Cold War Naval Battle - Who Would Win?

[Freecloud]

While WW2 was the last time the world had a giant naval conflict, the Cold War still followed...along with lots of advancements to naval technology.  From a "what-if" point-of-view, I wondered who would win - the USN vs the Soviet Navy - if the two countries faced each other in a way akin to the IJN vs the USN during WW2. 

 

 

Here are two years that I thought would make it easier to determine a victor:

 

-Early 1960s - What if the Cuban Missile Crisis failed and the countries engaged themselves in naval battle?

 

-1991 - What if the fall of the Soviet Union ended with a bang and both countries go to naval conflict?

 

 

For the years, I was curious on who would probably win based on the naval technology at the time between both groups. 

[Captain_Ernst_Lindemann]

That's very interesting but I cant say who would win it depends on how much Experience the crew has and what type of ships they are battling with

[ClockworkSpectre]

Cuban missile crisis:  No winner, probably would have resulted in nukes flying. 

1991:  The soviets at that point (assuming it didn't go beyond conventional warfare) would probably have been crushed.  Purely because they economically could not maintain the fight. 

 

At least that's how I see the two scenarios. 

[_Sarcasticat_]

Cuban Missle Crisis:

 

Cold War:

Russia isn't exactly known for its Navy. America is. We have more ships and firepower and a lot more buget to make them, versus Russia. We would crush them hard.

[blurr91]

That depends on what "winning" means.

 

NATO would win in an all out naval battle.  But that's not the point.  Soviet navy was built to deny NATO the lifeline between Europe and North America.  If it could do that, then it would have won, no matter the cost.  If it couldn't, then it didn't matter how many ships NATO lost, NATO won.

[Im_The_Seeker2]

There actually was a naval "conflict" during the Cuban Missile Crisis - U.S. destroyers dropped practice depth charges on a Soviet diesel sub, which was armed with a nuclear torpedo.  2/3 of the commanding officers on the sub argued in favor of launching the torpedo - a unanimous vote was required for launch.

[blurr91]

There actually was a naval "conflict" during the Cuban Missile Crisis - U.S. destroyers dropped practice depth charges on a Soviet diesel sub, which was armed with a nuclear torpedo.  2/3 of the commanding officers on the sub argued in favor of launching the torpedo - a unanimous vote was required for launch.

 

Glad that cooler heads prevailed.  I think the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest this planet has ever come to a full blown nuclear war.

[hipcanuck]

The late 70's to early 80's would have probably been the USSR's best chance at a win for conventional war. While their surface fleet would have been easily negated on its own an organized attack from surface, subs and long range land based bombers had the potential to shut down the Nato lifeline from North America to Europe. US task forces didnt have enough anti missile defence to protect itself for a prolonged daily onslaught of missles from bombers, subs and surface ships. While the Soviet surface combatants, assuming they could get past US nuke subs around Iceland, likely would have been one shot missions with carrier based planes taking them out. Sub's would have been a serious threat as there were so many. The land based bombers could have done daily missions against the shipping lanes once the Scandanavian air forces had been wiped out by the short and medium range attack planes. It would be these daily missions of 20+ bombers launching 40+ missiles that would wear down the fleet, launched from well beyond the US cap to preserve their planes.

[NutrientibusMeaGallus]

 In the 70's/80's, we found out after the cold war, that a lot of their projected military might was actually smoke and mirrors. They hid the fact that their military was a lot smaller than the US thought it was.

[anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT]

If neither side deployed strategic nuclear missiles and went MAD, if neither side began a war bankrupt.

 

In the 1960s the US would be a clear winner. Submarines ruled the waves, carriers rule the skies. Early Cold War soviet sub designs were very noisy, and supposedly easy to track, while they had relatively poor sonar. Soviets lacked aircraft carriers and the ability to project surface fleets.

 

In 1991, it would be more nuanced. later Soviet sub designs were much more complex adversaries, while Soviet anti-ship missile designs offered a fair counter to USN carriers and fleet projection. However, even in a short war, the USN had more allies, and more ships, while in a long war, the Soviet Union did not have the financial resources to sustain losses.

[Jjtt0105]

United States

 

[Doc_Skinner]

Lots and lots of people tried to game it out:

 

[Talwyn224]

Lots and lots of people tried to game it out:

 

 

Oh how I loved that game and the days in which me and a couple of friends would fire up the old PC and play it are very fond memories.

Yes, Harpoon was an excellent simulator and you could get your answer there as to who may have had the winning edge.

[ButtonsPushed]

1960's - USA, Kruschev bluffed and Kennedy called him on it. 

 

1970's-present - USA/ALLIES or no one. All out war would be a come as you are party, given the technology of weapons and their delivery systems (i.e. aircraft, ships, subs, etc..) neither side would be able to produce enough to keep up with the losses/expenditures. The lethallity of modern weapon systems would cause such damage in terms of casualties and to economies that the danger will be that neither side will feel they can back down, and God forbid, one side thinks they can't win and have nothing to lose. That's when we find out if MAD really works as intended.

[Skpstr]

 

Glad that cooler heads prevailed.  I think the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest this planet has ever come to a full blown nuclear war.

 

Apparently there were some "oops" that came even closer, that we only found out about recently, but I dunno if those count lol.

 

 

[Matthewq4b]

This is an easy one . The U.S. in a conventional war.  What won WWII in the Pacific for the U.S , The ability to project air superiority.  The USSR had no naval air to speak of and still does not.

The U.S would have mopped the floor with the Soviets.

 

 

[WideloadViking]

Lots and lots of people tried to game it out:

 

 

I still play this game on almost a weekly basis...

[WideloadViking]

 

Glad that cooler heads prevailed.  I think the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest this planet has ever come to a full blown nuclear war.

 

According to these guys, it was not the closest.  Not even close as they decided not to move the Clock.

 

thebulletin.org/timeline

[Matthewq4b]

 

According to these guys, it was not the closest.  Not even close as they decided not to move the Clock.

 

thebulletin.org/timeline

 

 

The closest we came was in 1983. When the Russians shot down KAL 007 a Civilian 747 in the sea of Japan in international waters.  The soviet command were convinced that it was B52 or a disguised 747 as the prelude to an attack on the USSR, the US had been doing surveillance flights and maneuvers in the area, and the Russians were as twitchy as a squirrel on a caffeine high at the time.   The USSR was aware of the F117 and were absolutely terrified of it as they had NO way to track them and they could fly with impunity over the USSR they had no counter to the F117 at the time.

 

 

The only thing that stopped all out war was a call from Washington to the Kremlin asking them why they had just shot down a civilian airliner in the sea for Japan as the Russians were prepping for an all out attack and were readying to launch until that call was made..

From that point on US Soviet relations went south fast with the U.S cutting off ALL diplomatic ties and refused all Soviet flights in to the U.S including those carrying Diplomats to the UN in New York and the stopping all Grain shipments to the USSR that was relied on to help feed the Soviet people. It was also at this point that the U.S really ramped up the plan of bankrupting of the Soviets by accelerating the arms race even further, something the USSR had no hope of keeping up to, they did try but it was this effort to try to keep up to U.S military technology that ultimately led to the fall of the USSR. 

 

 

 

 

[Mordalen]

When AEGIS & VLS came on-line in the late 1980's it was a real game changer in favor of the US, in the area of anti-ship missile defense. Also the USN by then had added anti-ship missiles to its ships. One AEGIS cruiser with a full AA load-out could counter a mass SSM attack with 128 SM2 missiles, & counter punch with its own 8 Harpoons.

 

The wild card to me is the Russian Alpha attack subs: could they cripple the US fleet? There were a LOT of them.

[JohnnyThund3rs]

An interesting novel to read which covers a fairly extensive naval campaign is Clancy's Red Storm Rising.  It's not an amazing novel but it's worth a read.

 

My opinion is that the US Navy had the USSR Navy beat almost the entire Cold War.  Not that it was a given, I just think US technology would've given Murica the upper hand by the end.  Conventional war = eventual US win.  Nuke war = no one wins, no point in debating it much.  

I saw a documentary which interviewed an officer (perhaps the captain) of the Foxtrot sub which had made the trek all the way from the Kola.  I recall him saying that they were, crew-wise, in pretty horrible shape by the time they'd arrived in the Bahamas area only to be depth charged and nearly forced to launch a nuke.  I do love when documentaries cover the Russian end of thing and I have a lot of respect for naval warriors of both sides of this most interesting period of history.  It's a small miracle we're all here to talk about it.

 

[RightYouAreKen]

+1 to Red Storm Rising.  Classic Clancy, and a very well thought through "what if" WWIII book.

 

Another interesting read that relates to this discussion is "Blind Man's Bluff", which details the very active submarine espionage and sub vs sub encounters throughout the cold war.  I read it last year and it was fascinating.

 

 

[Eisennagel]

 

If the battle was conventional but its likely if the clash occurred, it would quickly escalate to the use of nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes.  

 

A lot of these Soviet warships carried nukes, and in the advent they lose communication with the Motherland or come under attack, they are very inclined to start nuking.

 

There will simply be no winner then.  Just survivors facing a nuclear winter.

[RightYouAreKen]

 

If the battle was conventional but its likely if the clash occurred, it would quickly escalate to the use of nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes.  

 

A lot of these Soviet warships carried nukes, and in the advent they lose communication with the Motherland or come under attack, they are very inclined to start nuking.

 

There will simply be no winner then.  Just survivors facing a nuclear winter.

 

The winners:  

[JohnnyThund3rs]

Another interesting read that relates to this discussion is "Blind Man's Bluff", which details the very active submarine espionage and sub vs sub encounters throughout the cold war.  I read it last year and it was fascinating.

 

 

+1 I bought this book, ripped through it, and passed it on to a colleague