Korea was largely the US versus China and Vietnam was another weird one. It's like WWI in that people not well versed in the politics of the time and how it escalated tend to scratch their heads and wonder what the point was.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Korea was largely the US versus China and Vietnam was another weird one. It's like WWI in that people not well versed in the politics of the time and how it escalated tend to scratch their heads and wonder what the point was.
There were Russian Migs in Korea which were piloted by Russian pilots.
- 1
- 1
It always happens when NWO game is mentioned, guess that's why PD promised to never make one.
- 1
Then they should perhaps not make a space game where the new world order has already been established... They should have gone with a more realistic approach of there being several empires on each planet from the get go.
Of course. The USA is incapable of any kind of World Conquest. I was just pointing out the Naval Dominance.
If you seriously look at the capabilities of a single US Navy Carrier Fleet, and the capabilities of even a single US Destroyer, I think you will see where my statement was coming from.
Vietnam was a US victory, supporting the independence of South Vietnam.
Conquering the North and uniting the country was never a US goal.
In Korea, the USA also ended up fighting China. The USA defeated the North Koreans rather decisively before the Chinese got involved. The Russians were also very directly supporting the North Koreans.
Both were strategic victories.
South Vietnam fell after the USA left because the USA cut support and didn't come to their aid as the USA had promised.
Last edited:
The US navy couldn't even find a single swedish submarine in the joint excercise a few years ago. They ended up surrendering the submarine hunt and the sub surfaced less than half a kilometere from the aircraft carrier from one of their aircraft carriers. It was pretty much saying "bam you're dead".
Cute story.
Sweden has 5 small subs that are all Diesel Electric.
3 Gotland-class submarines, 2 Södermanland class. Each 60m long.
That is pretty much Sweden's entire navy right there.
The US Navy has 77 Submarines with 5 more under construction.
All Nuclear Powered.
All of them are twice the size of Sweden's Subs. Between 108m and 170m long, depending on Class.
This is a US Carrier Battle Group:
The smallest ships in that image are the Submarines mentioned above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
Last edited:
- 1
So whats the point?
A not-nuclear powered sub cant sink a carrier? Then ask what the german subs did in a test in the mediterranean sea...
A not-nuclear powered sub cant sink a carrier? Then ask what the german subs did in a test in the mediterranean sea...
- 1
I think you are missing the point.
A single Carrier Strike Group is larger than the majority of the world's navies. The USA has 10 of these flotillas.
And that does not include ships that operate separately from the CSGs.
- 1
Sure, they have an impressive navy. No questions asked.
But they have their limits too and I think sometimes ppl are just expecting a bit too much due to the fact they are the only real superpower left, at least atm.
- 1
Yes. Of course.
My point is that the US Navy is ridiculously ginormous.
And the US Navy is claiming they are underfunded and overextended. They think 10 CSGs is not enough.
When the entire planet combined would lose to your Navy, rather spectacularly, what is the point?
The USA is already building 3 more brand new Gerald R. Ford Class super-carriers which will bring the number of CSGs back to 11.
Thats the price to pay if you still wish to play superpower and world-policeYes. Of course.
My point is that the US Navy is ridiculously ginormous.
And the US Navy is claiming they are underfunded and overextended. They think 10 CSGs is not enough.
When the entire planet combined would lose to your Navy, rather spectacularly, what is the point?
The USA is already building 3 more brand new Gerald R. Ford Class super-carriers which will bring the number of CSGs back to 11.
And concerning losing to your navy... well... I doubt that, but it would be a pretty bloodshed if they'd try anyways.
Concerning the new carrier, werent they replacing some of the old nimitz ones?
Thats the price to pay if you still wish to play superpower and world-police
And concerning losing to your navy... well...
Why do you think I am American?
Are you Swedish? Or are you referring to another Navy?
Because I really don't think 5 60m Diesal-Electrics and a handful of Corvettes are going to do much to even a single Carrier Strike Group, let alone two.
Sort of. The first one is replacing U.S.S. Enterprise. Enterprise CVN-65 was decommissioned a few years ago.
She was the only Enterprise-class ship and the only non-Nimitz still operating.
U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 will take her spot in the 11th Carrier Strike Group.
The future public plans are to replace Nimitz CVN-68 with John F. Kennedy CVN-79, and replace Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 with the U.S.S. Enterprise CVN-80.
So what if they can't see us they can't shoot us.
And the us has 77 subs? How nice. And how nice that they are nuclear powered, the swedish subs do not have diesel engines (in submerged mode that is) however they have sterling engines, vitrually soundless.
Twice the size is not a good thing, the fact that our subs are half the size and you're only capable of looking for nuclear subs twice the size is why you failed to catch our sub. Sure we can't shoot nukes, but we can still blow up a couple of aircraft carriers before you catch us.
And no that's not sweden entire navy we have missile ships, speedboats and so on, a fleet tailored to fighting guerrilla warfare in our own peninsulas against a more powerful foe (sweden's famous ccold war doctrine of the porcupine defense, you can't beat the soviet union but you can make victory cost him as much as possible). Sure we don't have as much as we used to but our stuff is top notch.
In fact it's pretty pointless to dicuss because the US carriers can't even operate as they should in shallow waters like the baltic, which is why the russians had to design a special smaller class of carriers for use in the baltic. The US is no doubt powerful but not powerful enough and especially not versitile enough to take on the rest of the world, even at sea. And that's igonoring the MAD doctrine.
And the us has 77 subs? How nice. And how nice that they are nuclear powered, the swedish subs do not have diesel engines (in submerged mode that is) however they have sterling engines, vitrually soundless.
Twice the size is not a good thing, the fact that our subs are half the size and you're only capable of looking for nuclear subs twice the size is why you failed to catch our sub. Sure we can't shoot nukes, but we can still blow up a couple of aircraft carriers before you catch us.
And no that's not sweden entire navy we have missile ships, speedboats and so on, a fleet tailored to fighting guerrilla warfare in our own peninsulas against a more powerful foe (sweden's famous ccold war doctrine of the porcupine defense, you can't beat the soviet union but you can make victory cost him as much as possible). Sure we don't have as much as we used to but our stuff is top notch.
In fact it's pretty pointless to dicuss because the US carriers can't even operate as they should in shallow waters like the baltic, which is why the russians had to design a special smaller class of carriers for use in the baltic. The US is no doubt powerful but not powerful enough and especially not versitile enough to take on the rest of the world, even at sea. And that's igonoring the MAD doctrine.
Last edited:
That is entirely not the reason that the US was unable to find that sub.
The small size limits the operational range of your submarines and abilities of your submarines to shallow waters.
Yes, your subs are quiet; so are the US Navy's.
The US Navy was experimenting with your subs to test whether smaller subs are worth it for littoral combat operations where US Subs are too large to operate effectively.
No, but the US has satellites that can keep tabs on ports and wait until your subs run out of fuel.
This would be after sinking the rest of your Navy.
I know that. US subs are also electric. The Nuclear Reactor is an electric generator.
The reason the US was testing the Swedish sub was to consider viability for a littoral submarine fleet based on your technology.
Not really. See range issues and satellites above.
Your largest non-submarines are missile Corvettes.
A single US destroyer could sink your entire surface fleet.
I never questioned the quality of your ships.
I pointed out that Sweden has 5 small short ranged submarines and a half dozen other ships smaller than a US Destroyer.
The US Navy wouldn't need to operate in the Baltic. Cruise-missiles would address the issues.
- 1
And again with the size, size is not something good in modern naval warfare it means you are easy to spot and easy to hit. A boat not much larger than a RIB can launch a SAS missile that can cripple almost any ship. The swedish corvettes (Visby and gothenburg class, with the Visby class being stealth) and missle ships (Norrköping class) carry the RB-15 system which can cause great amounts of damage on large ranges. The idea is that they pop out if hiding fire their payload and then retreat to one of the hidden bases hopefully before getting crippled in return.
And not we'd not have to go to port to refuel we have casunes scattered all over sweden hidden bases for refuling and restockign on munitions, didn't I tell you that we planned on fighting a guerilla war agaisnt the soviets.
Again not saying sweden could beat the US, but if we one of the smallest nation if europe can beat you on some point then others can do it to. I think you'd find victory at sea to be a lot harder won than you think.
Also why I'm intrested in a EU defence force, every nation in the EU have their own vanity projects, their own things they excell at, if we could compile all that technology all that knowledge and all that funding and manpower we'd be a force to reckon with.
If nato has one weakness is the clause that sauys all nato countries have to by their stuff from the same nato authorised source.
Good Lord, you are not an expert on Naval Warfare.
The fact you are seriously suggesting that 5 snub-subs and less than 6 Corvettes would pose a threat to even a single US Carrier Battle group is astounding.
I have to give it to you, you certainly are a true-blooded nationalist.
Oh, so stealthy and hidden!
I am sure the US doesn't have satellites that can watch them all in real time.
Oh, hey look, its your entire Navy, on Google:
The fact you are seriously suggesting that 5 snub-subs and less than 6 Corvettes would pose a threat to even a single US Carrier Battle group is astounding.
I have to give it to you, you certainly are a true-blooded nationalist.
Oh, so stealthy and hidden!
I am sure the US doesn't have satellites that can watch them all in real time.
Oh, hey look, its your entire Navy, on Google:
Attachments
- 1
No it's not, there are no visby class corvettes on that picture. Nor any subs. In fact most of the boats in that picture are speedboats used for the naval special forces for their deployment. And sweden has 12 corvettes 4 gothernburg klass, 6 visbyklass, and 2 stockholm klass. Each with enough rb-15s to cause consierable damage to any target even if they get blown up directly afterwards.Good Lord, you are not an expert on Naval Warfare.
The fact you are seriously suggesting that 5 snub-subs and less than 6 Corvettes would pose a threat to even a single US Carrier Battle group is astounding.
I have to give it to you, you certainly are a true-blooded nationalist.
Oh, so stealthy and hidden!
I am sure the US doesn't have satellites that can watch them all in real time.
Oh, hey look, its your entire Navy, on Google:
As for being able to see them, god I hope you don't think we'd have them all line dup in a harbour during a war? We'd hide them throughout the peninsulas in the batlic. You don't think we know that our enemies might have GPS?
And yeah I do think the swedish navy could do a sucessfull suicide run on a us carrier battlegroup and cripple it. Sure they wouldn't deal with the others but I gues other coutnries would have to match them.
Truth is you're the nationalist you're the one saying your country can take oin the rest of the world and win, I'm saying even small countrie scould put up more of a fight than you give us credit for. I'm not saying sweden is special, I'm using it as an example since I have worked with the swedish navy and know the subject very well (in fact I can see my first workplace on the picture you posted). I actually know more than I am at liberty to divulge, but belive me sweden has a contengency plan for fighting more powerful foes. How could we not, half the countries around us are larger than we are. I'm guessing every smaller country has similiar plans, and some larger ones.
Let me put it like this, let's assume that the US could take on the enire world in a fair fight, you don't think the rest of the world will be aware of that? How inclined to you think that makes them to fight fairly?
Last edited:
9. You have 9.
5 Visby Class Corvettes. The 6th was cancelled.
Two of your Goteborg Class ships were retired.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 1
Ok Still not the entire swedish navy. And yeah you could probably destroy those easy but not before they get their missiles in the air, which means both sides are destroyed. How many SSM do you think the rest of the world can scrounge up? How many ASM? Because it basically comes down to that, do they run out of missles before you run out of ships, not likely.9. You have 9.
5 Visby Class Corvettes. The 6th was cancelled.
Two of your Goteborg Class ships were retired.
And I donät get your emphasise oin corvettes, corvettes are large enough to carry SSM and a modern SSM will cripple any ship, how does being a large target help you?
Last edited: