What's The Latest A Successful Invasion Of Britain Could Be Mounted?

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Also, any scenario involving a US naval attack on a country with modern submarines results in the US losing most or all of its aircraft carriers. They are extremely vulnerable against competently crewed diesel submarines. Carriers are kept around for bombing third world countries, they're tissue paper tigers against anyone with real weapons. NATO navies sink them a very embarrassing portion of the time in wargames (which is widely known around the world, but barely mentioned in the US). We're not just talking Britain, IIRC the Dutch are pretty effective at it.
 
Also, any scenario involving a US naval attack on a country with modern submarines results in the US losing most or all of its aircraft carriers. They are extremely vulnerable against competently crewed diesel submarines. Carriers are kept around for bombing third world countries, they're tissue paper tigers against anyone with real weapons. NATO navies sink them a very embarrassing portion of the time in wargames (which is widely known around the world, but barely mentioned in the US). We're not just talking Britain, IIRC the Dutch are pretty effective at it.

Not just submarines, simulated "Iranian" torpedo boats, basically just motorboats with cheap antiship missiles, took out a couple carriers in wargames a few years back.
 
Not just submarines, simulated "Iranian" torpedo boats, basically just motorboats with cheap antiship missiles, took out a couple carriers in wargames a few years back.

Actually, I believe that story at least was mostly fabricated. Such an exercise did take place, but it was accomplished by the leader of the red force blatantly violating rules, including mounting missiles on boats too small to carry them, and bringing ships and men back to life after they were "killed" when blue force wasn't looking. So I suppose Carriers would be vulnerable to motorboats with cheap missiles if their operators were actually zombies and magicians. (and also ninjas and/or pirates)

As for vulnerability to submarines, the weakness is generally overstated. There have been a few threads on this already, but carriers aren't nearly as vulnerable as the War Nerd claims.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Actually, I believe that story at least was mostly fabricated. Such an exercise did take place, but it was accomplished by the leader of the red force blatantly violating rules, including mounting missiles on boats too small to carry them, and bringing ships and men back to life after they were "killed" when blue force wasn't looking. So I suppose Carriers would be vulnerable to motorboats with cheap missiles if their operators were actually zombies and magicians. (and also ninjas and/or pirates)

As for vulnerability to submarines, the weakness is generally overstated. There have been a few threads on this already, but carriers aren't nearly as vulnerable as the War Nerd claims.

I've seen similar rulings on exercise before, like the time a B Company, 42 Commando crossed an "impassable" hill range and destroyed the 11th ACR in a series of anti-armour ambushes. Or the time on Eagle Strike 2000 when our recce platoon infiltrated the US brigade HQ and assassinated the entire HQ staff at a conference, then found the US LD marked out with cylumes but no-one securing it (and so laid every gun and mortar available on it, waited until the yanks had occupied it then blasted it). These were all ruled "illegal" under the scenario.

As for US submarines, it's a requirement on the Perisher Course for a potential RN sub commander to infiltrate a US CVBG's anti-submarine screen and take a photo of the carrier close up. The RNLN have a similar requirement.
 
Top