Fate of NATO Navies after WWIII?

Just for context, I think the only ships that will survive will those on detached duties and other out of the line of fire positions. Any task force within range will at least have a nuclear attack attempted on them, causing vast damage so I doubt intact CBGs will be pulling into Australia after the nukes fly, more likely single frigates or whatever.
I'm thinking one (or perhaps a few) more or less intact CVBG surviving isn't entirely out of the question. Reportedly the USN could be quite adept at dodging Soviet Survaliance, some Soviet assets may be destroyed before they can launch nukes etc..

Still I'm thinking the commander(s) would make a major effort to contact some one who was in command before deciding to abandon their war time mission and head to Australia for example. My guess would be USN ships would end up at a more or less intact CONUS port or anchorage or failing that at an overseas US territory where they would then try and re group.

If nothing else any un used nuclear weapons on USN ships would be a major post war military asset for the what was left of the U.S.
 
Australian allies might well come here as a matter of course to refuel and provision while attempting to contact their own governments. Australia isn't about to sieze a USN CBG, they'd be welcomed as allies in need.
 
While the smaller ships can use a lot of ports, the larger ports in the USA, especially those associated with naval facilities or potential naval facilities, will most assuredly be targets. Carriers require a channel of significant depth and width, and a port that could take a destroyer won't do for a carrier. In a pinch you can load stores using the crew to hump stuff even with limited port cranes. You can refuel ships as well, however filling up a tanker is another matter.

I could see some smaller combatants going to a smaller port, preferably one not downwind of a lot of fallout, and even staying there as a nucleus of some order and rebuilding. The problem is that a full blown exchange in the 1980s is not going to leave much maritime infrastructure in the USA or Europe, and all of the infrastructure that survives on the US east coast is going to be downwind of a lot of fallout. To the extent possible, IMHO Australia and New Zealand will be the destinations of choice. While South Africa is relatively developed and has good facilities, and unlikely to have had major hits, apartheid is not going to be attractive for the sailors and officers of the USN. BTW note that Suez and Panama Canals are gone so voyages will be around the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.

If Israel does not get hit, it may be at least a temporary stop for any survivors in the Med - however I expect not much bigger than a frigate other than subs would survive in the Med.
 
If NATO ceases to be an entity after an exchange, wouldn't it be up to whoever ended up in the Presidential line of succession? If no contact could be made at all with the US or Presidential authority is ambiguous, I'm assuming the mutual defense portions of the ANZUS treaty would mean that at least the US ships would come to port in Australia or New Zealand and regroup or at least find a place to base.

Even in 1980 there are almost certainly a few dozen small to mid-sized ports in the South Pacific, Micronesia, and Oceania able to accommodate US ships smaller than a carrier or battleship.
 
New Zealand has been mentioned a few times -- but what about the nuclear-free zone policy? IOTL, from 1984 (with legislation in 1987), nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships can't enter the territorial waters of New Zealand. For the US Navy, this was effectively a total ban, as the Navy did not want to confirm or deny which of its ships were nuclear-armed. A nuclear war would surely cause NZ to reconsider the policy. They could well decide, particularly if they are lightly hit, to distance themselves from nuclear weapons even further. Or they could view nuclear-armed allies as critical to NZ's national security and rescind the ban.

Coordinated naval strikes: A nuclear war at sea, unlike the war on land, wouldn't be over in an hour. The CVBGs and any other large task forces would face an onslaught of Soviet airborne and ship-based anti-ship missiles, some of which would be nuclear-tipped. Though I don't know what Soviet naval doctrine was like, the best chance against a CVBG is to coordinate several missile attacks and try to 'saturate' the anti-air defenses of the US group. So, surface action groups with P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox), P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) and other missiles would launch all their missiles at once. They'd try to coordinate that with airborne missiles such as the Kh-22/23 (AS-4 Kitchen) carried by Tu-22M Backfires and other bombers. SSGNs like the Oscar class and whatever else was on hand would contribute missiles as well.

Anti-air warfare: On the US side, the AAW situation gets a little better as the VLS Ticonderoga class (aka the Bunker Hill class) becomes available circa 1986. Even a pre-VLS Tico is a powerful AAW asset, but the VLS ones can engage large numbers of incoming missiles simultaneously.

Anti-sub warfare: Some ships would come under submarine attack, and the Soviets had very large torpedoes (some of which were nuclear) designed to sink carriers. ASW would be critical to the US, not just for CVBGs. There'd be convoys stuck in the mid-Atlantic, their manpower and material suddenly becoming irrelevant. There would be no Europe to reinforce. The supplies would remain useful, though, and would need to be guarded by a vigilant ASW patrol.

CVBG survival: IMO at least some CVBGs would survive. Any Bunker Hill CGs present as escorts would have a decent chance of shooting down large numbers of incoming missiles. F-14s and F/A-18s would contribute. However, a CVBG that managed to shoot down all the Soviet anti-ship missiles wouldn't be out of the woods, because of the submarine threat.
 
Australian allies might well come here as a matter of course to refuel and provision while attempting to contact their own governments. Australia isn't about to sieze a USN CBG, they'd be welcomed as allies in need.
Yep... Initally I could see a surving USN CVBG sending an oiler with a few escorts to Australia to re stock their fuel and provisions if that was the closest and safest source of supplies.

I suspect the commander of the CVBG would at first decide to stay closer to home or head in that direction.
 
While the smaller ships can use a lot of ports, the larger ports in the USA, especially those associated with naval facilities or potential naval facilities, will most assuredly be targets. Carriers require a channel of significant depth and width, and a port that could take a destroyer won't do for a carrier. In a pinch you can load stores using the crew to hump stuff even with limited port cranes. You can refuel ships as well, however filling up a tanker is another matter.

I could see some smaller combatants going to a smaller port, preferably one not downwind of a lot of fallout, and even staying there as a nucleus of some order and rebuilding. The problem is that a full blown exchange in the 1980s is not going to leave much maritime infrastructure in the USA or Europe, and all of the infrastructure that survives on the US east coast is going to be downwind of a lot of fallout. To the extent possible, IMHO Australia and New Zealand will be the destinations of choice. While South Africa is relatively developed and has good facilities, and unlikely to have had major hits, apartheid is not going to be attractive for the sailors and officers of the USN. BTW note that Suez and Panama Canals are gone so voyages will be around the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.

If Israel does not get hit, it may be at least a temporary stop for any survivors in the Med - however I expect not much bigger than a frigate other than subs would survive in the Med.

I would assume that any port that can handle a cruise ship can handle a carrier. No?

The West Coast will be an issue. Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego ports are all getting annihilated. Not sure if Portland can take a carrier or if the port would be a target. I'm not sure Santa Barbara or Monterey can even take a destroyer.
 
My guess:

Depends on how much is left of the Navy.

I haven't ordered my books about nuclear strategy, but I could imagine that the Soviets would liberally use nukes to destroy NATO fleets.

If the NATO fleets are mostly broken, it would probably be a free for all situation. Every surviving ship makes an individual decision.

If the Navies survive somewhat intact, things get interesting.

My guess is that pre-war plans aren't going to matter long. In the late 80s probably everyone sailors and officers knew and/or loved is dead or dying.

This leaves deeply traumatized men, in a broken worls, with enough firepower to do whatever they like. Survival would be the immediate concern. Securing a steady stream of food, clean water, oil, spare parts and ammounition.

I assume that the surviving officers could retain control. So we would probably, at least formally, see NATO navies subordinating to surviving "Western" governments after the initial scramble to secure bases and materials.

After that it would be "gunboat policy in a world gone mad". And a slow decay of the ships, there is no way that the remains of the global economy could support the now insanely expensive fleets.
Suppose there is a build up to the war (ie, no Able Archer gone hot). The fleet's home port has been nuked. But the sailors don't know if their families have left the city to look for safety in smaller towns, or even the wilds. As far as they know, their wives, children, siblings, parents and friends may have survived, but they are in serious trouble and desperately need help. They are facing anarchy, the environment, maybe radiation, they may be lacking food or water. And they go to sleep every night hoping their husband, father, brother or best friend is alive and coming to their rescue.

They aren't going to Australia or New Zealand.
 
Top