US Navy vs Chinese Navy (PLAN) - Strategy & Numbers (2014-2017)

A look at the US Navy and People's Liberation Army Navy strategies, organization and numbers. Most data is from 2014 to 2017. Of course some historical context is given too.
Military History Visualized provides a series of short narrative and visual presentations like documentaries based on academic literature or sometimes primary sources. Videos are intended as introduction to military history, but also contain a lot of details for history buffs. Since the aim is to keep the episodes short and comprehensive some details are often cut.
» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can support me via Paypal donations:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
(C) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES «
Scholik, Nikolaus: Seemacht im 21. Jahrhundert - Handbuch & Lexikon
Ou, Si-Fu: China’s A2AD and Its Geographic Perspective
Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI): "The PLA Navy - New Capabilites and Missions for the 21st Century" , 2015
www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/In...
www.globalsecurity.org/militar...
Bernard D. Cole: Reflections on China’s Maritime Strategy: Island Chains and the Classics
www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Facul...
NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW, Spring 2008, Volume 61, Number 2
web.archive.org/web/200806242...
www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/FLEE...
www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_lega...
FUELLING THE DRAGON - Natural resources and China’s development, Australian Strategic Policy Institute
US Navy: A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower
web.archive.org/web/200902271...
Department of Defense: Quadrennial Defense Review Report - 2006
archive.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/...
Evans, Damon: China's Oil Imports Will Keep Surging, Rebalancing Global Markets; Forbes; Sep 14, 2016
www.forbes.com/sites/damoneva...
Bloomberg News: China Crude Output Drops to 6-Year Low as Giants Shut Fields; September 13, 2016
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
converticious.com/area-square_...
www.defensenews.com/articles/u...
Mazza, Michael: With Rodrigo Duterte In Power, What Hope Is There For U.S.-Philippines Relations?
www.forbes.com/sites/insideas...
» TOOL CHAIN «
PowerPoint 2016, Word, Excel, Tile Mill, QGIS, Processing 3, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Audition, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate.
» DATA CHAIN «
Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.
Made with GeoHack Data. tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geo... - License: creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@Jonathan-ky4bi]

The Zumwalts are no longer and have not been for about 5 years intended to replace the Arleigh Burke Class. Only three ships are planned, the Zumwalt, Michael Monsor, and Lyndon B. Johnson. The production of the Arleigh Burkes was restarted a few years ago with the reduction of the Zumwalt order to three ships. The USN expects to have a request for proposals for a Frigate out to industry by the start of the next fiscal year. The LCS (littoral combat ship) is a US Navy vessel and not a US Coast Guard Vessel, the USCG itself is going through a modernization as well. I can get sources for all of this and more however it will take me time to go through all of the recorded House Armed Services Committee hearings to get you the links in addition to the time stamps.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thx for the corrections. Although, it seems that the LCS should be used by the USCG.

[@Jonathan-ky4bi]

They are intended to serve as shallow water escorts. The USS Detroit recently tested a hellfire missile Vertical Launch System designed to deal with small fast attack/suicide craft and the USS Coronado is currently deployed to a base in Singapore with Harpoons on board. I'm personally not a fan of the original concept of the LCS and have issues with the Independance type LCS (the trimarans) as they are aluminum hulled but all of the LCS's have incredible flight deck facilities which make them very versatile ships. In my opinion they are effectively long range ocean going Corvettes though the USN cannot call them that for political reasons.

[@SergeantAradir]

That does not mean that the US-Navy does not WANT to replace the Arleigh-Burke-Class. As i understood it was one of the mentioned problems (the budget cuts (and of course exploding costs if i understood that correctly)) actually stopped this strategic plans in its tracks.

[@michaelemouse1]

I noticed that the type of ships other countries would call "corvettes", the US calls "patrol boats". What's the reason for avoiding the C word? How well would LCSs deal with missile-armed infantry/trucks/TELs hiding near a coast?

[@Willaev]

michaelemouse1 Probably trademarked by Chevrolet.

[@free_at_last8141]

So the People's Liberation Army has a Navy...I wonder if that was their PLAN all along.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

:D

[@The51stDivision]

free_at_last This is a sort of running inside joke of the PLA, because for the entirety of its history (until very recently) the Army had always dominated over other branches. The Chinese military is very land-based and Army-centred. The new Chinese leadership under Xi Jinping knows this imbalance and is now fixing it through massive organizational reforms.

[@dhk7986]

*Groans Here, have an upvote.

[@free_at_last8141]

+The 51st Division I'm glad you got my joke. Your channel has a great collection of videos, I've subscribed to you.

[@Ruebacca]

The USN has an it's own Army. The Marines.

[@AlRoderick]

So what do we call the Chinese Marine corps air wing? The People's Liberation Army Navy's Army's Air Force?

[@fanyechao2761]

Chinese Marine blong to the navy

[@AlRoderick]

Yes and the US Marines belong to the US Navy. Officially. But it's kind of a joke, people here sometimes call the Marines the Navy's Army, and so the aircraft that fly for the Marines are the Navy's Army's Air Force.

[@fanyechao2761]

I think the US marine is separate. Chinese marine has no fixed air wings and will not have any fixed air wing

[@a.holloway4734]

The US Marine Corps is a completely separate branch from the US Navy. The Marine Corps is organised under the government department, the *United States Department of Navy* (not to be confused with the Navy itself), alongside the Navy and (conditionally) the US Coast Guard.

[@cerialmunic7965]

PLANAAF pronounce it yourselves.

[@blueband8114]

Alas the size of these fleets, we British used to have. Now with have a fishing trawler with a deck mounted percussion shotgun.

[@Mistshock]

Yeah but at least you'll have the freshest locally sourced sustainable fish and chips that'll bring the locals in year round and help you survive the dreaded winter. Shit, I've been watching too much Kitchen Nightmares.

[@nv_chino]

Don’t worry, at least you guys had Easy Company and the dam busters RAF 617and bunch of others things to be glad about. Large fleets are expensive and then even more expensive to maintain

[@EL-ISS]

As an Englishman this comment both destroyed me yet made me die of laughter 😂.

[@livingadreamlife1428]

That’s karma for not re-electing Churchill as WW2 was ending. Winston said, “I’ll leave, but I’m taking my Navy with me.”

[@jamesyap8364]

Trawlers? I can hear the 2nd Pacific Fleet screaming already.

[@ImperialGeneral]

Very good video, with only some minor errors that were pointed out in your pinned comment. Speaking as a US Navy Officer, this is probably something I'd show new Junior Officers to give them some easily digestible background on China. Keep up the good work!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@plazmica0323]

ImperialGeneral Although this video shows pretty much nicely statistics of both countrys i dont think it shows remotely what would happen if a real war occured.Capabilities and events( strategys,goals,technology,global market and politics etc.) that would realy happen we cant remotely know.Best example,Korean war where noone truly prevailed.Also adding nuclear strikes that can wipe out whole naval groups or land areas makes another compleatly different story altogether.

[@derrickthewhite1]

Its not trying to predict the way a war would go: its displaying the statistics. And yeah, in modern war between two full powers oh so much depends on politics and we fortunately don't know that much about it. (fortunate because that means someone would have lived through it recently)

[@plazmica0323]

Derrick White Yeah,i just wanted to point it out,all those numbers with different factors make realy interesting scenarios.For example add just nuclear weapons factor with those numbers and you make a compleatly different points of view.Or politics,economy etc. it realy gets so much complicated than simple statistics.Nice video anyway.

[@mickeyg7219]

Plazmica 032 Binkov's Battlegrounds will analyze a hypothetical war, he have done USA vs China under the scenario where US' objective is to capture Chinese shipping lanes. It is possible for China and USA to go into a limited conventional war, it's unlikely China would use its nuclear weapons unless it faced an existential threat.

[@casvalremdeikun1764]

I have several comments to make: - You seem to be ignoring the US Marines and their ships including the America class carriers. The US Marines have 1x America class and 8x Wasp class carriers. The US has more carriers than just the Nimitzes and the Ford. - The Zumwalt will not replace the Burke class since only 3 ships are going to be constructed. The other planned ships were cancelled. Also the size of the Zumwalt is much larger than the size of a Burke class and more comparable to the size of the Ticonderoga class. - Since you mentioned the US ships it would be worthwhile to mention the comparable Chinese ships. Namely the Type 056, 054A, 052D, 055, etc. - The PLAN, besides the ships, have their own land based Air Force arm. The PLANAF has like (710+ aircraft) to defend the Chinese coastline including their own land bases. - The Chinese already have ressuply vessels and most of the ships needed to have one full carrier wing. Though this wing would have less tonnage than the US equivalent with the same amount of ships. - The Chinese are attempting to bypass the choke points of the Taiwan Strait and Malacca Strait with massive infrastructure investments in pipelines and land routes through Myanmar and Pakistan as part as the OBOR initiative.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

1) the america and Wasp class are included in the amphibious ships. 2) about the Zumwalt I already pinned the corrective comment.

[@devoyinator]

Wow, very impressive knowledge and well articulated. Is this just a hobby of yours or?

[@visby2548]

USS America is more of an aircraft carrier the rest of the world's aircraft carriers (Charles de Gaulle, Admiral Kuznetsov, etc.)

[@demomanchaos]

The Chinese AF may have 710 aircraft but the US Navy has about 1,660 (USAF craft are not counted in that number), meaning they are still grossly outnumbered when it comes to aircraft (and US aircraft are of better quality, with the F14, F-15, and F-16 sporting a combined K/D ratio of 314 kills to 5 losses).

[@VectorGhost]

The J-20 is NOT an F-22 counter. it was made to counter AWACS and other refueling planes, its not a very good stealth plane outside the shape, its more stealthy. The engines and the massive size of the J-20 make it practically useless as a stealth plane. J-31 is pretty meh as well

[@tally5k339]

'Thank you for watching, and South China Sea you next time.' I love these very cheeky puns that are hidden in your videos.

[@cruiserflyer]

I love the XP +100 and +50 game reference. Great video as always. I am proud to be a Patreon supporter.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@RCAvhstape]

I love that you included the Constitution in the Atlantic fleet. Never underestimate her if you know what's good for you.

"1 Carrier = No operational Carrier" That's French Navy Naval Air Capacities in a nutshell It may be cool to have the only nuclear CATOBAR operated outside the US , and the Charles de Gaulle has proved its combat capacities many times , but maintenance is a pain in the back. A second carrier has been projected many times , but nothing has been decided so far.

[@obsidianstatue]

true, but the Chinese Navy is aiming for at least 3 CATOBAR carriers. their 3rd carrier is a conventional powered EMAL CATOBAR carrier.

[@Anderson_Hwang]

No, it was confirmed yesterday June 22nd that the 3rd Chinese carrier will be a conventional "Steam catapult" carrier

[@LSC69]

I am from the future. China now has 2 ski-jump carriers with one CATOBAR ready to be launched in probably just a few weeks or so.

[@CestSam]

The USS Consitution is the pride of our eastern fleet. It is invincible, it strikes fear in our enemies.

[@myself2noone]

daniel rojas When fossil fuel eventually runs out we'll be the best equped navy in the world.

[@nutcrackit7396]

When fossil fuels run out I hope to see viking longboats with solar panels instead of sails.

[@asneakychicken322]

Everything will be nuclear powered at that point in terms of ships

[@prospero768]

I don't know, there's still HMS Victory.

[@mrsmith2876]

gotta love old Ironsides

[@purplespeckledappleeater8738]

Wonderful video. Most videos like this get carried away with nationalistic bias. Ship numbers and ships types are all that is necessary. This video kept as neutral as bias allows and kept to the facts without trying to make it dramatic. In addition, this video went beyond and briefly listed how the 2 nations viewed their geographical environment in a naval confrontation. I'm happy. Short and sweet and interesting.

[@logoseven3365]

One of your best. The missions of the navies are vastly different. The USA looks at the entire world to project its power, China, as you showed, is much more limited. Nice job.

[@onespiker]

so far

[@mickeyg7219]

In a nutshell, China's doctrine is defensive, USA's doctrine is offensive. For China, it's about securing shipping lanes to protect its narrow trade route and access to strategic resources. For USA, it's about securing supply at its source and maintaining political leverage through strategic position. And bonus, for Russia it's about insulating Moscow and access to warm water.

[@MrAnonymousRandom]

China has no intention of playing world police like the US. China wants to keep the shipping lanes open and maybe be able to fight a regional war if necessary.

[@logoseven3365]

+pquumm Capitalism needs a strong military to "protect" it's interests.

[@nutcrackit7396]

The rebel communist party is very much interested in being Asia police and and I don't much like their domestic policies. I want them gone.

[@nobodyknowsimgay]

I absolutely love your videos. My dad and I both watch these and when I get to see him every so often we enjoy talking about them. Please keep up the awesome work!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+nobody thank you guys!

[@jameswu7850]

Chinese words in English accent with German preciseness. Excellent job. lol. Especially for the "Zhanjiang". You're really pushing the limit of human pronunciation. Salute the endeavor! Hahaha

[@smittywerbenjaegermanjense2350]

吴振南 How do you say Tianamen Squar Incident 1989 in Mandarin?

[@jonsong4592]

easy, its pronou--- *BLAM*

[@Dodovacer]

Acutally it is Tiananmen :P and it is already in Mandarin: 天安門 "Heavenly Peace Gate"

[@BicyclesMayUseFullLane]

I... don't even know how that pronunciation was conjured up...

[@ruedelta]

Smitty Werbenjaegermanjensen Usually it's referred to as the 6/4 Incident. Major happenings are remembered by month and day, not by year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6/4

[@arcadiecondurachi2166]

Based of what I know at the moment, the main strategy of the PLAN is to make a potential US attack way too costly to be considered, and secondly, prevent a naval blockade. Therefore, their main job is to maintain a force that would simply discourage any hostility.

[@TheManofthecross]

which will not work if they are forced to fight on multiple fronts etc. and they want to try and weaponize the political side here in the states against us which will not work if it is clear and present that china started this shit then even the leftists will have no choice but to side with the country they hate less they will be taken aside as trators and more.

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

@@TheManofthecross you seem to have taken a sip of the Neocon/Neolib Kool Aid. China isnt the country invading countries, toppling governments, funding terrorists, etc.

[@TheeOnlyStolas]

Firstname Lastname whatever keeps the u.s. on the top

[@looinrims]

@@LaVictoireEstLaVie “muh America boogeyman” China genocides Muslims for existing, sorry guy

[@looinrims]

Huh a “Fleet in Being” doctrine versus a global naval power in a naval arms race Wait I think I’ve seen this before! Unfortunately for China I don’t think the PLAN can handle such a defense currently without being able to break the island chains, a naval blockade could still be conducted from at worst the second island chain in conjunction with Japan, of course this requires Japan but I don’t think that’s an issue

[@CinnamonMuffinz]

love these contemporary military strategy vids!

[@22steve5150]

As a part of comparing the navies, you should look at naval aircraft. For instance, the US Navy by itself is the 3rd largest air force on the planet, with only the US Air Force and Chinese Air Force being larger. Then when you add the Marine aircraft (all deployable on navy ships), the amount of aircraft that the US Navy can bring to bear is second only to the USAF.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol US Forces competing with themselves, because everyone else can't :D

[@fanyechao2761]

true, but you can deploy all that force

[@iwannaseesnow]

US NAVY DESTROYER WAS JUST CRASHED IN JAPAN SEA, 7 SAILORS WENT MISSING

[@45bullshark]

Fan Yechao yeah actually the US Navy can, Airforce can with Aerial refueling, Marines piggyback on the navy.

[@whirving]

We can deploy most of it in about a week.

[@joaquinmig]

This was one of your best videos yet, my friend :)

[@90sNickNostalgia]

Been a fan of your videos for quite some time and had to drop a comment on this one. I always enjoy your attention to detail. Keep up the great work!!

[@kngharv]

this is awesome. thank you!

[@delta4093]

Guess you could say the Chinese have a PLA(N) when it comes to naval strategy.

[@covenantoflegions6825]

Delta40 god dammit lol

[@carloscampo9119]

Now this is an impressive, impressive video. Thank you very much.

[@cee3596]

Love this Channel . . . Thank you so much for your time and effort !

[@Tracks777]

Awesome video

[@RobTzu]

Fun fact: More time has passed since the First Gulf War, than did between World Wars 1 and 2.

[@gidkath]

A fascinating short study of a very complicated set of issues. Obviously this isn't a complete rundown of everything going on in this knotty topic of investigation, but this video gives a great number of "talking points," or places to start while doing my own research. Which is perfect, since I was writing speculative fiction on this subject, and needed a point of reference.

[@mikhailv67tv]

As per usual your work is of 'top notch'- quality.

[@Tracks777]

Brilliant work! Keep it up!

[@Tracks777]

Lovely content! Keep it up!

[@MESOHIPPUS]

Nice one again. I have seen the video before, but funny thing,after i have watch some news on tv i have decided to rewatch the video. :) Because GIVES YOU A GOOD IMAGE and QUITE EXACT! Not fealling sorry at all for, donating as patreon. Good job. Thanks.

[@keithmitchell6548]

Great video, thanks for doing all the research!

[@Mmmmkay126]

13:01 The US Constitution is the most dangerous weapon ;).

[@DurzoBlunts]

Mukaydis I always thought it was US fast food and strip clubs haha

[@MatthewWest0037]

We love living dangerously lol

[@YAH2121]

To communists, it is ;)

[@mainiak1]

Ol Ironsides

[@erltyriss6820]

In the end, it is not going to be what the fleets are now, but where they will be around 2025-2030 that is going to be critical. Well done video showing the current states of numbers and assigned berths.

[@00yiggdrasill00]

a very interesting video. I look forward to seeing more modern/speculative stuff from you

[@Panzermeister36]

Thank you for another great video!

[@plazmica0323]

great video as always ! love you #nohomo :)

[@narri214]

While not the goal of this video, it is important to note that the United States Navy is not the only maritime force the USA has. It also has the United States Coast Guard which has 238 cutters, 1523 boats, and 187 aircraft. Not all of these vessels are militarized (combat vessels) but they are apart of the American Armed Forces.

[@OrDuneStudios]

Caleb Cavitt and anything corvette sized and up could have light antiship missle tubes welded on in an emergancy

[@Schmidty1]

MHV ignored the huge ass us marines navy in the video as well.

[@donovanc.2163]

The U.S. Army has a navy too.

[@malikben930]

Excellent video It's now time to do a 2017-2021 comparison!!

[@johngeverett]

As always, we'll researched and we'll presented, both visually and in the narration. I always snap up your videos.

[@Tracks777]

Nice content! Keep it up!

[@andrewfischer8564]

i love how old ironsides still puts fear in the hearts of her enemies!!!

[@stivelars8985]

your most relevant video to date. more of this please

[@gedziq]

Good job as always

[@mobius1487]

good video and also good puns. 10/10

[@DeadDre477]

Am I the only one who want Comrade Binkov to narrate one of these?

[@amirulfarhan919]

DeadDre477 no

[@Entropyisheresy]

DeadDre477 a crossover episode would be sick

[@chaoticmeteor3415]

Hahahaha yes

[@demomanchaos]

Binkov has a pretty heavy bias towards Russia. He recently did a comparison of a US and Russia ship, and he picked a Russian ship with 2.5x the displacement of the US ship rather than getting two of similar weight. He basically put Mike Tyson against a 12 year old in terms of weight difference, and the sad part is the Russian ship was only marginally better despite the 2.5x weight advantage. He also grossly underestimates the US air advantage as well as the massive disadvantage Eastern powers have against US armor. If Russia, China, and North Korea joined all of their aircraft into one force they would just barely outnumber the US Navy's air wing, but would still be about 1,000 craft shy of matching the USAF's numbers. Worse still is the US craft are simply better. A handful of Eastern craft are able to to match the top-tier US craft, but most are very sub-par. The same applies to ground vehicles, with most Eastern armor being Soviet era hold overs (which were completely useless against the US forces in Desert Storm) and only a handful of modern vehicles that could stand up to US vehicles. With that in mind, his projections of China v US and NK v US fall apart. The US would quickly establish naval and air dominance, and with that the ground war would only go one way.

[@michealmason8979]

I don't think does also the two ships he compared were a U.S. destroyer vs. a Russian Heavy Missile Cruiser of course the Cruiser is going to win when it carries three times for weapons than the destroyer. In both of his U.S. and Russia comparisons the U.S. won both of them. To me he seems pretty fair.

[@A_Rider_On_The_Storm]

Great video. Please make an updated one to compare how these two Navy’s have changed since this video.

[@SNOUPS4]

Great video!

[@jb76489]

9:56 I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. The Zumwalts were supposed to replace the Burkes but the class was cancelled after only three of 32 ships were started. meanwhile a third flight of Burkes,up to 42 ships, have had contracts awarded

[@mxn1948]

jb76489 that's cause ddg-1000 is shit. it has far too few missile cells to be a area defence ship or launch land attack missiles. it's too costly to risk. it was suppose to a stealthy ship with ultra long ranged rail guns using cheap solid slugs. it might be stealthy but it don't have those rail guns. so in short it has all the short coming but zero advantages that it was suppose to have.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

mxn1948 The gun system is a particular problem. The Navy decided to stop manufacturing the rounds for the 155s because, well, 800k dollars per round is kinda pricey...

[@chowtom5174]

the pun game is stepped up in this one

[@liquidocelot64]

Very interesting and informative video. I'd like to see more videos on modern military strategy, capabilities of modern geopolitical and major regional actors.

[@rutilius83]

another great video.

[@wdsf3178]

Greetings from Beijing, China sir! (Though I am currently living in Toronto.) This is an excellent video with very detailed references. I am actually thinking of making a Chinese subtitle for this video and move it to a Chinese video site (of course only with ur permission)... Anyway, good job sir.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

please add chinese subtitles on youtube and don't upload it anywhere else.

[@TheReaper569]

chiana going for naval expansion national focus.

[@lukejackson1575]

Pretty obvious why too. Nobody could invade China itself. It's way too large, has far too large of an army. The best way to fight China is by sea and air, especially by economic blockade. That's also why China is trying to grab/make islands.

[@dartagnanehrenreich9263]

Luke Jackson beware - Mongols are the exception :p

[@aerojetrocketdyners-2538]

human wave tactics?

[@090giver090]

Spoofy Tofuwu, And, as we speak about the navy, this time they mean it literally.

[@q1w2e3621]

Hakan Karaağaç +

[@udeychowdhury2529]

great stuff again

[@fredirecko]

even if the video wasn't perfect it was well done and informative...thanks for posting

[@flowed102]

13:00: Nearly thought you would miss out the most important ship... :-)

[@shocktrooper2622]

USN and Chinese Navy? *loads Carrier* awww yeeeahhhhh

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

don't get carried away like I did ;)

[@shocktrooper2622]

don't worry I only almost floated away

[@raygiordano1045]

Looks like their CV is pretty much a WW II type CVE in function. VERY interesting video. Thanks

[@aaronpaul9188]

+ Ray Giordano Its not WWII, its just a different doctrine of what a carrier should be. The soviets built her as a fleet defense and mobile missile platform. Its strike wing was really guided anti ship and cruse missiles, while her aircraft were mostly negate US carrier arms in the pacific and black seas. It was to operate mostly close to shorelines and would likely get assistance from land based aircraft, and thus the smaller range was not a major issues. Its not a straight comparison to US super carriers because it wasnt built to rival them.

[@MrAnonymousRandom]

So what? What type of equipment you use shows what kind of military doctrine you are following. If you want to play world police, you need loads of carriers. If you're focused on making sure the shipping lanes are open and potentially having to fight a few neighbours, who needs carriers?

[@ebaltrace]

Very interesting information.

[@ColasTeam]

Great video as always! It got me thinking...Could you maybe do a video on nuclear and anti-nuclear tactics? It would be very interesting to see, as it makes me curious wether a major conflict could or would escalate to that level.

[@davidgifford8112]

1carrier = 0 carrier is correct. In 1982 UK could only mount a recapture of the Falkland Islands as it could deploy 2-small carriers and possessed a backup. The carriers were considered vital assets for the operation, the loss of either would have rendered the operation untenable. Argentina couldn't risk its single carrier asset during the Falklands conflict, France has also been reluctant to provide its single "fixed wing" vessel for operations.

[@TheManofthecross]

and doubt they are going to risk it out right unless they built some more of there own anyway which I doubt they will.

[@realmenshoot3085]

The notification sound hadn't even finished.

[@42ouncesofPAIN]

There is a notification sound? Why don't I have one?

[@Phantom1343]

Good video!

[@fang45acp]

Biggest factor you missed IMO was the prospective countries, naval and marine air wing size/ tech. PLAN has a large number of land based fighters in addition to what it can carry on it's one carrier, and the both the CVN and America/wasp airwings need to be accounted for as well. other than that, Fantastic job! I had no idea the PLAN has so many subs!

[@captianmorgan7627]

I was wondering if you were going to mention Old Ironsides and not 20 seconds later you did.

[@512TheWolf512]

would you PLEASE explain modern ships? Because it's really hard to understand them on what is their functions, corvettes and frigates for example

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

WW2 ship probably first, was actually planned a while ago, but I have so many ideas each week and new books and new events... so pure content CHAOS

[@512TheWolf512]

Military History Visualized I know, I just asked for what I don't know. I'm fairly familiar with WW2 navy

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

can you recommend a book on how WW2 ships work?

[@512TheWolf512]

Military History Visualized nope, I'm afraid not :( my native language is russian so I grew up with books in that language and I can't really help your research out right now because of exams and all that, so, sorry once again

[@free_at_last8141]

I'd recommend Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II. Jane's is pretty well respected on the subject, and I've found the books to be enjoyable and informative.

[@chenirvana7755]

Very interesting and informational video as always! Can something like this be found for the situation in 2020?

[@papashvily]

Funny, I was just on the USS Constitution last week. Very cool to see some of the original timbers and such. Thanks for the Interesting vid!

[@gregorsamsa9264]

Of note is the fact that the United States is interested in maintaining the status quo, while the Chinese are interested in disrupting it. China's most immediate goal is to seize control of the South China Sea, and in the long term probably to reclaim Taiwan and to establish a hegemony or soft Empire in Southeast Asia. The United States is intent on preventing all of these things from happening, as its interest has been (for the past 70 years or so) promoting Global Stability. (It's success in doing so is a different matter entirely.) China lacks both the ability and the desire to be a global power (or Hegemon, depending on what term you prefer) on the scale of the US. Namely, they don't want to have to have forces all around the globe protecting allies, constantly engage in low-intensity fighting with terrorists and criminals, or bow to International Institutions. China's goals are more regional and Nationalistic: reclaiming old territories, expanding the economy into developing markets, gaining regional allies, and securing prestige for the Chinese people. These goals directly contradict with an America-like status of Global Hegemon. (World's Policeman, is the other term used.) The worry isn't China replacing a weakened US; the worry is that, should the US weaken, there will be no one else willing to keep the peace.

[@christiancampbell5465]

That was a very insightful comment, was also good because it was rather neutral, simply stating both sides desire rather then either being inherently good or bad.

[@eggman5586]

PLA's most recent military engagement: Firing on their own civilians in the tiananmen square massacre.

[@marienfeld07]

Excellent

[@alexdks8134]

these are so interesting. i wouldn't mind longer ones as its a shame to miss out facts or points to keep the video short.

[@ericwillis5292]

O no we have to cross a ocean, we haven't done that before ...

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

What do call the air force of their navy? People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force

[@mkd2839]

Napoleon I Bonaparte That's actually what they call it.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

StardustNotHötzendorf Lol, worse than Cadorna?

[@jonsong4592]

its legit called the People's Liberation Army Naval Airforce

[@estreet83]

I'd love to see a video about Italy's Navy, "Regia Marina", during WWII. Thanks for the great videos!

[@gottfriedvonbouillon3490]

Interessantes Video. Wie immer!

[@martaxsasLT]

4:44 11.5 million or 1.5 milliion?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

11.5 million

[@evanpfeffer7319]

Military History Visualized you forgot to mention the combined force of the Texas Navy

[@MikhaelAhava]

USS Constitution is a rocket ship, manned by robots. Whatever I don't play Fallout 4, I just know it.

[@mitanni0]

with insane range, LOL

[@grin5621]

As much as I love your videos, I'd say stick to historical content for the time being. That said, still one of the better videos out there on this and I really appreciate time and effort that went into it.

[@patrickcrean7802]

Well done.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

Unless the Chinese change the name of their Navy from the Peoples Liberation Army Navy to something far less stupid, I say we declare war immediately.

[@UndrState]

savage

[@fanyechao2761]

thats english translation, in chinese is more like : People's Liberation Navy

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

I hope so!

[@jonsong4592]

wait till you see the People's Liberation Army Naval Airforce

[@mxn1948]

TheLoyalOfficer it's less cumbersome in Chinese. and when they visit other counties, sometimes the ships/hats/banners just say "china navy" or "china airforce" makes it easier for the hosts I guess

[@LtRiot]

Chinese Navy? That's cute

[@ollieyang4613]

We don't have a navy, we just have Army boiz that can swim.

[@kingfobbit399]

Well done, Sehr gut!

[@ikesteroma]

This channel is, by far, the most awesometacular "boring" channel on KZbin.

[@Lintary]

Doesn't the US navy atm have a huge issue with just the age and maintenance of it's fleet with many ships nearing retirement ages within years of each other and no budget being put aside to keep ships in service and keep them maintained in general.

[@sliferslacker6763]

Source or GTFO

[@jeffanderson8165]

Good question, Carde. I do know that back in the 1980's, Secretary Lehman was pushing for an expansion to a six hundred ship navy (under President Reagan), including four battleships (all of which are now museum ships) and fifteen carriers (some of which were aging conventional fuel powered ships). One class of ships that was a cornerstone of U.S. Navy rebuilding back in the 1970's were the Spruance class ASW destroyers. Another was the Perry class Frigates. My understanding is that *all* units of *both* classes have been withdrawn from service. The Burke class that was mentioned in the video is another class that deserves special mention. The earliest ships of the class had no helicopter support facilities on board. Sure, they had a landing platform, but they had no hangar support, so their ability to operate the heloes was limited. The follow-up Baseline II Burke class ships *did* have the hangar and support facilities for helicopters, but in order to add that capability to the ship design, the designers had to remove the towed SONAR array system. With the loss of the Spruance and Perry classes of ships, both of which possessed helicopter support *and* towed SONAR arrays, the Navy, in my opinion, lost a great deal of flexibility in the ASW mission; one whose importance was pointed out in text in this video that mentioned how all of the new Chinese surface warships in production have helicopter support facilities on board.

[@Azteca2300]

Carde they have a huge issue with not crashing into container ships haha

[@hernanuliana9111]

Excellent like always. Thank you for being so rational, measured and informative in a place like KZbin so full of stupid chauvinist videos.

[@hypervious8878]

Your videos are consistently brilliant. I have to ask: of your sources, how many are open source (i.e., generally available to the public), and how many are not? I.e., how many have you had to subscribe (and pay) for...and are there any which you have had to use some special research methods or connections to find?

[@MartinBuhr]

well done

[@shawnmcdonald9352]

The bottom line is how well the wartime experience of the sailors and officers between the Chinese navy and the US Navy. The Chinese are inexperienced and under trained. Another consideration is what allies' actions will add to the lethality to the US Navy and Chinese navy? The Chinese can rely on North Korea navy to come to their aid. The US can rely upon NATO nations and the United Kingdom nations as well as India. The Chinese navy will last maybe two weeks to a month after hostilities begin. PLA generals are all mouth and no action. Those cowards will be found hiding under their beds.

[@TheManofthecross]

true the only thing china has is a prolonged land war of attrition which is all they really got and that to will not be enough to save there asses. unless they go though several minor conflicts and or a civil war which will give them said experience that is. other wise they like you said stand no chance especially when NATO is involved. cause NATO alone is enough to render china's navy useless for china will have to fight multiple nation's fleets at once not just the US fleet.

[@TheT3MK4]

Shawn McDonald but what if Russian Pacific fleet involved in war this is might be table turn

[@benn454]

@@TheT3MK4 The Chicoms and Russians hate each other.

[@Debbiebabe69]

@@TheT3MK4 Why would the Russians get involved? Americans sinking Chinese, Chinese sinking Americans, Americans flattening all the Chinese naval yards and war factories, would all make the Russian navy relatively more powerful - as well as giving them a huge export market as places like Dalian would likely be glowing under the impact of 100+ Tomahawks within the first half hour of any war.... In fact the only coastal province likely to have any factories or power stations left after the first hour of Tomahawk bombardment would be Guangdong, due to its importance in producing consumer goods....

[@CedarHunt]

The Russian Navy is also largely nonexistent. Most of their ships have been in dock for decades and aren't in any shape to sail much less fight in blue water. That's aside from the fact that Russia attacking the US navy would be risking a nuclear exchange. Putin's an egotistical fool but even he isn't that stupid.

[@jondejoy5780]

also china has never run a successful nuclear submarine patrol

[@fanyechao2761]

how do you know this?

[@jondejoy5780]

Its not secret or anything, the main reason is probably is that a few years ago they put all of their best submarine personel on a ship for cross training and the ship sank, most of them died. that and they have never focused on submarines in their navy, they have them but they more interested in other stuff i guess. Also im not saying they dont have the ability to do it, its just they have never done it. and if a US china war came to be and anyone started using nukes we would all be screwed anyway, so i guess the point is kinda mute.

[@fanyechao2761]

china can only reach US homeland by ICBMs; US can only disable china's war ability by ICBMs. that why there is peace

[@mxn1948]

Jon DeJoy I heard that before and brought it up once and someone posted (in a forum) a Chinese tv documentary literally showing nuclear subs on patrol( was about food in navy) so yea...

[@vishmonster]

The strategic elements are the parts that interest me most.

[@broworm1]

I think it might have been worth noting that a part of the US Amphibious Ships are in fact amphibious assault ships which launch planes. This could be noted as a bigger force multiplyer than an amphibious transport ship launching hoovercraft. Other then that minor note, great video! Really enjoyed it

[@sheharyarhusham5908]

hi

[@user-fz9mh4od7y]

hey

[@fouly1981]

China has no chance to challenge US Navy, Their naval scale only 25 ~ 30% by US Navy. In 2030 May reach 50% of the scale, They have same technology in the 21st century. About the history of the US Navy has 200+ years (100 years experience of aircraft carrier ). China only 67 years, aircraft carrier service only 3 ~ 4 years( No actual combat) China focuses on coastal defense "Weapons and systems to protect 2000~3000 km" . So China naval not much advantage in the distant ocean. (Of course, if the object is US naval)

[@theagent3]

True. Even during China's Imperial Times the navy ships were called Treasure Ships, used to conduct trade and find countries to be vassals to the Imperial Court. So historically the Chinese Navy was not a force of domination and conquest.

[@yansakuya1]

@Alex Mercer Those things can always be built and learn from just academic studies, but Geopolitics and Military Hard Power isn't something that can be learn in a classroom and not experienced first hand. Especially in China case as they never had any modern experience battling at sea from a massive war like WW1 & WW2 to shape their naval capability because they were traditionally a land power.

[@benjaminlevine6499]

Keep the modern videos coming.

[@thatguys773]

This video is fucking amazing , do more!

[@MrArtbv]

Well a comparison of strictly Us Naval forces vs China without American allies is an interesting academic exercise; it's hopelessly sterile. Once you add in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, Australia and even a straphanger like India or Thailand the disparities become so huge so fast as to make any further analysis pointless. The Japanese Navy alone would easily handle the Northern Chinese fleet; that's what it's designed for. Also while "officially" not fielding any carriers yet....one look at their latest 30k ton "helicopter destroyer lets the cat out of the bag. Australia is proposing a leasing scheme for the second Queen Elizabeth class carrier so there's that. India which has operated carriers of different types for years has significant experience far exceeding that of the Chinese, They, the Indians alone, could/would cut the "String of Pearls" well short of Sudan; with Singapore and Thailand hacking off its origin in Cambodia. This is why you have Allies. I suspect any conflict between the PLAN Navy and the US and her allies would be brief and "exciting". The video you reference at the end concerning a conflict between only the US and China has all the same flaws of analysis plus a complete misapprehension of naval strategy. In his version the US Navy would attack the PLAN Navy continuously at every point, Wrong answer. China in effect and organization fields three geographically separate navies. The US Navy would concentrate and defeat each in detail if they chose to sortie. If not they would die at anchor in their home harbors, or failing that; in twos and threes in where ever the small harbors they were hiding in happened to be. I suspect the survivors would then retreat as far up China's extensive deep water river system their drafts allowed. Navies without aircover rarely venture beyond littoral waters and last long. So at that point they'll be flying a lot of mid seventies stolen copies of NATO airframes with suspect engines and vastly inferior avionics against FA-18s, F-35's, F-22s and F-15 Strike Eagles. Not only that the actual odds will be against them because we'll be the ones dictating the tempo and nature of engagement. Lastly China's greatest weakness is strategic. They are an importer of strategic materials as you mentioned early in the video. The minute the war starts, that flow stops. Totally. Granted Linga Roads off Singapore will become the largest ship parking lot in history, but raw commodities always find buyers, and sooner rather than later. While the S China Sea shipping lanes are currently some of the worlds busiest, re routing north and west toward Guam and then north to Japan adds roughly three weeks, not months. The Chinese Navy remains for the forseeable future a brown water coastal defense force, Potent in some aspects, but incapable of any significant power projection. ABTW, the island reef/airbases they're building? Someone, somewhere in their military is surely aware of the fate of first our, and then the Japanese garrisons on Wake Island, and the lessons provided thereof.

[@fanyechao2761]

those allies can be knocked out by artilliary, your land based airfield wont be able to operate

[@VectorGhost]

do you got a link to china leasing he Queen Elizabeth class for Australian navy

[@MrArtbv]

Yeah...right. Were you born this bone achingly stupid or do they not teach geography in whatever little quasi third world hell hole you hail from. Not ONE a single one of America's allies except possibly Taiwan with some kind of "super gun" is vulnerable to ChiCom Arty. Do you mean missiles perchance??? In which case the Chinese would need precise level of targeting over hundreds of miles to hit a target the size of a cart shed on a muni golf course, ie the entrance to a hardened aircraft bunker on a military airfield. THEY CAN'T DO IT. Period. Full stop. So they'll have to try and send waves of sh!tty soviet knock-offs with suspect engines and cr@p avionics against F-15's and pray their tankers are still there for the few who escape. Other than Taiwan and Okinawa nothing else is in range. Try looking at a map before touching fingers to keyboard.

[@fanyechao2761]

+VectorGhost thats fake news

[@VectorGhost]

im not talking to you, im talking to someone who seems to know his shit. Not fantasy artillery strikes

[@hussite7235]

Chinese and Russian militaries are vastly overrated. while the US military is underrated.

[@dreamtree1510]

Eh, not so sure about that actually. I think a lot of Chinese and Russian stuff is actually pretty underrated, and I think a lot of things are overrated on both sides. Although, one thing that isn't overrated is American pilot training versus Russian and Chinese pilot training.

[@Azteca2300]

Hussite haha try it the other way around bud

[@user-ck2ez8lk2b]

Hussite American propaganda makes the American people feel fear. Do not make me laugh. You will look at their media and hysteria, you will never believe that they can keep the gun in their hands. And Americans do not know how to fight historically. Like all of Europe, except there are Germany and Russia.

[@skatemo100]

Барак Обама LoL what? The Soviet Union may have done the heavy lifting in Europe but Americans had a better kill to death ratio.... No disrespect to any of the soldiers, but 4,000,000 German military casualties compared to 7-11,000,000+ Soviet military casualties. Compare that now 400,000 US military casualties to around 1,000,000 German casualties and another 1,000,000 Japanese casualties... the difference is very large,

[@Zeroczar]

i kind of agree with Russia but i think China is very underrated for what they can produce none other than the u.s are capable of constructing like catobar carriers, France was the one most likely to build one but it went over budget, so now they only have a the single charles de gaulle which has around the same displacement as a wasp amphibious carrier.

[@cacsoccer101]

Great video! You should do an updated one given today's srste or maybe one with us and Russia!

[@blech71]

Pure numbers vids are fun and eye candy but the greatest factors that are never spoken of is shear experience, proficient TTP’s and force multipliers.