rickusn“The ten Didos were not far short of being a waste of space and only under the most favorable of circumstances could they be expected to stand up against a Sverdlov,…”
LOL Yes Im well aware of those ships wouldnt be a match for the Sverdlov’s I listed them for comparison to the USN cruiser inventory which included a similar ship still in service although five had been in service a year earlier just as had 12 6″ light cruisers but quickly reduced to one also.
Even the 8″ gunned cruisers were reduced from 16 to 6 in the late 1940s although 3 new construction were commissioned. along with two new 6″ gunned AAW cruisers.
Sorry for any misunderstanding
My point is on paper and compared to the USN the Royal Navy order of battle doesnt appear at first glance to be all that bad.
And again the Sverdlovs were a response to the RN/USN cruiser and to be sure the RN did look for a new design to deal better with the perceived Sverdlov threat.
But according to Conways those ships would not have been in service until around 1960 and maybe more important that construction was never “seriously planned”.
The USN OTOH apears to never have paid much attention to the Sverdlov class or surface combatant vs surface combatant warfare in general.
As they slowly cut their cruiser force while at the same time optomising those that remained for AAW and mostly looking at the remaing guns more as fire support assets than any other use..
Being nearly totally fixated on AAW missile systems although to be sure they also had a secondary Anti-ship capability.
And in fact guns were “little more than an after thought.”
The Long Beach was originally designed w/o guns as were the Albany class missile cruiser conversions.
rickusn“The issue for the RN is the appalling state of its cruiser force.”
“and for the most part those ships that did survive would have been unable to stand up to the new Soviet light cruisers.”
Hmmm none of the below cruisers are a match for the Sverdlovs is your contention.
I quess Im (was?) looking at things from a bit of a different perspective:
The RN had 18 cruisers in-commission on July, 1 1950 maybe 19.
The USN by contrast had only 13: 9 8″ gunned Heavy Cruisers, 1 6″Light Cruiser, 2 6″-gunned AAW cruisers and 1 5″-gunned AAW
In-service of 7/1/ 1950. Others in reserve.:
Fifteen 6″ gunned and three(maybe four) 5.25″ gunned AA warships were in-commission. (K) Denotes they served in Korea.:
Southampton Class(Some call them the Town Class )
Birmingham(K)
Sheffield
Glasgow
Newcastle(K)
Gloucester Class
Liverpool
Edinburgh Class
Belfast(K)
Fiji Class (Colony)
Bermuda
Gambia
Jamaica(K)
Kenya(K)
Mauritious
Nigeria
Ceylon Class
Ceylon(K)
Swiftsure Class
Swiftsure
Superb
All of the above were or were variations of the first listed Southampton “Treaty” cruisers.
Dido Class (AAW)
Phoebe
Euralys
Cleopatra
Maybe:
Bellona Class
Diadem (Paid-Off in 1950 but I dont have exact date.)
In addition the RN had 11 carriers in-commission, 1 battleship and approx 100 Destroyers/frigates.
The USN had 15 carriers in-service 3 Midway class, 4 Essex class large fleet carriers, 3 light carriers and four escort carriers.
Plus 1 battleship and approx 150 destroyers/destroyer escorts.
From looking at just the #s the Royal Navy is little inferior numbers wise to the USN at this time.
But given that the USN is a much larger nation would we not expect this?
Although as you seem to indicate the quality of some these ships may have been somewhat suspect and in some instances are older.
But again the RN has more cruisers.
The USN has historically been plagued with the so-called “cruiser gap”.
In 1975 most of the DLGs were redesignated a CG to close a similarly viewed gap with the USSR.
rickusnAlso I replied to a blog on the article I posted above.:
“We often hear about how the US relies on other NATO nations for ASW in the surface fleet.”
I dont remember hearing that.
I do remember hearing that the USN relies on NATO for Mine Warfare.
Although this was a task that NATO nations could more easilly undertake and was far more important to them than the USN in any event.
This fact is often overlooked.
Plus those nations were to provide convoy escorts but the UK virtually abandoned this effort in the 1960s and the other nations were always limited in any event, the Netherlands had plans to provide as many as 28 escorts but this was never realized and now have reduced to six!!!!!!!!!
The USN never really was serious about convoy escort at all.
But this does not mean they werent or arent serious about ASW given the 116 frigates they built along with the 30 Spruances not to mnetion the early FRAM I/II programs among other initiatives such as dedicated CVS groupos and a large number of long-range,duration P-3 aircraft, multi purpose AAW/ASW escorts, early transition to medium sized ASW helos vice smaller on surface combatants among other initiatives.
To be sure after the Cold-War the immediacy of the submarine threat virtually went away overnight.
I just did a study of UK vs US on the Post-Cold War drawdown and the percentage of manpower compared to total population. They are both very similar.
It is true the US spends alot more money but doubtful we get more value.
Also the USN had 12 CSGs and 12 ESG to provide escorts among other tasks this requires nominally a ratio of 10 escorts per carrier to support.
Leading to a total of 120 escorts the USN has been hovering around 100 abit under sometimes and abit over sometimes during this decade.
The UK with nominally 2 CSG and 2 ESG equivilants would/should require only 20 escorts.
Why would they need a higher ratio than the USN?
The USN has at least as many committments to cover and often require more ships to support them.
Plus the distance the RN must travel to the standing committments are often much shorter.
So while I want the Royal Navy to be well funded and have as many ships as they can get it appears to me that some of the issues in particular and specifically escort #s may be a bit overblown.
I didnt always feel this way but after some in-depth study over the years the above is the short version of the conclusions Ive drawn.
To be sure the Royal Navy would come up very shorhanded if a large # of convoy escorts were needed but then this ahs been the case since the late 1950’s in any event for the RN, USN and NATO.
400 approx were required the USN was to supply (all numbers approx) 210 and the RN 70, France 40, Netherlands 20, Canada 20, Germany 12, Spain 12, Norway 4, Belgium 4, Denmark 4, Portugal 4.
With Frances withdrawal from NATO combined with the fact that most of the USN requirement would only be available on mobilization of the vast # of ships in reserve and UK/RN economic/funding challenges nearly 3/4 of the requirement was wishful thinking from the get go.
Not to mention the USN also had its own funding issues.
Cost escalations have plagued the USN for nearly 60 years not to mention so many costly “get-well” programs for already in-service but faulty and already expensive weapons, systems and ships.
rickusn“54 to 25”
Im not sure about this 54 #. Unless their county four Broadsword class launched but not yet in service.
If you do that you have to add thw two launched Type 45s to the 25 # to be consistent.
I count:
1 Bristol(this ship was only nominally useful and had been adapted as a training ship with spaces for supporting 100 cadets added 1987 and decommissioned in 1991)
12 Type 42
8 Type 22
6 Amazon
21 Leander(one of which was the Juno., navigation training ship) with all important sensors, weapons and helo removed)
2 Rothesay
Total 50
And this is why you always have to be careful with raw #s with no supporting clarification.
As people use them to distort reality and speciously provide evidence to support their personal/political agendas.
rickusnI quess your talking about this.:
rickusnWhy try to ruin this thread with this nonsense?:
“let us not forget that in 1920 UK, USA, France, Japan, Poland…had all invaded the Motherland.”
For crying out loud have you no shame?
Isnt it interesting that these are the same nations Putin and Russia right now wish to incinerate ASAP.
rickusnYes I understand.
Although I think the Sverdlovs were a response to the large number of existing six inched gunned cruisers in both the Royal Navy(RN) and USN.
The two Alaskas were decommissioned in 1946 the third though launched was never completed.
Although the prewar battleships were all decommissioned in 1946(possibly some in early 1947 I havent looked at all the dates recently).
And the three of the four Iowas were decomissioned in 1948/9.
The USN was quite unsure of which crusier was the best to keep in the post war ie the six inch or the eight inch. Settling on the eight inch ships circa 1948/49 as being far more useful and flexible. At the same time also rejecting the 5″ AAW optomised classes.
The wisdom of this decision was borne out by the Korean War experience and the excellent capabilities of those ships as flagships, fire support, ASuW and AAW. As none of the six inch gunned cruisers were activated for the conflict although six were later converted to missile cruisers four of which had the dual capability of flagships they were never liked as much as the eight inch gunned missile conversions or the all-gun unconverted ships that were kept as flagships.
The Skorys were certainly also a response to the USN/RN destroyer classes of WWII.
Some of the information you presented dovetailed nicely with my ongoing study of the USN/RN/USSR history.
To be sure I have studied both UK and Russian surface combatant histories and the UK destroyer/frigate conversions, modernization and new construction and post-war DESRON assignments/employment (along with RN cruiser assets) in some detail and written essays on the subject.
Particularly as the similarities between the UK/USN along with the contrasts are quite interesting.
In fact Ive written a number of essays on the RN that have been well received by RN historians. I broach nothing new but am able by building on others work distill the essence of events into much shorter and focused looks at force stucture and deployment formations or independent employment.
Their really is no one stop or even consistent treatment of the subject matter.
Time, space and brevity issues override any truly definitive work and that always leaves some questions unanswerd.
Of course I have a less than optimum access to all volumes written on the subject nor the funds to buy them all.
But I d love to go to a section say on “CA” class destroyers that lists the class with the class details ie LaidDown//Launch/decomission/recommision dates and final disposition. Gives a detailed overview of the ship classes design history. With hyperlinks to each ships history that includes the formations both tactical and squadron/division each ship was employed in and a link to those formations listing the other units involved.
With links also to pages detailing the weapons/sensors/aircrafts/machinery mentioned in the ship class details.
Im probaly not explaining this well and certainly dont mean to disparage any of a number of very valuable and important books and websites.
Just that as I search and read looking for answers Im always left with more new questions than old ones I had answered.
Someday my dream is to produce such an effort as unlikely as it is to ever come to fruition.
The post-war history of world navies is a rather esoteric subject.
Ive devoted less time to the USSR as their requirements that in many ways are dissimilar but were not made in a vacuum and bare relation to developments in the US and UK.
As the premise of the thread you started clearly indicates.
And these three nations along with somewhat lesser contributions but no less important of countries such as France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Canada and Japan during this period that also deserve careful scrutiny.
There are a dearth of sites to discuss the period between 1945 and 1970.
But this was the critical period and the issues of this period are still extremely relevant today.
Then USN Major Fleet Escort Study of 1967 is still much referred to and relevant even 40 years later in general although of course some specifics are not.
In fact actually in many ways very little has really changed in the USN since late 1941/early 1942.
There have been ups and downs to be sure and new technology but the basic premises of carrier and escort issues then being defined are still in place 65+ years later.
AAW/ASW/AsuW/land-attack/MW tasks and issues relevant then are still being debated and refined today.
As are blue water vs green water vs brown water, multi-purpose/general-purpose vs single-purpose, high-end vs low-end, cost vs capability , strategic vs tactical issues among others.
rickusnPretty hard on yourself. Methinks. LOL
rickusn“‘Stalin’s Ocean-Going Fleet: Soviet Naval Strategy and Shipbuilding Programs, 1935-1953’ by J. Rohwer and M. Monakov.”
Thanks for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rick
rickusnGarry B;
Russia is not preparing for retaliation but for “first use”.
“mothers nipple”:
Russia? Who raped and pillaged Eastern Europe after WWII talk about your revisionist history.
Your very denigration of those people and nations in your post puts the lie to Russias true motives.
And yet you wonder why Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland look to the US to support any hope of their continued existence?
Holy Cow.
rickusn“More than enough firepower to deter Russia.”
Actually no.
As Russia considers itself encircled and all against her threatening Russias very existence.
Therfor Russia plans to strike with impunity irregardless of any possible thought of the effects of retaliation as they already feel all is lost and they have nothing to lose.
When any entity feels they have nothing to lose deterrence is no longer a factor.
And thats where the world is headed now and has been since the end of the Cold War.
The US, me included can hardly fathom such an outlook however we were really close in 1962.
At that time the USSR felt they had much to lose and backed down while the US made the concessions they could to allow that to happen.
And this totally infuriated Castro who felt he had nothing to lose by a nuclaer exchange between the US and the USSR.
This time the situation is much different and far.far more dangerous.
The US and Russia should be natural allies but even the end of the Cold War was not enough to bring this about.
I really dont know if the leadership now exists anywhere in the world to divert us from the path weve all embarked on.
Cynical to be sure but show me the leadership and I will be swayed.
rickusnTwo points:
The Jupiter missiles deployed in Turkey were a response to the USSR aiming of similar missiles at Turkey and other NATO nations.
They were only brought up during the Cuban Missile Crisis as al ast ditch effort by Khruschev to say save face with the rest of the USSR leadership.
The Russians had never broached the contention that the Turkish missiles were what “triger”ed their decision to secretly deploy their missiles in Cuba.
Because that would have been false.
So that also makes Egbertos assertion false.
The fact that the those missiles were not removed “first” also puts the lie to Egbertos contentions.
“27 Oct 1962 — Cuba downs a U-2 plane. In a letter to Khrushchev, President Kennedy proposes immediate Soviet withdrawal of the missiles in exchange for an end to the blockade. Privately, the USG informs the Soviet Union it will withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey once the crisis ends.”
“28 Oct 1962 — Radio Moscow announces that the Soviet Union has accepted the proposed solution.”
“In April 1963, Kennedy had the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey, and four months later, Russia signed the nuclear test ban treaty.”
But I know revisionist history is all the rage these days but only the most gullible will fall for it and only virulent anti-US factions will promote it.
But the truth is always the truth.
And therefore lies can win some battles but never the war. Thank God.
Two Russia “real” reason for opting out of CFE is to pave the way for reconquest of the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland in addition to star49s contention “Putin is exactly doing it to create a divide between EU and US”.
Same as their only reason for getting those countries I mentioned above taht were not original parties to the treaty to ratify as that the would preclude any US militray aid, emergency or otherwise to those tiny countries.
And why?
Because Russia a nd Putin see the US as the only stumbling block to their often stated goal of “world domination”.
Germany unfortunately IMHO is aiding and abetting Russian ambitions.
Therfore as I stated earlier it appears that history will repeat itself.
Plus the Russains are greatly overestimating any US inflluence in Europe or for that matter any “real” US capability to stop the Russians or for that matter the Chinese, Iran or any other country from doing as they please when they please.
For crying out loud the US long-term battle as regards Iraq for the last 16/17 years should clue you in.
Its almost laughable if it wasnt so deadly serious. Again see my first post on this thread for specifics and particulars.
But the US doesnt really fear the US only its nuclear weapons(which of course the US governmnet doesnt understand) but is why the Russians are pouring most of their funding into modernizing and increasing their own nuclear forces and why they unressonably fear the US’s quite limited anti-missilile proposal.
The US and Russia look at nuclear weapons differently in a 180 degree manner.
The US as weapons of retaliation and last resort.
The Russians as wepaons of firstly of coericion and if that fails “first” use to eliminate any and all obstacles to their plans.
These as you see are quite different visions.
And so by this view the CFE treaty is horribly outdated and obsolete and a red-herring.
The old USSR propaganda machine is running at full force.
Just read the posts of Russians and their supporters/apologists and compare them to reality and history.
Dont be fooled because the consequences may well be grievous to those you love most.
Im well aware I cant convince the unconvincible but they can convince themselves quite easilly if they care to be honest and reasonable with themselves.
Although IMHO its already too late and world events will shortly overshadow any internet discussion board bantering about the issues.
rickusn“(Stalin wanted 250)”
Interesting as that was the USNs goal after the start of the Korean War in June 1950 that stopped the post-WWII decline of the USN.
“Projekt-41: A total of 110 units were planned for the large destroyer program in addition to the 70 Projekt-30bis ships. “
Can you provide me with references or provide clarufication for the numbers you present? ie 110 and 250.
I would like to learn more about this.
Thanks Rick
My Conways 1947-1982 states that only 12 of the Neustrashimy(Tallinn) class (Project 41) were planned and that 72 Skory class were completed 1950-1953 (Project 30bis).
My understanding is that the project 41 design was too big, too slow and too expensive, too lightly armed, top heavy and a poor sea boat and was never considered for large series construction.
And in fact only one was completed with three others canceled and broken-up on the building ways.
The Kotlin class (Project 56) 36 (27 completed plus 4 completed as the Kildin class) were ordered plus 8 similar Krupny(Kanin) class Project (57).
The Kashin class (Project 61) 18 units planned and completed, “the last Soviet general purpose destroyers”
Total: 58
All of the above completed 1954 to 1972.
As construction quickly moved in succession to the following nominally designated cruiser classes:
4 Kynda
4 Kresta I
10 Kresta II
7 Kara
all of the above completed 1962 to 1980.
Then moving to the Sovremenny and Udaloy classes originally designated cruisers also but later redesignated as destroyers.
Completions starting for both classes in 1981.
Similar to the Garcia/Brooke/Knox classes in that they “were to make up numbers” for ASW purposes the Krivak class frigates began entering Soviet Navy service in 1970. Thirty-two units completed through 1982.
If anyone is interested I have a short essay outlining the USN efforts to produce 250 destroyer type escorts with which I think I will now revamp and alos update with USSR efforts to do the same.
Thanks to SeaLordLawrence for presenting/providing the impetus for that idea.
And I hope further info on Soviet conceptual ideas/palns on surface combatant construction.
rickusnNow are you people getting it?
Russia neither wishes Europe well much less the rest of the world.
Word to the wise bone up on your Russian language skills you will soon need them to survive.
rickusnStar 49 you can stop now if you want because I was convinced of what you say longgggggggggggggggg ago as was Frances new President and his rapprochment of France to the US.
And the others you can never convince because doing so would turn their view of the world upside down.
See my post above for particulars.
Sign In
