
Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea - fogus
http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/battleships-a-ridiculous-but-awesome-idea/
======
_djo_
This is not exactly convincing. Battleships, far from being a ridiculous idea,
were a logical and necessary step for any navy wishing to project power at
sea. They were so heavily armoured and gunned that for a long time, from the
late 19th Century to just before WWII, the only realistic defence against a
battleship was another battleship.

While the Battle of Jutland may seem silly, the alternative would have been a
bunch of smaller ships duking it out (probably for a similar result) or only
one side possessing battleships and annihilating the other side.

Manoeuvre warfare with a lighter fleet was not an option, as smaller vessels
had smaller guns that frequently could not even penetrate a battleship's
armour. So a battleship would've been able to pick off opponents at ease while
they struggled to cause any damage. It's no good getting inside your
opponent's OODA loop if you can't cause any damage.

And the technology that would have permitted another nation to bypass the idea
of a battleship altogether and attack it from a different angle just did not
exist at the time. It was only decades after Jutland that naval aircraft and
aircraft carriers became fast and advanced enough to make the aerial bombing
and torpedoing of enemy vessels a real possibility. These days missiles are
the great equalisers.

Manoeuvre warfare is fantastically effective when the circumstances allow for
it, but the available conditions, technology and personnel can sometimes make
it ineffective. For instance, the German Blitzkrieg was extraordinarily
effective against the static French defences in 1940, but the same forces and
tactics came unstuck in 1941 when faced with a vicious winter and the Russian
scorched earth style of defence.

With reference to the hacker context, the lesson is that simply moving quickly
isn't enough. You also need to understand what a competitor's real weaknesses
are as well as understand which parts of their strengths you're incapable of
attacking. If your enemy has battleships and all you have are frigates, then
maybe you shouldn't be fighting them at sea.

~~~
crikli
"Manoeuvre warfare is fantastically effective when the circumstances allow for
it, but the available conditions, technology and personnel can sometimes make
it ineffective. For instance, the German Blitzkrieg was extraordinarily
effective against the static French defences in 1940, but the same forces and
tactics came unstuck in 1941 when faced with a vicious winter and the Russian
scorched earth style of defence."

Nah, the reason it came unstuck is because the Germans ran out of fuel and
because overrunning Stalingrad became a point of pride with Hitler and the
Wermacht...there were not tactical/strategic reasons to occupy the city when
they could have encircled and passed.

Encirclement and passage was one of the lessons the American military learned
(sort of) from Stalingard that they later executed in the island hopping
campaigns of the Pacific. Rather than invading every island, they just
bypassed those without strategic value, cut the shipping lanes, and let the
occupying forces starve.

~~~
paganel
> Encirclement and passage was one of the lessons the American military
> learned (sort of) from Stalingard that they later executed in the island
> hopping campaigns of the Pacific.

I was just reading Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy"
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourses_on_Livy>) last night, more exactly a
chapter called "Fortresses are generally more injurious than useful":

> But when the prince has not a good army, then fortresses whether within his
> territory or upon the frontiers are either injurious or useless to him;
> injurious, because they are easily lost, and when lost are turned against
> him; and even if they are so strong that the enemy cannot take them, he will
> march by with his army and leave them in the rear; and thus they are of no
> benefit, for good armies, unless opposed by equally powerful ones, march
> into the enemy’s country regardless of cities or fortresses, which they
> leave in their rear. We have many instances of this in ancient history; and
> Francesco Maria did the same thing quite recently, when, marching to attack
> Urbino, he left ten hostile cities behind him without paying the least
> attention to them.

You can very well replace "fortress" with "battleship" and the idea is the
same.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book, and you're mentioning somth about the US
Army learning from the Germans' mistakes. Well, I can tell you that they
certainly did not learn anything from reading Machiavelli, otherwise they
wouldn't have trusted Karzai in Afghanistan (there's a chapter called "How
dangerous it is to trust to the representations of exiles"), not to mention
trying to conquer peace by bribing everyone involved in ruling present
Afghanistan (there's also a chapter for it: "Republics and princes that are
really powerful do not purchase alliances by money, but by their valor and the
reputation of their armies") or not doing anything about Abu Ghraib ("How
dangerous it is for a republic or a prince not to avenge a public or a private
injury").

Here's the English translation of this great book:
<http://oll.libertyfund.org/simple.php?id=775>

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> You can very well replace "fortress" with "battleship" and the idea is the
> same.

No, you can't, because the battleship can move and attack your supply lines.

Battleships won the first world war. Not because of any engagement they
participated in, but because the Royal Navy stopped German merchant shipping
entirely, while the Kriegsmarine only managed to harass British shipping. You
cannot go around a battleship when one of the primary points in it's design is
to be fast enough to interdict anyone.

------
zeteo
"in their heyday of displacement speed vessels, [battleships] were the fastest
things on the high seas"

Cruisers and destroyers were always faster than battleships (they had to be),
displacement hull and all. It gives no confidence when you start the article
with a glaring factual error.

"The idea of battleships duking it out in the high seas is pretty ridiculous
when you stop to think about it. It never really happened unless you count the
Battle of Jutland."

If you write such an article, you should do a bit of research and be at least
dimly aware of the battles of Tsushima, Heligoland Bight, Moon Sound etc. etc.
etc. Battleships were indeed a bit slower, but when they showed up they
instantly dominated the field with their range and firepower. Even in WW2,
when the carrier greatly reduced their importance, battleships fought a few
very important engagements, e.g. Denmark Strait and second battle of
Guadalcanal.

It's easy to deride things you don't understand as "tumescent penii". But the
historical fact is, for about half a century after 1890, battleships were
indeed the most effective (and also expensive) naval weapons system in
existence.

------
lionhearted
Actually a pretty good article, despite the inaccuracies noted here in other
comments. The author uses some hyperbole and makes some errors, but still an
interesting discussion regarding phalanx vs. maneuver warfare.

While we're picking on individual parts, though -

> For missile silos, just target the enemy’s silos with lots of missiles and
> you can duke it out and win (just like the phalanx). If he puts his missiles
> on rail cars, you haven’t got a chance of hitting them all.

Technically that's true, but I think the reason countries use missile silos
and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and
arms during domestic unrest and rioting, which is a statistically much more
likely problem for a world power than getting hit with a first strike from
another major world power without any warning or preparation time.

Still, even with some errors and exaggerations, it was quite an interesting
read.

~~~
InclinedPlane
He misses the point entirely with missile silos. The backbone of the modern
nuclear arsenal is the ballistic missile submarine. Far more mobile and far
harder a target than any railborn missile.

~~~
rdtsc
An intermediate solution are land mobile launch platforms:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol_M>

They have randomized patrol routes, so it is hard to track them, but they can
launch thermonuclear MIRV warheads.

Yeah subs are a lot better but also a lot more expensive...

~~~
InclinedPlane
Subs aren't necessarily such a hugely expensive option though. A single
typhoon or ohio class missile boat can carry up to about 200 total warheads.
That's on the order of the entire nuclear arsenal for the average nuclear
power (e.g. France, China, Israel, India). Considering the massive
survivability boost of a submarine, it's one of the better bets as a nuclear
deterrent backbone, provided you have the technology to build such things.

~~~
rdtsc
It sort of depends on the latest and greatest technology to be stealthy. For
example, China, by putting all of its warheads in 2 or 3 subs would be putting
all of its eggs in one basket. Those subs becomes the weakest link.

US probably has the capability to track other countries' subs, but it is a
little harder to do that with hundreds of always moving launch platorms. Those
are much cheaper to build and if they carry MIRV warheads, they can be very
dangerous. It is of course possible to see them from a satellite but because
they are always moving targetting them like one target a stationary silo is
very different.

------
werpon
Big warships could accomodate bigger cannons. Bigger cannons could deliver
bigger shells further, enabling your warships to hit the enemy while keeping
out of their range.

These capital ships aren't being built today because missiles and fighter
planes suddenly negated their advantage, not because they weren't a good idea
to begin with.

IMHO it's an overwhelming act of condescension pretending to be smarter than
thousands of admirals and military advisors, many of them with lots of real
world experience fighting wars and stuff.

~~~
isleyaardvark
> IMHO it's an overwhelming act of condescension pretending to be smarter than
> thousands of admirals and military advisors, many of them with lots of real
> world experience fighting wars and stuff.

I thought the same thing, but then I remembered that the military leadership
and tactics during The Great War were pretty damn lousy (e.g. trench warfare).
For some reason it seems like it's surprisingly common for wide varieties of
armies to repeat history.

~~~
hugh3
_then I remembered that the military leadership and tactics during The Great
War were pretty damn lousy (e.g. trench warfare)_

What's so lousy about trench warfare? I mean, yes, it sucks, but it's a Nash
equilibrium given the technology at the time (very good machine guns, lousy
tanks and aircraft). If your enemy has trenches, you need trenches too. What
else would you have done?

~~~
eru
Oh, you could have stayed in the trenches---but don't order any attacks. Just
wait for your enemies to be dumb enough to attack first. Just bleed them dry
with defence.

(I heard that the Belgian king was held in high esteem by the normal Belgians
for not ordering those suicidal attacks.)

~~~
carpo
But then when they don't attack you have 2 armies sitting and waiting until
the supplies run out (assuming the other learns you are not going to attack
back). So when one realizes they will run out first, or another army is coming
to cut their lines, or the city behind them is starving, or one side drops
mustard gas into the other trench ... what do you do?

~~~
eru
If the other guys are attacking, you wait them out. Defence was cheaper than
attack in those days.

IF the other guys are also defending, you can think about, maybe, peace?

~~~
carpo
Yes, peace would be the best outcome, but there is probably some overarching
reason for the war that won't be solved by two armies deciding not to fight
for tactical reasons.

~~~
eru
The Germans could have chosen to fight in the east, where they actually won
historically, and decide to sit it out in the west.

------
pragmatic
The relevant part (to us hackers) is the use of maneuver warfare vs "phalanx"
fighting.

Think of Msft, Oracle, IBM, Apple as the phalanx fighters. They lock shields
and charge, spending millions (billions) of dollars (instead of soldiers).

The problem is their tactics are clumsy. Imagine all the Microsoft VP's
circling the wagons around really bad _implementations_ (the ideas aren't bad)
- I'm sure you can thing of some.

If you are lean agile Mongol (hacker) you can easily run around them and
attack them from the back.

Your OODA loop is much tighter. You can maneuver and decide much better than a
big hierarchical organization.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop>

See: The Smartphone Wars: Tightening the OODA Loop
<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2975>

~~~
zeteo
The phalanx was a really bright idea for its day. The Greeks were able to
defeat much larger Persian armies (Marathon, Plataea) with their phalanxes.
And the phalanx was a crucial part of Philip II and Alexander's combined arms
system and their maneuver warfare. "Phalanx" vs. "maneuver warfare" is, at
best, a false dichotomy.

~~~
hugh3
Indeed, this was my main issue with the article. As technology has developed,
the advantage has switched back and forth from attackers to defenders, and
from big heavy stuff to rapid manueverable stuff.

------
crikli
I've observed a principle that militaries build to win the last total war they
fought. This is why guys like Billy Mitchell
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell>) were ignored about the
importance of air power leading up to WWII. The status quo was to gear up for
another WWI, complete with entrenched and barely mobile front lines.

But of course the German Blitzkreig, a brilliant archetype of maneuver
warfare, overran these emplacements, the fixed system of defense built by the
French being the best example (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line>).

The US military has been developed for the last 60 years to re-win World War
II; even the Cold War was really just the US and Russia building to re-win
WWII until Russia ran out of cash.

As one can see given the issues that the US military has had in Iraq and
Afghanistan the WWII methods of battle, which have devolved back to phalanx
warfare, are struggling (again) to defeat maneuver warfare.

~~~
Symmetry
But it was the Siegfried Line[1] in WWII that let the Germans concentrate
their whole army against the Poles and defeat them before turning west, and
that let them attack where the French weren't rather than have to defend the
current border. So German tactics in WWII were dependant on the same static
defenses that the French used, but they took that and added a maneuver
component instead of replacing it entirely.

Manuever warfare often relies on a static force to pin the enemy in place
while the mobile elements do their thing. Saying "Maneuver good, static bad"
is just as silly as the reverse, whats needed for success is to understand the
advantages and disadvantages of the various tools available and intelligently
choose the right tool or combination of tools for the task at hand.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Line>

~~~
eftpotrm
The Siegfried Line was made enormously more effective by general malaise in
the Western armies (then under French command) though; in spite of being
relatively weak and unfinished it went largely untroubled. There were some
small incursions into western Germany but they weren't substantial.

What makes this particularly galling is relative strengths of the two armies
at the time; the Allied forces in northeastern France had significantly more
tanks (for example) available there than the Germany army had in total, let
alone defending the western front. It's far from impossible that a serious,
concerted attack on western Germany in the 1939-1940 'phoney war' period could
have had enough success to significantly alter the course of the war and turn
it significantly into a land war in western Germany for much of the period.

~~~
Symmetry
Its very true that it wasn't yet as strong as it was designed to be nor was it
as strong as the Maginot line. It only had to be enough, though. If Germany's
western border had been completely unfortified there would have been no way
that the Allies wouldn't have attacked. And even the unfinished wall
represented a huge investment for Nazi Germany. If you haven't already I'd
recommend reading "The Wages of Destruction" on the economy of Nazi Germany,
its a fascinating book for a number of reasons.

------
lefstathiou
I believe the article misses the point that America, through it's complete
dominance of the air and seas, has made naval warfare largely irrelevant for
99% of countries - hence their lack of will or desire to build them. The world
saw centuries of naval proliferation up to WW2.

------
Jd
I had an interesting conversation with Martin van Creveld not long ago about
fighter jets. Since he is one of the more famous military historians out
there, he often gets asked for advice by senior defense personnel. Lots of
European governments asked him if they should purchase F22s, etc. from the US.
His advice, get UAVs, fighters don't matter any more (He just wrote the
definitive book on the history of Air Power, btw).

Anyways, no one actually takes his advice. Acquisitions are always busy buying
supplies for the last war. Surprise, surprise.

------
nickpinkston
Looks like The Battle of Jutland actually had 78 torpedo boats on the German
side - didn't they get the maneuver memo?

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland>

------
Jd
I don't think anyone has pointed this out in a comment yet...

What is better with very expensive but obsolete machinery than to people use
their machinery to duke it out. Will things explode and sink "at great cost" ?
Well yes, that's sort of the point. It is even more costly to keep them afloat
and maintained.

To those who think this is cruel, European powers periodically fought wars
with each other for thousands of years before 1914, they just never were quite
as catastrophic (enter chemical weapons and, later, nukes). Hell, the Catholic
church tried to ban jousting many times since... you guessed it, people
frequently died trying to poke each other with sticks for the sake of scarves
from pretty ladies.

Hooah!

------
arethuza
Having a large battleship collection does allow you to line them up nicely for
review:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Fleet>

~~~
Luc
I don't think that postcard picture is giving a wholly realistic view of the
Grand Fleet at the time. It seems like there's twice as many capital ships in
the picture as there should be according to the text.

EDIT: Actually, if you click on the picture, the description does mention it's
"likely an artist's vision".

~~~
astrodust
Photoshopped, I knew it!

------
StuffMaster
The Mongols could defeat regular armies because they had many thousands of men
who lived their lives on horseback, with bow in hand. It's not that they were
smarter, it's that they had the option.

~~~
troutwine
It's also worth noting that the Mongols were turned back by the Germanic
tribes because, well, compound bows simply don't work in damp European forests
whereas francesca _do_. Phallanx tactics versus maneuver, as the author has
it, is meaningless in the face of the inability or unwillingness to adapt to
your environment.

~~~
nl
Reference?

The Mongols easily won the Battle of Legnica in Poland:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica>

That's really the most Western of their major battles, and they were turned
back by choice, not by losses in battle.

Were there any cases where they had anything other than skirmishes with
Germanic tribes?

------
neutronicus
In my admittedly ignorant opinion, he uses the terms "maneuver warfare" and
"phalanx warfare" so broadly as to make them almost meaningless.

------
JabavuAdams
> Western culture, abstract thought and artistic development: nothing
> important has developed since 1919; we’re still reeling from the shock.

Information theory? Software? Modern quantum mechanics?

Yeah, I know there's been no important stuff except that important stuff.

------
nl
Some guy called Napoleon seemed to know a little bit about maneuver warfare,
and he was around before battleships. There was this little thing called the
Battle of Austerlitz[1] that the author may be interested to read about.

Napoleon kind of knew what he was doing. His use of position and movement is
actually mentioned in the Wikipeda's article on maneuver warfare [2].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz> [2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare#Napoleon.27s_u...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare#Napoleon.27s_use_of_manoeuvre)

------
gonzo
He seems to have forgotten about the Bismarck
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck>

true fact: my wife's great uncle, Tuck Smith, is the US pilot who spotted the
Bismarck, back when the US (supposedly) wasn't involved in WWII.

<http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-1642064.php>

(Interesting fact, he was flying over Wake island on 12/7/41)

------
icarus_drowning
He also misrepresents the view of Victor Davis Hanson-- I think he's referring
to "Carnage and Culture", which has a much more nuanced (and thus far
different) argument.

------
akdubya
Any battle tech that's an order-of-magnitude cheaper to kill than to produce
is destined for obsolescence. You can see this happening now with main battle
tanks, which are easily knocked out by IEDs and increasingly sophisticated
man-portable missiles. It will be interesting to see what happens to the
manned air superiority fighter over the next couple of decades now that
unmanned drones are being deployed on a wide scale.

~~~
smallblacksun
Few M1s have been destroyed or badly damaged by insurgents in Iraq. Their use
has declined since the invasion not because they are too vulnerable, but
because they are less useful without enemy tanks to engage and using them
against infantry in urban environments risks heavy civilian casualties.

~~~
philwelch
Also, they're harder to fit on the streets.

~~~
hollerith
And they ruin streets.

------
joeburke
Interesting article but the grammar and the typos... ouch. Especially when
he's trying to use some uncommon words.

------
masklinn
In the same category, half a century later: aircraft carriers.

Although I'm not sure this qualifies as "hacker", let alone "news".

~~~
fraserharris
Aircraft carriers are somewhere in between. The aircraft they carry are part
of maneuver warfare.

~~~
latch
except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for
projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but
extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious
high priority.

Ever see Independence Day or, more recently, Battle LA? Didn't you find it
stupid that once the command ship are destroyed, the enemy essentially dies?
This is what aircraft carriers represent.

Take the $23 billion dollars it takes to build the first Gerald R. Ford
Carrier and invest that into various decentralized, independent, small
technologies, and your army is considerably better for it when it comes to any
serious threat.

It's like our military planners never read Ender's Game.

~~~
hugh3
_except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for
projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but
extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious
high priority_

There are 190-odd countries in the world. The US Navy's aircraft carriers are
_extremely_ effective against at least 185 of 'em.

All the countries with a "remotely comparable force" also have nuclear
weapons, so if the US ever winds up in a full-on shooting war with one of them
then it's all over for both sides anyway.

No aircraft carrier has actually been sunk since World War 2. So they can't be
_that_ vulnerable.

~~~
philwelch
1000 anti-ship missiles cost far less than an aircraft carrier with crew and
aircraft aboard. There are a number of non-nuclear powers with the ability to
launch 1000 anti-ship missiles against an American task force.

~~~
hugh3
How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles? And how would you get that
launch platform within range of a US aircraft carrier?

Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles
will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours of
the war.

~~~
masklinn
> How would you launch a thousand anti-ship missiles?

With a hundred small boats

> And how would you get that launch platform within range of a US aircraft
> carrier?

With civilians on board

> Bear in mind that anything capable of launching a thouand anti-ship missiles
> will be one of the things the USAF will destroy within the first few hours
> of the war.

Yep, nothing better to start a war on the right foot than civilian massacre.

------
StuffMaster
>nobody wanted to risk their big expensive battleships in such an engagement
again

This is his only proof that they're useless? Sorry, I need a lot more than
that. Anybody who's played Civilization will know that you keep your
battleships safe due to their cost, but they're supremely powerful
nonetheless.

------
rubergly
I had a very hard time taking the article seriously after reading "penii". I
hate when people try to sound smart by incorrectly pluralizing this word.

------
cafard
a ridiculous and not especially awesome post....

------
FlowerPower
"Just as Western Civilization staggered and faded after the fall of Rome,
Western Civilization has never really recovered from the shock of the Great
War. Cultures which endured and developed over a thousand years were wiped
out, never to return again. Western culture, abstract thought and artistic
development: nothing important has developed since 1919; we’re still reeling
from the shock."

What a load of bollocks. The author hasnt heard of the situationism, dada-ism,
Zerzan or Sartre but for sure the western civilization has.

Further on "The Mongols never had the societal organization the West did, so
they could never take advantage of their successes, and their various empires
only served to make the Russians and Chinese paranoid, and Eastern European
women more exotic looking.".

This is also bollocks, the mongols successfully ruled a vast area from China
to Europe, the silk road was again revived, you could travel from Poland to
Peking and not get robbed. The mongols collected all the taxes from such a
vast region, even after Djenghis Khan died, thats some hell of organization
right there.

On manuvre warfare, Alexander The Graeat (or as persions like to call him
Alexander the Gay) certanly knew about this.

~~~
hernan7
Or maybe he heard of situationism, dada, etc., and classifies them under
"nothing important".

~~~
philwelch
Frankly, I would too--but in terms of culture and philosophy there were
certainly significant advances post-1919.

------
dolvlo
I don't find this article applicable to hacking at all. Maybe running a
business, but I don't follow the necessary relationship between hacking and
business.

~~~
burke
What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

------
bitwize
_If he puts his missiles on rail cars, you haven’t got a chance of hitting
them all. So it was, metaphorically, with the actual battlewagon; when it was
at the peak of its capabilities, it was overcome by the manoeuvre warfare
tactics of the aircraft carrier (which is itself probably made obsolete in
real modern warfare by the cruise missile, the internet and the satellite)._

Don't forget robots! Man, you think the guided missiles in the first Gulf War
were cool? Now we can kill people entirely by electromechanical proxy, staying
out of the line of fire and incurring little to no risk ourselves! Man, we're
living in the future! What a bunch of pussies we are.

Like Bill Hicks said, why can't we use this technology to shoot food into the
mouths of hungry people instead?

