Australia V US, who would win?

[Iskander]

Arent't the Aussies hosting one of those awful "Survivor" thingies?

Doesn't that mean that they've already lost?

[Warmaker]

Ummm... what is the purpose of this thread anyways? :confused:

*Hi Mom! Look! For once I didn't use "soda can" in my post!

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[russellmz]

given the naval superiority of the united states in manpower and equipment, austalia's lack of NBC weapons, longe range bombers i feel...wait, let me boil my thesis down to it's essence:

yeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaa! USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA!

[muzzlehead]

USA USA USA

USA would easily stop any Aussie invasion force by advancing multiple waves of naked sheep!

Mace and his Yellow Bonnet Freaks would be distracted by all their new found Loves!!

[muzzlehead]

USA USA USA

USA would easily stop any Aussie invasion force by advancing multiple waves of naked sheep!

Mace and his Yellow Bonnet Freaks would be distracted by all their new found Loves!!

[Zulu]

Diesel subs are very good but only in their own element which is close in to shore and in shallower waters. A carrier battlegroup can stay offshore and launch attacks on most targets.

The diesel sub has to snorkel every few days to replenish the batteries. They are pretty easily detectable during this phase. A diesel sub is super quiet only when operating on batteries/electric motors.

They are also not all that quiet when running at speed to intercept targets. So unless the battlegroup sails pretty close to them, they have to move fast to intercept the BG, thus they are vulnerable to detection.

So I would feel much safer on a carrier with the protecting screen than on a diesel boat.

[StellarRat]

I don't know if the US could withstand a Foster's embargo.

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl:

Ditka<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if Ditka had to face the entire Australian Navy AND God AND Ditka was only six inches tall?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

What if Ditka had to face the entire Australian Navy AND God AND Ditka was only six inches tall?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could he wear shoes?

Jeff Heidman

[Scipio]

My opinion - the USA can win if they are able to bring their gigantic industrial power into the battle, bombard for several weeks/month everything into peaces what could be a weapon. When the enemy is weakened enough, they show up with ground forces and receive the victory, cause nothing is alive what can defend - or nothing is left what can be defended. And drive home as the heros who won the war with relativ low casualities. See WW1, WW2, Iraq, Yugoslavia.

But they get regulary a bloody nose when they are forced to move in with ground troops first. Was it in Panama where the undefeatable SEALs were routed? Or Vietnam, a small communist country with obsolet industry and armament.

Nothing vs the USA - before you start whinning . But to have the stronger military force doesn't already mean to win the war. Another example, USSR vs Afghanistan.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Dunnee]

In wartime, any major US fleet has advanced ASW screens starting at least 200 m out from the force and in depth. Diesel electrics are very quiet, but as Zulu said, they need to recharge their batteries, which leaves little room for error during high speed evasion. The best way for a diesel-electric to hit a fleet, would be to ghost along at like 1 or 2 knots in a position that the incoming fleet will have to pass through. The sub could, in effect, if it has done its job properly, sink a couple of warships, but, the sub would never get away from retribution, those batteries just don't have enough charge for high speed chases with american nuclear subs.

[Stalins Organ]

Actually the point about the Repulse and PoW is poorly made.

The "cretinous" British Govt did NOT order them into combat without air cover. Air cover was requested and granted for their sortie, but failed to show up, and the decision to sortie was made by the Admiral in charge, who knew perfectly well what airpower could do (the Brits had raided Taranto remember?!) and what the risks were.

As with some other perceived blunders by the Brits (eg Gallipoli), they came within a gnat's private parts of a huge victory that might have changed the whole course of the war.

War is like that. You take chances - sometimes they do not come off.

[KMHPaladin]

Dunnee makes an excellent point. Diesel-electrics may be quiet, but they aren't for very long. They have limited range and speed, and if they're detected even once, it's infinitely easier to track them down because of their limited speed and inability to clear the area. To say that submarine reactors are the equivalent of floating brass bands is ignorant; they are far from "loud," especially in newer designs.

At the risk of getting myself embroiled in discussion of a ludicrous hypothetical Australia-US war... my recollection is that the Aussies are having such trouble with their new Steyr AUG copies that they're ditching them and going for M4s ASAP. Anyone with far more time to read the news care to comment/modify?

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: KMHPaladin ]

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was it in Panama where the undefeatable SEALs were routed? Or Vietnam, a small communist country with obsolet industry and armament. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scipio, SEALs are NOT undefeatable and they regularly get into deep crap for taking on far more than they can chew.

And your comment about Vietnam is entirely off the mark, and I'm sure you know it to be so.

A country that fielded the most awesome Air Defence Network ever faced in a conflict, posessed a very well trained and disciplined army (The NVA was the real threat in Vietnam, not the VC like the countless movies like to portray) who in their country had already defeated the Japanese and the French and later went on to tackle China can hardly be called the "backward and obsolete"

I suggest you do some research on the real reasons why the Vietnam War was lost and pay close attention to the ratio of US to NVA won battles and you will see that the war was lost in Washington DC and not in Southeast Asia.

Remember: The US lost in Vietnam and so did Australia

Gyrene

[Stuka]

Mom, why don't you say 'Hi' back?

[Dunnee]

I actually think that if the politicians had laid off in vietnam we would have won. . .

[Dunnee]

I actually think that if the politicians had laid off in vietnam we would have won. . .

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

I actually think that if the politicians had laid off in vietnam we would have won. . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if annihilating half the vietnamese population meant "winning". seriously, the vietnamese probably would have taken a few more million casualties to try and throw us out

[CaSCa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by REVS:

To CaSCa, I bow to your greater experience on this issue, but I think it's useful even on this forum to make the point that the hero capital ships of the last war are the turkey shoots of the next war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but I wasn't arguing that point.

Large ships have their uses,in this case it is the projection of airpower to areas with limited bases of operation for our forces. They are protected by goodly numbers of smaller ships, airplanes, helicopters, and nuclear submarines because they are large vulnerable turkeys that don't defend themselves well.

The escorts have three jobs. They protect the carrier from enemy airpower and surface craft, plus they provide the ASW screen.

There is a lot of manpower, money, equipment, and training invested ASW, but most of the advantages lie with the subs.

When properly used, any submarine be it diesel or nuclear could penetrate the asw screen deep enough to threaten the carrier. In blue water chasing a fast moving task force, the nuclear submarine would be the better tool. It has the speed and the range. To keep the enemy away from your coast or to denie entry to waters through straits or channels close to your home, the diesel boat is an excellent solution.

Keep in mind that a nuke boat could do this last job just as well, which is perhaps one of the reasons why the US Navy doesn't use diesel boats anymore (IIRC the last of the them in the US fleet were decommissioned in the late '80's). But nuke boats are very expensive to build and operate. For a country that does not have a bent towards world domination and merely wants to control regional waters at a more reasonable expense, the diesel boat would be a more sensible solution.

So it boils down to different tools for the same job but different circumstances.

And the Skimmers are still the turkeys.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: CaSCa ]

[CaSCa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CaSCa:

Thanks, but I wasn't arguing that point.

Large ships have their uses,in this case it is the projection of airpower to areas with limited bases of operation for our forces. They are protected by goodly numbers of smaller ships, airplanes, helicopters, and nuclear submarines because they are large vulnerable turkeys that don't defend themselves well.

The escorts have three jobs. They protect the carrier from enemy airpower and surface craft, plus they provide the ASW screen.

There is a lot of manpower, money, equipment, and training invested ASW, but most of the advantages lie with the subs.

When properly used, any submarine be it diesel or nuclear could penetrate the asw screen deep enough to threaten the carrier. In blue water chasing a fast moving task force, the nuclear submarine would be the better tool. It has the speed and the range. To keep the enemy away from your coast or to deny entry to waters through straits or channels close to your home, the diesel boat is an excellent solution.

Keep in mind that a nuke boat could do this last job just as well, which is perhaps one of the reasons why the US Navy doesn't use diesel boats anymore (IIRC the last of the them in the US fleet were decommissioned in the late '80's). But nuke boats are very expensive to build and operate. For a country that does not have a bent towards world domination and merely wants to control regional waters at a more reasonable expense, the diesel boat would be a more sensible solution.

So it boils down to different tools for the same job but different circumstances.

And the Skimmers are still the turkeys.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: CaSCa ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Battlefront.com]

If the next incarnation of CM was to cover the ATO (Aussie Theater of Operations), this topic would be OK here.

As it is not, this topic is moved to the general forum.

Oh, BTW, Hi Stuka.

Deputy Moderator