US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined?
This is a discussion on US Navy more powerful than all other navies combined? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler
You sound like you didn't enjoy Battleship!
Ill see it when it comes out free ...
It was Meh. The Battles were OK if very unrealistic. Seeing the Missouri fighting was cool and stupid. It was a OK but silly movie with alot of action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF77
Ill see it when it comes out free on cable, LOL, Im burned out on "Aliens taking over" movies.
I'll get it on "lovefilm.com" when it's virtually free (just the monthly sub) - looking at the trailer, I can't convince myself that anyone in the whole wide world could believe it was anything other than a very sucky film. Liam Neeson can't save you...
I'll get it on "lovefilm.com" when it's virtually free (just the monthly sub) - looking at the trailer, I can't convince myself that anyone in the whole wide world could believe it was anything other than a very sucky film. Liam Neeson can't save you...
You're off topic, your dates are several decades off, Great Britain wasn't necessarily the world's greatest military power at the time (France could almost certainly beat us on land), & "a group of farmers" didn't win. How many French troops were there at Yorktown? And how many countries was Great Britain at war with in the early 1780s?
I suggest you read a little history.
Depends on which bit of land you're talking about. India? No. Canada? No. Malta? No. Portugal? No.
It was a classicThe Elephant vs The Whale and ultimately the whale has more options, certainly in terms of finance, and finance always dictates who is the most powerful.
Depends on which bit of land you're talking about. India? No. Canada? No. Malta? No. Portugal? No.
It was a classicThe Elephant vs The Whale and ultimately the whale has more options, certainly in terms of finance, and finance always dictates who is the most powerful.
For gawds sake!
The thread is stupid enough without this tripe
Depends on which bit of land you're talking about. India? No. Canada? No. Malta? No. Portugal? No.
It was a classicThe Elephant vs The Whale and ultimately the whale has more options, certainly in terms of finance, and finance always dictates who is the most powerful.
Portugal was decades later: decades of the British economy growing faster than the French. It was also a war which was a sideshow to France, which had far more troops occupied fighting to try to control Spain than ever faced the British & Portuguese armies.
Malta was also a generation after the American rebellion, & we didn't have to fight the French on land. The Maltese did that: they defeated the French garrison & began the siege. We (& for a long time the Portuguese) kept the French from being resupplied & reinforced by sea, & when the Maltese were no longer able to keep a large enough army in the field to maintain the siege provided (along with the Portuguese, for a while) reinforcements - as did the Kingdom of Naples.
You've conflated wars spread over more than 50 years during which British wealth & power was (despite the loss of the North American colonies) growing faster than that of France, & only one of which was fought with mainly 'British' (in a broad sense) troops - & in that one, quite a few of the 'British' troops were on the other side in the American rebellion, e.g. a certain George Washington.
What if these fictitious ocean battles weren't fought in open waters?
Envisage a situation such a conflict with China a few decades from now. The Chinese have quickly overwhelmed Taiwan and Korea. The Indians, Russians and other nations in the region all want to remain neutral and have refused to allow the US access to land bases.
Effectively this means the USN will now have to deal with the double threat of the Chinese navy and airforce.
The aim is to liberate Taiwan and Korea ... could they do it?
The aim is to liberate Taiwan and Korea ... could they do it?
Assuming no nukes? I believe the USN can do so. Those Chinese missiles are going to be nasty though, once the USN lands -- maybe in Korea? I'm not so sure if the Red Storm Rising scenario is feasible with all those Burkes, Ticos and F-35s supported by E-2Ds. And, I believe the USN will be able to strike first with all those tomahawks from SSGNs. I also presume that when you say USN, you include the Marines.
Just one point, any initial battles will be against in theatre forces only.
In the China scenario that puts one (maybe two) carrier groups on station depending on timing, it also puts whatever land based US Forces that are in range, against the whole Chinese airforce and Navy.
In that position, I don't think the US 7th Fleet would have much choice but to withdraw outside the range of the lighter chinese aircraft and operate from there. Not sure how long they could stay without retiring for repairs, replenishment of stores and aircraft either.
Remember a defensive battle is going to fought with what is in theatre, in an offensive situation you have the advantage of being able to use a set piece prepared formation, such as in 2003 with half the US Carrier fleet involved.
Luckily Korea, Singapore and Japan have potent airforces that would likely intervene and significantly even the odds.
Just one point, any initial battles will be against in theatre forces only.
In the China scenario that puts one (maybe two) carrier groups on station depending on timing, it also puts whatever land based US Forces that are in range, against the whole Chinese airforce and Navy.
In that position, I don't think the US 7th Fleet would have much choice but to withdraw outside the range of the lighter chinese aircraft and operate from there. Not sure how long they could stay without retiring for repairs, replenishment of stores and aircraft either.
Remember a defensive battle is going to fought with what is in theatre, in an offensive situation you have the advantage of being able to use a set piece prepared formation, such as in 2003 with half the US Carrier fleet involved.
Luckily Korea, Singapore and Japan have potent airforces that would likely intervene and significantly even the odds.
But with the recent announcement that the USN will station 60% of its fleet in Asia, would this not negate any tactical advantage China may have?
Although it would take time to regenerate, the USN reserve fleet is fairly formidable, in itself and would, no doubt, sortie prior to any hostilities.
On the negative side, would not China pre-emptively strike at ROK, Japanese and Taiwanese airfields? Admittedly, not all these nations aircraft would be destroyed but a significant amount of them would, I imagine.
Best scenario, before China "winds up" the ICBM fleet would be to neutralise them first and the SSBNs, Next phase, C4I, air defenses and POL as well as denying PLA-N replenishment.
Overly simplistic but it's hardly rocket science.
The goal wouldn't be actual occupation of the Chinese mainland proper, but to neutralize their ability to strike outside their own littoral areas thus securing allies in the region (strictly naval), no?
The USNs best chance would probably be its submarine fleet rather than airpower. This could be enough to deny Chinese amphibious forces access to Taiwan.
As for establishing a beachhead in South Korea ... that would be a lot more difficult. In fact if the Chinese were to overrun Korea I don't think recapturing using military force would be an option.
