The importance of navies

[Myth]

Who is up for some discussion on navies? Any reliable data written by non-laymen to see some rankings? I can count ships too, but I can't tell if the Chinese have real blue water vessels or coastal dinghys...

Why is everyone but the US, Japan and China more or less stagnating their naval power? Do you think coastal defense is enough, or power porojection is a must as well? Why is Japan trying to disguise aircraft carriers as hellicopter carriers?

How did the Royal Navy and the navies of traditionally powerful maritime nations such as France and Spain come to fall behind so much compared to the sheer gigantic size and equipment/logistics/training advantage that the USN has?

Well, to redeem the Royal Navy, they will have two new aircraft carriers operational by 2020 (though still smaller than the Nimitz class the US is fielding).

And, if someone can explain to me what the difference between a modern frigate and destroyer is, that would be great. Since both use missiles and nobody uses conventional guns AFAIK.

Oh, and why is Russia buying ships from France? Don't they have the capability to modernize their cold war era ships?

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's all a moot point. The rail gun technology currently being tested by the US navy will make traditional navies obsolete anyway.

[Husar]

Well, I can tell you why Japan tries to disguise these ships as helicopter carriers. IIRC it's about their constitution forbidding them to have an army. That's why their army is technically just a very militarized arm of their police force. An aircraft carrier is probably a bit too much to keep that idea of "it's just a well-equipped self-defense police force" up and so they say it is just a helicopter carrier.
Germany does not want a lot of power projection. The army was supposed to be turned into a rapid reaction force that could be quickly deployed everywhere, but that was also meant for these kinds of international missions such as Afghanistan. If I'm not mistaken, our military spending as percentage of GDP is below the NATO requirement anyway and apparently a bit too low to keep all our equipment operational. This is because the people do not want to engage in wars if it is not absolutely required and the idea is that Europeans do not want to go to war again, at least not against one another, any time soon. French and British politicians seem to share that sentiment to an extent, although they keep a bit more military around because they feel less shame for doing so and still have sort-of colonial obligations.

As for ships, I read that German frigates are essentially destroyers in terms of firepower etc. so I would assume that a frigate is usually a smaller support craft whereas destroyers make up the bulk of modern navy ships (except in Germany, where frigates that are like destroyers do it). It might be a remnant of our past, where we tried to create cruisers that were essentially small battleships to have strong ships despite the Versailles treaty, also known as pocket battleships (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland-class_cruiser).

The scandinavians also seem to focus on coastal defense for the most part, diesel submarines and a few frigates/destroyers are what Europeans keep around to delay enemies until the USA arrive. I'm not sure whether I need to explain why the USA keep 10 carrier groups and stuff around.

As for rail guns, why exactly would they make traditional navies obsolete? Aren't they built into traditional ships? And why didn't cruise missiles make traditional ships obsolete? Will the rail gun bring back the traditional navy warfare of broadsides, only with forward observers and longer distances? And wouldn't that be a very traditional navy then?

[Myth]

I guess the railgun is harder to avoid and intercept than a missile? If I were one of Europe's superpowers i'd surely want a strong navy around. Nukes aside, we can't always rely on the USA figthing our wars.

I'm still perplexed why the somali pirates were even a thing.

[Husar]

I guess the railgun is harder to avoid and intercept than a missile?

I wouldn't know, midern missiles fly evasive maneuvers and zig-zag courses or come in really low and fast to avoid counter measures. And they can be swarmed at the same time to overwhelm defenses. On the other hand it is already possible to intercept incoming mortar projectiles and the likes. While a railgun projectile may be a lot faster, this may not be the case at maximum or even rather long range anymore and the path it takes is probably more predictable than that of a maneuverable missile. I thought the main advantage was that you can pretty much fire much further into a country from somewhere near the coast and projectiles are probably much cheaper than missiles as well.



If I were one of Europe's superpowers i'd surely want a strong navy around. Nukes aside, we can't always rely on the USA figthing our wars.

But how would that help? Who other than the USA would have a Navy to threaten Europe's current combined navies?


I'm still perplexed why the somali pirates were even a thing.

Aren't they still a thing now, just out of the headlines?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is just my thoughts with regards to the engineering limitations involved. With traditional chemical projectiles, as you increase the size of the projectile, the scale of the overall weapon system grows bigger in many aspects. For one, the account of powder/explosive material stored in one location becomes more of a liability than an advantage. This is a problem for both land and ship artillery, it's not practical to store such things beyond a certain size for many reasons (corrosion, risk of accidental combustion, danger if targeted in an attack) which makes navel bombardment possible since the land based artillery face the same problems in scaling up. Railgun systems are not dependent on an amount of highly combustive material but instead by the length of the rail and the current that can be supplied as increasing both will further accelerate the projectile. Storing the projectiles is no longer a risk as they are hunks of dense metal, nothing more. So from my point of view, land based railgun systems will inevitably outrange any railgun mounted on a ship due to the ability to set up larger power generation on land then in a confined ship. I see no reason why land based railguns won't be able to out range any navel vessel at which point the force projection capability of a navy is diminished greatly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

FYI, this is really me talking out of my ass at 4 in the morning, so take it for what it is, not something I've actually looked into.

[rvg]

Oh, and why is Russia buying ships from France? Don't they have the capability to modernize their cold war era ships?

It's a perfect opportunity for the higher up officials to get some fab bribes from the contractor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, railguns aren't there yet and even when they are I'm not sure ACIN is correct. Back when we had Battleships we also have massive bombardment guns, perhaps most famously in Singapore - they were never much good.

Landborn railguns will have the same basic limitation as other landborn massive artillery, it will have to be static due to the logistics involved. Static artillery is only good for coastal defence and since the advent of air power the simple solution has been to bomb it as soon as it reveals itself by firing, since it can't move this has been very effective. By contrast you can move a battleship across the water, and it can transport massive artillery much more quickly than you can the same artillery over land.As regards mobile landborn artillery, it's size is necessarily limited by it's need to use roads and bridges, something which has also limited modern armour as once you go above about 65 tonnes your ability to make use of civilian transport infrastructure becomes a serious problem.

What we'll probably see with the maturing of railgun technology will be a new class of heavy cruiser with the bulk to mount two or three of these weapons and carry the required generators. What's actually more interesting is the possibility of very lightweight railguns firing ultrasonic projectiles at aircraft from relatively short range.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a perfect opportunity for the higher up officials to get some fab bribes from the contractor.

Oh I dunno, didn't that deal fall through because the French Government refused to deliver the amphibious assault ships whilst Russia was annexing Ukraine?

[rvg]

Oh I dunno, didn't that deal fall through because the French Government refused to deliver the amphibious assault ships whilst Russia was annexing Ukraine?

Sure did, but the bribes had already been paid.

[lars573]

Well, I can tell you why Japan tries to disguise these ships as helicopter carriers. IIRC it's about their constitution forbidding them to have an army. That's why their army is technically just a very militarized arm of their police force. An aircraft carrier is probably a bit too much to keep that idea of "it's just a well-equipped self-defense police force" up and so they say it is just a helicopter carrier.
Wow are you off base on this one. The Japanese self defense forces haven't been part of any police agency since 1954 when the defense agency was created (and became full on military forces). And the self defense forces have under a ministry defense since 2007.

[GenosseGeneral]

To the original question: I don't think so. It is for a reason that the Russians are so pissed by not getting their Mistrals. The key word is power projection. Or why else form the Marines the spearhead of most U.S. intervention? The Libya campaign in 2011 was more or less naval based, with a massive use of cruise missiles and vessel borne aircraft. If navies are outdated, explain me this: https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-navy-shows-off-its-strange-new-war-changing-ships?utm_source=vicenewsfb
Why would Turkey pump so much money in the buildup of its navy?
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/turkish-navy-aims-high-for-2033-become-global-force.html

The reason is: We are living in a globalized world and an operational navy is necessary for any form of direct intervention, whether it be a bombing campaign or disaster relief.

Oh and regarding the OP's question why Russia is buying French ships: The USSR's largest shipyard was the one in Mikolayev. That's for instance where its aircraft carriers. And guess where said city is... right, Southern Ukraine. With it that know-how which did not get lost during the almost 2 decades of overall decline of the Russian military-industrial complex. The Russians have put quite some resources into the production of new classes of ships in recent years though, notably classes capable of operating in an Arctic environment.

[HopAlongBunny]

I would think the primary reason for stagnation is expense.
The navy is a very expensive appendage. If you do not already have a top flight marine industry, building it up is likewise very expensive.
Even if you can make a strong case for the expense, usually the political will is not there to follow through with the taxation necessary.
Canada needs a navy that can operate in the Arctic. Without such a navy, any pretensions to claiming our "Arctic Heritage" are pretty meaningless.

[Husar]

FYI, this is really me talking out of my ass at 4 in the morning, so take it for what it is, not something I've actually looked into.

I found your thoughts quite interesting, I didn't see your comment in that light at first.


What we'll probably see with the maturing of railgun technology will be a new class of heavy cruiser with the bulk to mount two or three of these weapons and carry the required generators. What's actually more interesting is the possibility of very lightweight railguns firing ultrasonic projectiles at aircraft from relatively short range.

Well, I just had this other idea...what about a massive land-based railgun that basically fires a missile at aircraft very far away? The missile would get there incredibly fast, would only need a relatively small rocket sustainer of its own for terminal maneuvering and it would basically combine the fast attack speed of a gun with the terminal guidance of a missile. Although the electronics of the missile would have to survive the launch somehow...


Wow are you off base on this one. The Japanese self defense forces haven't been part of any police agency since 1954 when the defense agency was created (and became full on military forces). And the self defense forces have under a ministry defense since 2007.

Yes, you are right, and I hope that I didn't appear as though I was sure about that. It was something I heard quite a while ago, I don't even remember where exactly. Thanks for the correction.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, you are right, and I hope that I didn't appear as though I was sure about that. It was something I heard quite a while ago, I don't even remember where exactly. Thanks for the correction.

There's also a good chance the missile would explode from the heat generated during launch - basically it sounds like a cool idea but would be too expensive to be practical with current technology, I expect.

[Strike For The South]

Navies are expensive and NATO already has 10 aircraft carriers. Any war that would require the use of multiple carrier groups would require the full mobilization of NATO.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's also a good chance the missile would explode from the heat generated during launch - basically it sounds like a cool idea but would be too expensive to be practical with current technology, I expect.
At this point the heat generated by the railgun rapidly deteriorates the weapon itself. But they have gotten up to several hundred launches on a single rail before it needs to be replaced.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Navies are expensive and NATO already has 10 aircraft carriers. Any war that would require the use of multiple carrier groups would require the full mobilization of NATO.

If only the UK had built proper carriers instead of pursuing a fetish for jumpjets, we could have twelve carrier groups.


At this point the heat generated by the railgun rapidly deteriorates the weapon itself. But they have gotten up to several hundred launches on a single rail before it needs to be replaced.

Well, each shot should be a kill, so a cruiser with three railguns and three sets of spare rails should be able to operate for months at see before it's weapons are degraded.

[Husar]

Well, each shot should be a kill, so a cruiser with three railguns and three sets of spare rails should be able to operate for months at see before it's weapons are degraded.

So you either need some form of guidance in the projectile with electronics that may not survive the launch or you need to kindly ask the waves to stop moving and the enemy to stop maneuvering or how exactly will you make every shot even a hit at 30km+ distance?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you either need some form of guidance in the projectile with electronics that may not survive the launch or you need to kindly ask the waves to stop moving and the enemy to stop maneuvering or how exactly will you make every shot even a hit at 30km+ distance?

I think you're underestimating the speed of the projectile, though more properly I should have said that every "hit" was a kill. We abandoned armour on ships by and large because we couldn't make it good enough to withstand missiles, instead we tried to stop the missiles hitting in the first place. Now these tungston core "rocks" will hit a ship, punch through the hull and out the other side. The resulting vacuum will mangle electronics and turn any crew into that section into a pink mist, just like with a tank hit. Added to that, the ship will be violently pitched or rolled, depending in the direction of the hit and there's a good chance the ship will cant towards the exit point of the projectile.

Glug glug.

As to range - I expect in an actual war you'd need to get within a few kilometres, or at least a dozen, because you have to find and fix the target whilst he's doing the same to you and the closer you are the less time he has to react and counter attack.

[HopAlongBunny]

Stealth rails?

[Husar]

I think you're underestimating the speed of the projectile, though more properly I should have said that every "hit" was a kill. We abandoned armour on ships by and large because we couldn't make it good enough to withstand missiles, instead we tried to stop the missiles hitting in the first place. Now these tungston core "rocks" will hit a ship, punch through the hull and out the other side. The resulting vacuum will mangle electronics and turn any crew into that section into a pink mist, just like with a tank hit. Added to that, the ship will be violently pitched or rolled, depending in the direction of the hit and there's a good chance the ship will cant towards the exit point of the projectile.

Glug glug.

As to range - I expect in an actual war you'd need to get within a few kilometres, or at least a dozen, because you have to find and fix the target whilst he's doing the same to you and the closer you are the less time he has to react and counter attack.

If you have to get within a few kiloemters, I'm not sure the added range of a railgun would be that useful and you would still try to hit them with a missile first.

As for the effect on impact, if it really just punches two holes into the ship and very high speed, the ship should hardly be rocked, much less cant anywhere as the metal of the ship would not react as fast while once the projectile has left the ship again already, where would the force come from that would cant the ship? There might be some fire damage and so on if it actually has a hot plasma trail as it seems to have during launch, but how would that deal more damage than a pretty big missile?

The round may however sort of eplode, depending on the materials involved, the following link has a guy explaining it and I recommend the second youtube video he links to, it's very interesting either way: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22iqo3/why_does_the_us_navy_rail_gun_round_explode_into/

If someone can provide more info, I'd be interested. If the projectile will look and behave like the one in the following video, it might lose speed relatively fast though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwU5bgXEao

I'd also want to see this on a ship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3fgfHoTOc
They could make a railgun with this caliber.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you have to get within a few kiloemters, I'm not sure the added range of a railgun would be that useful and you would still try to hit them with a missile first.

As for the effect on impact, if it really just punches two holes into the ship and very high speed, the ship should hardly be rocked, much less cant anywhere as the metal of the ship would not react as fast while once the projectile has left the ship again already, where would the force come from that would cant the ship? There might be some fire damage and so on if it actually has a hot plasma trail as it seems to have during launch, but how would that deal more damage than a pretty big missile?

What about the vacuum and the subsequent equalization of pressure? But in this case it looks like we're talking about something more like a slug than a SABOT dart, so maybe you won't even get your second hole, just a hole and then a big explosion.

The advantage over a missile is the same as the advantage of an Iwoa Class Battleship's gun over a missile, you can't stop it, just try to get out of the blessed way.


The round may however sort of eplode, depending on the materials involved, the following link has a guy explaining it and I recommend the second youtube video he links to, it's very interesting either way: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22iqo3/why_does_the_us_navy_rail_gun_round_explode_into/

If someone can provide more info, I'd be interested. If the projectile will look and behave like the one in the following video, it might lose speed relatively fast though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atwU5bgXEao

I'd also want to see this on a ship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3fgfHoTOc
They could make a railgun with this caliber.

Interesting, the application (given the cost and maintenance concerns) is clearly against heavily armoured targets. In ship to ship combat I know the US is already working on a high-powered gun shell that's sort of rocket assisted. Overall this feels like an answer to a question nobody asked, because you could use a plane, or a missile or a torpedo against another ship and (in general) high calibre conventional artillery and bombs seem more economical against shore targets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Once the technical limitations of railguns are overcome, the main benefit of it over conventional artillery is the cost.

[drone]

Railgun projectiles can be guided somewhat, but I imagine there are still limitations on surface-to-surface applications due to the curvature of the earth. The lack of a ballistic arc means targets can be protected somewhat against a naval railgun bombardment.

[Papewaio]

Railgun rounds are still acted on by gravity.

Assuming the round maintains integrity then it will arc down ... Just with a much flatter longer range arc.

The other issue would be the round losing accuracy as it drops and becoming more like a shuttle cock then a ballistic round.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What about the vacuum and the subsequent equalization of pressure? But in this case it looks like we're talking about something more like a slug than a SABOT dart, so maybe you won't even get your second hole, just a hole and then a big explosion.


Actually, the fact it is a rounded slug and not a pointed projectile means that there is a likely probability that impact will either send a lot of shrapnel flying inside the vessel, or even liquefy enough of the metal to cause a hot metal mist/spray to coat the inside residents. Not a very fun way to die.

Take a look at the edges of the hole in this 3/4" plate (https://i.imgur.com/Zp9VozX.jpg).

[rory_20_uk]

Railguns do appear to be there for versions of "gunboat diplomacy" where the outclassed enemy is being pummelled with impunity. As has been mentioned, aircraft have longer range and land based "fortresses" could have bigger guns. So until air superiority is achieved and you can get relatively close to the shore and there's nothing there firing back (be that rail guns or missile batteries - yes, you can intercept one, perhaps 10 but 100?). Fleet on fleet is sort of the same - serious Navies have aircraft carriers for this very reason (and given the situation with the UK I need to mention they also need planes to go on them) or else need to stay very close to land airstrips lest the other lot will fly their planes out, fire the long range missiles en masse and return to rearm and sink another portion of the fleet.

They could be ideal for the Marines to obliterate everything whilst they come ashore with the power coming from a nuclear reactor so the ship could have many shots to fire.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

What about the vacuum and the subsequent equalization of pressure? But in this case it looks like we're talking about something more like a slug than a SABOT dart, so maybe you won't even get your second hole, just a hole and then a big explosion.

Apparently the vacuum is so strong on launch that it creates a fiery trail of hot plasma, but the question is for how long this is maintained? If you have a sabot that's made to punch through with as much kinetic energy as possible, you will want it to maintain as much speed as possible and reduce drag and vacuum effects on the projectile. If you make it some kind of slug with high drag and lots of vacuum, then it will lose kinetic energy and speed quite a lot faster. The projectile in the video is also incredibly unstable and yaws left and right during flight, which would further reduce its speed due to the added drag and so on and on.


The advantage over a missile is the same as the advantage of an Iwoa Class Battleship's gun over a missile, you can't stop it, just try to get out of the blessed way.

You can already stop mortar rounds and RPGs with the most modern defense systems, the shell from an iowa class battleship might be stoppable already or at least very soon. It helps that it is packed full of explosives and will probably explode and disintegrate when hit though. A metal rod from a rail gun may not be stopped so easily by shrapnel or rounds with much lower mass impacting on it. Though if you let several small grenades explode into it it might get slowed down and miss or so. Or fire a similar rail gun round at it, but that would require incredible accuracy and speed. Then again, a radar and a computer can actually provide incredible speed and accuracy as active protection systems such as the Iron Fist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_(countermeasure)) can apparently be used against kinetic penetrators already, and I would assume that they are faster than the rounds of a WW2 battleship and contain no explosives. Of course if you can fire your railguns in batteries, the swarm would be even harder to stop and even more likely to do serious damage. And at least the projectiles would be faster than a swarm of high tech missiles.


Interesting, the application (given the cost and maintenance concerns) is clearly against heavily armoured targets. In ship to ship combat I know the US is already working on a high-powered gun shell that's sort of rocket assisted. Overall this feels like an answer to a question nobody asked, because you could use a plane, or a missile or a torpedo against another ship and (in general) high calibre conventional artillery and bombs seem more economical against shore targets.

I usually understood the purpose to be that of long range, with anti-ship as more of a secondary concern. With a rail gun you can fire so far into a landmass that some sort of naval bombardment becomes more viable again. This could be used to try and overwhelm enemy air defenses which would work much better against slower cruise missiles. Once the air defenses have been taken out within about 200km or so of the shoreline, it should be much easier to establish a beachhead, air superiority, etc.


Once the technical limitations of railguns are overcome, the main benefit of it over conventional artillery is the cost.

Including the cost of operating a nuclear reactor to provide it with energy? A simple metal slug might be cheaper, but I also read about projectiles with guidance fins and electronics that survive the launch and so on. Just saving some money on propellant charges can't make a huge difference.


Railgun projectiles can be guided somewhat, but I imagine there are still limitations on surface-to-surface applications due to the curvature of the earth. The lack of a ballistic arc means targets can be protected somewhat against a naval railgun bombardment.

Well, I thought that too at first, but did not want to say it before checking the actual numbers.


Speed of the Navy's rail gun projectile:
~2.4 km/s


Speed of a tank gun sabot:
~1.6 km/s - ~1.75 km/s


Required orbit speed at 30m altitude:
~8km/s



Apparently there is quite a bit of room left until a projectile becomes so fast that it cannot hit anything beyond the horizon as it would fly right over it. The other conclusion is that I did apparently not underestimate the speed of a railgun projectile, it's quite a bit faster than a tank ssabot, but not even twice as fast and tank sabots can apparently be defeated already ba counter measures. Rail guns do have the potential to fire even faster projectiles though, but the energy required and the stress on the material will also increase quite a lot in that case I suppose.


Railgun rounds are still acted on by gravity.

Assuming the round maintains integrity then it will arc down ... Just with a much flatter longer range arc.

The other issue would be the round losing accuracy as it drops and becoming more like a shuttle cock then a ballistic round.

The latter seems to happen to the flat projectile, but given that it is a test round the final designs might differ quite a bit. If a second force could be applied to make the projectiles spin without rifling the railgun, it might be possible to unite the advantages of ordinary smooth bore guns (higher muzzle velocity) with those of rifled guns (stable projectile) in one system. Or just add fins as is done with sabots.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Including the cost of operating a nuclear reactor to provide it with energy? A simple metal slug might be cheaper, but I also read about projectiles with guidance fins and electronics that survive the launch and so on. Just saving some money on propellant charges can't make a huge difference.

Many navy ships already have nuclear reactors on board. It's better than relying on diesel. The slug costs $25,000 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navys-newest-weapon-kills-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-sound/). I can't find the cost of an artillery shell used by navy ships, but it seems to be relatively cheap, especially against missiles that range from 500,000 to 1,000,000+.

[Husar]

Many navy ships already have nuclear reactors on board. It's better than relying on diesel. The slug costs $25,000 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navys-newest-weapon-kills-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-sound/). I can't find the cost of an artillery shell used by navy ships, but it seems to be relatively cheap, especially against missiles that range from 500,000 to 1,000,000+.

So far that's mostly the bigger ships and submarines, although I just read your congress wouldn't mind putting nuclear reactors onto all Navy ships, including destroyers. The Zumwalt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer) seems to be diesel-powered and was already so expensive that the numbers were cut back considerably.

Originally the navy had hoped to build 32 destroyers. That number was reduced to 24, then to 7, due to the high cost of new and experimental technologies.
[...]
On 6 April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that DoD's proposed 2010 budget will end the DDG-1000 program at a maximum of three ships.[

Its guns are more conventional 155mm guns but seem to have a maximum range of about 80 miles.

Funnily enough, the page on railguns has the following info:


Currently the only US Navy ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the Zumwalt-class destroyers; they can generate 78 megawatts of power, more than is necessary to power a railgun. Engineers are working to derive technologies developed for the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system so other warships can operate a railgun.[52] Most current destroyers can spare only nine megawatts of additional electricity, while it would require 25 megawatts to propel a projectile to the desired maximum range [53] (i.e. to launch 32MJ projectiles at a rate of 10 shots per minute).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#U.S._Navy_Tests

Anbd yes, of course a slug is cheaper than a missile, my comparison was more about conventional gun ammunition such as the one of the two 155mm guns on the Zumwalt. You still get even more range with the railgun though.

[Furunculus]

How did the Royal Navy and the navies of traditionally powerful maritime nations such as France and Spain come to fall behind so much compared to the sheer gigantic size and equipment/logistics/training advantage that the USN has?

the cold war.
the need to keep a 70k strong armoured corps in germany with appropriate reinforcement once operation reforger kicked off.