Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rosenate22 t1_jd77log wrote

Looks like after that meeting with Xi and Putin we are going to need our arsenal here.

23

dexecuter18 t1_jd7yxc5 wrote

We have 10k tanks. Our combat power comes from annihilating anything that moves with airpower and guided artillery. We can spare out mothballed tanks.

40

Dreadedvegas t1_jd829et wrote

Ground mechanized units are not important to an Indo-Pacific confrontation. There will not be ground battles in Taiwan and the US surely wouldn’t invade China.

Sending Bradleys and tanks to Ukraine does not take away from the Navy and Marines strategy in the Pacific. There is a reason why the Marines have divested from tanks and artillery there

37

BulkyPage t1_jd838io wrote

But how are we going to protect our carrier fleets if we don't have any Abrams? Put some water wings on those bad boys and set sail for freedom.

18

tbarr1991 t1_jd8c72v wrote

Same reason naval fire power is kind of meh nowadays. Yes having control of shipping and what not is great but aerial supremecy. Why float a slow moving heavily armored target when you can just blow up xyz at the 2x or 3x the sound barrier and be gone in 30 seconds instead of 30 hours.

Not saying a strong navy isnt important unless youre literally a landlocked country that doesnt touch an ocean iunno like Afghanistan. Then a navy would be well fuckin worthless.

4

Senyu t1_jd8old5 wrote

I don't know, seeing a bunch of Abrams on a carrier firing off into the distance would be pretty cool looking. Gotta' flex where you can /s

5

tbarr1991 t1_jd93a9l wrote

Why use tank on a carrier to shoot shit in the distance at that point and just build ships with even bigger guns mounted to em. WELCOME TO THE GUN SHOW.

Also TIL Bolivia is a landlocked country that has a navy.

3

Senyu t1_jd9dape wrote

I honestly thought that'd be the route the Navy would go with their railguns, but it seems that project has been put on hold indefinitely. My guess is they value air strikes and missles more than a kinetic launcher that's costly in electricity. I think both are good, especially given the range and ammo costs of a railgun, but we'll see if it ever resumes.

2

CaptLeaderLegend26 t1_jd8pw01 wrote

>and the US surely wouldn’t invade China

Never underestimate the stupidity of American leadership.

−12

Dreadedvegas t1_jd8wvc2 wrote

It is not logistically feasible today to conduct an invasion. The navy is not configured to do it

The US does not have the type of ships or equipment in numbers to perform a naval landing that would have to make Normandy look small.

Its not possible. Even if some idiot ordered it, it is not possible.

A conventional war between China and the US would look like the Falklands war which would be almost exclusively a naval and air campaign

8

girafa t1_jd8bi5p wrote

Is Xi giving Putin weapons?

edit: "while China should not be considered a neutral party, the United States has seen no indication the Chinese are poised to provide the Russians with lethal weapons."

Source

3

mrsegraves t1_jd8dix5 wrote

He already has been

2

girafa t1_jd8f75c wrote

Those old rifles were apparently just old stockpiles, nothing recent.

1