Soviet navy in 1950s /1960s

Khanzeer

Banned
In the 50s and early 60s soviet navy expended most of its funds and efforts on building a huge fleet of diesel electric subs
80+ whiskey
50+ foxtrot
20 * zulu
30 + romeo

they were mostly noisy , slow and armed only with torpedoes.

WI soviet navy instead focused only on small attack surface craft ( earlier versions of tarantul and nanuchka classes ) with cruise missiles early on and missile armed shore based bombers ( more and earlier than OTL )
Limit the role of submarines to SSBN until SSGN and SSN arrive in numbers by late 60s early 70s

How Would that affect the Soviet naval doctrine ?
 
In the 50s and early 60s soviet navy expended most of its funds and efforts on building a huge fleet of diesel electric subs
80+ whiskey
50+ foxtrot
20 * zulu
30 + romeo

they were mostly noisy , slow and armed only with torpedoes.

WI soviet navy instead focused only on small attack surface craft ( earlier versions of tarantul and nanuchka classes ) with cruise missiles early on and missile armed shore based bombers ( more and earlier than OTL )
Limit the role of submarines to SSBN until SSGN and SSN arrive in numbers by late 60s early 70s

How Would that affect the Soviet naval doctrine ?

They get stomped; hard.
 
In the 50s and early 60s soviet navy expended most of its funds and efforts on building a huge fleet of diesel electric subs
80+ whiskey
50+ foxtrot
20 * zulu
30 + romeo

they were mostly noisy , slow and armed only with torpedoes.

WI soviet navy instead focused only on small attack surface craft ( earlier versions of tarantul and nanuchka classes ) with cruise missiles early on and missile armed shore based bombers ( more and earlier than OTL )
Limit the role of submarines to SSBN until SSGN and SSN arrive in numbers by late 60s early 70s

How Would that affect the Soviet naval doctrine ?
But they did, though. Between the Komar and Osa-class missile boats the Soviets built over 500 missile boats.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
But they did, though. Between the Komar and Osa-class missile boats the Soviets built over 500 missile boats.
But at any one time they had only 200 or so of them in service , that is just coastal defence force.
If they produced more corvette class ships that were missile armed maybe they would have more survivability in the " bastion seas" esp against aircraft
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Because fast attack craft versus airpower = dead fast attack craft. Plus a Nanutchka does nothing to stop REFORGER.
I feel that soviet navy is even less likely to stop REFORGER in 50s and 60s than KM in the 40s
I would argue the bulk of their subs always would have operated in seas where soviet airforces and AVMF can provide cover otherwise they would be needlessly wasted
 
But at any one time they had only 200 or so of them in service , that is just coastal defence force.
If they produced more corvette class ships that were missile armed maybe they would have more survivability in the " bastion seas" esp against aircraft
You're not getting any sort of meaningful air defense on a corvette, let alone a missile boat.

I should also note that the P-15 Termit is the first surface-launched antiship missile the Soviets made that was small enough to mount on a missile boat/corvette. And it entered service in 1960. The Komars actually began life as torpedo boats before being converted to missile boats.

I feel that soviet navy is even less likely to stop REFORGER in 50s and 60s than KM in the 40s
I would argue the bulk of their subs always would have operated in seas where soviet airforces and AVMF can provide cover otherwise they would be needlessly wasted
Diesel boats like that are not going to be operating under air cover. That's a complete waste of their capabilities. They're offensive platforms for a new Battle of the Atlantic.

One more thing: Soviet bastion defense strategy isn't a thing at this point in time. That strategy was to defend their ballistic missile submarines - and their ballistic submarines are, in this era, Golf and Hotel-class submarines that need to travel almost to the American coast to hit any targets of worth. It wasn't until the Deltas and their R-29 missiles arrived in the 1970s that Soviet ballistic missile subs could hit targets from the Arctic, making the Bastion strategy viable.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
But don't the diesel boats
1 have to surface to charge batteries frequently
2 very slow and noisy underwater and very vulnerable to ASW planes and surface ships
3 heavily outnumbered by NATO ASW platforms
4 cannot chase and attack contemporary destroyers and frigates forcing the subs to be on the defensive
5 will be forced to pass through chokepoints before they can reach the atlantic further increasing their vulnerability
How can they possibly hope to survive on their own in a new battle of atlantic ?
 
But don't the diesel boats
1 have to surface to charge batteries frequently
2 very slow and noisy underwater and very vulnerable to ASW planes and surface ships
3 heavily outnumbered by NATO ASW platforms
4 cannot chase and attack contemporary destroyers and frigates forcing the subs to be on the defensive
5 will be forced to pass through chokepoints before they can reach the atlantic further increasing their vulnerability
How can they possibly hope to survive on their own in a new battle of atlantic ?
Well, for one, they're not actually heavily outnumbered by NATO ASW platforms. First, while NATO might nominally have more ASW combatants than the Soviets have missile submarines, the vast majority of those are WWII leftovers that need significant modernization to be effective, and a lot of those ASW combatants are busy escorting carriers and wouldn't be available for convoy ASW. For another, this kind of convoy-defense ASW needs outsize resources compared to the submarines themselves.

Also? They're cheap as balls and have pretty small crews. The Soviets were averaging over 40 Whiskeys built per year at one point, in peacetime. There was considerable alarm in NATO that the Soviets would get to 300 submarines, and that NATO would be unable to keep up in ASW escorts given the need for new carriers and missile-armed AAW vessels.

Endurance-wise, the Whiskeys had an underwater endurance of almost a week; the newer Foxtrots could stay underwater for ten days.

And yes, they're slow and noisy, but this is the 1960s at the latest. Sonar's not that good either, and this is before serious attempts to make submarines quieter.

And lastly, giving up on diesel submarines in favor of missile boats is giving up on any offensive naval firepower at all for the foreseeable future. The Soviet Navy isn't going to accept that, if only for its own prestige.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
In the 50s and early 60s soviet navy expended most of its funds and efforts on building a huge fleet of diesel electric subs
80+ whiskey
50+ foxtrot
20 * zulu
30 + romeo

they were mostly noisy , slow and armed only with torpedoes.

WI soviet navy instead focused only on small attack surface craft ( earlier versions of tarantul and nanuchka classes ) with cruise missiles early on and missile armed shore based bombers ( more and earlier than OTL )
Limit the role of submarines to SSBN until SSGN and SSN arrive in numbers by late 60s early 70s

How Would that affect the Soviet naval doctrine ?

That doctrine would completely cede anything beyond coastal operations. For two wars in the twentieth century, the ability to move supplies and personnel across the Atlantic from US ports to European ports was a deciding factor in western European strategy, and the Soviet planners were well aware of it. The only way this works is if you have a Soviet government who's turtling down, going for a semi-isolationist strategy, and that has bigger effects than merely naval doctrine.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
That doctrine would completely cede anything beyond coastal operations. For two wars in the twentieth century, the ability to move supplies and personnel across the Atlantic from US ports to European ports was a deciding factor in western European strategy, and the Soviet planners were well aware of it. The only way this works is if you have a Soviet government who's turtling down, going for a semi-isolationist strategy, and that has bigger effects than merely naval doctrine.
As it should , if germans with all of Norway and french coastline cannot make a dent in trans Atlantic convoys , maybe soviets should realize that better strategy would be not to waste sources there, rather focus on sea denial to prevent NATO flanking amphibious assaults in Pacific and Warsaw pact territory

Naval still retains a very important role in having SSBN and SLCM / rocket ships with nuclear missiles
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 9338

Ok, here is the thing with diesel boats, they have weaknesses but for the 50s and 60s are better than possible future solutions.

Whiskey and Foxtrots were designed with the advances in submarine technology that the US were not used widespread due to Congress not wanting to spend the money initially due to the large existing post war submarine fleet. America dose not make the switch until the Fleet boats are converted and the GUPPy program.

So your questions;

1: no they had snorkels
2: not really, they were noisy compared to latter US Navy nuclear boats but were acceptable. Remember they were using Type XXI technology were the escorts could not catch them.
3: no see number 2
4: no see number 2
5: yes that is true today, so what


But don't the diesel boats
1 have to surface to charge batteries frequently
2 very slow and noisy underwater and very vulnerable to ASW planes and surface ships
3 heavily outnumbered by NATO ASW platforms
4 cannot chase and attack contemporary destroyers and frigates forcing the subs to be on the defensive
5 will be forced to pass through chokepoints before they can reach the atlantic further increasing their vulnerability
How can they possibly hope to survive on their own in a new battle of atlantic ?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
^^^^Whiskey and foxtrot could outrun destroyers and frigates?
Please elaborate on that , their submerged speeds are 13 knots and 15 knots
 

Khanzeer

Banned
You're not getting any sort of meaningful air defense on a corvette, let alone a missile boat.
true but atleast in a purely defensive role the corvettes would be under the umbrella of shore based interceptors

I should also note that the P-15 Termit is the first surface-launched antiship missile the Soviets made that was small enough to mount on a missile boat/corvette. And it entered service in 1960. The Komars actually began life as torpedo boats before being converted to missile boats.
will it be possible to mount a ship launched version of KS-1 komet and KSShch on ships that are bigger than FAC but about WW2 destroyer escort size ?

One more thing: Soviet bastion defense strategy isn't a thing at this point in time. That strategy was to defend their ballistic missile submarines - and their ballistic submarines are, in this era, Golf and Hotel-class submarines that need to travel almost to the American coast to hit any targets of worth. It wasn't until the Deltas and their R-29 missiles arrived in the 1970s that Soviet ballistic missile subs could hit targets from the Arctic, making the Bastion strategy viable.
valid point and I defiantely overlooked that but maybe the soviet navy should not have relied on the earlier SSBN to conduct attacks on North america but retained them as assets to conduct attack on western southern europe and Japan [ essentially the role given to them after Delta/typhoons came into service]

To summarize what I'm suggesting is that [ it seems to me that ] resources of soviet navy were spread too thin to effectively perform any of its essential roles in 50s/60s so much so that the most basic role of any navy to protect its shores and its army from flanking operations could not be reliably performed.
So even if they do choose to build hundreds of DE boats as in OTL , they could have been more useful in sea denial role in coastal areas and seas surrounding the USSR effectively preventing the carriers and US submarines from getting too close to attack the homeland.Also here some of their flaws could have been minimized e.g noisy boats are probably better off in coastal areas than in vast open expanses of atlantic and their range /speed would not have been such disadvanatges
 
Once the Skipjack (late 50s, 6 boats) Permit (Thresher) (early 60s) and 637 class subs (middle 60s, workhorse of Cold War until 688s) started arriving those Soviet SSs were dead subs walking. Add in the GIUK SOSUS system, P-3 arriving starting in 1961 just don’t see those older SSs being effective in a North Atlantic War. The snorkel is now very detectable by airborne radars, they’re too slow on battery to chase down fast convoys and they can’t run on surface. IMHO once Nuke boats showed up, SSs were only useful in the littoral ambush role. Maybe if you flood the Atlantic with them in the very early 50s, but I think their window closed pretty quickly.
 
But don't the diesel boats
1 have to surface to charge batteries frequently
No.

2 very slow and noisy underwater and very vulnerable to ASW planes and surface ships
Not really. They weren't great but they were workable. The really noisy boats were the missile conversions like the Whiskey Single/Twin Cylinder types; not really an issue.

3 heavily outnumbered by NATO ASW platforms
No.

4 cannot chase and attack contemporary destroyers and frigates forcing the subs to be on the defensive
So what? The subs targets were merchant ships.

5 will be forced to pass through chokepoints before they can reach the atlantic further increasing their vulnerability
Not really an issue with '50s ASW capacity,

How can they possibly hope to survive on their own in a new battle of atlantic ?
The technology gap was no worse than in WW2.
 

Deleted member 9338

They could outrun the escorts. Remember destroyers were not the best for escorting convoys which is how we got corvettes and DE


^^^^Whiskey and foxtrot could outrun destroyers and frigates?
Please elaborate on that , their submerged speeds are 13 knots and 15 knots
 

Khanzeer

Banned
They could outrun the escorts. Remember destroyers were not the best for escorting convoys which is how we got corvettes and DE
in 50s and 60s which corvettes and destroyer escorts would have been used ? and they were slower than 15knts ?
were flower class corvette types still expected to escort these convoys in 50/60s ?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
No.


Not really. They weren't great but they were workable. The really noisy boats were the missile conversions like the Whiskey Single/Twin Cylinder types; not really an issue.


No.


So what? The subs targets were merchant ships.


Not really an issue with '50s ASW capacity,


The technology gap was no worse than in WW2.

and see what happened to german uboat campaign after 1942, they were decimated by allied navies

they would need to get through the escorts to get to the merchant vessels

Lastly how is it that escorts of which hundreds of platforms even from late ww2 era are available do not outnumber the max 100 -120 boats sovietc can send to the Atlantic
 
Last edited:
Top