HLC takes a closer look at the military strengths and weaknesses of The United States and China. Who would win in this conflict? Stay tuned to find out more! Get your Arrowhead Tactical gear here: bit.ly/4cWrfFy
Lovecraft type or Megadeth. "Tremble you weaklings, cower in fear I am your ruler on land, sea, and air Immense in my girth, erect I stand tall I'm a nuclear murderer, I AM POLARIS"
Arleigh Burke was such a badass that they named a class of ships after him while he was still alive. his standing orders were "Destroyers to attack on enemy contact WITHOUT ORDERS from the task force commander." the man looked at every battle the US Navy lost and took away that US captains hadn't been aggressive enough. In his later career he's a big reason we have nuclear subs
One extremely important factor is that China has zero modern-day military experience. The lack of understanding military tactics can kill the best armed military.
This 100%. We have been fighting conflicts most of our countries existence. On top of the fact that in training we train for worst case scenario as well as handicap ourselves in war games just for the learning from those situations. On top of that the marines typically farm exp from armies until told to stand down.
The one thing that all the fanbois and Stans don't account for: Iran, North Korean, China, Russia, etc. release info on their "scariest" weapons in an attempt to intimidate their adversaries. The US keeps those things a secret for as long as possible, until warheads start pounding foreheads. For reference, look at the B2, F117, the Manhattan Project, and even the Katana Hellfire.
We might already have seen it. Or at least the testbed anyway. What the Airforce asked for from NGAD is pretty similar to the B-21 Raider imo. I have no idea, but it's interesting.
Those concepts are just artistic renders. And I'm not saying the B-21 IS NGAD. But it's the best choice to test new tech meant for NGAD. And we know it's optionally manned. Just seems oddly similar to me in function.
"We have our own problems, but if you give us a reason to put those problems aside and get on the same team, you do not want to be on the receiving end of that" is probably one of those most relevant and badass quotes I've heard.
Shipbuilder here from NNS, building both CVN 80 and 81 and felt proud when you mentioned the two Ford class that are on the way. Proud to serve and proud to do my part!
Discussion of support aircraft reminded me of a great line from Ryan McBeth: “the US military is less an army and more a logistics organization which occasionally dabbles in combat”.
Why? I find comfort in knowing my country overspends on war and no other country is really dumb enough too come over here and start anything @veleriphon
"Why do we only have 3 frigates?" Basically, we just started ordering them. They are being bought to fix the mistake that was the littoral ships. The Navy invested heavily in the littoral ship program in a post soviet era when a near pier Naval threat was nonexistent. They are fast, light ships better suited to deal with pirates & terrorists than other warships. They were supposed to be multi-role ship with hot swappable mission packages, but that aspect failed to work. So the Navy essentially bought glass cannon ship, that didn't have a cannon (incidentally the same era as zumwalt destroyer). The Constellation frigate is filling the smallest blue water ship role, but in a way that is much better suited for a navy meant to fight another navy. Think of them as mini-Burkes.
@@homeonegreen9 yeah sub-brief gave a revealing reality check. People (myself included) think there are multiple constellations already in the water right now. Not even close.
The constellation class demonstrates all the problems that exist in US procurement right now. If things had been done properly, the USN would have a fleet of them by now.
The U.S. frigates in the 70’s and 80’s, were almost as costly as full destroyers and required almost the same numbers of sailors, while not being as capable. The “geniuses”, came up with the Littoral class as a vessel that could serve in both blue and brown water conflicts. However, as we’ve learned, they’re the worst class of ship we’ve deployed since the days of the dynamite cruiser…. So to counter frigates, the Navy is building a few. I think we should have increased destroyer production myself…
Ex Titan II launch officer here. Our greatest skill was computing launch times. We can do time math real good (sic). Salute to you! And subbed. Very entertaining.
@@darylmorningGetting our troops and materiel to Kazakhstan and Kurdistan would be complicated by the fact that Iran would probably side with China and try to harass our flights, resulting in them getting glassed as a side quest. Think about where that stuff would have to come from, mostly through our European bases, Mediterranean fleet and maybe the Arabian waters. (I know this is supposed to be Mano y Mano but I’m more of a realist.) The Pacific action would look a lot like the run up to WWII with China stocking up its remote island bases and friendly foreign ports (I know, Mano y Mano vs realism) with everything they think they might need. Major differences are that the US now controls most of the places Japan used back then, and there won’t be another Pearl Harbor. By the way, some strategists think that this is really why China wants Taiwan so bad, to use it as ports for its Pacific fleet and to base long range missiles. China could have similar plans for Japan. That could severely impact our Navy getting our Marines onshore.
@HANKSANDY69420 Sun Tzu said that! and I'd say he knows a little more about fighting than you do, pal! because he invented it! and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor!
@@markfergerson2145 There's also the fact that Taiwan has chip fabs far more advanced than any tech the Chinese use. Computer chips have been a point where China stumbles a for a while now - the best computer chips are all produced by NATO members or Pacific allies.
We have eleven of them, the rest are LHDs. Still amphibious warfare vessels but they have a completely different set of capabilities. One carries a battalion of Marines a bunch of attack helicopters and some F-35s, the others carry half that number of Marines and a handful of helicopters.
I think it's partly he was comparing combat navy, not logistics. Yes, an Assault Ship lets you land the Marines, but that seemed to be factored into his plan with landing the Marines elsewhere.
If it tells you how much we love the USS Constitution, we still have a whole forest in Indiana to service lumber for it. Brings a tear to my patriotic eye.
Titus said it best. "We build monster trucks....for fun. We build topfuel funny cars...for fun.... we build air cannons thay launch pumpkins a mile....for fun piss us off...see what we build"
@@Hakar17 make no mistake biological can be released without knowing who it originated from thanks to the porous US border and the sheer number of enemies the US has made.
You missed the Amphibious Landing Ships, also known as "Lightning Carriers" because they carry the F-35 Lightning II (B). They are literally Marine Corps aircraft carriers. They can launch enough ships and aircraft to be an entire landing force by itself.
Musashi and Yamato made for great artificial reefs. Might have done well in the years before the flat tops, but flattops made them obsolete. In the end, the Musashi Yamato and their sister ship Shinano, converted to a flat top, all sunk before they could do anything of note. The Shinano was the saddest lose for the Japanese, it wasn't even finished when a single US sub, the Archerfish found it by sheer accident and sunk it.
Speaking of Leyte Gulf. Mitscher: Alright, well that’s the only mission for today. So, uh what do you girls want to do. Intrepid: Can we have a piñata party? Halsey: Don’t see why not. (Musashi piñata drops down and TF 38 breaks out the baseball bats). TF 38: Yaay!
To be fair the japanese never played the Yamato when they were supposed to. Yamato had to come out and play at midway not Okinawa. It's armor and ability to soak up hits would have been good to bodyguard the carriers.
I think the battleship class of warship still has use even today, it's just not as cost effective nor as proficient as other options. The psychological warfare factor alone of a BB modernized to "solve" modern "problems" would break morale of any lesser naval power immediately upon encountering it. Basically imagine a ship like Yamato and Musashi. But instead of traditional WWII style AA it would have murder R2D2 units all over her hull AND missile batteries alongside the main battery for ground pounding shores and ships alike. The missile defense system would become an iron dome of explosions at full tilt. Hundreds of missiles raining out from her hull as too the main battery going fucking ape shit targeting multiple ships at once per gun on each turret because let's be honest when a massive shell that weighs as much as a Toyota pickup is hitting your deck at the speed of sound you got no answer. You just got a hole in your decks. Which could be achieved via partial or total automation of the targeting systems for all defense batteries. You could even have short range nuclear ordinance hiding away under the water line in launch tubes for extra intimidation. A few sun bombs, if ya will. To go with your missiles and shells buffet if they're hungry for something more spicy still. A modern nuclear power plant could supply the juice for all that and still maintain a speed advantage when push came to shove, plus no coal/oil to supply. Which means more firepower onboard. Which would most likely be mostly missiles as to volume of main munitions. Though total it would be our good old R2D2 with anger management issues. Lol. weight wise it'd be a toss up between missiles and shells. Hell if you can get the power plant strong enough we could have a partial or total rail gun battery as the main armament. That would be fucking terrifying, now it's not a Toyota hitting you at the speed of sound but a Toyota hitting you at Mach 10. PLUS the 100 smaller missiles for extra flair if that wasn't somehow enough. A ship like that would NOT be cost effective, but a hell of a power move and psychological beat down of enemy morale. Imagine 5 of those ships, one on each front. Guiding the lead as the lead ship in the fleet in the AO with the CVs and crew just HAMMERING the enemy into submission to Davy Jone's locker. Lmfao. I don't care what you chuck at a ship like that, with that design. It WILL kill everything and move on. Go ahead, try to overwhelm and clog her AA with planes. It'll just result in a fireball of missiles/bullets before she trudges forth and gives your CV's a beat down for the history books. The only real drawback would be fitting enough ordinance. But if you automate most systems, the crew can be small in size. Which means mostly engineers and a few vital personnel as to command/fire teams. Thus their crew quarters can be minimal. Allowing more storage for munitions. Thousands of missiles and shells, millions of rounds of bullets for the R2D2 psychos. And a few nuclear missiles for that extra kick. Would probably cost a cool 20 billion to build, but looks to me like Uncle Sam has that in spare change for the military industrial complex. Fuck i would be more happy seeing THAT monster being built in a dry dock, than them putting trains on the fucking moon or whatever stupid shit they say they're doing. Lol. That isn't about making a efficient naval vessel, it's about making a nightmare made manifest. The WORST thing you can possibly meet on the ocean waves as to a BB, in the modern day. I hope you enjoyed the read, figured i would share this idea given it's such a meme ship i can't help but share it. I think the class name would probably be "Terror." Given that embodies what it is. Terror incarnate. :)
@@MA_KA_PA_TIEbut if they did that they'd risk loosing the Yamato, and that would be devastating for morale, so they had to keep Yamato and it's armor and firepower as far away from important major battles as possible... completely defeating the purpose of having a super battleship...
I looked up the sinking of the Yamato. My references show consistently 10 aircraft. 12 men. Even the US Navy's specialized aa cruisers had trouble stopping air attacks. The radar fuse was a huge advance though. Musashi cost 18 planes. If you want to see an excellent presentation of the Japanese side of the naval war, read Japanese Destroyer Captain. The "mighty" Japanese navy is way, way overstated and completely neutered by the Army. After 1942, the vaunted torpedo attacks just never happened due to rapid deployment of radar. Essentially, the was was over by late 1943.
Yes more breakdowns please. Love this type of stuff. Hate see actual war and the inhumanity involved but it's very interesting to see how all the chess pieces would move. Thanks HLC love the videos.
@@SpaceCase132 HMS Victory doesn't float, and it's "cannons" are just pyrotechnic tricks, it's technically commissioned yeah, but since it's got a hole cut in it below the waterline to serve as an exit for the gift shop, it'll never float again. Constitution can still sail (It is usually towed by tugboats though just for safety reasons) and it has actual working cannons.
@@victorpardoherrera643 thanks for the support mah dude. This just popped into my head so I thought I should maybe help with translation. When a while ago, a scathing report came out on Chinese Rocket Force having their rocket filled with « water », I was actually quite intrigued and went digging into the OG source, and it kinda confirmed my suspicion. You see, in mainland China, when they wanna say something is broken or made with shitty quality, they say « that shit is filled with water », or « 進水 ». In Taiwan we kinda also use this but we mainly use it as an insult saying « 媽的你腦袋進水 », which directly translates to mother fucker your head is filled with water, or colloquially translated to mofo ur dumb as shit. So, when China said their rockets are « filled with water », they technically meant their rockets are useless, badly maintained, and of shitty quality. Still basically means the same as « rockets filled with water » though.
@@victorpardoherrera643 thanks for the support dude. So about the whole report about Chinese rockets filled with water, when I heard that I was suspicious, so I went to look at the original report and sure enough it confirmed what I was thinking. Basically, in mainland China, « filled with water » is used colloquially to indicate something is not working or terrible quality. Side note, in Taiwan we use it as an insult to call someone dumb, that is if we ain’t using Taiwanese. Anyway, I hope this translation gives it context. So no, Chinese rockets under their rocket force are not actually technically filled with water, but symbolically they might as well be, cause it basically still means their rockets are either badly maintained, don’t work, or just straight up low quality. Like imagine if they shot a nuke and it looses power immediately and gets blown up on the pad.
@@JustThatOneRandomGuy the more you know, each language is always full of nuances but I think even more with the chinese, hope you can help if another videos pops up 🇹🇼💪🏼.
Not according to one famous gunslinger. He used to say, "It ain't how fast you draw, but how well you aim." And when he was finally shot, it was an assassination to the back of the head as he played cards.
🤔 you're not typically playing cards meters away from the enemy in a war, and if you're dealing with overwhelming short range artillery vs overstretched long range artillery, the short range artilery is going to cause more damage unless the long artilery is very, very quick and consistent to always stay out of range, limiting effectiveness.
"If you give the American people a reason to push their own problems aside and come together as one, you do not want to be on the receiving end of that". Hell yeah, man.
That's such a fact because we're all pissed off about something. You give every one of us a common enemy then they're about to feel so much wrath that they'll be thankful when they arrive in hell.
The funniest part of wargaming these hypothetical situations is that the more you do it the more you realize that nobody even comes close to being able to engage the US unless you take out all outside factors and handicap the US beyond what is reasonable and assume the absolute best scenario possible for a theoretical opponent.
At least a quarter of our populace would ABSOLUTELY be down with a Chinese invasion. As the saying goes: There is a gun behind every blade of grass And the US has more guns than people
Well alright. I’ve been a fan for a while now but this is the first time I’ve watched an analytical video from you. Typically I’ve looked for the countries/weapons systems with faces for a quick laugh, but this topic piqued my curiosity, and frankly, I’ll be looking for more of these after watching this. Your insights are realistic, insightful, and in depth. You identified different weapons systems in a manner that was informative but not overwhelming, letting this old Canadian peacekeeper ingest and assimilate the various elements without being swamped by the nonessential elements that so commonly become brain draining background noise that information can’t pass through. You’re the real deal sir. Thank you for an informative and entertaining dissertation on a possible dust up between two world powers. I’ll be looking for more in the future.
From the Dept of the Boat People Bullets, Beans and Black Oil! I've said this before, but the U.S. Navy, literally, wrote the book on underway replenishment.
28:03 this is 100% accurate. Patton said it best, “Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans, traditionally, love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle"
No kidding, if China lands on California I feel bad for them given the gang warfare there. If you survive THAT then you'll either wish for the compassion of our Military or reconsider that whole "take Canada" angle.
I forget the creator, but I saw a video that went over how the US could realistically fight the entire world combined and possibly win. It involved a 3 pronged strategy of a naval blockade of China, air strikes destroying all military and oil production Facilities in the Middle East, and a mass artillery bombardment followed by a land invasion of Canada to secure Canadian oil and then hold until the other nations cannot support a war effort due to no fuel
Trying to hold Canada would be a bitch. If we were to invade I’d try to keep their independence and just replace their government which tbh currently many wouldn’t mind that.
@@curiousentertainment3008 Canada is easily taken lol yes there’d be some gorillas but over 75% of their population is under the 49th parallel all the major cities would be captured very quickly because they are all right on the border. Plus from the negative view I hear about Trudeau idk if he had the balls to fight a unified gorilla war. And there’s actually a decent amount of pro American movements such Alberta there’s actually a decent movement for Alberta to be annexed by America. Throughout history Canada has known this and their entire plan was just to hold out until the UK could come in and save the day but the UK wanted nothing to do with them lol.
Might've been Infographics. I think the strategy for a non nuclear war makes sense. We could take Canada without dealing with their cities and blocking their ports. China might be a bigger challenge though...
Amateurs study tactics, Masters study logistics. HLC is definitely showing he is a master. War doesn't determine whose right war determines whose left.
supply chains and military production is a seriously overlooked factor. The US would burn through its entire stockpile of conventional long range munitions in a month of fighting and if China's military is still standing. the US would lose that war.
You missed a few different important ships like the amphibious landing ships (San Antonio Class) and the Amphibious Assault Ships (America class), but the coolest thing that's recently come up in response to the Pacific is the Expeditionary Mobile Base. Look up the USS Lewis B. Puller, that's a cool concept that can really make a difference in the middle of the ocean.
On submarines, we have one that's very special. USS JIMMY CARTER. She's a modified Seawolf with an extra 100' added in for secret squirrel stuff. Plus the guided missile Ohio class boats can carry SEALs.
Please keep these usa vs the world and your other materials going my wife and I love it and you do a great job. Your short clips always get me laughing.
Amazing breakdown! My only concern (🇨🇦 here) is how many troops they have here already. For years we’ve had rumours and some video evidence that they’re amassing on land/in facilities the CCP has purchased, and back in 2016 there was a quietly passed bill here that said they could have their military personnel on “their” property here without having to notify OUR military. I wanna say it was a NORTHCOM archived article I read….wish I still had the link to it. I agree the variables are astronomical and there’s no real way to predict what conflict is gonna look like in the future.
Arleigh Burke was Captain (later Admiral) during WW2 in the pacific theater. I served on the USS Cape St. George (CG-71) which was named after his most famous battle. In general our Cruisers are named after battles, and Destroyers are named after people. Fast attack subs are usually named after cities and the ballistic subs are named after states. Carriers are usually named after Presidents and Admirals.
Arleigh Burke was the only man to serve three two-year terms as Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 1955-1961. He was also the most junior Admiral to be chosen as CNO. He was a Rear Admiral (2 stars) and never served as a Vice Admiral (3 stars).
@@KRDecade2009that was the old name style for carriers, originally it was for historic battles, which is why you get those names, eventually it transitioned
I love that you have basically made a "blooper reel" video without even trying, the "erectile disfunction advert" was especially funny. Hello from New Zealand HLC, keep churning out the content.
We also have the capability to come up from Aussieland, Philippines, and potentially Viet Nam (they hate the Chinese, and with growing economic partnerships we could work a deal to maneuver up and into China, as a tertiary consideration) alongside Thailand and the Himalayan Range as you mentioned (that's a tough maneuver obviously). Also South Korea as a staging and logistics deployment hub. Good stuff!!! Keep up the fire bro.
I wouldn't be surprised if Philippines willing to lend their airfields and stuff, but that's assuming that China won't attack us (Philippines) in the first second. Considering that we've been "fighting" (not much we can do, really) with them over sea territories for years, it's not surprising if they have a grudge for that. Not to mention, the Philippines is essentially a massive sea port with where it is located, connecting SEA and the rest of Asia easily; it's a massive asset to have, WW2 for example. But that just raises the possibility that they'd attack us first.
@@Eis_ Philippines are certainly a strategic location/ asset, guaranteed joint Pacific Command multi-national forces would be moving in to secure and protect and utilize our friendly nation there. The US has already increased Marine Corpse presence and training there so it makes sense.
Yamato and Musashi were the Japanese Battleships you wanted to remember the names of. They learned to "DON'T TOUCH THE BOATS" the hard way. Musashi was destroyed by carrier airstrikes, the Yamato was destroed by torpedoes. Both courtesy of the the USN.
Both were sunk by carrier attacks. Musashi took longer. They were attacking from two sides. Yamato, they focused on one side until she was listing. Then finished her off from a torp to the exposed bottom.
The reason we have so little frigates is because the u.s had planned for the LCS ships to replace them, upon seeing just how bad the lcs ships perform they ( recently) decided we still need frigates and decided to place orders for new frigates to be built. I believe the new frigates our navy is supposed to be getting are based on the french design
@@alecmullaney7957 honestly there were so many problems and I genuinely suck at explaining ( and writing 🤣) so I'll just post a link to a video that does it pretty well. One thing that I do know was a serious problem was overall reliability ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RTWo8NWQrdo.htmlsi=drh6RS88QW7ADwm_
@@alecmullaney7957 they were originally supposed to be cheap, low crew requirement asw/mine clearing vessels for fighting against navies like iran. Then lobbyists, the military industrial complex and mission creep got involved and they wound up with a near toothless ship spec'd for 40 knots that can't safely exceed 20, which was supposed to cost 220m per and instead costs ~600m per and has the operating cost of a full sized destroyer. Also, only a couple of the planned modular mission modules are ready and are apparently not as good as they were originally supposed to be.
@@alecmullaney7957 Basically everything. The Independence class has structural problems and the Freedom class has mechanical problems coupled with design issues that made it unsuited for a third of its mission profile
In a global conflict the number of redshirts they have to move and supply is probably a hindrance, their blue water navy isn't combat experienced and will learn the hard way, while the air force may be able to supply the quantity needed it's going to be a priority target in any conflict. China is a t rex, strong but limited in range.
Hey HLC, this is the first breakdown that I've checked out. I like it. As you can see from my avatar I am, or was a US Navy sailor and I agree with most of your readout of USN vs PLAN. But I have to say that, brother ... a ground war against the PLA is not something I would want to do. The principal reasons are the ones you pointed out ... logistics, logistics and also logistics. Love your stuff man, keep up the good work.
yeah immagine running a logistics chain into mongolia, which is landlocked by China and Russia. To what? Hopefully win a land war against china in a region with zero defensive terrain, no friendly airfields and very little in transport infrastructure? How are the US suppose to even move around in the gobi desert? By sandworm?
Corvette = SIze / LCS = Role Freedom & Independence were designed specifically to be used on close to shore missions, not really intended to engage other near peer naval vessels.
@@Wyomingchief And also great studies into the evolving combat dynamics of the times and how it was becoming increasingly obvious great Ships of the Line and their equivalent like most post Dreadnought battleships were becoming obsolete thanks to the great threat envelope Aircraft Carriers possessed.
Would you consider doing a video breakdown of the Canadian military? All obvious jokes aside, I genuinely have no idea what my country is capable of, militarily. I could google a few facts & figures but I don't have any military background. Memorizing a bunch of infographics won't mean I understand any of it. Fuckin' fantastic work, bud. Love the videos. Keep it up! PS: please let us know if you have any more Geneva Suggestions.
Arleigh Burke was a Destroyer officer in the Second World War. Once when asked what he was doing, he replied, "33-knots!" The story differs between him leading his Destroyers through a Minefield at 33-knots or doing something else I totally forget right now. You can guess which one is more popular. He also liked to live by Halsey's creed of 'Hit Hard, Hit Often, Hit Fast.'
vets: especially among those suffering emerging PTSD symptoms, ED is fairly common. I had issues myself my first few years back from several rapid fire deployments, and had to take pills even in my early marriage. With time it went away, but if it hadn't I would still be taking pills and I wouldnt be ashamed of myself for it. Get the help you need, vets, even if its help getting yo rod hard. You deserve the help. Don't be ashamed.
I appreciate your "stay away from the 22 a day" line (not sure if quoted that right, but I like the way it sounds); I've lost friends and family through the "self-removal" avenue, and although they thought they were "solving problems (theirs and "ours")", I'm here to tell anyone else who might be thinking this way: No, it doesn't; infact, it creates a problem that we, the living left behind, can never solve: the emptiness of your absence; a pain that's more than we can bare. I've done a lot of hard, physical labor in my life, but none of that comes remotely close to carrying the weight of emptiness: no more hugs, no more talks, no more fun, no more walks; just gone, and it's not a job we can quit or a weight we can put down; it's a burden and a curse that stays with us for the rest of our lives. Everyone has something to offer, however great or small; like a good lasagna: individually, the ingredients may not be appetizing or impressive, but together, they make a wonderful dish, one that wouldn't be the same with even one, small, simple ingredient missing.
Yea go ahead and keep pumping these vids out, so interesting and some easy content tbh there’s a lot of countries I’d like to see us match up against, even our allies for shits and giggles
