Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
Hehe, if they wouldnt be ahead of a random German private first class from a conscript Tank Artillery batallion they should all be shot for treason and/or incompetence
I would guess that the best time to hide something funny in a carrier would be while the carrier is beeing constructed. Although the Arms industry will have a fair amount of vetting going on, it is unlikely to be as extensive as the state based measures (who can access much more information) are.
To me, a Carrier is a very very mean machine that is after all, piloted by fairly normal humans. Attacking the Humans via deception simply seems easier than trying to storm something equivalent to a highly mobile and well protected fortress.
If we take the analogy further, storming a fortress is something one should only do if there are no other options. The prefered method would be to shoot/ambush the forces defending the fortress when they are out of it. This would mean to, engage the Carriers Air force in range of land based SAM systems, the carriers air force enjoys, since its base is mobile, a greater amount of strategic mobility than landbourne air assets, however, the land side should have a solid clue about what the Carriers air force will eventually want to attack.
The next best thing would be to engage the carriers air forces on neutral grounds (somewhere over the ocean) followed by cutting off the supplies of the fortress (sinking the Supply ships, cutting of the supplies is MUCH more difficult than it would be with against a immobile land based fortress) and only as a total last measure, going up against the formidable defenses of the carrier itself.
Correct me if I am wrong, but an aircraftless carrier group is not that efficient right?
To deal damage, the Carriers airwing eventually has to leave the area where the Carrier acts as a huge force multiplier, and if the (expensive, so not easy to replace) air wing is down, the carrier looses a lot of its teeth.
If someone really wants to down a carrier,
I still think that trying to smuggle bombs on a carrier via spy operations has a much better cost-gain ratio then trying to storm a carrier by force. If the bomb-smuggling goes wrong, you loose some spies (getting spies where you want them takes time, but not a lot of ressources) and some explosives (which would have been blown up anyway), if the air raid goes wrong you loose much much more.
given the feasability of such spy actions: I would guess that, to set up a suitable infiltration process capable of accompaniying such a thing you would need about a decade (get your spies into the US, have them assimilate there, get them to raise through the ranks, write of some spies off that went somewhere else etc.). US carrier dominance is a fact since the 1960es IIRC. So interested parties (and I could think of a couple) would have had an ample amount of time to set up something like that.
Hehe, if they wouldnt be ahead of a random German private first class from a conscript Tank Artillery batallion they should all be shot for treason and/or incompetence
I would guess that the best time to hide something funny in a carrier would be while the carrier is beeing constructed. Although the Arms industry will have a fair amount of vetting going on, it is unlikely to be as extensive as the state based measures (who can access much more information) are.
To me, a Carrier is a very very mean machine that is after all, piloted by fairly normal humans. Attacking the Humans via deception simply seems easier than trying to storm something equivalent to a highly mobile and well protected fortress.
If we take the analogy further, storming a fortress is something one should only do if there are no other options. The prefered method would be to shoot/ambush the forces defending the fortress when they are out of it. This would mean to, engage the Carriers Air force in range of land based SAM systems, the carriers air force enjoys, since its base is mobile, a greater amount of strategic mobility than landbourne air assets, however, the land side should have a solid clue about what the Carriers air force will eventually want to attack.
The next best thing would be to engage the carriers air forces on neutral grounds (somewhere over the ocean) followed by cutting off the supplies of the fortress (sinking the Supply ships, cutting of the supplies is MUCH more difficult than it would be with against a immobile land based fortress) and only as a total last measure, going up against the formidable defenses of the carrier itself.
Correct me if I am wrong, but an aircraftless carrier group is not that efficient right?
To deal damage, the Carriers airwing eventually has to leave the area where the Carrier acts as a huge force multiplier, and if the (expensive, so not easy to replace) air wing is down, the carrier looses a lot of its teeth.
If someone really wants to down a carrier,
I still think that trying to smuggle bombs on a carrier via spy operations has a much better cost-gain ratio then trying to storm a carrier by force. If the bomb-smuggling goes wrong, you loose some spies (getting spies where you want them takes time, but not a lot of ressources) and some explosives (which would have been blown up anyway), if the air raid goes wrong you loose much much more.
given the feasability of such spy actions: I would guess that, to set up a suitable infiltration process capable of accompaniying such a thing you would need about a decade (get your spies into the US, have them assimilate there, get them to raise through the ranks, write of some spies off that went somewhere else etc.). US carrier dominance is a fact since the 1960es IIRC. So interested parties (and I could think of a couple) would have had an ample amount of time to set up something like that.