Heroes of the Rodina - what do I do with them?
- Thread starter Poi
- Start date
captainsmirk
Mongoose
This likely because the Russian navy didn't actually engage in fleet actions in reality...
The real Russian navy of the time was hardly much to write home about, and its opponent had relatively limited numbers surface ships. The theatres they fought in (Baltic, Black Sea) were too restrictive for major actions in most cases anyway. So lots of subs, torpedo skirmishes and shore bombardment...
Yep looks like your stuck with what if's but since most of the ships in the Russian fleet articles are what if's themselves this means you've got more choice this way anyway!
Nick
The real Russian navy of the time was hardly much to write home about, and its opponent had relatively limited numbers surface ships. The theatres they fought in (Baltic, Black Sea) were too restrictive for major actions in most cases anyway. So lots of subs, torpedo skirmishes and shore bombardment...
Yep looks like your stuck with what if's but since most of the ships in the Russian fleet articles are what if's themselves this means you've got more choice this way anyway!
Nick
I guess the chances of the Russian fleet engaging in a fleet action weren't that much different from those of the Kriegsmarine 
The fun of course is the potential that is there. I may work up some scenarios that could find their way into S&P, one for a Sovet "Breakout" to Sweden in 1941, the other a Wwhat if" mini campaign set during the Prussian evacuations of 1945 (we ran a campaign like this at the NWs a few years back - quite interesting!)
The fun of course is the potential that is there. I may work up some scenarios that could find their way into S&P, one for a Sovet "Breakout" to Sweden in 1941, the other a Wwhat if" mini campaign set during the Prussian evacuations of 1945 (we ran a campaign like this at the NWs a few years back - quite interesting!)
captainsmirk
Mongoose
The Navy was hardly the Soviet Union's top priority, especially after the Germans invaded. They had much more important things going on on land.
The Soviet navy of WW2 was the result of underspending, combined with tactical concepts of a costal defense force, with a few ex-Tzarist ships thrown in for good measure.
It should be noted that the Soviet's never built a battleship (unless you class the Kirovs as such). And they didn't build an aircraft carrier until the 1970's and even then it was more of a cruiser with a poor aircraft carrying capability tacked on...
Nick
The Soviet navy of WW2 was the result of underspending, combined with tactical concepts of a costal defense force, with a few ex-Tzarist ships thrown in for good measure.
It should be noted that the Soviet's never built a battleship (unless you class the Kirovs as such). And they didn't build an aircraft carrier until the 1970's and even then it was more of a cruiser with a poor aircraft carrying capability tacked on...
Nick
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Also worth remembering that Russia was, and always has been a land power. Its fleet has always been geographically divided into three or four, which are unable to unite due to those same geographic constraints. Plus only one of the Russians major naval bases didn't spend a significant proportion of the year covered in ice (in fact in one of the many oddities which contributed to the Russian navy's defeat in the Russo-Japanese war, regulations of the time stated that the Black Sea fleet was not allowed to sail or conduct training during the period that the Pacific and Baltic fleets were iced in...).
Nick
Nick
Russian warship designs often don't make sense when viewed from a Western perspective. However, if you look at them within a Russian context the reason for apparently wierd design decisions suddenly becomes clear and extremely rational. The Kiev class carriers and the Marat class battleships are but two examples. Their missions were distinctly different from what would be vewed as similar roled vessels in the RN or USN and hence they appear odd or ineffective in our eyes.
Col_stone
Mongoose
they did sink some swedish merchant vessels,(using submarines) not many but still
we managed to sink 1 of their subs (S 7 ) in 1942,
and theres another one aswell but i don't know the name, don't konow if it ever became clear which one it was, could just aswell have been a german
it was incapacitated by swedish ships and after that they dropped 10 or so depthcharges straight on top of it.
we managed to sink 1 of their subs (S 7 ) in 1942,
and theres another one aswell but i don't know the name, don't konow if it ever became clear which one it was, could just aswell have been a german
it was incapacitated by swedish ships and after that they dropped 10 or so depthcharges straight on top of it.
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Well my comments about the Kiev were more based on the aircraft it ended up carrying...
The Forger was hardly a capable aircraft in any role...
The helicopter capability was obviously useful, but anti-submarine warfare was as much of a concern to the Soviets as it was to NATO.
Nick
The Forger was hardly a capable aircraft in any role...
The helicopter capability was obviously useful, but anti-submarine warfare was as much of a concern to the Soviets as it was to NATO.
Nick
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Interestingly the Russians kept trying to aquire Italian ships, from Italian designs prewar to their attempts to get Italian Battleships as war booty, not that the Western allies were having any of it...
Nick
Nick
