OT: Seven US aircraft carriers have been sunk in the past 30 years.

[RN7]

In 2006 the Chinese Navy Song Class diesel-electric submarine famously reached within striking distance of the USS Kitty Hawk undetected. However in naval exercises a total of seven US Navy aircraft carriers have reportedly been sunk by non-nuclear submarines.

1981: USS Eisenhower was sunk in NATO exercises in the Atlantic Ocean by Royal Canadian Navy Porpoise Class diesel-electric submarine built in Britain in the 1960's, and wasn't even detected by US Navy ASW assets.

1981: During the same exercise the USS Forrestal was also sunk by an unidentified diesel-electric submarine, probably a British Royal Navy submarine.

1989: USS America sunk in the Atlantic Ocean by Dutch Navy Zwaardvis Class diesel-electric submarine.

1996: USS Independence sunk by the Chilean Navy German built Type-209 Class diesel-electric class submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

1999: USS Theodore Roosevelt sunk by the Dutch Navy Walrus Class diesel-electric submarine in the Atlantic Ocean.

2003: Unidentified US Navy aircraft carrier sunk by two Royal Australian Navy Collins Class diesel-electric submarines in the Pacific Ocean.

2005: USS Ronald Reagan sank by Swedish Navy Gotland Class AIP submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

Many other US Navy ships have also been sunk in exercises by non-nuclear submarines. In 1999 the Dutch submarine that sank the USS Theodore Roosevelt also sank the exercise command ship USS Mount Whitney, a cruiser, several destroyers and the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Boise. In 2000 a Royal Australian Navy Collins Class diesel-electric submarine almost sank the USS Abraham Lincoln, and sank two US Navy nuclear attack submarines in the Pacific Ocean. In 2001 another Australian Collins Class HMAS Waller sank two US Navy assault ships in the Pacific, and during the same exercise a Chilean Navy submarine sank the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Montpelier twice. In 2002 another Australian Collins Class HMAS Sheehan hunted down and sank the Los Angeles Class USS Olympia, while in 2003 two Australian Collins Class sank two US Navy nuclear attack submarines and an unidentified aircraft carrier.

Although such losses were only in exercises and its possible that operational restraints were put on US naval forces during such exercises it highlights the fact that US Navy carrier battlegroups could be vulnerable to submarine attack. During the Cold War the principle objective of the Soviet Navy was to eliminate US naval air superiority. The principle means of doing that was through Soviet nuclear submarines which were the Soviet Union's primary naval asset, and followed/shadowed US aircraft carriers and trained to destroy them through conventional or nuclear means in wartime. In the Twilight 2000 timeline this could have led to huge American naval losses.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Were they on a war footing? Were they heavily prosecuting enemy contacts? Were they dropping Mk46's on every possible contact? Were they using countermeasures and screening forces? Were ASW birds constantly dropping sonobuoys?

It's easy to cry wolf at scenarios like these but to suggest we don't know what's out there or how to deal with it is...spurious.

[Targan]

No person or war machine is invulnerable.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Were they on a war footing? Were they heavily prosecuting enemy contacts? Were they dropping Mk46's on every possible contact? Were they using countermeasures and screening forces? Were ASW birds constantly dropping sonobuoys?

It's easy to cry wolf at scenarios like these but to suggest we don't know what's out there or how to deal with it is...spurious.

Excercises - has a starting time and and an endex. Within that time the players act according to orders and scenario. If someone neglected to "stand to"and got hit - thats the way it goes...

[RN7]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Were they on a war footing? Were they heavily prosecuting enemy contacts? Were they dropping Mk46's on every possible contact? Were they using countermeasures and screening forces? Were ASW birds constantly dropping sonobuoys?

It's easy to cry wolf at scenarios like these but to suggest we don't know what's out there or how to deal with it is...spurious.

Unfortunately during these exercises the US Navy was on a war footing, or as close as they could get to one during an exercise.

In the case of the USS Eisenhower and USS Forrestal in 1981, they were participating in the NATO exercises Ocean Venture/Magic Sword North, the largest exercises in the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet history along with British, Canadian and US Coast Guard ships. The objective was for two carrier battle groups to transit the North Atlantic and enter the Norwegian Sea and simulate air attacks on enemy positions in waves of coordinated air attacks. An old Canadian submarine slipped through the escort screen undetected and conducted a successful simulated torpedo attack on the USS Eisenhower. Another submarine did the same to the USS Forrestal later in the exercise.

The most significant part of the exercise was the transit by the carriers of the GIUK gap. In five previous NATO exercises American carriers had always been attacked trying to transit the gaps, and US tactics were exposed as seriously flawed. In wartime it is believed that neither American carrier would have made it through the GIUK gap unharmed, and that US tactics and levels of training were inferior to their British and Canadian allies.

A US Navy officer who tried to report it to highlight aircraft carrier vulnerability to diesel-electric submarine attacks was censored by navy officials and in fact the officer was ridiculed for reporting it and it harmed his career. In Ocean venture 81 90% of first strikes were by submarines against carriers, a fact that did not sit well with US Navy aviators.

[RN7]

Also in 1983 the Canadian submarine HMCS Okanagan reached within a kilometre of the USS Kitty Hawk and prepped itself for torpedo launch before sneaking away unnoticed through the carriers destroyer escort screen.

In 1996 the Canadian submarine HMCS Onandaga also beat the USS Hartford, a nuclear submarine 30 years younger largely according to its commander because his crew had been together for two years and was well trained while US submarines had a 25% annual crew turnover and 50% over two years. The HMCS Onandaga beat the USS Hartford 6 out of 7 times in exercises according to the Canadian submarine commander, and lost once because he started to get complacent about the American not picking him up during a snorkling procedure.

Closer to current times during NATO exercise 99FEX the Dutch submarine Walrus launched two successful simulated attacks on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well sinking its escorts and a nuclear submarine and sneaked away undamaged. The crew of the Walrus even had T-shirts printed with a walrus impaling the Roosevelt.

[Canadian Army]

Royal Canadian Navy Porpoise Class diesel-electric submarine

Got this from Wikipedia:

The Oberon class was a 27-boat class of British-built diesel-electric submarines based on the successful British Porpoise-class submarine.

Thirteen were constructed for the Royal Navy, while another fourteen were built and exported to other countries' navies: six to the Royal Australian Navy, three to the Royal Canadian Navy with an additional two British submarines later transferred, three to the Brazilian Navy, and two to the Chilean Navy.

The Oberon class was arguably the best conventional submarine class of its time, with an astonishing reputation for quietness that allowed it to exist into the 21st century until replaced by newer classes such as the Collins and Victoria classes in Australia and Canada respectively.

The Oberon class was briefly succeeded in RN service by the Upholder-class submarine. The Upholder-class submarines were later upgraded and sold to the Canadian Forces after refit as the Victoria class, again replacing Oberons.

The Australian Oberons were replaced by the six Collins-class submarines.

The two Chilean Oberons were replaced by the Scorpène-class submarines O'Higgins and Carrera.

The Brazilian Oberons were replaced by Type 209 submarines.

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.projectojibwa.ca/

And one of the Canadian ones will be only 50 miles away from me as museum.

[Adm.Lee]

Admiral "Sandy" Woodward's Falklands War memoir relates a story of how an RN DD or FF got within visual range of a US CV shortly before that war, in the Indian Ocean. I cannot recall if he was the skipper or a flag officer at the time. From what I remember:

The exercise rules were that there wasn't supposed to be aerial recon beforehand, but his ship was overflown just before sunset anyway. They had planned for that, however.

After sunset, they rigged every light they could all over the ship, and whenever an American plane flew nearby, they identified themselves as an Indian (or Pakistani?) cruise liner, including stereotypical South Asian accent. (I read this in 1991-92, when I had an Indian boss, so the accent written in the book had me chuckling.) Come sunrise, they were on the horizon from the CV, "launching" Exocets.

This scene was later reprised, more or less, in the almost-classic naval movie "Down periscope."

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

Got this from Wikipedia:
The Oberon class was arguably the best conventional submarine class of its time, with an astonishing reputation for quietness that allowed it to exist into the 21st century until replaced by newer classes such as the Collins and Victoria classes in Australia and Canada respectively.

They were excellent submarines and based on a German design of WW2, and only surpassed in quietness by current generation diesel-electric/AIP submarines.

The Canadian submarine service is like its Australian and British cousins a very professional and well trained service, and the Australian and Canadian submarines have caused the US Navy huge problems in exercises. But other navies have also frequently got the better of the US Navy ASW forces and nuclear submarines; Chileans, Dutch, Japanese and Swedish. Even a Pakistani Navy submarine approached a US Navy amphibious group in the Arabian Sea in 2001. It was detected by one of the amphibious groups escorts; a Canadian frigate, and escorted away from the area.

There seems to be a bit of a hubris problem within the US Navy that stems from the fact that the US Navy is the most powerful and the most advanced and that no one else can challenge it, when in fact the reality is that they can and frequently do. In naval aviation, the strategic use of nuclear submarines and possibly anti-air warfare the US Navy is the unquestioned leader, but in ASW and mine detection capabilities the Americans are by no means the leader of the pack, and this fact has frequently been commentated on by US naval commanders since the First Gulf War.

The all nuclear submarine fleet has many advantages in range, speed and firepower, but its superiority can be countered in shallow waters or even in the open ocean by a willy diesel submarine commander with a well trained crew. During NATO exercises European submarine commanders were frequently more worried about colliding under water with big US Navy nuclear submarines than being detected, because the US submarines seemed to be blind to their presence until they hit one of them.

Even the notion that US Navy nuclear submarines are the quietest nuclear submarines in the world would be seriously questioned by current generation Russian nuclear submarines, who have enjoyed at least a parity in noise levels with American submarines since the Victor III Class was introduced in the mid-1980's. Russian under-water detection technology is also very advanced.

Part of the problem with the American's is that their navy is so big and covers so many roles that a smaller professional navy can specialise more. Even the US Navy submarine service is huge by any standard. However US submarines have got the better of quieter diesel submarines when a commander operates outside the box.

[stormlion1]

I notice all of those sunk CV's have been killed by Diesel Subs. I guess it is true that Diesel boats are quieter than nuclear subs.

[dragoon500ly]

The diesel subs have an advantage when they are cruising on their batteries, one thats is counter-balanced by the noise of their diesels when they are recharging the same batteries. Due to the capacity of their batteries, the diesel subs have to creep up on their targets. If the can get into position in front of the carriers, then they can creep, maintaining steerage way and let the carrier come to them. Faster speeds, eats rapidly into battery endurance.

As for the nukes, their reactors are, for the most part, rely on pressurized water for cooling. The noise of these pumps are the most noticable part of their signature.

Towards the latter days of the Cold War, subs started covering their propellers with shrouds (to reduce the prop noise) or even replacing the props with pump jets in an effort to reduce their signature even more.

The diesel-eletric subs have more than proved their worth, in certain situations they have a superior advantage to a nuke. On the other hand, sooner or later, they have to approach the surface and recharge their batteries, and they are quite vulnerable during those times

[RN7]

The main advantages of a modern AIP and diesel-electric sub over nuclear subs is that they are quieter and cheaper.

Nuclear subs still dominate in submerged endurance, deep-ocean performance, speed and weapons load, but modern non-nuclear subs are stealthier and with the right equipment and tactics are more suited for operations in littoral waters with choke points, islands and shallow coastlines such as the North Sea, the Mediterranean and the Western Pacific.

A nuclear subs reactor must constantly pump coolant, generating some amount of detectable noise. Non-nuclear subs running on battery power or AIP can be virtually silent. New small, high-tech non-nuclear attack subs are highly effective in coastal operations and pose a significant threat to less-stealthy and less-maneuverable nuclear subs. Measures can and have been taken to reduce sound and magnetic signatures of nuclear subs, but the steam turbine still makes them naturally far more noisy than AIP subs. Nuclear subs are also generally larger making them more detectable through either acoustic, infrared or magnetic sensors. Nuclear subs also have to cool down nuclear reactors with hot water being dumped into ocean, leaving long trails behind the submarine which is detectable by IR sensors.

The older Los Angeles Class boats cost US $1 billion. The newer Virginia Class cost between US $1.8 to $2.5 billion, and Britain's Astute Class costs US$1.8 billion. A Swedish T-96 Class costs $100 million, while at the upper end a German Dolphin Class would cost US$ 500-870 million. American nuclear submarines also cost US $21 million a year to operate and US $200 million to refuel and modernise at their half-life cycle.

[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.

[RN7]

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.

[Raellus]

Perhaps I overstated my argument. I'm not asserting that the Red Banner Fleet would or even could spank the USN. I'm concluding that the USN wouldn't experience the cake walk some blindered superfans think it would.

It's true that the Soviet submarine fleet has experienced some catastrophic accidents but the USN has not been immune to embarrassing mishaps either. There have been several incidents where US subs have collided with each other or with surface combatants, and a couple of alleged incidents where US and Soviet/Russian subs have collided with one another. I went on a San Diego harbor tour last summer and saw a USN amphib being repaired after a USN destroyer collided with it (ending both captains' careers, according to the tour guide).

Also, about 7 years ago, an US ELINT/map exercise set in the Mediterranean resulted in a CVN and a couple of its escorts being 'sunk' by Libyan gun and missile boats.

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

Bottom line is, the USN is not invulnerable and error-proof. A particularly well-led Soviet naval force could wreak havoc on a poorly-led American/NATO one. The law of averages would result in at least a couple of significant Soviet naval victories in a WWIII scenario. To think otherwise would fall into the trap of hubris and we all know where that leads. That's my argument.

[RN7]

In a general war scenario such as the Twilight War, NATO's primary maritime objective would be to secure the North Atlantic for shipping to resupply Europe from North America. The primary obstacle to that would be the Soviet Northern Fleet.

The traditional answer in the past two world wars to the problem of protecting merchant shipping against submarines has been the convoy system. However merchant ships are now larger and faster, and establishing protected shipping lanes across the Atlantic would also be necessary in addition to a more traditional convoy escort system. Also the Soviet Union is a land power like Germany, and like Germany is at a geographical disadvantage in the Atlantic against naval powers such as Britain and America. The Soviets only access to the Atlantic is through the narrow and heavily defended Kattegat at the mouth of the Baltic Sea and through its own Arctic coast. Aware of Soviet physical difficulties in accessing the Atlantic from the north, NATO established a naval defensive line know as the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), to bottle the Soviet's up.

The GIUK Gap seriously eroded any Soviet effort to break out into the Atlantic undetected. NATO implanted mines, moored torpedo systems and monitoring devices such as SOSUS on the seabed linked to processing data stations. Allied with active NATO ship, submarine and aircraft patrols across the GIUK Gap made any undetected breach of the gap near impossible. Land based AWAC and long ranged F-15 and Tornado fighter squadrons in Iceland and the UK also increased NATO's ability to detect and intercept Soviet long ranged naval bombers. Its effectiveness also forced the Soviet's to develop longer ranged missiles for their SSBN's, with sufficient range to launch from well behind the barrier in the Barents Sea.

The US Navy, being what it is, also espoused a second more offensive minded and controversial approach to dealing with a Soviet threat to NATO shipping. Deploying powerful US aircraft carriers groups to strike against northern Soviet bases, through sending carriers across the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea. The Norwegian Sea was an area were Soviet naval forces would be very active, and where NATO forces could not guarantee the carriers protection. Basically the US Navy was advocating sending its most expensive assets into a hostile environment and looking for a fight.

Despite the defences of the GIUK Gap the Soviets possessed a number of non-nuclear options for disrupting NATO naval and merchant shipping in the Atlantic. In addition to its large fleet of nuclear and diesel attack submarines, it had a large number of reconnaissance aircraft and land based naval bombers with stand-off missiles and a highly developed mine warfare capability. Also it was developing carrier based airpower and had many escorts with powerful anti-ship missile and ASW capabilities, personified by the massive Kirov Class.

Soviet submarines carried an array of weaponry in addition to torpedoes that were a threat to NATO naval forces. Akula, Charlie, Sierra and Victor III Class nuclear submarines carried SS-N-7 (P-70), SS-N-9 (P-120) and SS-N-15 (RPK-2) anti-ship missiles, while the Oscar Class carried SS-N-19 (P-700) dual nuclear/conventional cruise anti-ship missiles with a range of 600km at Mach 2.5. From the late 1980's the Soviet Navy started fitting out Akula, Sierra and Victor III Class submarines with SS-N-21 (RK-55) cruise missiles with a range of 3,000km. Many Soviet destroyers, cruisers and the ASW carriers were also fitted with SS-N-12 (P-500) anti-ship missiles and SS-N-14 (RPK-2) ASW missiles. The Kirov Class carried SS-N-14 and 20 launchers for the long ranged SS-N-19 missile.

The most formidable threat to US carrier groups were from the supersonic Tu-22M Backfire bombers with AS-4 (Kh-22) long ranged anti-ship missile. The Tu-22M has a combat radius of 2,400km when fully armed, and the AS-4 air launched missile was capable of being launched at high or low altitude modes with conventional or nuclear warheads. With a maximum range of 500- 600km and capable of making terminal dives from high altitudes at speeds of Mach 4.6 it was a devastating weapon designed to annihilate US Navy aircraft carriers. Until the end of the Cold War NATO intelligence believed the maximum speed of the AS-4 was only Mach 2.5. The Soviet Navy also deployed Tu-16 bombers with AS-6 (KSR-5) cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads. The AS-6 was considered a scaled down version of the AS-4, and it could only reach speeds of Mach 3.5 with 2,200ibs warhead.

My own assessment of a naval war in the North Atlantic is that US aircraft carrier would be relatively safe from attack south of the GIUK Gap, as NATO ship and land based air and ASW assets would be too powerful for Soviet long ranged bombers to penetrate. However Soviet submarines would likely try and force the Gap in numbers to break out into the Atlantic from the north. Most would be detected and forced north and some will be eliminated, but some will get through particularly as we now know that Soviet nuclear submarines were secretly surveying paths through and around NATO ASW defences in waters near Greenland and Canada for decades. Conversely NATO nuclear submarines would also be very active north of the GIUK Gap, and will likely cause disruption to Soviet surface and submarines operations in northern waters. Soviet nuclear submarines and major surface warships will be priority targets for NATO sub commanders and they will certainly get some long before they move south.

Penetrating the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases would be a very risky strategy for US aircraft carriers for a number of reasons already mentioned. Theoretically US aircraft carrier air wings have the capacity to deal with Soviet bombers. F-14's on CAP close to their maximum ranges are capable of keeping Tu-22M 's with AS-4 at bay, while an F/A-18 has the range to engage Soviet warships and submarines equipped with SS-N-19 before they are in range to fire at US carriers. Land based AWAC, tankers, long ranged fighters and US anti-ship and long ranged land attack cruise missiles will also widen the ability of NATO to cope with Soviet air threats. Carrier based ASW along with land based P-3 and Nimrod aircraft, towed sonar, and sonar arrays of individual escort ships and also escorting nuclear submarines will also be a formidable threat to attacking Soviet submarines. But the Soviets will attempt to breach these defences with a combination of saturation submarine, surface warship and bomber attacks.

In the mid 1980's the North Atlantic Maritime Balance was numerically in favour of NATO.

The US Navy deployed 5 large aircraft carriers, 49 nuclear attack submarines and 90 escort ships. The British had 3 ASW carriers, 12 nuclear attack submarines, 14 diesel submarines and 46 escort ships. Other NATO powers could also add 57 diesel submarines and 107 escort ships. The Soviet Northern Fleet had 2 ASW carriers, 71 nuclear attack submarines, 54 diesel submarines and 85 escort ships. NATO airpower was also superior and could draw on non-naval air assets.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

oddly enough, that event occurred 25 years ago today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Raellus]

I still have a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Quito to my international (mostly American) school warning parents, staff, and students of possible retaliation for the airliner incident. Those were some pretty tense times. EDIT: I just took another look at it and it was dated September 22, 1987, so it must have been about some of the 'tanker wars' stuff that preceded the IA shoot-down incident. Still, the Soviets weren't America's only antagonists during the '80s.


The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[Adm.Lee]

The "Boomer" timeline sets the big/final North Sea battle as part of NATO's June '97 offensive towards Murmansk from far-northern Norway. No mention of anti-air activity in Norway, but it's certainly possible. Or, NATO pulled a lot of air into the Central Front battle, since that's getting towards its climax in eastern Poland in June as well.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Until the development of nuclear submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles the Norwegian Sea and the northern polar region were of limited importance to all major powers. By the Twilight War period it had become highly important to the strategic interests of the United States, the Soviet Union and their allies. The dynamics of anti-submarine and ballistic missile technology had also led to a constantly evolving significance of the region.

When the Soviet first deployed ballistic missile submarines they had to reach launching positions in the western Atlantic to strike the continental United States. NATO stopped them in their tracks when they established the GIUK Gap. This forced to Soviets to develop longer ranged missiles which enabled them to fire from the Barents and Polar seas. By the late 1980's Soviet submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles were considered first strike capable, and 75% of their SSBN's could reach any target in the USA, Western Europe, Japan, and China from launching positions in Arctic waters, and in the case of the Typhoon and Delta IV from beneath ice packs. Although this lessened the importance of access to Atlantic waters for Soviet nuclear forces, controlling the Norwegian Sea remained highly important. To maintain the capability to launch a nuclear attack or counter strike on the USA the Soviet Navy had to protect these strategic assets by devoting a major part of its attack submarines, surface vessels, and aircraft to be used in an anti-submarine role. It also led to the development of several new types of attack submarines and cruise missiles to tackle increasingly more advanced US and NATO naval forces in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic. The Soviets also had to defend their homeland through control of the Norwegian Sea, and in wartime it was necessary to be able to cut the sea-lanes of communication between North America and Europe and attack and destroy NATO forces.

For NATO it pushed its naval priorities beyond the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea and the Arctic. US and British nuclear submarines were now tasked with hunting Soviet SSBN's in northern waters and tackling improving Soviet attack submarines and anti-submarine defences. Changing US Navy naval strategy from the early 1980's based on the principals of deterrence, forward defence, and offensive warfare also proposed sending US carrier battle groups into the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases in the Kola Peninsula. This put further pressure on NATO to defend these expensive and irreplaceable assets, and meant that control of the Norwegian Sea was more important. Also if NATO lost control of the Norwegian Sea then Norway and probably Denmark would be lost too, allowing the Soviets to force the GIUK Gap and gain access to the Atlantic to cut sea lines of communications. Losing control in the Norwegian Sea makes it almost impossible for sufficient surveillance in this area, and would allow the Soviet Union access to Norwegian airfields from which they can operate bombers and fighters. If the Soviets also gained control of Iceland then almost any important part of Europe will be within range of Soviet bombers.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by RN7

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Given that the Soviets struck first in this theater, I suspect there was plenty of action, it just didn't get mentioned?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea.

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

[Nexus]

In 1974 a Soviet submarine was tasked to track a USN carrier and its escorts. “Three days we followed the carrier,” navigator Pavel Borodulkin described.
Borodulkin said that the sub spent much of the time at a depth of 120 feet. He also stated that soon after the photo (below) was taken, the US Navy Destroyers escorting the carriers raced at him and they crash-dived.



That wasn’t the only USN carrier the Soviets tailed however. In 1984 a Victor-class Soviet attack submarine K-314 shadowed the task group of USS Kitty Hawk off the Korean Peninsula in the Sea of Japan in an exercise called "Team Spirit".
The Americans lost track of the Victor and, in the dead of night, the 80,000-ton carrier actually collided with the 5,000-ton sub.
K-314 surfaced directly in front of Kitty Hawk, at the time of 22:05, too dark and too close for Kitty Hawk to see and avoid the resulting collision.

In November the same year, Illustrious, then a young vessel, was targeted by Soviet Tango-class submarine some 500 yards away, during a Royal Navy exercise off the Scottish coast.


In 2001 during an exercise in the Caribbean Sea, USS Enterprise CVN-65 had also been "sunk" by the German U-24 (Type 206 class) submarine. She fired a spread of four simulated torpedoes at the carrier...
In real circumstances, this would have resulted in a total loss.

And again the Enterprise's escort screen was successfully penetrated by U-28, also a Type 206 class submarine.




And in 2007, the Canadian submarine HMCS Corner Brook, a diesel-electric submarine of the Canadian navy, sneaked up on Illustrious during an exercise in the Atlantic. The submarine got close enough to "kill" the HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier.




And on March 2015, USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 of Carrier Strike Group 12, was also "sunk" by French Submarine SNA Saphir, in a training exercise off Florida.



It was initially reported in a blogspot of the French Navy and Defense Ministry. However, the blogspot was soon removed. Censoring evidence that US carriers are not unsinkable and almighty?

https://www.rt.com/usa/238257-french...ne-us-carrier/

[Cdnwolf]

I found my copy of 2nd Fleet....

I am trying to update it to year 2000 units and changes using some old Harpoon info I still have laying around.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I still have 6th Fleet in the original box somewhere in the garage. Never did play it with any of my friends. I think the old hex and counter games are probably ancient history to today's youngins'

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by TrailerParkJawa

I still have 6th Fleet in the original box somewhere in the garage. Never did play it with any of my friends. I think the old hex and counter games are probably ancient history to today's youngins'

Well with the Vassal system they put converted all the old boardgames to an online format so you can play them with people around the world. All you need is the original rules but you can find most of them in a pdf format online.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

I like the way The War That Never Was handles the fighting in the Norwegian Sea. The battle moves through high intensity and medium intensity phases without ever really pausing. I suspect that the naval battle has two distinct high intensity phases. The
first starts with the main clash in the North Atlantic between NATO and the Red Banner Northern Fleet. After NATO wins, the Allies follow the next logical step and pound the Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula so that air power based on carriers and on land can focus on providing support for NATO forces counterattacking on the ground in Norway. The Soviets move the surviving aircraft and naval assets out while leaving a lot of wrecked hardware around to give NATO the impression that attacks on air bases are destroying a lot of combat platforms.

Once the Allies hit their stop line in Germany, they’d like to call it quits. The bulk of the surviving Atlantic Fleet assets retire for replenishment. During this period, the Soviets move back in and repair the runways and other facilities as best they can. They know NATO will be back. NATO does come back in June, and they get pasted.

[Adm.Lee]

I collected all of the Fleet series, but I think the one I never actually played was Sixth.

An idea for someday: put together enough groups that the games could be simultaneously played, perhaps with some OB modifications depending on team strategy.

For now, they all sit. I have 30-gallon plastic box that has nothing but WW3 games in it-- the Fleets, Air War (TSR/SPI), NATO (VG), Third World War series (GDW), Central Front series (SPI and 3W), and others.

[rcaf_777]

Their is a Hunt for the red October Board Game that I played in High School, I liked it quite a lot