• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    What gets me every time they talk about this pier… The ships in the photos are amphibians landing ships designed with ramps and flat bottoms so they can unload on the beach without a pier. The pier is totally unnecessary in this scenario

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, but then you’re on a beach, so you need vehicles that can drive on a beach, possibly in wet sand, possibly still half in the water. Unless you’re actually doing amphibious assault in enemy territory building a pier is a good idea as it makes unloading vehicles/cargo much easier and broadens the type of boats you can use for transport.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        100% agreed. If they had been serious about this whole we’re going to bring supplies in from the sea. Day 1 through 30 should have been amphibious vehicles. Day 30 through 60 should have been pier-based vehicles, and 60 plus should be showing massive high throughput. With UN peacekeepers at some point to prevent bombing of the aid caravans.

        • roboto@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          To rescue the 4 hostages in return for almost 300 dead Palestinians and magnitudes more of wounded people.

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I don’t think it’s credible to say that The pier was built for the Israeli rescue operations.

              In fact, without the pier they still would have executed the operation. Pier was convenient, but not necessary

              • Emmy@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                In fact, without the pier they still would have executed the operation. Pier was convenient, but not necessary

                There’s absolutely no way they’d have allowed it’s construction of it wasn’t necessary for them. We can tell because it’s already being dismantled

    • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The amphibious ships are small and can’t carry a lot. The proposed idea made a lot of sense in that it would allow larger ships to be used so less trips and less fuel per ton of aid, but the political will was just never there to keep it running or make sure it was planned thoroughly enough.

      Absolutely shameful, but on the plus side military logistics students just got another case study.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Those are the little boats that take things from the pier to the shore. The boats that take things over the ocean to the pier are not landing vessels. They are large ships and only have a cargo ramp, which requires a pier to unload. I looked at hundreds of pictures before writing this and didn’t see one large ship with beach landing capabilities. The largest landing ship I saw was the USAV Matamoros, Runnymede-class ship with a capacity of 20 stacked containers, with no ability to load them onto trucks. It needs a pier to load trucks. Could maybe carry eight trucks already loaded, which is nothing. It operates regionally, not transoceanic.