North Korea News

[SuburbanFarmer]

So, to recap... StCapps and DBTrek are focused on calling me an idiot.
StA is saying the exact same fucking thing.
Smitty is agreeing that we're right.

Yet, I'm 'retarded' and 'completely wrong'. Showing your colors, boys?

[ssu]

To get the Navy involved, the US would have to deliberately put the war off, for six weeks, until the Navy could get down there, which they might do, just because the Navy would be lobbying furiously to get in the game, but it would not be necessary, what the Navy knows in the back of their minds, is that it would be a sop to the Navy, a deliberate pause, just to give the Navy a chance to justify their Expeditionary role, but with no actual requirement to do that, and if push ever came to shove, and it had to be done and done quickly, the Navy wouldn't even get a sniff.

Yet then again airlifting everything to middle of nowhere is itself a monumental task (if the example is Falklands). Yet we have seen how the war in Afghanistan has been supported with airlift (from Bulgaria as a transit, I guess), as the obvious route through Pakistan isn't open. Hence the US airlift could likely handle easily one division, but would it be practical? Hence sealift is what is needed. Far more practical.

For example, The Russian involvement in Syria has needed a small but continuous stream of sealift going to Syria. The amount of tonnage one cargo ship can deliver is a lot cheaper than airlifting everything there.

Some South Korea is different, because likely a large part of everything needed is already storaged there.

[DBTrek]

Yet, I'm 'retarded' and 'completely wrong'.

Well, I can agree with this.

[Smitty-48]

To get the Navy involved, the US would have to deliberately put the war off, for six weeks, until the Navy could get down there, which they might do, just because the Navy would be lobbying furiously to get in the game, but it would not be necessary, what the Navy knows in the back of their minds, is that it would be a sop to the Navy, a deliberate pause, just to give the Navy a chance to justify their Expeditionary role, but with no actual requirement to do that, and if push ever came to shove, and it had to be done and done quickly, the Navy wouldn't even get a sniff.

Yet then again airlifting everything to middle of nowhere is itself a monumental task (if the example is Falklands). Yet we have seen how the war in Afghanistan has been supported with airlift (from Bulgaria as a transit, I guess), as the obvious route through Pakistan isn't open. Hence the US airlift could likely handle easily one division, but would it be practical? Hence sealift is what is needed. Far more practical.

For example, The Russian involvement in Syria has needed a small but continuous stream of sealift going to Syria. The amount of tonnage one cargo ship can deliver is a lot cheaper than airlifting everything there.

Some South Korea is different, because likely a large part of everything needed is already storaged there.

The problem for the Navy, is that with all these bases all over the world, most of the lift can be conducted by non-combatants, the backbone of the sealift force is not even the Navy, the sealift force is called the Ready Reserve Fleet, it's basically just commercial vessels crewed by civilians, the only role the Navy has is to escort them from dock to dock. Afghanistan is a perfect example, the US flew a hundred thousand troops in there, and whatever heavy equipment they needed, came by commercial sealift from the dock in Pakistan and/or by rail all the way across Eurasia, the Navy had nothing to do, they basically just flew air support from carriers in the Indian Ocean, but the Air Force already had that covered, from Diego Garcia Island, the US didn't seize the airhead with F-14 Tomcats, they used B-52's.

And as for the Marines? The Marines had to fly in, but guess what? By the time they arrived, the Army was already there, because when it comes to flying in, the Army moves faster.

[The Conservative]

To get the Navy involved, the US would have to deliberately put the war off, for six weeks, until the Navy could get down there, which they might do, just because the Navy would be lobbying furiously to get in the game, but it would not be necessary, what the Navy knows in the back of their minds, is that it would be a sop to the Navy, a deliberate pause, just to give the Navy a chance to justify their Expeditionary role, but with no actual requirement to do that, and if push ever came to shove, and it had to be done and done quickly, the Navy wouldn't even get a sniff.

Yet then again airlifting everything to middle of nowhere is itself a monumental task (if the example is Falklands). Yet we have seen how the war in Afghanistan has been supported with airlift (from Bulgaria as a transit, I guess), as the obvious route through Pakistan isn't open. Hence the US airlift could likely handle easily one division, but would it be practical? Hence sealift is what is needed. Far more practical.

For example, The Russian involvement in Syria has needed a small but continuous stream of sealift going to Syria. The amount of tonnage one cargo ship can deliver is a lot cheaper than airlifting everything there.

Some South Korea is different, because likely a large part of everything needed is already storaged there.

If we deal with NK, we are not going to last long enough there to use any of the equipment... as we have been told time and time again, the line there is nothing more than a speedbump...

[BjornP]

We have like seven people on the MHF with varying degrees of military experience, yet not a single one with a naval background?

[DBTrek]

We have like seven people on the MHF with varying degrees of military experience, yet not a single one with a naval background?

Yep.
That seems to be the case.

[ssu]

The problem for the Navy, is that with all these bases all over the world, most of the lift can be conducted by non-combatants, the backbone of the sealift force is not even the Navy, the sealift force is called the Ready Reserve Fleet, it's basically just commercial vessels crewed by civilians, the only role the Navy has is to escort them from dock to dock. Afghanistan is a perfect example, the US flew a hundred thousand troops in there, and whatever heavy equipment they needed, came by commercial sealift from the dock in Pakistan.

Try doing that with only airlift. The sea still matters. And add one or two potential hostile submarines and you have to have that navy.



Another interesting examples are the wars in Mali and Chad, which also are landlocked by dirt poor countries with nonexistent infrastructure. For example to Mali there went one old railroad which is now in disrepair. Hence a force size of a modern division is simply really difficult to handle. Now the French operation in Mali consisted of 5 100 at the most, basically the size of one brigade. (Now Operation Barkhane consists of 3 000 soldiers and spans many countries in the Sahel)



Two French companies moved by land from Dakar (Senegal) to Mali, which is quite a route. But likely the vast majority of everything comes by airlift, which puts severe limitations on operations.

[Smitty-48]

Afghanistan was the nightmare scenario for the Navy, because what Afghanistan proved, is that the US could seize an entire country, far from any shore, in the mdidle of fucking nowhere, with just B-52's and Green Beret's, and then fly the Paratroopers in to reinforce, and if they could do that there, which was called "mission impossible" before they did it, then they can do that anywhere, meaning that XVIII Airborne Corps following the Air Force bombing the living shit out of everything, just rendered the entire Marine Corps obselete.

[The Conservative]

We have like seven people on the MHF with varying degrees of military experience, yet not a single one with a naval background?

Navy, the only place you can have seamen in a cylindrical tube that goes under water and rams through ice. Sounds like to me they need to get laid more