Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.15186779 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Had the Bizzy not gotten a lucky shot, would the Hood have been able to sink it?

I mean, one was a battleship, the other was only a cruiser.

>> No.15186799

Also, Naval wargame general.

Just got Naval Thunder, reading through it, sucks to only have 4 fleets available, but the rules are really good.

>> No.15186875

The Bismark never sunk the hood.

>> No.15186886

>>15186875

>> No.15186904

>>15186875

>> No.15186940

>Had the Bizzy not gotten a lucky shot, would the Hood have been able to sink it?

No. The hood never had a chance of sinking the Bismark. The torpedo to her rudder is what really killed the Bismark. It allowed the slower British Battleships to catch up to her and clobber her.

>> No.15186978

>>15186779
Hood was a battlecruiser, so more a light battleship than a cruiser.

Realistically? Those two could shoot each other all day and not do much damage, but at the ranges they were fighting at the Hood's weaker deck armor was its undoing.

Also the fact that the Bismark had a useful escort instead of a non-battle ready one would have made the Hood's day a very bad one.

>> No.15186982

As if you actually have any intention to talk about wargames, this is just another straight up /k/ thread like all the other "naval wargame generals" you made during the last months.

>> No.15187002

I don't think the Hood ever had much of a chance.

She was built and launched in the eve of World War One. Most of the naval guns of that period shot their shells in more of a line-of-sight trajectory rather than a parabolic arc. So most of the Hood's armor was around her sides, rather than the deck.

Of course, a lot changes in 20 years. Naval guns got more powerful, and started lobbing their shells upward like artillery.

Any shot the Bismark fired would have dropped straight down through the Hood's lightly-armored deck.
And it did.

>> No.15187018

>>15187002

The Bismark also had low deck armor. It was designed around closer range encounters rather than plunging fire because it was a north sea ship where line of sight is problematic due to the weather and encounters were nominally meant to be done at shorter range. A dive bomber would have ruined her day.

>> No.15187038

Don't know about sinking it, but it definitely had the firepower to damage it. Forcing it into retreat was a definite possibility. BCs have a bad rep because people only remember the times they get hit, but not when they don't get hit. Later British armor schemes also got better.

>> No.15187040

>>15186779
Its doubtful that any single ship(non carrier edition) built to that point could have sunk the bismarck one on one.

>> No.15187123

The Bismarks escort sunk the hood, not the Bismarck.

Also, the Bismark was sunk by cannon fire, not a torpedo hit.

>> No.15187150

I think the better question would be the might of the Royal Navy vs the Imperial Japs.

Yamato vs King George the V.

>> No.15187163

Has anyone played victory at sea? Care to give a quick review? I'm looking to get into it and want to know about costs and things.

>> No.15187178

>>15187040
THE HMS MOTHERFUCKING RODNEY WOULD DISAGREE SIR!

>> No.15187181

Mongoose did a naval wargame. It came with loads of tokens but you could get models for all the ships. ALL the ships. There were even rules for some of the experimental French and German battleships that never got built.

>> No.15187198

>>15187150
Depends on the theatre they fought in.

>> No.15187203

>>15187181
Mongoose never made ship models for Victory at Sea.

>> No.15187209

Surface ships are for faggots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y9ZQsAgveI

>> No.15187217

>>15187123
the Bismark was sunk by scuttling recent studies have shown.
>>15186978
The hood was more than a Battlecrusier she was an absolute monster, a posterchild for jackie fishers navy, The pride of the Royal Navy and also after 20 years of refits, totally overloaded.

>>15187002
She was laid down in 1916 and launched in 1920 and continuously reworked during her construction.

Also your a fucking retard, the Bismark only had a couple thousand yards of range on the hood, Hell the British used the guns on the hood for every battleship post 1912 or so until HMS vangaurd which if irc wasnt launched till after the war. What ruined the hood was an overtaxed design and a poor armour scheme. Pre all or nothing.

>>15187040
Im pretty sure the US south carolina class could have relatively easily. Just sayin.

>> No.15187222

>>15187123

Actually it was finished off with Torpedoes from the HMS Dorchester after being reduced to a floating, burning scrap pile. She would've sunk eventually, but the Royal Navy wanted to speed things up.


Now can we talk about actual wargames please? I like Victory at Sea, I think the Priority system is awesome and beats the pants off traditional points systems.

>> No.15187230

>>15187150
BB61 Iowa
US Navy

>> No.15187241

>>15187209

Hard to make a good wargame about the U-boots though.

I love me some Silent Hunter III + GWX though.

>> No.15187243

>>15187230
Iowa was a shit design.

NEVADA CLASS REPRESENT!

>> No.15187261

>>15187217
Really? the South Carolina class? The Bismarck had larger guns, more guns, better telemetry systems, was much faster, could turn better, had planes so they'd almost certainly know their opponents location better. The only real advantage the South Carolina class had was more uniform armor coverage, but they had essentially the same armour over the parts that mattered.

>> No.15187268

>>15187243
How so? They were only the longest serving battleships(the last one was decommissioned in 2005, lol) and had the best weapons and armor of the US battleship fleets.

>> No.15187285

>>15187261
bigger guns?
since when is 15 inch bigger than 16?
5000 yards less range?
and a 900 pound lighter shell?
your sir are a retard.
a big fucking retard.

>> No.15187302

>>15187261
same armour? The Bismarks shitty pre justland WW! armour scheme as good as a modern for the day all or nothing belt? Your still a retard sir.

>> No.15187310

>>15187261
I think he meant the North Carolina Class.

The South Carolina class was a pre-dreadnought era battleship. The North Carolina, by comparison, was kept in the Atlantic theatre for several months to counter Tirpitz, the Bismark's sister ship

>> No.15187314

>>15187243
oh and ballistics computers.
lets not forget that and my god radar.
And a shit ton of speed.
Also the Mark 7 gun
Iowas are bar none the best battleship[ designs ever built.
you mad?

>> No.15187320

>>15187285
Maybe I'm wrong, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_class_battleship

Says the south Carolina class had 12" guns, not 16"

Perhaps you are thinking of the "Iowa" class battleships, in which case they were not contemporaries, as the Bismarck was launched in May '41, and the Iowa was launched in August '42.

But hey, I'm the retard right?

>> No.15187323

>>15187310
Oops your right
mah bad.
Im not quite sure why I put south.

>> No.15187324

>>15187178
fuck off rodnol

inb4 nelsol

>> No.15187325

>>15187268
The Iowa class were rife with problems and spent more time being fixed then fighting.

>> No.15187330

>>15187320
Sorry I put north instead of south.

>> No.15187336

>>15187285
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_South_Carolina_(BB-26)

Dude, don't try to pull battleship data out of your ass seriously.

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_(BB-55) is likely the ship you meant

>> No.15187339

>>15187314
Overpriced, leaky, and useless.

Iowa is a shit design. The Yamato, the Bismark, the Hood, all were superior.

>> No.15187355

>>15187310
Now see that does make sense. The North Carolina ships definitely would have given the Bismarck a run for its money.
I still have to give a slight edge to the Bismarck since the North Carolina class didn't get outfitted with radar till later in the war, but it certainly would have been a fun fight to see.

>> No.15187361

>>15187336
I already said I put south instead of north yo.
I made a mistake with my classes.

>> No.15187392

>>15187339
The hood? Superior to an Iowa? an outdated and already sunk battlecruiser? nope
The Yamoto? It didnt have the ranging and range finding capabilities of the Iowas, nor the speed.
The Bismark was undergunned, and once again lacked the ranging and range finding capability of the Iowa.

>> No.15187414

>>15187339
Did either of the Yamoto's even have a real battle record outside of getting sunk?

The North Carolina had 1 merchant kill and a mess of bombardments to her name, but that was something at least.

The Hood got sunk by another battleship while her useless wingman ran away. The Bismark at least got a kill, but then got taken down by biplanes. Its Sister ship at least survived the maiden voyage though.

>> No.15187473

Although it'd be a terrible idea, building a new Yamato with modern technology, materials, and design considerations (including fixing the original design's flaws) would still be fun.

>> No.15187492

>>15187414
Think they did soem surface shelling maybe.

But the Musashi and Yamato got bombed to shit, so no.

And the sister ship was torpedoed by a sub before her watertight compartments were finished and that was the end of that.

>> No.15187579

>>15187414
The Bismark didn't kill the hood.

>> No.15187587

>>15187392
The Bismark had superior guns to the Iowa. The Hood was a faster design then the Iowa, and had a lower profile.

>> No.15187601

>>15187579

Yes it did.

Prinz Eugen doing the sinking is a crackpot theory without serious evidence or supporters.

Even Hood sinking itself via shooting its own deck is more believable.

>> No.15187690

>>15187601
Prinz Eugen is currently the leading theory in who killed the hood. It had superior gunnery to the Bismark, and it's salvo arrived on time when the Hood blew, the Bismarks firing sequence doesn't match with the timeline of the Hood explosion.

>> No.15187712

>>15187690

No it's not a leading theory, it's lacking in evidence and support.

Bismarck doing the sinking is still the prevailing theory, and no significant evidence has been shown to the contrary.

>> No.15187729

>>15187712
>No it's not a leading theory, it's lacking in evidence and support.

Except for Ship logs, eyewitness accounts, and established historical record....

Prinz Eugen landed the shot. Deal with it.

>> No.15187744

>>15187690
Also, Kennedy + grassy knoll lol

Seriously, there have been two whole mentions of naval wargaming. Can we get back on topic?

>> No.15187748

>>15187729

It doesn't have any of those, and you can't cite any proper sources, or point out a number of scholars agreeing on the matter.

It's a crackpot theory believed by internet hipsters, deal with it.

>> No.15187771

Who the fuck cares, aircraft carriers ruin everything anyway. Battleships were pretty much pointless all around

>> No.15187779

>>15187771
Aircraft Carriers are useless in modern warfare.

>> No.15187811

>>15187771
Battleships still had their uses. Bullets are cheap; bombs are expensive. A battleship like the Iowa was still capable of laying down significant firepower with solid accuracy against shore targets, without the expense of cruise missiles, and with a much greater volume and duration of fire.

>> No.15187845

>>15187779
How can you make such an ignorant statement? Air power is still vital to warfare and carriers allow it be projected anywhere.

>> No.15187871

>>15187845
They are key in support of land forces over seas, but in straight up naval combat they are waining in usefulness.

>> No.15187875

>>15187811
>>15187779
There are no more battleships in active duty in any country
Carriers are better. Deal with it

>> No.15187893

This thread is so full of Bismarck fanbois and Hood apologists that I feel bad about even posting in it.

Hood was outdated and blew up like all other British battlecruisers. Fisher was an idiot for ever thinking up that particular brainfart.

Bismarck was more than just an updated pre-Jutland design, but her armouring scheme was still WAAAAY below optimum. And her guns, while rather fast-firing, also left something to be desired. Like actual armour penetration capability and reliable fuzes, for example.

In conclusion, Prinz Eugen fucking rules. Except her shells also had shitty fuzes.

Pic tangentially related, an actual pre-Jutland battleship.

>> No.15187899

>>15187871
Oh god what a retard. So being able to take away other ships from hundreds of miles away is crappy to you?

>> No.15187911

>>15187899
You can do that without aircraft.

>> No.15187927

>>15187845
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1
>>15187875
See above link.

>>15187899
See the exile link.

Aircraft Carriers are a waste of time and money. In a real naval engagement they'll be sunk within the first 24 hours of conflict.

>> No.15187935

>>15186982
Don't be a faggot. I have some problem with the lack of overlap. /tg/s often simulate real-world events, so to accurately and interestingly play a /tg/, especially of the sort that recreates these realistic events, it is necessary to discuss the events. I would love to recreate a naval battle in a game. I have, except by naval I mean AIRSHIP.

>> No.15187947

>>15187927
>>15187927
Someone didn't get the hang of the Protoss in Starcraft..

>> No.15187968

BYE BYE AIRCRAFT CARRIER!

NICE TO KNOW YA!
WOULDN'T WANT TO BE YA!

>> No.15187976

>>15187927
Your example is an article written by "War Nerd" and he compares the entirety of the US Military to "whiny D&Ders." You might want to get a better source, bro.

>> No.15188015

>>15187927
Aircraft carriers aren't for getting into engagements. They're for carrying aircraft around for them to get into engagements
If you don't see the utility of mobile airfields, you have no idea how war works

>> No.15188024

Aircraft carriers are good, if your country has an endless supply of money.

The US is facing this problem right now.

>> No.15188041

>>>/k/9020774

>> No.15188046

>>15188015
They are also extraordinarily expensive assets that can be taken out by relatively inexpensive assets.

If you don't see the cost factor then you have no idea how war works.

>> No.15188054

>>15188046
>They are also extraordinarily expensive assets that can be taken out by relatively inexpensive assets

Stop describing all modern vehicles.

>> No.15188093

>>15188054
The scale cost is not quite the same.
Carriers cost hundreds of millions of dollars in and of themselves.

The Planes on board compound that significantly, plus the additional cost of crew, fuel, and maintenance.

Its not the same as losing a tank.

>> No.15188096

>>15187927
Do you have no idea how warfare works? Anti missile defences are improving constantly and all carriers are protected by destroyers and submarines. It is far from easy to defeat the defences of a proper carrier battle group.

>> No.15188099

>>15187976

War Nerd works for Jane's at present. So as a source he's about as high as you can get.

>> No.15188102

I can't wait for the Railgun.

The bye bye carriers.

>> No.15188120

>>15188096
Carriers have little, if any anti-missile armament.

The CIWS is a piece of shit that breaks all the time and has a kill probability of less then 20% against most anti-shipping missiles.

The engagement window of a Carrier is about 9 seconds to take out a sea-skimmer. If you add in escorts, they have a total of 45 seconds, TOPS from detection to impact to take out the Vampires.

>> No.15188132

>>15188120
>R2D2

CIWS=CHRIST IT WON'T SHOOT!

The 20mm it fires is next to useless as well, poor ballistic profile.

>> No.15188138

>>15188093
No, it's not the same as losing a tank. I didn't say it was. All modern military vehicles can be destroyed for less money than it took to built, outfit, crew, and deploy them. The more expensive the vehicle, the worse the potential loss is. But just because these things are expensive does not mean they're not used.

>> No.15188145

So what if, instead of wasting money and metal on the Bismark, Hitler had built an aircraft carrier and supporting vessels?

Would the British have actually broken a sweat then?

>> No.15188148

>>15188102
Bye bye pretty much every large naval vessel, regardless of armor.

>> No.15188159

>>15188145
Goering not Hitler neutered the Kriegsmarine.

Z-Plan would have led to the destruction of the Royal Navy and the fall of Great Britain.

>> No.15188164

>>15188102
Railgun is a useless weapon system. Cruise missile is superior.

>> No.15188169

>>15188102
Railguns and laser anti-air.

No more planes and missiles to fag shit up.

>> No.15188175

You do need to have a surface navy, anybody who denies this is an idiot. There are many things surface ships can do that would be extremely expensive, difficult, inefficient or simply impossible with submarines.

>> No.15188179

>>15188164
So wrong it hurts.

>> No.15188181

>>15188164
There is already a wide variety of anti-cruise missile systems.

Try to stop a chunk of metal going mach 7

>> No.15188185

>>15188159
....he said wistfully, masturbating to the History Channel as a single tear rolled down his pallid cheek.

>> No.15188189

>>15188145

Japs took out Prince of Wales (much newer and better armoured battleship than Hood) and Repulse (equivalent to Hood in tech) with planes easily.

They could have caused more harm at least.

>> No.15188190

>>15188159
The Z-Plan could only ever have succeeded if they'd also pushed along the u-boat development. . .500 or so Type XXI boats is just about the only thing that could get Great Britain to sign a white peace.

>> No.15188194

.... Why is this constantly being brought up?

Could we just have a "cool WW2 stuff" thread instead? I mean, after posting for about an and a half I can usually derail the thread there, but seriously.. who the fuck cares about the Bismark & the Hood?

Though I would like to know how those French ships would have faired against the Bismark had we not.. uh... sunk them all.

Sorry Frenchy.

>> No.15188199

>>15188175
What if we just made every ship submersible? Ace Combat-style super-large submarine aircraft carriers!

>> No.15188202

>who the fuck cares about the Bismark & the Hood?

Brits and Krauts

>> No.15188204

>>15188199
Like Supreme Commander
UEF submersible aircraft carrier.
Thing was boss.

>> No.15188210

>>15188159 Z-Plan would have led to the destruction of the Royal Navy and the fall of Great Britain.

Uh.. I should have saved my posts from the last one of these threads.

Sea Lion was never, at any point during the War, possible. It's unlikely to have been possible without rewriting history to such a significant degree that it becomes pointlessly hypothetical.

I *really* don't want to have to type out the reasons why Sea Lion wasn't ever going to work all over again.

>> No.15188220

>>15188181
You don't understand how poor "anti-cruise missile" defences really are.

Nor do you seem to understand that the earth is curved. How is a Railgun dangerous to a ship?

>> No.15188226

>>15188185
But he's talking about history.
The History Channel doesn't talk about history.
The History Channel talks about pawn shop deals, Hollywood auctions, logging and other blue collar jobs, and aliens.

>> No.15188227

Why do these naval wank threads always materialize here? You do know /k/ discusses more than deagles and moist nuggets, right?

>> No.15188232

>>15188210
Look it up on easymodo and paste it from there.

>> No.15188234

>>15188145
>>15188159
Hitler loses regardless of what he does. Papa Stalin simply had too many Russians

>> No.15188236

>>15188202

I'm a Brit. I don't care.

The Hood had a design flaw that caused it to blow up. The Bismark was a well designed modern ship that couldn't win the war in the Atlantic if she had four sisters.

The only thing the Brits lost with the Hood was a battleship and a lot of pride.

>> No.15188247

>>15188220
They really are quite good.

You know they can compensate for things like that.

Just as they do with artillery, Railguns do not need to be fired in a straight line.

>> No.15188256

>>15188227 You do know /k/ discusses more than deagles and moist nuggets, right?

>> Go to /k/ with an open mind.

>> Read front page threads

>> ITT: Pot smoking weapon owners/nuts!

>> My favorite gun is the M16, it became my favorite gun since call of duty 4.

Hrmmm.....

>> No.15188264

>>15188234

Right, but he's not germane to the topic of whether a different naval doctrine with the same budget and industry backing it could have had any significant impact on the Royal Navy's ability to flatten the Kriegsmarine.

>> No.15188265

Don't forget that railguns can fire more than just solid hunks of metal. With a sabot, you can fire anything from a load of plastic pellets to a live chicken to, yes, a fucking cruise missile. Guided projectiles? Yes please.

>> No.15188276

>Nor do you seem to understand that the earth is curved. How is a Railgun dangerous to a ship?

Why does the railgun have to fire los? Can't it just fire over the horizon like normal artillery? That's what made metal gear dangerous, it could launch an ICBM payload without a detectable launch

>> No.15188306

>>15188264
More subs would have been a better choice. The end result is the same nevertheless. The Brits cracked the Enigma and papa Stalin kept printing draft papers
Also, Godwin's law

>> No.15188308

>>15188199
Like I said, expensive, difficult and inefficient if it worked at all.

>> No.15188309

>>15188276
>Citing Metal Gear.

>> No.15188326

>>15188276
>METAL GEEEAAAARRRR

>> No.15188346

>>15188306
>Also Godwin's Law
Nobody's called you Hitler yet.

>> No.15188369

>>15187845

Because a single submarine ( modern one, not those shitty 1940s kind ) can destroy your Aircraft carrier without any issues and even do more damage by firing multiple torpedos at multiple targets.

The modern combat strategy is about air superiority and air power in a foreign nation is impossible without naval carriers.

If a war starts with China, Russia or dare I even say North Korea then you will see how useless a modern carrier is when facing someone with a military force designed to deal with carriers.

>> No.15188371

>>15188309

I know, I know, but amid the retardation, it does feature a lot of well researched stuff, I remember playing the first one and being bowled over that they'd actually concocted a plausible reason for a goddamn mecha to be a realistic worldwide thread

>> No.15188373

>>15188346

It's in effect now though. Ha!

>> No.15188416

>>15188369
No submarine is going to kill a carrier without issues. Half the ships and a large number of the aircraft in a CBG are made specifically for dealing with submarines.

The Sea Wolf games can show you just how hard it it for a sub to sneak in and attempt to get in range before its found.

>> No.15188428

>>15187893

THIS. Bismark was not a true battleship; it was a fast, heavy cruiser - a commerce raider. It was exactly the warship the German Navy needed.

The Hood was fucking obsolete, and the Bismark had a modern fire-control system. The shot that hit the Hood was a 'lucky" shot, technically speaking, but it couldn't have been made without the Bismarks fine fire control systems. Oh, Hood. 14 inch guns? Really?

>>15187968
>>15187927

From my "things I learned on /k/" copypasta:


5. Aircraft carriers, which offer the most complete means of power projection ever devised short of ICBMs, are as good as dead because of:

5a. -a magical chink missile that isn't in service yet,
5b. -cavitating torpedoes, that cannot see out of their own cavitation bubble, much less steer,
5c. -the Sunburn, a Russkie missile the US Navy has had years to develop countermeasures for.

The "War Nerd" is, as the anon above has said, a complete and utter fucking moron who is only taken seriously by hyper-left-wing fuckfaces who grasp at any straw that lets them pretend the worlds pre-eminent superpower is ON THE BRINK OF DESTRUCTION.

>> No.15188442

>>15188226
You know what you're not talking about? Traditional gaming.
gb /k/

>> No.15188460

LOL AMERICA IS IN DEBT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS BUT THEY SPENT ALL THAT MONEY ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND THERE IS NOTHING ANY OTHER COUNTRY CAN FUCKING DO ABOUT IT

LOLOLOL

>> No.15188465

>>15188416

Lets not forget the Ohio-class attack submarine that is part of every Carrier Battle Group.

Seriously, aircraft are the #1 best weapon against subs, and guess what carries a shitload of ASW aircraft? A FUCKING CARRIER! During WWII entire classes of little carriers were designated "escort" carriers, and used primarily for ASW duties in the Pacific and Atlantic. Being able to spot the shadow of a sub at periscope depth has given way to being able to lay OVER 9,000 sonar bouys over a large area very fast, to say nothing of drop a homing torpedo into the water just about anywhere, very fast.

Aircraft are fast. Subs are not.

>> No.15188488

>>15188227
> Why do these naval wank threads always materialize here?


Things I have learned on /k/:

1. The Glock, a legendarily durable polymer-frame handgun, EXPLODES LOLOLOL

2. The Sherman tank LOLOLSUX because it couldn't slug it out with tanks twice its weight.
2a. The Panther tank, which weighed twice as much as the Sherman and T-34, is in the same "Medium" tank class because the Germans said so.
3. The US Air Force should be using Extra 300s with open cockpits so the pilots can use 1911s, because maneuverability is the only thing that matters in a fighter.

4. The Mini-14, a rifle based on the M-14, which is in turn based on the M-1, (two of the most rugged battle rifles in history,) is a piece of shit, and Ruger, a company with a good reputation for quality, is also shit.

5. Aircraft carriers, which offer the most complete means of power projection ever devised short of ICBMs, are as good as dead because of:

5a. -a magical chink missile that isn't in service yet,
5b. -cavitating torpedoes, that cannot see out of their own cavitation bubble, much less steer,
5c. -the Sunburn, a Russkie missile the US Navy has had years to develop countermeasures for.

6. Revolvers are delicate pieces of shit because their very simple pawl-and-ratchet mechanism rivals Swiss watches for fragile complexity.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point- anything you learn on /k/ is almost always complete and utter horseshit, and you should always believe the opposite of what /k/ says.

And that is why we talk about this on /tg/. This is a wargame thread. Expect us to discuss the real-world origins of our game, especially since actual admirals use pen-and-paper wargames to assess real-world potential, and always have.

>> No.15188525

>>15188236
>Britfag
>perfectly realistic
>not asspained

Bloody good show, chap, do stay a while.

>> No.15188526

>>15188428

and what i have learned is that

A) AEGIS systems are 100 unflawed despite never being tested in a military enviroment

B) Stealth based subs have never existed and the U.S already knows every secret program every nation has despite being woefully ill prepared for anything a dirty sandkip can produce.

and C) that planes can fly on farts and fumes and underwater.

The rule of thumb is that every nation of worth has a tool to trump an aircraft carrier. They are too prominent to not have counters being devised constantly.

This works in reverse too but a secret counter may or may not counter a secret weapon.

If you sink a fleets aircraft carrier then they have lost in modern warfare since their power projection and the multiples of billions of Aircraft carrier ( before the cargo and fleet of planes) has been lost and is impossible to replace in short order.

>> No.15188572

>>15188099
>War Nerd works for Jane's at present.

This is a fucking lie so heinous that you ought to be banned for it.

Of course, it wouldn't mean shit even if it was true. Well-qualified people are quite often so full of shit it's coming out their ears. Defining example; the Fighter Mafia, who think it's still 1975 in VEEEEIT-FUKKIN-NAAAAAM.

>> No.15188671

>>15188526
>Stealth based subs have never existed

Every submarine ever built, from day fucking ONE, has been a "stealth submarine." Stealth is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT. But let me guess, you're one of those stupid cocksuckers that think those bargain-basement, coastal-waters diesel-electric submarines can match the US Navy's nuclear-powered hunter-killer subs, right?

>planes can fly on farts and fumes and underwater.

I even fucking EXPLAINED how aircraft are useful against subs. A few posts up. I mean, it's right fucking here, I refuse to type it again: >>15188465

>The rule of thumb is that every nation of worth has a tool to trump an aircraft carrier.

No shit. You can sink a carrier by dropping unguided iron bombs on it, if you want. They're vulnerable. THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VULNERABLE. THAT IS WHY WE SURROUND THEM WITH HUGE FLEETS OF SHIPS WITH EXACTLY ONE FUCKING MISSION; PROTECT THE FUCKING CARRIER.

And it's all worth it, because the carrier is the hammer of the gods, that can smite thine enemies from a thousand fucking miles away with Unlimited Aircraft Works. Attack a carrier? ATTACK it? You'll run into air patrols three hundred miles out. Fuck, the F-14 and the AIM-54 Phoenix was designed to simultaneously engage six enemies at a range of 80 miles (from the FIGHTER) and we now consider that shit OBSOLETE.

You don't go to the carrier. The Air wing comes to YOU.

>> No.15188772

>>15188671
The thing is, though, those diesel submarines don't HAVE to match the nuke subs. A nuclear submarine always produces an identifiable amount of sound from its plant, but a diesel sub can shut the plant off and sit tight on the bottom.

As long as the crew of the diesel sub are quiet, they really are stealth subs for as long as they can run silent. That is why the USN looks at ANY other nation with submarines as a potential threat. It's not the open-water sneaking that worries them, it's the bottom ambush they're watching for.

>> No.15188783

>>15188488
>2. The Sherman tank LOLOLSUX because it couldn't go over a speedbump without bursting into flames and burning the crew (who received it on a lend-lease) to a crisp.

>> No.15188853

>>15188772
>diesel subs are quieter

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>lol they can attack with torpedoes while lying motionless on the bottom!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>carriers will come into water so shallow the bottom is above crush depth!

AAAAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD DO YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT

>>15188783

Tripfaggot doesn't know shit about wet ammo storage being common by the time Shermans hit the beach on D-Day?

Tripfaggots name is "British?"

NOT BIG SUPRISE

>> No.15188900

>>15188671
You seem upset, bro.

And hey. . .those 'bargain' diesel electric subs have actually penetrated the vaunted CVBGs.
In excercises, in restricted waters, yes I know.

But guess what. . .restricting access to certain parts of the ocean is what they're made for.

>> No.15188929

>>15188853
Um I think he's stating that that is another myth in the vein of glocknades.

>> No.15188942

>>15188853
>wet ammo storage
How does wet ammo storage prevent the gasoline engine lighting up?

>> No.15188965

>>15188900
NBC report isn't very comforting as to the coastal security of carriers against diesel subs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s

>> No.15188973

>>15188900
>And hey. . .those 'bargain' diesel electric subs have actually penetrated the vaunted CVBGs

And this one guy sank the entire battle group with speedboats and (magic) missiles and that wargame NOVA ran for it's Pearl Harbor special proved the Jap torpedoes would've ended the Pacific Fleet in open battle despite torpedo bombers being horribly ineffective in every theater of the war and global warming is real just like global cooling twenty years ago BECAUSE THE COMPUTER MODEL TOTALLY SAYS SO GUIES.

I'm just saying pour the whole salt shaker down the hatch with ANY wargame result.

>> No.15189015

>>15188942
>How does wet ammo storage prevent the gasoline engine lighting up?

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/M4/M4.html

See "Engines." Less then half, made for lend-lease, used gas engines, and those were recycled automobile engines (hilariously, six of them linked together to provide sufficient power.)

If the Russians didn't like it, too fucking bad. Didn't hear them complaining about the obsolete British Matildas that made up 40% of the Soviet tank force during the defense of Moscow.

... the Coffin For Seven Brothers was a bitch, though, the Lee was a dedicated stop-gap. Wasn't worth the gas to ship to Russia, really.

>> No.15189020

>>15188965
>NBC

These are the same morons who call 9mm Hi-Point carbines "HIGH POWERED ASSAULT RIFLES."

Yeah, we're safe.

>> No.15189029

>>15188783

I am absolutely convinced that people only make posts like these to summon The Shermanator.

>> No.15189043

>>15189015

To be clear, less then half of those made specifically for lend-lease. Almost Shermans produced overall were diesel.

>> No.15189071

>>15189020

It's not only them though.

US navy specifically leased the diesel sub for coast practices off San Diego for a year, then extended the time for another year afterwards. "Wargame" kills on Los Angeles subs and Ronald Reagan happened, results not comforting.

If it was nothing, the swedes would have been kicked home after six months, not one (extended to two) years of training.

>> No.15189076

See this is why we don't have /k/ threads. Not because they're not near-enough-topic, let's face it we've had some crazy shit here in the past, but because they're populated by trolls and trollbait. And sagefags, us too.

>> No.15189091

>>15189015
>the Coffin For Seven Brothers was a bitch, though, the Lee was a dedicated stop-gap
Man.. I used to think the Lee/Grant was fucking badass when I was younger. I mean, its a tank with two AT guns and turrets stacked on top of each other like a fucking wedding cake! how could you go wrong?

>> No.15189096

>>15189029
>The Shermanator

If he had a newsletter, I'd fucking subscribe.

HEY, WHILE WE'RE AT IT, LETS RATTLE OFF SOME MORE MYTHS!

>lol gun sucked

76MM IN THE HOUSE, SHITBIRDS!

>lol armor sucked

PLUS TANKS, WITH MOAR ARMOR, BITCH! EASY-EIGHT SHERMANS, WITH MOAR ARMOR, BITCH!

>lol no armor slope

LOOK CLOSER, FAGGOT. SLOPED ARMOR, SLOPED ARMOR EVERYWHERE. BETTER YET, FIND A PICTURE OF A PANZER IV. GO, FIND A FUCKING PANZER IV.

CHECK OUT THAT FUCKING TURRET MANTLE, BABY. CHECK THAT SHIT. FLAT. FLATTER THEN YOUR UGLY GIRLFRIEND, YEAH? YEAH. THERE'S YOUR MIRACULOUS TEUTONIC ENGINEERING FOR YA.

>lol 'murricans had no heavies

SHERMAN JUMBO, YOU FILTHY WHORE. HOW MUCH ARMOR? AAAALLLL THE ARMOR.

Oh, lets not forget. TOM HANKS, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE. THE ARMOR WAS NOT FLOATING IN THE CHANNEL, IT WAS ON THE BEACH SAVING YOUR SORRY FUCKING ASS. YOU SAVED RYAN, AND THE TANKS SAVED D-DAY, SO KINDLY FUCK OFF.

I mad? I WAS mad. But now I feel... liberated. Man, any more myths I can shit on today?

>> No.15189098

>>15188973
so. . .disregard wargames, acquire carriers?

Look, I couldn't care less. . .but last time around, they kinda ignored those tests made by dropping bombs on warships, and we all know how that ended.

>> No.15189107

>>15189091
>Man.. I used to think the Lee/Grant was fucking badass when I was younger. I mean, its a tank with two AT guns and turrets stacked on top of each other like a fucking wedding cake! how could you go wrong?

I hear you bro, I was the same way. You can imagine what I thought of the T-35. FIVE TURRETS. FINAL DESTINATION.

>> No.15189110

>>15189096
You still had to zergrush ze superior German panzer to hae a chance

>> No.15189121

>>15189071

Hmm. Shallow-water littoral engagements? Big(er) fast-attack subs like depth.

Sauce, link? I'll google.

>> No.15189122

>>15189107
You know. . that tank had a dedicated repair engineer as part of the crew. . .except there was no room inside, so his 'battle station' was outside.

>> No.15189140

>>15189107
All the earlier Russian tanks like the T-28, T-35 and even the KVs looked like Orks built them. All that T-35 needs is a few zags and a grot poking his head out of one of the front-most turrets and its complete.

>> No.15189152

>>15189110
>zergrush
>50,000 Shermans built

... well the Russians topped us there, but I'll be damned if we didn't give it a good go. 'Murricans used shitloads of powerful, accurate arty for most things...

... SIEGE TANKS.

Zerg: Hordes of substandard units. Russia.
Protoss: Small numbers of excellent units. Germany.
Terran: Medium numbers of average units; horrendously devastating artillery. Americans.

God dammit how does EVERYTHING eventually fall so neatly into those three categories

>> No.15189154

http://www.ss346.com/PDFs/NavyLeasingSwedishSub.pdf
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,137024,00.html

>> No.15189162

>>15189122

WHINY BITCH DOESN'T HAVE TO WALK, DOES HE? FUCK HIM! RIDING GLORIOUS STEEL BEAST OF RUSSIAN ARMY NOT GOOD ENOUGH, HE CAN TAKE MOSIN AND WALK WITH THE INFANTRY, DA?

>> No.15189170

I love HMS Hood. It wasn't a particularly good battlecruiser to engage Bismark that was superior in practically every way. But I still love that ship. Something about it makes me feel all warm inside.

>> No.15189171

>>15189154

Thank you! Finally some sauce on all this magical diesel sub business.

>> No.15189180

>>15189152
Because that's how shit works.
WWII: The original three-race strategy.

>> No.15189222

>>15189171
Of course, what that article doesn't tell you is that by "signalling their position," they mean the Gotland came up 200 yards off the carrier's port bow.

>> No.15189243

>>15189152
>God dammit how does EVERYTHING eventually fall so neatly into those three categories

The Rule of Three at work.

>> No.15189248

>>15189222
>Of course, what that article doesn't tell you is that by "signalling their position," they mean the Gotland came up 200 yards off the carrier's port bow.

Not tremendously impressive; a tiny sub sitting completely motionless on the bottom. If it was actively manuvering, though, that'd be a different story.

Presumably it's not suitable for cross-ocean cruises since they shipped it home on a freighter.

>> No.15189249

All this crap about diesel subs and restricted waters assumes that the US navy needs to be in those waters to fuck your shit up.

Like the navy would defend taiwan from the strait or some such crap.

>> No.15189270

>>15188973

In his memoir of the Falklands War, "100 Days", Admiral Sandy Woodward, RN, described how he managaed to sink a US Carrier force during an exercise with just three frigates.

Part of the strategy included pretending that his own ship was an Indian cruise liner and hamming up Mr. Patel over the radio, so that the American sweep would pass him over. I'm being serious.

>> No.15189290

>>15189249

This. Still, it does illustrate a simple point: give people half a chance and they WILL fuck you up.

Power PROJECTION is the big deal; building a ship that can sail across half the world and STILL muster the same firepower of a ship only required to stay at home is a big deal. But the other guys defense ships; the ones that just have to stay at home, are going to have similar firepower.

Just because you can reach a battlefield halfway across the world doesn't mean you won't have a battle to fight there.

>> No.15189296

>>15189270
I'm pretty fucking sure that little trick wouldn't work in an actual war.

>> No.15189301

>>15189270

Speaking of the Falklands, I'm really not sure what to make of the fact that, despite spending billions of dollars researching and building complicated sophsiticated pattern-searching stealth torpedoes, the General Belgrano - the only ship ever to be sunk by a nuclear submarine (at least publicly) - was destroyed with Mark VIII torpedoes.

Vintage 1926.

They were obsolete BEFORE ww2, for fuck's sake. And they've done more than tigerfishes, swordfishes, and sixty years of naval science.

>> No.15189320

>>15189270

That's hilarious. THAT is where the real value of wargames is: teaching everybody involved to use their imagination, and how quickly complacency can get your sorry ass killed.

For weapons/tech effectiveness, you may as well be trying to evaluate the structural strength of katanas and arming swords by examining kendo sticks and foils.

>> No.15189337

>>15189290
That is basically the entire point of diesel subs: They will NOT come to you and fuck you up.

But they will keep that vaunted carrier a few hundred miles away from doing it's job, becasue if it actually moves in, it might catch half a dozens torps out of (literally) the blue.

>> No.15189341

>>15189301
>Speaking of the Falklands, I'm really not sure what to make of the fact that, despite spending billions of dollars researching and building complicated sophsiticated pattern-searching stealth torpedoes, the General Belgrano - the only ship ever to be sunk by a nuclear submarine (at least publicly) - was destroyed with Mark VIII torpedoes.

>Vintage 1926.

Lets not forget the several British ships hit by unguided iron bombs dropped by Argentinean jets. Only useless fuses on half the bombs saved the British navy from an embarrassing defeat. Six more functioning fuzes. Six.

Iron bombs. Like, the ones they dropped from prop-driven dive bombers in WWII.

>> No.15189352

>>15189248

They took pictures, no sitting on the bottom.

And the US navy does these exercises and considers diesel subs a threat because they're easily capable of blocking traffic or threatening warships in Persian Gulf, Red Sea, East Asian coast and other important regions. They don't have the range or speed to attack battlegroups in mid-ocean, but that's not their job. Since US navy can't properly detect them, there's a problem.

Even Australian Collins class without AIP matched a Los Angeles class in 2002. There's a reason why this specific issue got a two-year training project and they leased the swedeboat.

>> No.15189360

>>15189337
>But they will keep that vaunted carrier a few hundred miles away from doing it's job

You mean from launching aircraft with twice that combat radius? No.

But it DOES shorten aircraft loiter time, or lessen their bombload, or both, and it prevents warships from parking right offshore and shelling targets with impunity.

There are no magic bullets. Carriers included, both giving and receiving.

>> No.15189366

>>15189301
I still have no idea how the Argentinians thought they were allowed to complain that we sunk one of their ships in a war THEY started.

>> No.15189392

>>15189366

That's the South Americas for you.

>> No.15189429

>>15189352
>And the US navy does these exercises and considers diesel subs a threat because they're easily capable of blocking traffic or threatening warships in Persian Gulf, Red Sea, East Asian coast and other important regions.

>Suez Canal
>littoral waters
>affordable little diesel subs
>Iran
>Syria

>> No.15189451

>>15189429

You are watching a point hit home in real-time, here.

>> No.15189477

>>15189366

It's the whole Postcolonial Guilt construct. Britain are the Nasty White Imperialists while Argentina are the Poor Oppressed Natives. So, any action taken by Britain is automatically interpreted as "rape babies" while any action taken by Argentina is "liberty and freedom".

This conveniently ignores the fact that Argentina was a fascist military dictatorship that murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens launching an act of open aggression, while Britain was defending a population's UN-enshrined right to self-determination... but I don't think that the Guardian newspaper thought that far.

>> No.15189501

>>15189477

There's also the fact that Argentina has its own oppressed, subjugated and politically excluded Aborigines in Patagonia.

That's some recursive shit right there.

>> No.15189555

>>15189320

Even more hilarious is the exchange when the US fleet finally pinged Woodward.

"Alright, Limey, it's been a fun chase but there's a squadron of F-16s hot on you. Be a good boy and roll over."

"Yeah, about that... we've already fired our Exocets. You've been dead for ten minutes."

>> No.15189561

>>15189501
Indeed. The Argentines (and Chileans) are white European colonists or only a generation or two removed from white Europeans. Italian, German, and Iberian mostly. They're visibly white and they despise native Americans and "los tropicales" to the north, and basically any South American who is brown. Characterizing action by the UK in the Southern Cone region as "imperialist" is simply mistaken.

>> No.15189563

>>15189477
Meanwhile, in America:

>"Territory skirmish, somebody lost, cry more, losers!"

>>15189501
>That's some recursive shit right there.

HA!

>> No.15189564

>>15189477

Ah but you forget that Argentine does not recognize the Falklanders' right at self-determination.

The Argentine claim also has the support of all South American countries and China, while US refuses to take a stance, probably due to some remnant of the Monroe Doctrine, its principles support the Argentine claim.

>> No.15189568

>>15189429
Shit nigga, you tellin me you didn't notice this five years ago?

And if you think a Gotland is bad news, you're wrong: The Type 204's got REAL AIP. . fuel cells. No sound at all.

>> No.15189575

>>15189555

This requires a British Trollface.

>> No.15189597

>>15189568
>no sound

That's not the part that worries me; nuclear subs have been too quiet to find each other since the 80s. Problem is, these fuckers are SMALL, and cheap, whereas the weapons we have to find them are large and expensive. The economics of that are not pleasant.

We need a lot of cheap sub-chasers, i.e. exactly the kind of ship we don't have.

>> No.15189603

>>15189564
>[US] principles support the Argentine claim.
>Argentine does not recognize the Falklanders' right at self-determination.
>Argentine does not recognize the Falklanders' right at self-determination.
>Argentine does not recognize the Falklanders' right at self-determination.
>Argentine does not recognize the Falklanders' right at self-determination.
>Argentine does not recognize the Falklanders' right at self-determination.

no.

>> No.15189618

Again, these wonder subs that china supposedly has are not going to be an issue in a potential conflict because the US navy does not need to park in the fucking taiwan strait to defend taiwan.

>> No.15189650

>>15189618

Yeah, I'm worried about Iranian/Syrian dickery in the Suez Canal/Gulf. Against merchant shipping.

>> No.15189651

>>15189603

In the world of realpolitik, Monroe Doctrine trumps self-determination of foreigners. Falklands are geographically a part of the Americas, and according to old US stance should not be governed by Europeans.

>> No.15189657

>>15189651

Britain's an ally, not an "ally" with big airquotes, so us Yankees aren't as hung up on Monroe Doctrine in this matter.

>> No.15189662

>>15189618
And the subs just need to park around Taiwan to blockade it.

For more fuzzy warm thoughts, the PLAN just got basing rights in Pakistan.

>> No.15189681

>>15189662
>For more fuzzy warm thoughts, the PLAN just got basing rights in Pakistan.

FUCKING WHAT

>> No.15189683

>>15189651

I think that America's initial hesitation to support Britain was more due to worries about alienating an anti-communist bulwark in South America than anything else... at the end of the day, though, Reagan had to admit "yeah, okay Britain, we really fucked you over in the Suez. Ike was a bit of a dick. Will giving you Sidewinders now help make up for it?"

>> No.15189686

>>15189564
>The Argentine claim also has the support of all South American countries and China

Completely irrelevant. The island is populated by British people who wish to remain British. If Argentina wants it they can try again but this time it will go even worse for them.

>> No.15189699

>>15189662

That happened a while ago. I think they're building something in a city near the Chinese border.

>> No.15189719

>>15189662

The Chinese are also building a naval base in Sri Lanka.

Technically it's a civilian commercial port, but it has a deep-water channel with room for 38 separate berths, so...

>> No.15189794

>Fuck, the F-14 and the AIM-54 Phoenix was designed to simultaneously engage six enemies at a range of 80 miles (from the FIGHTER) and we now consider that shit OBSOLETE.

The AIM-54 has never successfully hit a target at a range greater then 30 miles, and the replacement AMRAAM tops out at 35~45 miles. The current F/A-18 Hornet is a shit interceptor with a weak radar, and the replacement JSF C is an even more incapable piece of shit.

So what is the Carrier's real defence again? Because Millenium Challenge proved that the US Navy Carrier Battle Group is a fucking joke.

>> No.15189823

>>15188853
Diesel Subs are quieter, most of the world's coastline barely has more then 300ft of depth.

Have you ever looked at the depths in any 'combat zone' that a CBG is likely to go into?

The new Diesel SSKs from Germany are probably the quietest subs ever made. Nuke subs are incredibly noisy compared to a diesel/electric.

And the new german subs don't have to surface or snorkel to run the diesels to recharge the batts, which is pretty damn impressive.

>> No.15189904 [DELETED] 

>>15189683
>>15189683

>> No.15189932

OH, IN MAY OF 1941, THE WAR HAD JUST BEGUN,
THE GERMANS HAD THE BIGGEST SHIPS, THAT HAD THE BIGGEST GUNS!
THE BISMARK WAS THE FASTEST SHIP THAT EVER SAILED THE SEA,
ON HER DECK WERE GUNS AS BIG AS STEERS, AND SHELLS AS BIG AS TREES.

>> No.15189953

>>15189794
>The AIM-54 has never successfully hit a target at a range greater then 30 miles

Was it even LAUNCHED at any targets further then 30 miles away? The F-14s combat encounters in the US Navy mostly consist of fucking up a few Libyan MiGs trying to get cute.

>The current F/A-18 Hornet is a shit interceptor

[citation needed]

>with weak radar

EC-2 Hawkeye says "who fucking cares?"

>and the replacement JSF C is

... another multi-role fighter that will replace the F/A-18 in the fighter/bomber role, but it sure as fuck ain't no interceptor. And I'm starting to wonder when the next dedicated fleet defense interceptor will be built as well.

>So what is the Carrier's real defence again?

Not as good as it could be, that's for damn sure. Of course,

>Because Millenium Challenge proved that the US Navy Carrier Battle Group is a fucking joke.

You're still a dumb cocksucker who is incredibly asspained that America has more toys then you.

>> No.15189955

OUT OF THE COLD AND FOGGY NIGHT,
CAME THE BRITISH SHIP THE HOOD.
AND EV'RY BRITISH SEAMAN, HE KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD,
THEY'D HAVE TO SINK THE BISMARK, THE TERROR OF THE SEA.
TO STOP THOSE GUNS AS BIG AS STEERS,
AND THOSE SHELLS AS BIG AS TREES.

>> No.15189983

>>15189823
>Have you ever looked at the depths in any 'combat zone' that a CBG is likely to go into?
>coastline
>Carrier Battle Group
>battle zone

>> No.15190031

All this talk and nobody even points out how goddamn hard it is to detect and identify ships at sea. The range of anti-ship missiles looks good on paper but it's useless unless you can point it in the right direction. The ocean is pretty fucking big and if a ship doesn't want to be found, it's going to take a long time to find it. A while back a Russian cargo ship went missing and it literally took two weeks to find it. A CVBG that's actively trying to avoid detection and deceiving observers would be a nightmare to track down.

>> No.15190032

>>15189983
If an aircraft has to fly further then 250 miles to reach a target, it has about 7 minutes at best of combat time, and carries a small load.

If a CBG has to stay further then 400 miles from a coastline, it's ability to project power is neutered.

>> No.15190046

>>15190031
1. Satellites
2. Electronic transmissions
3. Sonar Nets
4. Russian ASMs target a 10 square kilometer section of the sea, and go after the best target in the search area.

>> No.15190051

>>15190032
You have heard of mid-air refueling, yes?

>> No.15190053

>>15189953
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium_Challenge

>> No.15190065

>>15190051
So you plan to stack air to air refuelers near an enemy coastline to increase the combat time of aircraft?

And you don't see a problem with this?

The US doctrine relies on TOTAL air superiority, something it won't get in a fight with China.

>> No.15190126

>>15190065
I'm afraid I'm not following you. Why would you refuel near the enemy when all you'd need to do is top off the tanks.

That aside, why would you rely on carrier based aircraft when you could just send in bombers from either Guam or, if you really wanted to piss off the Chicomms, send the whole damn bomber fleet from the states and carpet bomb everything that could be used as an airfield.

Air superiority has now been achieved.

>> No.15190134

>>15189794
>Millennium Challenge

-proved that naval brass is fucking lazy and unwilling to get off their ass and think for a few seconds. 'BOO HOO WE CAN'T ZERO IN ON THEIR RADIO TRANSMISSIONS, DROP A BILLION BOMBS FROM 30,000 FEET AND FLY HOME, BAAAAW.

That doesn't mean the most powerful weapon on earth is "useless," that means an admiral somewhere is a thick-witted moron who cannot into acceptable loss rates. OH NOES IF WE FLY LOW THEY MIGHT SHOT US WITH AA GUN !!11!

Welcome to the age of the CNN war. Fuck me.

>> No.15190147

>>15190126
You can't use bombers because of Chinese SAMs.

You can't "Top off the Tanks" near the carrier since the Bug's combat radius is 300 miles. You'd need to set up the stack about 150 miles away to make be combat capable and have successful sorties. And then there is the human factor of flying 1.5 hours to the target, then 1.5 hours back.

>> No.15190149

>>15190065

I dunno about that. China's only designated Air Superiority Fighters are a handful of Su-27s. The Su-27 is a nice fighter, but if they've barely been upgraded to modern standards, and they have to fend off against hundreds of fighters with AIM-120s...

I agree that an invasion of China would go horribly, but for different reasons.

>> No.15190168

>>15190046
>1. Satellites
Which have to make tradeoffs between resolution and field of view, meaning the area they can observe is very small, especially when compared to the vastness of the ocean. This doesn't take into account that satellite orbits are publicly known and ships can just plot their course to avoid them.

>2. Electronic transmissions
Radio silence, around since WWII. Even better, today's communications can do tightbeam.

>3. Sonar Nets
Which are limited to narrow straits, like the GIUK gap. The ability to filter out normal merchant marine shipping noises to isolate warships is also not a given.

>4. Russian ASMs target a 10 square kilometer section of the sea, and go after the best target in the search area.
10 km^2 is tiny. Do the math yourself to find out how far a warship can travel in the time it takes a missile to reach its destination. The US dropped over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles because the chances of accidentally sinking the wrong ship (US NAVY SINKS INNOCENT CARGO SHIP, 200 DEAD ETC) were too high.

>>15190053
Everybody else involved in the exercise disagrees and considers Ripper an attention whore who did things with no basis in reality.

>> No.15190173

>>15190149
The ACBM, the China Flanker, and the new China Raptor, and the J-10 amongst other things. Not to mention a ridiculously good SAM network.

And China would just destroy the US morale by having their gold farmers in WOW go PVP en masse and grief the living fuck out of US accounts.

>> No.15190184

>>15190032
F/A-18 combat radius: 450 miles.

But, you know, Tomahawks. 3,500 mile range.

>>15190065
>The US doctrine relies on TOTAL air superiority, something it won't get in a fight with China.

Best be trolling, nigger. You can't zergrush obsolete soviet-era hand-me-downs and win. Maybe if more then a handful of their aircraft weren't old as shit, and their newest stuff could match ours... nah, their pilots can't hack it.

>> No.15190194

New question:
How would china attack us?

>> No.15190202

>>15190147
>You can't use bombers because of Chinese SAMs.

As if they'd have a chance in hell of finding B-2s.

>> No.15190208

>>15190173
The ballistic missile is a paper tiger that already has a counter in service, and SAMs are not an absolute defense. The area they can actually really effectively protect is very small - the farther and higher you are, the less effective it becomes. They work by attrition, they're not a magic "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" button.

>> No.15190210

>>15190168
>Everybody else involved in the exercise disagrees and considers Ripper an attention whore who did things with no basis in reality.

Everybody else in the exercise was worried about their career and budgets when they had their ass handed to them, which is why they claim Ripper cheated.

It's like the Americans pointing a finger at a King Tiger or V2 rocket in WW2 and going "Hey that's not fair!" or the British during the american revolutionary war when Washington attacked on Christmas and going "Fucking Spawn Camper!" or the British in the Boer War when their massed redcoat infantry got picked off by bushmen on horseback wearing camo, and claiming "CHEATING BASTARD!"

>> No.15190225

>>15190202
The F-117 was found by an SA-6.

The B-2 has been found by cellphones and a Ukrainian ELINT signals station.

>> No.15190272

>>15190147
Even something as ancient as the B-52 can avoid SAM's, so you were saying?

>> No.15190285

>>15190225
>The F-117 was found by an SA-6.

That tends to happen when you fly directly over a radar site, yeah. Also, I think those are different planes.

>The B-2 has been found by cellphones and a Ukrainian ELINT signals station.

Get back to me when those can provide terminal missile guidance.

>BUT INFARED

Just stop.

>> No.15190303

>>15190202
>>15190225
Yeah, stealth isn't a magic bullet. It'll greatly reduce the range at which you can be detected, but you're not invisible. Once you're surrounded by multiple radars, they can put the return together and figure out where you are. Then there's IR.

>>15190210
No, you're just wrong. These people are professionals who take their job very seriously and know a whole lot more than both you and I. Just to name one example, Ripper literally conjured up a civilian ship with anti-ship missiles out of thin air. Anti-ship missiles that were too heavy for the ship to even hold without sinking. Your analogy doesn't make any sense at all and really reveals a poor understanding of history as well.

>> No.15190315

>>15190285
We stopped using F-117's years ago. They weren't all that great really. Hell, the F-22 is stealthier than that.

>> No.15190334

>>15190303
so thats how he "cheated?" was it the only way.

>> No.15190402

>>15190303
>Ripper literally conjured up a civilian ship with anti-ship missiles out of thin air

Here's a Russian shipping container with an Anti-ship missile hidden in it. This is an operational weapon system and not some wet dream.

Ripper knew about them, and used them in the exercise.

>> No.15190418

>>15190272
>B-52
>Evade SAMS

Yeah, maybe a MANPAD while at 30,000 ft, but against an S-300, or god forbid, something more modern then a 1975 system, it has about 0% chance of surviving.

>> No.15190450

>>15190402

You missed the part

>That it literally could not carry without sinking under the weight.

>> No.15190504

>>15189719
What are you smoking? India would never let such a thing happen purely due to the fact that the Bay of Bengal to the straits through to the Andamans is a strategic body of water for india and it would never let such a measure go through if it wants to remain an asiatic power.

>> No.15190525

>>15190418
Once again, SAM effectiveness is overestimated. Look up the SAMs used during the Vietnam War, then look up how often they actually hit B-52s. I believe the actual rate was something like 6%, but going by the listed maximum specs, you'd expect the B-52s to start dying like flies. Like I said before, they drop in effectiveness with altitude, distance, and speed. They work by attrition - they kill a small portion of the attackers every sortie, and after multiple sorties, those losses add up. They are NOT a magical shield that kills anything that comes within a few hundred miles.

>> No.15190579

>>15190525

The SAMs China would be using aren't even in the same ballpark as the ones the Vietnamese were using.

>> No.15190597

>>15190525
B-52s in Vietnam rarely, if ever, ventured into the dangerous section of the North, PAK-6, or route Package Six.

By late war, the B-52 missions were confined to the easy sectors, since the shootdowns over Hanoi were disastrous. You can visit the B-52 crash sites in Hanoi today.

>> No.15190662

I'm always dumbfounded, how complacent americans can be.

They keep losing ground to talibans and lost vietnam badly yet they keep insisting they are some kind of unstoppable juggernaut and every fight is an outfight to them yet they have no combat data to back it up.

Just look at the Millenium Challange, where this "WE CANNOT LOSE!!" mentality has lead. People like to believe they are unstoppable and even the military started sweeping complaints under the rug for this feeling, because its just that, a feeling. Lots of american voters just like to feel strong and that justfied spending trillions of dollars on wars and hardware, just to feel good and when reality doesnt match his dreams they will try their best to ignore it.

Because with no less than five power blocs vying for power, no way that this level of complacency can bite you in the ass, right?

>> No.15190664

>>15190303
>Ripper literally conjured up a civilian ship with anti-ship missiles out of thin air.

So he deployed an asset he hadn't declared beforehand? Gee, why can't he just say 'OH GUESS WHAT I JUST SUMMONED SIXTY NINJAS ON YOUR BRIDGE WHAT NOW FAGGOT."

>> No.15190697

>>15190662
>They keep losing ground to talibans

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh my god, they actually believe this shit.

>> No.15190708

>>15190664

Yeah!! His enemy should totally declare him dezgra for using assents the enemy didnt know about!!

Thats now how war works bro, you cant say "HEY THATS UNFAIR"

>> No.15190716

>>15190662
>they spend a trillion dollars on weapons and hardware a year
>BUT THEY'RE TOTALLY WEAK IT'S ALL A DELUSION SRSLY GUIES

I never get tired of European asspain.

>> No.15190733

>>15190664
All of rippers assets were declared. The US Navy doesn't want to admit that you could mount an exocet on a speedboat.

>> No.15190735

>>15190708

BUT IN REAL WAR YOU CAN TOTALLY DEPLOY MAKE-BELIEVE UNITS THAT DON'T EXIST AND EXPECT THEM TO KILL THE ENEMY AMIRITE?

WELL KNOWN FACT; STALIN HALTED THE GERMAN 6TH ARMY WITH PARAGLIDING KANGAROOS WIELDING LIGHTSABERS

>> No.15190736

>>15190697

Because talibans running Afganistan again isnt "losing ground"?

>> No.15190745

>>15190708
You can if the enemy is blatantly contradicting actual physical laws. Except you would say it to God, or your blame magnet of choice.

>> No.15190773

>>15190745
The Joint Chiefs claims to that regard have been proven false. The investigators found no proof of Ripper doing any such thing. All wepaon systems were based on real life capabilities.

>> No.15190782

>>15190716

>REALITY ME NO RIKEY

You know that your gubmint could've bought everyone in america a house, a car and a uni course from the money spent on the iraqi war, right?

I guess being able to "MURRICAH STRON" worths more to some voters.

>> No.15190795

>>15190745
Ships that aren't openly warships mounting weapons breaks physical laws of the universe?

>> No.15190801

>>15190773
Got a source?

>> No.15190805

Wishful thinking keeps the american army afloat.

Rather then facing a complete restructuring and dismantling the M-I complex they rather wish away problems.

>> No.15190815

>>15190597
No doubt they avoided the more dangerous areas, and in making the bombers avoid them, they did their jobs. But the point is SAMs don't create magically impenetrable shields. How much area does China have to cover? Do they have the assets to stop any incursion into their airspace? I doubt it. They may very well be able to inflict a high enough cost on the attackers that will deter them from attacking, but that's another issue altogether.

>>15190662
And I'm always dumbfounded how idiots with zero knowledge of history always keep sprouting these idiotic statements, unaware of how wrong they are. Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military defeat.

>>15190733
Actually, if I remember correctly, he was shooting Granits. You know, the ones that weigh a few tons each.

>> No.15190831

>>15190795
Ships mounting weapons that would sink them in reality is.

>> No.15190874

>>15190815

>Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military defeat.

RETREATING isnt a military defeat?

Whats next? derping about kill ratios?

Wishful thinking as its best. After a lifetime of hearing "WE R 1ST" its hard to swallow a humiliating defeat from a bunch of rice farmers.

>> No.15190904

>>15190733
>you could mount an exocet on a speedboat

HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah right bro, a speedboat with a powerful targeting radar and multi-million dollar electronics suite, right? You CAN; they'd call it a Littoral Combat Ship or a frigate for a bigger speedboat, but nobody fucking bothers because it's not cost-effective compared to aircraft (which need the radar/electronics anyways.)

tl;dr anybody with the money to weaponize speedboats would spend it on something more useful instead; like a MiG 27 with Exocets.

>> No.15190931

To be fair, the America armed forces are kind of taking an army designed to fight super-WW2 against the nazis from Moscow and throwing it into an unconventional asymmetric war against a totally different opponent that it was designed to face. You can blow up a lot of talibans with F-22s, but it's not exactly the most cost effective way to get things done. All that stealth doesn't really count for much against a bunch of dudes using IEDs and getting around by pretending to be civilians.

Still, we are ones for the nostalgia. Medal of honor forever and all that.

>> No.15190940

>>15190904

Except the whole point of them was the enemy not anticipating an exocet striking them shitless from a speedboat.

War isnt chess. Surprises and mistakes happen.

>> No.15190970

>>15190874
>>15190874

Have some copypasta:

"From a political point of view, yes. Not militarily. Militarily, it was a demonstration of just how powerful the American military was. Do you know how many casualties anyone else would have suffered in a war like that? Trying to uproot a dedicated, determined foe from a jungle that allows no armour penetration, without organized columns or bases to bomb and with a completely asymmetric army structure? With complete civilian support? It'd be suicide. The Vietnam war is, at least in my mind, evidence that the Americans know how to win battles. They don't know how to use won battles, but that's a different fault altogether. Contesting their strength is ridiculous."

Every time you see a eurofag crying BUUUT NAAAAM, post this copypasta, then ignore them. They're trying to sidetrack the argument into 1970s Southeast Asian politics because that is the only way they can avoid looking like colossal fucking morons by challenging the might of the US military.

>> No.15191010

>>15190970

>Not militarily. Militarily, it was a demonstration of just how powerful the American military was.

Retreating and leaving an ally to a defeat isnt military strength.

>evidence that the Americans know how to win battles.

Winning battles but losing the war.

>> No.15191045

>>15190940

No, the point is, THAT FORCE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FUCKING EXOCETS. They had ragheads in speedboats. That's it. But GENERAL RIPPER decided that they automagically have speedboats with ninja-launchers.

That is what we have learned from that farce of a wargame - the US navy is vulnerable to speedboat-launched ninjas.

Until somebody fields speedboat-launched ninja assassins, I'll proceed to not give a fuck... but I will say this. Ripper wasn't the only idiot; the opposing brass crying and throwing a hissy fit and going BAAAW MAKE HIM USE RADIOS SO WE CAN BOMB HE was retarded, childish, and demonstrates remarkable stupidity.

>> No.15191051

>>15190904
>Implying an exocet needs Radar lock before launch

Dumbass, an exocet can be launched with multiple acquisition modes. All you need is a platform, a car battery, and a laptop.

>> No.15191081

>>15191045
Way to not understand warfare.

>> No.15191083

>>15190970
I didn't even bother replying because he's clearly an idiot with no grasp of nuance.

>> No.15191111

>>15191045

I loved the part when he used motorcycle couriers and shit to transmit orders and everyone went "BAAAWU CANT DO THAT!!" because their expensve electronic survellience equipment suddenly became dead weight.

But the general point was you could equip speedboats with exocets and the american navy wasnt thinking about countering them at all.

>> No.15191128

>>15191083

>BAAW VIETNAM WAS WON LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU

Ignore reality when it contradicts you.

>> No.15191134

>>15191010
>>15191010
>Retreating

War ended with an armistice. We had no part of the later fall of South Vietnam, if you want to pick nits.

We've got the mightiest, most powerful Navy on the oceans, the most advanced and powerful Air Force, eleven nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, drones that can follow you for a hundred miles and kill you with no warning and we can pretty much do whatever the fuck we want, whenever we want, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

And no matter how much you whine BUT NAAAM, that will never, ever change.

>> No.15191143

>>15191111
Worse then that, the target/track systems on the Nimitz and her escorts were overloaded by slow speed cessnas and little speedboats/coastal patrol vessels. in many cases, the radar systems simply refused to track them, designating them either as non-threat, or simply not being able to pick them up.

Millenium showed a lot of flaws in US doctrine, and because of that, was promptly ignored by the entire naval establishment in the US.

>> No.15191164

>>15191111
>I loved the part when he used motorcycle couriers and shit to transmit orders and everyone went "BAAAWU CANT DO THAT!!" because their expensve electronic survellience equipment suddenly became dead weight.

I know, right? God fucking forbid they send F-18s out for low-level reconnaissance or something, or actually take any proactive action besides whining.

>> No.15191170

>>15191134
>And no matter how much you whine BUT NAAAM, that will never, ever change.

China will start trading oil in Euros instead of Dollars, Russia laughs all the way to the bank as the US dollar collapses relative to other currencies, and the USA is left with a service economy and empty federal coffers.

Because you know, beating the snot out of you economically and ruining your standard of living and status as a superpower is just as effective as kicking the crap out of your military.

>> No.15191191

>>15191134

>We had no part of the later fall of South Vietnam, if you want to pick nits.

Completely abandoning the only theatre of war and leaving an ally to defeat is losing.

>We've got the mightiest, most powerful Navy on the oceans, the most advanced and powerful Air Force, eleven nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, drones that can follow you for a hundred miles and kill you with no warning and we can pretty much do whatever the fuck we want, whenever we want, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

Meanwhile, losing to goat herders with AKs and RPG-7s

>> No.15191198

>>15191143
>Worse then that, the target/track systems on the Nimitz and her escorts were overloaded by slow speed cessnas and little speedboats/coastal patrol vessels. in many cases, the radar systems simply refused to track them, designating them either as non-threat, or simply not being able to pick them up.

Exposing programming and system flaws is the point of wargames; but god forbid an admiral gets embarrassed, right?

It's not the weapons, its the fucking idiots USING them.

>> No.15191204

I never suspected /tg/ would have Vietnam apologists... I mean, its a pretty foregone conclusion that the US took a beating in Vietnam.

>> No.15191229

>>15191198
>Exposing programming and system flaws is the point of wargames

Actually, the point of a wargame is to showcase new weapons and doctrine. Ripper didn't want to do that, he wanted to hit the squids where it hurts.

Semper Fi!

>> No.15191242

>>15191170
>>15191134
And however you might whine about MILTARY SUPER -ORITY, there's nothing, at all, that you can do about it

>> No.15191270

>>15191204
Like every other board, we've been hit with some /new/ refugees. Plus, it's summer.

>> No.15191276

>>15191170
i worry about this scenario far more then an actual shooting war between China and the US since it is actually believable and doable.

>> No.15191282

>>15191164

Except they never did that. They stood there with their thumbs in their asses baawing.

They simply REFUSED to believe that anything might go wrong and rigidly stuck to their doctrines.

Same with exocet speedboats, they thought that only because they would use them from ships and planes the enemy wouldnt use it from speedboats and they prompty lost ships over it.

And when it was over, the navy simply tried to wish these huge human and doctrinal errors away to keep pretending they are undefeatable.

>> No.15191303

>>15191191
>Meanwhile, losing to goat herders with AKs and RPG-7s

[citation needed]

>China will start trading oil in Euros

Is this before or after Spain goes bankrupt and implodes just like Greece, swiftly followed by the rest of the Euro zone?

>Russia laughs all the way to the bank as the US dollar collapses

RUSSIA? The fucking RUBLE? Laughing? HAHAHAHA

>and the USA is left with a service economy

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/15/china-became-world-s-top-manufacturing-nation-ending-110-year-us
-leadership

>much of China's manufacturing output was driven by the Chinese subsidiaries of US companies and was based around US-derived technologies.
>China's manufacturing base is dependent on cheaper goods in sectors such as textiles, apparel, appliances, which together make up 25% of Chinese manufacturing, compared to 13% in the United States.

>The US manufacturing base, on the other hand, is dominated by high denomination sectors such as aircraft, industrial machinery, medical and scientific equipment and software and media-related industries.

Out of your league, son. Best check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.

>> No.15191334

>>15191170
Though I'm certainly no fan of America superiority, I have to call shenanigans on China trading in Euros...the future isn't looking terribly bright for the EU as a body these days

any Euro-fags want to weigh in?

>> No.15191340

>>15191276
It is much more likely that the United States will fall to an economic conflict rather than a military one. But it is, currently, an extraordinarily massive consumer. Cutting it out of the loop, as it were, would do serious damage to the global economy. Like excising a tumor that just happens to enclose most of your heart.

Not that I mean to seriously compare the United States to a tumor.

>> No.15191341

>>15191303
The US manufacturing base represents an insignificant portion of the GDP. You can't run a country on burger flippers, but the US is trying to.

It's been a good run, 200 or so years of US Imperialism, but now the empire is fading, like the UK before it.

>> No.15191349

It's like I'm really on /k/

>> No.15191352

>>15191282
>Same with exocet speedboats, they thought that only because they would use them from ships and planes the enemy wouldnt use it from speedboats and they prompty lost ships over it.

What I don't get is the failure to try and sink them. Common doctrine is ANYTHING MOVING WITHIN 300 MILES OF THE CBG IS A THREAD AND MUST DIE, down to fucking sailboats.

Complacency.

EVERYWHERE.

>> No.15191357

>>15191276

This. If the ol' USA starts to get too rowdy or too powerful they will just do a trollface and start trading oil in euros and OPEC would have to follow suit. Dollar as a currency would be ruined, with hyperinflation and oil shortage wrecking america.

An average american could live with spending some extra taxes on toys but he couldnt live with fuel costing twenty dollars a gallon and food riots.

>> No.15191359

>>15191303
Currently all oiltransactions are done in greenbacks. One country decides to change the currency, the US nosedives.

Why do you think the US is allies with the Saudis? They promise to keep trading oil in greenbacks.

>> No.15191385

>>15191352
They actually couldn't spot the speedboats from the surface clutter. The Iraninans actually proved this by driving their motor speed boats by US Carriers in the gulf, giving the finger and what not. They got so close because the big bad carrier battle group couldn't isolate the speedboats from the ground clutter.

>> No.15191392

I dont know what the fuck Ripper is but I want to learn.

Show me where I can learn.

>> No.15191423

>>15191270
>>15191204
If by Vietnam apologist you mean pointing out that the failure in Vietnam was not in any way because the military was insufficient but rather because of a failure in political leadership and is thus not a relevant example of how the US military is some obsolete machine that will find itself toppled over with a slight breeze.

>> No.15191440

>>15191352


Except they didnt do that.

They let themselves exocet'd like a sitting duck.

>>15191340

They wont do it as long they'd lose more then gain,but if we get some hardliner republican faggot I can imagine them pulling the plug on us.

Also, a ruined america witha shortage of everything would be a prime target for re-development by asian and european investors.

>> No.15191460

deliberately crashing the US economy would be suicide since the world is becoming more and more inter-dependent. this connectedness will only increase in the future.

>> No.15191469

>>15191423

Defeat because of insufficent leadership is a defeat too.

The germans lost WW2 because hitler was an idort interfering with the decisions of his staff, not because they were undertrained or udnerequipped.

>> No.15191502

>>15191440
I find that there is little difference between the two major political parties in the United States. Regardless, I doubt the plug will be pulled anytime soon. The U.S. is weakening, but it is far from over. The vultures would do well to wait for their prey to actually die.

>> No.15191528

>>15191392

The War Nerd article in question -> http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

>> No.15191541

>>15191334
To be bluntly honest, everyone's crying bitter tears because two or three countries spent way too much money.

Does it suck? Yeah, it does. For those two or three countries.
The rest of the Euro zone, and those EU countries that are not part of the monetary union are not in any economic danger.

You have to understand that most EU countries use their considerable wealth to do utterly stupid things. Agricultural subsidies, pensions for everybody past 55, and in a number of southern European countries outright graft is VERY common.

This has to stop, and it will HAVE to stop.

And we have to keep in mind that a breakup of teh EU, or the Euro, essentially equals economic suicide. Because if Europe doesn't stand together, we'll sure as hell hang by ourselves if China or India ever get their shit together.

>> No.15191548

>>15191352
There's a whole shit-ton of civilian traffic in the Persian Gulf at any given point, and the size of the ships ranges from enormous oil and LNG tankers down to tiny fishing dhows. While we could theoretically just sink everything and not worry about picking out specific targets, this would pose its own military, political and economic problems.

>> No.15191557

>>15191341
>>15191341
>The US manufacturing base represents an insignificant portion of the GDP.

I see you've chosen to WRECK YO'SELF. You poor motherfucker.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

>manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts: 20.3%

20.3% of an economy is insignificant? WRENG

>>15191340
>LOL THEY IMPORT OUR SHIT THEY MUST BE TOOOOMAH

Oh boy, I love giving this lecture! WORLD ECONOMICS 101: WHY EUROPE IS A TUMOR. To sum up, the entire European economy is kept afloat by manufacturing exports to the US. Germany is the prime example here. Japan has been trying to deficit-spend its way out of its economic crisis for over twenty years and its failed miserably; and only their auto manufacturing exports keep the economy afloat. China's entire industrial boom is owed to American imports.

See, Europe and Japan are the leeches. Their economies are internally stagnant, dead, and useless, so 20% of the economy keeps the other 80% alive by selling the products their own people can't afford to a nation that's actually got some fucking money in its pocket.

America doesn't need you. We never have, and we never will.

>> No.15191562

>>15191423
The military failed in its objective. The military failed. FAILED.

>> No.15191588

>>15191557
20.3% manufacturing is insignificant.

>> No.15191591

>>15191548
>While we could theoretically just sink everything and not worry about picking out specific targets, this would pose its own military, political and economic problems.

Probably smaller ones then a sunk carrier, though. Just sayain, I would've been more... aggressive.

>> No.15191601

>>15191557
I'm sorry, sir. It might have appeared that I was with the other anti-Americans shouting about its inevitable fall. I am not. As I said, the United States is an extraordinarily massive consumer. It is a critical part of the world economy, and removing it would be like cutting out most of your heart just to get rid of a tumor. That's what I meant.

>> No.15191617

>>15191562
>FAAAiILIIlieiliAIAIALED

Which battles did we lose again? I can't remember any. They took and held all the ground they were asked to take, they killed a fuckton of gooks, and generally did their job.

But I'm sure the local Military History expert here can edumacate this poor yankee.

>> No.15191638

>>15191469
Actually, Germany lost WWII because the US was 50% of the world's industrial capacity at the time and the Soviets were at rough parity in terms of industrial capacity, significantly higher in population, and situated in an advantageous geographical position that made a knock-out blow almost impossible. Nazi procurement was a joke, they did a very poor job of utilizing their resources efficiently. Without Hitler they still would've lost.

>>15191562
Doesn't get it. You're like the person who blames a car crash on the car when the driver was drunk.

>> No.15191641

>>15191617
Objective: Deal a decisive blow to the NVA, removing it and North Vietnam as a threat to the security of South Vietnam.

FAILED.

>> No.15191652

>>15191601

Quite right chap, pardon my rage. Now if only there were more people like you, we could all chill out and resume telling the Russkies to take their aspirations for supremacy and go fuck themselves. NATO STRONG

>> No.15191673

>>15191557
You'll note we still have money in our pocket because the countries that sell shit to us then buy our money in order to keep its value high enough that we can afford to buy their shit.

Yes, it makes less sense the more you think about it. This is why pretty much everything in economics beyond "i hunt and gather my own food" works mainly because people believe it works once you really look at it.

>> No.15191674

>>15191617
Military General: You know, we won every single military engagement against you in the war.
NVA General: Yes, but we won the war, and you left.

>> No.15191676

>>15191557
never is a very, very, long time...

longer, in fact, than the United States have been around...

>> No.15191686

America will only fall if China lets it, or through a major catastrophe, like WWIII

If america goes down, it will drag everyone down with it.

>> No.15191690

>>15191652
If we could all chill out, this would not be 4chan.

Still, I have hope for a better world.

>> No.15191691

>>15191641
>Objective: Deal a decisive blow to the NVA

SUCCESSFUL. The NVA was completely destroyed as an effective fighting force by the time the US singed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. North Vietnam wouldn't attack the South again until 1975, a full two years later, because that's how long it took to rebuild their strength... and even then, if the US had deigned to send aid to the South (money, guns) they probably wouldn't have fallen (just as the Soviets were sending aid to the North.)

But the US government was led by nancy-boy flower children who didn't have the guts to do shit.

>> No.15191698

I wonder how many of the America strong posters in here read history?

Some cool things to bone up on:
UK Imperialism
Spanish Empire
Napoleon
Roman Empire
Byzantine Empire
Mayans
Aztecs

etc.

>> No.15191714

>>15191638

The car crashed anyway.

>>15191541

They are actually doing that, making things tighter.

The mindblowing thing about the EU, that the average american knows fuck about it, how it works, the leaders, the pacts. They can pretty much do their politicking secretly, no one giving a flying fuck.

I think the EU is much more dangerous as a superpower than china or russia, just because no one really cares about them or what are they doing.

>> No.15191723

>>15191691
>But the US government was led by nancy-boy flower children who didn't have the guts to do shit.

Yeah send our boys to die to stick it to the Ruskies!

We never should have gotten involved.

>> No.15191735

>>15191673
>You'll note we still have money in our pocket because the countries that sell shit to us then buy our money

So what explained American prosperity in the 1950s, when everything was Made In America and we bought little to nothing from foreign shores? 'Splain that one to me, champ.

>>15191674
>left

First it's a "retreat," now we just "left." What were the victory conditions, "occupy nation for 50 years?"

>> No.15191748

>>15191735
I think at the minimum making sure South Vietnam remain a country.

>> No.15191749

>>15191723

Dem chickenhawks man.

>RAWWWWRR KILL ALL LHZERUSKIES, WE WILL PAY THE PRICE IN BLOOD

>BAAAW WHY IMMA GETTING DRAFTED

America spends trillions of dollars on toys because of the chickenhawk mentality. A single SSBN has MORE projecting power and deterrent than all of the surface fleet combined.

>> No.15191772

>>15191698
>Roman Empire

Funny thing about that; the Roman Empire collapsed because of high taxes, self-absorbed politicians, and massive wastes of money on ill-advised social programs to keep the increasingly irate masses in check. This all culminated with the arrival of Barbarians At The Gate, and finally Rome was too weak and divided to resist them.

By the taxes, debt, and social spending yardsticks, Europe is a hell of a lot closer to that precipice then America... and I hear y'alls got a fuck-ton more A-rabs moving into your countries, too. Good luck with that!

>> No.15191790

>>15191772

America has a higher percentage of arabs than europe all minorites combined.

Also, niggers. Also, timber niggers. Also spics.

Texas is less than 50% white now.

>> No.15191794

>>15191735
That we actually paid the average person well enough to afford to buy all our own shit, that we had a whole lot of productive capacity to shift from war material to consumer goods, and that the dollar was now the world's reserve currency and everybody was buying it anyway.

What basically seems to have happened is that at some point having people buy shit on credit replaced paying them more, thus necessitating that we keep borrowing money from somewhere.

>> No.15191798

>>15191749
>lol chickenhawks
>LETS BUY MORE NOOKS I LOVE NUCLEAR WASTELANDS

And WE'RE the ones that are all talk and no walk?

>> No.15191805

>>15191469
>The germans lost WW2 because hitler was an idort interfering with the decisions of his staff, not because they were undertrained or udnerequipped.

They were technically underequipped to hold anything more than Europe. They pissed away manpower in Africa to save the Italians' bloody failure, they pissed away manpower in the Balkans and tried to conquer north Europe (Scandinavia) when they should've gone for Russia and come back for them later.

Even if they'd managed to take Stalingrad, the manufacturing facilities had been moved, and they wouldn't have gotten much more ground in the winter.

The Russkie counterattack would have been weaker, but between the inability to hold the Mediterranean and Africa from combined US+Brit fleets the Germans would still probably not have been able to hold their gains in Russia.

Training, fine. Equipment, fine. Scale? Lacking.

>> No.15191826

>>15191772
So Europe will fall for trying to help it's people.

what's America's excuse?

We're in the same boat, and have nothing to show for it but huge companies that exploit third-world companies, shiny guns and irresponsible people steering the economy.

Profit is private, but debt has been made public.

>> No.15191827

>>15191794
>What basically seems to have happened is that at some point having people buy shit on credit replaced paying them more, thus necessitating that we keep borrowing money

The fuck? The GOVERNMENT borrows money because the GOVERNMENT is SPENDING money. You think the Chinks are buying the debt of PRIVATE CITIZENS? Fukkin consumers?

wat

>> No.15191894

>>15191826
>So Europe will fall for trying to help it's people.

A 50% TAX RATE IS FUCKING "HELPING?" MUGGING YOUR FUCKING CITIZENS AND STEALING HALF OF THEIR FUCKING MONEY IS "HELPING?" HA! HA! HAHAHAHA!

Europe's socialist fuckup fiasco has been tried, and it has failed miserably. Deficit-spending has been tried in Japan, and it has failed. Deficit-spending, welfare-happy economies have been tried in England, Spain, Greece... and they have all failed miserably. Your people are trapped in the rotting hulk of failed ideology, and they will go down with the lies of your leaders jammed in their throats.

And as Europe rots, we'll laugh our fucking asses off.

>> No.15191895

>>15191827
A citizen is responsible for the debt of their country. I think the debt of each american is somethign like 100,000 now.

>> No.15191899

>>15191790
>Also, timber niggers
...

Canadians?

That's a new one.

>> No.15191907

>>15191894
Ignore most of the post.

Very classy.

>> No.15191912

>>15191899

injuns

>> No.15191933

>Europe

>spend money on keeping manufacturing industry at home and providing a strong social web

>BWAAAHAHAHAHAH SOCIALISTS!!


>America

>spend money on fleets, aicraft and tanks that ben never used seriously

>WE ARE 1ST NO1!!!!!

>> No.15191940

>>15191790
what, pray tell, is a "timber nigger?"

>> No.15191961

>>15191907

I won a long time ago, now I'm just gloating.

>> No.15191970

Is this archived?

I want the stupid vietnam apologist bullshit chickenhawking stored for all eternity.

>> No.15192020

>>15191970
Easymodo archives everything, so yes.

>> No.15192056

>>15191894
Sweden/Norway.

>> No.15192072

>>15191714
>The car crashed anyway.
Move the goalposts more. When the original argument is that the car is faulty and somebody points out it crashed because the driver was drunk, "IT CRASHED ANYWAYS" isn't a valid retort.

>>15191772
I know a professional historian specializing in Middle to Late antiquity. If there's one thing I've learned from him, it's that anybody who definitively claims to know why the Roman Empire collapsed is wrong.

>>15191933
People spend on military to buy peace. People don't start wars they don't think they can win.

>> No.15192103

>>15192072
For reasons that have their purposes way outside of this thread, where should one look if they wanted to educate themselves more on the issues surrounding Rome's fall?

>> No.15192121

>>15192072
There's no need to sage. The bump limit has been reached; the thread's free-falling through pages now.

>> No.15192176

>>15192072

A few nuclear silos can buy peace. We are only buying carriers to appease chickenhawks.

>>15192072

Crashing the car = losing the war. It was the drivers fault not the cars but the car still crashed.

>> No.15192374

>>15192176
>A few nuclear silos can buy peace. We are only buying carriers to appease chickenhawks.
Not really. First, you need to determine how much damage you need to inflict to destroy possible adversaries. Then there's the fact that ICBMs aren't completely reliable (Early Polaris missiles were rumored to be 25% reliable), so you'll need to compensate for that. Then there's the fact that your own nuclear arsenal is vulnerable to attacks, so you'll need a large enough one to survive a first-strike.
Then there's the fact that a nuke simply isn't a proportionate response to every any any incursion. Any nuclear use could easily spiral out of control into a central strategic nuclear war. Nukes can only destroy.
The US has global interests. If you're really curious what these interests are, Wikileaks published a list of locations the State Department considered crucial to national security. One obvious example would be the smaller nations in the Asian Pacific rim. In order to influence any possible conflict that may occur there, the US needs conventional forces that can do something other than devastating large swathes of territory. The moment the US stopped underwriting the security of, oh, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Western Europe, etc, they'd all immediately need to rearm and possibly even pursue their own nuclear program. Not to mention the US (and everybody, really), depends on trade as a vital part of their economy. Carriers keep the sealanes open.
Then there's the fact that only 1/3rd of carriers are actually on station any given time, the rest of the time is spent on training, upgrades, maintenance, etc.
So in fact, there are very good arguments for having a military other than "a few nuclear silos".

>> No.15192497

Carriers are the Battleships of the modern age.

The Navy thinks we need them, people are awed by them, actual thinkers know they are just money sinks and time wasters.

>> No.15192541

>>15192497
Thanks for your completely unsupported and useless post that merely parrots what somebody else claimed a hundred posts ago, you worthless shitposter.

>> No.15194543

>>15192374

Except nukes do all the deterrent for a global war.

>> No.15194774

>>15194543
And a 'global war' is not the only kind of war that exists.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action