Challenge; naval war post WW2.

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The reason there are so few major naval engagements is that the number of Major navies is so small.

There have been frigate level action in the Middle East and in SW Asia but nothing larger simply because no one HAS anything larger. Crewing and maintaining even a gun cruiser (which is vulnerable to SSM fired from much smaller vessels) is extremely costly and has no reasonable ROI. The major South American players kept up a small fleet into the 21st Century, but the cost of replacement is so high that they are in general kept as a force in being.

Unlike ground forces or aircraft, naval vessels require LOTS of time and treasure, all of which is tied up in a single vulnerable package. To use a recent example:

Venezuela under Chavez bought 24 Su-30 fighter-bombers for around $600-$750 million dollars and another $500 million for parts and weapons. That would buy 2 Sovremennyy DDG and a couple load outs of weapons. A full squadron of Flankers is a serious threat to all of Chavez's neighbors in that it presents a threat to their ground naval and air forces and could provide Chavez's military a significant long lasting deep threat for years. Two destroyers could dominate the waters off of Venezuela for about 20 minutes against any sort of significant air threat. Loss of even 7-8 Flankers would be politically survivable. Loss of a $400 million DESTROYER would very possibly not be. The warship is exceptionally expensive, has far less utility than a jet fighter bomber, and represents a massive opportunity for political disaster.

From a tactical perspective warships must be operated in groups to be effective, this is an addtional huge cost. Old warships, especially since 1967 when an Egyptian Oso potted an Israeli DD, have been regulated to fishery enforcement operations for their own protection. Any vessel without SAM capacity is a enemy decoration waiting to happen.

Lastly, and this is probably the most important point, unlike aircraft or ground troops, a second level country can not hope to compete with the Big Boys on the high seas. Iraq was, prior to Desert Storm, looked upon as a serious threat thanks to a large, decently equipped, army and a fairly modern air force. There were many prognisticators who though the Coalition was going to suffer 10,000+ casualties retaking Kuwait, even with the advantages that the American and NATO countries brought to the table. The same is said today regarding Iran (with, IMO, better reason).

All the effort and treasure that Saddam put into his ground and air forces to get them rated as a top 10 (battle hardened:rolleyes:) military would (assuming he could actually find someone to provide the ships) have paid for a single CBG made up of 1970 quality ships. Such a force would be too small to really project force and would, moreover, last about 45 minutes against the USN, probably 3-4 hours against the French Navy (bigger decks = bigger Alpha strikes), and less than a day against the RN (full decks are better than jump decks), assuming any of the NATO countries didn't get an SSN inside. The Falklands demonstrated exactly how much chance a second level navy has against a top line SSN.

In summart5 the reason you do not see more naval battles is that they would be too damned expensive.
 
I guess I don't have a high opinion of NATO.


Neither do I, but I have an extremely high opinion of the US' interest in unfettered access to the Mediterranean.

The thing is that it would be seen by most Europeans and Americans as a colonial fight.

Only a colonial fight? Perhaps.

It's also an attack by a non-NATO member on a NATO member over the control of the Mediterranean's sole natural outlet and that "little" side issue is going bring about the undivided attention of the world's only naval superpower and a naval superpower who also happens to be allied with the attacked party.

In realpolitik, strategic reasons always trump philosophical excuses.

Anyway, CalBear's reminder of the monetary losses at stake in naval warfare suggests a scenario closer to WW2 than the current day. Just as airpower and submarines make purely naval conflicts harder to "arrange", a date closer to WW2 also means "cheaper" warships are available to the potential combatants.
 
Neither do I, but I have an extremely high opinion of the US' interest in unfettered access to the Mediterranean.



Only a colonial fight? Perhaps.

It's also an attack by a non-NATO member on a NATO member over the control of the Mediterranean's sole natural outlet and that "little" side issue is going bring about the undivided attention of the world's only naval superpower and a naval superpower who also happens to be allied with the attacked party.

In realpolitik, strategic reasons always trump philosophical excuses.

Anyway, CalBear's reminder of the monetary losses at stake in naval warfare suggests a scenario closer to WW2 than the current day. Just as airpower and submarines make purely naval conflicts harder to "arrange", a date closer to WW2 also means "cheaper" warships are available to the potential combatants.

The problem with a naval war in the immediate aftermath of WWII is that there were only two naval powers in the world of any mention and that was the UK and US.

You could have a space bats in which America insists that Britain gives up it's empire NOW in exchange for Financial Aid.

Britain refuses and you get a stupid war that ends only one way.

Your point on Spain ignores the fact that America had bases there too and had OK relations with Spain. One thing the Americans wouldn't need to worry about is access to the Med. Gibraltar changing hands wouldn't concern them too much.
 
The problem with a naval war in the immediate aftermath of WWII is that there were only two naval powers in the world of any mention and that was the UK and US.

That's very true.

You could have a space bats in which America insists...

Or I could just look at the actual historical record in which the UK and US either sold for ridiculously small sums or just plain gave away to nearly any nation that asked dozens of small to medium sized warships they no longer needed. Many second, third, and fourth tier nations, not to mention former colonies, were given "instant" navies in this manner.

Your point on Spain ignores the fact that America had bases there too and had OK relations with Spain.

Your point ignore the fact that a Spain attacking Britain would no longer have good relations with the US, whether US bases were there or not.

Gibraltar changing hands wouldn't concern them too much.

The manner in which Gibraltar changed hands would worry the US greatly.
 
I agree there would be a blockade but I simply don't see NATO governments justifying dead bodies so that Britain could keep a colony.

Gibraltar is no more a colony than Northern Ireland. It's part of the UK.

Edit: That's like saying Alaska or Hawaii is a colony.
 
Ocean fights are out of the question, even the Med offers so much sea room that big CBGs can operate there with impunity. But there have been several conflicts during the Cold War period that have been fought in more enclosed waters which aren't great for big CBGs. I don't think it would be overly difficult for Iraq to build a naval force which would make the Gulf too risky for the big CVs. That would mean the fight would be between lighter forces, which may even include Harrier Carriers, and carrier aircraft projected into the Gulf from outside. Either way those 2 CAGs which IOTL were used to bomb Iraq wuoldn't be doing so until this sea fight was won.
 
Maybe that new carrier-busting nuclear missile that China just developed?

The solution to that is good air defense. A ballistic missiles makes such heat and radar signatures that tracking it is very easy if you have good enough air defense vessels, and lots of navies have those. At which point, it's just a matter of killing the missile before it does any damage. People make too much of an issue of that carrier-buster. The AEGIS system was designed to stop dozens of incoming missiles launched by bombers. It's plenty capable of handling those assuming it has the right missile loadout.
 
Everyone? Are you suggesting that there were a lot of authoritarian right-wing supporters around the world who would cry out in favor of Franco?

The scenario for the attack on Gibraltar was 1982 while the British were sending a force to The Falklands.

Franco was dead in 1982 and Spain was more or less a democracy by this stage.

I also don't remember the world flocking to Britain's side when a right-wing government ACTUALY DID invade British territory. In fact my biggest memory of that time was that the world just watched in curious disbelief and didn't care one way or the other.

I am really surprised that anyone thinks NATO or even America alone would do anything other sanctions over the Gibralter issue.

The most likely scenario is sanctions on Spain until they moderate their position and arm twisting on Britain to accept a form of joint sovereignty or some Hong Kong style lease.

IN NO WAY ON EARTH would NATO or America accept body bags over this. There is no history of America sacrificing its soldiers to help Britain EVER.

A quick look at both world wars will show that the US government had to go out of its way to convince the American people that they WEREN'T fighting for the British. There would have been an outcry in America if US troops got in harms way over the Falklands. (this is with memories of Vietnam very strong too)

It would have been the same over Gibraltar.

As for lots of navies being created out of Allied war surplus after WWII then that is what actually happened but we didn't get significant sea battles.

I think India/Pakistan had some naval actions and the Arab/Israeli conflicts too.

However even tin pot 'hand-me-down' navies were too scared to lose ships (General Belgrano 1982) to risk them too much.
 
There is no history of America sacrificing its soldiers to help Britain EVER.


Sorry let me moderate that a little. US sailors did die in the Atlantic in 1941 BEFORE Pearl Harbor to help the British convoys.

It would be an insult to those that died not to mention that.

But this kind of proves my point because the US sailors were told NOT TO TELL ANYONE what they were doing - not out of fear of upsetting the Germans but because most Americans would have simply refused to fight a war for Britain.
 
Can I please be reminded again how the Spanish , who wanted into NATO in 1982, invasion of Gibraltar during the Falklands has anything to do with naval war in the cold war?
 
Can I please be reminded again how the Spanish , who wanted into NATO in 1982, invasion of Gibraltar during the Falklands has anything to do with naval war in the cold war?

Nothing at all. I agree.

I was just answering repeated questions about Spain that have been fired at me. When I think they're answered I see another one.

I tried to talk about non cold war naval conflicts but people keep saying that Spain is going to be bombed by NATO.

As I said why would anyone do that?
 
I was thinking more along the lines of actual conflicts which could have had a greater naval component rather than inventing conflicts.
 
Tu16s with AS missiles, a Sverdlov cruiser, destroyers and a Whiskey class sub or 2 that they got from the Soviets.
 
Top