipmen who filled the criteria from taking the test, started to get into problems. Simply put they ended up with far more lieutenants than there were positions for them - a problem that also applied to Commanders and Captains since there was no established maximum number of men in these ranks. Admirals were different, in that there were only a limited number of Admirals of each rank permitted. To try and make the test harder the Navy added that a prospective Lieutenant had also to be able to pass as a 'Gentleman'. This more or less prevented anyone who'd come up from the common sailors becoming an officer by 1800.

In practice exam boards would often turn a blind eye to some of the criteria for individuals who were either well connected, or who clearly were highly skilled. There were lieutenants who were only 17, and it was far from unusual for a boy to be placed on a ships muster book from birth so that they could claim to have had the sea time needed for a promotion. (Technically this was illegal, but unless attention was drawn to specific cases ignored. There was an exception in that Midshipmen who were studying on shore would be allowed to remain on a ships books legally).

The quality of Midshipmen also varied, since the quality and quantity of their training and education rested on the Captain (or Admiral) of the ship they were on. Most Post Captains and Admirals seem to have taken educating and training of Midshipmen under their command either as a literal duty, or as a moral obligation. Admiral Collingwood, for example, was very highly regarded for the lengths he went to to make sure his midshipmen received as good an education as was possible at sea.
Midshipmen on smaller ships, which were commanded by Commanders or Lieutenants, were usually regarded as being crude, bad mannered and foul-mouthed. They also tended to get little in the way of instruction/education - possibly due to their Captains not being that much older than they were, and certainly not in a position to afford to be able to employ someone to teach the kiddies.

theres a naval warfare simulation out there Harpoon
BBs are the last target you attack out of a surface action group, but the beauty of them as a target is that they cant' really defend themselves agains aircraft or submarines. they might be tough, but if you get to keep hitting them without retaliation you will destroy them in the end.