Hypothetical situation

[RKCoon 0]

I was thinkin back to earlyer WW2, where they launched B25 Mitchells off the USS Hornet for the Doolittle Raid. Suppose, for whatever reason, one wanted to launch an A-10 Warthog off the current nuke carriers out there, any thoughts as to feasability? just radnom though i was curious about.

[TheBlackOut 7]

I haven't done world history yet.

[RKCoon 0]

Google it, itll pop up right away as "Doolittle Raid". Very informative.

[BWare 0]

The Doolittle raid was really an amazing thing. After Japan's cowardly sneak attack from their relatively safe position, it wasn't long before heavy American BOMBERS were hitting their cities. That must have freaked them out.

 

But yeah, that's a good question. I'm sure it could be done...

[Acerz492 1]

A fleet of A-10 Warthogs launched off an Aircraft Carrier hmm?

 

Que Destruction. :wink:

[RKCoon 0]

Bware, check your history. the ONLY reason such an attack was considered "cowardly" was a screwup in Japanese timing --- thier declaration of war was late by some 6 hours. originally it WAS timed so that one hour i beleive it was, after a public declaration of war, pearl harbor was to be attacked. further, had the american high military command been apying attention ot thier radar operators, and NOT leaving thier men as sitting ducks, pearl harbor would of ended quite differently. as it stands , the Japanese military screwed up and paid for it dearly.

 

Lets be honest here. most all of us here are RTS fans, and from a strategic standpoint, theres not a damned thing cowardly about a surprise attack, thats how wars fought these days. As a further note, yup,, the Doolittle raid did, in my mind, start the sway of balance of power for that theatre of WW2.

 

And lets see how many times i can edit this post before i get it right.

[Acerz492 1]

What I find funny is the fact that New Zealand was the first to declare war on Nazi Germany. Slightly off topic but still.

 

Don't believe me? Check here.

[RKCoon 0]

Well No Sh!t. that i DIDNT know. nice one

[TheBlackOut 7]

What I find funny is the fact that New Zealand was the first to declare war on Nazi Germany. Slightly off topic but still.

 

Don't believe me? Check here.

 

"Canada followed a week later"

 

[BWare 0]

RK, there was no honor in that attack and you know it. For the Japanese that is a very big deal anyway.

 

Hitting a nation's fleet with the intention of destroying it- unprovoked and without a declaration of war- is, in fact, cowardly. Video games are a bit different... you aren't actually paying with human life :roll:

 

Also, you can NOT blame the guy who got suckerpunched for the attack. You wouldn't ever blame the rape victim for the rape, would you? Think about it. How you can blame America for "not seeing it coming" when the Japanese were personally dropping bombs on us is beyond me.

 

 

Oh and yes, New Zealand rocks. They saw it coming

[RKCoon 0]

Bware, you REALLY havent read much of your own history, have you? i mean honestly. The US Navy Intelligence warned for damned near a YEAR that such an attack was coming, the potlickers and peacemongers went out of thier way to either ignore or silence them. that morning, the first shots of the war were in fact fired by a US Destroyer (The USS Ward), in attacking and probably sinking a japanese submarine, so if you really wanna get technical about it, the US actually did start the war by firing on another ship without, as you said, a public declaration of war. The advanced radar systems based all over the islands also warned of an impending airborn attack, and tho the cover story was "bombers expected from the US mainland" truth is there were FAR greater numbers than expected for such, and the radar operators made note of this. i mean hell, why didnt they even send up thier own planes to go look?

 

Ive found that, in virtually every case where the americans feel theyve been "raped" (on a political scale), a classic case of american arrogance combined with blind stupidity and fortune on the part of fate to allow the us to feel as tho they got screwed -- when it weas thier heavy handedness that pissed off the other party to bloody well start with. Hell, its in your own damned history books -- or in this case, us government historical sources online and other sources. The threat was clear, the threat was present, but the powers that were chose to do nothing and let thier boys die for it.

 

 

http://www.nps.gov/usar/home.htm

 

http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/

 

 

Theres plenty more out there, all it takes is a 5 second google search and viola.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

You are correct, we did ignore the "impending attack". We also ignored about 5617 other "impending attack" warnings. You cant respond to every single one of them. The same thing happened with 9/11 (sort of) we were warned of a "possible" attack. Such as we are warned every single friggin day of the calendar.

 

As for the Japanese. Whether they knew or didnt know what they were getting into, they had their arses handed to them in the form of 2 Nukes and tons of Naval opperations where they were totally and completly pwn3d

[BWare 0]

Bware, you REALLY havent read much of your own history, have you? i mean honestly.

Yeah, this is completely necessary. I'm obviously a moron who just doesn't know what he's talking about and probably doesn't even know where Pearl Harbor is :roll:

When all else fails, undercut someone's credibilty without reason.

 

Cygnus answered well. Reread my previous post.

 

that morning, the first shots of the war were in fact fired by a US Destroyer (The USS Ward), in attacking and probably sinking a japanese submarine, so if you really wanna get technical about it, the US actually did start the war by firing on another ship without, as you said, a public declaration of war.

Yes, firing at a recon sub that is in American waters with clear hostile intent is definitely starting a war. Hell, they weren't even really going to attack until we did that! How dare we defend our navy bases from spies! :roll:

Do you have an actual point? I still challenge you to explain how you can justify blaming the rape victim for the rape here.

 

The advanced radar systems based all over the islands also warned of an impending airborn attack, and tho the cover story was "bombers expected from the US mainland" truth is there were FAR greater numbers than expected for such, and the radar operators made note of this. i mean hell, why didnt they even send up thier own planes to go look?

Do you have any idea what "radar systems" were like back then? So the amorphous blob on the screen was a few centimeters longer. Do you really think that's worth the expense of scrambling planes when malfunctions and misreading happened all the time? Radar wasn't exactly what it is today. There was no CLEAR indication of an impending invasion. Even IF they got word from the radar stations, what do you think they could have done to prepare in that short time?

 

Ive found that, in virtually every case where the americans feel theyve been "raped" (on a political scale), a classic case of american arrogance combined with blind stupidity and fortune on the part of fate to allow the us to feel as tho they got screwed -- when it weas thier heavy handedness that pissed off the other party to bloody well start with.

ONCE AGAIN you're blaming US for getting hit?? Let me go back to my very apt analogy. Do you blame a girl in a short skirt for getting raped? Is it her fault for "provoking" it in your mind? This is ridiculous and even scary logic my friend. Don't let your silly anti-American sentiments get in the way of your thinking (or cripple it).

 

Hell, its in your own damned history books -- or in this case, us government historical sources online and other sources. The threat was clear, the threat was present, but the powers that were chose to do nothing and let thier boys die for it.

Yes. It was CLEARLY not the fault of the pilots LITERALLY pressing the bomb release button. It was the fault of Washington for not having perfect 20/20 FOREsight :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

 

Sheesh. Anything, including history revision, to make America look bad.

[RKCoon 0]

O fer the love of.... Guys, do i really need to knock this guy down a peg or is there little point? :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

Cygnus worded it well, with one thing id toss on -- when you know a half dozen aircraft carriers along with thier COMPLETE escort have left thier home waters, and you throw into the mix ALL the warnings, the current political stance etc, wouldnt that indicate that impending attack as prettymuch definite? i know damned well id having my guns locked and loaded in such a case, not clustered to counter "supposed" sabotage threats.

 

Iether way, their (the japanese) military did know what they were gettin into, and they got thier asses handed to em true.

[BWare 0]

O fer the love of.... Guys, do i really need to knock this guy down a peg or is there little point? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Bring it :wink:

[RKCoon 0]

O fer the love of.... Guys, do i really need to knock this guy down a peg or is there little point? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Bring it :wink:

 

Well, since you asked....

 

Yes, firing at a recon sub that is in American waters with clear hostile intent is definitely starting a war. Hell, they weren't even really going to attack until we did that! How dare we defend our navy bases from spies!

as far as firing on a sub -- ANY firing on ANY ship, home waters or not, is constituted as an aggressive action, and is often taken as a full blown acto of war, home waters or not. the point is moot either way, im merely demonstrating side facts here.

 

Do you have an actual point? I still challenge you to explain how you can justify blaming the rape victim for the rape here.

 

Saying that this is comparabe to rape IS the point, the idea is ludicrous. The policies, embargoes, restrictions and so forth laid down on Japan, as they were laid down on Germany, were far to constrictive on the nation for it to keep going in its expansion. simply put, the allies after WW1 tried to play puppets with the Axis, and it resulted in round two, something that could of been avoided altogether, or at the very least, done in such a way that didnt result in 4 years (in the pacific) of bloodshed. a woman walking down the streeet minding her own business and gets assaulted by hoodlums is one thing -- a big country telling a lil country "no you cant build and feed your nation" is quite another. case in point -- were any treaties like there were after WW1? no, part because the americans and allies had to rebuild the smashed countries, but also in part is they realised thier error in the whole scenario. The american government was N O T minding its own business and bothering none, it has NEVER done that. hence why we have CIA and similar trained terrorists these days.

 

And btw, i dont need to revise a damned thing to make the Amereican government look bad at all. they do it damned nicely themselves.

[Alphabear 11]

were any treaties like there were after WW1? no

 

Actually yes there was. Japan had and still has limitations on its millitary size as a result of WW2.

[RKCoon 0]

Your right, i screwed up on that point. as well as a puppet governemnt, if i recall. but iether way, the Japanese people were so morally shot after the nukes there was little threat from them for a long time. these days, they do appear to be a force to be reckoned with, if i recall correctly.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

They have a very limited 10,000 man ceremonial military even today as a result of the laws passed after WWII. A nice portion of which is controlled by the Allies/US. They have no spending on the military which is why their economy has been able to boom like it has because the money has gone there instead of the military. Basically they don't make a big military & in return we have a treaty that says we'll protect them if they are attacked.

[Guest MadBadger]

#1 yes, they launch A-10s off Aircraft carriers!!!

 

 

#2 the reason the Japs army is tiny is cos they cant be arsed with one.

[TheBlackOut 7]

All I have to say is Japan made a huge mistake attacking us.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

The CIA as trained terrorists.

 

You dont even want to know how much they stop everyday. Granted every day isnt 9/11 in the making, but there are tons of threats put down by the CIA. "Prove it" You say. I cant. They do their jobs, and no one gets hurt, no one hears about it. When they do mess up (as ALL humans are bound to do at some point) the media jumps on them like half starved weazles on a fat guys face while he trying to buy doughnuts.

 

Its so easy for countries to make fun of the US and hard on our military for its mistakes. At least we are doing something. unlike the vast majority of the rest of the planet (coughEUcouogh) so in short, Can it. We've all heard US bashing. Its getting to be like EA bashing. OLD. We are done with it. That chicken has been cooked.

 

Every government has its idiots, its hypocrites, its scandals. Why do we all make fun of the US, when there are Bob knows what else going on....because its easy. Take the biggest kid in the schoolyard and make fun of them from afar, or when in large groups (Forums, UN) but never to their faces. Now why is that hmm......

 

back to WWII, we should have been better prepared. Hindsite is always 20/20, fore sight is NEVER 20/20. Name on instance when it was.....

 

BAck on topic, yes, A10s can be launched from Aircraft carriers. The catapults would have to be modified, as well as the frame of the A10 to withstand the pressure of launch and recovery. Yes it could be done. Feasable? No. F-18s do a fine job as it is. And F-22s can get to just about anywhere with out tankers so....

[BWare 0]

as far as firing on a sub -- ANY firing on ANY ship, home waters or not, is constituted as an aggressive action, and is often taken as a full blown acto of war, home waters or not. the point is moot either way, im merely demonstrating side facts here.

:roll: Ugh. Okay yes, attacking another country's sub, even while they are spying on you, is essentially an act of war. This is a silly thing to argue, because the pre-invasion spying was the instigator! So I have to ask you... WHAT'S YOUR FREAKING POINT HERE? Do you just enjoy splitting hairs, or are you directly blaming the American defense for the invasion? Do you think that our defensive actions against the sub were the cause of the war or what? :roll: What's your point??

 

Saying that this is comparabe to rape IS the point, the idea is ludicrous. The policies, embargoes, restrictions and so forth laid down on Japan, as they were laid down on Germany, were far to constrictive on the nation for it to keep going in its expansion.

It's still an apt analogy. Embargoes and restrictions were more than justified while Japan, a VERY evil empire at the time, was building a nation allied to the freaking NAZIS and brutallizing the Chinese in unspeakable ways. Rape of Nanjing, anyone? :roll:

Are you actually defending the Japanese Empire of WWII? :shock:

 

And btw, i dont need to revise a damned thing to make the Amereican government look bad at all. they do it damned nicely themselves.

:roll: This is just silly and you know it. In its short 200 year history, America has led the way in improving life on Earth in incredible ways. We have beaten back the evil forces of Nazism, communism, and fascism. We ended western slavery. We have led the way in civil rights, and have fought to spread democracy and freedom. We have improved life on earth through unbelievable technological innovation. My pro-America litany could go on and on, but it's undoubtedly falling on the deaf ears of you anti-American zealots, am I right? :wink:

 

 

*Oh, and for the record, I don't really feel "taken down a peg" :lol: :wink:

[Guest MadBadger]

BAck on topic, yes, A10s can be launched from Aircraft carriers. The catapults would have to be modified, as well as the frame of the A10 to withstand the pressure of launch and recovery. Yes it could be done. Feasable? No. F-18s do a fine job as it is. And F-22s can get to just about anywhere with out tankers so....

 

 

NOO!!!

 

the only thing that has to be changed are the engines. They stick these even BIGGER muthas in to give it the extra boost to take off. The Catapult deals with those flying Eyes the Carriers have...... they can deal with an A-10. Also the A-10s airframe is F00Kin Chunky and tough, they can land and take off from standard roads, Also they took HUGE amounts of damage during desert storm cause there soo slow there VERY tough.

 

A-10s not used cause the carriers have Raffles that are fine for Anti-Sub work. Carrier planes not neaded a whole lot for the large scale ground attacks A-10s do as you norm have a few destroyers that can fire off Cruise missiles.

 

F-14s are fine stand ins for the ground attack work. F-18s are more air superiority planes

 

F-22s are also Air Superiority.

 

the F-35 family will replace all of them eventually (F-14, F-22, F18)

[F15pilotX 4]

NOO!!!

 

the only thing that has to be changed are the engines. They stick these even BIGGER muthas in to give it the extra boost to take off. The Catapult deals with those flying Eyes the Carriers have...... they can deal with an A-10. Also the A-10s airframe is F00Kin Chunky and tough, they can land and take off from standard roads, Also they took HUGE amounts of damage during desert storm cause there soo slow there VERY tough.

Yes, they are very tough airplanes: they can have an engine and part of a wing taken off and still fly....instead of giving them bigger engines, though, why not just attach rocket engine pods to them like they did (mabye still do, I'm not sure about that) to B-52s during the Cold War. :wink:

A-10s not used cause the carriers have Raffles that are fine for Anti-Sub work. Carrier planes not neaded a whole lot for the large scale ground attacks A-10s do as you norm have a few destroyers that can fire off Cruise missiles.

The US carriers do not use Rafales, they use F/A-18s :wink:

F-14s are fine stand ins for the ground attack work. F-18s are more air superiority planes

omfg, you've GOT to be kidding me :roll: They're call F/A-18s for a reason: Fighter/Attack aircraft :wink:

 

Here is the F-14's weapons armament:

 

Armament Up to 13,000 pounds of

 

Air-to-Air Missiles (up to)

6 AIM-7 Sparrows

4 AIM-9 Sidewinder

6 AIM-54 Phoenix

 

air-to-ground ordnance

MK-82 (500 lbs.)

4 MK-83 (1,000 lbs.)

4 MK-84 (2,000 lbs.)

MK-20 cluster bomb

4 GBU-10 LGB

GBU-12 MK-82 LGB

4 GBU-16 MK-83 LGB

4 GBU-24 MK-84 LGB

4 GBU-31 JDAM (2,000 lbs)

 

one MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon

 

By the way, the Phoenix missile has the longest range of any air-to-air missile, In excess of 100 nautical miles, or about 115 miles(184km) :wink:

 

Do you still think the F-14 is second to the F/A-18 in air superiority???

F-22s are also Air Superiority.

 

the F-35 family will replace all of them eventually (F-14, F-22, F18)

"The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft." :wink: See? The F-35 is to complement the F-22 just as the F-16 complemented the F-15 :wink:

 

 

Any questions???

And yes, I love the USAF/planes in general :wink: