Shipbucket

I don't know nearly so much about the Cold War era navies as I do about WWII and earlier. My question is if the Cold War turned into a non nuclear world war what would the naval side of it look like?

I assume it would have been primarily soviet attack subs attacking convoys from the Americas to Eurasia so what type of ships would NATO have built to counter them? Would America just build a bunch of attack subs or would they have built hunter killer groups with DD/DE/FF and CVA/CVE or would they have built something else?

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

I think it would be a combo of all of the above. Small and cheap vessels like FFs and DEs would be used to protect convoys while more advanced and bigger ASW vessels like DDs would go in hunter killer groups. There would also be hunter killer subs that would hunt Soviet subs. Carriers would support, but were much too vulnerable to be hunter killers. Older WWII relics like the Essex and Midway classes would probably be counted as expendable enough to join in on the hunt. A surface engagement would be pretty one sided, as American carriers with support of missile strikes from cruisers would reduce the Soviet surface fleet. All of this depends on the stages of the Cold War, early, mid or late.

Well, answering that question creates a small problem. WW3 simply would be nuclear. Soviets expected it to be such from the day one, and on the NATO side thought that it could be non-nuclear was basically wishful thinking.
And even if either USSR or USA would initially abstain from using WMDs, France would use them (tactical initially) on the day when the front line would reach their own soil - and if the war would go as planned for Soviets, then it would happen on D+15 (early 1980s plans called for reaching Bay of Biscay on D+30 and Spanish border on D+35).

But that's not the answer You wanted.
Still, even assuming that somehow it would remain non-nuclear, thing to consider is that NATO countries maintained only limited very war stocks - for between 7 (Denmark, Canada), 14 (UK, Italy) to 28-30 days (USA, France, West Germany, Netherlands). So although materiel production would start immediately, it's rather unlikely - considering the level of complication of modern (even if by modern we mean 1970s-1980s) technology that this war could last too long (and either someone would push the button or one or both sides would run out of supplies - or perhaps they would come to their senses and start negotiating) - especially long enough to build fresh new ships.

There is a scenario in the internet about a Third World War, in 1980's which I read and liked it very much. Both with photos and text explains facts in about 20 pages. Unfortunately I do not remember the web page.

Anyway, USA would use every available ship (even the Iowa battleships), the P6M (if they built it) would be very useful both as a USN bomber and other missions (ASW with electronics of S-3 Viking,ASuW with up to 12 Harpoon or 18 Penguin, attacking of USSR with Tomahawks etc). Some CVs would replace a VF wing with a VS wing to have two VS on board with S-3 Viking, while Tomcat would use their Phoenix missiles. Also I am sure that Maritime Patrol variant of large commercial planes would appeared, such as DC-10MPA to supplement P-3 Orion fleet. A USN nuclear attack variant of Lafayette class or other could be also built, which would try to sink USSR surface units together with submarines. And do not forget other NATO countries as well and both US/USSR satellite counties which also would enter the war.

Generally what USA would built/have for a War scenario depends on the period of Cold War you refer.

Norway have an example of on cheep Navy...uhm. yeah:

subs:
The main problem with Soviet subs is their propellers. they wasn't of an perfect design, so they mad a lot of sound when they was moving fast, to prevent detecting they had to drive a tad slow.

USA have a couple of large stockpile of equipment like helicopters, armored cars etc. in Norway, but also Ammo. how big that stockpile is, is the big question. but some says it's equipment for an armored and infantry force for around 150 000 to 300 000 men.

Norway had strategical placed stockpile, every where in Norway. Norway build small bunkers stockpiled with ammunition and weapons, enough to support an small army. Norway had also all bridges in North build with in build explosive chambers, for easy demolition of all bridges. But the biggest defense line Norway had was an area up in Norway where there was an passage every military unit had to go trough, in that defensive position there was build bunkers over the entire area. cannons and minefield. to defend Norway had up to 300 000 men (with all reserve). how long Norway can hold it's line is an question. but Norway defense says that Norway shall put break on any soviet Army in under 24 hours after 24 hours an combined Norwegian-Nato-US forces shall counter.

but what I know is that when Norway supported in airstrike in Libya (where many country's emptied it's ammunition when it come to bombs). Norway barely emptied on of it's old stockpile from one of many bases Norway was shutting down.

but Norway have also an very excellent surveillance radars. that are still looking far in Russia. (you can think how much the soviet liked that!)

My own personal view is they would have fought with what they had at the time. There would have been no time to build new ships as the war would have more than likely been of short duration.
Tom Clancey's Red storm rising is about how I envisaged the naval war to be fought. Would it have gone nuclear in the end ? Who knows. And if it went bang from the start the question is largely irrelevent.

I'm a strong believer the threat of a MAD war would have prevented an all out nuclear exchange, and like Bombhead I believe any war would be shorter that the world wars gone, to short to build let alone design new equipment. A limited tactical nuclear exchange across Europe maybe. I would hate to gues the number of tactical nuke in Europe the British army in Germany had access to over 400 weapons alone.

As for naval confrontations NATO had the large us carrier groups and the European navy's geared for ASW roles, against the soviets with there long range supersonic carrier killing missiles I thing a naval confrontation wouldn't be as one sided as people think, the soviet submarine forces could do considerable damage even if there subs were noisier.

I think it depends on when it happens. 1950-60 NATO win but long war upto a year. 1960-70 biggest risk of all out nuclear exchange or short war with tactical exchange still a NATO win, 1970-80 stalemate. Short tactical exchange short ground war and forced to peace table.

The assumption is always that a war will be over inside of a couple of weeks and more often than not it goes on for years, plenty of time for smaller ships to be built en masse and usually enough time for new classes of capitol ships to come online.

So far I have read a lot of information here that I did not know, but I am skeptical about comments that the two sides would fight for a month until they run out of supplies and then sign a peace treaty, or that there would be a decisive engagement that ended the war before new ships could be built.

Then again I am the uninformed person who posed the hypothetical question. Am I wrong to assume the war would have lasted a long time?

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

I think it's more of a case in the way war has evolved as to how long a war will last,

Pre Korean War the leaders of either side were pretty safe and/or it was considered not gentlemanly to target them, this changed a bit at the close of WW2 I would not like to think what the Russians would have done to Hitler had he not topped himself. The only way to get to these leaders was long drawn out campaigns to get close enough. And thus end the war.

After the Korean War tactics and indeed the technology began to change ( Vietnam aside) the leaders, command and control, communications and power became the primary targets using long range precision weapons, leaders become vulnerable quicker, the soviet or NATO leaders would be targets from the start thus shortening any future war. Sides will only fight whilst being led to do so.

Also public opinion to war changed considerable after Korea forcing governments to peace tables, eventually a country's own people turn against it's government to end the war.

I don't think there would be another long drawn out world war but any large scale conflict will result in many separate civil wars raging for far longer after the main conflict had ended.

Hi all,

The way I'd understood it was the the available equipment in Western Europe during that period simply wasn't sufficient to stop a general offensive by Warsaw Pact forces - but that was never the purpose. As I'd understood it, the purpose, if the Warsaw Pact forces did go on the offensive, was to slow it down enough to give the nuclear weapons a good target and vaporise as much as possible while NATO forces concentrated everything that they had left into the relevant areas. So while there's scope for transatlantic convoys, by they time they get to where the fighting is (unless, that is, the fight somehow starts on mainland US, somehow) it's probably mostly over already.

Is that a grossly misunderstood / simplified view of things?

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695