• PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.

    If you’re going for a “decent navy” plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We are not talking about any conquering here though. And btw you can’t conquer anything with a carrier either, it’s pure racket weapon.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.

      • huf [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        you cant conquer things with weapons, that’s not how you occupy/hold land. the only thing that works is boots.