Community - Forum - View old data

Categories :  

Off-Topic

  Index

  • best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 12. 2011 07:01

mysharona
Here's mine:


AIRCRAFT CARRIER: Invincible Class

FRIGATE: Type 23

DESTROYER: Type 45

SUBMARINE: Astute Class

CHOPPER CARRIER: Ocean Class

AMBPHIBIOUS WARFARE: Albion Class

MINE COUNTERMEASURE: Hunt Class

FAST PATROL BOATS: Archer Class

ICE PATROL: Endurance

FIXED WING: Sea Harrier FA2

CHOPPER: Lynx Mk 8

SEA SOLDIERS ;): Royal Marines/SBS



  Index

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 16:37

Sindher
U-Boats came close but not as close as you make out. We can also blame those cheese eating
surrender monkeys.

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 14:10

Lionel2
The only reason that I"m going on and on was to prove a point. To minimize the US
effort in winning both wars is quite stupid. The post I made was a response to
stupidity. The way I see it, the UK made incredible sacrifices. Notice that I pointed
out the starving citizens and the closing of Infantry Divisions at the end of both
wars. Infantry Divisions are not machines; they are people. They eat, sleep, bleed
and die. The UK's contribution to the war was a sacrifice in blood and sweat much
higher then the US.

BUT blood and sweat carry only so far. The UK needed the US involved, and your
prime minister pushed hard for it, for almost 2 years. The poster is quite stupid to
believe that the US role in the war was small and insigifgant. It is not my intention to
make anyone from the UK to feel that their country was inferior.

The defeat that the UK did face was a defeat of economics. At one point during '42 -
'43, the U boat menace was enough to make a serious dent in allied preparations
for a ground assualt in europe, as well as bring supplies needed for substance to
the UK. That would have stopped the factories and starved the people worse then
the war time rationing already had. Fortunately, Hitler did not have both the blitz
and the submarine war in full swing in 1940. I don't doubt the power of the RN one
bit. But he could have won the war without landing a single soldier.

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 13:00

Sindher
Lionel2, I cant understand if you are being serious in your posts. You go on and on about
the US being superior, but you should really be grateful for the UK. Had we not raped the
seas with our fine vessels and claimed so much of the land, you'd be speaking either
French, German, Dutch, Spanish or maybe Portuguese.

Also, on the verge of defeat in 1940? From who and what? Zee Germans and their mighty
river barges that would capsize once a Destroyer sailed past them? Good one.

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 08:36

thecoon

Sry man i just cldnt help it

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 08:00

CaptKing
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: Nimitz Class, Soon Ford.

Un-rivaled in its ability to be anywhere in the world and project or deter anyone from
starting any kind of problem. This is not only from an offensive capability but its
ability to carry enough store to support its one battle group if need be. The AB class
Destroyer can burn Jp-5 in its Main engines. IIRC its been a long time.

FRIGATE: No Comment

DESTROYER: No Comment

SUBMARINE: No Comment

CHOPPER CARRIER: No Comment

AMBPHIBIOUS WARFARE: No Comment

MINE COUNTERMEASURE: This is handled by the EOD not SEAL team.

FAST PATROL BOATS: No Comment

ICE PATROL: No Comment

FIXED WING: Each plane is very unique so i will break them down by job...

Fighter: This one is tough, I am not 100% sure which i would give the Top Dog. the
Su-33 is a tough plane and the F-14D is being retired.

Attack: A-6(G) Intruder, not the fastest but the G varient could carry to AGM-54 and
with the help of an F-14D fire on targets outside of the F-14s range.

E-Warfare: EA-6B Prowler.

Sub Warfare: S-3 Viking. Not sure about others that are carrier based and
Subwarfare capable.

CHOPPER: This is another job Specific Helo.

SubHunter: tough one SH-3 vs SH-60. Look them up, i personally would go with the
SH-3.

Mine Sweeper: MH-53 Nothing funnier then watching a Super Stallion dragging a
Sweeper rig.

SEA SOLDIERS: No Comment


As for the US inability to wage war. Thats more the UN then anything else. War is
the worst possible outcome. No one wants war, but if you do want to fight one.
you better bring it all and stop being politically correct about it. Vietnam showed
that.

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 06:54

Lionel2
@mysharona

"ok, bigger isnt better"

-Not just bigger, but your ships are outclassed in every way

"the walking part shows how tough our marines are :)
nobody has attacked my assult ship/marines/sbs/ocean/lynx yet"

-Actually, I just told you that they sunk the Atlantic Conveyor, which was transporting
the helicopters and ground equiptment. The toughness of the Marines and Paratroopers is
indeed something to be admired.

"we won the falkland war, and pretty much every war we've been in"

-Actually, no, you haven't. The first that comes to mind is the American Revolution, of
course, where your regular army was beaten by farmers and John Glover's regiment of
Massachussets fishermen. Another that comes to mind is Rhodisia in the 70s. Even both
World Wars, although I acknowledge that the UK held the line and gave more than most any
other country, they were on the verge of defeat in both 1918 and 1940. In World War one,
the UK was so short of manpower it was disbanding divisions (as they also were forced to
do in 1945). During the German 1918 summer offensive, the only thing that stopped them was
the timely arrival of US Infantry Divisions. In World War 2, Hitler was bombing the tar
out of the UK and his submarines were sinking all the merchant ships. Of course, being an
island, if it weren't for the fact that the US first provided the UK with 50 destroyers,
and then began doing ASW and providing merchant ships, you'd have certainly lost. In the
East, the UK fleet was so small that a single task unit of ONE US fleet was bigger than
the entire UK fleet.

As for the Falklands war, you nearly lost. The Argentina only had a handful of modern
planes and equiptment, yet they talk the island and nearly held it. Had they chosen to
fight for just 2 more weeks, you'd have lost that war as your precious ships were out of
fuel (unlike the US nuclear fleet). Also, humans, even elite units have limits to their
endurance and the UK's ground forces were spent. I suggest that you do some reading about
this war. If you have a real passion for these ships, I suggest you read "The battle for
the Falklands" by Max Hastings. Really a top notch book.

"US with all your tech and bigness, have been catastrophic in wars alone...vietnam
fail, late arrivers in WW1 and 2, made a mess of iraq etc etc etc"

- This is the biggest fail of this entire failed thread. In Vietnam, we didn't lose a
single battle that was larger than a company sized firefight. It was a war entered without
clear goals. Also, the war continued for 6 years after the main ground forces left. Late
arrival in WW1 and 2.... ha ha ha..... haha you ungrateful slob. As stated above, the
Germans strangled you with submarines. I guess that you never read about how food was
rationed because your people were starving. It was Amercian food, transported on American
built ships, crewed by American sailors who gave their lives, just to keep your people
fed. Late arrival in World War one? We had no business in that fight. We were not part of
any alliances and we were not attacked. Still, we supported the UK and as soon as we had
cause, we joined. In World War two, it was the same thing. We were not attacked, we had no
formal alliance with anyone. Still, we defended your bases for you, escorted convoys, got
into shootouts with German subs, gave you ships... even secretly sent American flyers to
man your spitfires during the blitz. As for Iraq, regardless of if you are just a troll
having fun or not, lets stay clear of that. Its personal.

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 06:12

Will107
I've waited a long time to be able to use this.....



Not because of the concept, but because of the posts......you can't pick one nation and
say every single ship in that Navy is better then the respective ship in all other Navy's.

For example, right now, the Nimitz is the best carrier around until its replaced by the Ford.

For a Submarine, I would say either the Oscar II or an Akula, although the new Yasen Class
subs look pretty cool as well

Either don't be biased, and pick ships from different Navy's, or don't post stupid lists
that have your favorite national ships.

Frankly, UK got a huge wake up call in Argentina. Don't take your Navy for granted and
allow it to slide. The fact that England is going to have to borrow French Carriers for
the foreseeable future makes me laugh.

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 05:48

JOHNNY_BRAVO
Lionel: how many of those 20 years the CVN Reagan can go without refueling for aicrafts fuel?

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 17. 2011 02:36

mysharona
that amused me whukid

oh dear oh dear oh dear

  • Re : best modern (70s+) naval ships/equipment of the world

    05. 16. 2011 15:09

whukid
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: Enterprise

FRIGATE: Ticonderoga

DESTROYER: Arleigh Burke

SUBMARINE: Virginia Class

CHOPPER CARRIER: Belleau Wood Assault Ship

AMBPHIBIOUS WARFARE: see above

MINE COUNTERMEASURE: Navy SEALS ftw?

PATROL BOATS: BMP-6 (just for will107)

ICE PATROL: Los Angelos class :p

FIXED WING: JSF-35 Join Strike Fighter

CHOPPER: CH-53 Sea Stallion

SEA SOLDIERS: Navy SEALs or USMC :)

The Royal Navy is an outdated relic. They got their asses handed to them by the
Argentinians during the Falklands war (yes, I'm serious. Argentina managed to sink
HOW many of their ships again?) even though the Argentinians had only a few
outdated cruisers and a Mirage armed with an Exocet. The US Navy has smashed
every opponent since the Revolutionary war, including operating against the
Lybian navy (who was armed with loads of Anti-ship bases along the shoreline)
Iraq (way more anti ship capability than Argentina)
Balkans (way more anti-ship capability than Argentina)
Vietnam (<- got the hell kicked out of it. the end)
and singlehandedly held off the Soviet Navy during the cold war.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7