Congratulations. You're the worst thing about a shitty thread, n00b.
I could really care less what you think.
Congratulations. You're the worst thing about a shitty thread, n00b.
Fail troll is very fail.
Congratulations. You're the worst thing about a shitty thread, n00b.
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.
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.