wi:reagans plan for the navy was actualy put into practice

The problem is that now every single one of those Soviet subs must abandon silence and return to port for a fresh supply of torpedos, inviting an extended killing spree by NATO ASW forces coming and going and shutting down Soviet anti-shipping activity for...how many days to get home, how long to resupply and rearm, how many more days to return through a fully active and aware NATO ASW system...
 

Bearcat

Banned
The problem is that now every single one of those Soviet subs must abandon silence and return to port for a fresh supply of torpedos, inviting an extended killing spree by NATO ASW forces coming and going and shutting down Soviet anti-shipping activity for...how many days to get home, how long to resupply and rearm, how many more days to return through a fully active and aware NATO ASW system...

Frankly, Grimm, it's all about the first month anyway. The world will be in such a sack of crap by month two, it really doesn't make much difference about getting home.

But, remember, the Brits were pretty good at ASW, and one Argie bucket of bolts gave them fits.
 
You don't need to sink every ship in the world. Just a good chunk of the Reforger hulls. Much more manageable problem.

Also remember torpedoes are different than their ww2 counterparts. We now have influence exploders that work, unlike the old Mk. 6 of USN infamy.

A single good under-the-keel explosion, or two at the most, and that ship has probably had it. Not at all like putting three or four into its side.

Even without damage control in civilian standards it's still a very different issue from sinking WW2 era mostly 4000-10000 DWT ships. Germans had working influence exploders by the end of WW2 and still every torpedo hit did not sink a ship. Granted, every ship hit would have to head for repairs.

As for REFORGER, the idea was that the gear of the troops was stationed at POMCUS sites in Western Europe, the troops themselves simply had to be flown by CRAF aircraft into Europe. As for the ships carrying the stuff of US and Canada based units to Europe, they would have been probably fast container ships like Algol-class (whether in USN colours or contracted) with operating speeds of 25-30kts and commercial car carriers with 15-20kts speed range. These convoys would have not been definitely not easy to intercept as even SSN's would have suffered from high detectability and bad sonar conditions when spurting to attack positions.

In addition, when planning Battle of Atlantic rerun there's the other problem, as illustrated by Grimm Reaper.

The problem is that now every single one of those Soviet subs must abandon silence and return to port for a fresh supply of torpedos, inviting an extended killing spree by NATO ASW forces coming and going and shutting down Soviet anti-shipping activity for...how many days to get home, how long to resupply and rearm, how many more days to return through a fully active and aware NATO ASW system...
 
The Focus on REFORGER

Simple. Instead of a sea-bridge, it was an air-bridge. The POMCUS sites were established with that in mind in Europe. They were expanded and several more in the 1980s. This allowed the rapid deployment from CONUS to NATO without the use of shipping. Of course, follow on equipment was to come mostly via convoy across the pond.

The US added to the sealift ability by adding the Algol class of fast sealift ships. They could sustain 33 knots, and were fairly immune to most submarines unless they got really lucky. Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algol_class_vehicle_cargo_ship

Then the concept of maritime pre-positioning was implemented with seaborne loadouts in strategic areas ready to come ashore. I may be wrong but I believe there were as many as 9 of those groups of ships, with at least five, and often more vessels in each group filled with supplies for the Army, Navy Air Force and Marines.

Jukra, where are you getting your numbers for your assertions on the GDP versus defense spending? I would love to see that.
 
Even without damage control in civilian standards it's still a very different issue from sinking WW2 era mostly 4000-10000 DWT ships. Germans had working influence exploders by the end of WW2 and still every torpedo hit did not sink a ship. Granted, every ship hit would have to head for repairs.

As for REFORGER, the idea was that the gear of the troops was stationed at POMCUS sites in Western Europe, the troops themselves simply had to be flown by CRAF aircraft into Europe. As for the ships carrying the stuff of US and Canada based units to Europe, they would have been probably fast container ships like Algol-class (whether in USN colours or contracted) with operating speeds of 25-30kts and commercial car carriers with 15-20kts speed range. These convoys would have not been definitely not easy to intercept as even SSN's would have suffered from high detectability and bad sonar conditions when spurting to attack positions.

In addition, when planning Battle of Atlantic rerun there's the other problem, as illustrated by Grimm Reaper.

Except that there is only 8 of them.

And bought during the Reagan buildup, I might add.:)
 
The problem is that now every single one of those Soviet subs must abandon silence and return to port for a fresh supply of torpedos, inviting an extended killing spree by NATO ASW forces coming and going and shutting down Soviet anti-shipping activity for...how many days to get home, how long to resupply and rearm, how many more days to return through a fully active and aware NATO ASW system...

hence the need for operation polar glory and operations against northern norway so that mig-29's can eliminate surface threats to the sub fleet and make it easier for them to break out into the atlantic
 
hence the need for operation polar glory and operations against northern norway so that mig-29's can eliminate surface threats to the sub fleet and make it easier for them to break out into the atlantic

The bit about MiG-29's is a typo, right? The Fulcrum is an Air-Superiority fighter, no? A dangerous opponent, to be sure, but not the sort of thing one would fly against a convoy, or to strike a CVBG (although it could be used to deal with the tomcats)...

One wonders what would become of Iceland in the event of a WWIII in Europe. Something does have to be done about SOSUS. I doubt that an invasion, a la Clancy's Operation Polar Glory, would fare too well. Easiest solution might be nuking Keflavik or the hydrophones themselves, but that isn't politically viable. So... just trashing the Icelandic air bases with Backfires?
 
Except that there is only 8 of them.

And bought during the Reagan buildup, I might add.:)

Well, Algol-class is just an example of the superships which were constructed just before Oil Crisis and lying unused due to escalated fuel costs during 1980's. They were the most spectacular ships but not the only ones. +20kts merchants were already a reality during 1980's.

They were purchased by USN in 1980's, yes, but I'd guess a purchase in October 1981 was mandated by Carter era FY1981 budget :D Both Carter and Reagan pressed for improved sealift as the US WW2 stockpile was getting old and with Middle East getting more important the transport distances become longer. Carter instated RDF, after all.

Jukra, where are you getting your numbers for your assertions on the GDP versus defense spending? I would love to see that.

I'm using these two websites which seem to be fairly accurate. The myth of (overtly) Hawkish Reagan seems to stick for two reasons: First, he and his supporters are proud to take this claim due to end of the Cold War just after his era. Second, the "war-crazed Reagan" was important part of Anti-Reagan (and Anti-American) propaganda of the era. In similar vein there's the myth of sheepish Carter I'd guess. The decision to field Pershing and GLCM, for example, was wrongly put upon Reagan's shoulders...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
 

Cook

Banned
One does not need 600 ship navy to fight Iraq. Even if the investment was kept at Carter level the level would be, um, more than enough.

So you think the movement of the Armoured Corps from Germany to The Gulf would have taken considerably longer but otherwise no change?
 
So you think the movement of the Armoured Corps from Germany to The Gulf would have taken considerably longer but otherwise no change?

I'm not sure. After all, the US Sealift Command could have simply contracted out more ships. It was not a case of contested entry, after all.
 
...


I'm using these two websites which seem to be fairly accurate. The myth of (overtly) Hawkish Reagan seems to stick for two reasons: First, he and his supporters are proud to take this claim due to end of the Cold War just after his era. Second, the "war-crazed Reagan" was important part of Anti-Reagan (and Anti-American) propaganda of the era. In similar vein there's the myth of sheepish Carter I'd guess. The decision to field Pershing and GLCM, for example, was wrongly put upon Reagan's shoulders...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk


Although looking at hard numbers is generally a good place to start, not looking at the greater context of the two administrations is probably not a good idea.

And comparing the last year of Carter, after he had had a number of reality checks (Afganistan, Iran, Nicaragua) to the eight years of Reagan's build up is being quite generous to Carter.

As is not mentioning that by the height of Reagan's spending, the economy itself had increased fairly dramatically.:)

(Which actually should also be considered for the whole of measuring the spending for the whole history of the US.)
 
Top