Challenge for naval warfare fans

Thee whole point, is the USN is so invincible, that’s it’s greatest weakness. The two scenarios I’ve posted actually happened in exercises, and both perpetrators were judged to have got away unscathed. Those officiating were professional real life USN & NATO Admirals. Just for added measure. HMS Hermes also took out a CVBG in the southern Caribbean as she could launch her Shars and the sea state prevented F14’s from taking off.
Again these were no “arm-chair generals/novelists” but real life actions.

Now if it is possible to bloodie the USN then anything is possible for those who are brave/foolhardy to try what is considered impossible.

As Barry Bull pointed out, depends on the ROE. Also depends on the judges. Exercises are one thing, real life is another. High sea state does not prevent escorts from launching missiles. In exercises American SSNs are ordered to make noise. They are ordered to do things they wouldn’t normally do. I can tell people from real life experience that this would not happen. SSs around the world were not very good in 1985. And if people think the US Navy was so arrogant in 1985 that they thought they were invincible, I say they are wrong. I know this because I was “conducting oceanographic research and the ability to stay deployed for long periods of time” all over the planet on an American 688 during the 1980s.
 
Gatordad699 and Barrybull, I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m pointing out the USN is the biggest kid in the playground, so ultimately everyone gets compared to them. I’m also not saying that any third world tin-pot junta would’ve anyone capable of doing ‘the perisher’ I’m showing what is possible for a skilful hunter with a bit of cunning can ambush the biggest of prey if it’s complacent.
Again as the biggest kid fighting ‘over there’ the American public, through the liberal press can unfortunately, swiftly change government policy weakening the armed forces. There are sadly many examples of this, but it’s irreverent and disrespectful to those whose lives were lost, to mention particular incidents.
 
Completely agree that a skillful hunter can ambush big, complacent prey. My point is that the US Navy was not that prey for your scenario. Especially in 1985. ASW from subs is an American specialty. So is protecting a carrier. I’d stay as far away from those tactics as I could. If you tasked me with attacking a CBG with a smaller country, I’d kamikaze several hundred MiG 21s into it at Mach 1 (Always wondered how it would have turned out if Saddam had tried this in 1991 before he let the US build up). Sure you’ll lose a lot of planes, but the payoff.

For the topic of the thread, I’d use mines, mines and more mines. Then lots of planes and even more anti-ship missiles. Ships, subs and their crews are expensive as crap. Just sitting at the pier requires a lot of maintenance. Then going to sea is even more expensive. Missiles just sit in their storage/launch canisters waiting. Probably go with Bears. They fly forever and how many navies could stop an
AS-4 strike in 1985? Or how many
AS-15s could a Bear carry?
 
I’d kamikaze several hundred MiG 21s into it at Mach 1
You're basically talking about the AS-3 Kangaroo. It was a 12 ton missile that Gurevich based on the MiG-19.
Probably go with Bears. They fly forever and how many navies could stop an
AS-4 strike in 1985? Or how many
AS-15s could a Bear carry?
The Bear could carry 16 Kents on a rotary launcher and wing hardpoints. Bears would be a good option, but I doubt the Soviets would have sold front-line bombers to just anybody.
 
Just figured it would be easier to hide what you were really doing with the MiGs. AS-3 would be a giveaway. Plus, you could have “real” pilots and still get some use out of your MiGs. Then your “family well taken care of” group of special pilots for the one way trip. Mainly I thought that up for Saddam to try. I tend to be a quantity has a quality of its own kind of guy. Just always wondered what 2-3-400 MiG 21 kamikazes could have done to a CBG in the Gulf. Any hit on any of the nonCVN/CVs is at least a mission kill. A hit to the island or an elevator is probably mission kill for a carrier.

If you could get a Bear, that could be a lot of missiles to launch.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
AS 15 are subsonic and probably less chance of survival than AS4 OR AS6 dont you think ?
Plus AS15 had inertial guidance and was not active radar homing I think
 
With the AS15 I was thinking saturation against the less capable opponents you mentioned. Wiki said the AS-6 was only carried by TU-16s. Didn’t think about TUs or those. Thought you could look less threatening with Bears. Claim they were for Maritime Search and Rescue.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Just figured it would be easier to hide what you were really doing with the MiGs. AS-3 would be a giveaway. Plus, you could have “real” pilots and still get some use out of your MiGs. Then your “family well taken care of” group of special pilots for the one way trip. Mainly I thought that up for Saddam to try. I tend to be a quantity has a quality of its own kind of guy. Just always wondered what 2-3-400 MiG 21 kamikazes could have done to a CBG in the Gulf. Any hit on any of the nonCVN/CVs is at least a mission kill. A hit to the island or an elevator is probably mission kill for a carrier.

If you could get a Bear, that could be a lot of missiles to launch.
I don't think hitting an elevator would mission kill a carrier. They're not on the centerline anymore, so it really doesn't affect flight operations. The only one that could really cause a problem would be the forward port elevator. And that's more of a "be careful, the angled deck is a little shorter than normal" problem. It might disable the waist cats. But the carrier could definitely stay in the fight. Hitting the island, OTOH? Depends how much is destroyed. It would definitely kill a lot of senior people though.
 
That is exactly why these Clancy like scenarios of 100 bombers attacking one CVBG seem like fiction to me ...
Why not send 20 bombers and use nuke tipped missiles even if 1 hits you eliminate your target carrier and maybe an escort as well
I think it would take like 3 to 4 conventional kh22 to sink a carrier ?

2 exocets did not even sink USS stark

Because not every NATO-WP war start with nuclear weapons. The Soviets, was not in favour of first use since the 1960s.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The Soviet rocket ships and SSGN were pretty much equipped for one salvo , and they better make it count
 

Khanzeer

Banned
With the AS15 I was thinking saturation against the less capable opponents you mentioned. Wiki said the AS-6 was only carried by TU-16s. Didn’t think about TUs or those. Thought you could look less threatening with Bears. Claim they were for Maritime Search and Rescue.
But bear H look very different, they dont have the curves like the maritime patrol versions
Plus AS 15 in 80s did not have a anti ship version I think maybe someone else can confirm it
 
Gatordad699 and Barrybull, I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m pointing out the USN is the biggest kid in the playground, so ultimately everyone gets compared to them. I’m also not saying that any third world tin-pot junta would’ve anyone capable of doing ‘the perisher’ I’m showing what is possible for a skilful hunter with a bit of cunning can ambush the biggest of prey if it’s complacent.
Again as the biggest kid fighting ‘over there’ the American public, through the liberal press can unfortunately, swiftly change government policy weakening the armed forces. There are sadly many examples of this, but it’s irreverent and disrespectful to those whose lives were lost, to mention particular incidents.

Blaming the "liberal press" is a very bad argument, because it really depends on how the war start and whether US had good justification to enter combat. While the general public may change opinion in case of massive casualty, it may also harden resolve to keep fighting if the US people find the war as just, like the 1991 Gulf War.

Also, the tactics you suggested only work in certain environment, esp. geographically and ROE constrained ones. In a war against opponent that is known to be capable of littoral warfare, the escorts are unlikely to allow the "Admiral Sandy Woodward maneuver" to happen. In fact, Admiral Woodward put forward a solution himself during the Falkland War by establishing an exclusive zone around the Falkland Island. One need to remember that Admiral Woodward tried that in exercise and in constrained waters.

As for using SS to lay an ambush, even modern AIP equipped SS would be hard pressed to keep up with a CVBG unless there is a geographical or navigational chokepoint that allow the SS to wait for the CVBG to come to her. It is unlikely that US carriers would enter restrained waters like the Gulf or Taiwan Strait unless the USN is absolutely sure that these prime waters for SS to lay an ambush is free from submarine threat.
 
They were not in favor of first use on land. At sea, they pretty much planned to go Nuclear with the first shots

While it is widely considered use of nukes would be more relaxed at sea, there is also the issue of escalation to consider by both NATO-WP, at least since 1980s.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
While it is widely considered use of nukes would be more relaxed at sea, there is also the issue of escalation to consider by both NATO-WP, at least since 1980s.
You mean use of nukes by both sides only at sea ?
If that happens then NATOhas a lot more to lose as most all Soviet surface ships were "one shot throwaway "types
 

Khanzeer

Banned
In the 1980s what kind of smart mines were available to the Eastern bloc or Soviets?
I tried to search online didn't find much in English on it
 

Khanzeer

Banned
If we're focusing on mines, in defense mines are weapons which work in concert with other weapons forming an interlocking defense system, as you need the means to prevent their sweeping. To prevent sweeping you need to be able to cover minefields with coastal artillery (missiles included), surface ships, airpower or SAM's or some combination of the means mentioned.

For offensive mining, it depends greatly whether you're operating in shallow or deep waters. For offensive minelaying merchants, LRMPA, cargo aircraft for less challenged areas, fighters and submarines for more contested areas. For submarines, self-propelled mines are especially tempting.

By 1980's for a country willing to invest in them various kind of torpedo mines, influence mines etc. are available. If there's lack of actual influence mines, I would suggest deployment of decoys too to confuse enemy operations.
Is this a good investment ? I mean you might have to lay hundreds of influence and torpedo mines to score a few hits on warships
 

SsgtC

Banned
Is this a good investment ? I mean you might have to lay hundreds of influence and torpedo mines to score a few hits on warships
The aim of minefields isn't necessarily to sink ships. If they do, that's a bonus. The aim is to drastically slow down an enemy fleet or to deny them a specific bit of ocean. It takes anywhere from hours to weeks to clear a single minefield.

If they're being used defensively, the entire time you're sweeping, you're under fire from the shore. Giving the enemy a nice, clean shot at a slow moving target. Even if you know where the clear channels are, those channels will all be under artillery and surface-to-surface missile fire if you try to force them.

Used offensively, you can channel an enemy fleet (by denying them certain patches of ocean) into the waiting arms of submarines. The mines don't have to sink a single ship to accomplish their purpose. Just by your enemy finding out they're there, you're now dictating his actions and forcing him to react to you. Instead of him forcing you to react.
 
Is there any good naval game that involves post 1945 naval mine warfare scenarios

Command: Naval Operations? Haven't played that one for years, though I recall minesweeping was fairly primitive without taking into account the various anti-sweeping devices and it had the flaw that location of mines was far too easily transferred to other ships.
 
Top