What is needed to sink a US Navy task force?

[Legend]

It was the Shinano's first day sailing and nobody on that giant could have imagined a torpedo attack at the time. She was brand new, a grass green crew, low morale probably, not even completed fully and no aircraft at the time to my memory. I don't think the mechanisms on her bulkhead doors were working properly either...

[Bgile]

There were all sorts of well documented problems with Shinano's state of preparedness for dealing with torpedo attack.

However, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be expecting a submarine attack. Wouldn't that be an expectation at any time they put to sea?

[RF]

The impression I have is that the Japanese never seemed to take the possibility of submarine attack seriously in their home waters and lost a large number of ships because of this.

[Legend]

Thanks for backing me up.
I have to say that it would take, yeah, about six or seven on one side to do in a Nimitz class. We have to remember these things are larger that Shinano, have better armor most likely, and have modern watertight systems that WORK. On the flip side torp tech has increased dramatically. They hone in, can detinate under the hull, most have shaped warheads for piercing abilities for thick hulls, they can come around if they miss... most of the modern ones can anyways.

[lwd]

.... We have to remember these things are larger that Shinano, have better armor most likely, and have modern watertight systems that WORK. ....

Well Shinano was probably the most well armored CV ever built. In tonnage it's 72,000 vs 93,500 for Enterprise. Bigger but not a whole lot bigger. As for how many torps it would take look at Hornet. On the otherhand modern torps are more powerful and likely to detonate under the hull. Thought I remembered the Soviets developing a huge one of use vs CVs but can't seam to find anything on it. They did/do have nuclear ones ....

Shinano's water tight system might have worked if she had been in a water tight configuraion and/or enough trained crew to secure the ship and if she had been complete.

[Legend]

Alright, now that I think about it Shinano was designed a BB and it is improbable that they removed the armor for speed.

I thought we agreed nukes wouldn't be brought into this scenario. A nuke can kill anything on this earth besides cockroaches within a mile of the damn warhead's location. Anyways, no nation is dumb enough to bring nuclear weapons into the equation, that's just an excuse for an equal retaliation.

I notice lwd, that you didn't add anything helpful to the conversation, only put other people's ideas down. Why don't you straighten your tongue and tell us what you think would be suitable to sink a USN Nimitz Class aircraft carrier?

[lwd]

...I notice lwd, that you didn't add anything helpful to the conversation, only put other people's ideas down. Why don't you straighten your tongue and tell us what you think would be suitable to sink a USN Nimitz Class aircraft carrier?

The topic is listed and I gave some answers to it that seamed to add something to me anyway. Either you didn't read them or took them wrong. Your problem not mine.

As to sinking a Nimitz class again I gave some answers but if you want detailed soutions it's probably classified. If not then luck can mean it takes a lot less or a lot more depending. Single torpedo hits that sunk big ships often depended on the torpedo hitting in just the right location. On the otherhand you get cases such as the Hornet where ships just don't seam to want to go down. My guess is if you are talking torpedos one either wouldn't do it or would have a very very low probability of doing so. A dozen especially on the same side (or does side matter if they are going off under the hull) probably would. In between it's a guess. On the other hand even one or two torpedos may have a significant impact on air ops. How fast does a CV have to go to launch planes? With a light load peraps not very but with a full combat load...

[Legend]

Though they did not say how fast it needs to go to launch aircraft, a Nimitz class can go fast enough to launch planes with one screw still turning, I am postitve of that fact. I heard it on that series Carrier on the Discovery channel. This is why I said one of the two primary areas the subs should aim the torps is up the carrer's butt, if they can disable the propeller shafts then the subs can pour as many more torps into the ship as necessary. I think we are grossly underestimating the armor of the Nimitz, those ships take up allot of out tax dollars, allot. I wouldn't be surprised if they have some serious armor on one of the two hulls (assuming they have double hulls), enough to rival some WWII ships... Now I'm not saying the crew wouldn't hurt if a battleship snuck up and started pouring lead into them, but I bet it has enough to shrug off, oh maybe even 5in shells. I know the decks are armored well enough, enough to take some devestating hits. We have been armoring decks those since WWII, we were the ones who taught the British the skill of armoring a carrier's deck!

[tnemelckram]

HI all- new to this Board. I can think of a few ways, not intended to be an exclusive list.

1. Stupid deployment such as sending a CBG into the narrow confined Persian Gulf, where it is exposed to short range land based anti ship missile and air attack or subject to beingcooped up by a sunken blockship.

2. Stupid tactics such as sending 1 CBG to defend Taiwan against the entire Chinese Navy instead of a concentrated force of say 4 CBG's which is probably the plan. A mass force of CBG's, properly dispersed but mutually supporting, is the best defense against a numerically overwhelming attack such as that in Red Storm Rising.

3. Following on 2 above, it would probably be normal attrition (and an underlying assumption of the plan) for one or two of the CBG's to be lost or extensively damaged even if the US is successful. That's why we have 11 or 12 CBG's.

4. Human error or mechanical malfunction. I think our navy is well aware of the risks that the CBG's face and best efforts made to ensure that everyone and everything involved will be on their toes or in tip top condition. However, the people are only human and the machines are unpredictable. It would only take one such opening to allow lan enemy to inflict lethal damage (Like the Hood)).

[Bgile]

HI all- new to this Board. I can think of a few ways, not intended to be an exclusive list.

1. Stupid deployment such as sending a CBG into the narrow confined Persian Gulf, where it is exposed to short range land based anti ship missile and air attack or subject to beingcooped up by a sunken blockship.

2. Stupid tactics such as sending 1 CBG to defend Taiwan against the entire Chinese Navy instead of a concentrated force of say 4 CBG's which is probably the plan. A mass force of CBG's, properly dispersed but mutually supporting, is the best defense against a numerically overwhelming attack such as that in Red Storm Rising.

3. Following on 2 above, it would probably be normal attrition (and an underlying assumption of the plan) for one or two of the CBG's to be lost or extensively damaged even if the US is successful. That's why we have 11 or 12 CBG's.

4. Human error or mechanical malfunction. I think our navy is well aware of the risks that the CBG's face and best efforts made to ensure that everyone and everything involved will be on their toes or in tip top condition. However, the people are only human and the machines are unpredictable. It would only take one such opening to allow lan enemy to inflict lethal damage (Like the Hood)).

Welcome to the forum!

So you think we should withdraw our CVBGs from the Persian Gulf, because it's too dangerous for them to be there? Interesting thought. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is hit by a torpedo some day, but I think we still need to maintain a presence there.

Out of curiosity, how many ships do you think you would have to sink to block the strait of Hormuz, and in who's interest would it be to do so?

[tnemelckram]

Hi Bgile! In reply. . ..

So you think we should withdraw our CVBGs from the Persian Gulf, because it's too dangerous for them to be there?

Generally the CBG's operate several hundred miles out in the Arabian Sea. That gives them the best defense against say a Silkworm or Skval high speed torpedo because they are out of range of land based missiles or a torpedo launch by a coast hugging ship. To get in range, the Iranians would have to carry the weapon across this buffer zone in a boat or plane that could be easily detected and destroyed. At the same times, Iran remains in the greater range of our carrier based planes and ship-borne cruise missiles.

Interesting thought. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is hit by a torpedo some day,

A real possibility,but I hope the above tactic is adequate.

but I think we still need to maintain a presence there.

I agree. We still have the Fifth Fleet of several surface combatants based in Bahrain so it is not necessary to have a CBG in the Persian Gulf to maintain a credible presence. Paradoxically, I have always regarded the apparently provocative act of sailing a CBG into the Gulf to "show a bigger flag" as instead a sign that a war is not imminent (for the reasons in my first post). A surer sign of imminence would be withdrawal of the Fifth Fleet from the Gulf.

Out of curiosity, how many ships do you think you would have to sink to block the strait of Hormuz,

I don't know but from what I have read, it is enough of a possibility that it is not disregarded in our leaders' strategic calculation.

and in who's interest would it be to do so?

A good question that points to a divergence in Iran's short and long term interests. There may be a short term military advantage by restricting our maneuvers or trapping a portion of our ships, and a short term political advantage from the disruption to world commerce. Long term the Iranians depend on the Straits for trade as much as the next nation. I can see the Iranians deciding that it is better to gain the short term advantage and whatever "victory" might follow from it, and then unblock the Straits later under conditions more to their liking.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Stupid decisions from US commanders can be found plenty in History. Nevertheless we have to admitt that the USN is not the branch that has been too keen on doing idiotic moves. The Army still have the podium with guys like Hooker, Burnside, Early, Ewell, Custer, Freyendhal, Westmoreland, etc.

I always have think that a CBG is a very tempting target, specially if locked itself in an area like the Persian Gulf. When PoW and Repulse were sunk it was some kind of shock because a lot of people, my grandfather included, believed that kind of vessel was invulnerable from attack from little yellow fellows that were hardly a threat. We can read that Churchill described their sinking as the most important single blow he had to deal with. So, the destruction can be accomplished by a willfull enemy with the resources to do so. Yes, the CVN and escorts had a lot of devices that made them LESS VULNERABLE, but hardly INVULNERABLE. Because there are no INVULNERABLE assets in any moment of History.

An suicide attack from several simultanoeus Iranian fighters? Or a combined and massive missile attack. A nuclear attack? (because it seems to me that while US is fighting camel drivers at Iraq, those guys at Iran were going to have their way in building their Bomb). I´m sure the CVN and company could defend itself against some of the incoming ordnance, but not all if the amount is bigger to what they (CBG) could handle.

Best regards.

[lwd]

Stupid decisions from US commanders can be found plenty in History.

Especially early in the various conflicts.

Nevertheless we have to admitt that the USN is not the branch that has been too keen on doing idiotic moves. The Army still have the podium with guys like Hooker, Burnside, Early, Ewell, Custer, Freyendhal, Westmoreland, etc.
....

That's a very interesting observation.

[tnemelckram]

Nevertheless we have to admitt that the USN is not the branch that has been too
keen on doing idiotic moves. The Army still have the podium with guys like Hooker,
Burnside, Early, Ewell, Custer, Freyendhal, Westmoreland, etc.....

That's a very interesting observation.

And an accurate one too, based on the historical record.

[Bgile]

I believe the Iwo Jima expeditionary strike group is in the Gulf now, with the TR CVBG in the gulf of Oman. I believe it's been common in the past to have a CVBG in the Persian Gulf to support the troops in Iraq. Since that is winding down it isn't as necessary. I was under the impression that the CVBGs made port calls in Bahrain though.

I don't have the info, but it's been my impression that the strait of Hormuz is so wide and so deep it would not be practical to block it by sinking ships there. You could mine it, but I don't think Iran would want to do that because a good chunk of their income comes from ships transiting that strait.