Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Russian Invasion of Ukraine


PleaseBlitz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

The Chinese have learned from the conflicts we've had. They watched as we casually set everything up in our favor to decimate S. Hussein's forces and as a result, they've put a lot of their defense spending towards missiles. I read something the other day that said we're actually behind the curve and if there were a conflict, they probably have enough anti-ship missiles to eventually overwhelm our ability to intercept them. There are a ton of other considerations so I'm not saying they could beat us, just that they are a serious threat. I doubt they're a paper tiger like Russia turned out to be.

Yeah, i read stuff like that as well, but honestly I dont know how much is true and how much is propaganda from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Yeah, i read stuff like that as well, but honestly I dont know how much is true and how much is propaganda from them.

 

IIRC the recent wargaming about a conflict around Taiwan had the US and allies beating back China, but the navies of both sides were almost destroyed in the process.

 

In the second world war, the industrial might of the US allowed it to outproduce Japan, so whatever shortfall the US might have had after Pearl Harbor was more than made up before Japan could take enough advantage of it. By the end of the war the rate of US warship production was ridiculous.

 

Today, China has a significant edge in warship production, bearing in mind that most of their navy is so new they haven't reached the stage of having to maintain lots of older ships. At some point they'll have to slow down so they don't make more ships than they can take care of. Their missiles were designed mainly to keep US carriers away from the Chinese coast before they had created a significant navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe I'm a bit of a Homer but I think our commitment to constant training would lead to our navy decimating any other navy and it not even being close.

I think we still have the advantage in subs and ASW

 

Our carriers probably wouldn't ever actually enter the SCS, but they don't have to in order to project power.  Its still possible we lose one depending on which targets China prioritizes.  I'm not sure I buy they would go after US assets from the get-to in any Taiwan invasion scenario.  They would wait until we took some action before they strike.

Edited by DCSaints_fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting thought experiment.

 

If you attack Taiwan first, you give the US time to mobilize if they enter the conflict, but there's a slight chance you might be able to keep them out of the conflict if you don't go after them first.

 

If you, say, bomb the crap out of Guam, and try and limit a US response, you're ABSOLUTELY getting the US involved.  So unless you can pop like, 7 carrier strike groups in one go, you're just gonna piss everyone off.  Maybe it gives you enough breathing room to grab Taiwan before the cavalry arrives but that's a heck of a gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

Our carriers probably wouldn't ever actually enter the SCS, but they don't have to in order to project power.  Its still possible we lose one depending on which targets China prioritizes.  

 

Luckily that would still leave us with like a dozen other carriers.

21 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

Our carriers probably wouldn't ever actually enter the SCS, but they don't have to in order to project power.  Its still possible we lose one depending on which targets China prioritizes.  

 

Luckily that would still leave us with like a dozen other carriers.

 

Edit:  I still think we see full scale cyber war before we see navies duking it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Luckily that would still leave us with like a dozen other carriers.

 

Luckily that would still leave us with like a dozen other carriers.

 

Edit:  I still think we see full scale cyber war before we see navies duking it out.

We could materially sustain it but theres like 5000 guys on a carrier.  Not sure how many would be able to get out and if the US public would feel it would be worth it - and losses would come all at once not nickel and dimed like the Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

It's an interesting thought experiment.

 

If you attack Taiwan first, you give the US time to mobilize if they enter the conflict, but there's a slight chance you might be able to keep them out of the conflict if you don't go after them first.

 

If you, say, bomb the crap out of Guam, and try and limit a US response, you're ABSOLUTELY getting the US involved.  So unless you can pop like, 7 carrier strike groups in one go, you're just gonna piss everyone off.  Maybe it gives you enough breathing room to grab Taiwan before the cavalry arrives but that's a heck of a gamble.

I'm pretty sure Japan had this same internal debate before attacking Pearl Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

You might keep the US out of the conflict by attacking them? 
 

🤔

 

I worded that poorly, it was meant to suggest there was a chance the US wouldn't enter, but if they DID they'd have had time to mobilize utilizing their pacific bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe I'm a bit of a Homer but I think our commitment to constant training would lead to our navy decimating any other navy and it not even being close.

I agree.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

I'm pretty sure Japan had this same internal debate before attacking Pearl Harbor.


And Pearl Harbor is one of the biggest strategic blunders in modern military history. 
 

If I’m China, I make every effort to not involve the US. Move forces onto Taiwan as quickly as possible and make the US decide if Taiwan is worth starting a world war over.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Thumb up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And Pearl Harbor is one of the biggest strategic blunders in modern military history. 

How so? Were it not for some blind luck in the battle of midway, Pearl Harbor would have set off a chain of events that lead to Japan annihilating our navy. 
 

The blind luck was a pilot deciding to follow a single ship, because they were lost at sea, and it lead to finding the group. Japans commander flubbing switching planes from ground bombs to anti-ship torpedoes (and then back again) combined with randomly finding their way to the group of ships is, as far as I’m aware, widely considered the only reason Japan didn’t completely destroy us…

 

I thought was historians widely considered Pearl Harbor a wildly successful surprise attack… Netflix has documentaries on this and the history channel did a **** ton on it back when it was about history…

 

in fact the only blundering about it from our side, that I’m aware of, was the constant disregard for the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, and certain people being ignored when they tried to raise the concern. 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 3:39 PM, Xameil said:

Didnt we prove to Japan, thats not really the case? I thought I learned Japan had the bigger, stronger Navy at the time. We had the better tacticians

 

On 1/17/2023 at 3:52 PM, China said:

 

Maybe at the beginning of the war, but by the end of the war the US had the largest navy in the world. Link

 

On 1/17/2023 at 3:54 PM, Xameil said:

Im talking about the naval battles, like Midway. Nukes wasnt known at the time. It was our tactics that won

Thank you. Im talking mainly the battle of Midway. I think that was what turned it around. Or maybe my brain needs a refresher.


couple things. And yeah I quoted you twice where you said what I said above and just to reiterate:

 

every documentary I’ve every watched on this has one common thread:

japan was the better navy. They were better tacticians. They were better equipped. 
 

The battle of midway turned the entire thing around. Between codebreakers and scouts lost at sea randomly and luckily finding Japanese fleets, we were able to turn the tide. 

there’s also some blundering on Japans part in terms of their chain of command and who got to call what shots. The documentary on wwII in the pacific goes over it extensively and is very good. 
 

additionally, the Us naval buildup during wwII - I’m not saying they shouldn’t have done this, because it was the best option and obviously it worked, but a lot of those “carriers” we built were just freighters that had plywood put down to let planes take off and maybe land (lol)

 

We were throwing everything we had against it. But we weren’t building true carriers. 

3 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

Speaking of things that are frauds.

They used to be good. Like 20 years ago. I mean everyone called it the hitler channel but at least it was about history.. basically just ww2 but history at least 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tshile said:

How so? Were it not for some blind luck in the battle of midway, Pearl Harbor would have set off a chain of events that lead to Japan annihilating our navy. 
 

The blind luck was a pilot deciding to follow a single ship, because they were lost at sea, and it lead to finding the group. Japans commander flubbing switching planes from ground bombs to anti-ship torpedoes (and then back again) combined with randomly finding their way to the group of ships is, as far as I’m aware, widely considered the only reason Japan didn’t completely destroy us…

 

I thought was historians widely considered Pearl Harbor a wildly successful surprise attack… Netflix has documentaries on this and the history channel did a **** ton on it back when it was about history…

 

in fact the only blundering about it from our side, that I’m aware of, was the constant disregard for the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, and certain people being ignored when they tried to raise the concern. 

 

You are confusing a tactical victory with a strategic victory.  I said it was a strategic blunder,.

 

Tactically (small picture), Pearl Harbor was a wildly successful surprise attack for Japan.  Japan knocked 8 battleships out of the war, numerous other warships, hundreds of airplanes and killed something like 2500 Americans, while only losing like 30 aircraft.  It was an utter tactical victory.

 

Strategically (big picture), Pearl Harbor not only caused America's immediate entry into the war, but mobilized the entire population and all of the economic and industrial might that comes with it.  Once America got into the war, Japan had no hope of winning.  Their only goal was to take the 6 months to a year that PH bought them to solidify their gains, and then hope the US would make peace with them, except because of Pearl Harbor, America didn't just want to defend itself, it wanted revenge.  Japan's top naval commander, Yamamoto, famously said after Pearl Harbor, ""I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence for the second and third years."  Yamamoto knew what was coming, he had studied at Harvard and had been posted in the US for years.  He knew America was capable of the kind of industrial production that Japan was gong to get crushed by.  And that is what happened.  

 

Do you know how many aircraft carriers Japan was able to produce before and during the war?  29, most of them produced before the war.

Do you know how many aircraft carriers America was able to produce before and during the war?  114, all but 6 of them commissioned during the war. \

 

Edit:  Not to mention having the industrial capacity to build at least 3 atomic bombs. 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 


couple things. And yeah I quoted you twice where you said what I said above and just to reiterate:

 

every documentary I’ve every watched on this has one common thread:

japan was the better navy. They were better tacticians. They were better equipped. 
 

The battle of midway turned the entire thing around. Between codebreakers and scouts lost at sea randomly and luckily finding Japanese fleets, we were able to turn the tide. 

there’s also some blundering on Japans part in terms of their chain of command and who got to call what shots. The documentary on wwII in the pacific goes over it extensively and is very good. 
 

additionally, the Us naval buildup during wwII - I’m not saying they shouldn’t have done this, because it was the best option and obviously it worked, but a lot of those “carriers” we built were just freighters that had plywood put down to let planes take off and maybe land (lol)

 

We were throwing everything we had against it. But we weren’t building true carriers. 

They used to be good. Like 20 years ago. I mean everyone called it the hitler channel but at least it was about history.. basically just ww2 but history at least 😂 

Thats what I thought. Thats also where i saw it, the WW II documentaries. My grandfather was AA in the Pacific, so I love learning about the Pacific Theater.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Strategically (big picture), Pearl Harbor not only caused America's immediate entry into the war, but mobilized the entire population and all of the economic and industrial might that comes with it.  Once America got into the war, Japan had no hope of winning. 

Well, midway was a fluky win for us that turned the conflict and was necessary. 
 

I get the “it caused America to enter the war” but that ignores what midway was, and what it really should have been. 
 

Pearl Harbor wasnt a strategic blunder. If they didn’t **** up midway, and if we didn’t get lucky, Pearl Harbor is the start of Japan completely destroying our navy. Midway was Japans blunder. And it’s mostly attributed to the limitations of their chain of command rooted in their warped sense of honor and respect. 

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for carrier production post ww2, stuff like this is what I’m talking about

 

Quote

As the war seemed imminent, President Roosevelt, recognizing the need for more aircraft carriers, wanted to convert some of the Cleveland class light cruisers already under construction. The General Board of the U.S. Navy deemed this idea to be too compromised to be effective, but after Pearl Harbor, and realizing that the Essex class carriers would not be ready soon enough, the Navy decided to go ahead with the conversion. The “Light Aircraft Carrier” was thus invented. Nine ships in this class were built and entered the war before the Essex class. Their size limited plane capacity to about 30 planes, and they were not good in heavy seas, but their cruiser hulls and power plants made them fast. Eight survived the war and one was lost.


www.greatamericanships.com/ships_of_world_war_two/aircraft_carriers/

 

our carrier buildup was really more of taking other types of ships, making them capable of holding some planes, and sending them out. 
 

we were not building legitimate carriers. 
 

which is fine - it’s what was needed and it helped. Just pointing out the difference. People read how many carriers we built and get the wrong idea … true carriers take a while to build even back then. It’s just the reality of such an enormous project. They didn’t magically fix that timeline. They converted other ships into carrier-like ships. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Not that talking about Midway is uninteresting, because it is, but that's completly off topic.

Maybe we should have a thread about it so we can keep this thread clean?

 

Back on topic...

 

U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea

 

For years, the United States has insisted that Crimea is still part of Ukraine. Yet the Biden administration has held to a hard line since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, refusing to provide Kyiv with the weapons it needs to target the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia has been using as a base for launching devastating strikes.

 

Now that line is starting to soften.

 

After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to concede that Kyiv may need the power to strike the Russian sanctuary, even if such a move increases the risk of escalation, according to several U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive debate. Crimea, between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, is home to tens of thousands of dug-in Russian troops and numerous Russian military bases.

 

The moderation in position has come about as the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations. In addition, fears that the Kremlin would retaliate using a tactical nuclear weapon have dimmed, U.S. officials and experts said — though they cautioned that the risk remained.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well, midway was a fluky win for us that turned the conflict and was necessary. 
 

I get the “it caused America to enter the war” but that ignores what midway was, and what it really should have been. 
 

Pearl Harbor wasnt a strategic blunder. If they didn’t **** up midway, and if we didn’t get lucky, Pearl Harbor is the start of Japan completely destroying our navy. Midway was Japans blunder. And it’s mostly attributed to the limitations of their chain of command rooted in their warped sense of honor and respect. 

 

This is incorrect.  I will explain why if there is an appropriate thread for this discussion. 

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...