Military tactics
Banned
What if soviets attempt to build a navy in 1930s that rival Japan and British navy?
WI soviet build navy 1930s
- Thread starter Military tactics
- Start date
thaddeus
Donor
and one might think Germany would have offered to help? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovetsky_Soyuz-class_battleship even to the extent of sacrificing their own (OTL) battleship construction
With what money, industrial capabilities, and institutional knowledge?
Remember this is what the USSR inherited after the civil war:
Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 said:
Yeah, not great basis in which to build a large navy...
Oh, not to mention Stalin in OTL wanted a large navy, just during the mid to late 30s:
Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 said:
They are on a big learning curve considering one battleship of the Soyuz class was scrapped on slip due to defective construction.
As in Germany the shipyards havent been doing anything for nearly a generation, so when they start again they lack skills and knowlege compared to the shipyards in the UK or France.
But how does it look like compared to Germany? The Soyuz class was by no means a threat to the UK, it's the Baltic where the ship would be used against the equally(?) badly engineered German navy.
15 were planned but only 4 were begun, 2 on the White Sea, one in the Black Sea and only one in the Baltic. The Germans will still be outbuilding the Soviets who were focussed on submarines, they had the worlds largest (numbers) sub fleet in 1939. The Soviets also only had capacity to make cemented armour only to 9” thick.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
The USSR building a serious navy means resources that went to other things OTL now goes into the navy. So the butterflies for how well the Soviets are doing on other fronts would be there.
The Soviets had a big push on submarines in the 30's as part of its defensive startegy. Subs cost more per ton to build and also maintain than battleships, about 8 times more in regards to the capability. Subs only have half the life of a battleship so have to be replaced at least once in the battleships single lifetime (25 years). In 1939 they had 120,000 tons of submarines, reduce this to 50,000 tons and you may get 4 Soyuz size ships in service by the late 1930's but may not have much more capacity than building 4 ships at a time. I think this is highly unlikely given how much expertise the Russians needed from other naval powers who would work out pretty quickly that these ships were treaty busters. Reducing sub tonnage to 70-80,000 tons of subs may get some more reasonable HMS Nelson sized ships. This doesn't impact other Soviet programs.
This chart is based on RN figures but proportions would hold for other navies:
This chart is based on RN figures but proportions would hold for other navies:
thaddeus
Donor
if my speculative scenario followed it would limit the number of capital ships Germany could finish, if some of their shipyards given over to work for the Soviets.
if they are able to stockpile oil, grain and other materials pre-war it might be worth the trade-off?
basically they would have to accept they were going for u-boat centered navy, that capital ships built for Soviets would take years to complete, and even if 2 or 3 launched they are less of a threat to them (Germany) than tanks would be?
Any large Soviet surface ships will end up being fodder for U-boats or aircraft in the Baltic. The materials, labor, and designers of all sorts used on these projects won't be used in other areas. An expansion of the Soviet Navy on this level can only come at the expense of the Red Army, which is not a good thing. Submarines and lighter craft are much more sensible for the USSR at this point in time.
More interesting WI would be, IMHO, one where they invest in training and operations of the ships they actually have. Soviets had a navy of certainly no insignificant size. If it could be utilized effectively, it could have had ended Winter War quickly and victoriously and seriously harmed German offensive along Baltic and Black Seas. During counteroffensive against Germans they would have fruitful possibilities of operations in both Baltic and Black Seas, too.
Honestly I think the biggest loss was from mines rather than subs but when the Finn's and German's basically mine blockade the exit from Russia into the Baltic then that glorious fleet is rather useless.
Couldn't agree with you more about developing the smaller ships. The Russian infrastructure had a hard time early in the 30s with developing large propulsion systems (that is why they went to Italy to for those designs) for CA and BB but they were better equipped to support subs, DD's, and minelayer/minesweepers. In addition, the White Sea Canal could transport those smaller ships up to the Arctic Ocean for support there.
They did. But the dire state of their naval industry, a focus on submarines, and then Barbarossa all conspired to strangle said attempt in its cradle. Probably for the best, really.
The Obukhov Works had trouble producing heavy guns after the revolution and even before. When the 14in was designed for the Izmails, Vickers was contracted to pick up some of the load. They delivered 10 before the revolution; the Obukhov Works had built one. IIRC, they also built mountings, so they would need to return to heavy gun mountings as well.
Modern combatants are going to need turbines, and I don't know what Soviet capacity was for building them in the '30, or their reliability. Capital ships mean heavy armor production, and I don't know if that capacity existed at all in the Soviet Union.
Their 7.1in/180mm turret for the Kirov and Maxim Gorky classes were cramped, and consequently had a low rate of fire.
Their best bet might be to buy a fleet rather than build one. Or at least buy major units. Let the domestic industry tackle destroyers and submarines.
They had Italian help in the Interwar period, but Italy at the time isn't exactly flush with excess capacity. Perhaps battleships could be laid down in Soviet yards and Italian heavy and medium guns, armor and turbines shipped to the yards? I'm not sure how that would play with Italy's own plans though; the ships might have to predate Italy laying down the Venetos. I consider the Venetos a good design, but Italy couldn't even finish her own program of them.
I can't see Sweden providing any help across the Baltic; maybe France could be an alternative to Italy? Though France had their own building priorities in the '30s. Again, the heavy ships may have to be ordered earlier in the decade before the war clouds gather.
Maybe they could get US help (Gibbs & Cox again?) and build battleships in US yards. I'm not sure who, if anyone, would build them a carrier or three. The Italians had good cruiser designs (right Argentina?) but again, capacity might be an issue. The treaties prohibited disposing of ships by foreign sale, so unless they get something second hand from someone like the Netherlands, I don't know where some second-hand ships could come in. Old ships like the Javas would be useful even in a training role, and would have the ability for ocean cruises. Though dated, they could be useful screening units. Given an AA conversion like the RN's C-class got, they could be even more valuable.
If they tackle capital ships at home, 'vanguarding' turrets and guns from the existing Gangut battleships might produce some cruiser killers, but that's not going to produce a ship that can stand up to a Nagato, nor a Hood nor Nelson.
My initial thoughts,
Modern combatants are going to need turbines, and I don't know what Soviet capacity was for building them in the '30, or their reliability. Capital ships mean heavy armor production, and I don't know if that capacity existed at all in the Soviet Union.
Their 7.1in/180mm turret for the Kirov and Maxim Gorky classes were cramped, and consequently had a low rate of fire.
Their best bet might be to buy a fleet rather than build one. Or at least buy major units. Let the domestic industry tackle destroyers and submarines.
They had Italian help in the Interwar period, but Italy at the time isn't exactly flush with excess capacity. Perhaps battleships could be laid down in Soviet yards and Italian heavy and medium guns, armor and turbines shipped to the yards? I'm not sure how that would play with Italy's own plans though; the ships might have to predate Italy laying down the Venetos. I consider the Venetos a good design, but Italy couldn't even finish her own program of them.
I can't see Sweden providing any help across the Baltic; maybe France could be an alternative to Italy? Though France had their own building priorities in the '30s. Again, the heavy ships may have to be ordered earlier in the decade before the war clouds gather.
Maybe they could get US help (Gibbs & Cox again?) and build battleships in US yards. I'm not sure who, if anyone, would build them a carrier or three. The Italians had good cruiser designs (right Argentina?) but again, capacity might be an issue. The treaties prohibited disposing of ships by foreign sale, so unless they get something second hand from someone like the Netherlands, I don't know where some second-hand ships could come in. Old ships like the Javas would be useful even in a training role, and would have the ability for ocean cruises. Though dated, they could be useful screening units. Given an AA conversion like the RN's C-class got, they could be even more valuable.
If they tackle capital ships at home, 'vanguarding' turrets and guns from the existing Gangut battleships might produce some cruiser killers, but that's not going to produce a ship that can stand up to a Nagato, nor a Hood nor Nelson.
My initial thoughts,
My first thought. Armies routinely win wars with obsolecent second hand equipment, because of better training. This Navy could have paid more attention to training & built ten or twenty percent fewer hulls and still been more effective if training from top to bottom had been 20% more effcient.
I don't see a point in large capitol ships in this era for the USSR. High endurance coastal patrol craft, MTB, destroyers, submarines, some light cruisers, minewarfare ships, and a dedicated air wing of patrol and maritime strike aircraft. Every type would come in two classes, one for harsh Arctic/Pacific conditions, the other for Black Sea or Baltic operations.
Again the emphasis is on quality crews, not hulls beyond operating ability.
Again the emphasis is on quality crews, not hulls beyond operating ability.
I truly didn't realize this was part of the Washington Treaty. Does this apply to only capital ships or the numbers of DD's and Submarines? For example, the US had a bunch of old Clemson and Wickes DD's...so they couldn't sell them or else that hull number would still count against them regardless of which country the hull went too?
They did plan something of the kind.
Soviet program of a major naval build-up started in 1938 (planning started in 1936) with orientation toward the capital ships. Of course, the goal was not to rival the Brits and Japanese but to provide a reliable defense of the Soviet coasts. For the 4 Soviet fleets plan of the 1936 it assumed construction of 533 ships with a total tonnage of 1,307,300 tons. The program included construction of the 8 big class "A" battleships, 16 smaller class "B" battleships, 20 light cruisers, etc. (at that time Britain had 15 battleships and Japan 9 but the Soviet forces would be split between 4 fleets with a minimal chance for acting as unified force).
A revised plan of 1937 considered emphasis upon the Baltic (against Germany) and Pacific (against Japan) fleets. It included 6 class "A" battleships, 14 of class "B", 3 of "Marat" class (Russian dreadnought "Petropavlovsk" built in 1914), 2 carriers, 10 heavy cruisers, etc. Number of the planned submarines increased to 84 big, 175 medium and 116 small. Plan never was officially approved.
Approved plan of 1939 ("10 years program") included construction of 15 class "A", 16 heavy and 32 light cruisers and its final version included 15 battleships of the "Soviet Union" series, 15 heavy cruisers, 28 light cruisers, 366 submarines, etc. The "Soviet Union" battleships would have a significantly weaker firepower than Yamato and Montana class: nine 406-millimeter (16.0 in) guns compared to the nine 460-millimeter (18.1 in) guns of the Japanese ships and a dozen 16-inch (406.4 mm) on the Montanas and their armor was heavy but of a low quality. None of them had been built. Among other things, the Soviet ship-building industry was not prepared for the construction of the really big ships and the Soviets could not produce a cemented armor plates thicker than 230 millimeters (9.1 in).
Deleted member 2186
Well the Soviet Navy was already planing to build a very good navy and could have look like this (taken from a great thread on Paradox forum):
Ships commissioned in 1936
0 Imperator Nikolai I-class Battleships (1 partially completed, construction stopped due to Russia's surrender in WW1 and the subsequent civil war) *
0 Imperatritsa Mariya-class Battleships (3 completed, 1 scuttled to prevent transfer to Germany, 1 scuttled after trying to transfer to Germany but didn't want to transfer to the UK, the last was scrapped by France to pay for docking fees in Tunisia) *
3 Gangut-class Battleships (4 completed, 1 lost due to an internal fire; these ships were the oldest of Russia's dreadnoughts and the only survivors of the Russian Civil War)
0 Borodino-class Battlecruisers (4 planned, construction stopped due to civil war) *
1 Krasnyi Kavkaz-class light cruiser (modified Svetlana, PI lists this as a CA rather than a CL)
3 Svetlana-class light cruisers (8 planned, 3 finished as cruisers, 1 finished as a new class, 2 completed as tankers, 2 canceled)
1 Bogatyr-class light cruiser (this ship shows up in the OOBs as the Pamiat Merkuriya, but it was renamed in 1922 as Komintern)
4 Fidonisy-class destroyers (8 completed, 4 lost after WW1)
2 Izyaslav-class Destroyers (5 planned, 3 finished, 1 given to Estonia then later sold to Peru)
7 Orfey-class Destroyers (23 planned, 16 finished, 9 lost between WW1 and 1936)
6 Leninets-class submarines (24 completed in total)
6 Dekabrist-class submarines
3 American Holland-class submarines (16 planned, 10 completed for Russia, 6 completed for the US, 7 scuttled after WW1)
15 Bars-class submarines (24 completed, 9 lost during and after WW1, the remaining 15 were scrapped by the end of 1936)
* These ships where either never finished or were lost AFTER WW1 due to the Russian Civil War
Ships launched by 1936
5 Leningrad-class destroyers (6 completed in total)
? Srednyaya-class submarines (at least 62 planned, 56 total completed, 6 canceled; just like the Shchuka's, details are hard to find so I don't know when construction started)
3 Pravda-class submarines (4 planned, 3 finished)
? Shchuka-class submarines (200 planned, 88 completed; it's difficult to find detailed info on the individual subs so I can't give a breakdown)
6 Leninets-class submarines
Ships commissioned by Barbarossa
3 Kirov-class Light Cruisers (6 planned, all completed; PI has these as CAs instead of CLs)
8 Soobrazitelny-class destroyers (19 planned, 18 finished)
1 Taskhent-class destroyer (10 planned, 1 completed)
18 Gnevny-class destroyers (36 planned, 30 completed)
1 Leningrad-class destroyer
12 K-class submarines (36 planned, 12 finished, 24 KU subclass canceled)
Ships launched by Barbarossa
4 Sovetsky Soyuz-class BBs (actually, 3 were laid down and 1 cancelled; none finished)
0 Stanlingrad-class BCs (design work started in May 1941 and stopped due to Barbarossa; construction on 3 started in 1951 and were canceled after Stalin died; the Soviets would've classed them as CAs instead of BCs, but all outside navies would've classed them as BCs)
2 Kronshtadt-class BCs (neither finished; the Soviets considered these to be heavy cruisers, but all outside navies would have called them battlecruisers had they been completed)
3 Chapayev-class Light Cruisers (17 planned, 5 completed after the war ended)
1 Kirov-class Light Cruiser
11 Soobrazitelny-class destroyers
2 Tashkent-class destroyers (neither finished)
12 Gnevny-class destroyers
Ships completed by 1945
2 Kirov-class Light Cruiser
11 Ognevoy-class destroyers (24 planned, 11 more finished after the war)
Even though the other naval plans were ambitious and unrealistic, this one puts them to shame. The Soviet shipbuilding industry was virtually destroyed during the Russian Civil War and then neglected almost completely until the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed in '35, which prompted Stalin to say "I want a navy too!
". Construction was to be completed by 1947 for both plans (note: only one plan was to be implemented; the finish date happened to be the same for both versions). The Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleships, if completed, would have been as large as Japan's Yamato-class battleships, but have less armor and firepower than the Yamatos. They would've been superior than Germany's Bismarck and H39-class battleships, but inferior to Germany's H41 and H44 class battleships and the American Montana-class. Of what the game calls "super-heavy battleships", the Sovetsky Soyuz would've fit that description.Roughly 35% of the new fleet would be moved to Vladivostock (the carriers would be based here), with about 30% stationed in the Baltic to fight Germany's fleet, about 23% in the Black Sea to support attacks in Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria, and the remaining 12% in the Arctic to prevent German landings . Details on how those ratios translate into actual ships is provided after each build plan. Where you see numbers like x-y, those numbers represent the amount of ships based on the ships/flotilla. PI has stated that destroyer units contain 3-5 ships and subs contain 5-10 ships, so I broke up the amounts using that info. All of the old WW1-era ships (levels I or II in the game) were to be scrapped.
1936 Plan
* 24 Battleships (4 Sovetsky Soyuz-class BBs started, none finished)
* 22 Heavy cruisers (1 Tallinn-class acquired from Germany, which was the Admiral Hipper-class CA Lützow)
* 20 Light cruisers (6 Kirov-class finished; 7 Chapayev-class started, 5 finished, 2 scrapped by Germany)
* 145 Destroyers with Destroyer leaders (65 completed); 29-48 in-game units
* 344 Submarines (about 177 completed); 34-68 in-game units
August 1939 Plan (revision of the 1936 plan)
* 2 Carriers
* 15 Battleships
* 16 Battlecruisers (construction of 2 Kronshtadt BCs started, neither finished, designs for the Stalingrad BC finished by 1941 and construction on 3 started after the war)
* 29 Light cruisers
* 162 Destroyers with 36 Destroyer leaders; 20-34 in-game units
* 441 Submarines; 44-88 in-game units
1944 Expansion Plan
* 9 carriers
* 60 light carriers
* 9 battleships
* 12 battlecruisers
* 30 heavy cruisers
* 60 light cruisers
* 366 destroyers
* 489 submarines
There were other versions of the expansion plan, with the total number of ships dropping as it became more obvious Germany was planning an attack and resources were diverted to the Red Army. The article above also goes into post-war build plans, which shifted the focus on battleship-heavy fleets to mixed battleship/battlecruiser and carrier fleets. Upon Stalin's death, all plans for the battleships and battlecruisers were scrapped completely in favor of carriers, submarines, and smaller escort ships.
Anyway, hope you guys find this interesting.