- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The West doesn't have the industrial capacity to fight major ground wars.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 2/22/25 at 1:57 pm
Britain could field a fighting force of 150 tanks and 10,000 men within 3 months. The British have 500 Field Generals and 500 horses and 150 serviceable Tanks.
The number for France is 20,000 at best.
Even the US lacks the industrial capacity to replace expended munitions. The US is like a heavyweight with a big punch that gasses out after 2 rounds.
This is a great argument for peace and Ukraine. And for reindustrialization of the United States.
This substantial difference is reflected in the number of ships produced. In 2023, China constructed over 1,000 vessels, while the United States built fewer than 10.
We have to reindustrualize. Our impressive financial and biotechnology sectors don't mean squat when the bullets start flying.
The number for France is 20,000 at best.
Even the US lacks the industrial capacity to replace expended munitions. The US is like a heavyweight with a big punch that gasses out after 2 rounds.
This is a great argument for peace and Ukraine. And for reindustrialization of the United States.
This substantial difference is reflected in the number of ships produced. In 2023, China constructed over 1,000 vessels, while the United States built fewer than 10.
We have to reindustrualize. Our impressive financial and biotechnology sectors don't mean squat when the bullets start flying.
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 2:07 pm
52
Posted on 2/22/25 at 1:58 pm to RiverCityTider
We control the skies.
Game over
Game over
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:00 pm to RiverCityTider
It’s the #1 issue for national security and it’s why government spending needs to be cut across the board. I’m a believer in the free market and against government intervention, but the federal government has to step in to reindustrialize the country ASAP. We need to be re-opening facilities like Avondale in Louisiana and re-open steel plants.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:02 pm to RiverCityTider
Trump has talked about this. He's mentioned ship building capacity several times and increasing industry and manufacturing in the US is one of the main issues he ran on.
It's only been a month.
It's only been a month.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:03 pm to RiverCityTider
The problem with reacquiring a defense manufacturing base in the United States is you'd get opposition from people who consider themselves America First screaming, "MIC!!! MIC!!!"
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:03 pm to lake chuck fan
Is hard to believe Britain controlled all of India less than a century ago.
India would crush them like a mosquito.
India would crush them like a mosquito.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:04 pm to RiverCityTider
Tanks and aircraft carriers are sitting ducks now. It’s all about technology now. Who has the highest tech weaponry that doesn’t require a human be in it to operate it? Remote controlled weapons are the future. Period.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:04 pm to RiverCityTider
quote:
500 horses
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:05 pm to Ag Zwin
Yes. There are 500 horses in the British military.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:06 pm to RiverCityTider
Yep. probably going be one of the most import issues going forward and very few people will even talk about it much less try to understand. Big peer to peer wars are ugly grind it out affairs.
In 1941 we were the grind it out industrial power while Germany was the leader in innovation. By 1944 an ME-262 fighter or Panther Tank doesn't do you much good unless you can build them in meaningful numbers.
In 1941 we were the grind it out industrial power while Germany was the leader in innovation. By 1944 an ME-262 fighter or Panther Tank doesn't do you much good unless you can build them in meaningful numbers.
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:06 pm to RiverCityTider
We don't have the bodies to support a ground war. Much less the industrial base. I read a paper published by the war college awhile back illustrating the point pretty well. Attrition due to casualty would give us 3-8 months of fighting capability.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:07 pm to RiverCityTider
It's clear that Ukraine was a dumping ground for obsolete munitions and a proving ground for new weapons and tactics.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:08 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
The problem with reacquiring a defense manufacturing base in the United States is you'd get opposition from people who consider themselves America First screaming, "MIC!!! MIC!!!"
Its the fraud waste needless wars and buying of politicians that has us screaming MiC.
FIFY
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:09 pm to goatmilker
quote:
The problem with reacquiring a defense manufacturing base in the United States is you'd get opposition from people who consider themselves America First screaming, "MIC!!! MIC!!!"
Were talking about basic industries here.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:10 pm to RiverCityTider
A hypothetical Third World War with the PRC will (mostly) be fought at sea between the U.S. and PLAAN fleets. I have no doubt that China's allies (North Korea and Iran) will launch assaults in their respective regions against our allies if such a war were to occur. North Korea would invade South Korea and Iran will likely invade Iraq and launch attacks against Saudi Arabia and Israel. However, the decisive battle will be fought in the Philippine Sea as the United States responds to an invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese military.
I feel like it would be a sharp but short conflict that will be decided by the outcome of of the naval clash in the Pacific.
I feel like it would be a sharp but short conflict that will be decided by the outcome of of the naval clash in the Pacific.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:11 pm to RiverCityTider
Our Navy, Air Force, and Space Force is far more advanced than advertised. That means we can alter the battlefield with physical troops on the ground. I’m glad you could join us in 2025.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:12 pm to Stat M Repairman
I read where the UK has like 25 navy ships but 40 admirals. Their military looks great in a parade but probably can't fight.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:12 pm to AllDayEveryDay
With a pop of 330 mill we have the bodies, we have the research facilities, we have the tech but you still have to be able to roll steal, aluminum, make micro controllers, resistors, capacitor,in addition to high end micro processors. Still gotta build ships, make lots of auto and trunk engines, etc Its the latter stuff that is the worry. This has been proven time after time in wars between first world peers
quote:
The West doesn't have the industrial capacity to fight major ground wars.
This post was edited on 2/22/25 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:13 pm to RiverCityTider
If the US was to enter into an all out war with China, I think it could have its industrial base up and running to keep up with demand within a year. Ammo makers would simply have to stop making commercial ammunition and focus solely on stuff for the armed forces. Those production lines that normally only make 150 jets per year would be running non stop. The only thing that would worry me would be microchip production, and getting enough ships built to replenish lost assets.
Posted on 2/22/25 at 2:13 pm to Tight 10
quote:
We control the skies.
Game over
But then who holds the ground?
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News