Talk:U.S. Carrier Group tactics/Archive 1

Archive 1

February 2002

Am I correct to assume that this article is, at this point, mainly discussing US Navy tactics? --Robert Merkel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 10:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

Obviously another American invention. user:sjc 10:31, 3 December 2002

December 2002

Does this article ever discuss anything other than modern tatics? Perhaps it should be moved to Modern Naval tactics or Modern American Naval tactics. Rmhermen 18:38 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

At the moment, this is a mix of generic≤ modern tactics and US doctrine, with a healthy dose of hypothesis, since the situations envisioned have mostly not happened yet. It needs some rewrite, will think about how to do it. Stan 16:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Should there be something about amphibious operations here, as they have much more importance since the end of the cold war ? Also should this article have the US emphasis toned down a bit? Julianp 20:53, 11 March 2004

The above comment is like 8+ years old but still valid. I don't see much U.S. specific stuff here, just general discussion about naval tactics. And there are no sources anywhere. 83.245.227.200 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

smoke-screen

Can someone knowledgeable expand the section on naval tactics of smoke screen? where it was first used would be good too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sources?

Where is this ABCD classification thing from? Who uses it? It can't just be assumed that EVERY navy in the world uses the same classification systems. It can neither be assumed that if the navy of USA uses them, they're a "standard". --85.49.227.95 05:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm a surface warfare officer in the US Navy, and a lot of these terms aren't used in the US Navy - and a lot of the terms used in the present article are archaic and have been replaced by new ones.12.22.196.75 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

May 2005

Wow, this article is incredibly unclear. Drop the TLAs and make some sense! 67.48.79.191 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Carrier Battle Group

This is nicely written, and only needs a few more references to back up what is said, but it's not really broad enough to be described as "Modern Naval Tactics". The tactics discussed are almost exclusively relevant to the Carrier Battle Group. Even within this narrow scope, the article covers predominantly Fleet Defence, and makes litte to no mention of offensive operations. Nothing is said about tactics for sealift, amphibious or littoral operations - yet these form the bulk of modern naval deployments. Whilst the article gives a thorough description of ASW in a Carrier Battle Group, this very much a secondary element in modern operations - all recent CBG deployments to the Gulf have not had to consider the threat of submarines, or shied away from the shallow waters. And this says nothing about the very strong national bias of this article, which deals solely with USN naval tactics. I'd say that until the scope of the article is greatly expanded, it might be more profitably (if somewhat verbosely) entitled "United States Navy Carrier Battle Group Tactics" --Corinthian (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The bit at the end then in now null and void as it is about mostly British experience and naval ops and the war on terrorism. This article is US-centric, but despite the US naval terminology, a lot of it does relate to modern blue-water naval operations that could easily be British or French. Whilst I agree that it needs broadening (such as littoral and amph ops), I think the title should go back and the US Navy specific stuff should go in the ‘Carrier battle group' article. Should this be a US carrier tactics page (and not put littoral, amph, non-US stuff), or revert back to ‘modern naval tactics’ and trim back the US Navy terminology? Chwyatt 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

To all in this discussion, please remember to sign your comments. I agree that much of this pertains to U.S. Naval Suface Warfare in a rather generic term. Plese remember however that much would pertain to any task force commander. Also remember that virtually anyship with SAM and ASM missles is in all but fact a carrier as well. Determining where your threat lies and positioning your ships accordingly has been a problem faced by every naval commander since before the Trireme. I'd 1st sugest a decision be reach as to the point of the article, U.S. Naval Tactics, (suface based CVN group?) or generic based. One thing I would point out is the size of the undertaking in any case. Tirronan 23:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Anybody remember the whole Millennium Challenge 2002 wargame, where the OpFor's absolutely wrecked the American fleet? I'm doing this from work and I'm entirely too busy to write up anything, but if an interested party would look into it, I think they'd find a shockingly strong refutation of the continuing viability of carrier forces. 69.216.97.240 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Errrrrr

Why does 'modern naval tactics' redirect here? I guess someone has forgotten that the rest of the world has navies, too. --Joffeloff 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a re-naming is in order SirBob42 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Carrier Group Tactics and Modern Naval tactics

There is a clear need for a non-US centric article about naval tactics (as the US is not the only country with a navy), and a separate article about U.S. Carrier Group Tactics which an intensive subject in itself. Chwyatt 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)