Reply #27: My comment as subs being "Obsolete" reflected they uselessness in any potential future war. [View All]

The US had the best Horse mounted calvary in the world just prior to WWII. Calvary was used extensively during WWII by the Russians and Germans (Mostly in Russia). The Chinese used Calvary in the Chinese CiviL war and when they intervened into Korea. Rhodesia used horse mounted Calvary against the Guerrillas in the 1970s and 1980s.

While Calvary was used extensively during WWII and after WWII, the US only fielded one horse mounted Regiment (The 26th Calvary "Philippine Scouts" during the defense of the Philippines starting December 7th, 1941). One of that regiments first assignments was to slow down TWO Japanese TANK regiments. The 26th did this without the use of any anti-tank weapons (Through the Japanese Tanks were NOT up to German level of tanks, so it was more horses getting the troops to the battlefield, the troops doing what they could and then using the horses to get away when the fight was over).

As to why the US did not field horse mounted calvary units during WWII was simple, a Calvary Division took up as much shipping space as a Tank Regiment (The horses had to be feed as they were shipped, and manure removed AND the crew to feed and clean the stalls all added to space needed by the horses). Furthermore Europe has NOT been Calvary terrain since at least Napoleon and probably since the 30 years war, to many towns, to many fences, to many rivers. On the other hand, Poland eastward had huge flat terrain, few fences, plenty of feed, very few roads, calvary terrain. Even the Russians accepted this difference, as the Eastern Front crossed into Germany, the Red Army shifted its calvary units to ares next to Manchuria or Persia (The Russian attack on the Japanese Forces in Manchuria was combined forces of Tanks and horse mounted Calvary).

I went into the above to show that something may NOT be Completely obsolete, but for one side it is tactically obsolete in that the area where the combat will occur it would be better to have another weapon. In the case of Western Europe, Calvary had been marginal since Napoleon. The French and Germans did calvary charges during the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, but all the charges did was re-enforce that such charges were rarely effective (The US had used Calvary during the US Civil War, but the US had adopted Russian Calvary Concepts i.e. the horse was just a means to get the soldier to the battlefield, once in battle the Soldier was expected to dismount and fight). This was US Calvary tactics till the day the Calvary was abolished in 1951.

The reasons the US did not use Horse Mounted Calvary during WWII, were as follows:

1. the difficulty of getting the Horses to Europe.

2. The limited area horses could operate in Europe, given the numerous towns and cities, fences, roads and Rivers which restricted where horses could go.

3. No real plans to fight further than Germany in any fight in Europe.

When Horse Mounted were used effectively the following was the rule:

1. Roads did not exist, fences were rare, but distances were great (Poland to Moscow, Rhodesia in the 1970s and even Army Mules in the 1980s in Afghanistan, in fact horses mounted native troops were used in Afghanistan for the same reason Horses Mounted Calvary units worked in Russia during WWII, no roads, huge distances and few natural barriers).

What has this to do with Subs? Simple, Calvary was viewed as "Obsolete" during WWII, yet it was still used. Horse mounted troops are used to this day in terrain where horses are the best way to get around. In the area where the US was planning to Fight, horses were NOT worth bringing. These were NOT Calvary terrain. Calvary was "Obsolete" NOT because it was ineffective, but in the are the US was going to fight, its value was much less than elsewhere. The same with the Nuclear subs, extremely useful in the Deep ocean, but any fight the US will get into in the next 20 years will be coastal. In Coastal areas the Nuclear subs loose to many of its advantages, its speed (The coast restricts how fast it can go let it ht something the Subs does NOT want to), its ability to dive (The coast is shadow compared to the Deep Ocean) and its ability to stay under water for months (The shadow sea means it will be detected by surface ships just by the water its displace as its cruses by an area). Just like the Calvary could be of some use in Western Europe (Mules were used extensively in Italy do to the fighting in the mountains as the Allies fought up the boot of Italy), Nuclear subs are out of their area of combat. The Nuclear subs could provide some value and use (Just like the Calvary did some use during WWI and in the early days of WWII in Western Europe, but as a whole Tanks were a Better weapon during WWI and WWII), but as a whole it would be better to have different weapons then a Nuclear Submarine in coastal fighting.

My reference to "obsolete" is to point out the areas where the US expect to fight over the next 20 years, are areas where Nuclear subs are NOT the best weapon to use. We should look into moving resources from Nuclear Submarines to Technologies more suitable to fighting in Iran and Afghanistan (And in Afghanistan it might mean bringing back the Horse Mounted Calvary given the terrain and lack of roads, just because something is Tactically Obsolete does not mean it will always stay that way. For example Western European Calvary units phased out the Lance in the late 1600s as Obsolete, but Napoleon brought it back after 1800, for the Situation in Europe had changed and the lance was viewed as again having value (In 1912 the US Calvary actually advocated getting rid of the Saber and retaining the Lance as a more effective weapon, horse mounted messengers on both sides during WWII used the Lance for protection not the Saber, but Radios and Motorcycles made even that use obsolete again).

My point is just because something is obsolete does NOT mean that is permanent. Your comment about the Battleships is correct. The US got rid of most of its Battleships after WWII, for they was nothing for them to fight, the Russians had very few naval ships at that time. The last two classes of Battleships ended up as museums, but the last class, the Iowa came back in two forms. The first was as a ship to Shore bombardment vessel during Vietnam (The New Jersey). The New Jersey's 16 inch guns had a range of over 20 miles. During Desert Storm one Battleship was sent right into Iraqi Naval base just to blast it with its guns. It had the Armor to protect it from anything that could be launched against it, and the guns to do more damage than any other Conventional weapon. While this attack was an example of its Second life, it was done after the battleships had its third life, this time as a heavily armored Cruise missile launcher. These battleships after their upgrade had the ability to hit targets at over 300 miles away (via Cruse Missiles), its gun's range was also increase (using improve Shells) but to no more than 30 miles. Unlike a Sub, who is NOT able to detect what is going on ABOVE the ocean levels or on shore (While diving and operating alone) a surface vessel can do both. Thus the Battleships were viewed as almost as effective as a Carrier (and given the Battleships better Armor Protection a better weapon if near the coast).

Technology changes, and sometime what was obsolete 50 years ago, is the best weapon today. The latest example of this is the recent stories that the US Army is having to solve a problem of a Shortage of M14 Rifles, the Rifle replaced by the M16 in 1964. In Iraq you have a lot of times where you need the longer range and greater penetration power of the M14 and where the greater overall firepower of the M16 is not needed. In many units M14 are being issued one per Squad, to give the Squad longer range fire power if needed, but no M14s have been made since 1964, and since the M14 was only adopted in 1957 you had very few made compared to the M16 (and the Factory that made M14 was closed in the mid-1960s as the US Government decided to drop making its own Rifles, which it had done since Washington's Administration). The M14 was "Obsolete" in 1964, but back in favor again. Like my comments about the Calvary, different terrain, means a differer mix of weapons are needed. The Nuclear Subs may come back if the Chinese and/or Russian build up their military strength, but right now the main enemy facing the US are the Taliban and Bin Laden (and people who think like them from a tactical point of view). This is the enemy we must fight, and we have to concentrate on the weapons needed in that fight. To a degree we have to worry about Future wars, but lets keep the view to what will be in the mix in the next 20 years and fight those fights first. This may mean bring back old technology (Horses and the M14 for example) as while as new technology (the drones for example).