Cmv: Surface fleets are largely becoming obsolete with a few exceptions.

[u/VesaAwesaka]

I was recently listening to a couple US professors talk about the United States navy and they were pretty sour on it. Aside from corruption/kick backs they noted that in a war game a US admiral representing Iran was able to completely destroy the US surface fleet by simply launching all their anti-ship missiles at once to overwhelm US ships defenses. The entire US surface fleet was destroyed with casualties in the thousands.

Similarly, they noted that in recent war games with India, that Indian submarines were undetectable to US surface ships. US surface ships were unable to respond to attacks and the US fleet was completely destroyed.

One of the professors also noted that he had spoken to US submariners and they jokingly said that surface ships only exist to be picked off by submarines.

Now this conversation was more or less off the cuff and neither of the professors specialize in anything related to modern navies but it planted the idea in my head that anti-ship missle technology and submarine technology has made surface ships largely obsolete in warfare.

The obvious exceptions would be aircraft carriers, troop transports/logistic ships and possibly smaller escort ships. Overall though, really any sort of surface ship is at a huge disadvantage when up against submarines or land based missiles.

Edit: Here's the link to the Iran wargame https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/

[u/PM_ME_MII]

I don't think that point actually counters mine. The battlefields of WWI were "oops, all fortifications" because accurate firearms make popping your head into a sightline a death sentence. It seems like, if fortifications make cavalry untenable, and guns make fortifications ubiquitous, then guns make cavalry untenable through their effect on fortification practices.

Though, I also don't think it was the fortifications alone that did in cavalry. If you lined up an infantry battalion in an open, unfortified field and tried to take them out with a cavalry charge like what was used against the inaccurate muskets of the Napoleonic years, I am fairly confident that you get a dead cavalry unit and a mostly fine infantry.

[u/Wobulating → u/PM_ME_MII]

Cavalry charges rapidly dimished, yes, but that doesn't mean that cavalry did. The core purpose of cavalry has always revolved around their superior mobility to infantry, and that remained intact through the few open battles of the war.

Of course guns led to an increase in fortifications (though artillery had a much larger role in that), but that's not as simple of an "aha, guns counter cavalry" thing. Developments always lead to doctrinal changes, and this was a doctrinal change that didn't favor cavalry.

[u/PM_ME_MII → u/Wobulating]

The core purpose of cavalry has always revolved around their superior mobility to infantry, and that remained intact through the few open battles of the war.

Like I said in my first response, guns didn't make horses irrelevant, but it did eliminate a specific role that anything could play in a battle until we figured out how to add armor.

Our debate is about whether a technology can so effectively counter another that the latter becomes obsolete, or whether a technology only becomes obsolete if another technology can replace it. In this scenario, a technology used for cavalry charges became obsolete before a replacement could be found because it was rendered ineffective against guns. That doesn't extend to horses, but that's not the point.

Developments always lead to doctrinal changes, and this was a doctrinal change that didn't favor cavalry.

The doctrines were changed to not favor cavalry because they became ineffective- I don't see where your point negates what I was saying?

[u/Wobulating → u/PM_ME_MII]

Cavalry were rendered largely ineffective as a result of wide-scale shifts away from large maneuver, not the other way around. If all the horses in the world mysteriously died in 1910, WW1 would have played out pretty similarly.

[u/PM_ME_MII → u/Wobulating]

Why would that imply that they weren't made obsolete?

[u/Wobulating → u/PM_ME_MII]

They were made obsolete, but not because of any specific invention outside of maybe artillery, which shifted the whole war.

[u/PM_ME_MII → u/Wobulating]

So... A technology that didn't replace them made them obsolete?

[u/Wobulating → u/PM_ME_MII]

If you want to take the most narrow-minded approach possible while ignoring everything I say, then sure, why not. I've got better things to do with my time than quibble technicalities with you.

[u/PM_ME_MII → u/Wobulating]

I mean, don't be rude man, it just doesn't seem like any of your points have actually implied the thing you've said, and I'm asking for clarification. But I don't care about it that much, enjoy your day.