OT: Seven US aircraft carriers have been sunk in the past 30 years.

[Raellus]

Perhaps I overstated my argument. I'm not asserting that the Red Banner Fleet would or even could spank the USN. I'm concluding that the USN wouldn't experience the cake walk some blindered superfans think it would.

It's true that the Soviet submarine fleet has experienced some catastrophic accidents but the USN has not been immune to embarrassing mishaps either. There have been several incidents where US subs have collided with each other or with surface combatants, and a couple of alleged incidents where US and Soviet/Russian subs have collided with one another. I went on a San Diego harbor tour last summer and saw a USN amphib being repaired after a USN destroyer collided with it (ending both captains' careers, according to the tour guide).

Also, about 7 years ago, an US ELINT/map exercise set in the Mediterranean resulted in a CVN and a couple of its escorts being 'sunk' by Libyan gun and missile boats.

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

Bottom line is, the USN is not invulnerable and error-proof. A particularly well-led Soviet naval force could wreak havoc on a poorly-led American/NATO one. The law of averages would result in at least a couple of significant Soviet naval victories in a WWIII scenario. To think otherwise would fall into the trap of hubris and we all know where that leads. That's my argument.

[RN7]

In a general war scenario such as the Twilight War, NATO's primary maritime objective would be to secure the North Atlantic for shipping to resupply Europe from North America. The primary obstacle to that would be the Soviet Northern Fleet.

The traditional answer in the past two world wars to the problem of protecting merchant shipping against submarines has been the convoy system. However merchant ships are now larger and faster, and establishing protected shipping lanes across the Atlantic would also be necessary in addition to a more traditional convoy escort system. Also the Soviet Union is a land power like Germany, and like Germany is at a geographical disadvantage in the Atlantic against naval powers such as Britain and America. The Soviets only access to the Atlantic is through the narrow and heavily defended Kattegat at the mouth of the Baltic Sea and through its own Arctic coast. Aware of Soviet physical difficulties in accessing the Atlantic from the north, NATO established a naval defensive line know as the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), to bottle the Soviet's up.

The GIUK Gap seriously eroded any Soviet effort to break out into the Atlantic undetected. NATO implanted mines, moored torpedo systems and monitoring devices such as SOSUS on the seabed linked to processing data stations. Allied with active NATO ship, submarine and aircraft patrols across the GIUK Gap made any undetected breach of the gap near impossible. Land based AWAC and long ranged F-15 and Tornado fighter squadrons in Iceland and the UK also increased NATO's ability to detect and intercept Soviet long ranged naval bombers. Its effectiveness also forced the Soviet's to develop longer ranged missiles for their SSBN's, with sufficient range to launch from well behind the barrier in the Barents Sea.

The US Navy, being what it is, also espoused a second more offensive minded and controversial approach to dealing with a Soviet threat to NATO shipping. Deploying powerful US aircraft carriers groups to strike against northern Soviet bases, through sending carriers across the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea. The Norwegian Sea was an area were Soviet naval forces would be very active, and where NATO forces could not guarantee the carriers protection. Basically the US Navy was advocating sending its most expensive assets into a hostile environment and looking for a fight.

Despite the defences of the GIUK Gap the Soviets possessed a number of non-nuclear options for disrupting NATO naval and merchant shipping in the Atlantic. In addition to its large fleet of nuclear and diesel attack submarines, it had a large number of reconnaissance aircraft and land based naval bombers with stand-off missiles and a highly developed mine warfare capability. Also it was developing carrier based airpower and had many escorts with powerful anti-ship missile and ASW capabilities, personified by the massive Kirov Class.

Soviet submarines carried an array of weaponry in addition to torpedoes that were a threat to NATO naval forces. Akula, Charlie, Sierra and Victor III Class nuclear submarines carried SS-N-7 (P-70), SS-N-9 (P-120) and SS-N-15 (RPK-2) anti-ship missiles, while the Oscar Class carried SS-N-19 (P-700) dual nuclear/conventional cruise anti-ship missiles with a range of 600km at Mach 2.5. From the late 1980's the Soviet Navy started fitting out Akula, Sierra and Victor III Class submarines with SS-N-21 (RK-55) cruise missiles with a range of 3,000km. Many Soviet destroyers, cruisers and the ASW carriers were also fitted with SS-N-12 (P-500) anti-ship missiles and SS-N-14 (RPK-2) ASW missiles. The Kirov Class carried SS-N-14 and 20 launchers for the long ranged SS-N-19 missile.

The most formidable threat to US carrier groups were from the supersonic Tu-22M Backfire bombers with AS-4 (Kh-22) long ranged anti-ship missile. The Tu-22M has a combat radius of 2,400km when fully armed, and the AS-4 air launched missile was capable of being launched at high or low altitude modes with conventional or nuclear warheads. With a maximum range of 500- 600km and capable of making terminal dives from high altitudes at speeds of Mach 4.6 it was a devastating weapon designed to annihilate US Navy aircraft carriers. Until the end of the Cold War NATO intelligence believed the maximum speed of the AS-4 was only Mach 2.5. The Soviet Navy also deployed Tu-16 bombers with AS-6 (KSR-5) cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads. The AS-6 was considered a scaled down version of the AS-4, and it could only reach speeds of Mach 3.5 with 2,200ibs warhead.

My own assessment of a naval war in the North Atlantic is that US aircraft carrier would be relatively safe from attack south of the GIUK Gap, as NATO ship and land based air and ASW assets would be too powerful for Soviet long ranged bombers to penetrate. However Soviet submarines would likely try and force the Gap in numbers to break out into the Atlantic from the north. Most would be detected and forced north and some will be eliminated, but some will get through particularly as we now know that Soviet nuclear submarines were secretly surveying paths through and around NATO ASW defences in waters near Greenland and Canada for decades. Conversely NATO nuclear submarines would also be very active north of the GIUK Gap, and will likely cause disruption to Soviet surface and submarines operations in northern waters. Soviet nuclear submarines and major surface warships will be priority targets for NATO sub commanders and they will certainly get some long before they move south.

Penetrating the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases would be a very risky strategy for US aircraft carriers for a number of reasons already mentioned. Theoretically US aircraft carrier air wings have the capacity to deal with Soviet bombers. F-14's on CAP close to their maximum ranges are capable of keeping Tu-22M 's with AS-4 at bay, while an F/A-18 has the range to engage Soviet warships and submarines equipped with SS-N-19 before they are in range to fire at US carriers. Land based AWAC, tankers, long ranged fighters and US anti-ship and long ranged land attack cruise missiles will also widen the ability of NATO to cope with Soviet air threats. Carrier based ASW along with land based P-3 and Nimrod aircraft, towed sonar, and sonar arrays of individual escort ships and also escorting nuclear submarines will also be a formidable threat to attacking Soviet submarines. But the Soviets will attempt to breach these defences with a combination of saturation submarine, surface warship and bomber attacks.

In the mid 1980's the North Atlantic Maritime Balance was numerically in favour of NATO.

The US Navy deployed 5 large aircraft carriers, 49 nuclear attack submarines and 90 escort ships. The British had 3 ASW carriers, 12 nuclear attack submarines, 14 diesel submarines and 46 escort ships. Other NATO powers could also add 57 diesel submarines and 107 escort ships. The Soviet Northern Fleet had 2 ASW carriers, 71 nuclear attack submarines, 54 diesel submarines and 85 escort ships. NATO airpower was also superior and could draw on non-naval air assets.

[boogiedowndonovan]

And don't forget when the Tico-class missile cruiser mistook an Iranian airliner for an F-4 Phantom and shot it down.

oddly enough, that event occurred 25 years ago today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Raellus]

I still have a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Quito to my international (mostly American) school warning parents, staff, and students of possible retaliation for the airliner incident. Those were some pretty tense times. EDIT: I just took another look at it and it was dated September 22, 1987, so it must have been about some of the 'tanker wars' stuff that preceded the IA shoot-down incident. Still, the Soviets weren't America's only antagonists during the '80s.


The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[Adm.Lee]

The "Boomer" timeline sets the big/final North Sea battle as part of NATO's June '97 offensive towards Murmansk from far-northern Norway. No mention of anti-air activity in Norway, but it's certainly possible. Or, NATO pulled a lot of air into the Central Front battle, since that's getting towards its climax in eastern Poland in June as well.

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

[RN7]

The T2K v1.0 history cites a fairly decisive battle in the Norwegian sea. My guess is that NATO was trying to support its land operations in northern Norway and/or Finland with naval air and ship/sub launched cruise missiles and the Soviets decided to sortie and hit them with the kitchen sink. The resulting multi-day battle resulted in the de facto destruction of both forces. If the Soviets could neutralize NATO's land-based air in Norway*, it could use it's land-based Backfire, Blackjack, and Fencer naval air fleet to launch ASMs at the approaching NATO naval task forces, while a sizable Red Fleet surface force, screened by subs and missile boats operating out of radar dead spots along Norway's coast, makes a foray into the Norwegian sea.

Another possible explanation is that NATO sent a large force to hit the Soviet anchorages on the Kola Peninsula and the Soviets were forced to throw everything into their defense. In terms of imagination fodder, I much prefer the former scenario.

*I imagine them doing this with Spetsnaz and/or chem weapons.

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Until the development of nuclear submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles the Norwegian Sea and the northern polar region were of limited importance to all major powers. By the Twilight War period it had become highly important to the strategic interests of the United States, the Soviet Union and their allies. The dynamics of anti-submarine and ballistic missile technology had also led to a constantly evolving significance of the region.

When the Soviet first deployed ballistic missile submarines they had to reach launching positions in the western Atlantic to strike the continental United States. NATO stopped them in their tracks when they established the GIUK Gap. This forced to Soviets to develop longer ranged missiles which enabled them to fire from the Barents and Polar seas. By the late 1980's Soviet submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles were considered first strike capable, and 75% of their SSBN's could reach any target in the USA, Western Europe, Japan, and China from launching positions in Arctic waters, and in the case of the Typhoon and Delta IV from beneath ice packs. Although this lessened the importance of access to Atlantic waters for Soviet nuclear forces, controlling the Norwegian Sea remained highly important. To maintain the capability to launch a nuclear attack or counter strike on the USA the Soviet Navy had to protect these strategic assets by devoting a major part of its attack submarines, surface vessels, and aircraft to be used in an anti-submarine role. It also led to the development of several new types of attack submarines and cruise missiles to tackle increasingly more advanced US and NATO naval forces in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic. The Soviets also had to defend their homeland through control of the Norwegian Sea, and in wartime it was necessary to be able to cut the sea-lanes of communication between North America and Europe and attack and destroy NATO forces.

For NATO it pushed its naval priorities beyond the GIUK Gap and into the Norwegian Sea and the Arctic. US and British nuclear submarines were now tasked with hunting Soviet SSBN's in northern waters and tackling improving Soviet attack submarines and anti-submarine defences. Changing US Navy naval strategy from the early 1980's based on the principals of deterrence, forward defence, and offensive warfare also proposed sending US carrier battle groups into the Norwegian Sea to strike at Soviet bases in the Kola Peninsula. This put further pressure on NATO to defend these expensive and irreplaceable assets, and meant that control of the Norwegian Sea was more important. Also if NATO lost control of the Norwegian Sea then Norway and probably Denmark would be lost too, allowing the Soviets to force the GIUK Gap and gain access to the Atlantic to cut sea lines of communications. Losing control in the Norwegian Sea makes it almost impossible for sufficient surveillance in this area, and would allow the Soviet Union access to Norwegian airfields from which they can operate bombers and fighters. If the Soviets also gained control of Iceland then almost any important part of Europe will be within range of Soviet bombers.

[Adm.Lee]

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea. Control of the Norwegian Sea was a fundamental naval priority of NATO and the Soviet Union, as although a general war such as the Twilight War would not be won in the Norwegian Sea it could easily be lost their.

Given that the Soviets struck first in this theater, I suspect there was plenty of action, it just didn't get mentioned

[Raellus]

I'm surprised that T2K v1.0 history doesn't cite there being more than one battle in the Norwegian sea.

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

[Nexus]

In 1974 a Soviet submarine was tasked to track a USN carrier and its escorts. "Three days we followed the carrier," navigator Pavel Borodulkin described.
Borodulkin said that the sub spent much of the time at a depth of 120 feet. He also stated that soon after the photo (below) was taken, the US Navy Destroyers escorting the carriers raced at him and they crash-dived.



That wasn't the only USN carrier the Soviets tailed however. In 1984 a Victor-class Soviet attack submarine K-314 shadowed the task group of USS Kitty Hawk off the Korean Peninsula in the Sea of Japan in an exercise called "Team Spirit".
The Americans lost track of the Victor and, in the dead of night, the 80,000-ton carrier actually collided with the 5,000-ton sub.
K-314 surfaced directly in front of Kitty Hawk, at the time of 22:05, too dark and too close for Kitty Hawk to see and avoid the resulting collision.

In November the same year, Illustrious, then a young vessel, was targeted by Soviet Tango-class submarine some 500 yards away, during a Royal Navy exercise off the Scottish coast.


In 2001 during an exercise in the Caribbean Sea, USS Enterprise CVN-65 had also been "sunk" by the German U-24 (Type 206 class) submarine. She fired a spread of four simulated torpedoes at the carrier...
In real circumstances, this would have resulted in a total loss.

And again the Enterprise's escort screen was successfully penetrated by U-28, also a Type 206 class submarine.




And in 2007, the Canadian submarine HMCS Corner Brook, a diesel-electric submarine of the Canadian navy, sneaked up on Illustrious during an exercise in the Atlantic. The submarine got close enough to "kill" the HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier.




And on March 2015, USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 of Carrier Strike Group 12, was also "sunk" by French Submarine SNA Saphir, in a training exercise off Florida.



It was initially reported in a blogspot of the French Navy and Defense Ministry. However, the blogspot was soon removed. Censoring evidence that US carriers are not unsinkable and almighty

https://www.rt.com/usa/238257-french-submarine-us-carrier/

[Cdnwolf]

I found my copy of 2nd Fleet....

I am trying to update it to year 2000 units and changes using some old Harpoon info I still have laying around.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I still have 6th Fleet in the original box somewhere in the garage. Never did play it with any of my friends. I think the old hex and counter games are probably ancient history to today's youngins'

[Cdnwolf]

I still have 6th Fleet in the original box somewhere in the garage. Never did play it with any of my friends. I think the old hex and counter games are probably ancient history to today's youngins'

Well with the Vassal system they put converted all the old boardgames to an online format so you can play them with people around the world. All you need is the original rules but you can find most of them in a pdf format online.

[Webstral]

Me too. Perhaps the Battle of the Norwegian Sea was a series of linked battles, kind of like those surrounding the campaign for Guadalcanal, albeit covering a shorter period of time. More likely, it was a multi-day battle involving multiple task forces, a-la the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

I like the way The War That Never Was handles the fighting in the Norwegian Sea. The battle moves through high intensity and medium intensity phases without ever really pausing. I suspect that the naval battle has two distinct high intensity phases. The
first starts with the main clash in the North Atlantic between NATO and the Red Banner Northern Fleet. After NATO wins, the Allies follow the next logical step and pound the Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula so that air power based on carriers and on land can focus on providing support for NATO forces counterattacking on the ground in Norway. The Soviets move the surviving aircraft and naval assets out while leaving a lot of wrecked hardware around to give NATO the impression that attacks on air bases are destroying a lot of combat platforms.

Once the Allies hit their stop line in Germany, theyd like to call it quits. The bulk of the surviving Atlantic Fleet assets retire for replenishment. During this period, the Soviets move back in and repair the runways and other facilities as best they can. They know NATO will be back. NATO does come back in June, and they get pasted.

[Adm.Lee]

I collected all of the Fleet series, but I think the one I never actually played was Sixth.

An idea for someday: put together enough groups that the games could be simultaneously played, perhaps with some OB modifications depending on team strategy.

For now, they all sit. I have 30-gallon plastic box that has nothing but WW3 games in it-- the Fleets, Air War (TSR/SPI), NATO (VG), Third World War series (GDW), Central Front series (SPI and 3W), and others.

[rcaf_777]

Their is a Hunt for the red October Board Game that I played in High School, I liked it quite a lot