Soviet aircraft carriers before 1950

So, what can allow the Soviet Union to possess 2 aircraft carriers before 1950? Bonus points if they are available in WWII. More bonus points if they are actually used in the war and aren't holed up in the Black and Baltic seas. Even more bonus points if they are built and completed before WWII.
 
Well, the Soviet Union didn't really need an aircraft carrier; her primary enemies were going be fought on land. The only way I can see this happening is if Germany is somehow neutered early on, and Japan represents a bigger threat. But even then, Russian plans can operate over Japan without an aircraft carrier.

What you really need is a reason or desire for the USSR to project power abroad. But where would they do this besides Europe and Central Asia?
 
Well, the Soviet Union didn't really need an aircraft carrier; her primary enemies were going be fought on land. The only way I can see this happening is if Germany is somehow neutered early on, and Japan represents a bigger threat. But even then, Russian plans can operate over Japan without an aircraft carrier.

What you really need is a reason or desire for the USSR to project power abroad. But where would they do this besides Europe and Central Asia?

Maybe in Northern Japan, if they manage to invade mainland Japan during WWII? Other than that, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps the Turkish Straits?

The most likely event that I can think of, however, is if General Komatsubara gets his wish and counter-attacks against Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, which would ignite a war between the two nations. If the Kwantung Army could hold on for long enough, then maybe the Soviets would resort to naval actions.

But honestly, this isn't my area of expertise. So I really don't know.
 
Any of these is going to require a fairly major POD, set well before World War II.

In the immediate post-war era, the USSR really didn't have a desire for a blue-water navy, even though they had the technical capability to build one.

During World War II, they didn't have a strategic (or tactical) need for naval air power, and probably didn't have the technical capability to build a carrier, had the need existed. I don't want to invoke the dreaded vacuum-dwelling, non-terrestrial chiroptera, but this comes close. Turning the USSR from a land-focused power to a major naval power of any kind is going to require a total rewrite of the national way of thinking, overall military doctrine, and even the world map. Turning them into a carrier-equipped naval power is an even longer stretch, at least in my opinion.
 
The most likely event that I can think of, however, is if General Komatsubara gets his wish and counter-attacks against Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, which would ignite a war between the two nations. If the Kwantung Army could hold on for long enough, then maybe the Soviets would resort to naval actions.
Unlikely, The Japanese suffered hugely, with modern estimates putting their losses at 48,000 (including 3,000 captured) out of 75,000, or 64%, while the Soviets, according to their own records, suffered almost on the dot of 23,500 casualties (7,974 killed and 15,251 wounded, with a further 274 Mongolian casualties) out of 57,000, or slightly over 41%. Any further action is just going to continue the trend.
 

sharlin

Banned
Admiral Gorshkov was a very progressive Soviet thinker, he wanted a blue water navy and helped build the Soviet fleet into what it was during the 60s though to the end of the Soviet Union, a fleet capable of challenging NATOs combined might. He did have plans for aircraft carriers but politically they were unpopular as being too expensive to design, build and there was fearsome fighting between the airforce and navy.
The Soviet Airforce said it could support the navy with long range bombers and do anything a carrier could do without the initial expense of building and maintaining carriers and thats what the Politiburo went with.

If Gorshkov had managed to get his way and convince Kruschev that missiles were not the sole defender of the Soviet union, then you could quite probably see Soviet Carriers beyond the small Kiev class, or have the Kiev's as proper carriers rather than missile carrying hybrids. Maybe if he convinced the Soviet leadership that carriers could be used as mobile missile bases that could strike anywhere in the world then you might see it. Its more possible than folks think.

One thing I just remembered, the Soviets in terms of surface ships seemed to build things in steps. A case of 'lets build this, did that work? Yes, then lets build an improved version.' I say this because you only have to look at the evolution of soviet carriers to get this feeling. They started with the Moskva class helicopter carrier, then went to the larger (but still small) Kiev class and their fixed wing compliment, then there was their successor, the larger and never completed Ulanoskv class carriers and the smaller Kusnetzov, the current carrier in service with the Russians which was the successor to the Kiev class. This all is very logical progression and development steps. So even if you got Soviet carriers you might see them taking baby steps.

If they had managed to keep the Graf Zepplin and study it and saw the need for carriers that also might have influenced things in Soviet thinking.
 
Last edited:
Give the USSR 2 lend lease escort carriers ala the Battleship they got OTL, and have them used in August Storm

Problem solved
 
Last edited:
i like the picking up the graf zeppelin idea

have the germans finish her in late 41 or 42 (and remove her cannons) but not send her on patrol during the war; then have the russians take her relatively in tact
 

sharlin

Banned
Thats possible, if she was intact and examined, although the Graf Zepplin was in no way or means a good ship for her role it would have given the Soviets something to pick apart and examine or they could have kept her in service to learn about deck operations etc.

And if that was successful and Gorshkov kept the fleet seen as vital to the defence of the Soviet Union then you could probably see a proper carrier a bit earlier than what originally happened.
 
For an indigenous carrier: avoid having the Red Army control the commission on naval construction in 1926. The conversion of the most advanced of the Borodino-class battlecruisers, Izmail into an aircraft carrier had already been authorized and only meddling by the army derailed it.

Despite a significant displacement reduction through removal of heavy armor and main armament it would have been rather slow for a carrier - only 27kts. Likewise, the 50-plane airgroup is not all that impressive for a 22,000t ship (might have been w/o a deck park, though).

Given an entry into service in the early 30s, there would have been enough time to design and build a second carrier based on experience gathered with the Izmail before 1941, though. Maybe even refit Izmail along the lines of Kaga at some point.

edit:
I have no idea what the Soviets would have done with it during WW2, though ...

Concentrating on other areas as in OTL was certainly the more sensible option.
 
The big question as others have pointed out is need. As long as the Soviets regards continental Europe and Central Asia as their major strategic theatres then there is no need for anything more than the OTL coastal defence force. In OTL the Soviets only really got started on their navy when the USA became their main opponent. So imho if you want Soviet carriers you need the USA to becomes enemy no.1 earlier. Maybe have Germany go Red during the hyper-inflation and have a "red bloc" facing a Anglo-sphere alliance?
 

sharlin

Banned
Ooh, didn't know about that planned conversion i'll have to look into that. It was mentioned earlier that the Soviet union was mainly a land power, this was true in Stalin's era although they did plan and start constructing some truely HUGE battleships in the 30s with Italian and German assistance (mainly italian).

If they got some work done on the Izmail conversion and got experience with carrier ops it could wet the Soviet appetite for carriers. And if she survived WW2 and performed well then that would definately be plusses.
 
Once I red somewhere that Soviets asked for escort carrier during WWII as a part of Lend and Lease program. I am not sure if true, as I can find any references to that.
 
If Gorshkov had managed to get his way and convince Kruschev that missiles were not the sole defender of the Soviet union, then you could quite probably see Soviet Carriers beyond the small Kiev class, or have the Kiev's as proper carriers rather than missile carrying hybrids.
They might keep some around simply for use by the Black Sea Fleet and in the Mediterranean to get around the Montreux Convention and its tonnage limits on ships that Turkey will allow through the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and certain Articles. The only other alternative if they wanted to have a proper Feet in the Mediterranean would be to detach a carrier from the Northern Fleet and sail it all the way around for deployment and then all the way back again at the end, and that would only really be viable if they had some sort of local base or basing rights in the region to allow them an extended deployment.
 
Stalin wanted a blue-water navy, both pre- and post-war, and he wanted carriers.

A number of conversions were drawn up prewar but none got anywhere. The problems are:

1) Not being able to build such large ships due to poor/nonextant infrastructure
2) No experience in building carriers
3) No experience in operating carriers or their aircraft

Russia was trying to get info from Germany but they refused to help. What Stalin didn't know was that the Kriegsmarine was dependant on the Japanese for help and Japan wasn't forthcoming on everything, especially new developments.

And it's not just the ships, carriers need aircraft. I've been on a mission to determine what would be available for use pre-war, mostly conversions of existing airframes IMHO. And crews have to be trained, landing on a carrier is a LOT different from putting down on land. Navigation is a factor to consider as well, if your planes get lost they just can't land in a grassy field somewhere...
 
Carriers are much more difficult than battleships to really get the hang of as they aren't just scaled up Cruisers but a completely different sort of ship, it took the OTL Soviets at least a decade and more two before they were anywhere near as competent as the RN or USN, and that is going to be true no matter what happens.
 
Top