Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have see Sov units in the deep blu. 1987 we tracked the keiv and Kirov battle group into the I.O. Another P3 in our squadron(VP50) was able to simulate a harpon attack and launch. (We were flying out lovely Diegio Garcia) I think those guys on that crew got a Air Medal...................
There's no Straw-man here, you just don't understand Soviet/Russian naval equipment/strategy/tactics/doctrine.
The vast majority of Soviet naval "vessels" are small patrol craft, missile corvettes and light frigates. It's a brown-water navy. It has no ability to move across oceans and attack North/South America, Africa, Southeast/Southwest Asia, or Europe.
Next you're going to tell me that Germany, Denmark and others border the Baltic Sea.
Well, silly me. Apparently I incorrectly assumed you were aware of the fact that while the Indians did use their Osa-class missile boats to destroy Pakistani oil storage tanks, the destroyers Shahjahan and Jahangir, the mine-sweeper Mushafiz and the MV Venus Challenger (loaded with ammunition bound for MAC-V in Vietnam) near Karachi and along the Makran Coast, they had to use their Soviet Petya-class light frigates to tow the Osa boats to their targets, release them to attack, then take them in tow again to make it back to port, because the Osa-class boats didn't have the range. Even the Petya light frigates had to be refueled en route by the oiler Poshnak because they didn't have the range either. We're talking Mumbai to Karachi, which ain't very far.
The Soviets/Russians are quite keen on umbrella-defenses, with forces arrayed in depth. Their light frigates take station 150 to 200 miles off the coast and conduct anti-sub warfare operations while simultaneously acting as radar pickets to give early warning to the missile corvettes and patrol craft for threat ships and aircraft.
Larger Soviet/Russian ships have no offensive capabilities. They're function is defensive only, to break blockades and to locate and destroy carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups that pose a threat to their security.
Even the Soviet/Russian "aircraft carriers" (I use the term loosely because that is a US designation, not a Soviet/Russian designation) are purely defensive. They are anti-sub warfare platforms that also provide fleet defense against attacks by US aircraft carriers which are totally offensive in nature.
What about the subs? The Soviets/Russians have a triad of nuclear defense just like the US and France (but not the UK) which is based on the delivery of strategic nuclear weapons by land, air and sea.
Again, their land-based aircraft are based on the triad nuclear deterrent.
For those Soviet/Russian aircraft that perform non-nuclear roles, you totally ignore the fact that they have a very limited combat-radius.
They're designed to be based within Russia to attack ground targets threatening Russia, unlike US aircraft which are designed to attack distant targets in an offensive role.
It isn't semantics. The Soviet/Russian navy was not designed or intended to conduct offensive operations, unlike the US navy. You also ignore the fact that the US outnumbered the Soviets/Russians with marine amphibious ready groups designed to establish beach-heads. The Soviets/Russians had a very limited amount of landing craft and only a small force of naval infantry (their designation for "marines").
Perhaps, yet strangely you constantly scream that the Soviets/Russians are a threat when they are not.
You put missiles on the Soviet border and threaten Russians, then cry like a sissy when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba to counter the belligerent US threat.
You scream "bomber-gap" when none exists, build massive numbers of bombers, then scream like an old woman when the Soviets start building bombers to counter the US threat.
You scream "missile-gap" when none exists, build massive numbers of missiles, then whine like a 2 year old when the Soviets build missiles to counter the threat.
You build dozens of aircraft carriers that each carrier 46-48 combat aircraft then pee your pants when the Soviets build one small platform that carries 12 aircraft and 36 helicopters, then demand that Congress appropriate more money to build even more aircraft carriers to counter the tiny Soviet anti-sub warfare platform which isn't an offensive threat.
That's basically the history of the Cold War.
You might want to actually study Soviet/Russian military doctrine, instead of reading the false garbage from the Brookings Institute and Tom Clancy.
Actually a really good post. I might not agree with your position on the Soviet sub fleet but pretty much the rest is solid. My job in the Navy was to hunt those Russian subs.
I don't believe that the Soviets were misunderstood nice guys. Their treatment of their sattelite states speaks volumes not to mention the treatment of their own citizens. They infact raped their way accross Europe during WWII. Its no surprise that after the fall of the USSR her former warsaw pact allies wasted no time seperating themselves from their former masters.
Back on topic. You are correct the Kirov class cruiser and its companions are no threat to the USA. They have every right to sail the blue waters and visit whatever port that welcomes them. I myself could care less if they sailed into Havana harbor. You make it sound as if the USSR was completely reactionary to US provocations. The fact is that was a 2 way street begining to end.
Good post all the same. You left out the ugliest ship afloat. The Moscva. Missile cruiser foward of the super structure and harrier carrier aft. Always covered in rust.
I met a few Russian sailors in Naples Italy. Contrary to what many would think we got along just fine language barrior and all. Nope no KGB snitches waiting to break it up either. We exchange hats shared a few drinks sailors being sailors.
There's no Straw-man here, you just don't understand Soviet/Russian naval equipment/strategy/tactics/doctrine.
The vast majority of Soviet naval "vessels" are small patrol craft, missile corvettes and light frigates. It's a brown-water navy. It has no ability to move across oceans and attack North/South America, Africa, Southeast/Southwest Asia, or Europe.
Next you're going to tell me that Germany, Denmark and others border the Baltic Sea.
Well, silly me. Apparently I incorrectly assumed you were aware of the fact that while the Indians did use their Osa-class missile boats to destroy Pakistani oil storage tanks, the destroyers Shahjahan and Jahangir, the mine-sweeper Mushafiz and the MV Venus Challenger (loaded with ammunition bound for MAC-V in Vietnam) near Karachi and along the Makran Coast, they had to use their Soviet Petya-class light frigates to tow the Osa boats to their targets, release them to attack, then take them in tow again to make it back to port, because the Osa-class boats didn't have the range. Even the Petya light frigates had to be refueled en route by the oiler Poshnak because they didn't have the range either. We're talking Mumbai to Karachi, which ain't very far.
The Soviets/Russians are quite keen on umbrella-defenses, with forces arrayed in depth. Their light frigates take station 150 to 200 miles off the coast and conduct anti-sub warfare operations while simultaneously acting as radar pickets to give early warning to the missile corvettes and patrol craft for threat ships and aircraft.
Larger Soviet/Russian ships have no offensive capabilities. They're function is defensive only, to break blockades and to locate and destroy carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups that pose a threat to their security.
Even the Soviet/Russian "aircraft carriers" (I use the term loosely because that is a US designation, not a Soviet/Russian designation) are purely defensive. They are anti-sub warfare platforms that also provide fleet defense against attacks by US aircraft carriers which are totally offensive in nature.
What about the subs? The Soviets/Russians have a triad of nuclear defense just like the US and France (but not the UK) which is based on the delivery of strategic nuclear weapons by land, air and sea.
Again, their land-based aircraft are based on the triad nuclear deterrent.
For those Soviet/Russian aircraft that perform non-nuclear roles, you totally ignore the fact that they have a very limited combat-radius.
They're designed to be based within Russia to attack ground targets threatening Russia, unlike US aircraft which are designed to attack distant targets in an offensive role.
It isn't semantics. The Soviet/Russian navy was not designed or intended to conduct offensive operations, unlike the US navy. You also ignore the fact that the US outnumbered the Soviets/Russians with marine amphibious ready groups designed to establish beach-heads. The Soviets/Russians had a very limited amount of landing craft and only a small force of naval infantry (their designation for "marines").
Perhaps, yet strangely you constantly scream that the Soviets/Russians are a threat when they are not.
You put missiles on the Soviet border and threaten Russians, then cry like a sissy when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba to counter the belligerent US threat.
You scream "bomber-gap" when none exists, build massive numbers of bombers, then scream like an old woman when the Soviets start building bombers to counter the US threat.
You scream "missile-gap" when none exists, build massive numbers of missiles, then whine like a 2 year old when the Soviets build missiles to counter the threat.
You build dozens of aircraft carriers that each carrier 46-48 combat aircraft then pee your pants when the Soviets build one small platform that carries 12 aircraft and 36 helicopters, then demand that Congress appropriate more money to build even more aircraft carriers to counter the tiny Soviet anti-sub warfare platform which isn't an offensive threat.
That's basically the history of the Cold War.
You might want to actually study Soviet/Russian military doctrine, instead of reading the false garbage from the Brookings Institute and Tom Clancy.
You made 2 strawman attacks in your last post. It's weasling, stop it.
Also, trying the same tired Brookings\Clancy garbage yet again? Yep, if you can't make thoughtful arguments then attack the poster directly...that's another bad debate tactic you must have learned at strawman school.
What is funny is that I agreed with you on several points that you continue to beat me up on for "not agreeing with you" LMAO.
You write off the entire Soviet sub fleet as SSBN's? Wow.
The Germans at the start of WW2 had a modest navy, certainly not capable of say....invading the US. They had limited amphibious capabilites...surely they were defensive by your definition. Funny how you don't need a strong navy when your intended victims are within driving distance.
Another Cold War would mean greatly increased military spending. Can we really afford that right now? There are better things the US government could do with that money, such as health care, education, or cutting taxes.
We cant cut spending now we have a ten trillion dollar debt that requires interest each year. Plus military spending increases each year soon we will be spending a trillion dollars on defense. And another trillion on debt payment. yep we have no choice but to raise taxes and see money go to things that do not help the american people out. but the american people will be happy so long as we are not spending a trillion dollars on healthcare for everyone.
The US is constantly on the lookout for more cold wars because they are so highly profitable. Even a few hot wars, as long as they are against weaklings that we can kick the crap out of.
We cant cut spending now we have a ten trillion dollar debt that requires interest each year. Plus military spending increases each year soon we will be spending a trillion dollars on defense. And another trillion on debt payment. yep we have no choice but to raise taxes and see money go to things that do not help the american people out. but the american people will be happy so long as we are not spending a trillion dollars on healthcare for everyone.
Good post. It points out the stupidity in American people.
You made 2 strawman attacks in your last post. It's weasling, stop it.
Weasling and Straw-man are two different types of fallacies. You might want to read Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric by Kahane and Cavender so you can understand the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Also, trying the same tired Brookings\Clancy garbage yet again?
Yes, because that's exactly how you view the Soviets/Russians. You probably still believe the "Arab armies" fought using Soviet doctrine in all of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
Nope. The Arabs always fought exactly like the Americans and Brits. Exactly. Even used the same organization and structure, right down to a light section and heavy section in a tank platoon.
Everyone thought the Israelis fought using American/Brit tactics. They were wrong. The Israelis fight sort of like the Soviets, but with a real heavy Wehrmact influence.
The US didn't find that out until 1976 and then spent the next 5 years in a panic just trying to figure out exactly how the Soviets fought.
And what did the US do when it learned how the Soviets fought? The US abandoned the Western-style of war-fighting and adopted a lot of the Soviet doctrines then gave it a fancy name like the AirLand Battle 2000 Doctrine.
Unfortunately, before the US implemented its new war-fighting strategy in 1986, the Brookings Institute had already made up a bogus story of how a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would play out in a last ditch attempt to counter Reagan's campaign platform for an expanded military and then the idiot Tom Clancy compounded the Brookings Institute's farcical aquatic adventure with his Red Storm Rising nonsense.
Iceland never figured into Soviet tactical doctrine. Neither did Norway or Denmark. Why would the Soviets invade Norway AND Denmark when all they have to do is have Army General Myachin take the 11th Guards Tank Army and seal off the Jutland Peninsula? If the Soviets don't violate their sovereignty, the socialist governments in Norway and Denmark probably would have abrogated the NATO treaty and declared neutrality or surrendered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
What is funny is that I agreed with you on several points that you continue to beat me up on for "not agreeing with you".
I'm not beating you up. If you don't understand Soviet doctrine and Soviet history, you'll never understand things like Georgia and Ukraine and future goings-on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
You write off the entire Soviet sub fleet as SSBN's? Wow.
I didn't write them off. Silly me, I assumed you were aware that guided-missile boats (like Charlies and Echoes) and ballistic-missile boats (like Deltas and Typhoons) are escorted by 3 to 4 attack boats.
With 70-80 missile boats the Soviets are going to have about 300 attack subs escorting them so they ain't going to be chasing down the "North Atlantic Convoys" like the great Tom Clancy would have you believe.
The rest of the Soviet attack boats patrol their territorial waters to guard against US missile boats (just like the US patrols its waters) or chasing down US missile boats (just like the US chases down Soviet missile boats).
That doesn't leave any subs to run around sinking cargo ships like the German U-boats did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
The Germans at the start of WW2 had a modest navy, certainly not capable of say....invading the US. They had limited amphibious capabilites...surely they were defensive by your definition. Funny how you don't need a strong navy when your intended victims are within driving distance.
No, the German navy was offensive. Its submarines didn't have missile boats to protect or enemy missile boats to hunt down. They were free to prey on cargo vessels and their naval escorts.
The Germans had an aircraft carrier, 4 battleships, and 16 heavy cruisers, plus a host of light cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts and frigates.
They were designed to engage in offensive operations against other navies, blockade ports and conduct shore bombardment.
Germany didn't become a country until later in the 19th Century and states like Hesse and Brandenburg, being land-locked as they were, didn't have a rich naval tradition, lacked experience and didn't know how to design ships or deploy them properly (which is why a lot of them got sunk).
No, the German navy was offensive. Its submarines didn't have missile boats to protect or enemy missile boats to hunt down. They were free to prey on cargo vessels and their naval escorts.
The Germans had an aircraft carrier, 4 battleships, and 16 heavy cruisers, plus a host of light cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts and frigates.
They were designed to engage in offensive operations against other navies, blockade ports and conduct shore bombardment.
Germany didn't become a country until later in the 19th Century and states like Hesse and Brandenburg, being land-locked as they were, didn't have a rich naval tradition, lacked experience and didn't know how to design ships or deploy them properly (which is why a lot of them got sunk).
Even though it's somewhat off topic, I felt a need to defend the German navy here.
First they had no aircraft carrier. The Graf Zeppelin, was never completed, so never saw any service. While they had large, and extremely well designed, and high quality built, capital ships, the tactics employed were always toward the role of "commerce raiding". The allied tactics were always skewed toward preventing German vessels from their assigned duty of sinking as many merchantmen as possible. Commerce raiding was as "offensive" as the German navy ever got.
While they didnt have a rich naval tradition, their vessels were still of higher quality, and manned by better trained personell than their contemporaries. A brief read on the battle of Jutland, May 31, 1916 would prove that assertion. In both world wars, they were overcome by geographical limitations, and being heavily outnumbered, and in the first war, somewhat undergunned. The quality of training, and worthiness of their ships were never an issue.
This is clearly a response on behalf of Russia to the United States Warship USS McFaul docking in Georgia, delivering "humanitarian aid" to Georgian forces -- and yes, the Russian navy is no contender with the American navy, but America pushing so hard for NATO to induct Georgia and Ukraine in to it's membership is just asking for trouble; I am of the opinion, DO NOT POKE/PROD A SLEEPING BEAR. And you had better believe that Russia is a sleeping bear. No one would deny that American military might is unrivaled in the entire world -- but I'm sure not eager to test our metal against the Russian army.
The United States has no place stepping between Russia and Georgia, and doing so will and already has, to an extent, damage(d) relations with a very powerful, very oil rich nation.
At a press conference called by Ron Paul to call upon voters to endorse third party candidates, candidate Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) referred to the United States as being on a dangerous, confrontational, and proocative path of foreign policy; "..Dick Cheney put sixty countries on a list and said that we should consider them as our enemies, now someone wants to add more countries to the list, and [both] the democrats and the republicans are going along with that, and the two additional countries they are adding to the list are China and Russia..."
Do we really want the largest (geographical) country on the planet as our enemy? Do we want to renew the old suspicions of the Cold War?
I pray for the future of this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
