What makes them so god tier at naval warfare? Posted on March 12, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor What makes them so god tier at naval warfare?
>No hostile land borders.
>Tons of water borders.
>Massive dependency on global commerce for centuries.
Not a mystery why Navy has been super important to them and thus gotten lots and lots of attention for a really long time, and in turn infrastructure and institutional knowledge anon.
This. Both ultracapitalist trading nations that were born looking out into the ocean and dependent on sea lanes for their survival.
The Dutch and Venetians were this on a much smaller scale.
Minus that the Dutch and Venetians weren't cultural siblings. America used to be a colony of the British, and we still have a lot of that cultural legacy in us (even though we're so insecure about it.)
>we still have a lot of that cultural legacy in us (even though we're so insecure about it.)
I wouldn't say insecure. If you look at modern American naval traditions it's nearly identical to the British. We call ourselves the same titles (petty officers, seamen, captains, chiefs) and we use the same words too (scuttlebutt, bulkhead, fo'csle, port, starboard). It's kinda cute.
t. US Navy guy
america even keeps alive old royal navy traditions that not even the uk does anymore like the paying off penant
We keep that alive.
>Penant should be the length of the vessel plus 1ft per year of service.
and the line crossing ceremony.
>not even the uk does anymore like the paying off penant
Retard. Have a photo of HMS Enterprise sailing into Devonport for the last time flying her paying-off pennant two days ago.
Bongs only do it when decommissioning a ship now. Originally you did it whenever a ship returned to port
>america even keeps alive old royal navy traditions
You can't even drink on-board you disgusting fat body what kind of sailor can't drink.
We got ice cream. It's our thing.
Don't forget nachos
Considering how retarded sailors get when they drink, this is not a bad thing.
>Americans can't handle there drink
News at 11
Allright leftenant.. seriously what’s the deal with that?
Left, because the Lt is never right.
dependency on global commerce for centuries.
Britain maybe, but the US has never really depended on foreign trade with its abundant natural resources and massive internal market.
>the US has never really depended on foreign trade
this is a bro that knows absolutely zero about american history
Even today the country is largely insulated from the world economy. Look up trade as a percentage of GDP, it's one of the lowest in the world.
>the country is largely insulated from the world economy.
The entire world pays taxes to the USA through inflation. The world depends on the USA to keep the Seas neutral and the USA depends on the world to invest in it's economy.
>the US has never really depended on foreign trade with its abundant natural resources and massive internal market
The South was basically propped up for decades by Europe's hard-on for Cotton and tobacco
Reading is awesome, especially when you are fucking stuck in bumper-to-bump traffic and literally cannot go anywhere anyway.
yes, the US COULD isolate itself economically and cope far better than most
But they haven't, mainly because there's no reason for them to do so unless they really have to.
You're right that the US could be economically self sufficient *if it wanted to be*. But why settle for austere autarky when you could be the wealthiest nation in history?
>the US has never really depended on foreign trade
This moron thinks we live in one of his RTS games.
US could be self sufficient in food and fuel which is a massive advantage over most of the world, they would handle the unraveling of globalism better than most though it's worth remembering the end of cheap and safe globalized trade really just offers outcomes ranging from 'a noticable and potentially politically destabilizing decline in material living conditions' to 'starvation and deindustrialization' with no real upside. They also have the naval assets to continue their own international trade if they wanted as they could easily defend their trade vessels.
Maritime commerce was a major part of the economy of the American colonies and then the United States after independence. We weren't just shipping goods to and from the US, we were shipping goods between other countries globally.
After independence the Brits stopped protecting US merchant ships from piracy and this was a major threat to the US economy. That's how we got involved in our first war on the far side of the world.
I love how you can trigger eurotards just by saying something positive about America. Yes, we have traded overseas for centuries. No, we were never dependent on it.
>He doesn't understand how global specialisation works
You are retarded but it's ok anon. Nearly all of high tech and specialists were in Europe initially, it didn't move to the US and Asia overnight. The first world is effectively the same country in a sense, at least economically, all specialising in things the others can't do as cheap or as well without significant talent transfer from their own specialised talent that is otherwise engaged in the their own (better) specialisation, or dumping too much into RnD to make it viable.
You can't be the best at everything, you can be the best at putting it all together, and having close to amazing everything, but you still need external trade from the other 8billion people in the world sorry anon, even if you could theoretically survive alone you are not.
Oh Christ, are you one of those europeans who thinks the US wasn't extremely powerful and wealthy before it got involved in Europe?
A lot of people dont study the 1800s anon.
They dont know about the midwest or Texas lol
No, you think the world started when America was formed or something or after ww2 retard.
If the US went full isolationist it would lose to the rest of the world, by sheer resources and talent eventually.
The USA effectively capitalises on cheap foreign resource extraction and cheap goods for high tech human resources and goods. It attracts wealth and high intellectuals through brain drain from foreign nations. Some call the US mitts, but this form of visa is highly eugenic. It's the low income border hoppers that aren't.
You don't know how much the US is dependant on trade, because you're a fucking idiot. So is the whole world. Shut the fuck up retard.
>If the US went full isolationist it would lose to the rest of the world
Lose how? It may be not be as rich and geopolitically relevant, but it's not getting invaded in any plausible scenario.
The cost of developing every industry instead of just buying the end goods from nations that have already paid the initial outlay eventually ends you up like North Korea and Iran, it would just take longer for the US given we're starting from far ahead and are a fairly large nation. You can see this how the US military has a huge boner for domestic production but still is fine with buying foreign missiles, ships, and many other things from trusted allies.
just get Mexicans and leafs to do it nafta would get a heavy load off our backs wouldn't it? maybe not america on her own but C.U.M would certainly fair better
The question was if the US went full isolationist, and you still have the same problem, my dim witted friend, just spread across 1 god tier country, 1 mid, and 1 3rd world, which would slow the decline but not abate it unless they import it and then sell it to the US, which would be opposite of the original question's premise of isolationist.
Possibly. However from a sheer landmass and trade situation Euroasia was only stopped from becoming the worlds trade epicenter by consistent meddling in the middleeast meant to keep the two separated and to extract resources.
The US already developed its own industry via import substitution policies. This worked well, because the US had substantial natural resources, human talent, and a huge internal market. Seriously consider researching American history before posting
Yeah, I was right. You're definitely one of those people who thinks America's wealth came from outside.
having a strong export and domestic market are not exclusive. In fact the US having both is one of the main reason for its strong economy.
Heritage leading to good seamanship - when you've been doing something for 2000+ years you tend to get good at it.
U.S' economy post WW2 has been built on ensuring global commerce (backed by the U.S) goes unmolested.
Whilst America could survive off of independent resources, why should it when it can bleed the world dry. Manifest Destiny 2.0
goes into more detail on the economics side of things.
Smaller localised conflicts (Indo-Pak war, Falklands) and wars that used naval resources (Gulf) as well as international deployments (anti-piracy, drugs etc).
What in the fuck anon here's your (You)
What are the Barbary wars
In the case of the USA it is the Bretton Woods agreement.
The world uses the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world. The US gets to borrow (inflate) their currency for military use. This results on the entire world paying taxes to the us (between 2% to 6% annually).
The US's side of the agreement is to neutrally patrol the seas and keep them open for commerce.
You should know that Bretton Woods was ended by Nixon but it's still the major world currency.
Not hard in the modern era since they're the only two effective blue water navies.
They are tactically god tier but strategically F tier because of "hearts and minds"
Was there any naval warfare at all after WW2?
Easy to be "god tier" when literally nobody else produces warships.
the entire postwar world order made warships irrelevant for most countries beyond a prestige thing, one of the main tenets of the American led world order was that the US Navy was going to patrol the global seas and ensure open access to international trade. this is such a mind blowing historical anomaly it's shocking more people don't talk about it, for the overwhelming majority of history what little naval trade there was required armed protection from pirates and hostile neighbors but now the seas are full of semi-autonomous cargo ships just full of wealth going back and forth across the ocean with minimal risk.
you really only 'needed' a Navy if you were hostile to the world order like the USSR was or like China now wants one to try to seize the South China Sea and break out of the first island chain so it has at least a chance of not being immediately embargo choked to death if a war with the US happens
Even if you think before WW2 the only nations that have had relevant practice in somewhat modern naval warfare have been UK, US and Japan.
Navies are expensive and most countries don't have the money to field modern blue water navy
Britain is utterly doomed if it's naval power is matched in the North Sea. It's island status stops being a fortress and turns into a prison - this is why throughout history Britain has absolutely not messed around with competent seamanship and technical innovation at sea. The Dutch were arguably Britain's kryptonite but they have the unfortunate handicap of being born continentals so they have to be ready to fight a land war with France.
The US isn't good at naval warfare. It just has the material advantage and air power.
>The US isn't good at naval warfare. It just has the material advantage and air power.
I think the Pacific War alone definitely qualifies the USN to be one of the best
>The US isn't good at naval warfare.
You ruined your entire post right here.
>Throughout history Britain has no messed around with XYZ la la la
You now remember the Burgers are essentially British and posses the same Naval skills and history you are awarding the Bongs with...
british/english naval seaman didn't really become amazing until it it transform into british proper.
before the 18th century, dutch and Spain were the master of the sea.
Why are so many fucking retards posting here
US kicked the IJN's ass which were all competent in their own right.
Post WW1, the bong navy became 2nd tier, were begging for naval treaties to limit others, then were being bled in the NA by uboats, humiliated off Crete and in the IO, not the showing of a tier 1.
Germanics were raiding the sea before Egyptians built the pyramids
the face of their women and the taste of their food made the British man the best sailor in the world
For the UK it's as simple as a hobby turning into a career. You'd struggle to find a kid who's left school and not been on a sailboat, ocean kyack or windsurfing. Its exactly the same reason fish and chips are so popular - near universal access to the sea. Its the same reason German aircraft and rocket designs were good - hobbyists.
>What makes them so god tier at warfare
It's rare anglos perform poorly in any aspect of warfare
the UK is quite rusty I guess. the last example of their nation independently mobilizing its navy for war was the falklands campaign, and they were pressing cargo ships into service
You clearly don't know how the merchant navy works.