View Single Post
Old 03-16-2010, 10:50 AM
headquarters's Avatar
headquarters headquarters is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Norways weather beaten coasts
Posts: 1,825
Default ahemm..

Not wanting to spark of a total yelling match here -but imho ( humble= h) opinion -so were many of the hardware categories during the cold war .

Much Soviet and pact gear was obsolete -no doubt - but there were/are some who had a tendency to expand this fact to encompass all BLOC systems .

These could be compared outside an actual war ,to western gear in the early 1990s after the break up of the USSR and the defacto defeat of the Eastern Bloc in the proxy/non shooting war /economic wrestling match that we call the cold war .

I recollect talking abnout diesel electric subs with of the navy people I spoke with when in the service.They said that their subs had been able to penetrate defensive screens on NATO maritime exercises in the Atlantic. Sometimes despite the best efforts of the Roya Navyl/USN .Admittedly - the times they had been pinged did not come into conversation as often

Another such category was testing NVA airplanes and AAMs against comparative western gear with results that shook the conception that US built planes and missiles were superior not by a margin but by a huge ratio.

In both respects NATO superiority had to be reviewed as to what it actually would have meant .

There can be no doubt that there has never been a more powerful military hierarchy than the combination of the USN /USAF in terms of sheer firepower and capacity. But the ratio to which it held that superiority against the Bloc is up for debate imho.Those days there was propaganda about capacity on both sides to ensure the populace unwaivering support.Also in the west .This included building an image of our own forces as more capable than the enemy.

Again - I say this to incite some discussion -not to step on toes -or T.O.Es if you would.

flank speed ahead!

Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
I'm sketchy on the details but I do recall two recent excersises where US carriers were "sunk" or "badly damaged" by what by Cold War standards would be considered modest opposition.

In one case, a carrier in the Med was ambushed by simulated Libyan gun boats and/or small missile craft.

In the other, a Chilean diesel sub penetrated a carrier's screening destroyers and put several simulated torpedoes into her.

Based on these relatively recent simulations, IMHO, a U.S. CBG's defensive capabilities versus Soviet-era naval assets have been somewhat overestimated.

Last edited by headquarters; 03-16-2010 at 10:55 AM.
Reply With Quote