OT: China's new carrier

[adimar]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Don't confuse land & blue water warfare. The major difference between the two is that you can't really hide is open ocean warfare. At least you can't hide without a major technological edge. If you want to compare land and sea than change the land terrain to a flat rocky plain where a guerrilla force can't strike & vanish.
Since the last couple of wars were anti insurgent actions people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

These are my 1.99 cents
Adi

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by adimar

people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

This kind of thinking is daft, arrogant and the reason America lost Vietnam and why Russia lost in Afghanistan.

"We didn't lose because our tactics where out-dated, our technology was developed for an entirely different battlefield and our logistics are strecthed to breaking point. No we lost because we are the good guys and play by the rules and the other guy hides behind civvies, we couldn't possibly lose if they played fair."

Bit of a reality check, the Russians didn't care how many civilians the taliban hid behind, they blew them all up and let God do the counting and the Russians STILL lost.

people refuse to actualy learn the lessons of history, they just make up excuses and keep fighting the last war till they get blown to hell and are forced (like the Germans post-WW1) to re-write the rulebook.

Technology doesn't mean crap against numbers, even in blue water navies. WW1 era bi-planes where responsible for sinking one of the most advanced and modern warships built in WW2 (the Bismark). America won WW2 because they could put 6 carriers to sea for every one the Japanese had. It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

Technology can only get you so far, eventualy the nmbers game decides the outcome. The bigger the scale, the more powerful numbers become. Ony in very small actions does quality overcome quantity, it's the reason spec ops forces operate in small teams.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

[Legbreaker]

I believe it may be worth pointing out that the US economy is, well, basically in the toilet. Unless something BIG happens soon, the US may not be able to maintain the navy they have now, let alone build replacement ships in 20 years.
Meanwhile, China seems to be booming. 20 years from now they may well have the money, the technology and skills to build a seriously decent fleet.
Maybe neither of those things will happen, but maybe they will. Better to worry about the possibility now and work out some contingencies than place head in sand and hope.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

[Legbreaker]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

People do tend to forget that WW2 started before America got into it. America had to play catch-up and it was only America's vast industrial base and relatively untouched economy that allowed it to do so. It also helped that Japan wiped out almost all the big gun battleships and forced America to adapt and in so doing master carrier warfare. Had the japanese sent their final wave and destroyed the US pacific carriers then the war would of had a much different outcome.

In the end America won WW2 with numbers, not quality. In Europe they simply sent in so many Shermans at the wehrmacht till the Germans simply ran out of resources. it was the same in the pacific, the Americans mass-produced simple, effective designs for destroyers and carriers and simply swamped the Japanese who could not replace losses.

In the 21st century it is America who has the superior tech but numericly inferior forces and the economic climate is making that situation worse every year. At the risk of coming across as anti-American, there has been an arrogant, self-imposed blindness on the part of the USA over the past few decades, especialy after the fall of communism. Many in America consider that they where victorious in the cold war and that it validates their doctrine. The truth is the Russians ran out of money before America did, the cold war crippled them economicly. America risks going into a second cold war with China and this time it will be America that loses out.

The cold truth is that America has become over-reliant on it's military technology and has become dangerously arrogant, underestimating her potential rivals. My own country made this mistake and we went from having the world's most powerful naval empire to the state we find ourselves in today.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.

"Most" ships, true. But the link that was posted proves what I said about the US having it on some ships (5) prior to the US being attacked. And as early as 1938 on two ships. The Japanese, OTOH, had been on a war footing for years prior to PH and had not made any appreciable implementation of radar into their fleet. Despite having access to German technology, and knowing that radar was widespread in the British navy.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Appropriate to ignore the UK Royal Navy, which had the most widespread usage of radar at the time Japan declared war on the UK and the US?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

The Japanese had had access to German radar technology. They chose not to do much with it.

The real point is that 95th Rifleman asserted that the Japanese had the most "modern" fleet in the world. They had the newest ships, but using the term "modern" is subject to some serious dispute, as it very much depends on what factors one chooses when defining "modern".

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

Have to disagree here, to be certain the US started mounting radars after Pearl Harbor, but it took the murderous fighting off Guadalcanal to teach the USN how to effectively use radars.

The USN started out with a serious case of severe overconfidence in the capability of radar. In many of the naval battles, the IJN, using lookouts with the old Mark I Eyeball spotted US ships long before they were visible on radar!