Who would win Sup Forums...

Who would win Sup Forums? Some of this may be inaccurate because I didn't have sufficient time and I did not count coastal defense vessels except for America's littoral defense vessels. So tell me from an unbiased standpoint. Who wins, the USA or Europe?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=caqRJUFOMlA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

All of Europe?
Europe's navies

Just the EU?
US navy

USA easy

However if it's USA against Russia, that would be interesting.

USA is supposed to have a much stronger fleet but the Russian submarines are very quiet and their missile cruisers are the shit.
They can also launch hypersonic cruize missiles from small boats.

>not knowing what sub hunters are

>not knowing we have superior subs

Russia included, our navy would BTFO the entirety of Europe, possibly even all the worlds navies combined

It's the most important and powerful branch of our military by far

USA but we'd lose most of our carriers to anti-ship missiles and subs

>diesel submarines are loud as all fuck

Oh dear oh dear. Diesel-electrics are the quietest subs in the sea.

>not knowing we have superior subs

you really don't

>It's the most important and powerful branch of our military by far

Yes, which is why I said it should be stronger in theory. I don;t really believe it though.

Russia is several generations ahead of you when it comes to hypersonic rocket technology (and any rocket technology, really) which negates your carriers and surface fleet advantage. And in the sub department, you really don;t have an advantage.

>not including picture of LCS

>aegis

>our navy would BTFO the entirety of Europe
no it wouldn't

>you really don't
yes they do ,the Russian navy alone would stand no chance against the us navy
Russia's behind on almost any military technology...the only place russia outpowers the US is its propaganda to the easily impressed anti-nato masses but facts remain facts

>but facts remain facts

they do, and you are completely unfamiliar with them

post sources then

The Dutch navy would win. We are really stronk*

Nigger stop believing Russian propaganda. Russia has tried their damnedest to portray their missiles as superior and able to take on the US but every time Russian equipment goes against US equipment it loses, barring Arab examples since they lose everything to everyone because they're so bad at war.
And here's another thing to consider. Black Works. A huge chunk of the military budget goes into things the public does not know about. Most of our cutting edge weapon systems were in use 10-15 years before they were declassified. Russia is constantly grandstanding trying to show off, while the US military, knowing it is on top, does it's best to undersell it's ability.
Even then, everyone that's not a cykablyat nationalist knows the US has better subs than Russia does. Even Russia knows this. Their whole strategy in case of WW3 was to suicide against the US navy to attempt to buy time, fully expecting to completely lose their sub fleet except for the tiny handful of advanced subs they had which would survive as long as possible picking off US ships entering Russian waters.

The US is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in the 70s. The Russians are not. I would argue the Cold War Russian navy was in much better shape than the Modern Russian Navy.

OP here.
In weapons tests on the ex-CVA USS America, conventional missiles failed to sink the vessel. She was later scuttled.
When running on batteries only, yes. But when utilizing a snorkel, they are extremely noisy.
Yes we do, the Virginia-class submarines are the most advanced SSNs in the world, hard to detect and harder to catch. And no, Russia and the US are on similar levels of missile tech, but America has the AEGIS system, which would intercept almost all missiles.
Ran out of space.

>When running on batteries only, yes. But when utilizing a snorkel, they are extremely noisy.

And they can run on batteries for a month.

Trick question, nobody wins because war is bad mmmkay

True. You seem to know quite a bit about subs.

Not a lot, just some things I've picked up from /k/.

US Navy's air wing alone can fuck the rest of the world combined.

Ah, nice.

The US enjoys such massive air superiority and tech advantage when it comes to aircraft (even if we pay 10x the price) that it would likely dominate any blue-water naval conflict

However OP, looks like your chart includes the entire US Navy. We probably wouldn't pull literally all our ships to fight Europe (don't need to)

>German engineering amounting to anything in warfare these days

actually, what US navy isn't very well-equpped to firght is enemy surface navies. that is exactly because US navy is so numerous it outnumbers any potential enemy

this might change one the US actually gets its LRASMs or whatever they're called - these future missiles that will be an update on 1960es-tier anti-ship weapons the US posesses

I say it'll be a tie if Russia is counted towards Euros, Euro's trump card is super-quiet diesel subs. but not enough. Boosted by Russia's long-range and/or supersonic ASMs and Russian naval aviation they might sink just enough US assets to make it a stalemate

if sharing tech is allowed then Euro-made Russian tech like supersonic ASM or supercavitating and wake-homing torpedoes will seal the deal and current US tech would be sunk through and through (because again no up-to date anti-navy weapons)

>In weapons tests on the ex-CVA USS America, conventional missiles failed to sink the vessel. She was later scuttled.
I'm not seing anything about anti-ship missile tests on the wiki

I remember someone posting about a NATO wargame on here where a carrier group was unable to stop a sub before it was ready to fire against the carrier, so submarines would be a problem

>win

In what conditions? Free for all melee on the open sea? US attacking Europe? Europe attacking US? Those are all very, very different scenarios.

OP here.
I specifically didn't include Russia, but it is certainly interesting. We are planning new missiles, and some of our ships, i.e. the Iowa-class battleships, are practically immune to waterline damage from cruise missiles. We don't currently operate the ships, but they are a formidable asset.
I can't seem to find the website I read that on. Simulated weapons were detonated inside her but these failed to sink her.

US ASMs might not be particularly outstanding but what surface ships exist in European and Russian navies aren't exactly impervious to the anti ship assets available to the US.

Let's not forget the US Navy includes the second and fourth largest airforces in the world. I think it's a pretty bloody scrap but the US navy is just so fucking big and well funded there's no way Europe comes out on top.

The three big threats in Europe are Britain, France and Russia. Other than that surface assets are negligible for the rest of Europe. Submarine assets would be significant, but then any application of them would be suicidal at best against a carrier group.

Sure there was that Finish sub that "sank" a carrier, but in a real world scenario that sub would evaporate a minute after launching it's first tube.

It would require exceptional bravery or stupidity to be an aggressive submariner in an event if war between Europe and the US.
For both countries.

the result is same either way, the US navy is simply much superior

Hahaha are you kidding me?
USA. How is this even a question?

You wouldn't pull it because you can't just abandon the pacific theatre. Also, it would take a fair bit of time to move the vessels to the Atlantic. Can supercarriers even cross the Panama canal?

There are parts of Europe that the US navy would find impossible to reach. The Mediterranean and Baltic seas can be blocked and no navy could pass.

PUTIN

frankly i dont believe in ships that are immune to missiles
first of all because soviets had pretty good materiel physicists, but also because i think a swarm of 5 tonn Granits flying at 2 mach can probably pierce a carrier on its own, but they also pack almost a ton of explosives

smaller but more numerous missiles like in this vid might not sink a carrier ouright, but the damage would be substantial, and the rules of engagement for american targets will be well-ptacticed. i think the ship in this vid is compareable in size to an arleigh burke
youtube.com/watch?v=caqRJUFOMlA

main problem for russia will be the numbers, since the task is to sink carrier groups not single ships. it seems doable wth euros boosting the numbers

USA. They already have an established chain of command. Europe would have trouble trying to coordinate attacks

POL POT

>cons works with italy
Italy is STRONG on the sea

OP here.
This is a purely theoretical action in which the full strength of the USN was available for use against Europe. Other oceans are not considered.
A modern ship cannot be immune to missiles, This is a well-established fact. The P-700 Granit is not perfect, however, and lacks armor-piercing capability like any modern ASM. The Iowa-class, for example, has 12.2" (about 310 cm) of top-quality steel as waterline armor. Unless the missile is nuclear, it will not penetrate. Superstructure damage would be extensive but it would likely not sink the ship. NOTE: the Iowas are the only class of US ship, current or in reserve, to have this scale of protection.
The US does have many advantages in terms of logistics, this being one of them.

If the Falkland War and Operation Praying Mantis are any indication, the next major conflict involving modern ships will not last long.

So whoever can strike the hardest the fastest will probably win.

...

>This is a purely theoretical action in which the full strength of the USN was available for use against Europe. Other oceans are not considered.

Then it's not a scenario worth considering. We get this discussion pretty often in here when for example we're estimating the capability of our air defense vs. Russia; people first go and see the overwhelming differences in numbers and instantly claim that Russia would have absolute air superiority. However, they fail to consider that Russia needs to police their own airspace, which severely limits the amount of airplanes they have for projection over Finland, the location of their airbases and thus the limited amount of sorties they can make when compared to Finland, and the existence of land and sea based air defense assets.

You absolutely have to consider the realities of the situation. The USN is built around power projection on a global scale, and that has to be taken into account. Conversely, the European navies are built with defense in mind (with the possible exception of the Bongs), so they would probably have a larger share of vessels present in the theatre.

...

...

...

>Diesel submarines loud as fuck

M8 a German sub sunk a US carrier in an exercise, because the whole carrier group didn't notice it.

...

...

...

Amusingly those are still diminishingly small numbers compared to WW2

...

...

Out stirling engines are pretty much undetectable. Say what you will of our "army" but out submarine tech is pretty fucking good.

>Italy
we lose

...

...

...

...

Sonar technicians can hear Swedish sailors moaning while they're taking turns fucking each other in the ass.

...

China would join the EU's side or at least gain total dominance in asia if America were to pull out there
Fleets and armies are built for a reason you genius

...

Wew lads, clap for the freedom fleet

this piscture basically illustrates what I'm saying
US has a numerous and powerful navy, but it's built for and around expeditionary landing-bombing operations
in OP's imaginary scenario quite a lot of US ships will be acting pretty much as air defence for the relatively few carriers

Don't know much about euros, but Russian Navy (Soviet Navy basically) was buiilt specifically for harrying and degraiding a larger surface force at sea, pretty much every ship is a fighter and a threat, and let's face it, there are what, only about 20 surface targets to sink before the best of US anti-ship capability is out of commission

there's literally nothing wrong with Italy's naval forces

They also can do way more damage in a much shorter time than the entirety of the WW2 airfleets. Carpet bombing could do more total damage, but actually targets would still come off far less damaged.

You see this happen a lot in history. Initially numbers are what wins, then technology gets better and the guys who have more of the good stuff beat overwhelming numbers of inferior equipment, people catch up, numbers bulk up, eventually someone gets ahead technologically and small numbers beat inferior equipment.

After the downsizing of militaries going into the Renaissance, followed by the up sizing of militaries into the late 18th century, culminating in WW1 and 2, you soon saw a lot of downzising following that. Now we're back at the small numbers of high tech stuff, more so than we've ever been. It's hard to say where we'll go from here, but I do believe the next time we'll see militaries go for raw numbers will be when drones come fully into being.

I hope I'm too old to fight by the time drone swarms become a thing.

i'll detonate my weapon inside your mom

OP here
The Falklands War was not an excellent example of a conflict due to the degraded morale of Argentinian crews after the loss of their flagship.
I've stated this before, diesel subs must recharge and are loud and vulnerable while doing so. German submarines are excellent, but the moment it fired a torpedo it would have been engaged and destroyed, if not before it fired.
Aircraft are considerably more expensive today. Cost is the reason why we don't operate an air force of 20,000 F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs.
Submarines are good and all, but US passive sonar is notable for being extremely high-quality.
This is a purely theoretical scenario in which ONLY these two fleets are relevant. ONLY US vs Europe. China and Russia are not part of this scenario. Yes, Russia is part of Europe, but I don't see "Nuclear-Powered Battle Cruiser" on the image, so it's safe to say Russia was NOT invited to this party.

>germeme engineering
if the cupholder falls off the whole ship sinks

>Other
kek
I forgot we even had that relic

>what is US navy force projection of air superiority

you could do absolutely nothing to block us off

>USS Constitution

ol ironsides is all we'd need to conquer europe tbqh

OP is back to explain what's happening. The USN regularly practices anti-ship and anti-submarine exercises. AND ALSO: this is a SEA-ONLY fight. In this scenario, all US Ships are armed with AShW, ASuW, or AAW weapons. Ground attack is not present here. PERIOD. The USN would devote 1/4 of its vessels to ASW and another 1/4 to AAW, or maybe 1/3. That leaves far more than 20 ships remaining to do the job.

I was joking. Italy is actually formidable in this scenario, possessing two fleet carriers. Nicely done in that respect.

But remember the two carriers will be manned by Italians

Southern Italians or northern Italians ?

>diesel powered submarines are loud as all fuck

>not counting vespa subs

OP here.
I don't want to have to go over this three goddamn times, the subs require recharging and are extremely loud while doing so.
We are talking about long-range ships, not you suicidal handbaskets.

they'll fuck u up m8

>German naval strategy works with Italy

Don't make me dump my folder of Italian naval victories in WWII

USA, our carrier battlegroups would annihilate them, and its hard to take them down considering we have spent decades of research to do impossible things like anti-torpedo torpedos so little shits like you guys cannot just fucking take out our amazing godly carriers with your god damn subs. You guys will be fucked our carriers will go over to your dinky little continent, make it bend over the bed and fuck its asshole until it cries for mercy and then we will do the same to all your women.

All of the world?
US navy

dog bless

OP here.
Virtually useless unless our carriers are unescorted and at anchor.
I get sick and tired of seeing nothing all day long, why do I want to look at it again?

>I get sick and tired of seeing nothing all day long, why do I want to look at it again?

>American """banter"""

I want to hug her

So do I.

>Ayy guys let's compare my navy with my allies because they're totally not designed to cooperate and work with it and are definitely made to work alone.

at least compare it with russia or (maybe) china if you want to get your ego stroked.

>Compare with China's Navy
No thanks, I wanted to have an actual interesting debate instead of a one-sided slaughter of one side who is barely there to defend themselves, because the European navies are actually fairly strong when they work together, and Russia is overused. I decided to try to make an original idea.

That's a big navy.

>Diesel-powered submarines are loud as all fuck

>totally ignoring the new German ones powered by a fuel cell

>Russia included, our navy would BTFO the entirety of Europe, possibly even all the worlds navies combined

MFW explaining this for the umpteenth fucking time

Loving to read these american power fantasies that wouldnt work in real life at all.

What? Like carpet bombing europe with carrier based nukes?

Wonder who the first target of the Navy railgun would be.

It could be USA vs The rest of the world and the US would still win by a large margin

It's hardly a power fantasy, it's a legitimate question.

You eurosquatters forgot that the US have the fucking Railgun and Laser guides guns.

You're going against the future with cold war tin cans ya pathetic bitch fucks.