Print Page | Close Window

Soviet Navy vs US Navy

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5764
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 10:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Soviet Navy vs US Navy
Posted By: Spartakus
Subject: Soviet Navy vs US Navy
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2005 at 14:50
Who survives?

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)



Replies:
Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 00:46
USN

-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 05:03
With no doubt USA Navy.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 21:37
Despite the fact that the US army gets more historical glory it seems, the navy has a much better performance record.  Most of the US's greatest victories are naval.  Russia....their naval tradition can be summe dup in one word, Tsushima.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2005 at 21:44
NS navy.
Carrier groups, plus its bigger.

Important question though, nukes ot no nukes? As both developed the potential to depoly nuclear tipped weapons for naval combat (mines, torpedos and missiles).
This would narrow the gap somewhat.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2005 at 23:06
Are you speaking of the present US Navy against the Soviet Navy, or the Soviet Navy's conterparts during the same time?

Russian military history is not my forte, but I am almost certain that during the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually had more in terms of air force, armor, and naval vessels. They were renowned to have the best submarine fleet in the world, despite the glaring failures of their craft from time to time. Surely that counts for something.


-------------


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2005 at 22:08
Hmm, i think the Soviets had more subs, but less surface vessels.
Also, i think it would depend on time, i mean, naval production accelerated under Reagan i think, which inturn forced changes amoungst the Soviets (though the Soviet introduction of the Kiev class heavy crusiers inturn helped do this).


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2005 at 12:58
I always wondered about this. Did Reagan's increase in defense spending allow him to create more offensive equipment like tanks, air craft, etc, or did it just create more focus on the construction of missiles?

-------------


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2005 at 16:23
There was a response to the USSR's deployment of the impressive (but perhaps overhyped considering how much trouble they've had) Kirov class (not Kiev, sorry, my bad) nuclear powered guided missile crusiers, which are the largest non-carrier surface warships in service, effectivly battlecruisers. So much so that the US recommisioned some WWII era Battleships before they plugged the gap. They also stepped up submarine production and exteded the carrier program.
But yeah, there was a big increase in military spending under Reagan, and i think ,any projects that were later either canceled or scaled, down began under his administration.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 11:14
USN - all the way!!!


Morty


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2005 at 14:36

We are talking about the period before the collapse of the Eastern Block,without nukes.



-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2005 at 14:05

re u Crazyy??????????//

The best Aircraft Fiighter of the world is SU27-2sm armour-Flying Tank

The best Submarine in Russia, and The biggest Battle ship PYOTR the 1st-Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier-in Russia,

I dont think so



-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2005 at 14:28
one word and acronym: moskit p270 = USS whatdya McCallit sunk by a fast gunboat from 60 miles, the US ship wouldn't even see the moskit on radar, it travels at 2.5 mach at a height of 60ft.

-------------


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2005 at 17:46

The best Submarine in Russia

 

Russian Submarine's were/are noisy pieces of junk and inferior to the smaller/faster/stealthier American sub fleet.  Throughout the Cold War US was able to track virtually the entire soviet Sub fleet, whereas the US subs were largely invisible to the Soviets, a fact former Russian admirals regularly admit.

 

The best Aircraft Fiighter of the world is SU27-2sm armour-Flying Tank

 

Su-27 may have been an impressive fighter but it didn't make it into service until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

1st-Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier-in Russia,

 

This piece of crap???



Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 14:53
Originally posted by Laelius

The best Submarine in Russia

 

Russian Submarine's were/are noisy pieces of junk and inferior to the smaller/faster/stealthier American sub fleet.  Throughout the Cold War US was able to track virtually the entire soviet Sub fleet, whereas the US subs were largely invisible to the Soviets, a fact former Russian admirals regularly admit.

 

The best Aircraft Fiighter of the world is SU27-2sm armour-Flying Tank

 

Su-27 may have been an impressive fighter but it didn't make it into service until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

1st-Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier-in Russia,

 

This piece of crap???

This guy's killing me.

But I supose the USN would win, cuz' Russia/USSR never had much of a navy. It had to fight the most effective war machine in history on land, unlike the Americans, who's "heroic" battles on land were against Mexican chicken-thieves, pickpockets and bandits.



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 15:21
Russia abandoned its serious carrier program, and opted for smaller support ones instead, fairly early on.
The few carriers they had were smaller, less numerous and had smaller airwings. Not much of a threat to the US.
The only Russian ship to make the US sweat in recent times were the Kirov class, but only two were made, and they were quickly shown to be unreliable, and the reactors that were supposed to give them an edge became a liability.

That said, i love their typhoons.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 18:43

One factoid, Soviet Alpha-class nuclear submarines were so fast that they could actually outrun American torpedos. Of course this doesn't mean that their submarines were superior, but they weren't junk either, that's for sure.

And a story;

One day in early 90s, I was on the schoolbus, going to school early in the morning. Being a nerd, I was reading something as usual. Our bus was on the road next to the Bosphorus strait. I don't know why, but I suddenly lifted my head from the book and looked out the window. I could see a lighthouse building and next to it a gray something just as tall. Just as I was thinking 'what the f**k is that' we moved past the corner I saw the HUGE aircraft carrier some 50m from the coast (Bosphorus is quite narrow). It had a curved bow deck. I could see some soldiers on the decks, but no aircraft. By this time all the students were at the windows waving at the soldiers.

It was the only full-scale Soviet carrier, named Admiral Kuznetsov. Although not as big as an American nuclear carrier, it was not small at all. Should be 200-300 m. After the collapse it had remained in Crimea, and as Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine, it had to leave the Black Sea and move to a Russian port. Of course all ships that leave the Black Sea must go through the Bosphorus some time. It was that time. 

Soviets started to build another one of that class, called Varyag, but later abandoned the project. It was recently bought by China and tugged through the Bosphorus amid much consideration of the safety of that operation.  

P.S. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/ - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/  

It is 302m indeed.



-------------


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2005 at 18:44

This guy's killing me.

But I supose the USN would win, cuz' Russia/USSR never had much of a navy. It had to fight the most effective war machine in history on land, unlike the Americans, who's "heroic" battles on land were against Mexican chicken-thieves, pickpockets and bandits.


I didn't know the Soviets fought the Mongols...

 

You sir require a course in logic as your entire argument is irrelevent to the points of which I raised.  A child could have put together a better argument you twit.  Besides US troops killed plenty of Russians during their occupation .



Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 06:07
Originally posted by Laelius

This guy's killing me.

But I supose the USN would win, cuz' Russia/USSR never had much of a navy. It had to fight the most effective war machine in history on land, unlike the Americans, who's "heroic" battles on land were against Mexican chicken-thieves, pickpockets and bandits.


I didn't know the Soviets fought the Mongols...

 

...Besides US troops killed plenty of Russians during their occupation .

What the hell???

You didn't get my point. I was trying to be funny, but in vain it seems. But what was that about Americans killing Russians?

P.S. The Wermacht was the most efficient war machine in human history until 1944, but the Russians fought the Mongols as well. One couldn't deny the fact that for a period of 69 years the equasion Russia=USSR was fofilled.



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 09:08
The Kuznetsov was a sort of comprimise, the Soviets were planning a serious big nuclear carrier, btu it got scrapped. It maybe 300 metres long, but its half the weight of some of the American ships and has a smaller airwing. I guess the Russians call it an aviation cruiser for a reason.

-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 16:05
Read my post more carefully,  there was definitely a deliberate effort at irony.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com