Was the Imperial Japan the most formidable adversary in the history of US?

Was the Imperial Japan the most formidable adversary in the history of US?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Britain in the War of 1812.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kek, the US had a 3,000 man army and no navy and still raped the bongs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Getting blockaded for 3 years and having your capital burnt to the ground is raping your opponent.

        That's some real vatnik logic there.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > muh blockade
          Kek, the only starvation in NA were the bong units west of Montreal, who meekly submitted.

          Oh, and Toronto burned first, and the bongs were furious, but feeble, unsupported raids mean no more than useless blockades. They submitted eventually. What choice?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            man standing army
            >458,463 militia
            >around 500 privateers
            america declaring war on the UK while they were distracted with spain and france and achieving absolutely nothing will never not be funny

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Except, the bongs got raped.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              not as funny as losing one of your most prized colonial holdings to a bunch of farmers and french poofs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >most prized
                that's India, dipshit

                Americans can't fathom a time when their country was an irrelevant Red Indian-infested backwater on the very edge of the explored map

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >still seething +2 centuries later
                The bongs went East after they were fricked off from NA.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >muh starvation
            Cool. Meanwhile US trade was ruined, leading to massive loss of wealth. All over gaining nothing in the end except a slightly sooty capital.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >US trade was ruined
              Kek, no. Not even close.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Agreed. It was not merely ruined, it was de facto ENDED for several years.

                >invasion of Canada becoming an abject failure,
                No, the US destroyed the bongs in Ontario.

                Yes, the US was utterly destroyed by the bongs in Canada. Actually, that's not evne correct, it was mostly the Canadians themselves that utterly raped US forced in Canada and sent their sad, sorry remains routing back across the border. What few ground troops the bongs actually sent mostly just had a lark torching Washington.

                >> the Carribean colonies
                And by late 19th century, the US told the bongs to cease armed patrols in the Caribbean. They submitted.

                Uh huh. Cool story, bro. Also, having to go nigh a century forward in time becuase you can't even deny how hard the US got BTFO'd in 1812 now? Your desperation and seethe are palpable.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Most of those Canadians were American Loyalists that were driven out after the Revolutionary War, so...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > muh blockade
          Kek, the only starvation in NA were the bong units west of Montreal, who meekly submitted.

          Oh, and Toronto burned first, and the bongs were furious, but feeble, unsupported raids mean no more than useless blockades. They submitted eventually. What choice?

          man standing army
          >458,463 militia
          >around 500 privateers
          america declaring war on the UK while they were distracted with spain and france and achieving absolutely nothing will never not be funny

          https://i.imgur.com/XYqUJIr.gif

          >Declare war with the least congressional support in the history of declarations of war
          >Invade Canada, defended by a token force of locals lead by a collection of british officers and augmented with a few redskins
          >All while the brits are distracted by Spain and France
          >Gain 0 territory
          >Spark massive amounts of civil unrest and a few lynch mobs
          >Give up the ship
          >White house burned down
          >"Nah we won that one"
          Why must they be like this?

          >USA tries to conquer Canada
          >fails
          >Britian tries to conquer the USA
          >fails
          Only one of these was a globe-spanning empire

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Declare war with the least congressional support in the history of declarations of war
        >Invade Canada, defended by a token force of locals lead by a collection of british officers and augmented with a few redskins
        >All while the brits are distracted by Spain and France
        >Gain 0 territory
        >Spark massive amounts of civil unrest and a few lynch mobs
        >Give up the ship
        >White house burned down
        >"Nah we won that one"
        Why must they be like this?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Despite our strategic shortcomings in the war, Britain stopped impressment of American sailors, Tecumseh and his uppity confederation were crushed, and Jackson managed to hold New Orleans. That last victory gave us a big boost in nationalism which ended up leading to the Era of Good Feelings. Some portion of the population considers that a victory even though it was more of a white peace.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think there are some real underrated conflicts with Native Americans even if it was largely a slaughter. There are multiple instances of American soldiers and militia shitting their britches when they hear Indian war cries that only stopped being an issue in recent history. It's understandable in a way because the US has historically fielded a frontier militia of farmers fighting an enemy that knows and lives off the land.

            The Western Confederacy and Seminole Wars gave the US a bloody nose and even when the US would score absolute victories you had bullshit like killing all the buffalo off.

            >Britain stopped impressment of American sailors

            Britain stopped this before war was even declared. Stop trying to dress up the obviously cowardly landgrab attempt whilst Britain was busy fighting for it's life against 18th century Hitler. Notice how quickly peace came about once Europe was dealt with and Britain just wanted to enjoy some peace.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's often forgotten the Indians were modernizing their armies until the bloody end, fielding weapons more advanced than what the Balkans had access to. There weren't spear-chuckers like the Africans Euro colonialists were dealing with, they were practically an insurgency.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >fighting for it's life
              There wasn't any realistic way for Naps to bridge the English channel.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, there was

                Napoleon had all the forests of Europe at his command, and there was no reason why he couldn't reform his Navy the same way the British did theirs. the fact that he failed is his own fault.

                1800 was the year of maximum danger, the combined French and Spanish fleets actually equalled the British, at least in terms of ships of the line (bit less in frigates), but unlike the British, the French and Spanish had fewer colonial holdings and could afford to direct proportionately more ships towards overwhelming the Channel and Home fleets. A major defeat, or even inconclusive battles, could have allowed them time to outbuild the British and train up the crews.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Good thing the Central europowers defeated Nappy, huh? Especially given what the US and their 3,000 man army and no navy did to the incompetent fools.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                seethe and cope, homosexual

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Britain stopped this before war was even declared
              Perfidious Albion says lots of things. Only a dolt believes them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          we won 1812 because wars aren't decided by who kills the most people and burns the most shit, it's about the political outcomes.
          but we also won vietnam because we killed the most people and burned the most shit, who cares about the final results lol lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's about the political outcomes
            And in terms of political outcomes, the US started the war under a thin pretense based on an issue that was already solved, all so a few warhawks in Congress could try and conquer Canada. It ended in the invasion of Canada becoming an abject failure, Washington D.C. getting sacked and US trade being blockaded for a couple years causing massive loss of wealth. All of that, with absolutely jack fricking shit to show for it.

            Meanwhile, the bongs literally didn't care and their only goal was getting the idiot colonials to stop chimping out at them. And they got exactly that in the end.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >invasion of Canada becoming an abject failure,
              No, the US destroyed the bongs in Ontario.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We won Vietnam right up until 1975 when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty and the congressional Democrats decided their political careers were more important than a 20 year US ally

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe in terms of willing to use comically brutal tactics and suicide zerg rushes, but even the Chinese saw more of that than the US did outside of shit like the Bataan march. Whenever the IJA went up against an actual army and not a ragtag force herded by near illiterate officers with maybe one or two actual decent divisions or token defense forces who maybe had a machine gun among them they got annihilated more or less every time, and the IJN’s sole strategy was praying that the US lost interest in the war which naturally never happened. Case in point the Yamato detonating itself without ever seeing proper combat. Existentially the USSR in a no brainer was the biggest solid threat the US has so far faced, and even at the hottest moments neither side were completely willing to engage in open conflict with the other.

          To be fair 1812 still made the Royal Navy more or less frick off from the Americas in the Atlantic (particularly with impressment), give up their holdouts on the continent outside of Canada, crushed Tecumseh’s rebellion and led to Jackson getting presidency. 1812 may not have been a decisive burger tactical victory but IMO it solidified the early US as an actual nation to the rest of the world and still more or less guaranteed American sovereignty within its borders, and gave America more breathing room to expand afterwards. The only ones who genuinely lost that war were the natives.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To build on this it was a learning experience for the British, who knew from that point on that they couldn't treat North America like it was India. If they had learned that lesson in 1840 instead of 1812 it would have been much worse for them

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The bongs got destroyed in Ontario, and never put another garrison north of the border. Eventually, 50 years later, the US forced the creation of a country called Canada. You're welcome, leads.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The yanks got destroyed everywhere in the canadian colonies, and never dared put a single soldiers boots across the border uninvited again. Eventually, 50 years later, the US wa sforced to watch the creation of a country called Canada on the territory they had dreamt to conquer for themselves. You're welcome, delusional yank.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sorry, lad, the bongs were destroyed in Ontario. Then they cowered and submitted. Then tried to convict the bong commander, but we all know who caused that defeat.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, mate, the yanks were obliterated in Canada. Then they shat themselves, ran, cried and surrendered. Then tried to forget really hard about their abject, total failure, but we all remember them getting BTFO'd utterly regardless. Seethe more about it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, mate, the yanks were obliterated in Canada. Then they shat themselves, ran, cried and surrendered. Then tried to forget really hard about their abject, total failure, but we all remember them getting BTFO'd utterly regardless. Seethe more about it.

                This guy is so pissed he has the worst view of the falls

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Burning of York best day of my life

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the US forced the creation of a country called Canad
            Now this one is real cope. The US had blatantly been seething at Canada's existence since 1783 and them becoming a separate country from the US was a massive wiener block to the United States which lost out on the entire Great White North. Canada is basically America's version of Ukraine: a running joke designed to deny us valuable territory and make everyone else laugh at the fact that this happened to us

            https://i.imgur.com/1hVniHn.jpeg

            >American aircraft carriers sunk by the world:12

            >American aircraft carriers sunk by Japan:12

            I’d say so.

            Did they use a fricking Nimitz class illustration for the USS Lexington CV-2??

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              not really.
              Ukraine was worth quite a bit more to the USSR than canada could be to america (at the time, mind you. its worth a lot more now via oil)
              Ukraine was the source of a LOT of shit for the USSR.
              food and factories.

              The war of 1812 is basically one of the two sore spots in our nations history. We seethe over it less than plenty of people do over sports team losses, though the butthurt is there.
              Its just one of the two wars we lost, more or less. Out of dozens.
              Afghanistan doesn't really count since we lost the nation building side of things, and the only other country that has even TRIED to nation build like that since WW2 is the now disbanded USSR.
              Pretty much the only place we succeeded with THAT was Japan where we were on easy mode.

              What strikes me is that Canadians really want to rub it in since its basically the only bit of military national pride they have outside of a few distinguished units here and there across history.
              But in this I smell the stink of turd worlders trying to make it about Bongs doing shit to America, instead of Canadians.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                canada didn't exist, and the bongs were exposed hard and were never a factor in NA again, having been fricked off to india

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Canada's existence since 1783
              It didn't exist then, historylet, and only came about via a US pistol up against the bong temple, in 1867

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Why must they be like this?
          Because we got what we wanted out of it for the Brits were forced to stop harassing us who cares if we didn't take Canada and the white house was literarily just a house we didn't actually lose much from it burning down it was really just a symbolic/morale loss. So the question is why are you so stupid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We want England to stop pressing our men into their navy
            >So let's fail to invade Canada, get our federal building burnt down, have what little naval power we have smashed, and die a bunch
            Clearly this was the best way to go about things and there was absolutely no alternate motive for invading a foreign country.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Mutts Memoryholing things like vatBlack folk
          Say it aint so

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >No Navy
        Lol wut, like the only bright parts of the war for the USA were the single ship duels where they consistently beat the RN and then later the Battle of New Orleans, which happened like 2 weeks after the peace treaty was signed. The 6 frigates put in a big time shift in 1812.

        >Getting blockaded for 3 years and having your capital burnt to the ground is raping your opponent.

        That's some real vatnik logic there.

        There was never an effective blockade of the US seaboard, and the USN ravaged the Carribean colonies, capturing so many prizes that the war became economically impossible for the UK in the political climate at the time.

        https://i.imgur.com/XYqUJIr.gif

        >Declare war with the least congressional support in the history of declarations of war
        >Invade Canada, defended by a token force of locals lead by a collection of british officers and augmented with a few redskins
        >All while the brits are distracted by Spain and France
        >Gain 0 territory
        >Spark massive amounts of civil unrest and a few lynch mobs
        >Give up the ship
        >White house burned down
        >"Nah we won that one"
        Why must they be like this?

        The only stated war goal (both to Congress and he British Crown) was to stop the illegal impressment of US citizens. Which they accomplished. The UK goal was to continue the practice, and if possible recapture the NA colonies. The US achieved it's war goals, the UK did not. If your side literally failed all it's objectives while having the reputation of it's premier fighting force (the RN) severely tarnished by multiple defeats, hard to spin that as a victory.

        Why must bongs be like this?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >ike the only bright parts of the war for the USA were the single ship duels where they consistently beat RN ships half their size and got a mutual beating at best anytime they foudn themselves faced by something their own size
          FTFY.

          >There was never an effective blockade of the US seaboard,
          LMAO, absolute delusion.

          >and the USN mildly annoyed the Carribean colonies
          FTFY

          >capturing so many prizes that the war became economically impossible for the UK
          This is literally the most delusionjal I've ever seen a burger be. The whole "war" wasn't even seen as such by the bongs. It was literally an afterthought to them, a minor colonial squabble. A fricking rounding error compared to the shit they were dealing with back in Europe.

          >The only stated war goal (both to Congress and he British Crown) was to stop the illegal impressment of US citizens.
          Which was not only a laughably thin pretnese for an attempted war of conquest, but one that also fell flat hilariously givne the Royal Navy had stopped doing that before the US even declared war.

          >The UK goal was to continue the practice
          Blatantly false give the fact that it was stopped before the war even started. The UKs only goal was to get the moronic colonials to stop chimping out at Canada.

          The US failed to achieve any of its actual war goals except for the fake pretense they "achieved" before even starting the war. The UK meanwhile succeeded in achieving all of its actual war goals, by dint of kicking out the invaison of Canada and then inflicting enough pain on the US to get them to the table and agree to stop being morons.

          >hile having the reputation of it's premier fighting force (the RN) severely tarnished
          The only fighting force that had its reputation tarnished in that war outside of your hilarious delusions was US militias.

          Seethe more about it, historylet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >> the Carribean colonies
            And by late 19th century, the US told the bongs to cease armed patrols in the Caribbean. They submitted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Hey, it's not fair that you built a heavy frigate knowing it would overmatch our shit-boxes, you have to use the same shitty techniques as us!
            Cope Harder Bong
            >New England not even being the target of a blockade for most of the war is an 'effective blockade'
            Interesting take
            >1,344 merchant vessels captured, it's only a minor annoyance, I swear!
            Peak Delusion. When your 600 ship navy can capture a grand total of 60 more merchant vessels than a 22 ship navy can while losing almost every single engagement with a force you outnumber 24x1, you don't exactly 'rule the waves'
            >15,000 abducted Americans, forbidding trade with the most populated country in Europe and literally parking a ship of the line in NY harbor to board and kidnap whoever the frick they wanted are 'a thin pretense'. And they had not stopped the practice, you're just sharting that out of your ass.
            >They had stopped the practice! I swear! Don't read the actual historical documents that show this is complete bullshit I made up!
            >The RN's reputation wasn't tarnished at all!
            "The sacred spell of the Royal Navy's invincibility was broken" -- George Canning in the House of commons

            Sorry you got your ass kicked by a force that you comically outnumbered and had to give the US Florida and Alabama and stop kidnapping people to make the ass-beatings you were receiving daily at sea stop. British people don't have much to be proud of so losing the RN's prestige must have been tough. Go cry about it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The only stated war goal was to stop the illegal impressment of US citizens

          "And that's why we invaded Canada."

          "The End."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >raped the bongs
        Yeah, getting your capital torched, having your invasion of Canada come to nothing and basically getting out with a slap on the wrist in the form of only getting your trade blockaded into oblivion for a couple years because the bongs had bigger problems to deal with than a colonial chimpout over an issue that was literally solved before the war even started is "raping" them. LMAO.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Again, the bongs were raped in Ontario, then meekly submitted. Even Wellington told those idiots how badly they'd failed, and that they should seek whatever terms the US gave.

          The idiots also invaded Argentina about then, and got raped there too. Bongs gonna bong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, the yanks were raped everywhere in Canada, then meekly surrendered. They got their navy shat on, their trade blockaded, their capital torched and in the end were forced to swear off their ambitions forever. Everyone told the moronic warhawks in Congress how badly they'd failed, and that they should seek whatever terms the UK gave.

            The idiots also tired privateering about then, and got raped by the RN there too, so hard it was to cirtually become the end of the practice alltogether. Yanks gonna yank.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Didn't re as d. The bongs were raped in Ontario, then submitted.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          clearly the bongs lost so hard the US gained no territory

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Enjoy being a colooy of india limey boy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not getting Canada and thus having to treat leafs like equals is the greatest strategic victory in American history.
          Would they please burn D.C a second time?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        t. flaco jimenez

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Andrew Jackson humiliated Britain in New Orleans and the USS Constitution defeated their frigates at sea, but that's about it man, let's be sober here.
        The US completely failed to occupy Canada (an actual successful invasion could've easily led to its annexation) and DC got fricking burnt down after the President and his cabinet literally had to run away from the invading British at Bladensburg (which is probably the most embarrassing defeat of independent American history, given the results).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no navy
        Which is why the French were our most important ally. We kicked ass for sure but without the frog men and their naval support the war would've ended a lot sooner.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The frogs played little part in 1812, lad.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No it was the British in 1812 because of Blockades. I hate to say it as an American, but that was the greatest danger to the country in our entire history. OF course morons who don't understand naval warfare say shit like this

        Don't even fricking bother with them. They are the type of people who want to defund the navy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The only starvation in NA was the bong rabble that the US herded up in Ontario. They were starving because the US had inflicted a naval defeat on the bongs in Lake Erie, the most important naval action of the war, and the most consequential naval loss the bongs ever suffered. You never heard of it of course, historylet.

          The bongs fricked off to India then, and the IJA herded them up in Singapore a 100+ years later. Too bad they'd been so incompetent in NA back then.

          .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >still seething +2 centuries later
            The bongs went East after they were fricked off from NA.

            oh it's this homosexual again
            EIC Company Rule predated the American Revolution
            seethe and cope

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Do you have a point?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if they had actually been trying, they would have been. if they had more commanders who were actually trying to hold their islands instead of organizing a vely honorabu mass suicide for themselves and all their men, they would have been.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and nobody else even comes close.
    The Pacific war was unquestionably out nation’s most kino conflict and militarily speaking our finest hour.
    A peak so triumphant that it can never and will never be matched by anything we do ever again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The Pacific war was unquestionably out nation’s most kino conflict and militarily speaking our finest hour.
      >Our
      Spotted the japanese here

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I’m american and i was talking about america’s performance in the war ya clown.
        The japs despite being doomed to be jobbers from the start nevertheless put in a great heel performance and in so doing compelled us to bring out our A-game and really start kicking in peoples’ dicks - if not out of necessity then certainly out of pure spite in out part. Why? Because with Japan it was personal.
        Meanwhile we’ve fought two wars against britain and two wars against germany and none had nearly as much emotional investment for us in them as our one war with japan (in my humble opinion)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > 30k us killed including pearl harbor
          > 5+ million nipmonkeys killed before the nukes

          Lmfao

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In terms of where and what we were vs were and what our enemy was, I'd say Mexico or the Philippines.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And you'd say wrong

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Dude. I don't think Philippines should be there. Unless you're talking about the southern island.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only 10% of USA's WW2 War Effort was directed against Japan.

    Likewise, less than 10% of post Cold War US war spending and KIA/PTSD etc could be considered in anyway "protecting our vital interests" much less even "defending USA".

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The confederacy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > The confederacy
      This anon gets it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bongs were a bigger threat. Confederates could never blockade like they did.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >American aircraft carriers sunk by the world:12

    >American aircraft carriers sunk by Japan:12

    I’d say so.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      By my count, the US only lost four fleet carriers during the war.
      USS Lexington (Battle of the Coral Sea)
      USS Yorktown (Battle of Midway)
      USS Wasp (Guadalcanal Campaign)
      USS Hornet (Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands)
      Wasp and her size was just on the cusp of being a light carrier. After 1942, the Japanese would never again sink an American fleet carrier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Japanese by contrast, lost 11 fleet carriers during the war. I'm not going to list them because I'm lazy. I'll add that my favorite Japanese carrier, the Taiho, deserved better than what she got. Fricking moronic ass Japanese damage-control teams.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Country that lost a war also lost almost its entire navy
          Wow no kidding

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Shokaku met a similarly nasty fate that day, too. Can you imagine what all these barely-trained IJN sailors were thinking; on their way to their first battle with the Americans and two aircraft carriers just fricking explode in the middle of the sea?

          https://i.imgur.com/ARljoXq.jpeg

          A new challenger appears: https://youtu.be/soEpAprko7w

          You deserve to watch your mother be raped by a pack of Black folk.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Country that was massively outnumbered after 1942 in practically every battle lost all their ships
          Shocker.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Japan only ever had 7 operational fleet carriers, the Pearl Harbor gang and Taihou. Unryuu was only being used for transport, Katsuragi didn't even leave port, and Shinano wasn't a fleet carrier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well he didn't say fleet carrier did he? He said aircraft carrier

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      inb4 someone brings up USNS Card.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      /thread, it's Japan undoubtedly for sinking actual steel ships and not some shitty wooden boats.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every carrier sunk in WW2 were inter-war/treaty garbage or flimsy escort carriers with one exception of the Taihou which had its own issues.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Taiho had its own issues
        Other than the moronic damage-control team, are you referring to the avgas tanks being connected to the hull?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Yorktowns were treaty, but they weren't garbage. The Shoukakus were neither treaty nor garbage.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Langley wasn't a carrier when she was sunk she had been converted to a seaplane tender before the war

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > ww2 pacific: us 30k killed including Pearl Harbor, japs 5+ million before the nukes

    Ironically the only adversary that gave the US stiff competition was the chink/norks coalition when the kill ratio was around 3:1, was the only conflict in US history where the kill ratio was not a gazillion to one

    The next "best" again ironically were the krauts, around 150k us killed compared to 5+ million krauts, but the krauts were also fighting the soviets so maybe without the soviets involved it would have been 200k us but same end result

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It goes to show how op the US is, fighting a two front war separated by thousands of miles of oceans power projecting unbeatable land forces and steamrolling through both germany and japan like a rabid pitbull in a pit with a thousand rats barely breaking a sweat, and this was about a century ago too

      Either the US is really that strong or germany and japan were comically weak...probably a bit of both

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You realise Germany was fighting the soviets and like 5 other significant enemies across the world right? Even if you just count America, the British and the Soviets (a more powerful enemy than the Japanese).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >US is really that strong
        We are a high tech industrial power with huge manpower huge resources multi layered natural defenses and no realistic nearby threats.

        We do not have to maintain a land garrison. Beyond a token force to keep Mexico from fricking around. Our Geopolitical position, particularly from a standpoint of physical "hard" power is unmatched globally. Were Britain but gigantic and with a much better water barrier and less social class baggage allowing us to better leverage our talents.

        Germany is surrounded by potential enemies. Russia Is sandwiched between rivals and a untrustworthy "friends". England is defensible but very limited by size and population. China Has 2 land(India, Russia) and one sea(Japan) based rivals in direct proximity along with a host of less than friendly minors nearby who could form a coalition to contain chinese aggression. As well as a de-facto outpost of their greatest geopolitical rival as a standoff garrison in australia. India and Brazil have the land and Population to be powerful but political corruption and cultural baggage hobble them and they have near peers in direct proximity.

        Meanwhile America sits on the far side of the world with population, wealth, resources, tech, tribal knowledge of war and **no realistic threats to the homeland**.

        Why do you think various enemies spend so much effort on sabotaging America, its the ONLY possible way we can ever be beaten. It would take the entire world setting aside its difference and dog-piling us to even make it a contest in a straight fight and even then its not a sure thing because you have to cross oceans to reach us and our coasts are backed by either immediate mountains or bogs. Theres no clean path into the hinterlands.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Or, send 2-3M unknown illegal aliens in every year, and wait.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean people have been saying that forever, but in the late 1800s and early 1900s like 1/5th of the US population was foreign immigrants from places ranging from Mexico to Ireland to Cuba to Italy to China to Russia, and back in those days NONE of those people were considered white good protestant men and women.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              All of them were inspected and rejected as necessary. No fool would do otherwise then. However today, fools are letting in 2-3M unknown illegals in every year, and paying them. That's the invasion that can work.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              We are vulnerable to a putsch using the corporate system as cover. This election is a major referendum on this and trust busting.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

          >At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >or germany and japan were comically weak
        Tell that to some grandpa who survived Iwo Jima or Hürtgen forest and see how he reacts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          See this —>

          > 30k us killed including pearl harbor
          > 5+ million nipmonkeys killed before the nukes

          Lmfao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Real numbers were lopsided enough, not sure why would you bring bullshit ones

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Real numbers were lopsided enough, not sure why would you bring bullshit ones

            The official figures in the pacific war:

            US: 111 thousand

            Japan: 2.5 million

            How is the US this op or is japan that weak? These are conquistador vs native numbers, even the chinese/norks did better

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Seems like people forget the US wasnt the only power Japan was fighting. While its easy to discount china as they were pretty abysmal at the time they were also fighting the japanese for much longer and over much more area. Also inb4 "america only used 10 percent..." It was not until after 1943 that America started diverting more resources to the European front than the pacific.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                China really didn't matter in that war. The KMT could have surrendered, it would have been the same.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                KMT got it's shit kicked in every time they faced the nips, but at least it's better then the communists hiding out in the mountains and then atacking the KMT when the nips retreated and the communist rewriting history that they where the ones defending china all along, not the KMT.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              the Japs were also fighting the British and Australians

              China really didn't matter in that war. The KMT could have surrendered, it would have been the same.

              their human waves soaked up a lot of Jap manpower

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >manpower
                A large land army doesn't matter as much in a primarily naval conflict

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >primarily naval conflict
                Only the American side of it was primarily naval. You have to look at the war from the points of view of all its participants, not just the Americans.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How were more ground troops going to stop them from getting rolled by the Americans?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They would have been able to garrison their holdings with more troops. The "island hopping" would have cost more American casualties.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Concentration of troops on the islands was never the issue, it was the ability to supply them. At some point having more troops stops bringing returns and becomes a detriment.

                HAHAHAHHAA. Japan was defeated by China, their navy initially properly challnged by the bongs. Murica wept in when they could just zerg rush the japanese navy. It's typical burger bullshit, show up last minute and pretend you win, or leave early and call it a military victory but political loss. Just like how you got raped by the Chinese in the Korean war and gave yourselves medals of honor for abandoning the Korean peoples.

                Seethe

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it was the ability to supply them
                In many cases, because they overreached their logistics and ran into a brick wall. With more troops they could have punched through. For example, in India and New Guinea or Australia.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >With more troops they could have punched through. For example, in India and New Guinea or Australia.
                That's where the problem of logistics is at it's worst. You can have all the soldiers you could ever want, but if you can't supply them they do about jack and shit for you.
                >In order to supply a force of 5000 men with a daily ration of 600 grams of food a day, the daily requirement would amount to about 3 tonns. Securing the daily 3-tonn need, would require 230 carriers reaching the frontline every day. If the detachment were to advance from Buna, to the saddle of the Owen Stanley Range, a distance of about 100 km, the supply necessity would require 4600 carriers. If the front were to advance to Port Moresby, some 360 km from Buna, then to supply food alone would require 32,000 carriers.
                And that's before you even get into merchant tonnage, which the IJN was borrowing from the civilian industry with the impending time limit of industry supply chain collapse inching close by the week.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                if, notionally, the China front didn't exist, the IJA would have enough men to take India and Australia proper. they could then feed themselves with local food supplies.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the Japs were also fighting the British
                Kek, now that's funny.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              most of that Japanese body count was scattered in various theaters across south Asia, mostly in China, Hernandez.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Korea was the only near fight
      Oh the price of not being able to pick the when and where of land fights through naval supremacy. I think the Mexican American War was similar in combat loss ratio to Korea

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Japan was a tough because America didn't wait until Japan was weakened immensely to fight Japan.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A grand total of two countries have managed to inflicted greater losses on the United States in a war. Great Britain and the Confederate States of America.

    Everyone else, even the ones who have won (North Vietnam and the Taliban) has gotten brutally mauled by American tactics and firepower.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The japs were formidable, only because defeating them required building a massive logistical train across the Pacific. The Confederacy was the only existential threat they've faced, and the USSR if they'd launched.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Saying the Confederacy was an existential threat to the Union is like saying the US was an existential threat to Britain in 1776 or Algeria was an existential threat to France

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well, when hundreds of thousands of troops are marching distance from your government, and one slip at Gettysburg puts Lee's pistol at Lincoln's temple, we call that existential, lad.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The CSA existing would have destroyed the Midwests economy by restricting the usage of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers for trade. It is not possible to overstate the importance of New Orleans and the Mississippi to American wealth

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >britain gets mentioned
    >thread immediately ruined
    Many such cases.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mention mongrels not winning a war.
      >Burgers be raging

      many such cases

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I do especially like how the bongs were raped in Ontario and Argentina back then. Muh empire, Kirk.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    PrepHole was a mistake.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Vietcong/Taliban

    after all they fled with their tail between their legs and Vietnam became communist and the Taliban are running the show.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was going to mention the Spanish-American war of 1898 but then realized the despite being 4 times the strength the Spanish took a 10:1 kill ratio and failed to sink a single American ship.

      >Vietnam won
      Observe pic related

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget, the childrens of vietcongs and NVA are currently dying in the sweatshops owned by the same American and south Koreans who bombed their parents.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > The exhausted, dispirited, and half-starved British regulars fired a single ragged fusillade before retreating in disorder.

    > Procter and about 250 of his men fled from the battlefield, while the rest of his soldiers threw down their weapons and surrendered. Most of the British soldiers, including Lieutenant Richard Bullock's[nb 1] grenadier company, who escaped the battlefield were on the right of the British line, where the ground was marshy and more thickly wooded.[14]

    The bongs were gaped and raped in Ontario. It was strategically over for the bongs at that point. Their fellow bong Wellington told them so.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    These peasants were the most formidable rival of the US

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the US never actually tried to win the Vietnam war for political reasons. we tried to fight a holding action on behalf of an utterly corrupt and reviled government that did not have popular support.

      The Viet Cong and NVA lost every major engagement against US forces, badly, with horrific casualties. Then we got sick of South Vietnam's shit and left. The North defeated the South, after the US left the conflict for political and social reasons.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The US never WANTED to win
        C'mon man

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          We never committed to the level of engagement that would have been necessary to win.
          A unequivocal victory by military force was never our aim. We did not, at any point, seek to invade and subdue the north thus ending the war in victory.

          We sought to maintain the status quo antebellum through a negotiated peace won by attrition and bombing. A plan which relies on the co-operation of the enemy, since if they are willing to take the bombing and keep feeding meat to the grinder while we are unwilling to invade and destroy them they win by default.

          They beat America in a contest of political will, they were willing to send hundreds of thousands of young men into fiery death and have their infrastructure bombed to dust to have their way in Vietnam, we were not willing to spend the lives on an invasion and potential escalation and we were unwilling to engage in the genocidal bombing campaigns necessary to force capitulation.
          But we never set out to win militarily it was always a political exercise, us asking "How many men are you willing to lose for this" and then answering "All of them".
          We expected that after a couple years of American forces mowing down NVA and VC they'd give up but we profoundly misunderstood their commitment to the war and their willing to spend blood on unification.

          They did not win a contest off arms, they answered our contest of wills with an endless tide of men and before they ran out of men and will we ran out of political tolerance for the war at home, largely because of the draft.
          I think if the US hadn't used the draft support for the war would have been much more sure and the anti war movement wouldn't have gained nearly the support it did. Americans don't actually give a shit about our money being wasted fighting wars on the other side of the world but we hate to hear about Americans dying. We tolerated the GWOT for two decades, because there was no draft, just volunteers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We never committed to the level of engagement that would have been necessary to win.
            That is different to wanting to win

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The GWOT was vastly less bloody than the war in Vietnam

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the Imperial Japan the most formidable adversary in the history of US?
    US, Germany, UK and Japan were the only countries to have war time nuclear weapons programs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >war time nuclear weapons programs
      Only the US had a weapons program. Germany had a nuclear program and did fission first, but little more. Japan had a somewhat promising but underfunded program. . The bongs had almost nothing, and not the theoretical or applied physicists to drive it (or funding).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Germany had a nuclear program and did fission first, but little more.
        right, they figured the war would be over by the time the bomb would be ready at the earliest, so became deprioritized, but their uranium was used by the soviets for their own nuclear weapons project post war

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I suppose if you count combat with China and USSR (pilots) in Korean war, those might contest for top spot

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and they still never had a chance. America is fricking scary.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Imperial Japanese Navy, maybe. On land, the Jap's only real advantage was being suicidally stupid. Unfortunately for them, the victor wasn't determined by number of civilians raped or POWs cannibalized. You can still see them mald about US power in anime sometimes.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A new challenger appears: https://youtu.be/soEpAprko7w

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, The Confederate States of America was. They marched a 1,000,000 man strong army against the United States and on U.S. soil no less. They were a far more dangerous adversary to the U.S. than the Japanese, Germans, British, Mexicans, etc. ever were.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If the krauts had 1% of the dedication the japanese army had they would have reached Vladivosatok by 1942

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, the CIA was/is.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How did they fricking sink Akagi!? It got hit by fricking one bomb! No other fricking carrier took only one hit and was done for!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >No other fricking carrier took only one hit and was done for
      Ark Royal and Taihō?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Franklin was very nearly sunk by a single bomb. HMS Hood was sunk by two 15" shells. Shit happens.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >very nearly sunk
        Franklin was never in danger of sinking.
        Technically Akagi was scuttled.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, the most formidable adversary were the based Chinks in Korean war. Never before have US troops been overrun so hard.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    HAHAHAHHAA. Japan was defeated by China, their navy initially properly challnged by the bongs. Murica wept in when they could just zerg rush the japanese navy. It's typical burger bullshit, show up last minute and pretend you win, or leave early and call it a military victory but political loss. Just like how you got raped by the Chinese in the Korean war and gave yourselves medals of honor for abandoning the Korean peoples.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      holy shit the thirdie seethe
      I've never seen such before since I stopped going on /misc/

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Chinese never faced the Japanese Navy and you frickers admit your cities got raped.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >their navy initially properly challnged by the bongs
      When?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ignore d&c bait

        although it's true that the Japs didn't dare move on the Brits until they were embroiled in a war against the Germs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Japan was defeated by China
      we are hitting levels of implessive that shouldn't even be possible...

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it was probably jefferson davis, honestly. i regret the end of reconstruction but i can still acknowledge he punched above his weight class, until everything really started falling apart at least

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it was the csa and it's not even close

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *