Continuation The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by dudalb

USA is no better then Russia, right?

Can you imagine if we're weren't? All the historical and cultural and shared language excuses Russia's used to justify invading Ukraine would also apply to the US invading Canada. Who would stop us if we did? And yet we don't, and the possibility is considered so remote nobody bothers to fortify that border at all. It's almost as if, as retarded and backwards as America is, even it has matured beyond the conquer-your-neighbors stage of development.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Difficult to disentangle. Mostly (4) and (5), I spelled out what I think Mr. Iron was getting at.

Cheers.

Also with reference to the incursion.

It's an economic use of force, as the Kremlin has to expend a lot against small scale incursions.

And with the (probably unlikely) possiblity of a Maginot Line bypassing attack for Ukraine's counteroffensive.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Can you imagine if we're weren't? All the historical and cultural and shared language excuses Russia's used to justify invading Ukraine would also apply to the US invading Canada. Who would stop us if we did? And yet we don't, and the possibility is considered so remote nobody bothers to fortify that border at all. It's almost as if, as retarded and backwards as America is, even it has matured beyond the conquer-your-neighbors stage of development.

I dunno, the US almost came to world-ending blows with the USSR over our little neighbor Cuba deciding they didn't want to be our friend. Presumably if Canada had tried to join the Warsaw Pact there would have been trouble. Our seeming stability at the border probably has more to do with our interests and ideologies being closely aligned than any enlightened peace-loving attitude.

The invasion of Iraq seems like a pretty good recent example that the US doesn't care about sovereignty of countries they assume are too small and friendless to effectively resist naked aggression.

I have no problem condemning Russia's aggression in Ukraine (wars of aggression are the mothers of all war crimes), but the notion that what they're doing is uniquely aggressive or unprecedented is quite the ridiculous statement for any American to make especially.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I have no problem condemning Russia's aggression in Ukraine (wars of aggression are the mothers of all war crimes), but the notion that what they're doing is uniquely aggressive or unprecedented is quite the ridiculous statement for any American to make especially.

"Show me what Trump has done that is UNIQUELY bad!" - Every Republican Troll for the last 6 years.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Show me what Trump has done that is UNIQUELY bad!" - Every Republican Troll for the last 6 years.

??? Trump is not unique, he's a run-of-the-mill demagogue.

Russia's land grab attempt is not unique.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I dunno, the US almost came to world-ending blows with the USSR over our little neighbor Cuba deciding they didn't want to be our friend.

Yeah, with the USSR, not Cuba. Cuba itself couldn't have stopped us from taking it. And once the USSR ceased to be...did we make any attempts to take Cuba? I don't remember any.

Quote:

Presumably if Canada had tried to join the Warsaw Pact there would have been trouble. Our seeming stability at the border probably has more to do with our interests and ideologies being closely aligned than any enlightened peace-loving attitude.

And yet Canada felt no need to run to the Soviets for protection from us, and we felt no need to threaten them over the possibility. Because the US isn't the territory-snatching jerk that Russia is.

Quote:

The invasion of Iraq seems like a pretty good recent example that the US doesn't care about sovereignty of countries they assume are too small and friendless to effectively resist naked aggression.

Iraq is a good example because the US didn't annex it. When we go to war we may change a regime, but we don't add the territory to our own. Iraq is not US territory, that was never even considered.

Quote:

I have no problem condemning Russia's aggression in Ukraine (wars of aggression are the mothers of all war crimes), but the notion that what they're doing is uniquely aggressive or unprecedented is quite the ridiculous statement

I didn't say it's "uniquely aggressive or unprecedented"; it's got a lot of precedent: in prior centuries. Russia is behaving like it's the nineteenth century, when it was considered not unreasonable to just march into your neighbor's territory and kill them until the survivors surrendered and now their territory is part of your country. Despite all of America's military power, despite all our use of that military power, we don't conquer and keep territory. When was the last time we kept something we took by force?

Quote:

for any American to make especially.

Yeah, I don't think so.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Russia's land grab attempt is not unique.

Did anybody claim it was?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I smell some on the left preparing to sell Ukraine down the river in the interests of "Peace:.

I don't know about smell, but it seems like most of the grumbling in the U.S. I've heard about our involvement with Ukraine has been coming from the right.

Repugnican pols* courting MAGAchuds especially.

(*Although I am willing to concede that they are rather exceptionally noisome, at least in some senses of the word.)

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Cheers.

Also with reference to the incursion.

It's an economic use of force, as the Kremlin has to expend a lot against small scale incursions.

And with the (probably unlikely) possiblity of a Maginot Line bypassing attack for Ukraine's counteroffensive.

And of course, if Russia dies put in sufficient troops to deal with a small raid, there is always the option/threat for a larger "official" Ukrainian raid/attack

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I don't know about smell, but it seems like most of the grumbling in the U.S. I've heard about our involvement with Ukraine has been coming from the right.

Repugnican pols* courting MAGAchuds especially.

(*Although I am willing to concede that they are rather exceptionally noisome, at least in some senses of the word.)

Oh, its coming from both the extreme left and extreme right. Its just that the extreme right has about 100 times more political power in the US than the extreme left, and probably outnumber them several times over.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I don't know about smell, but it seems like most of the grumbling in the U.S. I've heard about our involvement with Ukraine has been coming from the right.

Repugnican pols* courting MAGAchuds especially.

(*Although I am willing to concede that they are rather exceptionally noisome, at least in some senses of the word.)

Yes, the right has been doing most of the complaining, but now I am seeing some bitching on the left as well.generally of the "poor Ukraine, we must stop the fighing now" style. That there will not be any Ukraine if Russia Wins seems beyond them.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I've long said that the only real international law is "molon labe".

I think much of international law is intended to avoid molon labe.

How successful it is at that is, of course, a different question.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I think much of international law is intended to avoid molon labe.

How successful it is at that is, of course, a different question.

You mean the much of international law that is neither binding nor enforceable, unless one nation or another nuts up and molons another nation's labe?

You mean the international law of the Budapest Memorandum?

Or do you mean the international law of military aid to Ukraine in the face of repeated red line statements by Moscow that they seem unwilling or unable to enforce?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You mean the much of international law that is neither binding nor enforceable, unless one nation or another nuts up and molons another nation's labe?

Pretty much that. Like I said, whether it is actually effective is a different question.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Pretty much that. Like I said, whether it is actually effective is a different question.

Molon labe is super effective. "We hope it won't come to that, and if it does we have no way to stop it", not so much.

The Russia-Ukraine war is a perfect example. NATO is a textbook example of molon labe as a global peace enforcement regime. But Ukraine wasn't under that aegis. Which goes to show how much the Budapest Memorandum wasn't international law.

You want to say that unenforced aspirations count as international law, even though they're not effective. I'm saying that if it's unenforced and ineffective, it's not international law.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I'll try to summarize the strategic perspective of this Australian expert (and round it out with my own conclusions, where he does not spell them out):

(1) Whether and when a negotiated settlement (or other resolution of the conflict) happens depends chiefly on these factors:
a) The assessed military situation, or how the parties envision it in the not-too-distant future
b) The internal and external pressures on the Russian leadership
c) The internal and external pressures on the Ukrainian leadership and its Western supporters

(2) No acceptable negotiations will be possible with Putin, as Putin is indictedfor war crimes and too much personally chained to the project of conquering and eliminating Ukraine to ever credibly refrain from those goals

(3) The main strategic importance of the coming Ukrainian offensive lies in its influence on the three factors above:
a) Whatever measure of success, or lack thereof, Ukraine can achieve will affect either sides assessment of how the military situation may change in the future
b) Ukrainian success will increase pressure on Putin, possibly to the point where his leadership becomes assailable, while decreasing pressure on Kyiv and the West
c) Ukrainian failure will relieve ressure on the Ruscist regime and increase it on the West, possibly to the point where Western support drops below a threshold where Ukraine can prevail.

(4) The best move therefore for the West is to help Ukraine NOW in any way it can to make the offensive a resounding success

(5) The West should not automatically assume that whatever comes after Putin is necessarily as bad or worse; instead it should watch out for possible non-fascist movements and leaders. There should be a message "if you negotiate in good faith and with a view to return to decency, the rule of law, even perhaps democracy, here is our outstreched hand"

(6) As for what Australia can do beyond supporting diplomatically, financially and with military supplies: Push for a smarter personal sanctions regime - one that does not drive the Russian elites out of the world and firmly back into Russia, but gives them an out and a chance to signal opposition to the regime.

The West was as surprised as anyone else when Russia didn't conquer Ukraine quickly.


The need for the F16 is not what you might think. The air defences of Ukrained were Soviet based and actually very effective. The problem is that they are running out and there are no replacements. The F16 is the easiest way to replace the air defence systems since Western technology, rather than being ground launced, is air launched. That means a Western air launch platform. Without that being done ASAP, then Ukraine will be defenceless against the Russian air force which is still very capable but has been mostly standing off up till now.


Ukrainians are still much better motivated than the Russians, which counts for a lot, despite the heavy losses they have also suffered. One Ukrainian commander related how none of his original men are still fighting. They have all be replaced by new recruits.



Ukraine has been keeping it's best in reserve for the offensive that is coming.


Russia had hoped to have a winter offensive but it came to nothing. You even have Russians denying there was any attempt at an offensive other than Backhmut.

I like the presentation as it ties up a lot of concepts quite neatly.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You want to say that unenforced aspirations count as international law, even though they're not effective. I'm saying that if it's unenforced and ineffective, it's not international law.

Law is law even when it isn't effective.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Law is law even when it isn't effective.

Just as whispering into a typhoon is speech.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Just as whispering into a typhoon is speech.

Yes. The effectiveness of an action does not change the definition of the word that describes it. If I take nineteen hours to run a marathon, that doesn't make it not a marathon.

[Oystein]

A reminder or primer to those discussing "law":

The leading current theories of law fall somewhere within the spectrum of "Legal Positivism", whereby law arises from social fact, or in other words what people think and agree the law is. Be it Hobbes' theory of social contract, Kelsen's approach that there are basic norms from which, like in a constitution, all other norms follow, or HLA Hart's work which is more influential in the common-law / English-speaking world.

These theories mostly give little weight to enforcement or morality:
The law simply is what people think it is. And from this comes its authority: The USA surely excercises Molon labe - but not willy-nilly: They mostly restrain themselves by the law as US citizens may view it, who are at least vaguely aware of what the International Law established in the wake of the World Wars is, and how it is to no small degree an American creation. So in fact, US governments better adhere to those rules. That system of international law also had the recognition of a very significant part of the rest of the world, and generally states find it in their interest to act at least roughly or superficially in accordance with it, lest they get in conflict with other states or their own constituencies.
It is then mostly autocrats, who feel they are powerful enough to ignore and then shape internal opinions, who do what they can to also ignore what even they realise is international law.

I submit that a part even of the Russian population is aware of, and profoundly unhappy with, the fact that Russia is breaking international law.

And again, Russia does so in ways far more blatant than the USA does, even if the USA does it more often.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks Oystein, that was very helpful.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Oystein

it is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE to carry military operations into the invader's own territory and absolutely totally nothing at all wrong with this

You do understand that international politics doesn't always match what is perfectly legitimate or even moral. It's always been perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to disrupt Russia's logistics by hitting targets inside Russia, but their allies have historically been reluctant to give them weapons that allow them to do that.

Quote:

No one in Russia is actually really kidding themselves that this is not a war, merely a SMO.

What's your evidence for that?

Quote:

If full mobilization were feasible and advantageous to Putin, he'd have called for it already. Everybody, including Putin, understands that a full mobilization risks losing him support,

Which is precisely the point. If Ukraine "officially" invades any part of Russia, that changes. Suddenly, he's got a narrative in which Russia is fighting for survival.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yes. The effectiveness of an action does not change the definition of the word that describes it. If I take nineteen hours to run a marathon, that doesn't make it not a marathon.

What if you take nineteen days? Nineteen weeks? Nineteen years? With constant breaks and side trips? At some point theory has to meet reality or there is no point to it outside of interesting thoughts confined entirely to the mind.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

You do understand that international politics doesn't always match what is perfectly legitimate or even moral. It's always been perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to disrupt Russia's logistics by hitting targets inside Russia, but their allies have historically been reluctant to give them weapons that allow them to do that.

That reluctance didn't grow out of a vacuum, nor is it fixed in place for immovable eternity. Quite the contrary: Ukraine's supporters have eased that reluctance step by step, as evidence flowed in steadily that the primary reason for this reluctance - fear of escalation - is not actually be feared, since Putin cannot and does not escalate in any new, threatening way.

Originally Posted by jeremyp

What's your evidence for that?

Watching Russian public propaganda shows, where the word "war" is more and more used interchangeably with "SMO".
Besides, the rate at which ammo is spent, soldiers die, gear is destroyed is so vastly beyond anything Russia has experienced since WW2, there is no way anyone was actually fooled even in the early phases. Certainly after the excrutiating slow,wasteful battle for Severodonetsk has this been too obviously an all-out war. Russia is changing its economy to suit the needs of war.
Really, even if it was my claim, the opposing view would require evidence, since this is so bleeding obviously a war.
Much like if I claimed that no one in Russia is kidding themselves that the sky on a cloudless day is pink - they know it's blue. Since it has to be obvious even to brainwashed Russians that the sky is blueish, the opposing theory would require evidence.

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Which is precisely the point. If Ukraine "officially" invades any part of Russia, that changes. Suddenly, he's got a narrative in which Russia is fighting for survival.

Again: This would only be an excuse, as the sort of incursion that happened, and which I described, one that has clear defensive military objectives, is NOT actually an existential threat to Russia.
Plus: This excuse is ALREADY available and is ALREADY being used, by claiming that the four annexed oblasts, and the previously occupied areas of the Donbas "people's republics" and Crimea are part of Russia an Ukraine seeks to steal a part of Russia ALREADY
Plus: Even before the Russian invasion, the propaganda narrative has been all along that Russia is ALREADY being attackt by Ukraine, by NATO, by the USA and is ALREADY in a defensive posture. Indeed, the entire "official" point of the "SMO" is to turn from a defensive to an offensive role - and that, clearly, has failed, and Russia back to (officially) "defending herself".
BUT these messages "Ukraine is attacking Russia!!" didn't mobilize the masses in Russia. I am fairly certain they won't mobilize significantly more if parts of border oblasts like Belgorod or Bryansk are temporarily taken by Ukraine defense forces. One analyst I listened to the other day (I think Vlad Vexler) called this the "borderlessness" of Russia: This state ideology, "Ruskiy Mir", best translated perhaps as "Russian Civilization", which seeks to bring back all territories with Russian populations back into the realm of the czar and the orthodox patriarch in Moscow, is deliberately vague in geographical scope: Ukraine is not spoken of as a legitimate entity with recognizable borders, the target territory of Ruskiy Mir stretches beyond Ukraine of course, and ordinary people deep inside the vastness of Russia simply may not - IF they buy into Putin's propoganda! - distinguish much between a threat to Belgorod and a threat to, say, Luhansk, Kharkiv or indeed Bakhmut.

So my assessment is that limited incursions into Russia proper, even if over time they grow bolder and farther reaching, will not change Putin's room for escalation, will not warm the population up to more active support for the war.

(In another recent post I related the interesting poll result by Nalvany's group, unfortunately undated, that less than 3% of Russians would prioritize more funds for the military and the war, if the Russian state suddenly had a lot more to spend: Most Russians just don't care for the war, most probably would rather like for it to end.)

(This entire tactic of easing reluctance / increase of the impact and reach of Western supplied weapons; now perhaps deeper and deeper raids, reminds me a lot of boiling a frog.)

[Jimbo07]

Quote:

The Russian reconnaissance ship Ivan Khurs was seemingly hit by an unnamed surface vessel in the Black Sea, new video shows, - CNN Rolling

Russia's navy keeps getting beat by a country with no real navy...

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Russia's navy keeps getting beat by a country with no real navy...

I'm coming around to the opinion that Ukraine does indeed have a real navy, but it's a cutting-edge 21st century navy that doesn't necessarily always look like a conventional 20th century navy.

I mean, Ukraine is probably never going to be very interested in buying expensive capital ships for long-range force projection outside the Black Sea. Their focus is always going to be coast guard, security of the trans-Bosporus trade route, and the implication of commerce raiding.

So at some point, we'll probably see them augment their fleet of boat-torpedoes with guided missile frigates. Probably some drone tenders and ELINT/EW boats. Maybe one or two aircraft-carrying cruisers.

But they're already working on their third generation of boat-torpedo. That's navy enough for me, at the moment.

ETA: And the best part of this attack, in my opinion? They hit a modern intelligence/electronic warfare ship. Of all the ships in Moscow's inventory, this is the one you'd expect to be able to detect and jam the drone control signals. And this is the one you'd expect to be doing exactly that, since it's in the Black Sea and Ukraine has made no secret of its boat-torpedoes. I'm not saying the Ivan Khurs had one job, I'm just saying...

[JoeMorgue]

I've never gotten what the point of Russia's trying to field a blue water (or as close to a blue water as Russia can manage) Navy in the Black Sea is actually supposed to accomplish.

There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've never gotten what the point of Russia's trying to field a blue water (or as close to a blue water as Russia can manage) Navy in the Black Sea is actually supposed to accomplish.

There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.

I think your second point answers your first. We're friends. We don't always get along, but we're still mostly friends. Not everyone on the Black Sea is necessarily Russia's friend (although they seem confused as to why - shouldn't everyone in the region want to be Russian?).

BTW, there have been Great Lakes aircraft carriers:

Great Lakes Aircraft Carriers

[Steve]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've never gotten what the point of Russia's trying to field a blue water (or as close to a blue water as Russia can manage) Navy in the Black Sea is actually supposed to accomplish.

There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.

You can never be too sure what Canada might get up to!

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Steve

You can never be too sure what Canada might get up to!

It's only a matter of time before they get tired of waiting and cross the border to take the Stanley Cup by force.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Russia's navy keeps getting beat by a country with no real navy...

Russian navy has been going to the dogs ever since Captain Ramius defected....

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

BTW, there have been Great Lakes aircraft carriers:

Great Lakes Aircraft Carriers

.... for training purposes.

Other than "dude its frickin Canada for crying out loud", the reason the USN has no carriers in the Great Lakes is that theres no reason to. We can cover that area with land based aircraft. Kind of like the Russians should be able to cover the Black Sea area with their own aircraft... its not exactly the Pacific Ocean. Sevastopol is no more than 200 miles or so from the absolute extremes of the the sea.

ETA: and reading the article theres a rather blatant mistake:

the often still air also kept heavy frontline combat planes like Hellcats, Corsairs and Avengers from getting stiff enough tailwinds for safe touchdowns.

Err, no, they need a headwind.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I think your second point answers your first. We're friends. We don't always get along, but we're still mostly friends. Not everyone on the Black Sea is necessarily Russia's friend (although they seem confused as to why - shouldn't everyone in the region want to be Russian?).

BTW, there have been Great Lakes aircraft carriers:

Great Lakes Aircraft Carriers

Beat me to it.
During World War 2, a lot of Navy pilots got their carrier take off and landing training on the Great Lake carriers.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've never gotten what the point of Russia's trying to field a blue water (or as close to a blue water as Russia can manage) Navy in the Black Sea is actually supposed to accomplish.

There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.

I can think of a few reasons. One, the bulk of their Black Sea Fleet seems to be guided missile frigates and cruisers. These are good for attacking land and sea, and strike me as appropriate for force projection in the Black Sea.

Two, Russia has limited access to the world's oceans. The US doesn't need a CSG homeported on the Great Lakes, because it has much better options for homeporting. Russia isn't trying to have a blue-water navy because they want to dominate the Black Sea. They're trying to have a blue-water navy on the Black Sea because that's one of the few available jumping-off points for them to sortie a blue-water navy out into the blue waters of the world.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm coming around to the opinion that Ukraine does indeed have a real navy, but it's a cutting-edge 21st century navy that doesn't necessarily always look like a conventional 20th century navy.

I mean, Ukraine is probably never going to be very interested in buying expensive capital ships for long-range force projection outside the Black Sea. Their focus is always going to be coast guard, security of the trans-Bosporus trade route, and the implication of commerce raiding.

So at some point, we'll probably see them augment their fleet of boat-torpedoes with guided missile frigates. Probably some drone tenders and ELINT/EW boats. Maybe one or two aircraft-carrying cruisers.

But they're already working on their third generation of boat-torpedo. That's navy enough for me, at the moment.

ETA: And the best part of this attack, in my opinion? They hit a modern intelligence/electronic warfare ship. Of all the ships in Moscow's inventory, this is the one you'd expect to be able to detect and jam the drone control signals. And this is the one you'd expect to be doing exactly that, since it's in the Black Sea and Ukraine has made no secret of its boat-torpedoes. I'm not saying the Ivan Khurs had one job, I'm just saying...

I'd love to see one of those drones with something like Brimstone to give it some limited land attack, or attacking behind booms etc. Imagine what would happen to a submarine if one of those hit the sail when it's returning to or leaving dock. Especially given the demonstrated level of Russian Navy damage control

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've never gotten what the point of Russia's trying to field a blue water (or as close to a blue water as Russia can manage) Navy in the Black Sea is actually supposed to accomplish.

There's a reason the Americans don't have a Nimitz Class Carrier Strike Group in Lake Michigan.

It is rather constrained.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Especially given the demonstrated level of Russian Navy damage control

I think this has been the point, especially with Moskva. Given the hit, other navies may have been able to save their ship with effective DC. Could the Russians? What's happened with the Ivan Khurs? It sure seems like a hit, but the Russians also showed a video of them taking a drone out. Both could be true. They could live through the initial hit, but poor DC, seamanship, etc. could cause problems later.

Apparently, the Russians have claimed it's ok by showing a photo of another ship?!

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I think this has been the point, especially with Moskva. Given the hit, other navies may have been able to save their ship with effective DC. Could the Russians? What's happened with the Ivan Khurs? It sure seems like a hit, but the Russians also showed a video of them taking a drone out. Both could be true. They could live through the initial hit, but poor DC, seamanship, etc. could cause problems later.

Apparently, the Russians have claimed it's ok by showing a photo of another ship?!

How does Direct Current save a ship?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

How does Direct Current save a ship?

Damage control. A set of of procedures the crew will carry out, in the event their ship takes damage. Fire suppression, flooding mitigation, working manually around busted mechanicals, etc.

Top-tier navies design their ships with damage control in mind. They develop good procedures for handling a wide range of contingencies. They drill their crews exhaustively on those procedures.

The ability of a ship to survive a hit, to keep on fighting, or to return to port under its own power, depends a lot on how competent its crew is at performing damage control drills.

(This is one reason to avoid extensive automation of your warship. Crew can operate equipment manually. They can bypass a damaged autoloader. They can swing hatches closed. At a certain point, reducing the crew size in favor of more automation means your ship loses some important 'self-healing' capability.)

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Beat me to it.
During World War 2, a lot of Navy pilots got their carrier take off and landing training on the Great Lake carriers.

The Air Zoo, which is a surprisingly good aviation museum in Kalamazoo has a couple of restored aircraft they recovered from the bottom of Lake Michigan that did not quite make their landings on those carriers. Also they models of at least one of the paddle wheel carriers.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Russian navy has been going to the dogs ever since Captain Ramius defected....

You just can't trust a submarine captain with a Scottish accent.