/k/ - Weapons

Firearms, militaria, military history

Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 5

/retro/ - 1990s ans[sic] 2000s nostalgia

Nominations for week 6 coming soon.


Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


There's no discharge in the war!


Open file (710.80 KB 1281x718 Britains Biggest Fuckup.png)
Britains Biggest Fuckup Strelok 11/13/2019 (Wed) 21:24:27 No.2509
So for those who don't know, the BBC, the British Broadcasting Communist organisation, has made a series highlighting the UK's newest carrier as it goes down on a shakedown run. It has the typical shit you'd expect from the BBC i.e. focusing on minorities and the carbon footprint of the Royal Navy I am not making that shit up. However there are some parts of the show I am frankly amazed were aired.

Here are some of the highlights so far:
>The F-35B quite literally cannot land with a payload on the ship unless said ship is sailing at full speed
>The F-35B cannot really land or take off if the sea is a little choppy
>The F-35B cannot really land or take off if there is small birds or tiny bits of dirt on the deck which is fair enough but read next point
>The HMS Queen Elizabeth engine exhaust rips itself to pieces cause the vents are made of thin sheets of badly welded stainless steel held together with duct tape, the end result is that it pumps bits of burnt fibreglass onto the flight deck and into the air.

This is just a few examples of the things they did show which just makes you wonder all the things that they were not allowed to show. Been watching this and nobody has asked why they didn't go with catapult assisted take off which was originally intended for the vessel.
>>2509
We've had plenty of bigger fuckups than this lad. Biggest for a few decades I guess.
>>2509
Still doesn't beat choosing the wrong side in WWII.
So they've got an aircraft carrier that basically is only capable of literally carrying the aircraft, aside from the rare moments when the sea is perfectly still while the ship's going at ramming speed. And why did they even bother? An aircraft carrier's main role is force projection, and where would they be projecting anything? The only places they could use it at would be Ireland after the Troubles resume or the Falklands if Argentina can stop being bankrupt for five consecutive seconds. The former doesn't need a carrier, the latter isn't worth it. Do they want to threaten Spain in case they demand Gibraltar back?
>>2511
>wrong side in WWII
Wrong side in WW1 tbh
>>2512
This, shoulda left the Serbs to face the consequences of their actions
So UK made a ship that can't go to war?
Open file (84.21 KB 900x675 Modern-spider.jpg)
The f35 has been called a useless, flying turkey t. f16's original designer. It's a shit plane that isn't good at any role with a fuckton of issues i.e. pathetic money sink.

Fuck them and their faggot ZOG weapons, it's good that they're useless; remember who they will inevitably be used against when the blood runs dry from ZOG literally doing Jews bidding in destroying the nonjewed resistant arab nations or any other country in the world for that matter, remember what they did to the Serbs.
I've heard about this. It's not just that it's shit for F-35s, it has a large amount of problems as a ship too. After letting it out on the sea, it started leaking water (nearly killing 4 of the crew) and had to make port for fixing, and that's just one of the problems the ship itself has.

>>2511
IIRC they threatened to send it to South China Sea. Chinks were not amused and reminded UK that they're powerless shitstains and should stop trying to play with the big boys. Later on, UK tried all that "we will protect our ships in persian gulf from Iran!" only to realize they don't actually have the navy to do that. Overall, it seems as though UK still has some delusions of grandeur and built the carrier to pretend they are still relevant.
meh. it's obviously a brand-new design and will naturally have a fuckton of issues to start out with. all ships do, in fact all large engineering projects do. this is neither unusual nor unexpected, that's what shake-down cruises are exactly for tbh.

they'll work the issues out with both the ship and the planes.
>>2518
I could believe that if the plane involved wasn't the F-35. Otherwise I believe the end result will be the glorious clusterfuck of two overpriced and over-marketed projects that fail to do what they were shilled for. Lucky for the Brits, their military is so bad that they cannot be relied on for any actual combat by other countries.
>>2518
Planes not being able to land/take off except under the most favorable of conditions is not a technical issue but a fundamental design flaw that might not be fixable even with a fuckton of money.
>>2509
You have links to some pirated copies?
>>2513
>letting Willy invade Belgium
Open file (6.93 MB 1500x1211 t72ne4uf.bmp)
>>2512
Absolutely this.
Could you fucking imagine? WW1 is a year and a half kerfuffle at most. The October revolution doesn't have the political backing to get off the ground. Imperial Germany is doing fine so it isn't hit nearly has hard by the depression and with no Communist threat as well the Fascists never rise to power. The States never need to get involved so we stick to isolationism and manifesting our destiny over our hemisphere. The Japaneses might still rape Nanking too hard and the lack of military advancement of science means we'd probably be at 50's level tech right now, but whatever.
No World War 2, no Cold War, no Proxy Wars, no Communism, no Fascism, the world powers are all republics and capitalism reigns supreme.

And all this at the low low price of the nation of France.
>>2534
>the world powers are all republics
>Imperial Germany
>The Japaneses
Most* the world powers are all republics.
Russia, probably the UK later, and the States.
Boat thread?
Boat thread.

Given the increasing potency of ASMs and R*ssian AA systems, what does the future hold for aircraft carriers as a whole?
Unless someone manages to create RAM coatings out of qurified Boomimium that make planes literally invisible on all electromagnetic and mental spectrums traditional fixed-wing Carrier air groups launched off of big flattops seem more and more obsolete as an offensive weapon against any disciplined enemy fielding modern AA systems.
Would it make sense to convert old supper and helicopter carriers to arsenal ships by replacing the flight deck+plane hangar with VLS bays in the near future?
>>2538
Paradigm shifts aren't going to happen easily without a war to kickstart them. They're expensive and extremely risky for those that propose them because their career is going to be over if they are wrong. Nobody's ever been fired over following conventional wisdom.
I wouldn't expect full-on conversions to happen before the war with China starts and the first aircraft carrier is shown to be useless against anything that isn't an illiterate goatherd.
>>2538
I remember some article about Russian military strategy and the point concerning carriers was that Moscow sees them basically as indefensible targets which will be sunk within 15-30 minutes of outbreak of war.
As to exported Russian ASM/AA technology I'm pretty certain at least some 2nd world tier countries like Iran can destroy a carrier quite easily but won't because it means they would be glassed.
>>2539
Even then, you can be sure that they'd just blame all of on the highest ranking huwite male who was on the bridge when the carrier got wrecked and just send in a new group. Maybe after losing the second carrier group they will think about giving Lockheeb lots and lots of money to come up with something.
Open file (1.45 MB 450x450 giphysdfsgdsdg.gif)
>>2534
It's not that simple.

You can't honestly be serious, the root of our problems stretches far deeper than you are aware of.

The ostensibly powerful (((capitalist banking cabaal))) had put their Jewish suckers into both England with the PRIVATE "bank of England" and US with their second national bank in the early to mid 1800's giving them free reign to print an unlimited money and control currency owners/value/and issuing of superpowers using financially destructive methods like the fractional reserve method.

This effectively making capitalism(which was never the idea of a free market) an utter failure and a weaponized economic machine used against our people at the will of the yid bankers and powerful families which were in total agreeance with them. To think that they would stop Jewing(which they never do or did) is such naive hogwash.

Those conflicts which are in the past now would be replaced by other ones, maybe even more brutal ones as they didn't just happen spontaneously, the events you mentioned were all at some point planned at the drawing table as accurately as possible, and as close as possible to a realistic outcome, because no nation will throw themselves randomly into a conflict/event or create one without estimating results.

Study more and read history my friend.
Open file (183.03 KB 901x886 false god.jpg)
>>2513
>implying the whole war wasn't manufactured by Perfidious Albion in the first place

>>2534
>the world powers are all republics
Republics are pretty gay tbh, especially if you value markets the way you seem to.

>>2542
You're not quite wrong but you're not really correct either. The bank of England and the Fed aren't private in any meaningful sense of the word, and to suggest that they are implies you're not truly aware of the depths of kikery that is central banking.
Open file (100.79 KB 580x404 43534624462.jpg)
>>2543
No. They are private central banks in the way that they operate independently almost completely without government control or oversight. They can for example refuse any president's orders as they are not a state entity. US POTUS and anyone else has to beg.

However that doesn't stop them from pretending to be public entities or central banks meanwhile all their chairmen and presidents are (jews) and privately, not state employed as in the case of the "federal" reserve, the worlds #1 economic(and totally jewish) powerhouse.
>>2538
it's not the planes that will be fucked, but the carriers. A well placed, long range missile is all you need to sink one of these (or a torpedo if you have subs) and there's fuck all the carrier can do to prevent this. Any serious enemy can sink these without much trouble, and you mostly see them used to bully third world countries with no tech, or as a basically symbolic thing. It's why Russia basically resigned on the whole thing (bad cost/reward ratio, epsecially when russkies lack overseas vassals that'd need such gestures). The fact it's a symbol rather than a tool is even more clear when you consider that to US, they are fairly useless. If it wanted to bomb shit, it could use airfields at the bases it has basically everywhere in the world, and it'd be faster, cheaper, and all around better than building and sending an air carrier. Why send air carriers to North Korea when US could simply use airfields in SK and Japan? Why send air carriers to Persian gulf when Saudi Arabian airfields are right there? The reason is that they are meant for show, not for actual combat. Should an actual war with NK or Iran start, you'd see the carriers withdrawn long before, or see them hauling ass out of there at full mast.

Aircraft carriers are already militarily obsolete. Next big war will show this to the world, thus breaking their symbolic value, and their chapter in history will close.
>>2544
If the Fed was a private entity, why did it require an act of Congress to be formed, and why are its board members selected by the president? It's a state entity in every practical way, it's only """""private""""" for plausible deniability reasons. "HURR DURR IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY" is a retarded thing to say, because it completely misses the mark as to why the Fed is as kiked as it is.
>>2551
>Should an actual war with NK or Iran start, you'd see the carriers withdrawn long before, or see them hauling ass out of there at full mast.
>skeptical.jpg
You may be correct about the demise of them during a global-scale conflict, but they will most certainly be thrown in with all they're worth into the fray. After all, they will already be in place for the pre-war posturing (as you suggest is their only real value) and quite frankly, what else are they going to do? Just haul-ass out of there the moment the conflict goes hot as you suggest?

Pfft, I think not.
>>2538
>not Boominium*
YOU HAD ONE JOB
>>2522
It's on jewtube
>>2540
>>2538
>>2551
Would the missile-carrier ekranoplan concept have, had it been continued, been effective to attack carrier groups?
I heard Iran is also experimenting with them.

Also:
The entire raison d'etre of the AEGIS system was to protect the fat asses of carriers from missiles, supposedly it is comparable to the S-400.
Is this true, or is it just another "surgical precision" Patriot/Iron Dome propaganda bullshit?

>>2534
Both "world wars" were the same conflict with an armistice of 20 years: the same war of the established empires against the emerging new ones, with the same inane propaganda about the villainy of the latter, that became a religion after their defeat and vassalization.
It was inevitable.
>>2558
I wasn't even aware there was a missile carrying variant of the ekranoplan. I just knew the troop carrier. What a beast, damn.
Don't know if the Iranians experiment with that, I think they are happy with their armada of speed-boats. Much cheaper than an ekranoplan, lower silhouette but delivering a heavy punch, tho I believe they won't be used on the carriers, being mainly designed to attack tankers and escort ships.

To attack a carrier the conventional way is simply firing at least a dozen cruise missiles at the target, thus over-saturating its defenses. The carrier group will be attacked (and overwhelmed) at the same time, in case of Iran probably with the speed-boats.

As regards AEGIS it might be comparable to the S-400 in function but Russia's AA systems are unrivaled. Still none of them is invincible and I don't see how any of them (alone or integrated with other systems) could save a carrier against a massive and sustained attack.

Carriers are instruments to project power in an empire but not made for a modern war where your adversary hits back.
>>2559
It sounds like they are the war elephants of this age. Although battleships would be better for that, because a floating collection of guns is inherently more impressive than some floating tarmac.
>>2558
>The entire raison d'etre of the AEGIS system was to protect the fat asses of carriers from missiles, supposedly it is comparable to the S-400.
Even if it were, that doesn't mean much. These systems don't have a 100% success rate, and always let a couple missiles past in a swarm attack. And you only need one successful hit to take the carrier out of operation (even if it didn't sink it, it would harm it enough to force it to return to harbor)

>>2561
Battleships already went through what awaits the carriers. They went obsolete, and lost their symbolic value as well. The last battleship was launched in 1944, with a couple being recomissioned during cold war for fire support. WW2 showed them to be useless, precisely for the same reasons as today's air carriers – they were very costly to build, but relatively easy and cheap to sink with torpedoes, missiles, or aircraft. Nobody bothers with battleships today.
Open file (15.94 MB 720x480 Premium vs Free.webm)
>>2563
Could CL-sized submersible arsenal ships succeed today's CVNs as the big guys of Surface Action Groups or would they be BC-tier mutt abominations that are too fast and loud to operate in concert with SSNs while being too slow and vulnerable to operate alongside regular DDGs?
Chinks seem really interested in the concept.
>>2558
>Is this true, or is it just another "surgical precision" Patriot/Iron Dome propaganda bullshit?
None of us have security clearances not even the feds posting, so we won't know unless war breaks out. Chances are though the answer is "no." Even if it was comparable, it's still far from perfect--only one ASM has to get through, and ASMs are far cheaper than carriers.

>>2561
A floating tarmac is exactly what you want when your CIA assets "enemies" are goatfuckers in the desert. It's a mobile FOB you can park wherever you want.
>>2564
Sauce?
You're all ignoring the real reason why that ship was built and sent into service, to house almost two thousand servicemen anywhere they're needed without dealing with foreign countries.

These modern aircraft carriers are floating cities since these dying empires can't rely on their overseas military bases forever, by the end of this century the US/UK will probably lose Diego Garcia and Guantanamo as well as bases in Japan and Korea by overstaying their welcome. If you read the wikileaks cablegate releases you'll see that they're very concerned over this and trying to stave it off as much as possible while considering their loss inevitable. There's currently 65,000 staff on all of the aircraft carriers for the US fleet, in a few years that'll be 70k. By 2030 it's projected to be around 100k.

>>2554
Being able to move out of harms way is their best defense, of course they'd leave the area considering what a high priority target they are. It's just a depot for pilots, regular maintenance, munitions and fuel so it doesn't need to be right in the center of the action. It won't be long before pilots are taken out of the equation.
>>2569
Zipang
>>2570
good points but I still think anyone with a carrier fleet is better served to decentralize, i.e. smaller and more carriers. Less planes flown by humans, more drones.

Nobody can afford losing a carrier and it will just get easier and easier in the next decades to successfully attack and even destroy one.
>>2570
Why not make a floating fortress or troop carrier rather than aircraft carrier? Don't burgers have those amphibious landing ships that make marines have a reason to exist?
Open file (12.21 MB 1600x2000 ahqberd9.bmp)
Remember this guy? Millienium challenge 2002, he played OPFOR using old military tactics and destroyed BLUFOR cucks and sunk their entire boat armada, causing over 20.000 military casualties in the simulation with totally inferior technology, using asymmetric warfare older tech like light signals/letters and such tactics as suicide squad/bomb boats.

The US army got so buttblasted by van riper that they shut it down and reset the exercise because he achieved total victory over US land/navy forces, kicking out riper from the simulation. i.e they have a superiority complex and have learned nothing for 250$ million usd which was the simulation cost.
>>2573
They already have Expeditionary Mobile Base ships but they're designed to transport land vehicles with a minimal crew of mostly merchant mariners. The semi submersible variant is for supplying other ships.

It's probably much cheaper and less of a logistical nightmare to keep them housed domestically or in allied foreign countries and fly them out than keep them constantly stationed on a ship at the ready. The ship in the OP carries 250 marines.
>>2573
They already have Expeditionary Mobile Base ships but they're designed to transport land vehicles with a minimal crew of mostly merchant mariners. The semi submersible variant is for supplying other ships.

It's probably much cheaper and less of a logistical nightmare to keep them housed domestically or in allied foreign countries and fly them out than keep them constantly stationed on a ship at the ready. The ship in the OP carries 250 marines.
>>2576
Do we have some idea about what is the ideal unit size to be shipped? Of course it depends on the lenght of the voyage too, but giving every company its own ship seems to be wasteful, yet putting a whole division with its supplies seems to be way too risky. And then we have to ask ourselves how invasion submarines would change the picture. I just like the idea of a submarine that can bring a whole battalion with all of its vehicles on shore.
>>2574
It's always the same shit. There had been many critics of battleships prior to WW2 too, but countries still drowned ridiculous amounts of money in them up until they saw their multi billion dollar babies sink after some shitty sub penetrated it with torpedoes. Same thing applies here - there will be no changes to doctrine up until there's a big enough disaster that's impossible to ignore.

There's a good reason for this – many groups have high interest in US building and refitting aircarriers. For one, it's a great way to milk the budget - billions of dollars per each, that's mighty attractive to the military industrial complex, so you've got rich kikes lobbying like mad to keep making air carriers. The second group is the navy – it's becoming increasigly obsolete in a world where a ship can be easily taken out by plane or missile, and without aircarriers, it'd be relegated to guarding logistic lanes with escorts and using subs. It'd see its influence (and with it, the budget) fall.
>>2577
>I just like the idea of a submarine that can bring a whole battalion with all of its vehicles on shore.
For a whole war strength mechanized battalion I would imagine this submarine needing to have the same size as an aircraft carrier. Hardly conceivable they'll ever build something like this.

>>2574
yeah, remember. Too bad, the old guys who have that knowledge are dying out.
>>2572
>Less planes flown by humans, more drones.
This is already the case with the newer aircraft carrier design 'America class' where they've cut the amount of crew down by half and have room for 1871 marines to be berthed aboard.

With 11 of those being planned I have to revise the numbers here >>2570 adding an extra 32k for the America class and 23k for the Wasp class. That's potentially 155k servicemen on all US aircraft carriers by 2030.
>>2574
Wasn't the results of this inaccurate and basically abusing game mechanics? If I recall the guy used all of Iran's missiles in a single battle and fitted missiles on to boats that realistically would never be able to carry them.
>>2581
They specifically told him it would be a free-play game before he started, because the whole point was (ostensibly) to show how Joint Command's new/upcoming doctrines and technologies would fare against a crafty but under-equipped opponent. There was REEEEEEing about metagaming and mechanics abuse immediately after MC02. But when the mil finally published their official report on the whole thing 10 years later, they admitted that Van Riper was right and had exposed legitimate shortcomings in US military doctrine.

>If I recall the guy used all of Iran's missiles in a single battle
He still had SAMs (which he was told on the re-do he wasn't allowed to fire, but had to leave exposed so Blue Force could take them out) in reserve, and some other smaller things. And yeah, he did use most the missiles in one battle, but if it's the only battle that matters that's the right way to use them.

>boats that realistically would never be able to carry them.
I've heard this claim as well, but I've also seen multiple claims otherwise. I don't know enough about the specific boats he used to answer definitively which narrative is correct.
>>2578
At least prior to WW2 the chief centre of international finance was Britain and France instead of the States. Keeping a small military and a large industrial base meant the US was able to rearm for the war with the latest technology. Now it's got a bunch of obsolete equipment playing world police for the sake of its masters.

>>2582
>>boats that realistically would never be able to carry them.
>I've heard this claim as well, but I've also seen multiple claims otherwise. I don't know enough about the specific boats he used to answer definitively which narrative is correct.
Weren't those supposed to depict suicide boats?
>>2571
thanks anon.
>>2574
Look at that fucking salad. One strack jarhead tbh.
>>2582
To add to Van Riper's story he wasn't too keen on participating in the millennium challenge at all. A war game he did before left a bad taste in his mouth with bullshit such as BLUFOR knowing exactly where his AA defenses/missile systems (I can't quite remember, it may be both) were because they had something that gave them this info. But that something was in truth only in very early development at the time and nowhere near production. And based on the U.S. military procurement history it was most likely a failure and cancelled after a few years and sucking down millions. For the MC though he was promised that shit wouldn't exist and I think he tested it by pushing everything to the limit. Hence why accusations that >>2581 put forth exist. He pushed the game as hard as he could to get revenge for the past game in a way.
>>2588
So he's just an avid fa/tg/uy?
>>2592
>So he's just an avid fa/tg/uy?
Yes. After all RPGs go back to war games, which have their origin in strategic military planning of the 18th and 19th century.
>>2581
>the guy used all of Iran's missiles in a single battle
I mean, if it resulted in 20k burgers dead or captured in a single battle, plus a carrier group sunk, I'd say it would be easily worth it. Imagine the backlash at home. US would have to abandon the invasion idea and switch to cold war shit (which is more or less what it's already doing with Iran, so no big change).
>>2581
>used all of Iran's missiles in a single battle
Who could blame him? Iran has no chance to win a war with the US. They can of course wait some weeks until their missile arsenal is destroyed in its bunkers and underground complexes without having achieved anything and prepare to surrender but where's the point in that?
If Iran doesn't manage to deal a decisive blow in the first days, rather day, it's toast and they know it.

>>2585
>Weren't those supposed to depict suicide boats?
yes, and that's perfectly valid since Iran has hundreds of them.
>>2598
>20k burgers dead in a single day
>carrier group sunk
>backlash at home.
>abandon the invasion
I think we'd rather see the military take over in the US and glass Iran
>>2603
West cannot take a punch. The impact of one US soldier KIA is the equivalent of 100 or more being killed in another country.
Losing 20k troops would be the equivalent of another country losing 2 million troops. The outcry would be that severe.

Nevermind the loss of equipment which I just can't see the US justifying the replacement costs.
>>2603
Happy fun times would start back home if that happened.
Open file (84.69 KB 500x402 jewelquest-jewquest.jpg)
>>2604
This is why Democracies are superior for maintaining eternal global peace, after all no sane politician would ever send troops to war if having a few soldiers die would cost him votes :^).
>>2604
Should have listened.
>>2582
>>2588
>>2602
Alright, that makes sense
>>2603
I'm honestly not sure how the general public would react to a defeat like that, politicians would do their damn best to rally people around muh 20,000 dead peace keepers but on the other hand that fuck up in Somalia was able to make us leave and it wouldn't even be a fraction of what a MC level disaster would look like.
Don't forget that if they wouldn't flatten Iran after such an incident, then the USA would stop being the world police, and that would lead to a new world order. And the average American isn't interested in playing world police anyway. But the Federal Government does need to play world police in order to maintain the petrodollar and finance its own existence. What would happen if the Federal Government stopped placating the niggers and spics with gibmedats?
>>
>Federal Government does need to play world police in order to maintain the petrodollar and finance its own existence
this, ZOG will do anything to uphold western hegemony even if it costs them one million dead.
Open file (63.13 KB The_War.pdf)
>>2612
>What would happen if the Federal Government stopped placating the niggers and spics with gibmedats?
>>2588
>A war game he did before left a bad taste in his mouth with bullshit such as BLUFOR knowing exactly where his AA defenses/missile systems (I can't quite remember, it may be both) were because they had something that gave them this info.
Oh, it was even more retarded than that. He had a number of missile systems that all got destroyed immediately, not because BLUFOR had something that gave them this info, but because the US was projected to have that technology in 10 year's time. Maybe. Possibly. Assuming everything went well.

>>2611
The real blow wouldn't be the general public, it would the response of the (((International Community))). US hegemony is conditional on the rest of the world perceiving our military as invincible and unstoppable. An embarrassing defeat of that caliber would destroy that perception, and without that perception we lose the ability to bully the rest of the world into adopting the petrodollar, and with it our ability to finance debt by printing money into existence.
>>2615
Currently its like the 18th Century and the USA are today's Ottoman Empire. A gigantic Empire with a huge state of the art army, it still wins the majority of battles, but it's starting to lose battles it shouldn't considering its power and its internal organization shows its age and is bogged down by corruption. Meanwhile the foundation of the future world is happening elsewhere.
>>2615
>because the US was projected to have that technology in 10 year's time
A wise projection, it seems. I mean, in the present day more than 10 years after those wargames, we do know the exact location of every missile system Iran has and can guarantee simultaneous hits on all of them at the outbreak of hostilities, right?
Do carriers have any viable use in space?
Open file (630.35 KB 791x534 ClipboardImage.png)
>>2629
Only if we develop cost efficient drop pod technology
>>2615
>The real blow wouldn't be the general public, it would the response of the (((International Community))). US hegemony is conditional on the rest of the world perceiving our military as invincible and unstoppable. An embarrassing defeat of that caliber would destroy that perception, and without that perception we lose the ability to bully the rest of the world into adopting the petrodollar, and with it our ability to finance debt by printing money into existence.
This is also the main reason WW2 killed the British Empire: nips managed to take bong colonies which broke the standing perception that only whites could defeat other whites Russians don't count.
>>2632
Didn't Vietnam effectively do that for a while till Russians went to Afghanistan?
>>2632
>Russians don't count
don't start
Open file (281.32 KB 800x570 Frog C O P E.jpg)
>>2632
[LAUGHS IN KUTUZOV]
>>2633
Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military one. We like to shitpost about it now but the US mil didn't get completely shoah'd, they just got pulled out because the war stopped being popular back home. Polite sage for doublepost.
Come to think of it, how capable is North Korea of surprise buttsexing a US CVBG during one of those annual US-ROK exercises and would China support Norks if burgers embarass themselves hard enough in the opening minutes of war?
>>2629
in space every ship is a carrier of sorts
Open file (49.54 KB 280x241 prayer.png)
>>2644
nobody knows
but what is known is that norks have enough ordnance pointed at seul to level it to the ground in the first few hours
>>2644
>would China support Norks
Depends on what you mean, I'm pretty sure they will aid by making radar data available to rocketman and probably down a lot of the missiles they perceive as "strays". Help with ammo and food. More than that, I doubt it.

>>2646
>in the first few hours
make that minutes, 15 to 30, cause that's how long best Koreas arty will last, Seoul is finished, though.
Open file (299.94 KB 361x389 4784527585.png)
>>2641
>Vietnam was a political defeat, not a military one.
Good one.
>>2650
It was still a defeat, I'm not denying that, I'm not some retarded Ameriboo. >>2633 asked why Vietnam didn't destroy the credibility of Burger hegemony, and near as I can tell, that's why. We took an L in Vietnam, but because the military wasn't thoroughly ass spanked the way van Riper did at MC02, so the US military reputation emerged intact.
>>2509
Instead of using blacktext, why not use Teeline?
Open file (28.48 KB 480x360 hqdefault.jpg)
>>2615
>US hegemony is conditional on the rest of the world perceiving our military as invincible and unstoppable. An embarrassing defeat of that caliber would destroy that perception, and without that perception we lose the ability to bully the rest of the world into adopting the petrodollar, and with it our ability to finance debt by printing money into existence.
This already happened before with Vietnam, the 60s riots, the 70s oil embargo, the abandonment of the gold standard, the 70s recession, the Iranian revolution, bankruptcies of major American cities, blackouts, strikes, rapes, murders in public, the US having to negotiate a drawdown in hostilities with the USSR. Somehow it didn't collapse.
>>2654
>Somehow it didn't collapse
But it got really fucking close to doing so, and still is. Its why the US has been so keen on going after middle eastern countries that don't buy into the central bank/petrodollar meme with both 4th generational and conventional means, and why its going after countries that could over take the dollar like China and Russia. The US dollar is on the brink more than ever before, and they have been pulling out all the stops to both fuck their opposition, and they population to keep a civil war from happening in the crossfire. Its why they have been pushing propaganda so heavily all at once, and why they have been going hard at being really fucking warmongering until Trump got elected.
>>2654
>he 60s riots, the 70s oil embargo, the 70s recession, the Iranian revolution, bankruptcies of major American cities, blackouts, strikes, rapes, murders in public
None of these things are military embarassments. The US mil is still a paper tiger waiting to be knocked over, but no one's had the balls to try yet.

>the abandonment of the gold standard
Are you retarded? The gold standard was abandoned specifically because US petrodollar hegemony was so dominant that they didn't even have to pretend to follow a system of sound money. When the US abandoned the gold standard, it abandoned any pretense of paying back its debts with anything other than a printing press, telling the rest of the world "lol deal with it faggot, what are you going to do about it?" Suggesting that this is indicative of military failure is stupid.
>>2649
>make that minutes, 15 to 30, cause that's how long best Koreas arty will last
How come? I know that Worst Korea and the USA have a very good idea about the position of those artillery pieces, but there are a stupid lot of them, and in fortified positions. Does the South have an arsenal of guided missiles ready to take them out at once, or what?
>>2672
Not to mention various stockpiles in underground bunkers.
How do Nork tunnel systems and asymmetric warfare doctrines fare when compared against Iran anyhow?
Best Korea has a hueg army but I wonder how many of their conscripts and low level troops would defect out of desperation/starvation should the conflict drag on, a problem Iran won't have to that extent thanks to eternal Jihad against Sunni Jewish ZOGbot filth.
>>2654
The thing is the drawdown in hostilities against the SU and by extension the Warsaw Pact fucking killed them.
>>2676
>Best Korea has a hueg army but I wonder how many of their conscripts and low level troops would defect out of desperation/starvation should the conflict drag on

I'm sure most of their soldiers will not defect because they probably have communist NKVD squads lined up to shoot their own in the back for retreating. They'll be watched over and locked in by their commie masters even on the front-lines, and those who escape will probably have their families executed for treason or some sick commie bullshit.

Remember that people living under (((communism))) are literally prisoner slaves
>>2587
Anyone is lucky to have a legend warrior like that by their side.

Unfortunately he wasted his life serving Jews most his entire life without knowing(probably)

Also it was a jew above him that ran the war game and shut down the simulation and very much opposed/criticized him, literal rat JINSA terrorist called "Marty Meyer".. That kike is also a enemy military lobbyist for Israel with high connections and 99% citizen. Marty meyer is also responsible for 9/11 as it wasn't towelheads that pulled it off.

>It's always a filthy fucking jew
>>2587
Anyone is lucky to have a legend warrior like that by their side.

Unfortunately he wasted his life serving Jews most his entire life without knowing(probably)

Also it was a jew above him that ran the war game and shut down the simulation and very much opposed/criticized him, literal rat JINSA terrorist called "Marty Meyer".. That kike is also a enemy military lobbyist for Israel with high connections and 99% citizen. Marty meyer is also responsible for 9/11 as it wasn't towelheads that pulled it off.

>It's always a filthy fucking jew
What can this ship ship then?
>>2686
It ships multiethnic Minority crews to NATO exercises cultural exchange programs.
>>2681
>>2676
North Korea is more a buffer state for China then anything else. Their only purpose is to glass South Korea and allow China to focus on other countries if shit went south. I wonder how feasible that plan can continue if famines keep hitting and all their farmers are dying.
>>2658
>US petrodollar hegemony was so dominant
US oil prices fucking skyrocketed because the Arabs embargoed the West for supporting Israel. The petrodollar hegemony emerged after the US government started sucking dick globally to become the mercenary army of the Gulf tycoons. It was pathetic, the US airlift to save Israel during the Yom Kippur War strained American industry to the brink. All the cards were in the Arab hands at the point which is why the US eventually broke their united front by using politics rather than force by splitting Egypt off and having them recognise Israel.
>>2690
North Korea is more than that. It's a proxy especially for arms sales. China and Russia use it to sell illegal things to other countries.
I'd be a bit more skeptical of the skepticism. US carriers never were particularly hard to sink, if you could actually hit them (just look up WW2 (near) losses), that didn't change much in the last ~80 years. Yes, it was aircraft then and now it's missiles but you still need to overwhelm the defenses and you need to know where the ship is. Both changes, missiles and intelligence gathering technologies, favor the attacker, but neither change is fundamental and largely depends on how you operate the ship. Obviously being in the gulf short distance off Iranian shores will make you an easy target, but somehow I doubt that a carrier group short distance off Japanese shores in '42 would fair any better.
The case with battleships is different, as they do rely on being hard to sink, which is costly, and with CVs having way longer engagement range, they make very little sense.
>>2738
You forget one of the key parts of the WW2 scenario, which was range. Japs couldn't sink US ships in the Pacific without either having an air field on a nearby island (in which case it was the carrier who decided the terms of the battle) or by getting their own carriers near. Nowadays, this is no longer a case. Even NK could (or so it claims) sink any carrier in the pacific today with its current missile technology. There are also large advances in precision and missile guidance since WW2, further favouring anti-CV warfare. While defenses have become better over the years as well, they are far from 100% effectivity, and are likely to let through several missiles in a swarm, especially if said missiles are modern (consider that all the successes of such defenses in recent decades were done against cold war era tech shot by goat herders. And that even those "successes" were sometimes matched by failures – most recently, consider Aramco).
>>2738
There's a critical difference between overwhelming defenses with aircraft and with missiles: You can easily stockpile large amounts of missiles and they're quick to replace.
But you aren't getting those pilots back, and training one of those to be even competent enough to be a useful kamikaze takes a long time. You can't effectively stockpile pilots either.
>>2511
>An aircraft carrier's main role is force projection, and where would they be projecting anything?
http://archive.is/WJ67f
>>2753
>You can't effectively stockpile pilots either.
http://archive.is/0Lu3d
Chinks are working on it though.
>>2751
>the US tolerate rough position of some of their fleet being broadcast on the internet in relative peacetime, therefore they'd be ok with it during wartime
This is so stupid it's almost not worth replying to.
>>2836
>tolerate
more like they can't do anything about it. Satellites exist, and if a Russian satellite sees a carrier group, then there's nothing Uncle Sam can do about it
>inb4 satellites will be shot down
If that happened, ALL the satellites would go down, and that won't happen because civvies everywhere (and especially the US) would shit themselves and because the US would also like to have some satellites up there for military purposes. In a future conflict, space will become a demilitarized zone. Besides, Russians (and everyone else) have a thing called radar, which could track the groups just as easily from the coast.
>>2743
There has been a definite shift in favour of the side trying to sink the CV, but it's far from clear that the shift is significant enough that it makes CVs obsolete. The anti ship missiles have finite range and there's finite number of them in finite number of locations, worst case, you need to stay out of their range, which doesn't make the CV useless. It just needs aircraft with bigger range - the US are developing refuelling drones to that end, Rafale has 1000nmi combat radius and can carry air-to-ground missiles with range of 300nmi.
>>2838
Radar doesn't have an infinite range and it doesn't tell you more than very rough size estimate.
Satellites certainly aren't guaranteed cure-all. You don't even have to destroy them. Many satellites (even military ones) can be relatively simply and cheaply jammed with commercially available technology, (certain) militaries can probably do more simple jamming, and if all else fails, you "just" need to overheat them. Yeah, nobody officially has such weapon yet, but somehow I doubt that anyone would be too eager to advertise it if they did. Either way, there's no fundamental reason why it can't be done, if the respective countries fear that armed conflict is nearing.
>>2840
What you'd need to do to take all of the satellites in one shot and deny that space to everybody for at least a decade is dump a literal ton of sand in low orbit.

If you want a good take on what space based warfare and countermeasures could be like I'd recommend the forums at NASASpaceflight.
>>2844
Might work, given enough time. Anything higher than LEO, you'd have to target individually though.
More immediate solution would be blowing up few nukes in the ionosphere to make satellites that communicate via radio useless.
>>2839
If you have planes with massive range, what do you need a CV for? US has bases (with airfields) all over the planet, along with plenty of vassal states. Why use a carrier, which costs billions and can be sunk, unstead of an airfield, that costs fuck all (or nothing, it it's provided by an allied state), is easier to defend, and cannot be sunk? The whole point of a CV is to eliminate range issues for planes. If you start combatting its weaknesses by making planes with very long ranges, then you just rendered CVs obsolete for a different reason.

>>2840
>Radar doesn't have an infinite range and it doesn't tell you more than very rough size estimate.
I recommend you take a look at the range of modern long-distance radars. While not infinite, it's more than enough to detect a carrier group long before it has a chance to do any damage.
>You don't even have to destroy them. Many satellites (even military ones) can be relatively simply and cheaply jammed with commercially available technology, (certain) militaries can probably do more simple jamming, and if all else fails, you "just" need to overheat them.
Right. So you just disabled all my satellites. So what do I do? Shoot down all of your satellites with a "if I can't have them, nobody will" mindset. If you take out another country's satellites, it has no reason to fear the Kessler effect anymore.
>>2844
You mean to use sand as micrometeors? That’s fucking brilliant but could the grains achieve enough speed to fuck up the satellites that much? Fuck SpaceX’s world internet grid, and all the grids that are coming up in competition, sending 10s of thousands of satellites in low orbit seems glaringly daft.
>>2858
By making even small sections of LEO unsuitable for satellites you'd vastly reduce their operational capabilities and shorten their expected lifespan by depleting their fuel to avoid those areas.

Also this is why using nukes in orbit is a short term solution;
>The second drawback is the lesser-known Argus Effect, in which charged particles are trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field and form artificial radiation belts, damaging or destroying satellites. These particles are mostly electrons, and tend to cluster between 1000 and 2000 km altitude. They pose a threat similar to a greatly-enhanced Van Allen Belt, and would reduce the operational lives of satellites. There is a possibility that the belts could be used as a defensive weapon, but establishing them would mean sacrificing a large portion of one’s orbital (and quite possibly planetary) infrastructure. It is also possible that an “Argus Blockade” could be implemented. This would be the intentional creation of such an effect by an attacker, intended to impair the defender’s space infrastructure and prevent him from rebuilding quickly. The effect persists for a month or so before fading back to levels that are unlikely to impair space operations.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

>>2864
The beauty of using sand is that they'll interact unpredictably with the more than 129 million pieces of debris in LEO which will in turn wreck havoc on larger craft creating more debris. This scenario is called the Kessler Syndrome. I haven't found much documentation on how this would work asides for this short section under 'Fragmentation or Pellet Rings'
https://fas.org/spp/eprint/article05.html#15

Ideally you'd try to create as many rings possible with a single warhead.
Open file (66.27 KB 550x349 american_troops_ww3.jpg)
>>2866
>millenia of weapons development have led to a situation where using sand to blind the enemy is the cutting edge of warfare
History truly is a circle.
>>2866
>Ideally you'd try to create as many rings possible with a single warhead.
Or just go full Gerald Bull and keep shooting the sky with Sandgranate.
>>2868
>space tourism becomes widely available to commoners
>pocket sand can now get you arrested and charged with plotting a terrorist attack
>red flag laws expanded to target anyone who goes to the beach
>or plays in a sandbox
>children nationwide are taught to be wary of and to report any kid that makes sand castles
>deserts are now entirely off limits
>>2870
>deserts are now entirely off limits
What happens to the dunecoons though?
>>2889
>What happens to the dunecoons though?
Protected species anon, what are you a rayciss? Reported.
>>2889
>>2890
Well by then Europe will have graciously accepted them all with open arms after they fled for a better life away from the moderate sand castle builders funded by Israel and the US.
Saudi Arabia will have just bought miles of fake turf and declared it just as functional as real grass, only to have a Houthi with a lighter torch it all.
>>2866
>charged particles are trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field and form artificial radiation belts, damaging or destroying satellites. These particles are mostly electrons
I’ve only done a bit of nuclear physics in high school but beta particles are quite easy to stop, and if the majority of the particles are elections then there’s no nucleus for them to “orbit” to change enegery levels and release photos, or is there another way for them to get a large enough change in energy to release gamma waves? If I remember correctly, tin foil is enough to stop beta particles and I’d think most satellites are more than 90% material dense enough to stop beta particles, on the outside.

>This scenario is called the Kessler Syndrome.
Right, but in order for sand to do any damage to orbiting satellites it has to be moving at a very fast relative speed. If it’s only orbiting 1m/s faster than a satellite it hits the impact would do nothing. Though I suppose, you’d just load it on a missile to LEO and then thrust in your direction of travel every x° around the earth to maintain a stable orbit. I guess it’s not as hard as I was thinking it was last night.
>>2894
It's all about closing velocity anon. Put one ton of sand in a circumpolar orbit, then another ton in a retrograde version of a standard orbit. Done.
>>2863
>So what do I do? Shoot down all of your satellites with a "if I can't have them, nobody will" mindset.
You're saying that, as if the country would just let the satellites stay operational otherwise. They may hold off from using anti-satellite missiles, but that would be out of concern for their own satellites. Which doesn't exist in case of jamming.
Even in the scenario where countries only resort to jamming (since it's relatively cheap and doesn't do permanent damage), you'll end up with very limited number of satellites, which may result in significantly reduced coverage and resolution.
This is largely a speculation, because countries tend to be rather secretive regarding this matter. The point being, we can't evaluate things accurately enough, because we simply don't have the information to do it.

>is easier to defend
Countries can be pressured, local political support can disappear, maintaining presence can get very costly very quickly and it costs political credit. Many countries in SEA would rather prefer to be on the sidelines of potential conflict with China. Having CVs gives you options and more flexibility (like letting the countries be "neutral, but not really", which wouldn't work that well if you actually had to launch all strikes from their soil) which has its value.

I'm not even claiming that CVs are definitely very useful. I'm just saying that it's hard to judge, and that your theories are largely based on conjecture and not too reliable.
>>2894
I wasn't even considering this as the more important effect. It's also supposed to significantly disrupt communication for some time.
>>2898
>as if the country would just let the satellites stay operational otherwise.
You either let all satellites stay operational, or deal with the Kessler effect. There is no third option, because the moment you can't use your satellites, but the enemy can, you're at a major disadvantage and definitely will start shooting enemy satellites down. It's essentially a lite version of MAD. As such, you can bet some manner of an agreement will be reached between the powers so as to prevent this from happening, just like with nukes.

>Countries can be pressured, local political support can disappear, maintaining presence can get very costly very quickly and it costs political credit.
So you're going to spend billions of dollars on floating airfields on the off chance all of your vassal states in the region will suddenly break off? When you are all that stands between said vassals and annexation by Chinks? Come on now.
>"sir, the enemy is jamming our satellites, shall we jam theirs"
<"no, lets destroy everything in LEO instead"
Pure conjecture and no evidence that it's overwhelmingly likely.

>on the off chance
How dense are you? Not everybody is thrilled by the prospect of having their country turned into giant burger military base, making it a giant target for chink MRBMs in the process. And you can be damn sure that the chinks would do their best to convince the population that staying neutral is a viable option, especially if burgers had no CVs to replace the lost airports. You have IJN's-Midway tier planning methodology.
>>2895
Aren’t circumpolar and retrograde orbits much faster to decay? I recall something about gravity that is the reason every planet and their moons and the belt orbit in essentially the same plane in the same direction (except Uranus’ satellites and triton) or is sand so small that it doesn’t really matter?

Actually I get it now, I’m being too autistic, you don’t need the sand to orbit the planet for years or even days. LEOs take hours and after one orbit you’ve probably hit most of the satellites you’re going to anyways. Sorry for the ‘tism.

>>2899
I don’t understand which part of my post you’re replying to, or how it relates to my post.
>>2917
>>"sir, the enemy is jamming our satellites, shall we jam theirs"
<"no, lets destroy everything in LEO instead"
Implying this isn’t exactly what a decent /k/olonel would do.
>>2921
>every planet and their moons and the belt orbit in essentially the same plane in the same direction (except Uranus’ satellites and triton)
That's a matter of conservation of angular momentum. As the cloud of material that formed the solar system collapsed, even slight rotation would become very heavily amplified, and the resulting planets orbit and spin in the same direction as that slight rotation. Exceptions are due to gravitational encounters, collisions, and so on.

Retrograde orbits are probably only faster to decay because they're moving against the atmosphere instead of with it, and because of interactions with the Moon.

>or is sand so small that it doesn’t really matter?
Square-cube law. Drag force is proportional to area, but acceleration is proportional to mass and thus volume. If anything I'd expect atmospheric decay to affect sand grains more.
>>2917
Yeah sure, Chinks will convince Taiwan to turn its back on burgerland, because Chinks totally wont invade right after. Nobody in that region can afford being neutral.
>>2921
>Aren’t circumpolar and retrograde orbits much faster to decay?
No, not really. There's a very slight effect from General Relativity known as frame-dragging but it's effect is irrelevant over the lifespan of a man-made satellite. The simple reason almost all LEO vehicles use so-called 'standard' orbits is one of cost. By launching from as close to the Earth's equator as feasible, and maintaining a trajectory in the same general direction as it's rotation, one gains a momentum boost due to that rotation.

Once an object has reached orbital velocity (~17,500 mph) the most significant factor regarding decay is friction from the outer atmosphere in LEO. This rapidly falls off the further out you go to where it's insignificant out at geo-synchronous (~22,500 miles) orbits. At that distance, only tidal forces are of any note and orbits would last for millions of years.
>>2922
A /k/ommando would figure out how to do that and drop whatever up there down onto earth again. I mean fuck LEO and whatever is below it on the roll of the dice.
>>2534
>price
>>2926
There are more countries than Taiwan, each with their own specifics. Taiwan in particular is quite different due to the one China policy and due to being especially vulnerable, being located so close to China.
Look at Philippines with Duterte for example. I mean, the guy has his charm, but it's plain to see that difficulties regarding military access aren't unrealistic. Not having any contingencies for such situations can screw you over quite thoroughly.
Generally, it's not too uncommon for US allies to have somewhat different priorities. It's not as much of a problem with Turkey and Syria, since Israel and Iraq exist, but the US doesn't have as many alternatives everywhere (not to mention UK and France).
>>2922
>>2917
><"no, lets destroy everything in LEO instead"
I keep reading that as Law Enforcement Officer.
>>2945
That works too :^)
What about STOVL/VTOL aircraft carriers? Are they as much useful/useless compared to CATOBAR carriers either in a confrontation or full scale war?

Also what about helicopter carriers? Are they any useful?
>>3039
>What about STOVL/VTOL aircraft carriers? Are they as much useful/useless compared to CATOBAR carriers either in a confrontation or full scale war?
I'd assume just about as useful for bombing kebab but much less useful in a serious conflict against a comparable power.
>>3039
Probably the same fundamental problems as supercarriers but expressed to a lesser degree. They're less expensive and thus less of a white elephant compared to supercarriers, but like >>3050 implied their utility is severely limited if you're not guaranteed air superiority.
>>3039
>STOVL/VTOL aircraft carriers
The F-35 burns a hole in the deck in VTOL mode.
Has anyone ever tried putting a human inside a cruise missile?
For paradropping operators behind enemy lines after launching them off a plane or a dedicated airborne assault troop carrier.
>>3061
What exactly would be the point of that? The only advantage Cruise missiles have over airplanes is they travel at higher speeds so they can't be shot down. If you used a missile to deliver a man as its payload you're taking away the one big advantage of using a missile, because humans can't physically handle the G-forces needed to actually make that option viable.
>>3062
>What exactly would be the point of that?
It would be faster and generate less attention than a conventional paradrop.
I know it's a meme but the thought of Houthi wingsuit operators flying in to capture their objective while striking fear into hapless Saudi oil field security is just too good to pass up, pls no bully.
>g-forces
Japs in WW2 didn't seem to have much trouble constructing manned suicide rockets whose pilots did not black out from the craft's own acceleration, with Jet engines and modern guidance systems it should be far from impossible to construct a cruise missile capable of delivering a conscious human payload to its target.
>>3064
And Astronauts don't have an issue with accelerating to massive speeds either, but trying to deploy a chute and stop (within a given time-frame to make the delivery method worth the effort) is a whole different ball-game.
>>3062
>What exactly would be the point of that?
Fun.
>>2509
God, I hate this fucking joke of a country.
>>2651
>so the US military reputation emerged intact.
tell that the vietnam vets getting spat on when they returned and shunned by the public
>>3115
He means reputation amongst other nations in regards to capabilities, not gay voter base.
>>3115
Imagine being so wrong that there is a more than 20 years old book about how wrong you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image
>>3114
>God, I hate this fucking joke of a country.
No, you don't. You will love this country in a minute now.
Stop derailing the fucking thread.
>>3150
M8, the moment any country gets mentioned, the thread will devolve into shitposting.
/k/ is just a shitposting board with a weapons wallpaper. We don't actually care about guns or military stuff here.
>>3153
fuck off retard
>>3153
20 bucks this is the same tard claiming that /v/ is just a random board with videogames on it and that shitposting getting deleted is being rulecucked
If you wanted this place to devolve into cuckchan, you should go there
>>3153
>we
Speak for yourself asshole I want to talk about guns and military stuff
If you want to shitpost, go to a shitposting board
Was the Anglo-Kraut naval arms race prior to WWI a mistake?
>>3228
For the Germans yes. It was never going to achieve much other than pushing the UK into the arms of France. But then you can argue everything Wilhelm II did post-Bismarck was a mistake.
>>3228 Yes and no. They were trying to compete with quantity which they could not afford nor maintain, or even risk losing in an open confrontation as Jutland proved where it was more a miracle for the Germans that Brits didn't sink their entire fleet. Subs really were the way to go for Germany in such a scenario.
So it might still be useful if the Poms can launch drones off of it. Might as well have contracted useless privateers. Reckon that's the point of such an incompetent navy, those in power want to sell it off.
>>3228 >Was the Anglo-Kraut naval arms race prior to WWI a mistake? It was a mistake for the British, because they basically wasted a huge sum of money and resources on a fleet that was useless for their political situation. If you look how the British Empire had grown against other Navel Powers(Spain, France, Portugal, Netherlands) in the past, you could see that the British never had the biggest fleet with the strongest ships, but instead they had a lot of fast maneuverable warships which they used for strategic expeditionary warfare. With the naval arms race, they practically locked themselves into a production race with continental nations which is impossible for an island nation. On top of that, the Entente Cordiale with France meant that the British Empire would have to intervene directly into the fighting between major Land Powers(France, Germany, Russia) and they would have to grow their army from an expeditionary force of medium size to a symmetric Land force big enough to be a deterrent for these Land Powers. This concentration on two fields in which their nation was notoriously weak lead to the disaster that were the World Wars for the British Empire, their Navy became close to being useless and their Army wasn't an obstacle to the German Army beating other European Powers into a bloody pulp. The places where the British actually managed to defeat the Germans were their traditional fields of operation.
Open file (304.67 KB 1206x1706 Pensacola-Azur-Lane.jpg)
>>3228 The Washington naval treaty was signed because the USA and the Anglo-Japanese alliance both realized that if they keep building up their fleets, then they have to go war in the 1920s to pre-emptively stop the other side from taking over all the sea lanes and control all naval trade. Had Kaiser Wilhelm the Second not decide to piss off the Eternal Anglo with his fleet building program, then it's probable that this war between the USA and UK-Nippon would have happened. because the UK has no reason to waste all those resource in a European land war that doesn't threaten her naval interests. Now imagine a world where both the US and the UK remain neutral during ww1, and immediately after that go to war with each other. No matter who wins ww1, the world would be an objectively better place if those two totalled each other in the 1920s instead of working together to take down Germany twice in a row. >>7805 >Navel Powers Stupid sexy boats and their stupid sexy navels.
>Now imagine a world where both the US and the UK remain neutral during ww1, and immediately after that go to war with each other. As larpy as it might sound if Wilhelm II. had decided to reign in Tirpitz' battleship autism and instead aimed for numerical parity with the french in terms of surface warships but not submarines in order to maintain cordial relations with perfidious Albion, would the Anglo perhaps have been inclined to stay neutral at the outset of WWI then join forces with the Central Powers once it became clear that neither France nor Russia could survive a prolonged war against Germany? Anglos surely wouldn't mind grabbing some territory in Frog-occupied Africa and Ruskie-owned central Asia, creating Israel as an Ottoman dependency would be possible and German shipbuilding could be a great boon to deter the Burger-Jap-Russian? alliance in the 1920s.
>>7809 >Burger-Jap Unlikely. Britain and Japan had a formal naval alliance that was ended by the Washington naval treaty. After defeating Russia they knew that their next rival in the region is going to be America, and their relationship with Britain soured because, instead of being treated as an equal during those negotiations, the US and UK decided to maintain an 1:1 parity among themselves and basically told Japan to fuck off, because they are only allowed to build 60% of what they can build. That's one of the chief reasons they went full waito piggu go homu in the 1920s and 1930s, and then decided to grab those British colonies during ww2.
>>7809 >perhaps have been inclined to stay neutral at the outset of WWI then join forces with the Central Powers once it became clear that neither France nor Russia could survive a prolonged war against Germany? Also, just after typing out the previous post I remembered something that had in my head a few hours ago. I imagine during the great Germany-AH versus France-Russia showdown Britain would first support the former simply by trading with them while refusing to entertain the other side. America I think would just try to be a good capitalist and sell anything and everything to the highest bidder. Depending on the situation, I can see Britain blockading France (it's not that hard if they are on the other side of that channel, and they control Gibraltar), and that could trigger a naval war between them and the US of A. Of course Japan would immediately join the fun on the British side, and then we'd see some fun things happening. Even more, I imagine that if they can win the initial naval battles, then Japan would go the extra mile and declare war on Russia and France to grab French Indochina and as much of Siberia as possible. And it would happen well before the Second Sino-Japanese War, therefore they could throw their full weight into these conflicts, especially to the Siberian conquest. And it's only natural that they'd try to get the Philippines, but that's not important here. Still, just imagine if Japan actually managed to get the parts of Siberia that had some actual resources, and then started a war against China. And one more thought: Canada was still a British dominion in those times, therefore they'd be obliged to declare war on the USA. Now imagine all that clusterfuck, especially if the Japs also decide to land in Alaska.
>>7810 >the US and UK decided to maintain an 1:1 parity among themselves and basically told Japan to fuck off, because they are only allowed to build 60% of what they can build Realistically speaking that was a great deal for both the UK and the nips. Compared to what the US could construct and indeed did during WW2 either 1:1 or 2:3 is a generous ratio.
>>8002 There is quite a lot of difference between what a country is capable in theory and in practice. In theory both Hungary and Japan could manufacture nuclear weapons, but in practice it's unlikely to happen for now. Before the birth of the military-industrial complex during ww2 the US had a very small armed force, and the Navy was constantly underequipped because the congress was always reluctant to give them the congress they needed. There was some naval expansion in the 1910s, but (as far as I know) in practice they built only barely enough battleships to have a naval presence, but there weren't nearly enough cruisers to protect the battleship divisions. So they would have needed to go on a mad cruiser-building campaign first, and then start building up the battleship force while also keeping building the cruisers needed to screen them. And that would have provoked the Bongs and the Japs to strike first. Congress obviously didn't want to spend even more money on the navy when it barely wanted to spend the money the already spent on it, and so they decided to just have a talk with Britain and the Washington naval treaty is the result of that. Of course it all changed with Pearl Harbor, and then the Cold War happened. But the 1920s was a different world.
>>8270 >the congress was always reluctant to give them the congress they needed I mean the budget they needed. Also, watch this to get the general attitude of congress: https://invidio.us/watch?v=zvGL5ozHSCA
>>8270 >Budget they needed "needed" more like. The USA should not have been involved in expansionist practices and most certainly should've stayed the fuck out of both world wars. The entire 20th century (and very late 19th) saw a shifting of the US foreign policy that made sense based on what the country was into the perversion it is to this day. It reminds me of mid-era Roman Republic, where they'd invade nation after nation claiming its for their own defense when in reality it's just to expand. Difference being Roman citizens one could argue actually benefited from that expansionism, US citizens are merely paypigs for an ever-greedy arms industry. I'm not against an arms industry (obviously, I'm on fucking /k/) but I just can't help but hate the narrative that congress wasn't giving the military what it "needed" because congress' job is to work for the citizenry, NOT the military, you seem to have that backwards.
>>8372 Just to clarify, I'm not saying you claimed that or that you even believe it, just the fact that using that phrase as if congress was somehow trying to fuck over the military is what people seem to extrapolate from that statement. What was happening during that inter-war period and even before WW1 was a shifting of power and structure from a less tax and debt heavy nation into the mess that is the US republic today and it just upsets me is all. If congress had told that faggot FDR to go fuck himself, who knows, maybe the Axis powers would've defeated communism and sued for peace and non of that military spending (nor Pearl Harbor) would've happened.
>>8372 >>8373 It's easy to say this looking back from more than 100 years after all of this happened, but in the first half of the previous century it was widely accepted that a maritime nation needs a fleet to protect its trade routes from anything and everything, be it pirates or an uppity country. Remember, autarky wasn't simply wasn't an option, it wasn't even an idea entertained by most thinkers, let alone politicians. And if we consider the size and coastline of the US, and don't forget that its navy has to operate in two oceans, then consider the technology available at the time, then we can say that the US Navy didn't have the ships it needed to defend itself from everything. Again, looking back we can see that it wasn't a problem, but military officers are trained and paid to worry about the worst case military scenarios.
Speaking of the Washington naval treaty and the Anglo-American naval war of the 1920s that didn't happen, if it happened then everybody would have started to escalate their battleship design to the point that classes like the Yamato or the Montana would have been standard. A ship of that size could carry enough anti-air artillery to break up an 1940s air attack. Truth to be told, in the late 1930s-early 1940s aeroplanes were not good enough to reliably sink a capital ship, that only happened when the next generation came into service, and Japan opted to use that ineffective 25mm gun. A Yamato armed with 40mm Bofors might have survived the attack that sink that ship. Even more, Japanese doctrine was to build bigger ships than the enemy, so they would have been forced to build some true leviathans if such an escalation happened. Here are two sketch designs, the first one has 12 510mm guns.
Open file (62.54 KB 314x429 ClipboardImage.png)
>>3061 >Has anyone ever tried putting a human inside a cruise missile? yes
>>8616 >kamikaze >god-wind
>>8618 >>8616 The Americans used to call them "baka-rockets" or something
>>8554 >tfw Nip/UK-US war happens in the mid-late 1920s since no one wants to enter gay naval treaties >everyone tries to outbuild each other in terms of battleship >war ends in 1930 with Japan annexing the Philippines and Anglos losing the eastern half of New Guinea but gaining Cuba >France stays neutral as it doesn't have the resources to compete with 3 industrial mega autists after all the manpower losses incurred during the great war >the inconclusive end of the war coupled with a series of stock jewings gone wrong causes an economic recession in the US which sweeps into France, Weimar Germany and elsewhere causing massive civil unrest >Hitler seizes power in 1933, Frogs try to annex the Rheinland but they are stopped by SA volunteers and some old Freikorps veterans, fierce clashes erupt in the Saar with Germans constructing primitive guided rocket artillery to hit groups of French tanks in urban areas while minimizing collateral damage >French pull out after Anglo pressure, Soviets try to coup Hitler but they fail >Hitler lets KPDniggers flee to France knowing that they'll cause considerable dissent among French politics and industry >Germany starts to revitalize itself, annexes Austria in 1938 and accidentally all of Czechoslovakia after getting permission from Anglos and Frogs for the Sudetenland >At the outbreak of the second great war the average Battleship is Super-Fujimoto sized, Battlecruisers/light battleships are Yamato sized and heavy cruisers are Bismarck sized with aircraft carriers/seaplane tenders being primarily used for scouting and anti-submarine purposes due to the miserable battle performance of CVs in anti-ship roles during the 1920s >Unlike its contemporaries Germany has invested serious resources into dedicated aircraft carriers wielding the new Ju-87T Stuka and its new experimental Heinrich and Franz guided anti-ship munitions, with the larger radar-guided Fritz bomb undergoing testing >this was largely due to Germany lacking the huge drydock and repair facilities needed to service fleets of warships with 90,000+ t of displacement after a battle, smaller aircraft carriers on the other hand could be at times be "serviced" without even entering port simply by flying in replacement aircraft+crew from land >they field 2 CVs, 3 CVLs+6 CVE seaplane tenders, but have no battleships with their heaviest surface action assets being the 38,000t Scharnhorst class CA, 14,520t Deutschland class and new 18,500t Admiral Hipper-class CLs compared to the Nipponese Oda-class BB at 95,500t displacement, the British Hastings-class BB at 93,100t and the American Grant-class BB with 100,076t displacement >the UK on the other hand only fields 17 CVEs and 2 CVL for banana ops, Japan similarily has 2 CVLs+10 CVEs Nips prefer the use of reconnaissance aircraft carried by battleships and their screens and the US fields 25 CVEs with no CVLs >most of the Kriegsmarine surface contingent is made up of weird "missile destroyers" like the 9000t Kolberg class whose primary armament consist of long-range flying bombs >Germans also field radar-assisted fire control systems on all their corvette-sized or higher surface assets, the US, UK and Japen instead preferring optical rangefinders mounted on balloons due to crappy high wavelength radar sets and aggressive signal scrambling with disposable picket ships during the 1920s war >only the UK has actually caught up with German radar research due to the chain home system and started mounting apertures on their cruisers, France and Japan on the other hand don't field radar on any of their ships >the US and Japan also field multiple aircraft-carrying scout airships to patrol the seas and coordinate fleet actions, they served well for a time but were relegated to rear line duty due to the appearance of heavy submarine AA in the latter half of the war and are now kept in service due to old men running the world, the British retired their last military airship in 1937 to focus more on carrier construction to counter the growing german aerial threat >France isn't allied with Poland as they don't want the Syndicalists and Commies to usurp power by entering a war against an enemy the French nation probably couldn't defeat in time, hopes that the US allies with them for lend-lease, sealane protection and keeping the Germans in check >Anglos ally with Poland as they don't want the uppity Krauts to attack the Soviets and become a superpower, hope the French will come to their sensibilities and let go of the Burger devils before Albion finds itself outmatched in a two-front war between the US and Germany even just driving the Germans back would cost resources the Empire just can't afford to lose in the geostrategic standoff with the US >US are still pissed about the Anglo-Nip alliance taking sacred Burger lands, they don't like Hitler much but wouldn't mind him grabbing some land and bleeding himself and Anglos dry as long as he doesn't go beyond a point where Burgers can no longer replace him with a puppet of their own >Nips hate Burgers with a passion, don't like Soviets but are fine with their Siberian+northern Chinese clay and not terribly interested in some meme European land war >Chiang-kai Shek hates everyone but Hitler as he's the only one that doesn't seem to squeeze the starving Chinese people dry at every oppurtunity >Soviets hate Nips and want to reconquer the far east, but they are too weak so they seek to bully Finland and Poland for clay instead, Hitler might invade but he wouldn't make it far before getting bogged down in the mighty Russian winter on top of very likely being stabbed in the back by some other greedy capitalist power >Hitler wants Poland and France to return their rightful german clay, the Anglo to recognize germans as legitimate owners of said clay then crash the Soviet Union with no survivors to gain world relevance >Italy wants Ethiopian clay from Anglos and will ally with anyone who seems stronk enough to help them achieve that goal, wether it be through war or diplomacy Sounds fun.
>>8706 If Britain and America didn’t join World War One why is there a Weimar Republic?
>>8706 Is this a Rule the Waves game you played? >>8836 His autistic scene started at 1920s so I assumed he meant WW1 still happened just that negotiations fell apart for the naval treaties.
>>8270 This is why it was to the nip's benefit to agree to the Washington Treaty. The longer the burgers stayed isolationist instead of industrial power the better for them. >And that would have provoked the Bongs and the Japs to strike first. After WW1 the Bongs were in no position to start another major conflict. Internal dissent over that would be way, way too high unless you could provide a really obvious justification to the public and that wasn't going to happen with an ex-ally like the burgers. The nip government thought they got a raw deal but the smarter naval nips realised this worked for them. The big fuck up was losing the British as an ally since they slid towards the US instead.
>>8706 >38,000t Scharnhorst class CA The Scharnhorst class were pocket-battleships/battlecruisers.
>>8877 Pocket battleship iwas not a real classification, just something the Bong media used to mock the Deutschland-class for having disproportionally large guns for its size, and being much heavier than what naval treaties permitted for Germany to build.
>>2534 >lack of military advancement of science means we'd probably be at 50's level tech right now, guess that idiotic meme will not die as long as brainlets keep repeating it, hm

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?