What makes them so god tier at naval warfare?

What makes them so god tier at naval warfare?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Seaman drinking

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Semen drinking
      FTFY

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Money.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.)

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            america even keeps alive old royal navy traditions that not even the uk does anymore like the paying off penant

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              We keep that alive.
              >Penant should be the length of the vessel plus 1ft per year of service.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                and the line crossing ceremony.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >not even the uk does anymore like the paying off penant
              moron. Have a photo of HMS Enterprise sailing into Devonport for the last time flying her paying-off pennant two days ago.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bongs only do it when decommissioning a ship now. Originally you did it whenever a ship returned to port

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                We got ice cream. It's our thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Don't forget nachos

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Considering how moronic sailors get when they drink, this is not a bad thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Americans can't handle there drink
                News at 11

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Allright leftenant.. seriously what’s the deal with that?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >leftenant
              Left, because the Lt is never right.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >the US has never really depended on foreign trade

        this is a homie that knows absolutely zero about american history

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Reading is awesome, especially when you are fricking stuck in bumper-to-bump traffic and literally cannot go anywhere anyway.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >the US has never really depended on foreign trade
        This Black person thinks we live in one of his RTS games.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Sort of

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >He doesn't understand how global specialisation works
          You are moronic 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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Oh Christ, are you one of those europeans who thinks the US wasn't extremely powerful and wealthy before it got involved in Europe?

            • 1 year ago
              RC-135 Rivet Joint

              A lot of people dont study the 1800s anon.

              They dont know about the midwest or Texas lol

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              No, you think the world started when America was formed or something or after ww2 moron.
              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 fricking idiot. So is the whole world. Shut the frick up moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I was right. You're definitely one of those people who thinks America's wealth came from outside.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

                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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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

        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.

        goes into more detail on the economics side of things.

        Was there any naval warfare at all after WW2?
        Easy to be "god tier" when literally nobody else produces warships.

        Smaller localised conflicts (Indo-Pak war, Falklands) and wars that used naval resources (Gulf) as well as international deployments (anti-piracy, drugs etc).

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What in the frick anon here's your (You)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What are the Barbary wars

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You should know that Bretton Woods was ended by Nixon but it's still the major world currency.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Not hard in the modern era since they're the only two effective blue water navies.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They are tactically god tier but strategically F tier because of "hearts and minds"

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Citrus fruit

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Was there any naval warfare at all after WW2?
    Easy to be "god tier" when literally nobody else produces warships.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Navies are expensive and most countries don't have the money to field modern blue water navy

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The US isn't good at naval warfare.
      You ruined your entire post right here.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why are so many fricking morons posting here

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      US kicked the IJN's ass which were all competent in their own right.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Germanics were raiding the sea before Egyptians built the pyramids

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the face of their women and the taste of their food made the British man the best sailor in the world

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >What makes them so god tier at warfare
    Ftfy
    It's rare anglos perform poorly in any aspect of warfare

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You clearly don't know how the merchant navy works.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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