China, Per YEAR, building almost as many ships as UK can deploy at any given time.

originally posted by: nickyw
as an unqualified force how long will it take them to learn how to project that force effectively, it's not as simple as playing a board wargame and reading some imaginary rulebook..

nor as simply as picking a single opponent the British have always worked with allies to effect change even when it was the preeminent power it still projected power within coalitions.

its all about building coalition's a skill the Chinese have yet to learn effectively.. I'm sure they will in time but they have to fight real wars to learn those skills..

Just remind yourself every day that the US had not fought a Naval war for 130 years by the time WW2 came along.

Japan had fought a Naval War against European powers, including Great Britain, for 11 years, including Aircraft Carrier operations, by 1942.

So what gives you the impression that "experience" matters?

a reply to: DarthTrader

www.history.com...

Superior tactics and faster more manoeuvrable ships won the day.

Do you think two of Russia's Aircraft carriers, not that they currently have two or even one, that actually works, would defeat a modern US carrier because ... 2 to 1?

Or even an older one come to think of it.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DarthTrader

www.history.com...

Superior tactics and faster more manoeuvrable ships won the day.

Do you think two of Russia's Aircraft carriers, not that they currently have two or even one, that actually works, would defeat a modern US carrier because ... 2 to 1?

Or even an older one come to think of it.

Wrong, and no amount of some "blog" is going to convince me. The British had an outright 2:1 advantage of ships of the line and had a 3:1 advantage in total ships.

All we need to compare now is total guns, but I bet the British merchant marine was heavier armed because the Spanish Galleon (ship of the line) was originally a merchant marine. So the British would have matched the original Spanish ship of the line.

Some stupid blog's claims that "superior tactics" won the day is entirely irrelevant. Because I can quantitatively prove the British had numerical advantage.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DarthTrader

www.history.com...

Superior tactics and faster more manoeuvrable ships won the day.

Do you think two of Russia's Aircraft carriers, not that they currently have two or even one, that actually works, would defeat a modern US carrier because ... 2 to 1?

Or even an older one come to think of it.

Russian missiles are designed to kill aircraft carriers.

Russian aircraft carriers are designed to defend missile ships from other aircraft.

The Kirov is the Russian ship comparable to an aircraft carrier in terms of firepower.

originally posted by: nugget1
I thought the following had an interesting perspective.

In naval warfare, a smaller fleet of superior quality ships is not a way to victory. The side with the most ships almost always wins.
By Captain Sam J. Tangredi, U.S. Navy (Retired)
[www.usni.org...]

Didn't work out that way for the Spanish Armada, did it! They had overwhelming numbers of ships, but were destroyed by not much more than bad weather and bad luck (for them, not the English, of course!)

a reply to: DarthTrader

I will leave you to your delusions.

"Stupid blog's claims"?

It's our very well established maritime history and has been examined and dissected in great detail.

But you know better.

a reply to: DarthTrader

"Russian aircraft carriers are designed to defend missile ships from other aircraft."

Bit of a shame that they haven't got an operational one.

Let alone plural.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DarthTrader

www.history.com...

Superior tactics and faster more manoeuvrable ships won the day.

Do you think two of Russia's Aircraft carriers, not that they currently have two or even one, that actually works, would defeat a modern US carrier because ... 2 to 1?

Or even an older one come to think of it.

*sigh*

Watching CNN again I see...

Russias Kinzhal is unstoppable by all modern NATO and American air defense systems. This weapon system gives Russia the ability to effectively engage any ground target anywhere on the globe especially aircraft carriers.

eta:
Your low key Russian intolerance and bigotry(phoboa?) gets tiresome.

a reply to: MysterX

they where destroyed by 2 things the new ships, guns and tactics..

The Battle of Gravelines was very decisive in sending the spaish fleet to its doom..

a reply to: DarthTrader

quantity doesnt really matter though, quality and the tech involved along with training is what matters

I cant tell you how many times when i was deployed we got into situations where we were out numbered and though it was tense and a bit scary , it was no factor

Now thats not ALWAYS the case of course but, the majority of the time it rings true

Were night fighting WW1 or WW2 here, the battlefield landscape has changed

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DarthTrader

www.history.com...

Superior tactics and faster more manoeuvrable ships won the day.

Do you think two of Russia's Aircraft carriers, not that they currently have two or even one, that actually works, would defeat a modern US carrier because ... 2 to 1?

Or even an older one come to think of it.

We dont agree very often but youre spot on in this thread, im not sure how many of these propaganda threads this "new" member is going to post but they all seem to have the same objective and lack the same facts

a reply to: JAY1980

Don't watch CNN. Being English.

My actual point was that Russia does not currently have an operational Carrier.

If Russia actually attacked and sunk a US carrier, of which they have a few, the consequences for Russia would be severe, as in WW3.


"Your low key Russian intolerance and bigotry(phoboa?) gets tiresome."

Low key intolerance?

It's more than that.

"Bigotry (phoboa)"?

Please.

Your anti West Putin supporting is not particularly wholesome, either, sunshine.

a reply to: JAY1980

Russias Kinzhal is unstoppable by all modern NATO and American air defense systems.

I wouldnt bet the farm on that hoss, and I also wouldnt take to the bank the actual effectiveness claimed by the Russians

Dont always take their word for it

and dont underestimate our tech, you only know about what they allow you to

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Nice to be agree.

Let's not make a habit of it, though!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JAY1980

Don't watch CNN. Being English.

My actual point was that Russia does not currently have an operational Carrier.

If Russia actually attacked and sunk a US carrier, of which they have a few, the consequences for Russia would be severe, as in WW3.


"Your low key Russian intolerance and bigotry(phoboa?) gets tiresome."

Low key intolerance?

It's more than that.

"Bigotry (phoboa)"?

Please.

Your anti West Putin supporting is not particularly wholesome, either, sunshine.

Weve seen what Ukraine so far has done to some of their Naval vessels and Ukraine doesnt even have a Navy to speak of

I dont have a side in that fight, but it seems from all outward appearances the Russian military was vastly overhyped, but then again we see that a lot with Russia and China, all countries do it to an extent

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Nice to be agree.

Let's not make a habit of it, though!

Oh of course not lol that would dull our debate skills FAR too much

If Chinas steel quality is anything to go buy I wouldnt but much faith in the ships hulls
the steel they sent to the UK for the new forth road bridge was full of faults and fractures.

As for the mention of the british empires navy back in the day, it also helps to have really good sea admirals

originally posted by: sapien82
If Chinas steel quality is anything to go buy I wouldnt but much faith in the ships hulls
the steel they sent to the UK for the new forth road bridge was full of faults and fractures.

As for the mention of the british empires navy back in the day, it also helps to have really good sea admirals

Their steel quality is fine. Blame the UK acquirer who bought cheap steel for a bridge.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JAY1980

Don't watch CNN. Being English.

My actual point was that Russia does not currently have an operational Carrier.

If Russia actually attacked and sunk a US carrier, of which they have a few, the consequences for Russia would be severe, as in WW3.


"Your low key Russian intolerance and bigotry(phoboa?) gets tiresome."

Low key intolerance?

It's more than that.

"Bigotry (phoboa)"?

Please.

Your anti West Putin supporting is not particularly wholesome, either, sunshine.

Weve seen what Ukraine so far has done to some of their Naval vessels and Ukraine doesnt even have a Navy to speak of

I dont have a side in that fight, but it seems from all outward appearances the Russian military was vastly overhyped, but then again we see that a lot with Russia and China, all countries do it to an extent

Everything you said is just CNN trash. You can't even wake up enough to realize Ukraine didn't sink the Moskva and it's pretty obvious. Isn't 2022 RIMPAC taking 8+ Harpoons to sink a ship 1/3rd the tonnage of the Moskva enough to prove you wrong?

It's like you don't know anything about Naval warfare and how tonnage matters.

a reply to: DarthTrader

Everything you said is just CNN trash

LOL No its not, I have friends/colleagues on the ground over there that vet a lot of the trash we see coming out of the area. You do have ONE thing right, theres lots of trash coming out of there, but its coming from both sides.

You can't even wake up enough to realize Ukraine didn't sink the Moskva and it's pretty obvious

You have an uncanny ability to put words in peoples mouths that they never say

Isn't 2022 RIMPAC taking 8+ Harpoons to sink a ship 1/3rd the tonnage of the Moskva enough to prove you wrong?

it doesnt really matter how much ordinance its taking to render parts of their fleet inoperable , job done is a job done

It's like you don't know anything about Naval warfare and how tonnage matters.

Its like you dont actually know what the hell youre talking about in literally every thread