How the US Navy went from 6,700 Ships to just 300 

lol

also they name the first completed super carrier after someone that he replace. this is the biggest i told you so moment.

I think this is a bit deceptive. The US navy had 6700 ships during WW2 by counting a ludicrous amount of wartime mobilization, including armed transport and landing ships, patrol boats, and so on that were built to sustain a commerce war and vast amphibious invasions. Even after shedding all of that, it was still a force of 600+ warships and a half million men at a time when the economy badly needed to demobilize and reorient to the Civilian sector. Was it mistake to cut so far? Maybe. But only with the benefit of hindsight and ignoring the fact that the public probably wouldn't have been on board supporting a 1000+ ship and million man amphibious force between 1945 and the early 50s.

@@Bustermachine The Sec. of Defense Louis A. Johnson wanted like Truman to dismantle the Marine corps, as also most of the naval air force in the Marine corp and the Navy, they both were sponsoring too much the newly created US Air force, they even sell and dismantled most of 60% of all US Army arsenal and reserves so... When the Korean war broke out... Truman realized... He fked up! Almost not enough tanks, not enough soldiers to send... And the Navy was limited...

Cheers Zade!

@@NotWhatYouThink awesome 😎 I do luv me some USA naval history

@@greziakoply9555 I much prefer learning about the USN than seeing that app.

I’m trying to figure out y these bots are here I mean it’s pretty random

same

😂

I saw and was just about to post that, had to scroll down and check first 🤣

damn these chicks really love you

@@girl-xk2db Lmfao

Yea. I found it appropriate, yet disrespectful.

Lmao 😂😂😂

is true tho-

US Navy: Yeah, but at least ours weren't sunk...

Tragic that every single British battleship was sunk.

IJN: well what navy my navy is basically gone

I don't understand, why didn't they just sell it to their allies?

@@hakeemzahardi9207 As I understood my Dad, the contractors who built most of that war material had agreements with the US never to bring it into the US or sell it. It had to be disposed of to prevent market flooding. They didn't want demand to vanish.

Brian W, my father was a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Seabees (construction battalions) and provided engineering support for the U.S. Marines from 1941 through the end of the war. After the war ended in September 1945, he remained in the Pacific for over another year helping to administer the disposition of massive amounts of construction equipment and other military assets of the Navy, Marine Corps and Army in the western Pacific. Most of the construction equipment was sold to our allies, like Australia and New Zealand, etc., for pennies on the dollar of its original production cost, and after all cash buyers' demand was exhausted, we gave a great deal of it away to countries like Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, etc., if they could arrange for transport. Many of these southeast Asian countries desperately needed it to rebuild their devastated and often rudimentary infrastructure. My father also witnessed brand-new fighter aircraft like Corsairs and Hellcats being pushed off aircraft carriers into the water to make room for home-bound U.S. servicemen after the war ended. Many of these piston-engine aircraft were quickly outclassed by new jet technology, and none of the countries who might have used our piston-engine fighters could afford to operate them. In the immediate aftermath of the war, most Asian countries were more concerned about basic food production and sanitation rather than building big, powerful military organizations.

@@egosumhomovespertilionem2022 We lived in RI. I will always remember that huge bee at the entrance of Quonset Point Naval Base with that wrench in his grip. The Seabees were an awesome group of patriots, building structures all over the world, sometime while under fire. Here's to your Dad.

@@hakeemzahardi9207 The US did actually sell or donate a lot of ships to other nations after the war, it's just hard to underscore the mind boggling number of ships that were built. Not only that, there was the simply challenge of maintaining the larger vessels which were totally unsuitable to both the needs and means for smaller and poorer allied nations.

That ship was such a piece of junk by the 80s so was it's sister ship the Saratoga. Both were in dry dock for repairs more than they out at sea.

Why a salty comeback? Can you explain? I dont know about the topic😅

@@lucaberger8344 i think its because it sounds very similar to "forestall" which is what johnson did to the navy

@@lucaberger8344 Secretary of the US navy forestall was fired because he went against Harry Trumans defense policy named the carrier Forestall as a comeback to the defense policy

was that the SAME U.S.S. Forrestal that John McCain had a part in " damaging ' during the Vietnam war ?

555

Not exactly. Russia can’t really do much to get to carriers. They can have some time to build up and chill.

For WW3, carriers will be as useless as battleships were for WW2. For WW3, the US has nuclear missile submarines sitting off the coast of Russia and the Russians have nuclear missile submarines sitting off the coast of the United States. When WW3 starts, it'll be over in less than an hour. So, deal with it.

@@MaximGhost yeah. I'm debating with myself over the efficiency/usefulness of land units, for big countries with no worries about borders at least, like USA. Unless it's a small scaled war, everyone's going to die within a few minutes after the nuclear missiles explode.

@@MaximGhost well no because usa and Russia are not gonna use nuclear bomb unless they where losing like Germany in 1945 but North Korea will launch nukes as soon as it starts and get obliterated and also nato will invade Russia and China will invade India but probably fail but then u have south Korea,Japan and Australia which will most likely invade China but yeah Russia and America singed a paper promising on limiting the use of nuclear weapons which it only take 100 nukes to end humanity so yeah we are fucked if ww3 starts

@@slycer876 Russia is a close ally of India, it would be India being invaded by China then Russia and India fighting back.

"War is a racket" - Smedley D. Butler, most decorated soldier of US military

What makes you think the DOD is more intertwined with partisan politics now? Not arguing you’re wrong just interested in knowing what makes you think that, idk that much about it

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 i’d say it’s the politicians that are the most partisan but the problem is that war and politics are basically one and the same so idk if it really has changed all that much since the 60s

@@octagonPerfectionist yeah idk I mean I know that the military will obv trend towards the side that provides them funding and sometimes (big sometimes) will support war, but both sides do both of those things so I never thought it was too partisan

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 perhaps it’s because politics in general have practically never been so partisan in america (civil war excluded) and stuff is just getting more polarized everywhere

I can’t imagine he’d be able to find much footage for that lol

Apparently this topic was a such a good idea that it brought porno bots

@@jerrell1169 pictures!

"What about under sea warfare?" Us navy: "Nukes."

@jack petty way more contained contamination than any in-flight or land use though

“How about air to air warfare?” nukes

@Aurasphere121 Air-2 Genie apparently. Didn't know it existed. 1.5kt warhead, deployed by USA and Canada. 3000 were made.

Mind If I ask how it was?

I was right around the corner on the Saratoga CV60

Correct. We also talked about it in one of our videos about ship naming conventions.

Tf

Ok

Whats the navy like?

@@awhahoo it's both shit and great at the same time

What are you working as?

@@bonkrood4629 I'm an ABH

You haven't been paying attention to the last year then have you? The government has done very dumb stuff

Video in a nutshell

Well you have around the time of Desert storm, when the Iraqi navy got nearly completely decimated.

Bro wtf happened with all these bots

@@adrianfernandez3723 some are those dock for retirement or salvageable for scrap tho sad to be honest

@@imperiumgrim4717 nah man i meant like three of those fake youtube sexy bots replied to this guy for some reason

@@adrianfernandez3723 oh

🥉

ah yes,using a submarine to protect the skies

Heli carrier:😏

RU-vid is too busy removing the dislike button while spam bots roam free Wtf man

@@cybersentient4758 their priorities are : YeAh LeTs ReMovE tHe DisLikE buTTon bEcaUse wE gOt a LoT oF DisLikes on The RewiNd Meanwhile they’re like : o we are getting a lot of reports if spam , nvm they are not important

@@joshelito1460 ah yes, totally not a corporation tidying up their image

@@cybersentient4758 by destroying their usability

@@cybersentient4758 you know it's December right **RU-vid Rewind 2021 incoming**

CRT is a cancer that needs to go

CRT is unironically more important than the navy

@@ridwan552 Pretty sad thing

Most people don’t even know what CRT actually is

wtf is CRT? First things I found is an article about pacemacers, second result was about critical race theory and I kind of doubt thats what you were talking about xD Pls help I am confused

May have to wait a while for that. Still working on my British accent 😁

@@NotWhatYouThink Awesome! 🙂

Without air supremacy and tons of deck armor though those boats are just targets. The US recently did a moving target upgrade to bolt-on guidance package to the existing stockpile of hundreds of thousands of cheap but very effective GP gravity bombs -- the whole fleet could be sunk a dozen times over and there'd still be plenty of ordnance left.

Will do!

Done 😉

Dutch navy

Mongolian navy

1 British 2 French n he 3 Spanish now is U.S

Happy birthday! 🥳 We specifically timed it for you 😉

No

Good luck to your friend

I wish him the best of luck!!

@@hueyrosayaga thank you! He needs all the support he can get

@@rinranrou17 thank you :)

Brah!

poland bad

@@dominien6487 not as bad as being alive

@@weirdstuff_tm8942 not a legitimate state

It's certainly the most strategic, there's a reason a US supercarrier gets dubbed "90000 tons of diplomacy"

We are behind schedule. But we will post it at some point 😉

Missiles and jets would always be faster than ships so what's the point?

@@user-dt5fk4cs9j that's what the post-WW2 mistake was about - thinking that firepower can win the war alone.

Truman wanted to use Atomic bomb on North Korea, but rest of the Generals, Admirals and Engineers told him not to, there are infact rumors that Truman wanted to drop atomic bomb but the military disobeyed his orders, same with Nixon he wanted to drop a nuke on Vietnam but a lot of people said no one would let you do that.

Well, they were right, just not yet. Which sums up a good chunk of military mistakes, because it's hard to be sure what combat will look like or what the primary factors will be two decades away. They thought the missile technology would be good enough in the 60s, which was wrong, but now no one has had a fighter-on-fighter guns dogfight since the early 80s. Ironically, we may have the wrong lesson now, because the F-35 and F-22 both have guns taking up valuable space and weight despite otherwise being designed to engage at tens of kilometers.

@@westrim See you said it perfectly ... we don't know. And that's exactly how they should plan, by saying we don't know. The enemy knows our platforms and doctrine is optimized for standoff. So they're plans will to try and get in close. That's why you still should have close in weapons. Over the horizon is best case, always plan for worse case

@@westrim man we haven't fought a near peer since WW2. Just like we need to have contingencies in place in case our GPS communication satellites are targeted and taken out.

They were actually right about that even then, the reason dog fights still happened was due to domestic politics making it so pilots had to visually identify their targets as enemies before engaging them, which obviously makes dogfights inevitable, regardless of technology