All this "defense" has nothing to do with eliminating terrorism. It is simply a measure to disable those leaders of the world who might resist the NWO. The NWO is not some fantastic conspiracy, it is just about centralizing monetary control and to certain extents, political power. It's not some wild theory, it's a simple truth. Why else would the US dig further into debt when it's already broke on invasions? Spreading out the problem worldwide will 'lessen' the burden per citizen, for some time
in fact USA totally screwed up in Iraq destroyed the country with a culture thousands years older than USA itself.... now they realized it's too expensive and left the country in chaos and ruins... it's also true for Afghanistan USA could not reach any goals there (excepting enormously increased heroin traffic)...
All the questions with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan really aren't as complicated as Washington (or the mainstream media) would have us believe. War is BIG business for many Anglo/American elite, and these war profiteers have no intention of leaving the region at all. 9/11 gave them their vague excuse, they're sticking to it.
And look at what nation is directly between Iraq and Afghanistan!! It isn't rocket science. Counterterrorism is BS-- our actions only encourage more animosity against us.
The bases that are of highly critical importance to the serucrity of the USA should be maintained no matter how much preasuer comes from protesters. Americas milittya has only one responsality and that is to secure the USA. It that is unpopulare with some, touch shit.
All the other base that can be closed and save tax payers a lot with is also important to the security of the USA.
But we sould never compormise our security based on where people like us or not.
@MrFranco1470 Except for the fact that our military being deployed in so many countries around the world and our interventionist policies are actually counterproductive to our security. Read the 9/11 commission. We were not attacked because we are free, we were attacked because of our interventionist policies. Learn some history, all major empires fall because they overextend themselves and go bankrupt. Not to mention the freedoms that are lost all in the name of security.
you are paranoiac if you really think USA needs all of these bases for security reasons only... according to you the whole world thinks only how to to destroy USA...
@MrFranco1470 that's probably why people hate USA is because your military presence in their country annoys them. Sounds like the Roman Empire to you? The army and the empire got way too big and to complicated to maintain. Its just economics that will bring us down. Not a matter of how but when. History repeats itself my friend.
@j12torts You also realize that those countries in actually BEG us to stay there?
Any US base creates a mini-economy in the surrounding area. From leasing the land, to services the base needs such as food, water, electricity, fuel, laundry, etc.
Also, if a country didn't want us on their land, they need only ask. They can choose to terminate the bases and kick us out. The fact that they haven't means they want us there or at the very least, understand the reasoning behind our presence there.
Seriously get rid of the F-35. That's not gonna compete with the newer t-50 or j-12 anyways like the F-22. Just keep upgrading the aircraft. And certainly get rid of the carrier fleets,they are gonna go the way of the battleship because of anti-ship missiles.Get rid of the Virginia classes and go back to the sea wolf.Oh store the strategic bombers, store them away for some major war. A major war like the one were gonna have when sea levels rise and global warming wreaks havoc on civilization.
The US is only a continuation of empire. It goes back to Abraham foiling the attemps of the good guys in exchange for a land deal. Some feel that the US is alone in it's failed-state use of global terrorism; when contrary to popular belief, the US is only a tool used to beat poor people out of their national wealth. The group of poor people includes the lower classes of the United States. So the US is also at war with itself.
All China wants to do is trade. They aren't invading anyone. If we had sound financial decisions from our leadership - China would not even remotely be on the radar. But we've exported so many factories and jobs over there because our regulations prevent businesses from keeping the work here in the states, that they've now become the worlds biggest exporter and producer of goods. So they are beating us at capitalism. Truth is we could use a whole lot less military these days.
@bigtex1453 China is being aggressive toward Asian countries lately and it doesn't look that good not to mention they still occupied Tibet and all. Of course we had to keep an eye watch out for China. They may going to get big sooner.
@DerBotoxPapst Nothing to do wit that. When Japan and Germany conquer countries one by one, most democracies sit back one by one and it was blown into WW2. WW2 killed more people than the ones the U.S. and it's allies engaged in smaller wars after WW2. Sure, the U.S. is very trigger happy and doesn't do what always is right at one time but guess what the interventions after WW2 is the REASON why WW3 didn't happen.
Let me ask you a question: What has you country done for world peace?
@DerBotoxPapst I don't see Austria save the world from Soviet communism during the Cold War, i don't see Austria send Iraqi forces back to their own borders from Kuwait during the first Gulf War, I don't see how Austria stop ethic cleansing by the Serbs in the 1990s Balkans. Whether like it or not as long the UN exists, no country can stay in isloation forever and acts upon it's interests before it blows into something worse(WW2 for example). And if you think that's not the case, then so be it.
I put together a blog titled: "The Battle For Libyan Oil Fields - Bill Woollam" Feel free to Google search that title, if you are an investigator who wishes to see other perspectives on present day warfare.
@BackBlocks09 true, i was talking about only ground invasion. but its all irrelevent coz out of all the countries in the world the UK is at the bottom of the list of potential US enemys. our countries are too similar in culture and history and thats why im a big fan of the US :)
The United States of America has gotten its priorities wrong. It should review its situation, its strategic needs and objectives and how those can be achieved with the minimum cost. Wars are merely means to an end and those ends are most likely political or economic. Wars for the US has now become an end in itself rather than one of a number of tools it can use to secure its strategic objectives. "No nations that has been in a prolonged war has ever benefited from it." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
Why would you need a fancy super modern super expensive piece of equipment wen YOU DON'T NEED IT.
Its like having a 15,000 dollars lawn mower wen you don't even have a lawn to mow.
And really i don't think the USA is going to get a situation were it would need such a ridiculous overkill as the F-22 that easily... and if it does, then it would not matter because that would mark the beginning or WW III and consequently the end of the world.
the world needs the pax americana...but not another gungho empire. nevermind the costs...sort out the philosophy first. and be careful what americas motives are. dont always be gagging for oil. they need to export a moral vision; not this jackdaw thieving. as for the other respondents, what a bunch of apemen. shut up...
Price estimate for oversee bases was basically bullshit...
Iraq and Afghanistan about $160 billion
Research about $80 billion
procurement $140 billion
assuming the ratio is perfect for cost per personnel and using the ratio of 20% of soldiers are overseas it's $61 billion for foreign bases. This is of course untrue because most equipment is stored and maintained in the US.
wow. this is quite a long argument. im a brit, but i would admit that the us military is blatantly the strongest in the world and in a hypothetical invasion of the uk they would easily win (with heavy losses). but we all know thats the most unrealistic arguement because the us and uk are the closest of allies and are brothers in arms, we fought and died for each other in so many wars. so theres no need to critise one another, aim the anger at the enemy :)
like a frigate usally only as 1 mission like anti submarine a destoyer most of the time as 2 like anti air maybe land attack a crusiers do everything
And you still can't answer my question.. If the ONLY reason why the frigate, cruiser, and destroyer are different is because of size, then WHY are there so many of each? Why would a navy make ships that do the exact same thing but different sizes? LOL If they do the exact same thing, then WHY not just have all the same type?
well alot of navys dont have destroyers and just frigates but thay use there frigates for all different thing and some countrys dont have the man power to build massive warships so thay build smaller ones but thay do the same as the bigger once and the only reason for larger once is thay can carry more misssiles and so on like the royal navy as frigates for hunting subs we have frigates for over things but you could get a larger warship and put it all in one but then you need more people
"like the royal navy as frigates for hunting subs"
LOLOL you just proved my point. The royal navy uses frigates for a different purpose than destroyers? THAT MEANS THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
Your excuses are silly. I mean seriously, you ACTUALLY think the only difference is because of weight. LOLOL you fail at life. I already gave you a quote SHOWING that frigates are predominantly used for anti-subs and anti-air, WHICH MAKES THEM DIFFERENT because they aren't equipped for land attack
@coldbedsheets no because i asked you wot is the difference between them because you can get frigates for anti-sub anti-air ground attack and you can get destroyers which do them and you can get crusiers which also do the lot so the only difference is the size
And YOU were the one that said the 10,000 ton arleigh burke doesn't count because its not built yet, yet you said the FREEM which isn't built yet EITHER. lolol FAIL.
"no because they need larger ships because there more capable"
lolol But if the ONLY difference was the size, then it would be much more economical to just build MANY small frigates...
Ahh, it doesn't matter. China owns most of the country anyway. In a couple years no one will care about the United States. We'll become like the British, but without the accents and with attitude. As an american, I personally disagree with majority of the recent US military conflicts, but I have to admit I understand why they happened.
@chinaownseverything We are falling apart? Haven't you seen after 9/11 we are just becoming stronger. As you have noticed the ones who opposed us have been destroyed. If you don't live in the U.S then you don't know how it's doing.
@chinaownseverything How am i in denial? Seriously we are not crumbling. Your just another America hater. I live in the U.S i know more about it then you do.
Lol its funny how your username is "chinaownseverything"....
REALLY? Only someone who knows nothing about the outside world would say something like that. First of all, over 367 of the top 500 largest companies in the world are American. There are more billionaires from America than the rest of the world combined.
Oh, and being that china uses OUR dollar, that means WE OWN YOU. Until the yuan is used for world trade, you are nothing but our bitches.
@coldbedsheets Hes right china does own everything, they hold 44% of the worlds debt. The US alone owes china $772 billion dollars. So if money is power than china sure has it. And there money is a recognized currency and one the the worlds most powerful. Speak for your self when you say "only someone who knows nothing about the outside world would say something like that". It's well known that americans are close minded and biased in part because of there education system.
owning debt doesn't mean you own the world. Not even close. If anything it means china is more reliant on the u.s. due to the fact that we owe them money. And how on earth can you cay the yuan is one of the world's most powerful currencies? OH MY GOD that shit is FUNNY.
Over 67% of the world trades in the u.s. dollar that means the u.s. owns 67% of the world's banks.
No they won't. Their economy is totally reliant on the rest of the world and exports. And their growth rate is already starting to fall. Our economy is still 3x more than theirs
LOL 22%??? WHO TOLD YOU THAT LIE??? Lol china's growth went from 10% to 9% in one year. And its getting smaller every year.
Just because we borrow money from china, doesn't mean they are richer. Our economy is still 3x bigger, we only borrow because we spend more than any other country
@coldbedsheets wot hahaha are u on crack china is the fastest growing economy in the world and US ows 14 trillion there in big debt and yes US are richer at the min but that dont mean much because in china things are very cheap you can make things 50 times cheaper than in US
Yes, china's economy is growing, but its growth is diminishing. And no, they don't have the fastest growing economy, thats afghanistan. Get your facts straight. WE'RE THE RICHEST AND MOST POWERFUL BITCH
@coldbedsheets fastest growing mega rich nation and qatar is fastest growing economy so get your facts right and yes US are the richest but only because of foreigners and US is not the most powerful EU is
@wiganerrmc lol YOU were the one that said china had the fastest growing economy. YOU were wrong. So the u.s. is only rich because of foreigners? LOLOL Here are the top 5 countries by amount of home-born billionaires. USA-403 China-128 India-69 Russia-68 Germany-53 EPIC FAIL. And HOW in the WORLD can you say the eu is the most powerful? HAHAHAHAHA THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A MILITARY. AND THE EU ISN'T A COUNTRY YOU IDIOT
@coldbedsheets your wrong there US as 403 billionaires alot of them was born in over countrys and now in the top 20 richest people there are only 5 from the US when about 30 years ago there was alot more US is now being took over and EU do have a military because if any country in the EU was invaded all the rest have to help out but yes its not a country but thay are all united realy just like the US
Nope. That list of billionaires is from HOME BORN countries. How about you read more carefully next time. EPIC FAIL.
The EU is taking over the U.S.??? HAHAHA our economy is growing WAAAY faster than the eu economy.
AND THE EU ISN'T A FUCKING COUNTRY YOU MORON.
Just like the u.s.? NOPE. The u.s. has a centralized military force. The EU consists of a bunch of seperate militaries, which makes them less capable than us.
Our NAVY has more tonnage of ships than the next 13 largest navies COMBINED
looks like you no fuck all about military im in the armed forces tonnage means fuck all it takes about a 2kg warhead to sink a 110.000 tone aircraft carrier
and you will find that britians growth last mouth was up 6% germany 5% and US was 3% and the reason US as more home billionaires than sey the likes of britian and and germany is because thay have alot more land and alot more people but look at poverty in US its 18% in UK its 7% the US as more people in poverty than there are people in UK
First of all, you're wrong in just about everything you said. The UK has 61 million people. And our poverty rate is 12% you fucktard. The uk's poverty rate is 14% And thats because our poverty line is MUCH higher than the uk's or anywhere else. We consider people making $20,000 living in poverty. We make more money PER PERSON than britain, germany AND the EU.
And by the way, we also have WAY more billionaires PER PERSON than britian and germany, so population doesn't mean ANYTHING.
@coldbedsheets US navy as 210 warships and 69 Support ships if you wonna add merchant navy like you have done to US
UK would have 139 RN 180 merchant navy and 648 registered to UK which adds up to 967
and these site your looking at mean fuck all iraq military was the 4th biggest in world in 1991 and nato walked over them very easy size means fuck all iv been in the military for 5 years so i no
You idiot, that number of U.S. ships doesn't count merchant navy. WHY ARE YOU LYING. It counts total naval vessels, meaning 100% controlled by the u.s. navy. The same number is for the uk navy. It doesn't count merchant ships. ANd merchant ships AREN'T NAVY SHIPS. they have no armor, weapons, are any kind of technology on them whatsoever. IF you want to count merchant ships than the u.s. has 2000.
@coldbedsheets hahahahaha thay dont have armor hahahah wot the fuck do you think there made out of you stupid fuck There are currently 11 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 57 destroyers, 2 littoral combat ships, 29 frigates, 10 amphibious assault ships, 2 amphibious command ships, 9 amphibious transport docks, 12 dock landing ships, 53 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines, 14 mine countermeasures ships, 11 patrol boats, and 1 technical research ship =210
@coldbedsheets Support ships include two hospital ships, four salvage ships, two submarine tenders, four ammunition ships, five combat stores ships, four fast combat support ships, nine dry cargo ships, 15 replenishment oilers, four Fleet Ocean Tugs, four ocean surveillance ships, four container ships, 16 cargo ships =69 were do you get this 1559 from then
this shows the list of ACTIVE navy vessels in the u.s. navy which is around 430. It doesn't count all of the patrol boats in the coast guard, oilers, ammunition ships, cargo ships and our HUGE reserve fleet, that make the number go up to 1559.
Just like the uk navy only has around 80 ships in ACTIVE service.
Just face it, our navy is the strongest naval force in the world. There's nothing you could say to dispute that.
@coldbedsheets wow how mads that the link you sent me even proves i was rite 210 warships 69 Support ships and yes US navy is probley the strongest but that dont mean it would win a navel battles against royal navy because no one nose amout of ships is not everything why do you think royal navy as the worlds most advanced warship and sub because tec means more than how many you have
Wow. you obviously don't know how to read. you IDIOT. That link i sent you shows 210 ACTIVE warships. It DOES NOT COUNT CARGO, OILERS, ETC ETC. READ AGAIN. It says "There are about 436 ships listed here (238 USS ships, 198 USNS, MV, SS and other ships)"
FAIL.
And like i said, it doesn't mention OUR RESERVE FLEET YOU IDIOT.
"but it don't mean it would win a naval battle against royal navy"
@coldbedsheets look up the royal navy history like battle of trafalgar and so on outnumberd and we took i think 12 ships off the french and spanish why do you think british forces have the best trained military in world because its training which wins wars not the amout of people you have plus US and UK will never go to war so stop talking shit and get a life
Naval history MEANS NOTHING. Technology wasn't like it was during the british empire you IDIOT. I can't BELIEVE you actually think britain would stand a chance against the U.S. in a one-on-one war. The u.s. has the most powerful military force THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. We're stationed all over the world which makes us able to strike ANYWHERE on the planet faster than any other country. BRITAIN WOULD STAND NO CHANCE.
@coldbedsheets falklands britian outnumbered US said it was impossible to take back the falklands 8.000 miles from britian but we went and won and the burma campaign 1944–1945 which britian won was a big defeat for the japs and battle of Imphal which britian won was the japanise biggest land defeat but you are rite US did fight the japs more than britian but only because thay had a bigger force and we was in the war for nealy 2 years on are own and we was skint
impossible to take the falklands? LOL the Argentinian navy was so unbelievably outdated even mexico would have beat them in war.
You're so stupid. That video that i gave you of lists of tanks was lists of tanks as greatest ever built, not greatest right now. And nevertheless, the abrams was ranked higher than the challenger. And the challenger 2 is BARELY any different from the challenger 1 and it ranked #7! HAHA
And britain only has 400 challenger 2's and we have over 6000 abrams
@coldbedsheets and the argentine navy was pretty good at the type thay was 1 of 4 countrys with aircraft carriers and thay had some good ships but was no match for the royal navy hahahah you no fuck all 97% of the challenger 2 is different and the ranks means fuck all only reason CH1 was 7th is because we only had around 400 so the manufacture rate and fear factor was low because it was also new and yes we only have around 400 CH2 them abrams will be outdated soon
"and the argentine navy was pretty good" LOLOL and can you list what kind of aircraft carriers they had? And having aircraft carriers with outdated fighter jets means NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Also, having low quality radars also means EVERYTHING.
The abrams uses old ch1 armor? Uh sorry but depleted uranium armor is some of the best in the world.
And no, the germans had NO IDEA the british were using radar. LEARN YOUR OWN DAMN HISTORY. If they did, WHY would they go into an ambush???
@coldbedsheets i do no history about the battle of britian and all history because i love history i no alot about history of most countrys and i no that
this as just been copyed of a site for you During the initial period of the Battle of the Britain German tactic were to knock out the British Radar sites on the south coast and then bomb the RAF air fields
So let me get this straight. You're saying the germans in the battle of britian were not surprised and flanked? You CLEARLY don't even know your own country's history.
Lol did you SERIOUSLY just say you can have automatic guns? lol you don't know what i mean by automatic. I mean FULLY automatic. Surely your not going to lie and say your allowed fully automatic guns.
And you need to be in a gun club to own large rifles in the uk.
@coldbedsheets and no we dont have fully automatic guns because in britian there is a thing called aiming we just dont fire and hope for best but we have semi autos
And to own any kind of gun in the u.k. you have to go through a very long paper work filled steps. In the u.s., you can walk into a pawn shop and walk out 5 minutes later with an Ar-15.
And we're talking about country vs country when it comes to the vietnam war. The u.s. undoubtedly did more work in the vietnam war. The u.s. dropped more bombs on vietnam than all of the bombs dropped in europe during ww2.
"most powerful military then it falls under US military"
Thank you for that. Thats what i have been trying to explain to you. Im still reeling with laughter over the fact that you honestly think arleigh burkes have a range of 28 miles. ROFL.
At the end of the day, the u.s. military would be able to defeat the british military one on one. You said it yourself by saying we have the most powerful military. Again, thank you.
@coldbedsheets yes US is the most powerful military on paper only because thay have a massive airforce and air superiority is the main thing in winning a large scale battle but all it would take for the US to lose there power wot thay have to day is a large war or 2 which was in the case of the british empire
"What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi .You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"
And do you REALLY want me to list all of the MAJOR(key word) battles that the u.s. won? Really? I can do that if you want. But don't take my word for it, take General Giap's word(who was the leader of the north vietnamese army at the time)
Again, tell me which anti-ship missiles the type 45 uses that go 300 miles. The missiles that your talking about that can be released all at once(which BTW doesn't mean anything) are for land-attack missiles. You're clearly mistaking the two.
@coldbedsheets o sorry i mean 120 and its aster 30 and no there for air to air the 300 mile thing was the range which the jets or missiles can be deteced by the missiles system
No, you specifically said it has a range of 300 miles, not its radar.
And our AN/SPY 2 has the capability of 200+ miles which it is obviously more, only not disclosed. And remember, we have a LARGE fleet, which means MORE radars spread out all over the world.
Just face it, our military is stronger. You said it yourself.
So now your retracting your statement and saying our power would be defeated by britian? WAKE UP. Seriously.
@coldbedsheets lol how is 200 more than 300 and do you not no how the navy works thay have thay go out in fleets and the airdefence radar for the DDG51 range is 100nm and yes your rite US is stronger but if britian was spending the amout of money US is we would be 100times stronger
Because 200+ means MORE than 200. Obviously we're not going to give out the exact number. We ALWAYS downplay our military statistics. Its called a surprise advantage.
You're clearly reading a wrong or false source because Many of our Burkes are equipped with AN/SPY 3 which has well over a 200 mile range.
"if britian was spending the amout of money US is we would be 100times stronger"
LOL you're making me giggle.
Britian would never in a million years be able to spend as much as us
No, the royal navy does NOT have the most advanced warship and sub are you CRAZY? And hitler also thought quality was better than quantity....remember how that turned out for him?
And do you have ANY proof that it was only 50,000 british troops and the rest were commonwealth? NOPE. CAUSE THEY WERE BRITISH. including the COMMANDERS that surrendered.
And are you honestly saying britain did more to defeat japan than we did? LOLOLOL now THAT'S funny.
And funny how you say NATO walked all over iraq in 1991...And 95% of all the work was done by us Americans. ALL of the bombings, missiles, etc came from the u.s. The only reason why we used a "coalition" was because we didn't want everyone to say that we're imperialistic and did it ourselves, even though we clearly did all of the work.
@coldbedsheets wrong about 60% of the work was done by americans britians airforce was also there british troops was the first in iraq british troops also was in the war's most intense fighting and a british warship saved a US navy destroyer and challenger tank got the record tank to tank kill ever your just a tipical american which thinks thay did all the work
Wow your such an idiot. The challenger tank rarely even saw combat in iraq 1991. The abrams destroyed 10x more iraqi tanks than the challenger. Yes, we lost some tanks but thats only cause we fought a lot more.
60%??? BULLSHIT. Easily over 95%. NEarly all of the early bomb campaigns in the 1991 gulf war were carried out by OUR stealth fighters including the b-2 bomber and the f-117 nighthawk.
@coldbedsheets look up world record tank kill and it will tell you challenger tank gulf war and no it was 60% ye US did alot more in air campaign but britian france ando so on was also bombing iraq the funny thing is US was helping iraq against iran and that and britian had 2,500 armoured vehicles and 43,000 troops
@coldbedsheets these rankings mean fuck all no one could sey who would win in a war the americans fort vietnam was gona be a walk over but thay was wrong and thay lost first golf war nato forces fort it was gona be a long and hard battle against ranked 4th in the world at the time iraq but it was a walk over and like US vs UK US as alot more stuff but UK would never give up and even if thay invaded UK we would make iraq and afghan look likes childs play we would wipe out US forces there
Shows how much you know. We lost vietnam? What a stupid thing to say. We lost POLITICALLY in vietnam. We never lost a SINGLE major battle in vietnam and we had a 20-1 kill ratio.
IDIOT.
"we would wipe out US forces there"
WOW. you have officially proven how stupid you are. YOu and i BOTH know that we would CRUSH britain.
And that website compares militaries through ACTUAL statistics so you can't downplay it like it doesn't mean anything. MORON.
@coldbedsheets your just stupid statistics means fuck all if thay was rite we would of bin out of afghan about 5 years ago britian as the best trained military in the world which US lack money cant bye everything yes the USAF would probley wipe out RAF i no that but britian would not give up and US would never able invade britian and this would never happen US vs UK and even if it did UK would not be on there own
Tsk tsk tsk....You watch too much t.v. We didn't lose a SINGLE major battle in vietnam. We lost because our people back home got sick of it and pushed congress to pull out. We were WINNING. Even the north vietnamese general at the time said they were DAYS away from surrendering and had no idea why we pulled out. I can send you the quote if you want.
AND we had a 20-1 kill ratio, not including civilians.
@coldbedsheets it doesn't matter you pulled you troops out North Vietnamese was victory and vietnam wot about operation rolling thunder US lost in vietnam war Operation Lam Son 719, Operation Linebacker, Easter Offensive, Battle of Đồng Xoài, Battle of Bình Giã and there was loads of Strategic US failure i noly looked at 6 battles then and US only won 1 of them and SASR and NZSAS had a 500-1 kill ratio and thay was trained by the british SAS
All of those "battles" you mentioned were not major battles AT ALL.
Operation rolling thunder was a success because we were able to test out all of our aircraft(which was the point) the only reason why it was considered a "failure" was because the war continued on. LOL STOP READING WIKI YOU LOSER.
And in ALL of those battles you mentioned(every single one) The north vietnamese sustained MANY more casualties than the u.s.
@coldbedsheets ye i dont no much about the vietnam war only the US lost so i had to look up some battles and yes US killed around 2 million women and children in the war
And no, that number of vietnamese deaths doesn't count the woman and children. We killed 1.2 million north vietnamese SOLDIERS and VIET CONG, which was well over 20x more than our own casualties. I wasn't talking about women and children. They don't play in to that equation.
@coldbedsheets yes there wasn't just US fighting in the war on your side your side lost 340.000 and north vietnam lost about 1.1 million and just cos you lose more men dont mean you have lost russia lost around 11 million in ww2 and thay only killed about 2 million germans if that
lol i can't believe you actually just said you're allowed automatic guns....lolololol now your just flat out lying.
BTW, it would be a LOT easier for the u.s. to invade britain than vise versa, not only because we have an overwhelming amount of more military fire power, but because our civilians are way better armed than british civilians.
There are 5 guns per 100 U.K. citizens(all of them for hunting)
Compare that to 90 guns per 100 U.S. citizens. And our guns are fully automatic
"you do no how easy it would be to supply british citizens"
Not if we blitz you and take over within days. And it would take TIME to manufacture enough weapons to the british population. We would have easily taken over britain by the time they even thought about arming its citizens.
And i just looked it up and it says britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Just face it. Our military is more powerful than yours. It will feel better when you admit the truth and move on...
@coldbedsheets ye would probley just over rifles of russia or someone and we could just use ieds just like in afghan because i can make 1 very easy from stuff you can bye from most shop
Fighting in the streets of britain would be WAY easier than fighting in iraq and afghanistan, because again, in afghanistan and iraq, your legally allowed to own an ak-47. Not the same in britian. And i already told you that we would easily take over britain long before they could make an order to russia for rifles. YOU'RE SPEAKING NONSENSE.
wot the fuck as it got to do with fully auto rifles being illegal i could kill anyone with any rifle and i would rather have a semi auto rifle and i use rifles every day iv used alot of rifles out there which include ak-47 and belive me US would not even get troops onto britian and you dont no nout about combat so do one and when you sey all the ddg-51 would destroy the type 45's you do no in each battle group there are only about 5 ddg-51 in each 1 and royal navy will have 3 type 45
First off, i couldn't find anywhere showing the s1850m radar having 11.6 megawatts.
And still, 5 burkes would easily destroy 3 type 45. And i doubt all 3 of the type 45's are in one fleet.
The type 45 isn't even made for ship-ship warfare, its made for land, and air defense.
And yes, it DOES matter if a gun is fully automatic than semi automatic. Imagine how much easier it would have been in iraq if the insurgents only had hunting rifles. ROFL
@coldbedsheets ye because we will probley only have 2 fleets because once are 2 new super carriers are built each one will have there own battle group and the type 45 can be fitted with RGM-84 which is anti ship missile and it is better semi-automatic the rifle we use is semi auto but we can change it to auto with a switch of a catch but 99% of the time its in auto because we are trained to aim very good and we have GPMG and that if we wont to keep the enermys heads down
Exactly, CAN be fitted, but it wasn't DESIGNED to be an anti-ship destroyer.
Japan had some of the most powerful battleships and one of the most powerful navies in ww2 and we literally crushed them basically by ourselves. Im sure they too thought we would never be able to land troops on their territory.
@coldbedsheets most powerful navys in ww2 was britian US then japan and the reason type 45 was made was to protected the new super carriers from air attack thats why it was made but if we went to war thay would able fit RGM-84 in about 10 mins the softwere is aready on the ship and we have type 23 for ship on ship battles and soon will have the type 26 and yes most of the british military uses semi autos even US dose
First off, we don't mainly issue just the m16. Its the m16a2. And either way, both of them are either in fully auto or 3-6 round bursts you IDIOT. Shows how much YOU know. Please give me a url showing the military m16 or m16a2 or m4 to be just semi auto without 3 round bursts.
And the oliver frigate is not our main ship. The uk has more frigates than any other of their ships, and we have less frigates than any other main ship. Meaning, we don't use them as primary fleets
@coldbedsheets i dont need send you a url im a RMC and have used these rifles and US navy had 70 oliver frigate but because thay was shit thay sold some USN is getting rid of loads of there ships like the ticonderoga class cruiser and so on
Yeah, we SOLD those frigates because we don't use them as our main fleet anymore, i already told you this. Getting rid of ticonderogas? Lol ticonderogas are for ballistic missiles. If we DO get rid of them its because our military isn't fighting against other militaries with ballistic missiles, so they're not as valuable. We invest in destroyers, aircraft carriers, and so forth. And by the way, your 2 QE aircraft carriers are still tiny compared to our 11+ super carriers
and yes you do still use them you have 30 of them still in USN and LOL the ticonderogas was not just for ballistic missiles lol its a missile cruisers for all sorts of warfare and the reason why there getting rid of them is because USN is cutting its navy just like the royal navy did in 80s and 90s ddg-1000 thay was getting 33 now there getting 2or 3 its like you have 11 aircraft carriers yet your only replaceing the 11 with 3 new gerald r ford class but thay will go over time not at once
@coldbedsheets well thay have a 25 year lifespan well the nuclear reactors do and thay need refill and britian had around 60 aircraft carriers in 1950 but we din't need them so we got rid of most of them and the reason US as 11 is because every country hates them im not seying i do but like russia chian and so on but people in the US piss me rite of people like you who no fuck all and think there good
Are you serious? Frigates are a LOT cheaper than cruisers first of all. Frigates are mainly used for anti-air, and anti-submarine tactics. Cruisers are made for getting somewhere really fast and to be the forefront of a fleet. The difference is the SPEED, armor, etc. Yes, both have other uses, but that is their primary use.
Say what you want but the u.s. would beat the uk in war. Thats a given fact.
And its "other" not "over" your spelling ist starting to annoy me
??? LOL how about you go and google cruiser, destroyer, and frigate and get back to me. The only difference is size? LOLOL what an elementary uneducated thing to say.
Frigate-
"a warship intended to protect other warships and merchant marine ships and as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys"
@coldbedsheets ahahahahahaha i said wots the difference you bell end i no wot there task is to do and i dont need to google it i no most things about warships i am in the royal navy im a RMC and have been on hms ocean for 6 mouths
You seem to know very little about the differnces of ships if you're really in the RMC(which i doubt)
How could the british military let someone with such bad grammar get to join? I mean, in our military, we have literary tests, which you obviously wouldn't be able to pass. Is the bar that low in britain?
And YOU'RE the one that idiotically said the only difference is the size...lol IDIOT.
Frigates normally don't even have vertical launch systems.
@coldbedsheets yes we do have test i failed my english one the first time and had to wait a year before i could retake it but i got the book and studyed everyday and i past the 2nd time and the marine test are very hard and yes i am a royal marine commando and i said wots the difference in the 3 and it is the size you can have a warship which is 13.000 tonnes and call it a frigate IDIOT
"ye thay can get refilled you clown USN nimitz was refilled in 2001"
??? um thats what I said you IDIOT. And stop using the word "clown" cause you got it from me, and if anyone is clowning around here its you with your horrible grammar.
@coldbedsheets ye zumwalt is gona be like 15.000 tonnes and ford class is about 100.000 tonnes the type 45 is only about 8.000 tonnes
and i did not sey type 23 was better than the crusiers and the cost of a type 23 was £170 which is about $300 million plus then thay have had refits your just going of the cost off the hull
and iv been using the world clown since i was about 4 in school but ye i never used it on ere you probley got the seying from someone british
@coldbedsheets how the fuck did i lose i can name you about 8 friges of the top on my head which have vls and i did not sey wot is the main task of frigate destroyer and crusier i said wot is the difference you spak
viva equador!!!
asrafoo 4 days ago
man this is the Roman Empire all over again. Let's stop all this bullshit wars and maybe our empire will survive longer.
j12torts 2 weeks ago
All this "defense" has nothing to do with eliminating terrorism. It is simply a measure to disable those leaders of the world who might resist the NWO. The NWO is not some fantastic conspiracy, it is just about centralizing monetary control and to certain extents, political power. It's not some wild theory, it's a simple truth. Why else would the US dig further into debt when it's already broke on invasions? Spreading out the problem worldwide will 'lessen' the burden per citizen, for some time
imingzee 2 weeks ago
in fact USA totally screwed up in Iraq destroyed the country with a culture thousands years older than USA itself.... now they realized it's too expensive and left the country in chaos and ruins... it's also true for Afghanistan USA could not reach any goals there (excepting enormously increased heroin traffic)...
kaplich 1 month ago
All the questions with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan really aren't as complicated as Washington (or the mainstream media) would have us believe. War is BIG business for many Anglo/American elite, and these war profiteers have no intention of leaving the region at all. 9/11 gave them their vague excuse, they're sticking to it.
And look at what nation is directly between Iraq and Afghanistan!! It isn't rocket science. Counterterrorism is BS-- our actions only encourage more animosity against us.
bobshenix 2 months ago
i do not pay for propaganda
masluxx 2 months ago
The bases that are of highly critical importance to the serucrity of the USA should be maintained no matter how much preasuer comes from protesters. Americas milittya has only one responsality and that is to secure the USA. It that is unpopulare with some, touch shit.
All the other base that can be closed and save tax payers a lot with is also important to the security of the USA.
But we sould never compormise our security based on where people like us or not.
MrFranco1470 3 months ago
@MrFranco1470 Except for the fact that our military being deployed in so many countries around the world and our interventionist policies are actually counterproductive to our security. Read the 9/11 commission. We were not attacked because we are free, we were attacked because of our interventionist policies. Learn some history, all major empires fall because they overextend themselves and go bankrupt. Not to mention the freedoms that are lost all in the name of security.
marinegrunt0341 1 month ago
@MrFranco1470
you are paranoiac if you really think USA needs all of these bases for security reasons only... according to you the whole world thinks only how to to destroy USA...
kaplich 1 month ago 2
@MrFranco1470 that's probably why people hate USA is because your military presence in their country annoys them. Sounds like the Roman Empire to you? The army and the empire got way too big and to complicated to maintain. Its just economics that will bring us down. Not a matter of how but when. History repeats itself my friend.
j12torts 2 weeks ago
@j12torts You also realize that those countries in actually BEG us to stay there?
Any US base creates a mini-economy in the surrounding area. From leasing the land, to services the base needs such as food, water, electricity, fuel, laundry, etc.
Also, if a country didn't want us on their land, they need only ask. They can choose to terminate the bases and kick us out. The fact that they haven't means they want us there or at the very least, understand the reasoning behind our presence there.
Hperman09 5 days ago
Thats bullshit. Last time I checked, the Army was downsizing.
damndisplace07 3 months ago
Obama - liar in Chief !
rolynstone48 4 months ago
Seriously get rid of the F-35. That's not gonna compete with the newer t-50 or j-12 anyways like the F-22. Just keep upgrading the aircraft. And certainly get rid of the carrier fleets,they are gonna go the way of the battleship because of anti-ship missiles.Get rid of the Virginia classes and go back to the sea wolf.Oh store the strategic bombers, store them away for some major war. A major war like the one were gonna have when sea levels rise and global warming wreaks havoc on civilization.
MzBUZZKILINGTON 4 months ago
00:30 romans didnt chew gum in army
Pjeteh 4 months ago
The US is only a continuation of empire. It goes back to Abraham foiling the attemps of the good guys in exchange for a land deal. Some feel that the US is alone in it's failed-state use of global terrorism; when contrary to popular belief, the US is only a tool used to beat poor people out of their national wealth. The group of poor people includes the lower classes of the United States. So the US is also at war with itself.
SevernRand 5 months ago
usa is an empire? lol
itachiitachi1946 5 months ago
@itachiitachi1946 Yes 1,077 military bases in countries that are NOT ours.
MasterBeebop99 1 month ago
ahaha america is an empire??? LMFAO
PeanutButterAndZorg 6 months ago
@PeanutButterAndZorg LMFAO INDEED
tony957474 5 months ago
the f-22 is beautiful
hurmpfff 6 months ago
All China wants to do is trade. They aren't invading anyone. If we had sound financial decisions from our leadership - China would not even remotely be on the radar. But we've exported so many factories and jobs over there because our regulations prevent businesses from keeping the work here in the states, that they've now become the worlds biggest exporter and producer of goods. So they are beating us at capitalism. Truth is we could use a whole lot less military these days.
bigtex1453 6 months ago
@bigtex1453 China is being aggressive toward Asian countries lately and it doesn't look that good not to mention they still occupied Tibet and all. Of course we had to keep an eye watch out for China. They may going to get big sooner.
Hperman09 2 months ago
@Hperman09 and who are you to decide who's going to be big and who's not? mind your own fucking business.
DerBotoxPapst 5 days ago
@DerBotoxPapst Everything you describe is isolationism - that;s what led to WW2 in the 1st place. you know nothing about foreign politics.
Hperman09 5 days ago
@Hperman09 wrong, what led to ww2 was the ridiculous treaty of versailles, the occupation of german territory + the economic crisis made in USA.
DerBotoxPapst 4 days ago
@DerBotoxPapst Nothing to do wit that. When Japan and Germany conquer countries one by one, most democracies sit back one by one and it was blown into WW2. WW2 killed more people than the ones the U.S. and it's allies engaged in smaller wars after WW2. Sure, the U.S. is very trigger happy and doesn't do what always is right at one time but guess what the interventions after WW2 is the REASON why WW3 didn't happen.
Let me ask you a question: What has you country done for world peace?
Hperman09 4 days ago
@DerBotoxPapst I don't see Austria save the world from Soviet communism during the Cold War, i don't see Austria send Iraqi forces back to their own borders from Kuwait during the first Gulf War, I don't see how Austria stop ethic cleansing by the Serbs in the 1990s Balkans. Whether like it or not as long the UN exists, no country can stay in isloation forever and acts upon it's interests before it blows into something worse(WW2 for example). And if you think that's not the case, then so be it.
Hperman09 4 days ago
I love when people talk about stuff and they have no clue what they're saying.
One word. China.
Now how much should we cut on defense spending?
pfasone 7 months ago
@pfasone is that why you spend exponentially more than china?
just face it, all you yanks ever wanted to do is control the world
one word. oil
SirHungryHippo 4 months ago
I put together a blog titled: "The Battle For Libyan Oil Fields - Bill Woollam" Feel free to Google search that title, if you are an investigator who wishes to see other perspectives on present day warfare.
Chidanandaji 7 months ago
@BackBlocks09 true, i was talking about only ground invasion. but its all irrelevent coz out of all the countries in the world the UK is at the bottom of the list of potential US enemys. our countries are too similar in culture and history and thats why im a big fan of the US :)
briscoe2811 7 months ago
@BackBlocks09 Yes, because England has 0 Anti-Air defense against all those.
player276 7 months ago
The United States of America has gotten its priorities wrong. It should review its situation, its strategic needs and objectives and how those can be achieved with the minimum cost. Wars are merely means to an end and those ends are most likely political or economic. Wars for the US has now become an end in itself rather than one of a number of tools it can use to secure its strategic objectives. "No nations that has been in a prolonged war has ever benefited from it." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
RoniCMaster 8 months ago
Comment removed
MzBUZZKILINGTON 8 months ago
the public really dont believe... a hammer cost $50 in the army do they ??? oh wait it seems the do lmao
zeppirl 9 months ago
Why would you need a fancy super modern super expensive piece of equipment wen YOU DON'T NEED IT.
Its like having a 15,000 dollars lawn mower wen you don't even have a lawn to mow.
And really i don't think the USA is going to get a situation were it would need such a ridiculous overkill as the F-22 that easily... and if it does, then it would not matter because that would mark the beginning or WW III and consequently the end of the world.
HokutenKnigth 9 months ago
the world needs the pax americana...but not another gungho empire. nevermind the costs...sort out the philosophy first. and be careful what americas motives are. dont always be gagging for oil. they need to export a moral vision; not this jackdaw thieving. as for the other respondents, what a bunch of apemen. shut up...
3leopardsblue 9 months ago
Price estimate for oversee bases was basically bullshit...
Iraq and Afghanistan about $160 billion
Research about $80 billion
procurement $140 billion
assuming the ratio is perfect for cost per personnel and using the ratio of 20% of soldiers are overseas it's $61 billion for foreign bases. This is of course untrue because most equipment is stored and maintained in the US.
inyourmind11 10 months ago
wow. this is quite a long argument. im a brit, but i would admit that the us military is blatantly the strongest in the world and in a hypothetical invasion of the uk they would easily win (with heavy losses). but we all know thats the most unrealistic arguement because the us and uk are the closest of allies and are brothers in arms, we fought and died for each other in so many wars. so theres no need to critise one another, aim the anger at the enemy :)
briscoe2811 10 months ago
@briscoe2811
No doubt. US and UK are forever allies. We consider Brits Americans in man respects.
bigtex1453 2 months ago
so you cut a few billions and then spend a few hundred billion more
you wish u can do magic with math but math is not magic, it works solely because it is not "magic", but something much more
MrBigEnchilada 10 months ago
LMAO america knows how to waste money
privatepinkbits 11 months ago
GAY COWARDS!!
TheMambavenom 11 months ago
like a frigate usally only as 1 mission like anti submarine a destoyer most of the time as 2 like anti air maybe land attack a crusiers do everything
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
And you forgot the alvaro de Bazan class....
And you still can't answer my question.. If the ONLY reason why the frigate, cruiser, and destroyer are different is because of size, then WHY are there so many of each? Why would a navy make ships that do the exact same thing but different sizes? LOL If they do the exact same thing, then WHY not just have all the same type?
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
well alot of navys dont have destroyers and just frigates but thay use there frigates for all different thing and some countrys dont have the man power to build massive warships so thay build smaller ones but thay do the same as the bigger once and the only reason for larger once is thay can carry more misssiles and so on like the royal navy as frigates for hunting subs we have frigates for over things but you could get a larger warship and put it all in one but then you need more people
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
"like the royal navy as frigates for hunting subs"
LOLOL you just proved my point. The royal navy uses frigates for a different purpose than destroyers? THAT MEANS THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
Your excuses are silly. I mean seriously, you ACTUALLY think the only difference is because of weight. LOLOL you fail at life. I already gave you a quote SHOWING that frigates are predominantly used for anti-subs and anti-air, WHICH MAKES THEM DIFFERENT because they aren't equipped for land attack
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets no because i asked you wot is the difference between them because you can get frigates for anti-sub anti-air ground attack and you can get destroyers which do them and you can get crusiers which also do the lot so the only difference is the size
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Frigate-
"typically designed more for antisubmarine warfare than general purpose fleet defense"
And the FREEM frigate isn't just a "frigate" its a "multi-purpose" frigate...LOL ANOTHER FAIL
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ahahahahahahahahah it mite be a multi-purpose frigate but its still a frigate
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And YOU were the one that said the 10,000 ton arleigh burke doesn't count because its not built yet, yet you said the FREEM which isn't built yet EITHER. lolol FAIL.
"no because they need larger ships because there more capable"
lolol But if the ONLY difference was the size, then it would be much more economical to just build MANY small frigates...
coldbedsheets 11 months ago
Ahh, it doesn't matter. China owns most of the country anyway. In a couple years no one will care about the United States. We'll become like the British, but without the accents and with attitude. As an american, I personally disagree with majority of the recent US military conflicts, but I have to admit I understand why they happened.
Oediv26 1 year ago
The actual map of US empire is hard to draw because America hides its borders for strategic reasons.
Help me draw the rogue empire's map at:
ozyism(dot)blogspot(dot)com
x1XofflineX1x 1 year ago
USA get out of middle east
hoplite46 1 year ago
ah sorry but the f-22 has seen action and its one of the best fighters in the world.
stagarmsm4 1 year ago
Come baby Asian ladies lushfmlk.info
PeytonMajor 1 year ago
Long Live the American Empire!!
JosephStalin11 1 year ago
american empire is falling apart. like all empires do
chinaownseverything 1 year ago
@chinaownseverything We are falling apart? Haven't you seen after 9/11 we are just becoming stronger. As you have noticed the ones who opposed us have been destroyed. If you don't live in the U.S then you don't know how it's doing.
sexyself45 1 year ago
@sexyself45 denial at its best. ive been to the USA. and its slowly crumbling
chinaownseverything 1 year ago
@chinaownseverything How am i in denial? Seriously we are not crumbling. Your just another America hater. I live in the U.S i know more about it then you do.
sexyself45 1 year ago
@sexyself45 i dont hate america. im stating the obvious. your in denial.
chinaownseverything 1 year ago
@chinaownseverything
Lol its funny how your username is "chinaownseverything"....
REALLY? Only someone who knows nothing about the outside world would say something like that. First of all, over 367 of the top 500 largest companies in the world are American. There are more billionaires from America than the rest of the world combined.
Oh, and being that china uses OUR dollar, that means WE OWN YOU. Until the yuan is used for world trade, you are nothing but our bitches.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets Hes right china does own everything, they hold 44% of the worlds debt. The US alone owes china $772 billion dollars. So if money is power than china sure has it. And there money is a recognized currency and one the the worlds most powerful. Speak for your self when you say "only someone who knows nothing about the outside world would say something like that". It's well known that americans are close minded and biased in part because of there education system.
FU7IM7CANADIAN 1 year ago
@FU7IM7CANADIAN
owning debt doesn't mean you own the world. Not even close. If anything it means china is more reliant on the u.s. due to the fact that we owe them money. And how on earth can you cay the yuan is one of the world's most powerful currencies? OH MY GOD that shit is FUNNY.
Over 67% of the world trades in the u.s. dollar that means the u.s. owns 67% of the world's banks.
U.S. nominal GDP-$14.2 trillion
China nominal GDP-$4.9 trillion.
ALMOST 3X MORE WITH ONLY 1/4TH THE POPULATION
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets soon china will take over US
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
No they won't. Their economy is totally reliant on the rest of the world and exports. And their growth rate is already starting to fall. Our economy is still 3x more than theirs
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets no china economy groth is like 22% US is 4% US even owe 1 trillion to china and soon china will take over US
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
LOL 22%??? WHO TOLD YOU THAT LIE??? Lol china's growth went from 10% to 9% in one year. And its getting smaller every year.
Just because we borrow money from china, doesn't mean they are richer. Our economy is still 3x bigger, we only borrow because we spend more than any other country
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets wot hahaha are u on crack china is the fastest growing economy in the world and US ows 14 trillion there in big debt and yes US are richer at the min but that dont mean much because in china things are very cheap you can make things 50 times cheaper than in US
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Yes, china's economy is growing, but its growth is diminishing. And no, they don't have the fastest growing economy, thats afghanistan. Get your facts straight. WE'RE THE RICHEST AND MOST POWERFUL BITCH
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets fastest growing mega rich nation and qatar is fastest growing economy so get your facts right and yes US are the richest but only because of foreigners and US is not the most powerful EU is
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets your wrong there US as 403 billionaires alot of them was born in over countrys and now in the top 20 richest people there are only 5 from the US when about 30 years ago there was alot more US is now being took over and EU do have a military because if any country in the EU was invaded all the rest have to help out but yes its not a country but thay are all united realy just like the US
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Nope. That list of billionaires is from HOME BORN countries. How about you read more carefully next time. EPIC FAIL.
The EU is taking over the U.S.??? HAHAHA our economy is growing WAAAY faster than the eu economy.
AND THE EU ISN'T A FUCKING COUNTRY YOU MORON.
Just like the u.s.? NOPE. The u.s. has a centralized military force. The EU consists of a bunch of seperate militaries, which makes them less capable than us.
Our NAVY has more tonnage of ships than the next 13 largest navies COMBINED
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
looks like you no fuck all about military im in the armed forces tonnage means fuck all it takes about a 2kg warhead to sink a 110.000 tone aircraft carrier
and you will find that britians growth last mouth was up 6% germany 5% and US was 3% and the reason US as more home billionaires than sey the likes of britian and and germany is because thay have alot more land and alot more people but look at poverty in US its 18% in UK its 7% the US as more people in poverty than there are people in UK
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Comment removed
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Remove all of the ( ) in the urls
USA growth rate-
tradingeconomics(.)com/Economics/GDP-Growth(.)aspx?Symbol=USD
UK growth rate-
tradingeconomics(.)com/Economics/GDP-Growth(.)aspx?symbol=GBP
Germany growth rate-
tradingeconomics(.)com/Economics/GDP-Growth(.)aspx?symbol=DEM
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
First of all, you're wrong in just about everything you said. The UK has 61 million people. And our poverty rate is 12% you fucktard. The uk's poverty rate is 14% And thats because our poverty line is MUCH higher than the uk's or anywhere else. We consider people making $20,000 living in poverty. We make more money PER PERSON than britain, germany AND the EU.
And by the way, we also have WAY more billionaires PER PERSON than britian and germany, so population doesn't mean ANYTHING.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Here's a list of countries by poverty rate
nationmaster(.)com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line
Also, ok, so you say tonnage doesn't mean anything. Well heres a list of those three countries by amount of navy ships.
USA-1559
U.K.-139
Germany-130
HAHAHA look how much more we have
globalfirepower(.)com/country-military-strength-detail(.)asp?country_id=Germany
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets US navy as 210 warships and 69 Support ships if you wonna add merchant navy like you have done to US
UK would have 139 RN 180 merchant navy and 648 registered to UK which adds up to 967
and these site your looking at mean fuck all iraq military was the 4th biggest in world in 1991 and nato walked over them very easy size means fuck all iv been in the military for 5 years so i no
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
You idiot, that number of U.S. ships doesn't count merchant navy. WHY ARE YOU LYING. It counts total naval vessels, meaning 100% controlled by the u.s. navy. The same number is for the uk navy. It doesn't count merchant ships. ANd merchant ships AREN'T NAVY SHIPS. they have no armor, weapons, are any kind of technology on them whatsoever. IF you want to count merchant ships than the u.s. has 2000.
At the end of the day,
US navy ships-1559
UK navy ships-139
CASE CLOSED
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets hahahahaha thay dont have armor hahahah wot the fuck do you think there made out of you stupid fuck There are currently 11 aircraft carriers, 22 cruisers, 57 destroyers, 2 littoral combat ships, 29 frigates, 10 amphibious assault ships, 2 amphibious command ships, 9 amphibious transport docks, 12 dock landing ships, 53 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines, 14 mine countermeasures ships, 11 patrol boats, and 1 technical research ship =210
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets Support ships include two hospital ships, four salvage ships, two submarine tenders, four ammunition ships, five combat stores ships, four fast combat support ships, nine dry cargo ships, 15 replenishment oilers, four Fleet Ocean Tugs, four ocean surveillance ships, four container ships, 16 cargo ships =69 were do you get this 1559 from then
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Comment removed
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
this shows the list of ACTIVE navy vessels in the u.s. navy which is around 430. It doesn't count all of the patrol boats in the coast guard, oilers, ammunition ships, cargo ships and our HUGE reserve fleet, that make the number go up to 1559.
Just like the uk navy only has around 80 ships in ACTIVE service.
Just face it, our navy is the strongest naval force in the world. There's nothing you could say to dispute that.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets wow how mads that the link you sent me even proves i was rite 210 warships 69 Support ships and yes US navy is probley the strongest but that dont mean it would win a navel battles against royal navy because no one nose amout of ships is not everything why do you think royal navy as the worlds most advanced warship and sub because tec means more than how many you have
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Wow. you obviously don't know how to read. you IDIOT. That link i sent you shows 210 ACTIVE warships. It DOES NOT COUNT CARGO, OILERS, ETC ETC. READ AGAIN. It says "There are about 436 ships listed here (238 USS ships, 198 USNS, MV, SS and other ships)"
FAIL.
And like i said, it doesn't mention OUR RESERVE FLEET YOU IDIOT.
"but it don't mean it would win a naval battle against royal navy"
WTF??? we would CRUSH you and you KNOW IT.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets look up the royal navy history like battle of trafalgar and so on outnumberd and we took i think 12 ships off the french and spanish why do you think british forces have the best trained military in world because its training which wins wars not the amout of people you have plus US and UK will never go to war so stop talking shit and get a life
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Comment removed
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
Naval history MEANS NOTHING. Technology wasn't like it was during the british empire you IDIOT. I can't BELIEVE you actually think britain would stand a chance against the U.S. in a one-on-one war. The u.s. has the most powerful military force THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. We're stationed all over the world which makes us able to strike ANYWHERE on the planet faster than any other country. BRITAIN WOULD STAND NO CHANCE.
Numbers don't matter? TELL THAT TO HITLER.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets falklands britian outnumbered US said it was impossible to take back the falklands 8.000 miles from britian but we went and won and the burma campaign 1944–1945 which britian won was a big defeat for the japs and battle of Imphal which britian won was the japanise biggest land defeat but you are rite US did fight the japs more than britian but only because thay had a bigger force and we was in the war for nealy 2 years on are own and we was skint
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
impossible to take the falklands? LOL the Argentinian navy was so unbelievably outdated even mexico would have beat them in war.
You're so stupid. That video that i gave you of lists of tanks was lists of tanks as greatest ever built, not greatest right now. And nevertheless, the abrams was ranked higher than the challenger. And the challenger 2 is BARELY any different from the challenger 1 and it ranked #7! HAHA
And britain only has 400 challenger 2's and we have over 6000 abrams
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets and the argentine navy was pretty good at the type thay was 1 of 4 countrys with aircraft carriers and thay had some good ships but was no match for the royal navy hahahah you no fuck all 97% of the challenger 2 is different and the ranks means fuck all only reason CH1 was 7th is because we only had around 400 so the manufacture rate and fear factor was low because it was also new and yes we only have around 400 CH2 them abrams will be outdated soon
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
"and the argentine navy was pretty good" LOLOL and can you list what kind of aircraft carriers they had? And having aircraft carriers with outdated fighter jets means NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Also, having low quality radars also means EVERYTHING.
The abrams uses old ch1 armor? Uh sorry but depleted uranium armor is some of the best in the world.
And no, the germans had NO IDEA the british were using radar. LEARN YOUR OWN DAMN HISTORY. If they did, WHY would they go into an ambush???
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets i do no history about the battle of britian and all history because i love history i no alot about history of most countrys and i no that
this as just been copyed of a site for you During the initial period of the Battle of the Britain German tactic were to knock out the British Radar sites on the south coast and then bomb the RAF air fields
i can send you the link
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
So let me get this straight. You're saying the germans in the battle of britian were not surprised and flanked? You CLEARLY don't even know your own country's history.
Lol did you SERIOUSLY just say you can have automatic guns? lol you don't know what i mean by automatic. I mean FULLY automatic. Surely your not going to lie and say your allowed fully automatic guns.
And you need to be in a gun club to own large rifles in the uk.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets and no we dont have fully automatic guns because in britian there is a thing called aiming we just dont fire and hope for best but we have semi autos
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And to own any kind of gun in the u.k. you have to go through a very long paper work filled steps. In the u.s., you can walk into a pawn shop and walk out 5 minutes later with an Ar-15.
And we're talking about country vs country when it comes to the vietnam war. The u.s. undoubtedly did more work in the vietnam war. The u.s. dropped more bombs on vietnam than all of the bombs dropped in europe during ww2.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets i no ye cos US was to scared to fight them
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Um you yourself said you were talking about detecting aircraft and MISSILES.
And i looked it up and the SAMSON radar that the type 45 uses has a range of 248 miles, not 300.
And the AN/SPY-3 uses 6 MEGAwatts and the SAMPSON uses 25 KILOwatts.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets yes the type 45 also uses s1850m radar aswell and i think thats 11.6 megawatts
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Comment removed
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets and US will have to spend billions upgrading them or getting new ones and you do no the abram uses old CH1 armor
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Here's what you said on another video
"most powerful military then it falls under US military"
Thank you for that. Thats what i have been trying to explain to you. Im still reeling with laughter over the fact that you honestly think arleigh burkes have a range of 28 miles. ROFL.
At the end of the day, the u.s. military would be able to defeat the british military one on one. You said it yourself by saying we have the most powerful military. Again, thank you.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets yes US is the most powerful military on paper only because thay have a massive airforce and air superiority is the main thing in winning a large scale battle but all it would take for the US to lose there power wot thay have to day is a large war or 2 which was in the case of the british empire
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
General-
"What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi .You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And do you REALLY want me to list all of the MAJOR(key word) battles that the u.s. won? Really? I can do that if you want. But don't take my word for it, take General Giap's word(who was the leader of the north vietnamese army at the time)
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets wiganerrmc is not the sharpest tool in the shed
VanOstrum 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Again, tell me which anti-ship missiles the type 45 uses that go 300 miles. The missiles that your talking about that can be released all at once(which BTW doesn't mean anything) are for land-attack missiles. You're clearly mistaking the two.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets o sorry i mean 120 and its aster 30 and no there for air to air the 300 mile thing was the range which the jets or missiles can be deteced by the missiles system
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
No, you specifically said it has a range of 300 miles, not its radar.
And our AN/SPY 2 has the capability of 200+ miles which it is obviously more, only not disclosed. And remember, we have a LARGE fleet, which means MORE radars spread out all over the world.
Just face it, our military is stronger. You said it yourself.
So now your retracting your statement and saying our power would be defeated by britian? WAKE UP. Seriously.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets lol how is 200 more than 300 and do you not no how the navy works thay have thay go out in fleets and the airdefence radar for the DDG51 range is 100nm and yes your rite US is stronger but if britian was spending the amout of money US is we would be 100times stronger
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Because 200+ means MORE than 200. Obviously we're not going to give out the exact number. We ALWAYS downplay our military statistics. Its called a surprise advantage.
You're clearly reading a wrong or false source because Many of our Burkes are equipped with AN/SPY 3 which has well over a 200 mile range.
"if britian was spending the amout of money US is we would be 100times stronger"
LOL you're making me giggle.
Britian would never in a million years be able to spend as much as us
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets thats funny because the new ddg-51 uss jason dunham was fitted with the spy1 for air defence spy2 is for anti ballistic missile
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
No, the royal navy does NOT have the most advanced warship and sub are you CRAZY? And hitler also thought quality was better than quantity....remember how that turned out for him?
And do you have ANY proof that it was only 50,000 british troops and the rest were commonwealth? NOPE. CAUSE THEY WERE BRITISH. including the COMMANDERS that surrendered.
And are you honestly saying britain did more to defeat japan than we did? LOLOLOL now THAT'S funny.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And funny how you say NATO walked all over iraq in 1991...And 95% of all the work was done by us Americans. ALL of the bombings, missiles, etc came from the u.s. The only reason why we used a "coalition" was because we didn't want everyone to say that we're imperialistic and did it ourselves, even though we clearly did all of the work.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets wrong about 60% of the work was done by americans britians airforce was also there british troops was the first in iraq british troops also was in the war's most intense fighting and a british warship saved a US navy destroyer and challenger tank got the record tank to tank kill ever your just a tipical american which thinks thay did all the work
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Wow your such an idiot. The challenger tank rarely even saw combat in iraq 1991. The abrams destroyed 10x more iraqi tanks than the challenger. Yes, we lost some tanks but thats only cause we fought a lot more.
60%??? BULLSHIT. Easily over 95%. NEarly all of the early bomb campaigns in the 1991 gulf war were carried out by OUR stealth fighters including the b-2 bomber and the f-117 nighthawk.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets look up world record tank kill and it will tell you challenger tank gulf war and no it was 60% ye US did alot more in air campaign but britian france ando so on was also bombing iraq the funny thing is US was helping iraq against iran and that and britian had 2,500 armoured vehicles and 43,000 troops
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And BTW, go to globalfirepower dotcom to see where britain ranks as strongest military. #5!!!!!!
And do i even need to mention who's #1??? LOLOL
And don't say that the website is stupid or anything cause it gets information from MANY different intelligence agencies all across the world.
JUST FACE IT WE OWN THE WORLD BITCH.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets these rankings mean fuck all no one could sey who would win in a war the americans fort vietnam was gona be a walk over but thay was wrong and thay lost first golf war nato forces fort it was gona be a long and hard battle against ranked 4th in the world at the time iraq but it was a walk over and like US vs UK US as alot more stuff but UK would never give up and even if thay invaded UK we would make iraq and afghan look likes childs play we would wipe out US forces there
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Shows how much you know. We lost vietnam? What a stupid thing to say. We lost POLITICALLY in vietnam. We never lost a SINGLE major battle in vietnam and we had a 20-1 kill ratio.
IDIOT.
"we would wipe out US forces there"
WOW. you have officially proven how stupid you are. YOu and i BOTH know that we would CRUSH britain.
And that website compares militaries through ACTUAL statistics so you can't downplay it like it doesn't mean anything. MORON.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets your just stupid statistics means fuck all if thay was rite we would of bin out of afghan about 5 years ago britian as the best trained military in the world which US lack money cant bye everything yes the USAF would probley wipe out RAF i no that but britian would not give up and US would never able invade britian and this would never happen US vs UK and even if it did UK would not be on there own
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
continued-
Tsk tsk tsk....You watch too much t.v. We didn't lose a SINGLE major battle in vietnam. We lost because our people back home got sick of it and pushed congress to pull out. We were WINNING. Even the north vietnamese general at the time said they were DAYS away from surrendering and had no idea why we pulled out. I can send you the quote if you want.
AND we had a 20-1 kill ratio, not including civilians.
OWNED.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets it doesn't matter you pulled you troops out North Vietnamese was victory and vietnam wot about operation rolling thunder US lost in vietnam war Operation Lam Son 719, Operation Linebacker, Easter Offensive, Battle of Đồng Xoài, Battle of Bình Giã and there was loads of Strategic US failure i noly looked at 6 battles then and US only won 1 of them and SASR and NZSAS had a 500-1 kill ratio and thay was trained by the british SAS
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
All of those "battles" you mentioned were not major battles AT ALL.
Operation rolling thunder was a success because we were able to test out all of our aircraft(which was the point) the only reason why it was considered a "failure" was because the war continued on. LOL STOP READING WIKI YOU LOSER.
And in ALL of those battles you mentioned(every single one) The north vietnamese sustained MANY more casualties than the u.s.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ye i dont no much about the vietnam war only the US lost so i had to look up some battles and yes US killed around 2 million women and children in the war
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And no, that number of vietnamese deaths doesn't count the woman and children. We killed 1.2 million north vietnamese SOLDIERS and VIET CONG, which was well over 20x more than our own casualties. I wasn't talking about women and children. They don't play in to that equation.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets yes there wasn't just US fighting in the war on your side your side lost 340.000 and north vietnam lost about 1.1 million and just cos you lose more men dont mean you have lost russia lost around 11 million in ww2 and thay only killed about 2 million germans if that
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
lol i can't believe you actually just said you're allowed automatic guns....lolololol now your just flat out lying.
BTW, it would be a LOT easier for the u.s. to invade britain than vise versa, not only because we have an overwhelming amount of more military fire power, but because our civilians are way better armed than british civilians.
There are 5 guns per 100 U.K. citizens(all of them for hunting)
Compare that to 90 guns per 100 U.S. citizens. And our guns are fully automatic
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets you do no how easy it would be to supply british citizens
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
"you do no how easy it would be to supply british citizens"
Not if we blitz you and take over within days. And it would take TIME to manufacture enough weapons to the british population. We would have easily taken over britain by the time they even thought about arming its citizens.
And i just looked it up and it says britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Just face it. Our military is more powerful than yours. It will feel better when you admit the truth and move on...
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ye would probley just over rifles of russia or someone and we could just use ieds just like in afghan because i can make 1 very easy from stuff you can bye from most shop
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Fighting in the streets of britain would be WAY easier than fighting in iraq and afghanistan, because again, in afghanistan and iraq, your legally allowed to own an ak-47. Not the same in britian. And i already told you that we would easily take over britain long before they could make an order to russia for rifles. YOU'RE SPEAKING NONSENSE.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
wot the fuck as it got to do with fully auto rifles being illegal i could kill anyone with any rifle and i would rather have a semi auto rifle and i use rifles every day iv used alot of rifles out there which include ak-47 and belive me US would not even get troops onto britian and you dont no nout about combat so do one and when you sey all the ddg-51 would destroy the type 45's you do no in each battle group there are only about 5 ddg-51 in each 1 and royal navy will have 3 type 45
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Comment removed
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
First off, i couldn't find anywhere showing the s1850m radar having 11.6 megawatts.
And still, 5 burkes would easily destroy 3 type 45. And i doubt all 3 of the type 45's are in one fleet.
The type 45 isn't even made for ship-ship warfare, its made for land, and air defense.
And yes, it DOES matter if a gun is fully automatic than semi automatic. Imagine how much easier it would have been in iraq if the insurgents only had hunting rifles. ROFL
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ye because we will probley only have 2 fleets because once are 2 new super carriers are built each one will have there own battle group and the type 45 can be fitted with RGM-84 which is anti ship missile and it is better semi-automatic the rifle we use is semi auto but we can change it to auto with a switch of a catch but 99% of the time its in auto because we are trained to aim very good and we have GPMG and that if we wont to keep the enermys heads down
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
"and the type 45 can be fitted with-"
Exactly, CAN be fitted, but it wasn't DESIGNED to be an anti-ship destroyer.
Japan had some of the most powerful battleships and one of the most powerful navies in ww2 and we literally crushed them basically by ourselves. Im sure they too thought we would never be able to land troops on their territory.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets most powerful navys in ww2 was britian US then japan and the reason type 45 was made was to protected the new super carriers from air attack thats why it was made but if we went to war thay would able fit RGM-84 in about 10 mins the softwere is aready on the ship and we have type 23 for ship on ship battles and soon will have the type 26 and yes most of the british military uses semi autos even US dose
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
"The would able fit RGM-84 in about 10 minutes"
LOLOL Ten minutes? HAHAHAHA you don't know what you're talking about.
Semi auto? Now your flat out lying. Nearly every single gun that the U.S. issues uses fully auto 3-6 round burst. QUIT LYING.
"and on paper US would win"
LOL that's your way of saying we would beat you.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets you do no m16 is semi auto you no fuck all do you
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
First off, we don't mainly issue just the m16. Its the m16a2. And either way, both of them are either in fully auto or 3-6 round bursts you IDIOT. Shows how much YOU know. Please give me a url showing the military m16 or m16a2 or m4 to be just semi auto without 3 round bursts.
And the oliver frigate is not our main ship. The uk has more frigates than any other of their ships, and we have less frigates than any other main ship. Meaning, we don't use them as primary fleets
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets i dont need send you a url im a RMC and have used these rifles and US navy had 70 oliver frigate but because thay was shit thay sold some USN is getting rid of loads of there ships like the ticonderoga class cruiser and so on
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Yeah, we SOLD those frigates because we don't use them as our main fleet anymore, i already told you this. Getting rid of ticonderogas? Lol ticonderogas are for ballistic missiles. If we DO get rid of them its because our military isn't fighting against other militaries with ballistic missiles, so they're not as valuable. We invest in destroyers, aircraft carriers, and so forth. And by the way, your 2 QE aircraft carriers are still tiny compared to our 11+ super carriers
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
and yes you do still use them you have 30 of them still in USN and LOL the ticonderogas was not just for ballistic missiles lol its a missile cruisers for all sorts of warfare and the reason why there getting rid of them is because USN is cutting its navy just like the royal navy did in 80s and 90s ddg-1000 thay was getting 33 now there getting 2or 3 its like you have 11 aircraft carriers yet your only replaceing the 11 with 3 new gerald r ford class but thay will go over time not at once
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
You idiot our current 11 aircraft carriers are expected to last another 50 years or more. So there is no replacing being done. IDIOT.
You're saying we're only going to have 3 aircraft carriers? LOLOLOLOL
Now THAT is funny.
Even if we reduced our navy by a LOT(which we're not) we would still have a WAY bigger navy than britain. WAY BIGGER.
My country would beat your country one on one.
Case closed.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets well thay have a 25 year lifespan well the nuclear reactors do and thay need refill and britian had around 60 aircraft carriers in 1950 but we din't need them so we got rid of most of them and the reason US as 11 is because every country hates them im not seying i do but like russia chian and so on but people in the US piss me rite of people like you who no fuck all and think there good
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And you can't change a nuclear reactor? LOL the USS nimitz was commissioned over 35 years ago smart one.
The u.s. navy still has more DESTROYERS than frigates you CLOWN.
Does britain even have cruisers? LOL
"wrong again"
And what was i "wrong" about in the first place? lol i could go on and on about what you were "wrong" about.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ye thay can get refilled you clown USN nimitz was refilled in 2001
and plz tell me wots difference between frigates destroyer and crusiers
and no we dont have cruisers we got rid of ares in about 1970
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
Are you serious? Frigates are a LOT cheaper than cruisers first of all. Frigates are mainly used for anti-air, and anti-submarine tactics. Cruisers are made for getting somewhere really fast and to be the forefront of a fleet. The difference is the SPEED, armor, etc. Yes, both have other uses, but that is their primary use.
Say what you want but the u.s. would beat the uk in war. Thats a given fact.
And its "other" not "over" your spelling ist starting to annoy me
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha so fucking wrong the difference is just size
frigates weigh anything from 2000-6000 tons destroyers are in the range of 6000-9500 and cruisers normally 9500 tons and above
so your seying ticonderoga class must be a frigate because thats anti-air and anti-submarine hahahaha your a fucking joke do one
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
??? LOL how about you go and google cruiser, destroyer, and frigate and get back to me. The only difference is size? LOLOL what an elementary uneducated thing to say.
Frigate-
"a warship intended to protect other warships and merchant marine ships and as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys"
EPIC FAIL.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ahahahahahaha i said wots the difference you bell end i no wot there task is to do and i dont need to google it i no most things about warships i am in the royal navy im a RMC and have been on hms ocean for 6 mouths
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
You seem to know very little about the differnces of ships if you're really in the RMC(which i doubt)
How could the british military let someone with such bad grammar get to join? I mean, in our military, we have literary tests, which you obviously wouldn't be able to pass. Is the bar that low in britain?
And YOU'RE the one that idiotically said the only difference is the size...lol IDIOT.
Frigates normally don't even have vertical launch systems.
IDIOT.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets yes we do have test i failed my english one the first time and had to wait a year before i could retake it but i got the book and studyed everyday and i past the 2nd time and the marine test are very hard and yes i am a royal marine commando and i said wots the difference in the 3 and it is the size you can have a warship which is 13.000 tonnes and call it a frigate IDIOT
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc 3 and it is the size you CAN'T have a warship which is 13.000 tonnes and call it a frigate IDIOT
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
"ye thay can get refilled you clown USN nimitz was refilled in 2001"
??? um thats what I said you IDIOT. And stop using the word "clown" cause you got it from me, and if anyone is clowning around here its you with your horrible grammar.
Ticonderoga cruiser-$1 billion+
Type 23 frigate-$100-160 million
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets type 45 $2.2 billion
and clown is not your word i always use that you bell end
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Zumwalt-$3.5-4 billion
Oh, and the ford class aircraft carriers are $5 billion+
I mentioned the price of the frigate to our cruisers because you were implying that the frigate was better.
No, you didn't start using the word "clown" until i did. Stop lying.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets ye zumwalt is gona be like 15.000 tonnes and ford class is about 100.000 tonnes the type 45 is only about 8.000 tonnes
and i did not sey type 23 was better than the crusiers and the cost of a type 23 was £170 which is about $300 million plus then thay have had refits your just going of the cost off the hull
and iv been using the world clown since i was about 4 in school but ye i never used it on ere you probley got the seying from someone british
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
First off, the more tonnes in ships the better. It means more armor, which means harder to sink.
Lol you NEVER used the word clown before i did. STOP LYING.
I don't understand. You first said you can have a ship thats 13,000 tonnes and call it a frigate, and then you said you CAN'T. Which one is it? LOLOL
You asked for me to give you the differences and i did. Frigates don't usually have vertical launch systems.
OWNED.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets you cant have a ship which is 13.000 tonnes and call it a frigate
and thats bad init you sey frigates dont usually have VLS well type 23 dose these loads with vls hahahahaha
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
Lol the type 23 has the seawolf VLS which is for surface-air, not surface-land you IDIOT.
EPIC FAILURE.
AND i said frigates USUALLY don't have vertical launch systems. Learn to read you idiotic dyslexic retard.
AND i already gave you the definition of a frigate, so that argument is over buddy. You lost. As usual.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago
@coldbedsheets how the fuck did i lose i can name you about 8 friges of the top on my head which have vls and i did not sey wot is the main task of frigate destroyer and crusier i said wot is the difference you spak
wiganerrmc 1 year ago
@wiganerrmc
And by the way, in your original comment you said this, i'll quote it word for word-
"you can have a warship which is 13.000 tonnes and call it a frigate"
HAHAHA so you changed your mind?
And those VLS on the type 23 are for surface-air which therefor reinforces my claim of frigates being for anti-air combat.
coldbedsheets 1 year ago