Special Report : Aircraft carriers, championed by Trump, are

File: 1478288530118.png (978KB, 1822x846px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1822x846px

>>33255067
Just for you, OP

>>33255067
And everyone else is vulnerable to nukes so big whoop. Never forget, carriers primary importance are as a means of protecting american interests in lesser countries overseas.

File: huVlzjo.jpg (36KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x480px

>>33255224
If we start using nukes the world is over anyway who cares about ships

>>33255089

Thank you.

I wish I had that countryball image.

File: sprey goblin.jpg (29KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 575x350px

>>33255067

If a carrier is just a target, why didn't Obaka just scrap them?

File: 1489072376702.jpg (413KB, 1180x1736px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1180x1736px

>>33255382
this one?

>>33255460

Yes, many thanks.

>>33255067
... this guy should be investigated for sedition / treason, as everything he has EVER said would lead to the weakening of the US Armed Forces.

The guy is a plant, he has to be.

>>33255635

He's just a crackpot. It's not like people in the Pentagon are listening to him.

...Maybe Trump would though.

>>33255067
>Sprey

>defense analyst

No.

>>33255758

One day he'll kick the bucket.

The biggest problem in the US navy is the overwhelming non-white composition of it
They will mutiny so fast and would be useless in a real war

After that, its wasting so much money on useless AA employees, not firing problem people, and spending far too much of their budget doing patrols/foreign deployments

>>33255089
>AEGIS and anti-torpedo systems work 100% of the time and always stop missiles
We can't even stop all rockets during rocket attacks, and we've been taking rocket attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan for 16 fucking years now.

File: rumor control.png (3KB, 160x144px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x144px

>>33255254
This fag actually thinks a nuclear war would end the human race

>>33255067

>Pierre Sprey as a source

Somebody post the infographic where he claims that an F-15 can be easily shot down with a .223 rifle. I'm too lazy to go looking for it.

>>33256925
I think it was an F-16

>>33255067
>Featuring: Pierre Sprey
Well I was going to read this story in a bit but now I don't really see the point.

File: Pierre.png (53KB, 746x560px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 746x560px

>>33257079

Nope, it was an F-15E and it was being compared directly against the A-10. It is the same document he also makes the claim that the M48 tank is superior to the M1 Abram.

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

Never mind, I found the real deal.

>>33257140
Well duh, the .22 will bounce around inside the plane and turn those useless electronics into mush.

>>33255476
np

>>33256917
Do you want ants? Cause that's how you get ants.

File: 1488423624290.jpg (1MB, 1133x1650px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1133x1650px

>>33255089

>when they post your cap collage every time this thread comes up

>>33257095

He has a couple quotes, that's it.

They also talked to a guy named Bryan McGrath who isn't a Spreytard, and only notes that the carrier groups biggest problem is that strike craft still need to launch within 1000mi from their targets.

>>33257219

>the carrier groups biggest problem is that strike craft still need to launch within 1000mi from their targets

That wasn't an issue until after the A-6 was retired. Dust them off, stealthify them, and put them back to work.

>>33257240
So basically we have no solution then, got it.

File: sprey.png (66KB, 879x367px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 879x367px

>>33257140
heh

>>33255067
Carriers in their current configuration are the battleships of the previous generation.

Too big and too expensive.

>>33255067

>Media attacking carriers and quoting fucking Pierre Sprey just to get at Trump

Jesus, they really are babies.

>>33257322

Battleships were not "too big" or "too expensive", they were simply incapable of doing anything worthwhile. Carriers are much bigger and much more expensive.

>>33256879
I'd say it's the vast majority of chucklefucks, sorta like you, who can't even follow the GOD DAMN OPERATORS MANUAL!

>>33257322
for you

>>33257384

foRU

>>33257359
The modern battleship is, of course, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, because both have many shiny and cool specs that makes one go ooh and ahh while not noticing the price tag.

>>33256879
>The biggest problem in the US navy is the overwhelming non-white composition of it

35% isn't 'overwhelming', Chang. You chinks are really terrified of black folk, aren't you? Is it because you recently got your shit pushed in by some tribals in Africa?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report

For Gods sake man, pull yourself together.

>>33256904
Those are just dumb rockets doing idf. Best way to stop actual anti ship missiles is soft kill.

>>33256904

It isn't really comparable though. Because the threat of short-range rockets is minimal , there isn't much technology focused on by the US on hard kill systems (C-RAM being more or less a land based Phalanx CIWS).

Whereas the defense against aircraft carrier threats receives massive investment and has numerous layers of protection and countermeasures. For example, that protection against air-launched or long range land-based AShM includes; unpredictable movement & misleading intelligence to obscure precise carrier location, AEW to detect over the horizon threats, carrier CAPs can intercept at a distance, AEGIS equipped vessels form a defensive picket (with various hard & soft kill measures), the carrier itself has its own hard (missile and gun) and soft kill measures, and the carrier is designed & manned with damage control in mind.

>>33257140
did this nigger seriously just claim that the fucking M48 Patton is superior to the Abrams, a tank we developed for 20 fucking years to shitcan everything that it could possibly come up against?

>>33255067
>Pierre Sprey
>French/American
>During the 1960s, Pierre Sprey belonged to a group of defense analysts who called themselves the 'Fighter Mafia'. At the time he joined them, he had been a "weapons system analyst on the OASD/SA staff". He had an engineering degree but no military experience.[4] The 'Fighter Mafia' group of defense analysts worked behind the scenes in the late 1960s to advocate a lightweight fighter as an alternative to the F-15. The group strongly believed that an ideal fighter should not include any of the sophisticated radar and missile systems or rudimentary ground-attack capability that found their way into the F-15.

Be he called that one fucking right. Clearly this is someone we should listen to.

>>33259684
>hey lets have a fighter aircraft lighter and quicker than the F15
>okay pierre, how?
>well we take off the A2G capability as well as radar and missile systems
this motherfucker should be sent to the potato farm.

>>33257599
I am genuinely convinced a few shock battalions entirely filled with blacks would rout any Asian army.

>>33257312
what the everloving fuck is this guy smoking?

>>33259702
I'm assuming he's arguing greater stopping power because with his 3x ammo per man thing, he's saying that 3 5.56 rounds have greater stopping power than a single 7.62x51 round, which is true.
however, he's not thinking in terms of common sense, which is utterly fucking infuriating.

>>33255254
That was kind of my point you knuckle dragger. Sinking a carrier means a declaration of war, which means nukes.
>inb4 nuh uh they won't use nukes
Against a near peer they sure would.

>>33259720
using nukes against a near peer is suicide, because it would be basically a fair fight since it would come down to sheer nukespam, and the cardinal rule of war is that if you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.

I can't wait for the first time the US tries to take on a semi-competent foe and US carriers start sinking like rocks. The impotent tears will be delicious.

>>33259873
>semi competent
So literally nobody?

IT'S A COMPLETE BOONDOGGLE.

>>33257599
more of an issue is the flip mafia m8.

Honestly though, I don't see the rationale for increasing carriers to 12. Ahead of CVNs in the USN, I would rather see priority for:

1) More SSNs, perhaps with some better adapted for littoral operations. There is a tendency for US subs to get bigger and bigger.

2) Mine warfare, both countermeasures to enemy mines, and new mines/minelaying ability.

3) ASW primary role frigates, more of them, and more training. I know there are supposed to be LCS for this role, but I don't know what proportion of them will be configured for ASW, and whether such a small frigate is suitable for modern blue water ASW.

4) Improve and fit more anti-torpedo hard-kill systems to large vessels. Not just CVN but preferably all large vessels.

5) Procure a proper CVN based aerial refuelling aircraft. Many of the carriers vulnerabilities are mitigated by letting them strike from further away.

>>33259873
>semi-competent foe

Britain andFrance are our allies, though.

>>33260327
They won't mutiny as long as you don't interfere with their gambling.

>>33256879
>>>/pol/

I don't see what doctrine Sprey wants for the US, cheap equipment and throwing numbers at a target?

>>33259873
Does anyone have the screenshot of the Anon who did the math on if every Tu-22M ever produced somehow magicked it's way into firing range of a CBG that a Tico or Arleigh with even a half-load of ESSM's would have enough missiles to engage each incoming vampire with 3 separate ESSM's and still have missiles left over.

>>33257359
Actually, yes they were. Once aircraft were introduced into Naval warfare it ceased being a surface slugfest and being caught without air cover was pretty much a guaranteed sinking.

File: 1484022040009.jpg (491KB, 1559x876px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1559x876px

A US Navy supercarrier was teaching a class on Freedom of Navigation, a known imperialist concept.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship AirSea Battle and accept that it is the most revolutionary doctrine military affairs has ever known, even greater than the People's War!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, PLAN shore battery who had conducted over 1500 test launches and understood the necessity of building new islands and fully supported all military decision made by the Politburo stood up and held up a WU-14.

”How many of these can you shoot down, gwai lo?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Japanesely and smugly replied “All of them, you coolie peasant.”

”Wrong. Aegis has not even been tested against superior DF-21 ASBM system. The age of the carrier... is over.”

The professor was visibly shaken, and failed to acquire track or unjam her CIWS in time. She sank beneath the waves broadcasting that crocodile SOS. The same SOS American spy planes broadcast over the "reckless" PLAAF pilots (who in fact were only defending their sovereign airspace) when they bravely ram invading imperialist aircraft. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, USS Gerald R. Ford, wished she had pulled herself up by her bootstraps and become more than an obsolete weapons platform. She wished so much that she had a next-generation ASM to sink herself in embarrassment, but her own Navy had failed to deploy one!

The Taiwanese all applauded and accepted unification under one system that day. A panda named "Authoritarian Government" waddled into the room and sat down under the Chinese flag and shed a tear on the CIWS. "The East is Red" was sung several times, and Mao himself showed up and established Chinese hegemony across East Asia.

The professor lost her escorts and was mothballed the next day. She was decommissioned and sold for scrap to help service America's debt to China.

>>33261231
I don't recognize this pasta.

>>33257195
Holy fuck she is hot.

>>33255067
>Pierre Sprey
reading his BIO i feel like he is not the person i would want to get advice from.

>french
>grew up in jewyork
>studied french shit and aeronautical engineering
>"He had an engineering degree but no military experience."
>somehow became defense annalist


hes an old man trying to be relevant. he was only kinda relevant in the 1960's. i really could care less of what he has to say, carriers arnt alone and can attack other ships, aircraft, and land based targets, this guy is retarded and is only speaking out because someone is paying him to argue with what trump is doing.

>>33261231
>quite japanesely
lost

>Pierre Sprey
>he disagrees with anything he wasnt part of a design team for
>using him as a source
>french born
>newyorker
>(((educated)))
>no military experience
yea hes totally (((someone))) i would listen to.

>>33257312
>>33259702
Well, he's right about that one, as the M193 round and its successors fragment whereas the US 7.62mm NATO does not.
See: Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets, Martin L. Fackler, International Defense Review, 1989

>>33257219
McGrath is a right proper source. He's a former naval officer and has been briefing Congress on Naval affairs for years.

>>33260346
>Honestly though, I don't see the rationale for increasing carriers to 12.
If nothing else, it stops the maintenance deathspiral we've been in because we have too few carriers and too many responsibilities. It's sorely needed. Current path is unsustainable

File: lookofloathing.jpg (15KB, 222x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 222x300px

>>33261231

File: 1487243020975.png (87KB, 274x278px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 274x278px

>>33255067

Why is the DF-21 even still being discussed now that the Navy has established that it can be defeated with ordinary Standard missiles?

>>33261231
>smirked quite Japanesely

File: 1375826101282.jpg (19KB, 370x289px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 370x289px

>>33255067

I can't believe people actually ever listen to what this fucking guy says anymore. You had like 1 or 2 good ideas in your entire lift.

Fuck off already and go listen to jazz.

>>33261231

Love it.

>>33260451

Basically, yes.

>>33261612

Sure 10 is too few for what the US wants to do, but I don't see the reasoning for 12.

Once the USS Gerald R. Ford is active, and the UK gets its QE carriers (with USMC aviation embarked), the USN will both have 11 carriers and can delegate some of the lower priority East Atlantic / Mediterranean / East Africa / ME region patrols to the UK & France.

>>33261575

Indeed, hence I follow him on Twitter.

Speaking of which, fun fact I just learned. Apparently he was interviewed for the report back in October, back when Clinton was the assumed winner.

File: 1427484861681.jpg (19KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 251x242px

>>33261231
>smirked quite Japanesely

>>33257312
75$? I doubt that even in 1967 especially knowing colt.

File: an eagle named small government.jpg (214KB, 642x554px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 642x554px

>>33261248

It's a fresh adaption of this, it would seem. Very well done.

>>33261961
That's implying those nations toe US policy perfectly and don't have any of their own. For France especially, that isn't guaranteed. Besides, assuming a 1 deployed per 3 in active duty, the standard, you now have a full 4 deployed at all times. 11 doesn't quite work out.

File: 1486363758183.jpg (55KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 720x480px

>>33255067
>Featuring: Pierre Sprey

File: Pierre Sprey's Fantastic Fulda Faggotry.jpg (240KB, 696x1366px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 696x1366px

>pierre sprey

Oh boy, time to huff paint again

>Daily reminder that Sprey's ideal armored procurement would have involved zerging the fucking Warsaw Pact in M60s and M48s

>>33262400
The M16 was adopted in 1964, when a new home cost just 20k.
http://www.1960sflashback.com/1964/economy.asp

>>33261903
but why? That shit is just inefficient

>>33263060
Effectiveness is more important than efficiency. The Germans lost two world wars being the most efficient ones but never being able to match the numbers of its enemies.

>>33263060

You'd have to ask Sprey. Only he knows his own madness.

With that said, efficiency is a relative quality determined by the availability of assets and resources. For instance, big Asian militaries have access to an abundance of cheap manpower and powerful social ideologies, which can make fielding large, low-quality land armies efficient.

>>33263060

People who want to cut military spending often cite Pierre Sprey as an influence because his ideas very conveniently suggest that the military could be restructured into something much less expensive without actually sacrificing any important capabilities. So now you can cut military spending, and at the same time claim you're pro-defense because you were only cutting "useless junk" anyway. After all, if you achieve the same (or better!) results of an F-15 with a smaller, less sophisticated aircraft then you could safely cut the Air Force budget without worrying that you're depriving them of an essential capability.

>>33263087

Germany lost two world wars because they didn't and couldn't build a navy large enough to challenge British supremacy in the Atlantic.

>>33263154
The threat of being cut off from overseas supplies was what drove the Germans to the quality over quantity approach in the first place. And it didn't help them. Their better k/d ratios and tactical superiority didn't matter in the end. It didn't matter that they shot 3 tanks, 3 soldiers and 3 planes for every of their own lost. Because the enemies could simply bring more.

File: 1421959783482.png (106KB, 315x334px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 315x334px

>>33261231

A superb reinterpretation of a classic pasta.

>Past years
>AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE LITERALLY THE LIFEBLOOD OF US GLOBAL DOMINANCE USA USA USA
>Now that Trump is president
>What the fuck is he building Aircraft carriers for? They are SCRAP METAL!!!!

>>33264572

To be fair, not many people have had that particular change of heart.

>>33259693
More like you're genuinely retarded. Nigger countries are nothing but pliable client states for advanced Asian economies. Here's your little highway, nigger, now hand over the copper, the cobalt, the titanium. Here's your little office park, nigger, now move 20 miles down the road while we farm this patch for exclusive export. Rinse and repeat. The process is well underway inside the US, as well. That's what low end civilizations are: vassal states. No worthwhile civilization ever originated from the negro or amerindian races and it never will.

>>33255089
R E M O V E V O D K A N I G G E R S

>>33264572
Literally who

>>33264572

>things that never happened

>>33261308
You should read Revolt of the Majors, which shows how thoroughly Sprey was BTFO time and again by actual experts and just how butthurt he became.

>>33263087
>German military procurement
>WW2
>efficient

>>33263210
No, Germany lost because it had a shit-tier doctrine and logistics system. Their vaunted technological advantage only applied to a handful of equipment. Their better k/d ratios and tactical superior came about by them creating a core of practical experience during the Spanish Civil War that allowed them to refine tactics before going on to win a couple of cupcake matches, before lucking out in France and fighting a disarrayed and weakened Russia. Then their shit got pushed in.

>>33255224
Yeah, keeping shipping lanes open and force protection n shit

>>33266032

The K/D ratio is a complete myth BTW. It only works if you count Russian POW's who died in prison camps as battlefield deaths.

>>33266214

This is not a strong defense of Russian battlefield prowess.

>>33266214
>They just surrendered by the millions so they are actually not so bad!!!

>Featuring: Pierre Sprey

ho boy.

If you build ships, your enemy wins

>>33266325
>>33266395

Except the Russians took a larger number of POW's, but just didn't kill them.

>>33261961
?
12 is a bare minimum
The US should be building way more than that
Theres no reason to stock up on "carrier escorts" instead of building more carriers

Subs are an especially an overrated procurement item
The US should dump all their nuke subs, spending the budget instead on nuclear powered aviation-cruisers

>>33263087
>Germany during WWII
>efficient

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

precise? maybe,but they were anything but efficient
they had entirely different sized helmets instead of just having an adjustable liner
they had a separate army for no good reason (SS) and their entire procurement system was totally fucked
their tanks were horrible, overcomplex maintenance whores

the Germans during WWII were completely blinded by nationalism and bigotry and any criticisms fell on deaf ears
high command only wanted to hear success, so that's all they heard

>>33265804
the russophiles/crypto-commies who have infiltrated our nations highest offices

>>33262935
>75mm gun
>In the mid/late 80s
>To compete against the M1
What kind of faggotry is this?

>>33268136
That should read mid/late 70s

>>33267433
>>33266032
Efficiency is measured by output per in unit of input. Considering the Allies had about a 3 to 1 superiority in men and a 6 to 1 superiority in materiel, it does make you wonder why it took them 6 fucking years to bring the Germans down when Germany in those theaters where it has those kinds of advantages itself finished its campaigns in a matter of weeks.

>>33259662
This is the only serious reply in the entire thread. /k/ is truly a shit board.

>things get blown up in wars
gee whillikers its like we have other support ships to prevent the big ones with planes from getting blown up
or something

>>33268856
You missed out the part where the non Soviet allies were fighting at the end of huge supply chains what with all that water in the way.
And dealing with Japan.
And not really wanting to get lots of their troops killed.

>>33255067
even if carriers weren't nearly as useful as they purported to be, having them is better than not having them.

>>33262705

Sure, France is less close, but the UK tends to work hand-in-hand with the USA. It doesn't need to be a regular thing, but if even only an occasional US patrol can be replaced by a UK one, it reduces the pressure on the CVNs. For example the UK LPH HMS Ocean leading US task force 50 this winter http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=97827 The USA's aviation focused LHA USS America & USS Tripoli may also manage some of these lower priority deployments.

If there was unlimited money, it would be nice to get more carriers, but surely it would be better to spend the money on the air wings which currently are struggling with readiness, and the upcoming procurement.

>12 is a bare minimum

Why? The USA has functioned with 11 for plenty of time. Current deployment struggles are due to only having 10 and the knock effect of budgeting issues.

>Subs are an especially an overrated procurement item

How so? submarines combine the ability to control the seas, with the ability to launch a surprise strike against land targets. Submarine launched cruise missiles are a staple America's ability to strike around the world with little warning. Not only that, but when an SSN actually saw naval combat in the Falklands war, a single submarine sunk the leading vessel of one of the Argentine task forces, and forced the rest of the Argentine Navy's major surface vessels to spend the rest of the war in port.

>spending the budget instead on nuclear powered aviation-cruisers

Why?

>>33255067
>Aircraft carriers, championed by Trump, are vulnerable to attack
>championed by Trump
How pathetic can one possibly be? Everyone "championed" aircraft carriers, did these people just ignore history?
And then we have these people that still insist on the media being some sort of neutral source that has the average joe's well being in mind.

>>33259730
Yeah, but shooting first gives us a pretty big advantage. Not a lot of non-US boomers scooting around at the moment.

>>33267008
>what is the nuclear triad for 100, Alex?
You better not be being sarcastic.

>>33269568
>>33255067
Yeah but you also have to realize that the vast majority of people have zero idea how an actual Kill Chain works or everything that would be involved in a "Carrier killing" strike. They just see someone spreading fear via a perceived threat that most people won't even research into.

>>33261231
Noice.
A classic reinvented

>>33267008
>Subs are an especially an overrated procurement item
Not really, if you want to control the seas.
Reminder that in WW2 despite being only 2% of the USN in the Pacific, and having useless torps until mid-1943, the fleet subs sank around 50% of Japan's fleet.
(Both numbers by tonnage).
While subs aren't the omnipotent deathmachines they're marketed as, they also aren't the sitting ducks ASW claims.
Add in the ground attack capability Tomahawks bring, and the SSBNs, and there are some pretty good reasons to keep the things around.

>>33268136
Also note the suspicious attention to certain details. The man was spreading memes without knowing what they mean.

>>33255402
that should read ,

"Pierre Sprey - Eyebrow Enthusiast"

>>33269365
Soviet supply lines were stretched thin too

>>33268856
>output per unit of input
yeah, and they fucked that up
their tanks all took more man hours to construct, same with their helmets and everything else

>>33270395
The E-series standardization plan would've been great... if it had been put forth in like 1940.

>>33269848

>The man was spreading memes without knowing what they mean.
A shitposting pioneer.

>>33266853
>Except the Russians took a larger number of POW's, but just didn't kill them.
>implying

>>33259684
>He had an engineering degree but no military experience
This makes him more qualified than 99.9% of DOD officers.

>>33271387
That's great and all, except the actual aeronautical engineers thought he was retarded.

>>33262935
yknow this would be far more useful for America's historical requirements for armour.

>Low caliber
>High round capacity
>50 cal machine guns
>resistance to mines
>Low tonnage
Would have been actually useful in Afghanistan and both gulf wars.

>>33271413
You mean the ones that tried to kill the F117

>>33271438

I'm quite certain that Pierre Sprey didn't know about the F-117 at all until it was revealed to the general public.

>>33271438
I'm talking about the ones that rightly tore apart his criticisms of the F-15

>>33271430
Is this not what we're getting with the new Oshkosh MRAPs? Or whetever they're called, L-ATVs.
Yeah it's 50 years too late, but it's not like we were rolling through minefields until the last decade or so

>>33269844
Thats WW2, the world is a much smaller place than that, long range AShM attacks would be the way to sink enemy shipping today.

Even a carrier can strike 1000 miles away now.

>>33255402
On my phone or I'd post the "Angry Old Man" one.

>>33260451
Yeah, somewhere down the line Boyd, Riccioni, Sprey, et al, started claiming the US was engaging in "attrition warfare" using high tech and force multipliers, and called theirs "maneuver warfare" despite in the real world the two concepts being the complete reverse.

>>33272118

Many attack submarines have the ability to fire AShM in addition to torpedoes. Severodvinsk can carry up to 32 Oniks in VLS. Future iterations of the Virginia-class will have similar capabilities thanks to the VPM. Besides that, Seawolfs can fire UGM-84 Harpoon out of their torpedo tubes.

>>33261308
He only worked in the Pentagon for four years, then about 10 working in water purification in DC where he was a hanger-on to Boyd, and has run a Jazz record company called Mapleshade since. His only real claim of success in any of that is a huge royalty stream from licensing a sample to Kanye for Jesus Walks.

>>33261378
While I agree that Sprey is the worst possible source, that particular /pol/ish way of stating it isn't helping.

>>33261615
Because of the same reasons J-20 and PAK-FA capabilities get inflated: Chinese and Russians have inferiority complexes and cultures of toxic masculinity that are easily bruised by how weak they look compared to the easy-going, comparatively feminine USA.

>>33267008
What are LHDs for 500 Alex?

>>33272331

An LHD cannot replicate the capabilities of a CVN.

>>33271623
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

>>33260451
Sprey and pray

>>33272361
No, but it does allow for a smaller, faster response in more places at once, especially with F-35Bs.

>>33255067

I'd rather have a larger, better-funded coast guard than an extra carrier.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/navy-league-denounces-trumps-coast-guard-cuts/

>>33260551
Why was AA not able to defend the ships?

>>33271623
He was proposing this 30 years ago.

The US unforutnately geared itself based on hypothetical wars rather than real ones, and forgot all the lessons of Vietnam.

File: HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_in_Rosyth_Dockyard_MOD_45158230.jpg (3MB, 4154x2774px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4154x2774px

>>33272468
Why don't they build 20 carriers at $4-6 billion each?
Load them with 30-40 aircraft.
Much more dynamic.
Then again, the US military is an industrial complex, not a fighting force.

>>33261231
Bravo anon, a splendid shitpost

>>33255067
dies to removal

>>33272510

Because the performance of aircraft dramatically improved at a rate that nobody was expecting. The easiest way to look at this is to point out the trend in how battleships were armed with AA guns. WW1-era battleships tended to have very few AA guns, instead they would have 6-inch guns designed to defend the ship against torpedo boats and destroyers.

Battleships made before or during WW2 tended to completely covered in as many AA guns as possible. 6-inch guns were replaced with smaller dual-purpose guns that weren't quite as effective against destroyers but made up for it by being usable against aircraft. This is because events like Pearl Harbor and the Naval Battle off Malaya proved that any ship without the ability to defend itself from aircraft was dead meat.

File: 1330156832822.jpg (44KB, 446x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 446x400px

>>33272587
>A FUCKING RAMP

File: Fuso_SeaTrial_Heading_Left.jpg (1MB, 3117x2059px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3117x2059px

I just want to say that nukes, carriers, and guided missiles have made war lame as fuck. no more battleships, great powers are afraid to duke it out, surface ships carry at most two tiny (by comparison) main guns. This era is the worst when it comes to naval warfare

>>33272689

Dreadnoughts rose to prominence and became obsolete in a span of less than 30 years.

File: USS Kearsarge sinking CSS Alabama.jpg (307KB, 1200x778px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1200x778px

>>33272724
technology and tactics can change quick thats for sure. In the 1800s a seaman could start his career on a old school Ship of the Line and in his lifetime see the first per-dreadnaughts in his navy.

>>33272782
*Pre-dreadnought

>>33255067
>carriers are targets
No shit. Fuck off commie.

File: this is what pierre sprey actually believes.png (674KB, 934x1976px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 934x1976px

>>33255067
>Pierre Sprey
Next thing you know they're going to be dragging out Sparky for opinions on the future of AFV procurement.

File: OOA.jpg (34KB, 662x351px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 662x351px

>>33265748
>No worthwhile civilization ever originated from the negro
Except every human civilization, excluding possibly some of the earliest Asian ones, has been a few parallel human species popping up back there.
The fact that the rest of the world evolved and they did not is beside the point.

>>33272374
the JLTV is the military designation for the Oshkosh L-ATV

>>33272853

>Sprey
I kinda agree with him on the Abrams engine but that's about it

>Sparky

muh tracks

>>33272217
Sure, but you don't need subs to cut off the shipping routes to Africa or Mid east.
A surface ship would be cheaper & carry more.

>>33272510
Because those ships were being swarmed by hundreds of allied fighters
Allied AA did a fine job against kamikaze attacks.

>>33272468

And I'd like to give the LCS/FFLs to the Coast Guard for just that reason.

>>33273112

A surface ship will never be able to match the inherent survivability of a submarine.

>>33273112

>Sure, but you don't need subs to cut off the shipping routes to Africa or Mid east.
A surface ship would be cheaper & carry more.

A single surface ship can be; tracked, located and sunk far more easily. Either by an aircraft or a submarine. Dozens of extra missiles doesn't help if you're on the bottom of the sea.

A SSN can get halfway around the world without being seen, sink a dozen ships, and slip away again. Even better, the enemy can never be sure if there is or isn't a submarine in an area of sea. Wasting vast resources on pointless ASW patrols, and keeping ships in port for fear of being sunk.

>>33273642

>and keeping ships in port for fear of being sunk.

Just to add to this, the Argies completely abandoned all surface navy operations after a british submarine sunk one of their cruisers. They were literally too afraid to send any more ships into battle and had to rely on airborne refueling to get planes in the area because their carriers were too important to risk losing.

>>33272587
Because then we'd need enough escorts for eight more CBGs.

>>33260390
And if you give them free drugs.

>>33272689
i have to agree with you anon. commanding a giant battleship and tearing apart enemy ships/ destroying entire towns in one salvo is my wet dream, even though this kind of warfare minimizes casualties and is much more efficient

>>33272865
There's no point replying to anyone that retarded anon.

>>33272865
>Niggers still pushing their junk science.

>>33275332
>Niggers genuinely believe that advanced races who have directed the entirety of civilization for all time somehow "sprang" from them and it's all a matter of happenstance that niggers have been eternally left behind.

>>33268856
>why it took them 6 fucking years to bring the Germans
because Americans are pussies.

WW2: 1941-1945.

File: sicario.jpg (54KB, 1203x723px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1203x723px

>>33273920
what

>>33255067
Also apparently Trumps infantry battalions he wants to build are vulnerable to artillery.

File: 1488144445899.jpg (2MB, 3088x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3088x2048px

>>33255089
the first sentence always makes me laugh. who thought opening your argument that its not a huge target was to straight up point out theyve had to develop a billion ways to protect said huge target

you could of saved billions and not had to develop all these systems if you like

didnt have a huge target

>>33275366
Worse than that
negros believe whitey STOLE civilization from them

>>33275366
I really love how big /pol/ is on statistics and the objective truth, until the point where the objective truth disagrees with their retarded worldview at which point they throw an autistic fit.

>>33278405

It's best not to dwell on it.

>>33278405
Out of Africa has been debunked for years. It's ludicrous to even entertain it anymore.

>>33278596

But that's completely wrong.

>>33278607
No, it's not. The information is widely available. Maybe it's inconvenient for third world countries like the US to have that information disseminated?

>>33278637

But that's completely wrong.

>>33278724
The truth hurts, nigger. I know. Enjoy the fall.

>>33278744

I enjoyed your baseless assertions, /pol/cuck!

>>33278756
There's nothing baseless about it. The information is available and documented. So, as far as I'm concerned, the onus is on the OOA proponents to produce the slightest shred of evidence to support their story and we're all still waiting.

>>33278783

But that's completely wrong.

>>33278791
I always find it funny how you niggers get stuck on repeat when you're triggered.

>>33272865
>>33278596
>>33278637
>>33278724
>The only nation that teaches otherwise is China, as they believe themselves to be descendant from a completely different, parallel evolved hominid related to humans as a whole but not to Africans

Hi guy in China, how goes the construction work?

>>33278808

Nah man I'm just not interested in indulging your nonsense. The genetic record is very clear that all modern humans have a common geographic origin.

>>33278834
But that's completely wrong. ;>)

>>33278812
>how goes the construction work?
Unimpeded, but you already knew that. LOL. Fucking nigger.

>>33255732
Maybe if he ups his twitter presence, or wants to make a reality show about being rich and shitting on the working class.

>>33278856

>The truth is subjective

Motherfucker, do you understand highly conserved genetics and molecular clocks?

>>33260346
I'd rather have a reliable infrastructure, but maybe that's just me.

>>33278856

Is it possible to seriously believe that independent human lineages with over 99% uniformity in their genome independently evolved on each continent without an ancestor? Is it possible to simultaneously believe you've put a lot of thought into your bullshit beliefs? So much so that you laughably think the onus is on Out of Africa proponents to prove your belief false?

Maybe you believe human beings originated on some other continent? Literally none of the molecular or archeological evidence supports that.

>>33278962

So would I, but we've fucked ourselves into a corner where the Chinese and the Russians are about to take over the world by military force. We have to try to hold them off long enough for major climate change to start destabilizing Sino-Siberian Asia, so that they will turn against another once more.

>>33279187

>by military force
Sorry I don't know what the fuck I was thinking when I wrote that. I meant "with lots and lots of money." But our own military can still function as a deterrent in this case.

>>33278812
This reminds me of the Chinese tourists we had in my state for the NBA playoffs a number of years ago. They were so pathetically uncivilized that Beijing party leadership had to issue a blanket apology, explaining that most of those involved were "uneducated peasants" with very limited experience with the outside world. Some master race.

>>33279204
>Russia
>lots of money
The fuck are you on about? Russia exerts influence.o on it's old Com Bloc neighbours by dick swinging, cut the dick off.

>>33279204
No, I think you were right the first time. The Chinese bubble is in the process of bursting and Russia is too corrupt and backwards to make a decent attempt at economic dominance. Call me a paranoid conspiracist, but Putin's little adventure in the middle east looks like nothing so much as an attempt to corner even more of the world's petroleum than he already does.

>>33272554
The problem with your logic is that if we lose a skirmish in the middle east or se asia it doesn't really matter. Losing europe to a warsaw pact invasion does.

>>33279608
Not really. Fuck Europe. Let them carry their own water. I'm tired of having to play cops and niggers in godawful, shit assed countries because no one else will, then getting shat upon for my trouble.

File: atKpe9J.jpg (29KB, 639x522px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 639x522px

>>33261231
Bless you

>>33255460
have to update that soon, isn't hueland decommissioning their carrier?

File: tmp_21884-1489062485444-30171589.jpg (49KB, 337x343px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 337x343px

>>33257195
MUUUUUUHH DIIIIIIIICK

>>33279993

It's already out of date, as the RN hasn't had a carrier with fixed wing aircraft since the Harriers were withdrawn from service in 2010, and the carrier itself in 2014. The HMS QE is only expected to be fully in service in 2020.

>>33279250

Yes, Russia is poor by regular economic measures, but it has plenty of unconventional wealth that it knows how to leverage (government-friendly and well-connected oligarchs, muscular state-owned enterprises, dark money, etc.) for manipulating corrupt influencers across the West. These assets have permitted the Kremlin to strategically engage in theaters of war without guns and bombs.

>>33279260

>Putin's little adventure in the middle east looks like nothing so much as an attempt to corner even more of the world's petroleum than he already does.
There's some desire to retain control of pipelines, no doubt. In any case, through its military involvement in Syria (and Ukraine), Russia has become mired in the same mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq.

>>33257312
>M16
>in Vietnam
>more reliable than.... anything

>>33259677

>did this nigger seriously just claim that the fucking M48 Patton is superior to the Abrams, a tank we developed for 20 fucking years to shitcan everything that it could possibly come up against?

I know I'm replying to a post from days ago, but I read an article (dunno if it was by Sprey) that actually made some good points about the advantages of the Patton in as much as how it's still a surprisingly useful design.

Like for instance if you're a 3rd world country fighting insurgents that don't have armor, a shitload of pattons would suit you much better than a few Abrams.

TL;DR it was stuff like better depression of secondary MGs to clear roadside ditches, ease of maintenance, and so on.

Clearly if you were up against a modern military with modern armor there was no contest though.

>>33282082

>Like for instance if you're a 3rd world country fighting insurgents that don't have armor, a shitload of pattons would suit you much better than a few Abrams.

Okay, but if you were fighting under such conditions, then APC/IFV would be better than tanks altogether.

>>33282082
Or you could use something lighter than a main battle tank

>>33268856
Lets see here:

Germany: 0 wins at 100% input

Allies: 2 wins at 100% input

Ergo the allies are literally infinitely more efficient.

File: 1332873147975.jpg (115KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1000x800px

>>33255457
Obaka.... thats bretty good.

File: 1417820025994.gif (216KB, 748x500px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 748x500px

>>33275905
Bitch, that the U States of A. If they want to spend billions on fucking huge ass machines of war, and then spend billions more on smaller machines of war to defend that massive super weapon of their's- I will salute them with a tear in my eye.

>>33255254
What is the point of eyes on tanks and why do you find something so stupid as Jap cartoons appealing? What about that utter kiddyshit is worthwhile?

Why do you admire Japan at all? It's nothing compared to the US.

>>33255457
Carriers are for keeping colonial order. Nukes are for nation-state war between peer competitors. We don't fight peers nor they us because money is better than war.

>>33257599
The Navy is structured to deal with people stupid enough to join it. No one ITT except me was even alive during the Kitty Hawk riots or other fun, but the bottom line is we can afford to lose a few carriers if WWIII happens. So what? Another artificial reef and a few statistics.

>>33257240
>stealthify them

You can't stealthify their shape and their airframes and systems are ancient. You'd be better off replacing the fleet with UAS instead of meatbags in cockpits.

The objective is warheads on foreheads, not entertaining pilots. Note the lack of onboard operators of missiles, torpedoes, artillery shells, etc.

>>33259693
Support your contention with evidence. You made the assertion. What makes niggers awesome in modern war? Nothing.

>>33272929
>>Sparky
>muh tracks

Tracked AFV are obsolete. It's not worth developing such thirsty, slow systems when ATGW are rapidly rendering them into nothing but fat targets. It's cheaper to flood the battlefield with ATGW than buy heavy tracked targets which can't even use many bridges due to bloat.

>>33275467
Everything is vulnerable to artillery. Kill the artillery.

>>33282508
Reminder that the US is outspent by %GDP by 9 countries even when we spend nearly 3X as much as the next country down in raw dollars.

>>33282593
>No one ITT except me was even alive during the Kitty Hawk riots or other fun

I was 13. I enlisted in 79, saw a little racial tension at McMurdo Station.

The Kittyhawk riot, and other fun, was antiwar. It was played up as racial because the brass figured that was more acceptable to feed to the media.

>Another artificial reef and a few statistics

Makes me think you might have lied about your age in order to post here. Just sayin

>>33255067
>Trump carriers BTFO by mighty shlong dong missiles
>Featuring: Pierre Sprey

They're going all out now.

>>33282780

Just a short list off the top of my head:

1. Battlefield obscurants.

2. ATGM soft & hard kill countermeasures.

3. Cluster munitions / artillery suppression ahead of an advance.

4. Use of tracked mobility to bypass the most heavily defended positions, and overwhelm a less mobile enemy who is spread out.

Infantry ATGMs have to the best of my knowledge only really defeated a combined arms armored attack in conventional warfare once (the poorly coordinated Israeli counter-attacks on the 7th & 8th October 1973). Otherwise large tank offensives have mostly suffered from air attacks or enemy AFVs

>>33282831

Those countries are utter shitholes so I'm not sure what your point is. That we should be spend more so we can also be a shithole? Yes, we must follow the examples of utopias such as:

Saudi Arabia
Oman
South Sudan
Iraq
Algeria

File: m8.jpg (44KB, 501x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 501x600px

>>33282312
I wish we had cool light tanks again.

>>33283747
His point is obvious, US military spending is not as significant a burden on the US as its made out to be. I tend to agree, when we spend 3.5 trillion on entitlements.

>>33279808
I the Russians took Europe, the US would be in a very compromising position. However, the affects of our cock being permanently embedded into those European pussies has its benefits, and no one will ever step to us. Besides who wants a literal Commie Eurasian Union a la 1984, sure it wouldn't last but such a geopolitical unbalancing is good for no one.

>>33266214

And the 10:1 k/d ratio of their tank core meant nothing too. Most of those russian tanks died in prison camps.

File: 1484435303974.jpg (124KB, 806x806px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 806x806px

>>33284132

>>33283747
They're shitholes because they're constantly in MILITARY CONFLICT. We outspend the nations that are consistently close to or engaged in endless military interventions.

>>33282535
Are you ok anon

>>33273920
You don't just build and field an aircraft carrier alone. It requires other naval craft to assist it in projecting power.

It's like having a spear without the haft. What the fuck are you even doing

>>33285599

... But that's exactly what that anon was saying.

>>33280017
>>33261282
the thumbnail looks like she has barack obamas face shooped on her

File: goodbyesides.gif (2MB, 615x413px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 615x413px

>>33257140
this article is fucking hilarious, just about every comparison he makes is wrong and the ones he does get right he misunderstands why he is right, the A10 v F15E for example, he is correct that in close air support the A10 is superior but not because of the BS he writes it is a dedicated CAS plane vs a multi role fighter. The funniest comparison was the destroyer vs cruiser, he claims that the cruiser was lousy in the destroyers role and the destroyer was therefor the better ship.

>>33278970
The guy originally claimed that human civilization arose out of africa, which is absurd because when proto-humans left africa, they were just that. I don't think anyone denies that homo sapiens sapiens and the denisovans or homo habilis or neanderthals have a common ancestor. But they evolved for tens of thousands of years independently, and the mixture and absorbtion of different proto-human sub species exacerbated this. It was during and after this happened that civilization arose. There is a scientific basis to claim that africans, though they are humans, are a different sub-species of humanity.

>>33285599
There is nothing in physics that says you HAVE to have subs + destroyers + a cruiser in your "Carrier battle group"

If you were NUTS and wanted to, you could build super carriers with a well deck & Mk 57 VLS.

>>33278783
>nothing baseless
>no source

Nice """base""" anon

>>33286241
I'd disagree. I'd say putting the weapons offboard is important for a number of reasons. Notably, so there's more targets to hit and when you are hit, you lose less of your offensive and defensive capabilities. Not to mention expanding the engagement zone, as well as the area covered by sensors and jamming. It also lets you physically put your own ship between the carrier and a threat, like a small boat, or a shadowing fleet who wants to open the war with a sudden volley.

>>33261455
That's not what the argued definition of "Stopping Power" is related to though.

>>33285954
>dedicated CAS plane
No it isn't. It's a tankbuster (whose gun hasn't been able to punch through tank armor for decades) that was built around Vietnam requirements mostly to kill the Army's AH-56 Cheyenne program that ended up doing CAS because it wasn't any good at anything else. And still has the worse friendly fire record in modern conflicts.

>>33259873
Start naming a semi-competent force that would realistically be fighting against the US in the next few years.

>>33261248
it's based ultimately on old chain emails about an athiest professor demanding a student prove God exists. Been around since at least the mid-90's in one form or another; i first heard it in person rather than online.

>>33287588
CIA SAD

>>33287600
Was also made into multiple movies

File: abram tank fags BTFO.jpg (1MB, 3056x4008px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3056x4008px

>>33255635
>>33257140

File: Pierre Sprey.jpg (202KB, 1236x888px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1236x888px

>>33255067

File: 1468619328173.gif (2MB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 659x609px

>>33255067
Every military object is just a target, so then I guess there is no need for the military if everything is just a target.

>>33263154
They lost because they should have built nothing but submarines to strangle England the way the US strangled Jap shipping. They didn't need wasteful capital ships.

>>33255067
"We need small diesel submarines to destroy thier shipping. Thats how we win wars."-Pierre

"Thats what Germany did, and they lost"-everyone else

Literally every one of his arguments ever.

>>33287824
To be fair, that wasn't why Germany lost the war.

File: 1442196391515.jpg (28KB, 540x527px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 540x527px

>>33287746
Must be an Aussie because this is good bait.

>>33287824
Germany didn't lose the Atlantic because small diesel subs are bad, they lost because they had bad cryptography practices.

>>33282508
Yeah, but someone up is priceless.

>>33260346
>Mine warfare, both countermeasures to enemy mines, and new mines/minelaying ability.

We use subs for that.

>>33287913
With code reading or not Germans subs were doomed in 1943 and later. ASW became too strong. Constant air patrols with radar, convoys equipped with proper ASW ships.

>>33262400
I bought a Colt Sporter in 1977 for $290 out the door. Bulk govt purchase a decade earlier at $75 per each sounds entirely.

Keep in mind, when I bought mine minimum wage was $2.65/hr.

>>33287913

Germany lost the Atlantic because they didn't have enough battleships.

>>33255067
>doesn't know carriers are placed out of theatre action while airwing does all the surface strike work.

>doesn't know surface ship won't even get in range to silo launch their AshMs.

>doesn't know carriers are protected by a Air and sub defence web from its escorts.

File: SWQ_ARMA.png (558KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1000x1000px

>>33257195
Pay debts, planefag

Nice pic, though.

>>33259873
>semi-competent foe

Who, though?

>>33289759
No, that's the guy who took the pics and made the cap, not the guy who wrote them. Fuck off... Let's go with... Sentinel?

>>33286133
Not that guy, but fucking typical /pol/fag bullshit.

>The guy originally claimed that human civilization arose out of africa, which is absurd because...
Is splitting hairs pretty fucking thin.

We actually solved carrier defense in a total war scenario back in the 70s and 80s.

It involved curtains of nuclear missiles to block incoming warheads and bombers. The carrier groups have "secret" locations so the would survive long enough vs Subs to deliver their entire payload and then begin hunting the russian navy survivors.

>>33290579

In the same way that you might solve a family argument by shooting somebody in the head.

>>33292662
kinda. its like your old mans drunk, got a shotgun and threatening to blow your sister away

>>33255067
>carrier is just a target
like every other piece of military hardware.

>>33261231
Fucking amazing

duhh but what does it matter everyone is fucked in a full-scale war either way.

>>33282535
no fun allowed grrrr I am serious

File: 1489388677455.jpg (14KB, 326x326px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 326x326px

>>33256879
yeah no.....

>>33265748
that doesn't have shit to do with fighting

>>33275905
but then it wouldn't be able to do.... you know... what it was designed to do....

>>33294209
be a giant target?

>>33272689
yeah man war not being cool is a big problem.

>>33294247
nope but good posts bro really ebin

File: 522.gif (3MB, 370x487px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 370x487px

>>33294270
>cant refute

now THIS is a guy clearly smarter then sprey

>>33294285

>why is airpower relevant
>what is force projection

>>>/lgbt/

>>33294166
The shitskin prevalence in the US military is why I actively root for them to get killed. I have zero respect for them at all.

>>33294564

I can smell your fat rolls.

File: is tovarisch serious.jpg (238KB, 960x530px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 960x530px

>>33271430

Probably, but if I'm meant to plug up the Fulda gap from a soviet onslaught, I'd prefer something slightly less explodeable than Sprey's tin-plated wet dreams

>>33294429
>implying faggots don't understand air power and force projecting

>forgetting the Navy is the gayest branch of all

File: concussive cures for autism.png (260KB, 483x368px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 483x368px

>>33256879

>t. "hwhite" /pol/ack

>>33275366
>be African
>weather is always nice never freezing
>always enough water at watering hole
>never run out of food just go hunting one if the dozens of herds when hungry
>feels good man

In Europe, you needed planing of food and resources for preparing for winter. In the Middle East, you must have a government to divvy out resources such as precious water. Not so in sub Saharan Africa

>>33256879
>non white
>would mutiny
>useless

Meanwhile in the alternate world of /pol/ somehow the USN is completely terrible despite being the foremost naval power on the planet.

>>33295389
You don't know much about geography, huh?

>>33295406
Blacks were constant problems in WW2 or Vietnam.

Now there is more of them than ever, plus large amounts of useless women, plus large amounts of other foreigners.

This is why history repeats itself, people don't learn from it.

>>33295030
Sure thing.

http://www.obesityaction.org/educational-resources/resource-articles-2/general-articles/obesity-the-majority-in-minorities

>>33296370
The lesson to take away from this is for White soldiers to desert and defect immediately. Don't fight kike wars. Leave that shit to the niggers.

>>33296404
There is that too, whites are so brainwashed into obeying authority that they will gladly destroy themselves

File: 603fertilecrescent_large[1].png (24KB, 800x556px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 800x556px

>>33295389
>In the Middle East, you must have a government to divvy out resources such as precious water. Not so in sub Saharan Africa
>Implying the Fertile Crescent wasn't the Cradle of Civilization

>>33296370
>Blacks were constant problems in WW2 or Vietnam.
>Wars in which they were treated like complete shit (WWII) or where being drafted to serve was one of the worst things that could happen to you (Vietnam)
>Implying they didn't have serious disciplinary problems with troops of all colors in Vietnam

>>33296445
It's a shame taxpayers get stuck with the bill when these green niggers get their foot blown off or their whiny faggot PTSD therapy.

>>33296404
>>33296445
>>33296505
Go home, /pol/.

File: goyimcaptcha.png (309KB, 600x712px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 600x712px

>>33296506

File: 1439503272953.jpg (550KB, 2194x1686px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 2194x1686px

>>33296535

>>33296491
Held to standards and made to do work = complete shit huh
Totally justifies armed mutiny trying to kill as many whitey as possible

This talk of discrimination in the past is from a frame of mind where catering to blacks is the defining principle of modern America

>>33296550
Drafted blacks were shoved into menial tasks and often treated worse than prisoners, but I guess that doesn't fit your racist narrative.

>>33296582
Considering the prisoners were largely White and Asian, I see no real reason why they shouldn't be treated better than niggers.

>>33287913
And terrible logistics, and poor planning. And equipment not up to the task.


Much of the U boat successes had more to do with well trained crews making do, then the equipment working as intended.

>>33265748
>>33282670
Not him but
>asians
>capable of fighting modern wars either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kagnew_Battalion

>>33296622
Don't you have a Klan rally to get to?

>>33297172
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

>>33297459
Well of course /they/ know how to fight. They're Americans.

Non-Americans, Non-Germanics, Non-Romans are all clueless at it.

>>33297528
Warfare in the Warring States era was easily on the same strategic par as that in, say, the 100 Years' War.

What about the Ottomans?

Or the conquests of Ghengis Khan?

Or the complex warfare between the 12 Kingdoms that became China?

Or how the Zulu after Shaka's military reforms used practical comparisons of the firearms of the time to overwhelm British forces with just spearmen for a while.

>>33297804
literally who

The only general I need is Gustav Adolphus.

>>33297931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BTkkM3U7I0

>>33282556

>We don't fight peers nor they us because money is better than war.
Also because some amount of luck.

>>33298558
Technically we kicked the Soviet Union's ass by getting to overspent into collapse.

>>33298736
And now we're kicking our own asses the exact same way. sigh...

>>33300418
>we're
>our own

You see, this is where you are mistake. It is not us who are overspending on gimmicks and worthless "multi-role" projects. It is the KGB infiltrators in our gov't who are behind this.