Question, but how is there significantly more danger to the entire crew of a vessel being struck than a land-based vehicle? I mean the sheer number of crew can be a lot less with a land vehicle but the proportion of that crew endangered can still constitute the entire crew. Like if a Bradley filled with troops gets hit by something serious, it can kill everyone inside. Same even with a tank. And of course a Humvee and other such vehicles.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS Seahawks Sink Houthi Boats
- Thread starter IKE
- Start date
They usually aren't in danger of sinking.*
While it hasn't happened to the US Navy since World War II a ship sunk in combat often has a disproportionate number of the crew become casualties, in some cases with all hands being killed. Even when a ship is not sunk ones that are seriously damaged often have a very large number of casualties from a single strike in combat while the same is rare in land combat.
*Unless they drive/fall into water, which is rare but has happened.
A couple reasons to highlight. Flash got some of it. WW2 provides our best examples. Land combat had about a 1:3 killed to wounded ratio. Naval combat was around 1:1. Initial impact kills a large number through a combination of kinetic energy and blast. Especially if the explosive makes it to a confined space with a group of watchstanders. From there, it is very difficult to avoid having an initial fire. You can do a lot to prepare to mitigate (paint changes, removing flammables, hazmat storage, etc) but it’s very likely you’ll have a post-impact fire, further increasing mass casualty possibilities. In the absolute worst case, a single impact starts a fire and simultaneously damages the fire suppression systems. Even fighting a large fire on a small ship causes problems because you are literally flooding the ship.
After that, you end up with a mass casualty situation, made up largely of very bad burns and shrapnel, beyond the ship’s medical capability and while evacuation is difficult. And that’s if the ship doesn’t sink in the process.
Ships learned a lot of lessons from WW2, but this same basic damage control scenario came up in Falklands and Vincennes. Even with excellent design and damage control, it’s hard to overcome personnel density requirements and explosive capability.
Apologies for an overly long answer, but I think it’s worth having very open eyes about how brutal naval combat becomes when the countermeasures don’t work.
Accounts of WWII surface engagements are chock-full of very grisly descriptions of battle damage and resulting casualties.
Read about what happened to BIRMINGHAM when she tried to render aid to PRINCETON. Woof.
Read about what happened to BIRMINGHAM when she tried to render aid to PRINCETON. Woof.
In short, you have to worry about saving the ship in addition to your shipmates.
I've also read about the mental toll on guys from hearing other men trapped and screaming in adjacent parts of the ship that were damaged.
We don't have to go back to WW2. The CO of USS Cole during the Gulf of Aden incident talked to our NROTC unit about seeing sailors pinned by sheet metal bent by the blast, and I'm sure the USS Fitzgerald crew has terrible stories to tell too.
U.S. and Britain launch strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen
The Iran-backed militants, who say their actions are aimed at supporting Hamas, vowed retaliation and said the attacks had killed at least 5 fighters at multiple rebel-held sites.
Can someone smarter than me give an unclass primer on "the differences in ROE between attacking a nation-state versus attacking a terrorist group"? Are there differences when it comes to targeting?U.S. and Britain launch strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen
The Iran-backed militants, who say their actions are aimed at supporting Hamas, vowed retaliation and said the attacks had killed at least 5 fighters at multiple rebel-held sites.www.nbcnews.com
Everyone has a right to self defense. That doesn't change. After that it's all in the SPINs for the AOR you're working in, which are classified.
Send it, boys.
Fuck the Houthis.
Fuck the Houthis.
Although the event was about 10 years ago, the discussions are still relevant. Try this to satisfy your need for information.
Rules of Engagement: The Legal, Ethical and Moral Challenges of the Long War
This is a transcript of “Rules of Engagement: The Legal, Ethical and Moral Challenges of the Long War,” a collaboration between the Center for the Study of the Drone and Carnegie Counci…
dronecenter.bard.edu
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I'm friends with a retired Army LTC circa Vietnam era, and he mentions this as the reason why "fuck no I'd never join the Navy."
True or not, he felt like his skill as a soldier impacted his survivability much more in the Army than his skill as a sailor would in the Navy.
Also, my father in law has some war stories that would make anyone nope the fuck out of ever being anywhere near a tank crew, which is probably the closest analogue that the Army has to ships.
What tank (s) did you father in law serve in? M60?