Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Thanks for the info, RN7. I could have used this in my In Defense of the Red Army arguments.
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...fense+Red+Army
At the height of the Cold War, the USN was no doubt the most powerful navy in the world, but it clearly wasn't the invincible juggernaut that we'd like to imagine. As these exercises clearly demonstrate, the USN was pretty conclusively not invincible and, at the very least, the Soviet Navy in its prime could have given it a seriously bloody nose or two. This is especially so if you add in the X-factor of command. |
I think it's difficult to judge how the Soviet Navy would have fared against the US Navy in wartime has it never happened. Unlike the US Navy the Soviets used a large number of conscripts in their navy, although maybe not so many in their submarine service which was likely to have been the elite of their navy.
Known and covered up fatal accidents aboard Soviet submarines points to reliability problems and sub-standard levels of training, but Soviet nuclear submarine technology was advanced enough to cause NATO some headaches. From the late 1970's the Soviets incorporated light and strong titanium hulls on their nuclear submarines, which enabled smaller size, greater diving depths, reduction in radiated noise and increase resistance to torpedo attacks. Victor III, Sierra and Alpha Class nuclear submarines were faster, more maneuverable and deeper diving than any American submarine up to the Los Angeles Class. The Alpha Class with a lead cooled fast reactor had a top speed of well over 40 knots and a claimed dive depth of 800 meters, which alarmed the US Navy enough to develop the ADCAP torpedo program and the Sea Lance missile programs projects, and the British to develop the high-speed Spearfish torpedo.
However the Soviet were clearly intimidated by US Navy air power and had a very healthy respect for NATO submarines. Their two main assets for eliminating US naval air power were nuclear submarines and bombers with long ranged anti-ship missiles as they knew they couldn't match the US Navy carrier fleet in numbers or capabilities. Their first proper carriers; the Kiev's, were basically hybrid-missile cruisers with an air arm heavily biased towards ASW operations. In fact all major Soviet surface warships seemed to be defensively orientated and almost top heavy with either air defence or ASW weapons. When the Soviet started reaching parity with America across a number of military areas in the 1970's a more offensive mind set seems to have taken hold in Soviet naval doctrine. The Kuznetsov Class emerged from the drawing board in this period as did the Kirov class battlecruiser anomaly, which seems to have been designed to bludgeon its way out into the north Atlantic and eliminate the NATO threat to its emerging carrier arm and nuclear missile submarines.
Results from exercises with NATO and Western aligned navies may be a bit unfair on the US Navy. Smaller NATO navies are very professional and they can specialise more and their smaller subs are better suited for littoral operations, while their equipment and tactics are very different to the Soviets. In regards to US nuclear subs versus AIP diesel subs, generally once the US sub commanders learns the tactics of opposing AIP subs the results are more in favour of the US submarines.