World War III in May 1946

[Hairog]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Say Hairog, just a thought. Russia is a land power, but they do have some ships at sea - Well, subs really. What is happening at sea, and where is sub. tech going? I ask because at the end of WWII all of the allied sides got Type XXI submarines which were amazingly advanced. The Soviets got some of them, and they were the best subs in the world without a doubt. Would the Russians not be turning them out like mad to disrupt allied Atlantic supply convoys with (And for hunting down those annoying BBs )?

As the Soviet Marshal in charge of the navy present a plan to Stalin.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Mad Missouri

Soviet Navy is no worry at all. In WW2 they had a horrible recorded. As to their subs, I think a destroyer was the largest warship they sank in WW2.

Largest combat ship perhaps, but they did sink the SS Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945 with the loss of over 9,000 lives, making it the greatest loss of life at sea involving one ship in history.

[Mad Missouri]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Largest combat ship perhaps, but they did sink the SS Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945 with the loss of over 9,000 lives, making it the greatest loss of life at sea involving one ship in history.

True. But it's a big difference hunting a Nazi transport/hospital ship commanded by 4 captains escorted by a single PT boat than a USN carrier task force or even a RN escorted convoy. Unless Hairog gives the Soviets dome sort of naval wonder weapon and a time machine to train good crews the Soviet subs are little to no real threat to NATO supply lines.

[JimmyRibbitt]

I would imagine any attempted Soviet invasion of the UK would wait until early 1947 now. The seas in the English Channel can apparently get rather bad in the fall. To quote one general in "Winds Of War", "The Channel is damn near impossible much after the 15th Of September". Based on this, I would think that any Soviet invasion of the UK will likely come on Spring of 1947.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Mad Missouri

True. But it's a big difference hunting a Nazi transport/hospital ship commanded by 4 captains escorted by a single PT boat than a USN carrier task force or even a RN escorted convoy. Unless Hairog gives the Soviets dome sort of naval wonder weapon and a time machine to train good crews the Soviet subs are little to no real threat to NATO supply lines.

That is very true, but if Russia mass produces the XXI as the Germans designed her, then I can see Russia seriously upsetting the Allies once the boats are operational and the crews trained. Assuming production started by late 1945, I can see this happening by early 1947 perhaps.

As I recall, it tooks the Germans 4 months to build the subs and another 4 to train the crews. Double this at least for the Russians (Initally) to get early 1947. As more subs are built and more crews are trained, this time will gradually come down to around the German times.

[Mad Missouri]

Originally Posted by Eternity

That is very true, but if Russia mass produces the XXI as the Germans designed her, then I can see Russia seriously upsetting the Allies once the boats are operational and the crews trained. Assuming production started by late 1945, I can see this happening by early 1947 perhaps.

As I recall, it tooks the Germans 4 months to build the subs and another 4 to train the crews. Double this at least for the Russians (Initally) to get early 1947. As more subs are built and more crews are trained, this time will gradually come down to around the German times.

I doubt they could get Type XXI subs done in large enough numbers to be helpful. Even the German boats were plagued with problems due to poor manufacturing. Of course the Soviets already have at least 10 of that type captured from the Nazis by the time the story starts. Sadly they are trapped in
the Baltic Sea. And they NATO nations have them also so they are not a surprise.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Mad Missouri

I doubt they could get Type XXI subs done in large enough numbers to be helpful. Even the German boats were plagued with problems due to poor manufacturing. Of course the Soviets already have at least 10 of that type captured from the Nazis by the time the story starts. Sadly they are trapped in
the Baltic Sea. And they NATO nations have them also so they are not a surprise.

Not a surprise yes, but NATO would still be trying to develop effective countermeasures to them at this stage. Whoever gets their first (Subs or countermeasures) will have a distinct advantage. All up to the author though

[paulo]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Not a surprise yes, but NATO would still be trying to develop effective countermeasures to them at this stage. Whoever gets their first (Subs or countermeasures) will have a distinct advantage. All up to the author though

To be effective, the XXI have to be quality built.... see the problem that the nazis have - almost all subs have to be 'fixed' and that delay the operational use of then.

Effective countermeasures against XXI class of subs is not a rapid thing to appear....

[Jotun]

Nevertheless, most of the Soviet fleet is in the Baltic and the Baltic approaches can quite easily corked. Mines etc. come to mind. And the Scandinavian navies.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Jotun

Nevertheless, most of the Soviet fleet is in the Baltic and the Baltic approaches can quite easily corked. Mines etc. come to mind. And the Scandinavian navies.

True, but what about the Baltic-White Sea canal? It could take smaller ships (Subs/DDs) out of the blockade, but not much else.

The RN and Norway obviously cork the Soviet navy in, via the English Channel and the North Sea gaps.

[sloreck]

The Soviet Navy, OTL and in this TL has some serious difficulties. The biggest is access to the open seas. As noted, the Baltic is easily shut down - getting subs from the eastern Baltic out in to the North Sea with All the Nordic countries & their navies against them even type XXI boats will be very expensive. Furthermore the Russian Baltic ports, and also Archangelsk ice over in the winter, and Murmansk can be kept open but barely - and Murmansk and Archangelsk require subs to run a long gantlet before they get in to the Atlantic. In the Pacific, Vladivostok is hemmed in, and Petropavlosk is the middle of nowhere and (in 1946) incapable of sustaining much action. And the Black Sea - forget it, no way they get anything in to the Med without conquering the Turks.

Once you get past the physical difficulties, the reality is that Soviet subs were ineffective in WW2 and they have zero experience operating except in restricted waters. The few subs they might break out of physical constraints will be skippered by relatively novice COs, against US/Uk & allied ASW teams that have been doing this for years against the first team...

Net result: Any surface combatants that operate at any distance from land where the Soviets have air superiority are sunk in short order. Early the Soviets may get lucky and sink a feew ships, especially if they manage to get some subs "out there" before they start the war, but once the war is going on routine measures like convoys and adequate escorts will mean that any Soviet subs lucky enough to get in to the open ocean are likely to have little luck and will be fortunate to make it home alive. Furthermore - as limited as German maritime air recon was in WW2 the Russians will have no ability to even find allied convoys in the Atlantic with aerial recon to home in any subs. Simply FINDING targets in the Atlantic (let alone the Pacific) is difficult. You can bet that NATO will be covering approaches to ports & other choke points tightly to prevent subs hanging out where they know ships will be.

Other than close inshore where PT boats etc can operate &/or under air superiority close in, the Soviets are a non-factor in most of the oceans. The Baltic will end up belonging to nobody, at least on the surface. Soviet air will make the channel tough for NATO at least in daylight (like early WW2 after the fall of France) but they won;t put any ships there. The Sea of Okthosk (west of the Kuriles) will be contested for a bit, but quickly belong to the US to the degree Soviet air over this air can be controlled. The Atlantic & Pacific will be NATO's. Like in WW2, the Med within air distance of Italy (now Sov occupied) will be contested in the air only - the Regia Marina, even if 100% Sov controlled & the Italian crews "eager" to fight for the Sovs is limited in 1946 as to what they have, and Italy has no fuel oil to run the ships.

During WW2 the USSR put very little resources in to the navy, making T-34's is more important. If I were the NATO command I'd hope they tried to put stuff in to the navy, with their limits in production anything that goes in to the navy to be sunk is less on land or in the air. All of Sergo's miracle stuff can't change that.

[JimmyRibbitt]

Originally Posted by sloreck

Petropavlosk is the middle of nowhere .

I would imagine that is so. Some AH and fanfic written based on the Red Dawn movie has the US Navy shutting down Petropavlovsk fairly quickly through blockades, bombardment from the sea, or constant air raids. And this is in the mid 1980s, when the Soviets have a much better navy than in the 1940s.

[Hyperion]

Something to consider. I have no idea what post it was, but there was mention earlier of I believe Sweden sinking two Soviet destroyers in the Baltic. I'm not sure of the complete ORBAT, but those two ships could prove a significant loss as far as the overall percentage of ships in the fleet.

A big problem is also not necessarily equipment, but how long it would take to train crews to actually use their equipment effectively. Also, given the status of the fighting, how hard would it be to gear up Soviet shipbuilding to build a large number of submarines without pulling resources and manpower from a more vital area?

Right now, and as even mentioned by Hairog, the US and Britain's only true advantage is overwhelming naval superiority, and baring occasional lucky breaks, I don't see the Soviets being able to overcome that anytime soon.

Something to consider. I've seen a number of complaints saying that the Soviets seem to be be doing everything right and nothing wrong. Might the weaknesses of the Soviet Navy be a good way to show that not everything is going perfectly in the Soviet camp? Firing or killing a few naval officers or bureaucrats attached to the navy might be a good way of showing things aren't completely perfect, and seeing as the navy might not have any significant role to play, one or two dead admirals probably aren't going to make a big difference.

[LeoXiao]

Didnt the Russians get their asses kicked in France when their armored divisions got pummeled by Allied battleships?

[Redleg13a]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Didnt the Russians get their asses kicked in France when their armored divisions got pummeled by Allied battleships?

Yes, but they have a lot more personnel and equipment that wasn't in the area. Naval gunfire, even then with large caliber rifles, is limited to around 20 miles inland. And, not all of the ships had that much range. 16" HE rounds were good to about 44,000 yards IIRC. AP was less than that since they were 700 pounds heavier. I don't know the range of the British ships but they had 14", 15" and 16" guns on their battleships. US had 12", 14" and 16". All of the 12" and 14" were on the old battleships and they had less range than the 16" guns. Plus, even the 16" gun ships had different ranges. The BB's 55-60 had 16/45 caliber rifles while BB 61-64 had 16/50 caliber rifles with greater range. Still, 20 miles was pretty much the limit on naval gunfire.

[Eternity]

Doing a quick search on Battleship main gun ranges at max. elevation, I have the following ranges:

UK 16" = 38,000 yards (approx), 15" = 36,500 yards.
US 16" (Iowa) = 41,622 yards, 16" (Older BBs) = 40,180 yards.
IJN 16.1" (Nagato) = 42,350 yards. the Nagato was captured by the US at war's end, and as of the date ITTL, they had not expended her as a target. Yes, she was trashed, but if so desired, she could be repaired.

In comparision, the Yamato's 18.1" guns had a max. range of 45,960 yards, the longest for any BB mounted gun.

So, the Yamato could shoot a maximum range of 26 miles. The UK 21 miles and the US 23 miles, and that is under optimum conditions. If you have a worn gun, or cartrages that are not exploding and propelling the shell under perfect conditions, wind resistance etc... All will alter the length of flight and therefore range. Given by 1946 I would expect most BBs to have worn guns, I would personally say a max range of 23 miles in theory equates to around 20 for the Iowa's guns and scale the rest accordingly.

[Mad Missouri]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Didnt the Russians get their asses kicked in France when their armored divisions got pummeled by Allied battleships?

Yes they did. But it couldn't have just been tank division sized units getting hit in that battle. The Red Army only fielded 38 or so division size tank/motorized corps and around 30 brigade size units in WW2. Given the number of casaulties listed for that battle, if it was just tank units then the Soviets lost close half of their tank units.

[LeoXiao]

So that means that they did take a great blow.

[Mad Missouri]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

So that means that they did take a great blow.

Yep, it's is amazing they managed to keep pushing NATO units back after that. I am not sure why the BAOR did not just pull back into Jutland and use heavy naval gun fire and artillery to blunt every Russian attack.

[Claymore]

Originally Posted by Mad Missouri

Yep, it's is amazing they managed to keep pushing NATO units back after that. I am not sure why the BAOR did not just pull back into Jutland and use heavy naval gun fire and artillery to blunt every Russian attack.

Being cornered on a peninsula is never a good situation for any army. Although the Allies have naval superiority, that superiority has vulnerabilities and limitations. Naval gunfire could not provide fire support much more than 15-20 miles inland. Even if firing from both sides, Jutland is more than 40 miles wide. The same naval support would be extremely vulnerable to land-based air attacks this close in and in a similar vein logistic support to a fixed BOAR would also be extremely vulnerable to air attack. Given that the Soviets, at worst, have air parity and at best have air superiority over central/northern Europe, any force fixed in Jutland would be in a distinctly sticky situation with little chance of major resupply and/or extraction. Unless the Soviets were happy just to bottle them up and sit tight, the days of any force trapped in Jutland would definitely be numbered.