gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
USAF. F-111 and F-16.Since you're a veteran of the USN,...
This is a question that everyone loves to have the answer. THE answer. The reality is that none is better than the other....which special forces is better, SEALS or British SAS? I guess what I'm really trying the ask is do we have the best specials forces (Delta, Rangers, Green Berret, etc, etc...)
Here is the reality...
In the US military, there is only one 'special forces' group, and that is the US Army Special Forces Command, aka the 'Green Berets', although they do not like that label. Everyone else, from Navy SEALs to Army Rangers to USAF SpecOps to Marines Force Recon, are 'special operations' units. Rangers could be called 'extreme infantry'. Force Recon would be 'extreme Marines'. SEALs would be 'extreme sailors'. Combat Controllers would be 'extreme airmen'.
When most people ask 'who is better', the unspoken question is 'who could kick whose @ss'. And that is the wrong question.
Extraordinary forces are not created to hunt other extraordinary forces. Spetsnaz were not created to hunt Rangers or SEALs.
If you are a SEAL, your mission is to support naval operations that requires exceptional preparations such as close up reconnaissance of a particular target designated for future operations by the 'regular' navy forces, for one example.
If you are a Ranger ( @jhungary ), your mission is to support Army long term goals thru short term operations such as seizure of a vital airfield, for one example.
If you are USAF Pararescue (PJ), your mission is to recover downed pilots because we believe the pilot is worth the effort.
If you are Marine Force Recon, your mission is to provide the main Marine force with important target intelligence for impending operations.
Of all these missions, the highest threats to your success are not enemy special operations forces but -- believe it or not -- the weather and the terrain. These men -- and so far these units are entirely staffed by men -- are trained to operate as teams. The 'lone wolf' theme is Hollywood. A single sprained ankle can fail the mission, if the team leader deems it necessary. They carry limited resources so the teams must carefully husband what they have. That means avoidance of open combat if possible. If anything, if combat occurs while on course to the target, the mission, whatever that maybe, will be aborted. The enemy can pretty much guess where you are heading. Fighting to the objective is Hollywood where the good guys seems to have unlimited ammunition and grenades, and air support is seconds away.
If there is a question of who is 'better' than whom, the real question is who is better than whom at achieving the same objective by way of training. You can designate any unit as 'special whatever' but that does not automatically make that unit comparable to other country's 'special whatever'. Landlocked Mongolia would not have an amphibious force like the US Marines, correct ? Likewise, it would be absurd for a naval power like the US or Russia or the United Kingdom NOT to have amphibious capable forces. So for the US, Russia, and the UK, the question would be whose marines are 'better' at landing on beaches and holding their objectives, not whose marines can kill more of the other marines.
Not really. A battleship is an arsenal ship, of sorts. And do not dismiss the battleship as a relic. The USS Iowa battleship can carry over 1200 16 in shells.Also I wanted to add that the idea of the Arsenal ship just sounds bad.
For example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa-class_battleship
Due to lack of funding, we do not know beyond the conceptual level of how large a missile type of arsenal ship must be to match the old battleship in terms of sheer firepower.The Mk. 8 APC (Armor-Piercing, Capped) shell weighed 2,700 lb (1225 kg) and was designed to penetrate the hardened steel armor carried by foreign battleships.[2] At 20,000 yards (18 km) the Mk. 8 could penetrate 20 inches (500 mm) of steel armor plate.[24] At the same range, the Mk. 8 could penetrate 21 feet (6.4 m) of reinforced concrete.
I predict that we will see the return of the battleship, not the kind we know from WW II, but a modern battleship whose capabilities have yet to be conceptualize.
YOU may not have. But what I am saying is that most people have not done proper study of air power at sea, aka 'naval air power', starting with WW II.Well, I don't think I have.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/
Air power fundamentally changed warfare and changed it at the atomic level. I do not mean dropping the nuclear bomb. I mean changed warfare to the point where the air component, as in attack from the third dimension or being attacked from the same, became ingrained in every commander's thoughts. Every battleplan must make provisions in the event that an attacking force can count on air support or that it would be on the receiving end of an air assault. Air power in WW I was more about experimentation and glamour. Air power in WW II finally became an efficient instrument of killing. Since then, no one is better than US at exploiting the third dimension as an arena of war.