Often called “tripwire forces” when they were NATO troops stationed in Eastern Europe. Their purpose is to force the adversary to kill some people before it can take any territory, ensuring that they can’t simply make it a fait accompli and hope there will be no further repercussions.
I mean, we’ll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you’ve got a US military base already on the island that’s been running these defense calculations for decades. It’s going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn’t perfunctory, and someone is asking the question “How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?” seriously.
To add to this, the US is not that great in the Arctic. To occupy Greenland they need boots on the ground, and they are not equipped or manned to do Arctic land operations. EU + Canada surpass them in that. The US only has the one airborne division that are actually cold weather fighters. They also have far fewer ice breakers and the additional units that they were going to buy from Finland (who makes the best ones in the world) will surely be canceled.
To date, no US aircraft carrier has been lost in a military operation. You’re using “sunk” to describe military exercises that informed the US of all the strategies potentially deployed by these countries.
Those carriers are far from invincible.
If the Europeans want to put a US carrier at the bottom of the ocean, I’m not going to shed a tear. But you’re pointing to scrimmage runs and exhibition matches, while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
Do you believe that other countries have been training alongside Americans for decades and have never picked up any knowledge of their skills, methods, strategy, tactics, doctrine, weapons, etc? Never learned anything at all about how Americans fight? The Americans are the most visible military on the planet, and the most gregarious, they’re in every country and training with all of these countries, and somehow no one ever figured out how they do it?
Typical Americunt, picking and choosing their propaganda points and completely ignoring anything else. Exactly like your orange pedo cunt of a president.
Americunts keep losing their wars against much much weaker militaries and you haven’t won a proper war in decades.
Americunts can’t win a war without your EU allies because the EU are the ones with successful strategies, like how to bypass the “most advanced navy” defenses and sink their expensive carriers.
Americunts are only good at drive bys and hit and run attacks, you don’t know how to fight a proper war. Fact.
So no, Americunts have terrible playbooks. Good luck.
America lost a bunch in World War II. Since then they’ve been exceedingly careful not to risk losing them, always putting them up against foes that couldn’t hit back. Both because they’re expensive, of course, but also to cultivate the very myth that you’re falling for - that American naval power is “invincible.”
Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn’t then I don’t know what does
Yes, the Swedish diesel electric subs are really quiet and hard to detect in a war game scenario, but that is done with many artificial constraints to the defending CSG, which is tightly packed in a relatively small patch of ocean that the Swedish sub knew and could plan for.
In reality those subs are stealthy only while traveling at 6 knots and the CSG can travel at 30 over vast expanses of water, with an effective strike range of 2000 miles.
Also, in war they’re allowed to use high energy sonars that they can’t use in a war game because it kills marine animals, which will detect a turd floating 500 miles away (exaggerating here but you get the idea).
These are advance troops that will figure out logistics, where it makes sense to deploy a bigger force. What they need, and infrastructure.
They are also a deterrent, if german soldiers are killed shit will hit the fan.
Often called “tripwire forces” when they were NATO troops stationed in Eastern Europe. Their purpose is to force the adversary to kill some people before it can take any territory, ensuring that they can’t simply make it a fait accompli and hope there will be no further repercussions.
I mean, we’ll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you’ve got a US military base already on the island that’s been running these defense calculations for decades. It’s going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn’t perfunctory, and someone is asking the question “How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?” seriously.
You mean like that time when a Swedish diesel sub bypassed all the defenses and “sunk” the US carrier?
Or that time when Netherlands sub “sunk” one?
Or that time when Australia “sunk” one?
Or that time when Canada “sunk” one?
Those carriers are far from invincible.
The USA is historically bad at wars - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea - all lost despite their massive military spending.
The only wars they won in modern times are the ones where they received help from their EU NATO allies.
They’re only good at “strike and run away” operations, like the one in Venezuela.
If they can’t take Greenland overnight, it will cost them very dearly to go to war with NATO, with no certainty of winning.
To add to this, the US is not that great in the Arctic. To occupy Greenland they need boots on the ground, and they are not equipped or manned to do Arctic land operations. EU + Canada surpass them in that. The US only has the one airborne division that are actually cold weather fighters. They also have far fewer ice breakers and the additional units that they were going to buy from Finland (who makes the best ones in the world) will surely be canceled.
To date, no US aircraft carrier has been lost in a military operation. You’re using “sunk” to describe military exercises that informed the US of all the strategies potentially deployed by these countries.
If the Europeans want to put a US carrier at the bottom of the ocean, I’m not going to shed a tear. But you’re pointing to scrimmage runs and exhibition matches, while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
Put up or shut up.
This part is particularly silly:
Do you believe that other countries have been training alongside Americans for decades and have never picked up any knowledge of their skills, methods, strategy, tactics, doctrine, weapons, etc? Never learned anything at all about how Americans fight? The Americans are the most visible military on the planet, and the most gregarious, they’re in every country and training with all of these countries, and somehow no one ever figured out how they do it?
Typical Americunt, picking and choosing their propaganda points and completely ignoring anything else. Exactly like your orange pedo cunt of a president.
Americunts keep losing their wars against much much weaker militaries and you haven’t won a proper war in decades.
Americunts can’t win a war without your EU allies because the EU are the ones with successful strategies, like how to bypass the “most advanced navy” defenses and sink their expensive carriers.
Americunts are only good at drive bys and hit and run attacks, you don’t know how to fight a proper war. Fact.
So no, Americunts have terrible playbooks. Good luck.
America lost a bunch in World War II. Since then they’ve been exceedingly careful not to risk losing them, always putting them up against foes that couldn’t hit back. Both because they’re expensive, of course, but also to cultivate the very myth that you’re falling for - that American naval power is “invincible.”
It’s not.
Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn’t then I don’t know what does
Wasn’t it one of the Nordics that ‘sunk’ an American carried in drills a while back?
Yes, the Swedish diesel electric subs are really quiet and hard to detect in a war game scenario, but that is done with many artificial constraints to the defending CSG, which is tightly packed in a relatively small patch of ocean that the Swedish sub knew and could plan for.
In reality those subs are stealthy only while traveling at 6 knots and the CSG can travel at 30 over vast expanses of water, with an effective strike range of 2000 miles.
Also, in war they’re allowed to use high energy sonars that they can’t use in a war game because it kills marine animals, which will detect a turd floating 500 miles away (exaggerating here but you get the idea).
One of? I thought it was several…