Black Sea Naval Actions

[Raellus]

I can't find any mention, at least not in the ref. manual's v1 history, of any naval actions on the Black Sea. The closest the v1 history comes is the Greek navy's attack on the Turkey-bound supply convoy on its way to Izmir by way of the Aegean, but that's on the other side of the Bosporus.

I reckon that there must have been some fighting between the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and the Turkish navy, but I'm not aware of any mentioned in canon. Am I missing something somewhere

The Bulgarian and Romanian navies were tiny, but there probably would have been naval skirmishes, at least, between them during the first phase of fighting in Romania (12/20/1996- late summer, 1997). I suppose it's entirely possible that the Romanian navy, such as it was, was completely destroyed at anchor by Soviet Black Sea Fleet forces, and/or the Soviet Air Force. I can see why this might not have earned a mention in canon (given the insignificance of the Romanian navy), but it doesn't seem likely that Turkey/NATO would cede freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to the Soviets. Something's not adding up.

In a related current events story,

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33787/air-force-reveals-b-1bs-were-practicing-decapitating-russias-black-sea-fleet-last-week

-

[Targan]

The use of nukes over open waters might have been a bit more extensive or enthusiastic than nuking land targets. The Black Sea is big enough that the Soviets might have been happy enough to tac nuke any decent-sized enemy naval force it could identify.

[Legbreaker]

You've also got quite a choke point to navigate to get into the Black Sea. Sure you've got allied control of that, but just a couple of subs lurking at the eastern end, plus a determined sea mining effort would utterly scuttle any attempts to force your way in. Add to that the small issue of not actually controlling the Mediterranean end (Greece and Italy are very likely to have something to say about that little detail) and trying to send a decent sized fleet into the Black Sea becomes more trouble than it's worth. Even a single surface combatant is very unlikely to have much fun (and without supporting vessels will soon be on the bottom anyway).
A sub might get through, but again, you've got active PACT naval defence forces watching for something just like that.

As for the Romanians, well, they're much more a defensive force with very limited offensive capability. It's highly likely they'd be quickly eliminated but not before giving the Soviets a bloody nose. Interesting to note that they only had one Kilo class sub delivered in 1986. http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11302.html

[Raellus]

Black Sea What I Mean

If a non-Turkey NATO nation tried to force it's way from the Med into the Black Sea, it would probably be mentioned in canon.

The v1 history makes numerous mentions of Soviet and Bulgarian ground operations against Turkey, but nothing of naval actions. I'm not intimately familiar with all of the canon, so I wanted to ask the experts out there if it might have been mentioned in an another source.

Even if not, I figure that's most likely a case of omission on the writers' part than an indication that naval actions between Soviet Black Sea Fleet and the Turkish navy didn't occur at all. They probably thought most T2k refs/players didn't care if the Soviet and Turkish navies clashed once or twice in the Black Sea.

I suppose Targan could be right, though. Perhaps the Soviets just nuked the Turkish navy in the Black Sea. They nuked them on land, and besides Turkey, it was just SSRs all around so, why not

As for the RNF, Romania's budget problems in the late '80s, I'm not sure that they could afford to put naval ships to sea very often or for very long. In my T2kU, Soviet BSF naval aviation Shturmovik squadrons sank most of the tiny Romanian navy at anchor. A Red Fleet Kilo class diesel submarine sank the lone RN frigate that managed to sortie.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, most of the canon materials focuses on ground forces rather than air and sea power - which makes sense anyway as ships and aircraft are both very resource hungry (just the amount of fuel they burn is horrendous!).

It's no surprise there's nothing mentioned about an attempt to break into the Black Sea - just the brief assessment I made in my previous post would be enough for even the most offensive minded commander to scrub the whole idea as suicidal. It'd be on par with dropping paratroops into Berlin in 1942 and expecting them to survive more than a day!

This of course raises the small question of what happened to the Soviet Black fleet My thoughts are taken out by airstrikes, nukes and maybe subs (probably Turkish assets) with the remainder relegated to rusting wharf queens due to lack of fuel, ammunition, crew and spare parts (more or less what happened IRL to the Soviet Navy post USSR break up).

[Raellus]

Yes, most of the canon materials focuses on ground forces rather than air and sea power - which makes sense anyway as ships and aircraft are both very resource hungry (just the amount of fuel they burn is horrendous!).

You're right, but there brief descriptions of major naval engagements off Norway and the Kola Peninsula, and in the Aegean (the Greeks taking out a NATO fast convoy on its way to Turkey with supplies) so I don't know what to think about why no mention was made of naval warfare on the Black Sea.

It's no surprise there's nothing mentioned about an attempt to break into the Black Sea - just the brief assessment I made in my previous post would be enough for even the most offensive minded commander to scrub the whole idea as suicidal. It'd be on par with dropping paratroops into Berlin in 1942 and expecting them to survive more than a day!

You're so right that I doubt anyone tried!

This of course raises the small question of what happened to the Soviet Black fleet My thoughts are taken out by airstrikes, nukes and maybe subs (probably Turkish assets) with the remainder relegated to rusting wharf queens due to lack of fuel, ammunition, crew and spare parts (more or less what happened IRL to the Soviet Navy post USSR break up).

I think you're right. Did you read that article I posted the link to about B-1Bs training to take out the Black Sea fleet just last month Bonkers!

[Legbreaker]

Did you read that article I posted the link to about B-1Bs training to take out the Black Sea fleet just last month. Bonkers!

I read almost everything.
Also, fix the damn thread title will you It's driving me mad!

[Raellus]

Brian Playing Tricks on Me

I read almost everything.

That's not a yes.

Also, fix the damn thread title will you It's driving me mad!

Oh, man! Thanks for catching that. I looked at it a bunch of times but didn't notice the mistake. My brain kept filling in the blank for me so I saw "Black" instead of "Back". Trippy!

-

[Raellus]

Good Eye

Someone else found this and pointed it out to me. From Mediterranean Cruise:

THE WAR

"As a member of NATO, Turkey had no objections to going
to war against its traditional enemy, the Soviets (the name
changed, but the hatred remained). The fact that the Greeks
were opposed to the war only made it that much more attractive
to the Turks. The whole affair was a formula for disaster.
Turkey's role in the war was limited at first. A few air strikes
against Soviet shipping in the Black Sea, and a naval sortie or
two into the same area-they always ended in disaster for the
Turkish forces, but the fact that they were striking at Soviets
was a pleasant thought to most Turks." (p. 35)

This gives me a little something to work with, so I'll take it.

[Southernap]

The rea life doctrine seems to say no ops in the Black Sea

So in real life, from what I had read the US Navy wasn't interested until very late into the 1980s about going into Black Sea with anything. The transit thru the Dardanelles is very tight and restrictive water way, see this video of a tanker doing it, sped up footage. Note you can see this video of a submarine, probably a Type 209 in transit on the surface. Can you really imagine a 688 hull (LA class) or a 637 hull (Sturgeon class) trying to transit thru the area They would have to surface and with potentially hostile forces along the shoreline with ATGMs or even land based AScMs, if not shore based artillery. Its dangerous and as the engagements off Yemen in the last decade have shown its dangerous to have a ship in range of shore based AScMs. Let alone minefields from either the Turks or the Greeks (or both) in the approaches to the straits

In addition if you look up how the Turkish Navy is arranged from 1952 thru to even now. They are primarily aimed at their classic enemies of the Greeks and the Arabs on the Eastern Med. So most of their basing is in the Aegean and Eastern Med. There wasn't a feeling that anything in the Black Sea would last longer than an ice cube in the Sahara at high noon in the summer.

That said, the US Navy did do a FON into the Black Sea in 1988. Here is some videos of the Russian/Soviet response to that:
Video 1
Video 2

From most of the Eastern Med is very hard to navigate large naval forces and it isn't very deep water in most locations (averages about 5k ft/1.5km; with the deepest is about 16k ft/4.8km near the waters off Greece) for reference the RMS Titanic is about 12.5k Ft/3.8km down in the Atlantic. From what I have read, the NATO and USN doctrine from the late 70s thru to the 80s; was to allow for the Soviet Black Sea Fleet sortie. Allow for Greece and Turkey fight in and around the Aegean using missile boats and their submarines to whittle down forces. After which what remained would be engaged by the US 6th Fleet, Italian and French Naval Forces arranged in various carrier battle groups (Around the Clemenceau, or CdG in French; and the Garibaldi in Italy). Using Italian and French land based air cover to help protect the fleet and cover the convoys operating in the Med. All while trying to contain the expect Soviet breakout from the Med into either the Indian Ocean or into the Atlantic.

All of which again, means why go into the Black Sea and the tight maneuvering areas of the Aegean, when you have more room even in the Eastern Med, with any sort of fleet

Finally, remember that the Crimea was where the Soviets had their Black Seas fleet based Naval Aviation units that included long range bombers, such as the Tu-16s, Tu-22s, Tu-22Ms, Tu-95s. In addition to whatever was assigned to the PVO for strike and fighter aircraft. So honestly, why put any surface forces at risk to these missile carrying units that could maximize their load outs and their cycle times (launch, weapons release, recovery) from detection to missile firing

[mpipes]

My Campaign History:

In late February 1998, a NATO carrier and amphibious group that includes the USS Kennedy, USS Truman, HMS Invincible, USS Kearsarge (configured as a sea control ship with 16 AV-8Bs and 8 AH-1Ws), Pr-ncipe de Asturias, Foch, USS New Jersey, USS Salem, and HMS Belfast enter the Black Sea to execute Operation Black Devil. In conjunction with remaining Ukrainian, Romanian, and Turkish airpower, the NATO force essentially destroys the Black Sea Fleet, hunting down and sinking most of the remaining surface ships and putting the remaining naval bases out of action. Truman suffers serious damage, striking a mine, and HMS Invincible is torpedoed by a Tango, suffering significant hull damage requiring at least ten weeks in dry dock to repair. Belfast suffers a missile hit, causing damage to her upper works, and Salem suffers minor damage from three hits from 150mm gun rounds. Several other ships are damaged as well. Ukraine launches a ground offensive at the same time into Crimea, but it is unable to make much headway against stubborn Soviet resistance.

[Raellus]

Black Sea = Backwater

@Southernap: Thanks for the info, insight, and resources.

Based on the preponderance of the evidence, it looks like Med Cruise got it right.

I never envisioned a NATO foray into the Black Sea, nor a Red Fleet sortie out of it. In either case, I think the interloper would get their hat handed to them or, even if they succeeded, strategically, it wouldn't be worth the cost in losses.

I think it's most plausible that Turkey and the Soviets spar a bit at sea after Turkey's invasion of Bulgarian Thrace on Christmas Day, 1996, resulting in limited naval engagements in which the Soviets come out on top.

The Greeks declare war on Turkey in January '97. As you pointed out, the pre-war Turkish navy was more oriented towards and focused on the Med. That's where their focus would return, and remain, after fighting breaks out on Cyprus.

I think the NATO of T2k would essentially cede the Black Sea to the WTO and focus on regaining control of the Med (from the Italian and Greek navies).

[Legbreaker]

Yes there's not much point in NATO trying to take the Black Sea. I personally can't see any great advantage in doing so, but there's a whole lot of disadvantages. Sure it'd be nice to control it, but the cost...

[Raellus]

Another Clue

There's another reference in canon that implies Soviet dominance of the Black Sea by

"The best Soviet troops had been shipped further south to Bulgaria and by May had managed to halt the Turkish drive." (emphasis added)

-v1 ref's manual, p. 25

Technically, one can "ship" things by land or by air, but I take this word to signify its more traditional meaning of "move by sea". Since the Romanian army hadn't collapsed yet- that wouldn't happen until September- the most logical way for those Soviet troops to have gotten to Bulgaria is by sea. This would strongly suggest that the Turkish and Romanian naval presence in the Black Sea had been eliminated by May, 1997.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It's worth noting that this time period is also when the Soviets were experimenting with ekranoplans (chiefly on the Caspian Sea), so it would seem the Soviets were paying a lot of attention to maritime actions in that part of the world.
Given that situation along with the lack of significant mentions in canon. I think you have a lot of leeway for the Black Sea area.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Soviet Minister of Defence, Dmitriy Ustinov, authorised a programme of 120 Orlyonok-class ekranoplans to be built for deployment primarily on the Black Sea and Baltic Sea. The number was later reduced to approximately 20-30 but when he died in 1985, the project was cancelled with only a few ekranoplans of various classes having been completed.