Trying to keep my reasoning succinct in order to avoid writing a wall of text:
The soviets were geographically blocked from this being an option
Similarly for Vietnam for different reasons
Cuba doesn’t have the option of dedicating the requisite amount resources(and has the misfortune of being an island next to the most powerful current naval power)
China has the geography to become a great naval power. Sure, it doesn’t have both coasts. It has land connections that led to the Silk Road being a thing on the other, possibly a greater advantage.
They are building up militarily, and seem to be advancing commercial maritime pursuits on this well.
Thoughts?
stalin took naval power seriously, krushchev was the one who presided the shift to submarine-based power. there was a very concerted effort from the late 40s-early 50s to build a blue-water navy that could contest the USN. there was also a lot of effort before the Great Patriotic War placed towards building capital ships, theres a reasonably long list of abandoned projects and ships caused by the barbarossa.
That’s tragic tbh. Yet another krushchev L. I had no clue.
Kruschev was 100% correct here. Submarines are the future of conventional naval combat. Aircraft carriers had their hayday in WWII but are now giant cruise missile/tactical nuke targets. They're still good for bullying nations without a missile defense system which is why the USN has so many of them.
CVs were only the undisputed premier capital ships in WW2 from 1943 at best. I know this position doesn't make a lot of sense given the historiographical weight Taranto, Midway Pearl Harbour etc. hold, and I'm about to go to bed so I'm not going to elaborate much but consider a few points:
(Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Kirishima, Fusou to BBs, Yamato, Musashi to CVs, assuming the criteria of a loss attributable solely to either surface warfare or naval aviation. Plenty of BBs were lost to naval aviation in port from CV strikes, but there were only two cases of CVs sinking underway, combat-ready BBs by themselves.)
Even in WW2, which we consider to be the heyday of CVs, the work they were actually doing was largely sinking lighter ships, providing intelligence and air cover or sinking other CVs. BBs remained something that naval aviation struggled with without support for most of the war. Why am I so focussed on the BB - CV relationship? Because the narrative around CV dominance is largely linked to this idea that they directly replaced BBs, which largely stems from a USN centric view of the war.
BB's and CV's are both floating coffins if any conventional naval warfare was to happen any time soon.
BBs are irrelevant to modern naval warfare, but yes I agree that neither are particularly valuable in the age of guided missiles.
Wasn't it some American navy guy who said something along the line of 'there are two types of ships: targets and subs'?
Sounds like a quote repeated on RWN
i dont mean it in the sense that krushchev didn't care about naval power it's just that in the stalin era there was the idea that they could challenge the usn through conventional naval power of their own 1. there's a krushchev quote where he said that 'we don't need aircraft carriers, only the americans needed that type of ship'. kuznetsov for example got sacked by krushchev mostly because he was such a great advocate of a substantial soviet surface fleet.
1though the assumption was always that they would be operating along with land-based air coverage.
Not going to lie, the context you added (which I am thankful for) makes it even more damning.short sighted as fuck
The USSR could never compete with the combined NATO surface fleets. (USN+RN alone was massive) Simply not enough resources could be possibly dedicated to it, the Atlantic powers had been building ships for centuries. Submarines were the right call for the USSR, there it was possible to achieve an asymmetric advantage.
This is what Khrushchev (who I admit was usually a hare-brained oaf, but he made sense here) said about it: "The Americans had a mighty carrier fleet - no one could deny that. I'll admit I felt the nagging desire to have some in our own navy, but we couldn't afford to build them. They were simply beyond our means. Besides, with a strong submarine force, we felt able to sink the American carriers if it came to war"
from a purely nerd perspective khrushchev cancelling all those projects was a tragedy but the reality was that most of the projected stalin era surface fleet was a pipe dream. that said, the modern surface ships the soviet navy actually completed right after the war were all very solid designs that were more or less on par with their peers.
I'm missing something -- how is it short sighted? Aircraft carriers are great if you want to attack a limited opponent on the other side of the globe, but if you're not attacking (or if your opponent can reach your carriers with subs/nukes/missiles), what's the use?
Subs support your nuclear deterrent and let you attack shipping, which seems like plenty for national defense.
deleted by creator