Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Well, if we use canon, they apparently did. How else can it be explained that the total assembled navies of Nato were destroyed without them resorting to nukes? It obviously cost them everything to do it, but once the last effective naval force was on the bottom, what real use would they have for a navy besides the usual coastal patrols, etc?
Sure it would be nice to have warships and landing craft, but it's not absolutely VITAL if there's no effective opposing force.
|
Does canon specifically state that no naval nukes are used against NATO sea forces? I don't recall that it does. That said, I don't think it's necessary as far as explaining NATO's naval losses.
If the Soviets could sucker major NATO naval forces closer to land- especially land controlled by the USSR (like NW Norway and/or the Kola Penninsula) they could reduce the NATO navies' sensor advantage and overwhelm them with firepower.
According to canon, there's a major battle in the Norwegian Sea, is there not? A major Soviet naval sortie (two or three battle groups along with fast attack missile boats) and Naval air forces launching from land bases could do a lot of damage before hitting the bottom themselves.