WI soviet build navy 1930s

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.

one can imagine their periodic purges would have even worse effects on navy than army (not trying to slur needed training of armies), as well their paranoid scrutiny of large capital ship about to depart home waters?
 
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?

It's in Article 18, and it states 'any vessel of war', so all of them, not just capital ships:

Article XVIII

Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power.

I don't know if the tonnage would still count as 'US' tonnage in your example. But a few of the Four Pipers were converted to banana boats, bu that would be transferring to a civilian entity and not as a 'vessel of war'.

Regards,
 
I suppose stating they are part of your navy's "coast guard" or "fisheries" department could be used as an excuse...just remove the weapons before you sell them :)
 
I suppose stating they are part of your navy's "coast guard" or "fisheries" department could be used as an excuse...just remove the weapons before you sell them :)
The USN did transfer Destroyers to the Coast Guard to catch Rum Runners during the Prohibition era.
 
The navy suffered heavily in the Purges. 8 of the 9 top admirals were chopped. As it was suspected that they were exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts then a training efficiency drive may save them. Cutting leadership in this fashion is more like decapitation than Voltaire’s pour encourager les autres
 
Those plans were so unrealistic, basically more naval tonnage than the USSR built from the end of WWII to the end of the USSR.
 
Those plans were so unrealistic, basically more naval tonnage than the USSR built from the end of WWII to the end of the USSR.
Probably more of a wishlist or initial bargaining position, it's not like other countries don't so similar things*. Dream big or go home!

*if you want me to pull out interwar Poland's naval wishlist I could do that too...
 
I think ultimately the Soviets, like any Russian state TBH, are at a major disadvantage re: geography. Even if the Soviets are able to build a fleet that can stand up to the RN, USN, or IJN on paper, they're going to have to split it between several theaters due to geography in a way that other powers simply don't. Relocating units between fleets is unreliable due to both the distances involved (esp. between Vladivostok and the Western bases) and geographic limitations (either easily blockaded straits in the Baltic and Black seas, or seasonal limitations in the White Sea). Realistically, to be able to match the IJN and RN simultaneously in capital ships, they'll have to maintain at least an IJN in the Pacific and an RN in the west, though destroyers and subs will be able to be 'reshuffled' at least to some extent. If they want to keep their fleet in anything resembling a reasonable size, they can have either Mahanian fleets-in-being in each theater but ones at a major numerical disadvantage, or focus on one theater at a time, which runs the risk of not having units where you need them, when you need them. In short, the reason the USSR can't be a naval power is the same reason Putin is desperately propping up Assad: the need for more strategically valuable naval bases.

With 20/20 hindsight, there might be one way to alleviate this to at least some extent, and that would be carrier groups. The carriers can be stationed at various ports and air wings can be stationed between carriers by flying under their own power across the vast expanses of the motherland. However, for a nation like the USSR, industrial output is a limiting factor a long time before manpower (i.e. the number of ships and planes will be a bigger consideration than the number of pilots) making the impact of even this approach limited. Might be interesting, if far-fetched, to see how navalized IL2s hold up though...
 
Yes Please
Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 said:
... In December 1919 only six ex-German torpedo-boats were allocated to Poland, though strong protests were issued by the Polish delegation to Versailles. The delegation demanded 2 light cruiser, 2 destroyers, and a number of submarine chasers, motor boats and auxiliary ship. These Claims were based on the economic potential of inland Polish industrial districts, which until 1918 had been under German and Austrian administration for more than a century: the protests were not approved

... Poland also claimed her share from the Russian Navy during the Polish-Soviet peace talks in Riga in 1921. At these negotiations 2 Gangut class battleships, 10 large destroyers, 5 submarines, 10 minesweepers, 21 auxiliaries and transports, 2 uncompleted Svetlana class cruisers and other equipment (guns, mines, etc) were demanded...

Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 said:
Meanwhile, the fleet expansion programmees were drawn up. The 1920 programme called for a fantastic 2 battleships, 6 cruisers, 28 destroyers, 45 submarines, 28 minesweepers and auxiliaries. Four large and twenty small monitors had to be built on Poland's rivers together with 49 motor boats. This programme had to be completed by 1929. This date was totally unrealistic, due to Poland's economic situation, ...

... though talks were underway with the British Admiralty for transferring 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 2 floating workshops and some CMBs to Poland.
 
one can imagine their periodic purges would have even worse effects on navy...

Perhaps, but OTL the navy suffered far less from the purges. When the Germans did attack many naval commanders were confident enough they ignored the 'no alert' policy, and had their naval base defenses manned and ready to open fire. Unlike the Army leaders who kept their soldiers in the barracks even as German commandos, scouts, and bombers were crossing the border.

... as well their paranoid scrutiny of large capital ship about to depart home waters?

A good reason for a paranoid dictator to not build a blue water navy and build a littoral defense fleet instead. That is small ships and boats.
 
Last edited:
With regards to the ability to build a proper navy - its not as silly as it first appears

If they had included heavy ship building as part of their first and second 5 year plan then I can see them having the facilities to build a modern fleet in the same fashion that they were able to build so many Kahn type modern factories in the same period as well as create their own design teams capable of designing factories using his methods.

While the early 5 year plans were of course all a glorious success, because the Soviet leadership claimed it so - the heavy industrialisation side was however an actual success and so had heavy ship building been part of this plan then I can it too eclipsing German shipbuilding by the late 30s.
 
With regards to the ability to build a proper navy - its not as silly as it first appears

If they had included heavy ship building as part of their first and second 5 year plan then I can see them having the facilities to build a modern fleet in the same fashion that they were able to build so many Kahn type modern factories in the same period as well as create their own design teams capable of designing factories using his methods.

While the early 5 year plans were of course all a glorious success, because the Soviet leadership claimed it so - the heavy industrialisation side was however an actual success and so had heavy ship building been part of this plan then I can it too eclipsing German shipbuilding by the late 30s.

Um, the first 2 5 year plans did including naval construction, mainly small units, and they still failed to meet deadlines and goals.

Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 said:
The first five-year programme was not an outstanding success. Despite the fact that over 30 ships over and above the planned had been begun, only a few of them were completed in time.
 
Um, the first 2 5 year plans did including naval construction, mainly small units, and they still failed to meet deadlines and goals.

I am suggesting that they achieved the same thing they did with the Kahn Factories - that is find the worlds leading design architect and invite them over as they did with Kahn.

In a very short period they were able to go from building basically no tanks to building more than everyone else

So if the intention was to be able to build large blue water warships then more effort would have been made!

Yes I appreciate that the early 5 year plans were a bag of shite and resulted in millions of deaths but here was some sucess
 
Soviet tanks had many good features, and many crappy ones. Quality control was a problem, the interiors were cramped and put size restrictions on tankers, and so forth. For armored vehicles that had a short lifespan anyways, crews that could get out from time to time, and if a breakdown occurred fixing it on the spot or retrieving it and dragging it to a repair depot was pretty doable, these sorts of things could be lived with, and were, pretty easily. For a ship that has a lifetime of 20 years, where if things breakdown you are potentially by yourself in the middle of a body of water, where the crew has to live within the ship 24/7, those sorts of issues become deal breakers. Sure you can cut habitability down to some bare minimum, but go too low and crew efficiency takes a big hit.

On the list of things that had to be done following the victory of the Bolsheviks, establishing a modern shipbuilding industry capable of building a decent big navy fleet, from the lowest shipyard worker to the designers, was very low on the list. To the end of the USSR and beyond Russia has major geographic constraints to open ocean access, and even at its height the number of overseas military bases that could/would provide any level of support to the Soviet Navy was small, and capacity limited.
 
delusion doesn't even begin to describe it

Another example like that would be Yugoslavia, they nearly ended up with the A-H navy, as a gift because the enemy (Serbia) is not as bad as the traitor (Itlay) who would have ended up with it after the loss, but everyone protested against the move and they had to give it all back and settle for some smaller ships.
 
I am suggesting that they achieved the same thing they did with the Kahn Factories - that is find the worlds leading design architect and invite them over as they did with Kahn.

In a very short period they were able to go from building basically no tanks to building more than everyone else

So if the intention was to be able to build large blue water warships then more effort would have been made!

Yes I appreciate that the early 5 year plans were a bag of shite and resulted in millions of deaths but here was some sucess

Which circles back to 'what else has to give?' There's limited finances and resources that the USSR has to keep in mind when buying foreign expertise.
 
Another example like that would be Yugoslavia, they nearly ended up with the A-H navy, as a gift because the enemy (Serbia) is not as bad as the traitor (Itlay) who would have ended up with it after the loss, but everyone protested against the move and they had to give it all back and settle for some smaller ships.
We really need a timeline were all the medium and minor powers get all their naval wishlists. Just for the lutz really (I know most of them couldn't maintain them, but hey, a man can dream).
 
Another example like that would be Yugoslavia, they nearly ended up with the A-H navy, as a gift because the enemy (Serbia) is not as bad as the traitor (Itlay) who would have ended up with it after the loss, but everyone protested against the move and they had to give it all back and settle for some smaller ships.
The pre-war plans and ambitions were actually quite reasonable. The 1911 Henderson Report laid out detailed plans for growth of the RAN to 8 BC and 15,000men by 1930. This was quite affordable and while the Australian Government didn't formally adopt the plan they used it as a blueprint even past the outbreak of war. Pre-WW1 Navies were seen as 'nation building', an intangible benefit beyond the expense of acquiring ships.
 
The pre-war plans and ambitions were actually quite reasonable. The 1911 Henderson Report laid out detailed plans for growth of the RAN to 8 BC and 15,000men by 1930. This was quite affordable and while the Australian Government didn't formally adopt the plan they used it as a blueprint even past the outbreak of war. Pre-WW1 Navies were seen as 'nation building', an intangible benefit beyond the expense of acquiring ships.
I'd imagine in a no WW1 scenario Australia would have more industry and capital than war ravaged Poland and Yugoslavia after the war, and all the British naval experts one could hope for to make the shipyards work on time and to get the most out of the acquired fleet.
 
Top