Could the Soviet Navy have closed the Atlantic in a 1986 war with NATO?

Could the Soviet Navy have closed the Atlantic in a mid-1980's war with NATO

  • Yes

  • No

  • Doesn't matter (strategic nuclear exchange would occur before the question was decided)


Results are only viewable after voting.
And they were sent without any support.

That is the "bloody stupid" part of the U.S. reactions.

Completely forgot about his (really have to reread the book...). Even if the USAF would be busy (maybe tankers too busy refueling transports) I'm sure the USN would be able to provide air cover and jamming...
 
Since this thread discusses naval warfare in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, let's look ahead and extrapolate. Assuming the Soviet Union avoided its OTL collapse and the Cold War continued into the 1990s, and the Soviet Navy managed to put both Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers and the Ulyanovsk-class supercarrier(s) into service, how would that have affected naval warfare in a hypothetical World War III (especially in regards to operations in the Atlantic)? How would NATO navies respond to the Soviets deploying full-sized carriers?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Since this thread discusses naval warfare in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, let's look ahead and extrapolate. Assuming the Soviet Union avoided its OTL collapse and the Cold War continued into the 1990s, and the Soviet Navy managed to put both Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers and the Ulyanovsk-class supercarrier(s) into service, how would that have affected naval warfare in a hypothetical World War III (especially in regards to operations in the Atlantic)? How would NATO navies respond to the Soviets deploying full-sized carriers?

It takes a very long time to get competent at using aircraft carriers. The Soviets started with helicopter carriers then jumped to jump-jets. It would take them a long time to fully operate a true carrier complete with a capable air wing ready to undertake true combat operations. My thinking is that, panic aside - oh my God, the Ruskies have got two/three carriers and we only have fifteen -, the West will shadow and observe them and not really worry. They will look at any carrier as one big, fat and dumb target for submarines with torpedoes and TASMs from Iowa battleships.
 
It takes a very long time to get competent at using aircraft carriers. The Soviets started with helicopter carriers then jumped to jump-jets. It would take them a long time to fully operate a true carrier complete with a capable air wing ready to undertake true combat operations. My thinking is that, panic aside - oh my God, the Ruskies have got two/three carriers and we only have fifteen -, the West will shadow and observe them and not really worry. They will look at any carrier as one big, fat and dumb target for submarines with torpedoes and TASMs from Iowa battleships.

That's assuming they don't decide that their new big and scary carriers are best used protecting the missile boat bastions.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
That's assuming they don't decide that their new big and scary carriers are best used protecting the missile boat bastions.

That makes sense. Their naval strategy was surface ships for coastal bastion defence and submarines for forward operations. Keeping the new carriers back in the rear seems crazy to Western naval thinking but made sense from the Soviet perspective.
 
That makes sense. Their naval strategy was surface ships for coastal bastion defence and submarines for forward operations. Keeping the new carriers back in the rear seems crazy to Western naval thinking but made sense from the Soviet perspective.

Considering the proximity to Soviet territory couldn't they just have used land based aircraft?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Considering the proximity to Soviet territory couldn't they just have used land based aircraft?

Land bases can be hit and knocked out of action. Carriers have to be located. If not saying it is the best idea, but this is my understanding of the subject.
 
Top