I don't agree. The ASM Block 3 that was meant to have replaced the M1 died as a result of the end of the Cold War as much as the Soviets plans to replace the T-72 with a clean sheet design and while the details of the upgrade path that led from the M1 to the M1A2 SEPv3 are of course different from the T-90M I think the overall level of "upgradedness" is broadly comparable, allowing for the fact that the Western tanks had better electronics at the start and end of the process. For example the T-72 family have gone through multiple main gun upgrades including with the new 2A46M-5 on the T-90M while the M1 hasn't seen a main gun upgrade since going from the 105mm to the 120mm in the 80's.
People, how did y'all start talking about tanks in a thread dedicated to warships?
Let's get back on topic.
Let's get back on topic.
Last edited:
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Somebody compared the Alfa class submarine to a T-72 in the seemed like a good idea but not so much with hindsight club
I was under the impression that, despite what NATO believed during the Cold War, the Alpha (and most of the Soviet Submarine force) was never intended to attempt to interdict NATO convoys across the Atlantic. The Alphas were intended as high speed interceptors to engage NATO subs rounding the North Cape seeing to attack the Soviet SSBNs
I could have sworn I read somewhere that it came out that post cold war, that while NATO was preparing for the third battle of the Atlantic, the Soviets had no intention of fighting it. Their Naval doctrine was entirely defensive - the keep the US carriers (and their nuclear armed aircraft) away from the Rodina and the NATO subs away from the Soviet SSBN bastions.
(I could be wrong, and I can't remember the source sadly)
I believe you are correct.
I read Blind Man's Bluff a few years back (It's about the submarine cold war, good read, highly recommended) and I believe it recounted a discussion between an US Naval attaché and a Russian Admiral. They were discussing the losses of the K-129 & USS Scorpion. The attaché was asking about the loss of the K-129 so far from her patrol grid (This was after the US had admitted to finding and trying to raise her) and if it was an attempted attack on America by a rogue submarine commander, and the Russian admiral replied that there were things that both sides had agreed not to discuss. The K-129 and USS Scorpion being two of those things, but that the attaché could remain safe in the fact that the Soviet Union had no interest in starting World War III.
Makes you wonder really. What was the K-129 doing in a Chinese boomer patrol grid, "close" to Pearl Harbour, and why was the USS Scorpion lost? I doubt we'll ever know for sure given those who knew died onboard both vessels, but there is speculation that the USS Scorpion was attacked by a Soviet submarine operating with the task force group USS Scorpion was shadowing.
The Soviets did several things with their boats during the CW. Their SSGNs were out shadowing NATO/US CVBGs. They were designed to sink mainly US carriers. The SSNs tried to shadow NATO SSBNs, SSNs, and CVBGs. Their SSBNs hid up north with SSNs around to protect them. Typhoons hid under the ice with typically an Alpha with them. NATO would try and have a NATO shadowing each Soviet boat, especially the SSBNs and SSGNs. IMHO NATO was much better at it. I’ve heard, I have absolutely no first hand knowledge, that Alphas were really, really noisy at any speed. In a RSR scenario they would have fought offensively with their planes, SSGNs, and SSNs. The SSBNs would have stayed put with their SSN escort. NATO and the Soviets played some interesting games for decades with their boats.
It’s worth noting that clear to the end of the Cold War the majority of NATO boomers needed to operate to the southeast of Greenland, just past the GIUK gap, to be in range to hit Moscow. Soviet offensive plans were most likely centered upon that operational area, rather than any sort of push south into the shipping lanes, but they can look rather similar.
After Polaris, this is not correct. Poseidon C-3 (1972) with 10 MIRV was 3,200, Trident 1 (1979) was 4,000 miles, and Trident II (1990) is a really, really long way.
Trident, yes, that changed the equation. But Trident took time to join the fleet. As for Poseidon, you may be correct on those range figures. I’ll need to do more cross-referencing to confirm, because my source used different range numbers for Poseidon than yours.
Edit: Yeah, Wiki (and you) is in contradiction to every other Poseidon range figure I’ve found, which have pretty consistently out it’s max range at 2880 nautical miiles.
Last edited:
I’m not going to say where they patrol or don’t patrol. I’ll just say I did 13 deterrent patrols.
From The Last Ship
USS Nathan James, a Burke Class destroyer.
In my timeline, develops the Red Flu Cure and the Red Rust Cure like in the TV Series but the plague isn't as severe or play AS central a role. Unlike in the Show, the USA never recovers, not even to the St Louis / Five Regions era. And as such, the USS Nathan James never creates a Port of Call and roves the Hudson Bay, Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Most nations revere it and request its military or tactical assistance and give it an honorary place at their ports, as well help fuel and repair it.
USS Nathan James, a Burke Class destroyer.
In my timeline, develops the Red Flu Cure and the Red Rust Cure like in the TV Series but the plague isn't as severe or play AS central a role. Unlike in the Show, the USA never recovers, not even to the St Louis / Five Regions era. And as such, the USS Nathan James never creates a Port of Call and roves the Hudson Bay, Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Most nations revere it and request its military or tactical assistance and give it an honorary place at their ports, as well help fuel and repair it.
February 1983.
HMS Robin, previously USS Oriskany setting sail for the UK after being reactivated. Britain borrowed her to re-establish it's conventional carrier capacity after the Falklands war. She serves until 1991 when the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth commissions.
HMS Robin, previously USS Oriskany setting sail for the UK after being reactivated. Britain borrowed her to re-establish it's conventional carrier capacity after the Falklands war. She serves until 1991 when the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth commissions.
No she's just a place holder/training tool until the Q.E. and Duke of Edinburgh (updated C.V.A 01) commission.
There was a USS Robin though. It's what the USN named HMS Victorious when she was on loan. Just after Midway I believe when US carrier strength was at an all-time low.
Early 1943 when Enterprise needed yard time and it was just Saratoga available
Pangur
Donor
I knew about and I assume that's where the idea for name came from. Did operating the HMS Victorious have any impact on USN thinking?
Or just fast interceptor subs , quick dash from home ports attack NATO SAG and quickly disengage
I think the USN learned better radar control of aircraft during the time Victorious and Saratoga worked together, and though it may be just a coincidence they began night ops not long after.
As a bit of a thought exercise what if you took the most bloated battleship class of WWII, the Scharnhorsts, and the arguably least bloated design, the KGVs and swapped them. How big would a German designed KGV be? And how much more compact would a British built Scharnhorst be?
Note that by bloat I mean inefficiency in design which resulted in the most extra weight for least added capability.
Note that by bloat I mean inefficiency in design which resulted in the most extra weight for least added capability.