v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) (02/20/91)
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia)
Of all the Aircraft Carrier's in the US arsenal, which is considerred
the most capable? If I am not mistaken, some years ago, it would have been the
John F. Kennedy "Super Carrier".
Secondly, I was watching the nes the other day and the news person
referred to the seventh corps as "elite". Is the seventh corps actually elite
when compared to other units its size, or was the news person just throwing in
colorful illustration?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Zerxes Bhagalia v064lnev (INTERNET: @UBVMS.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: @UBVMS.bitnet)
( -==- Bhagalia (INTERNET: @SYBIL.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: NA )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) (02/21/91)
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23) In article <1991Feb20.052409.29442@cbnews.att.com> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) writes: > Of all the Aircraft Carrier's in the US arsenal, which is considerred >the most capable? If I am not mistaken, some years ago, it would have been the >John F. Kennedy "Super Carrier". That would be the one Nimitz class carrier we have there. (I forgot which ship it is.) The Nimitz class is our current class of CVNs. They are the largest carriers in our fleet (by displacement, I know the Enterprise is longer.) They can carrier more aircraft fuel/weapons due to the fact that they only have two reactors and they don't need to carry fuel for themselves. Although carriers do carry some fuel for its escorts most of the time. In case they can't be reached by a fleet oiler. P.S. Nice to see another NHS grad on the nets. (Left a.s.h hmm?) ############################################################################### # "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu # # MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ Moderator, WPI amime FTP site # ###############################################################################
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (02/21/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >Of all the Aircraft Carrier's in the US arsenal, which is considerred >the most capable? If I am not mistaken, some years ago, it would have been >the John F. Kennedy "Super Carrier". Exactly what do you mean by "most capable"? If you're talking about endurance, then it is the Nimitz class carriers (USS NIMITZ, USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, USS CARL VINSON, USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT, AND USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN). They all are nuclear powered carriers and can cruise for 13 years without "refueling," or estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 miles. By comparison, conventional carriers need to be refueled every few days, depending on how fast they are cruising. Nuclear powered carriers can cruise at maximum speed constantly whereas conventional carriers could not; hence nuclear powered carriers could get to combat areas faster. However, like the conventional carriers, the nuclear powered carriers do need replenishment (e.g. restocking food pantry & aviation part shelves, refilling aviation fuel tanks, etc.) at time intervals. If you're talking about the attack capability, I guess there is not much difference among the carriers, if there are any - it depends mainly on the number and type of plane the carrier has. For example, if carrier A has more attack planes than carrier B, then carrier A has more attack capability. Carrier Full Load Aircrafts Complement ------------------- ----------- --------- ---------- NIMITZ class 91,487 tons 90+ 6,300 ENTERPRISE 90,970 tons 90 approx. 5,500 KITTY HAWK class: KITTY HAWK 81,123 tons 85 approx. 4,950 CONSTELLATION 81,773 tons " " " AMERICA 79,724 tons " " " JOHN F. KENNEDY 80,941 tons " " " FORRESTAL class: FORRESTAL 79,250 tons 70 approx. 6,180 SARATOGA 80,383 tons " " " RANGER 81,163 tons " " " INDEPENDENCE 80,643 tons " " " MIDWAY class: MIDWAY 64,002 tons 75 approx. 4,502 CORAL SEA 65,241 tons " " 4,974 Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1985-86
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (02/21/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) > Secondly, I was watching the nes the other day and the news person > referred to the seventh corps as "elite". Is the seventh corps actually elite > when compared to other units its size, or was the news person just throwing in > colorful illustration? Be careful of terms news persons use when describing military subjects. Sometimes they are accurate - sometimes they are not. No, I wouldn't describe the VII Corps as "elite" or unique. It is a corps headquarters providing command and control over subordinate divisions. Normally, a corps (always use roman numerals) consists of 2-3 divisions, a separate brigade, an armored cavalry regiment, 2-3 artillery brigades, a corps support command, and a variety of combat support (engineers, aviation) and combat service support brigades and battalions. The VII Corps ("Born in Battle" - came into existence on board a troop ship just prior to the North Africa campaign in WWII) is used to commanding, controlling, supporting, and maintaining heavy mechanized and armor units. Some theorists describe a corps as the largest "tactical formation". Anything larger is thought to be "strategic". I would expect the VII Corps in the gulf to be the "heavy corps" leading any large armor/mech formations. The XVIII Airborne Corps would be the "light corps" leading the airmobile/airborne forces. That leaves the III Corps (out of Ft Hood, Texas) - also a controlling headquarters for mech/armor forces (maybe the 'reserve' corps?????) But "elite"? - the term really doesn't apply to a corps. As far as I remember - most military officers don't like the term "elite". When I served with the Special Forces (MACSOG '69-'70) most of the senior officers and NCOs thought the worst thing that happened to them was the green beret itself - it immediately set them apart from the rest of the army - and enjoined a lot of animosity toward them. The beret itself, what units should wear them etc - became a hotly emotional issue. Finally - "elite" units (OK so I can use the term here) were authorized to wear them = Special Forces - green Rangers - black Airborne - red These are the units that could rightfully use the term 'elite'. Military Intelligence lobbied for a beret - a pink one - with a teal blue flash with crossed lightning bolts emblazoned with the motto: "We won't fight, and you can't make us" Mike Schmitt, Major, Military Intelligence, Retired (never did get my damn pink beret - but I wore my fighting petunias)
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (02/23/91)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > Secondly, I was watching the nes the other day and the news person > referred to the seventh corps as "elite". Is the seventh corps actually elite > when compared to other units its size, or was the news person just throwing in > colorful illustration? The news creatures, as usual, get it mostly wrong. Forgive them, for they know not. The US military (Army in particular) has had a historical aversion to "elite" units. It is due to our "minuteman" heritage, "citizen army" image. As a country, we have been, and continue to be, somewhat suspicious of professional soldiers. Special forces have been parts of the US military, but have always been formed reluctantly and dis- banded quickly. The "Green Berets" are the most recent example. The closest long-standing units which might be called "elite" are the airborne. There is always some animosity and name-calling; a para who reports to a "leg" unit wearing his jump boots may be subjected to a corrective lecture. Things like that. The US also tends to rotate personnel, so that units don't get too provincial. Very egalitarian. European armies, on the other hand, have developed professional elite forces, with regimental histories, colors, flashy uniforms, etc, to set them apart. You can spend your entire career with one unit in the Foreign Legion. Makes for very cohesive units. Also an occasional coup attempt. Note also that the US military establishment does not like to make celebrities. It will be interesting to see what happens to the current TV visibles, Brig Gen Neal and Gen Kelley. Will they be thrust forward to positions of even greater responsibility, or will they slowly fade away? Film at 11.