2020, UK battle fleet Vs 1 US carrier fleet.

I was talking about Russia/U.S. around the time of the Falkands war.

WWI involved A LOT more than the British Empire.

Look at Africa and what Britain did (and lost) there post WW2.

 

I have made a thread about which nation has the best elite forces.

 

Well I was talking about today.

Yes but the British empire made it the first world war.

You are going to have to tell me what political wars the UK lost.

 

Germany and Japan were not world leaders in their time? Neither was the UK during it's 2 wars with the US?

And granted, Spain was doing a long decline, but the US managed to kick them out of both the Caribbean and the Pacific.

And during the Korean War, North Korea had some of the best equipment available on the open market at the time (and some equipment that was not on the open market). And they also fought China, which has long been a truely massive force on land.

 

That still would not matter, as I have shown several times. It does not matter if it is horribly outnumbered, because the US can reach out and attack launch missiles, long out of range of the UK ship based defense. And can launch their missiles in such numbers that the UK can't possibly shoot them down short of last ditch CIWS systems.

The US is not as hampered. It can attack incomming aircraft with ship based weapons long before they are within range of the anti-ship missiles. And the UK could not salvo enough missiles to run the US ships out of their defense missiles.

That is a gigantic advantage, outnumbered or not.

 

Well, there is a provision for the Type 45 to eventually get both Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles (a total of 4 of each type of missile). However, at this time they are not installed.

The problem with the Royal Navy Destroyers is that the Type 42 is badly outdated. They were designed and built in the "Transitional Period", where air defense missile systems and radars were finally comming online. As such, their Air Defense capabilities are almost non existant. And they are the same age as the now retired Spruance class Distroyers.

However, with the AEGIS system, the US was able to build what is still considered to be the best Naval Air Defense system in the world. First placed on the Ticonderoga class Cruiser, it is also used on the Arleigh Burke class Destroyer. This makes both of these classes of ships very specialized in this role, and also highly deadly to any aircraft or missile that comes into it's threat bubble.

The Spruance class Destroyer is of the same generation as the Type 42. It is also a Transition Destroyer, and once the Arleigh Burke's came online, they were moved over to serve as Anti-Submarine Warfare ships. And this was the role the fulfilled until they were retired in 2005.

It costs money. But I am surprised that the Royal Navy seems to have learned nothing in the Falklands War. They really had their rear ends handed to them by Argentine Aircraft and Missiles. And in the 30+ years since then, they have done very little to improve their capability against this threat.

And heck, the US has even decomissioned it's 5 First Generation Ticonderoga class Cruisers. 2 have been scrapped, 2 are awaiting disposal, and 1 is intended to become a museum ship.

But they are still potent systems, each one mounting 68 SM-2 missiles, 20 Anti-Submarine missiles, and 8 Harpoon missiles. Each one of these has over twice the AA capability of the current Type 23 Frigate, and also more then even the planned Type 26 Frigate.

The UK would probably be better served by forgetting the Type 26, and simply purchasing and updating the Mark 26 Ticonderoga Cruisers.

 

US Revolutionary War

Of course, that is ancient history. How about some newer ones?

Afghanistan
South Africa
India
Malaysia
Singapore
Palestine
Ireland
Yemen

In many of these wars, the loss was not military as much as political. Especially those involving areas that were colonies at the time.

 

Here are just a few. Is it a strange coincidence that most of the world's hotspots are leftovers from the British Empire? These events either directly involved British forces or were the direct result of British political failures.

Palestine

The Suez Crisis in Egypt

Mau Mau uprising in Kenya

Rhodesian Bush War

Cypriots in Cyprus

India/Pakistan

Iran

Iraq

These are just post WWII. If I went back another hundred years the numbers would be staggering. Britain has certainlyfound itself in sticky political/military situations in the past. In many cases the British simply abandonded the country and left the native population to fend and often kill for themselves.

 

They were economic not not military or political.

Palestine wasn't the UK's fault.

Mau Mau was pointless, and UK was going to give them independence sooner, if they hadn't started a war, why do you think the British had more support.

Rhodesian Bush War had nothing to do with Britain.

The UK still has 2 bases in Cyprus.

British India was economic, we were going to give them independence befor WW2.

The US and Russia has more to do with Iran than Britain.

I will just left Niall Ferguson talk to you about Iraq.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRD7WwbvbgE"]Western Imperialism to Blame or Islam? - Niall Ferguson on the ME - YouTube[/ame]

 

I really just don't get it, people who say the empire was bad, then say the UK should have spent billion of US and Canadian money and decades doing what the US is now trying to do in Afghanistan, it wouldn't have worked.

You can't just pass everything off as a British military or political defeat, as almost everything was because of Britain be bust after WW2, and who wanted the UK to leave it's empire the most, well it's main creditor, the US.

Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand were all very bad political defeats, but 80% of the rest was economic.

And why does everybdy miss out Saudi Arabia. The biggest mistake the UK ever made.

 

In your wrong war of independence you did have some help? and the conflict of 1812 was just that, the British had smaller garlic smelling fish to fry.

WW2 was the allies. Korea you had help. Well done of beating Spain.

 

We all know the UK isn't going to buy US ships, and the UK doesn't have any 11,000 ton ships. And the Falklands is why we made the type 45, 4 of which would have taken down the whole airforce of Argentina. And they have a radar system as good as any ship on the sea.

However the UK really should get over itself, and buy US cruisers, they are better and would defend the carriers better, and would save billions.

 

Actually, the UK at the time thought that the "Empire" would help them pull out of debt. France had the same thought. And both nations (as well as others like Belguim) spend decades trying to reign in their colonies. All of these attempts failed.

But don't blame the US. Thankfully, UK grew up for the most part faster then other nations, and eventually let most of their colonies leave peacefully. However, that did not prevent them from trying to hold onto a few longer then they should have.

And many of them had been trying to seperate from the UK for decades before WWII. India is a prime example, and this colony was a constant source of UK blood being spent in trying to hold an empire that was already crumbling.

You totally ignored what I was saying. You claim that the US never fought "World Leaders". WWII is a great example, since they were by far the primary agressor against Japan, and still spent most of their resources against Germany.

If Hitler had not been so stupid as to declare war against the US, Japan would have been crushed much sooner, and I doubt D-Day would have happened until 1947, if ever.

I never mentioned the War of 1812, because that was a war neither side wanted, and both sides were gratefull to be able to get out of it.

As for Korea, yes, the US had help. After they were able to hold the Pusan Perimiter. That was almost entire US forces, with a few remaining South Korean forces thrown where they could be used. The Alliance Forces did not get involved until months later, after the counteroffensive started.

I would accept your claim of "the Falklands is why we made the type 45", if they had done so 25 years ago. But you can't seriously expect anybody to believe that claim, when the ships are built 30 years afterwards.

That would be like if the UK did not build their first all metal steam powered sailing ships until the mid 1890's, in response to the USS Monitor. I think that the Royal Navy was simply so bogged down in politics and the government was so reluctant to spend money, that they realized they had to build something because their current ships are starting to fall apart.

And the difference in how carriers are protected between the US and Royal Navy is probably a holdout to WWII. The UK was never a major carrier nation, and their carrier fleets never faced a major threat during WWII.

The US on the other hand had top operate it's carriers far out to see, in waters that were full of hostile ships and aircraft. The British fleet of that era normally worked within a few days travel from it's hom or other friendly ports. The US normally operated weeks away from port, so had to take every possible asset along for support.

This is probably where their doctrines were originated, and why they still operate that way to this day.

 

And we did use the empire to grow again, like Hong Kong. I think we let India go to fast after WW2, and should have waited, and given the Indians more time to move, and protected them better. But what wars did the UK fight to hold on to the territory? France, Belguim, Portugal, Holland and Spain all did. The only time the UK fought was Suez. And most British people post WW2
wanted to be a democracy and not an empire, most wanted the welfair state not to be a world power.

The problem is we didn't grow up, we didn't have the economy to stay in the empire so we left, that was the childish thing.

The UK as I said was going to give India independence in 1942, but the war happened. And very few British people mind losting 5,000 troops most of which were Indian to keep India. I those last 50 years from 1890-1940 the UK invested more in it's empire than ever befor not something a crumbling empire does. The main thing was losing Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland, the white British speaking part of the empire.

No I said the US on it's own has never beaten any. Yes but could the US have beaten Japan and the Axis without the British commonwealth or the USSR, no. If Hitler had given his generals more control, Germany would have beaten the USSR. We helped against the Chinese and the US didn't win.

A plan was on the table in 1987 to start designing a new class of destroyer, but it was put on hold, because of the Eurofight. And disagreements between nations. I think you know all about these projects. It takes money, time and technology to build ship's in European militaries, we can't just blow billions on 3 different companies to design a ship and pick the best one.

The UK did have a small carrier battle with Japan, and was defeated badly in the Indian Ocean.

On the rest I agree, but hopefully the RN is changing with the building of the the new carriers.

 

it's plausible, there would be immediate alterations to newer ships in production, but designing an entirely new ship around the new requirements can take a couple of decades.

With airplanes the F35 program by the time it comes into production will have been under way for about 20yrs.

My bro-in-law took part in designing weapon systems used in Halifax Class Frigates in the late 60's and early 70's,the first ship commissioned didn't sail until 1988 . Shipbuilding isn't an overnight procedure, and lessons learned in the Falkland war would still be applied to new ships being built today.

 

it's plausible, there would be immediate alterations to newer ships in production, but designing an entirely new ship around the new requirements can take a couple of decades.

With airplanes the F35 program by the time it comes into production will have been under way for about 20yrs.

My bro-in-law took part in designing weapon systems used in Halifax Class Frigates in the late 60's and early 70's,the first ship commissioned 1992 . Shipbuilding isn't an overnight procedure, and lessons learned in the Falkland war would still be applied to new ships being built today.

 

I gave you multiple incidents where British soldiers spilled blood to hold onto territory.....its was more than just the Suez.

The U.S. could have beaten the Japanese alone, and without too much delay. Even the Japanese in 1941 knew at best they could get some kind of favorable deal brokered after bloodying the U.S. The Soviets contributed very very little to the war effort. Invading Manchuria a few weeks before atomic bombs vaporized Japanese cities did little for the war effort. Russia was of absolutely no threat to mainland Japan...unlike the U.S. which was gearing up for the largest amphibious assault in history (by several magnitudes). Sure, Britain/Aus/NZ etc play their part (esecially in the early parts of the war), but once the U.S.war machine got moving, Japanese defeat was inevitable. Remember, by the end of WWII, the U.S. was producing more military hardware than the rest of the world combined.

Without the USSR/Britain, Germany and the U.S. would probably have brokered some kind of peace eventually. Germany didn't have a chance in hell of threatening the U.S. mainland, and would have been forced to sit back helplessly as the U.S. crushed Japan.

 

the glory of the british empire is greater in their own minds than in the that of those they colonized...

here's a myth worth knocking down...the USA supplied only a fraction of the forces facing the Japanese, China and the Commonwealth did most of the fighting and dying...and in the case of the Chinese they did this from 1937 and the commonwealth from '39...not until late 1944 did the US have more than 3 divisions in combat...

without commonwealth and Chinese troops occupying the bulk of Japanese forces the US would've had it hands full taking on the full Japanese army...and US mainland invincibility is much over estimated as well, only because of Britain's resistance to invasion was Germany's industrial base bombed...without Britain/Commonwealth in the war the USA's invincibility comes very much into question...

 

The second Sino-Japanese war had a limited impact on the war in the Pacific. The Japanese were largely fighting an insurgency there by 1941 and by the mid 1940s had pulled most of their crack troops and equipment to the Pacific campaign. Also, the large occupying Army in China would have made little difference in the island hoping campagin. Another consideration is that the Japanese army was woefully inadequate at maneuver warfare as demonstrated by the Invasion of Manchura. The island hoping battles allowed them to avoid this serious shortcoming and go toe to toe with American forces. Had the U.S. ever been involved in a large land war with the "full" Japanese Army it would have annhilated them.



That was a battle of naval and air power. Even without Chinese, British, or Soviet forces intervening, Japan could have done nothing to stop the U.S. after midway.

The German economy was dwarfed by the U.S. economy. Here are some numbers.


Wartime GDP of the Great Powers
1938 to 1945 in International Dollars and 1990 Prices (billions)*
Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
USA 800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474
UK 284 287 316 344 353 361 346 331
France 186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
Italy 141 151 147 144 145 137 117 92
USSR 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310
Austria 24 27 27 29 27 28 29 12
Japan 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144
Allied/Axis GDP 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 3.1 5.0

The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison, Cambridge University Press (199, 10.


The massive economic advantage the U.S. enjoyed actually isn't even the main reason that Germany never could have touched the U.S. mainland. The real reason was the U.S. Navy. In 1945 the U.S. Navy had 99 Carriers (28 full-sized fleet), 23 Battleships, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, and 232 Submarines. It was larger and more powerful than all the Axis power Navies combined at the height of their power. Even the Royal Navy was significantly smaller than the USN. Germany had a very small Navy and lacked the carriers neccessary to project force, let alone go face to face with the largest Navy in history. Germany couldn't even cross the Channel to invade Britian, they had no chance of getting across the entire Atlantic.

 

let's be realistic here, the US faced only a small portion of first rate Japanese troops in isolated island garrisons, the vast majority were deployed in SE Asia and the Indonesian archipelago vs commonwealth troops...to say the 2-3 American divisions employed in the south pacific were capable of annihilating 60 Japanese divisions is silly...

without the commonwealth /chinese forces diverting Japanese resources the entire Pacific war scenario changes, this is not to say the US did not play a significant role but americans have a skewed perception that the war in the pacific was an america only show but ti was anything but...

the US was never bombed or occupied factors both of which significantly affect production

again the US wasn't a significant factor until late into the war, Germany under heavy bombing devoted most of it's industry to fighting a land war vs Russia, building a navy to attack the US was never a priority...so your tally of US navy comes to 803ships compared to Britain's 607 not really impressive considering the relative sizes of the two countries, add Canada's 400 ship fleet at wars end and then add the other commonwealth countries fleets and again it's apparent the Commonwealth supplied most of the allied naval strength as well...

 

That is complete nonsense. And for one, you have to look at the Pacific Theatre.

This was not Europe. Most of the battlefield was the Ocean, where you used a Navy. Not an Army. And the battlefields were also Islands. Take over the island, eliminate the enemy there, and then drive on.

No need to large occupation forces like there were in Europe.

However, there were more then 3 Divisions involved in the fighting. Guadalcanal involved the XIV Corps, which was larger then 3-4 divisions in size. And most of the Amphibious Assaults were conducted by Marine Divisions, which were essentially ruined each time, so had to be rotated back to the US for refit and new personnel before it could be used again.

But the main reason why the dozens of divisions were not needed at a single time was the manner of the battlefield. Tarawa was only about 3 square miles, but there were over 4,500 Japanese there, and the 2nd Marine Division was essentially wrecked in taking it (of the 12,000 Marines in that division in the battle, 3,166 were killed or wounded). The Battalion I was later a part of (2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regimant) Was commanded by a Lieutenant after the battle, The Lieutenant Colonel, and all Majors and Captains were wounded or killed. My Company (normally a Captain) was commanded by a Sergeant when the battle was done.

These were small but highly bloody battles, which was a meat grinder for the corces involved. It did not have the million man forces of Europe because it was not that kind of battlefield. And it was not until the Philippines Campaign that they had a single island that was large enough for a single battle with multiple divisions.

But add in all the Naval and Air forces and you definately had multiple divisions involved during that theatre.

As far as China, that bogged down huge numbers of Japanese forces, but it really was a sideshow. Because there was nowhere else the Japanese could have put their forces. The islands did not allow more forces to be put onto them. And the Chinese also never put up a single armed front against the Japanese. It was a battle of Guerrilla warfare, with the Nationalists and Communists attacking each other as much as they attacked the Japanese

The Chinese forces did not matter in the scheme of the Pacific Theatre. The US never invaded China, because there was no need to. They wrecked the Japanese Navy to the degree that it never did really matter. Once the Navy was destroyed, they could no longer either send troops or equipment to or from China. The troops Japan sent there were essentially trapped, but huge numbers were sent back to Japan after the fall of Okinawa, to attempt to protect the main islands themselves.

You talk of the number of Divisions, in a theatre that did not operate in that manner. almost every battle in WWII that the Marines were involved in was in that theatre, and there were almost 600,000 Marines then. And over half of the Navy (4.2 million) was in the Pacific theatre. And the Marines took the highest casualty percentage of all the US forces. Of the 599,693 Marines that served during WWII, there were 91,620 wounded or killed. That is almost 1 in 6. You won't find any other Allied branch of service service that took higher percentages of casualties then the Marines in the Pacific.

And those Occupation Forces would have occupied China reguardless of the US involvement or not. They had been there after all since the turn of the century.

 

Do o think if Japan hadn't attacked the US, that the US would have attacked Japan, after the British lost most of it's territory in east Asia, and Australia and India were being over run? Or would the US have just done nothing and waited?

 

that doesn't negate any of what I posted the US supplied only a fraction of manpower fighting the Japanese

a 15yr war is a sideshow? 39% of japanese casualties occurred in China, the nature of the battles and whether there is a "front" is irrelevant as it's dependent geography,the front of Japanese controled china was considerably longer than that of the german/russian front... by your rational islands aren't fronts either...

it's absolutely critical, LOGISTICS Japan had some 60 divisions in China that needed to be supplied a huge drain on resources/transport that could've been used elsewhere...all because the chinese never stopped battling suffering an estimated 20 million military and civilian casualties...and invading china wouldn't have helped the US because there was no need to, the chinese were doing fine tying down japanese troops on there own, and the US couldn't get there regardless...

1 in 6 wounded...Bomber Command had 44% kia, the marines come nowhere near that number...canadian merchant marines suffered a 1 in 7 Kia compared to the marines 1 in 28 kia

the war with china began in 1931 when the Japan invaded Manchuria...

 

until the attack on Pearl Harbor there wasn't enough public support for war...

as long as the British remained in the war India would continue fighting as part of the commonwealth...The Japanese never defeated the chinese taking on another country of similar geographical and population size like India would've been beyond their manpower resources IMO...Australia would be different although large it's sparsely populated with most of it's population on the coastal regions, once it's urban centers are taken it's over...

 

Yes, I agree. I am glad Canada helped from the start, without them the UK would have been defeated, in the battle of Britain, so it looks like Canada saved Britain. And kept the war alive.

And you first point calls into question if the US was really the most willing to spill blood. And all these Americans are going on about the British empire, without it the war wouldn't have been won, and the world would be a worse place.