this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
76 points (88.0% liked)

US News

2016 readers
46 users here now

News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WashedAnus@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Carriers are the naval past, subs continue on into the future, but you can't conquer shit with a sub.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] WashedAnus@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] WashedAnus@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, I was referring to amphibious ships which allow you to land boots on shore.