Lets get a sea war!

Actually there was a pilot that was a naval bomber or something. And there was a boat captain (not a warship more of a landing ship).

Could that work though, attacking iceland from the artic then interdecting the western navys from iceland?

That wasn't the point. In Red Strom Rising, the bombers were hitting from the northern USSR. Iceland was invaded to cut the GIUK sub nets, which allowed Soviet SSNs into the Atlantic. With their SSBNs shelters and protected in Soviet waters, the SSNs were being used as attack tools.

Debt of Honor was an interesting brawl, particuarly as it was one carrier (John C. Stennis) against two island bases. Using ex-boomers as attack boats is pretty bold, but the Ohios CAN do that. That's why after they get away from port (and Soviet/Russian SSNs) they are usually out on their own.

The idea of an armed-to-the-teeth Iran taking a swipe at the USN is an interesting idea. Assuming you don't get an Iran-Iraq war, you could see Iran keeping yelling but not much fighting, and during Desert Storm they keep what the Iraqis fly there. That would add two AWACS birds and a bunch of Russian fighters, including some MiG-29s, to the IRIAF. You'd end up with an air force buildup in Saudi and Israel to counter the IRIAF.

The Iranians bought Kilo-class subs, too. I imagine they'd use those. The Kilos are good, but the Americans are bloody good at ASuW, so the Iranians would have to pick their battles carefully, and watch for the Los Angeles class attack subs.
 
The idea of an armed-to-the-teeth Iran taking a swipe at the USN is an interesting idea. Assuming you don't get an Iran-Iraq war, you could see Iran keeping yelling but not much fighting, and during Desert Storm they keep what the Iraqis fly there. That would add two AWACS birds and a bunch of Russian fighters, including some MiG-29s, to the IRIAF. You'd end up with an air force buildup in Saudi and Israel to counter the IRIAF.

well, the Iran/Iraq War was what led to the OTL clashes between Iran and the USN, and you might need something similar here... or, you could say that Iran pushes the US too far after the hostage crisis, and that leads to a naval tiff...
 
John Wingate's Frigate, Carrier and Submarine trilogy.

‘Assuming the superpowers were compelled to fight, even at the expense of destroying civilisation on this planet, the outcome of the land battle on the central plains of Europe would depend on whether the armies of the West could be reinforced from the American arsenal on the other side of the Atlantic.

If the Soviets were to win the Atlantic, by denying the sea-lanes to NATO reinforcements, it would be pointless for NATO to resist on the central plains. But if NATO won the Atlantic, it would be illogical for Russia to invade Europe because she would, in the end, be overwhelmed as the American reinforcements began rolling into the European ports.

The corollary was brutal: whichever side won this Battle of the Atlantic, Europe would be spared the holocaust of land warfare, a condition that the superpowers preferred: a devastated continent was a liability to both contestants, whoever nominally won.’


There is land fighting in Norway as the Soviet Union seeks to cover its naval forces moving out into the Atlantic (but doesn’t go for Iceland…….) and the Bulgarians move towards Greece and Turkey but apart from that, the fighting is confined to the convoy battles plus some cruise missile attacks on dockyards in the UK and the US while the land forces glare at each other across the German border.

That's a really interesting take in an overused scenario, altough I think that after a week someone in either side would do something stupid and tanks would start rolling across the Fulda.

My own Spanish-Moroccan war scenario featured a lot of naval action since all the fighting was done near the coast, although it was quite one-sided since the moroccan fleet was obliterated in port in the first hours of fighting...
 
The U.S. was supplying the Shah with four Spruance-class AAW destroyers (cancelled in 1979 and built as the Kidd class for the USN), 3 Tang-class SS, and armament fits for 12 frigates that were to be built in Dutch and West German shipyards.

Iran after reinforcements might be a good candidate. To add for the arsenal portrayed, Iran had also ordered six Type 209 submarines from Germany. It is notable Royal Navy was among the best navies of the period in 1982 and failed to intercept the single Argentininan Type 209 available.

Another scenario not yet thought out might be South Africa against Cuba during 1970's or 1980's.
 
If the Soviets were to win the Atlantic, by denying the sea-lanes to NATO reinforcements, it would be pointless for NATO to resist on the central plains. But if NATO won the Atlantic, it would be illogical for Russia to invade Europe because she would, in the end, be overwhelmed as the American reinforcements began rolling into the European ports.

The corollary was brutal: whichever side won this Battle of the Atlantic, Europe would be spared the holocaust of land warfare, a condition that the superpowers preferred: a devastated continent was a liability to both contestants, whoever nominally won.’

Wingate's comments are an illustration of some typical Cold War fallacies, first of which is the idea that Canadian and US ground forces would be the most important element in defence of Western Europe. It's also quite mistaken in it's geographic vision. For conqueror of Western Europe it would be Mediterranean and North Sea which would be crucial as trading routes and also for the supply of oil products, not the Atlantic.

There's also problem with blockade of Europe scenario; it would take months or years to accomplish as NATO countries had extensive emergency supplies.
 
The idea of an armed-to-the-teeth Iran taking a swipe at the USN is an interesting idea. Assuming you don't get an Iran-Iraq war, you could see Iran keeping yelling but not much fighting, and during Desert Storm they keep what the Iraqis fly there. That would add two AWACS birds and a bunch of Russian fighters, including some MiG-29s, to the IRIAF. You'd end up with an air force buildup in Saudi and Israel to counter the IRIAF.

Iran-Iraq war led to Iraqi occupation of Kuwait (unpaid debts, need for more money from oilfields). so without that war iraq might not invade Kuwait at all, specially with armed-to-the-teeth Iran next door and unsupportive Us.
 
Excuse me? The Royal Dutch Navy might not be the Armada but it is a reasonably large force with decent to good power-projection, especially considering the size of the Netherlands. Rest assured, we wouldn't need US help to beat the Venezualans.

I think you would: no carrier aviation, very limited auxiliary support and amphibious capacity, relatively slow (albeit very good) submarines.

It's not a case of having the best units, and with the new destroyers, subs etc. there is no doubt they're far better and better trained than the Venezualens, but actually supporting them in a mission to resolve a situation: otherwise they just bob around for a few weeks, unable to do much if the enemy stays away in harbour, before the inevitable breakdowns from things wearing out or malfunctioning and lack of ordnance/fuel forces a long trek back home. And, of course, the 3-4 ships you could deploy would be more vulnerable to sub/surface attack than a larger armada.
 
Possibly with Indonesia around the time of the Confrontation in the early/mid 1960s, where the RN, RAN and RNZN encounter a more aggressive Indonesian navy equipped from Soviet stores that seeks a fight. Possible the US/USN wouldn't/would be asked not to intervene, much as the campaign was a Commonwealth affair on land.
 
This might mean its own thread, but the Hostage Crisis almost became a war. Even though Mr. Peanut rejected bombing Iran's oil refineries or seizing Kharg Island via Marine amphib assault, as his administration wound down and the talks to free the hostages seemed to go nowhere, he warned the Iranians that they'd better come to a deal or face the wrath of Ronald Reagan, who had gone on record for stronger action, and calling the Iranians "barbarians and kidnappers." There were usually two carrier groups on station in the Arabian Sea until the release, and it was understood that Bahrain and Oman would allow USAF squadrons to base there if necessary. Had the hostages not been released when they were (20 Jan 81), Reagan likely would've issued some firm ultimatium, and the lead flies, the bombs fall, and things go from there.
 
This might mean its own thread, but the Hostage Crisis almost became a war. Even though Mr. Peanut rejected bombing Iran's oil refineries or seizing Kharg Island via Marine amphib assault, as his administration wound down and the talks to free the hostages seemed to go nowhere, he warned the Iranians that they'd better come to a deal or face the wrath of Ronald Reagan, who had gone on record for stronger action, and calling the Iranians "barbarians and kidnappers." There were usually two carrier groups on station in the Arabian Sea until the release, and it was understood that Bahrain and Oman would allow USAF squadrons to base there if necessary. Had the hostages not been released when they were (20 Jan 81), Reagan likely would've issued some firm ultimatium, and the lead flies, the bombs fall, and things go from there.

Consider it made.
 
The Falklands War could actually turn to a very bloody Sea war if the Argentinians were a bit luckier and more willing to try.
Imagine carrier vs. carrier actions, more British ships sunk by functioning Argentinian bombs and more Exocets.
Or how about we get the Argentinians to have coastal Exocet batteries transferred to the Falklands?
Or Argentinians getting more modern subs (Type 209) closer to the British fleet?
Or the British getting to sink more ships with their SSNs?
 
Top