"Question: Just How Strong Was the Soviet Navy?" Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleCan you identify these figures or who painted them?
Featured Workbench ArticleOne way to base Modern Pulp figures for a wide variety of environments.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 08 Mar 2015 9:59 p.m. PST |
"So how strong was the Soviet Navy? The answer: there is no single answer. Chances are it was strong enough for some missions yet not strong enough for others. The navy sufficed if it could execute the ones that mattered most to the Soviet leadership. And that's true of any armed force, isn't it? No force is unbeatable at all places, at all times, against all comers. To qualify as adequate to its purposes, a force need only make itself master of crucial places on the map at decisive times against probable antagonists. If it wins when and where it counts, it's strong enough. Whether or not it rated as a world-beater, the Soviet Navy mounted a serious challenge to Western maritime supremacy by the late Cold War. Not in all spheres of combat: Western fleets never lost their edge in blue-water combat, the function for which they were built and trained. In all likelihood an open-ocean duel would have gone the U.S. and allied navies' way. And indeed, the prospect of such an encounter hardly appeared farfetched. The Soviet Navy mounted an offensive, blue-water presence from time to time. For instance, its Mediterranean squadron outnumbered the U.S. Sixth Fleet during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war—throwing a shock into Western leaders…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
StarCruiser | 09 Mar 2015 8:04 a.m. PST |
They had potential as far as the sub forces were concerned and taking them on anywhere near Russia would have been costly. In deep waters, they lacked for air-power, badly… |
David Manley | 09 Mar 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
And so their capabilities matched their doctrine very well. Deep water surface warfare (or rather surface warfare at distance from shore) was very much a secondary consideration. Many of their concepts and systems seemed unusual or ineffective when viewed through Western eyes but made perfect sense and would likely have been extremely challenging when employed in their intended environment. |
Mako11 | 09 Mar 2015 11:52 a.m. PST |
Quite strong, actually, with all of those missile salvoes poised, and ready to go. Of course, over the horizon targeting in real-time was a bit problematical for them. Still, a first strike by their forces, especially in close quarters, and/or a flood of Soviet attack subs could not be discounted. |
Ghostrunner | 02 May 2015 5:35 p.m. PST |
Turned out a lot of those missile salvos would have been smoke. Many of the tubes on the Kiev class for instance were plywood and never had missiles. The west only found this out when some ships were sold to Korea for scrapping. But to be fair, the most cost effective deterrent is the one you never actually paid for. |
|