2020, UK battle fleet Vs 1 US carrier fleet.

I think it's clear that in this hypothetical war the RN would never attempt a fleet on fleet battle, it would be deployed to protect against invasion, and then it's a totally different ball game....

I do laugh at these threads though, this is probably the most unlikely conflict I could imagine ever happening!

 

And why are you so sure of this? The U.S. military...and British military, have much more extensive combat experience in the last decade than Israel.

 

Well I was joking, that's why I put the hahaha, on the end. I really think New Zealand has the best trained army in the world. And no doubt north Korea and China would be up their as well.

 

So the UK would be better building some long range anti air missiles, putting them on less advanced ships, that can carry 100 missiles? And the RN is wrong to say they have the most advanced air defence ship in the world?
Also the type 45 has better radar and detection of incoming missiles, so it will hit more, than the AB class. And if you bring all 6 type 45's you have 288 missiles. I am not saying the UK would win, I am just saying you are under rating the type 45. And would the new Chinese destroyers be better than the type 45's?

 

So it's no longer about how good the ship is, but how good it's missiles are and how many missiles it has? Would be interested in sending your views on the UK military to the MOD? http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/

 

As a Canadian Colonel really emphasized to me, most of the main Western/NATO countries (US, France, UK, Germany, AUS, NZ, Canada, Israel) have very comparable and standardized levels of training/equipment at the smaller unit/ground level (Company/Battalion). These countries are the standard bearers and are generally superior to the rest.

The U.S., however, really seperates itself at the Regiment/Brigade level and above because of technology, larger numbers, and massive training centers like NTC. He said the U.S. is the only country that routinely trains with such formations and have thus developed a greater competence. He also mentioned that U.S. airpower and C&C functions put them at an added advantage. He did mention though that some of these countries, (I remember he mentioned Britain), tended to be slightly more competent than U.S. forces in barebones type operations...eg. traditional unsupported Infantry operations. This was compared to U.S. forces who are taught to operate more within combined arms, which often involve assets that other militaries simply don't have. He mentioned that a U.S. Heavy Mechanized Infantry Division was the most powerful unit of its size on earth by several magnitudes because at this level everything came together.

Now, I'm no expert on Air and Naval power, but from I've read and heard much of the ground side considerations carry over. Britain may have a destroyer or submarine thats comparable, or even slightly better, than its U.S. counter part, but when everything comes together within a large combined task force the U.S. really puts itself beyond the competition. I think this is what Mushroom is really trying to get at. X may be superior to Y, but XYZ wipes the floor with XXX, YYY, or ZZZ. Warfare is never the sum of its individual parts, its combining, controlling, and executing using a diverse array of assets that together are MUCH more powerful than their individual contributions.

The power of individual units is rarely important in battle; its the big picture. Germany had some of the best equipment of WWII, but failed miserably at the strategic level. Focusing on how many missiles a given ship has is only one tiny component of the battle.


North Korea and China have extremely suspect levels of competency. They are massive conscript armies with poor training and equipment.

 

good point, Israel has never taken on a first rate military...

 

Nor has the US, hahahaha.

 

nor has Britain, hahahaha.

 

Thanks, everybody knows the US is the best if it uses all it's assets, but in this thread I have tryed to move it away from that, by having the US outnumbered, something that doesn't really happen. And that is why NATO likes to use commonwealth elite forces, for when their is not support, and that's what we are the best at.

 

true as well

 

I personally believe RN Warships are underarmed, and i'am not totally convinced its a cost thing only.
If i was a sailor, i wouldn't be happy serving onboard a warship going on a mission knowing that my ship had a limited capability, ie only being able to take on aircraft threats.
Personally i think the major frigate and destoyer classes should have AAM, SSM and a antisubmarine capability (well the helicopters carry torpedoes).

The Type 45 has been critisized for being underarmed, and should be provided with a SSM such as the Harpoon (we have some available to fit), as this was provided in the design, and Tomahawk missiles also.

I seem to remember during the 70's most Western Navies had relatively lightly armed warships, whereas the Russians had missiles crammed into every space on the ships........even the US Navy at that time had warships which were comparatively poorly armed, such as the 'Spruance' class.....though nowadays US warships seem to be extremely well armed and i think European navies should follow suit.
I know it costs money, but at the end of a day a warship is not a warship if it is not armed and capable of doing its duties is it?

 

We beat Argentina, which for us was like the US trying to take back Greenland if it had been taken by the Russians. The US has never been anywhere near losing a war, since WW2. Sadly you have lost wars because of your politics, something Britain never had the same problem with. If you can't win hearts and minds you must use fear, as who cares of you are hated if your feared, the US isn't feared just hated.

 

That seems like a pretty accurate analysis.

 

you're equating Russian military ability with that of Argentina?

 

No, I am saying Argentina had a military, that was as hard for the UK to beat, as a Russian military would have been for the US to beat. So the Russians are miles ahead of Argentina, but the US is miles ahead of the UK, both challanges are very hard for the US and UK, so I am saying the UK has beaten a power as good as itself. The US hasn't.

 

okay understood.

I disagree however, the UK was considerably better than Argentina IMO, it was only the logistics of reaching the Falklands that gave Argentina any chance. Poorly trained and led they weren't a match for the UK on the ground, at sea or in the air.

 

Argentina had some of it's elite marines on the Falklands, and they we beat by British troops in their first ever battle, and the British were outnumbered. Also the US war better than the Russians, but they would have needed to do what the UK did in the Falklands war. Because of this the UK has fought against a military that was it's as good as it.

 

Could you give me an example of this preference for commonwealth special forces?

 

Argentina was never close to a 1st rate military. A U.S./Russia conflict over Greenland would be WWIII.

Britain has lost many such political wars, mostly when it conceeded power to its former colonies. Heck, the U.S. Revolutionary war is such an example.

I think you'll find that the U.S. is much more "feared' than any other NATO country. For better or worse its the country most willing to spill blood and commit to war.

 

You're insane for comparing UK/Argentina with US/Soviet. The Falkands war was an EXTREMELY limited engagement that focused on a tiny island. It wasn't even close to an all out war. It was important for the British military which hadn't been tested in quite sometime, but in the scheme of things, was a very minor conflict.

 

In the scheme of thing for the UK and Argentina the war was huge.

 

Well they are better. That's all I am saying. You said they were better.

 

Russia and the US today wouldn't be WW3. The world wars only happened because of the British empire in WW1 and the Japanese invasions in WW2, other wise they would have been European war. Infact the 7 years war could be classed as a world war, and the greatest British military, economic, and diplomatic victory.

What political war? The only one I can think of is Suez.

Well Iraq doesn't fear the US, or Afghanistan. If your the most willing to spill blood that is rather stupid and nowonder you can't win in the middle east.

 

I said no such thing.