Nato vs Pact Navy

[A Moose Called Beaver]

Is it me or is it that Nato's navy got nerfed and really stands no chance against Pacts supreme Navy? I mean, you just cant fight Pact's Navy with Nato anymore...i suppose thats why nobody plays Nato navys anymore and resort to arty and ASML?

Anyone else find this or no?

[Cullen's Hound]

Aircraft and ashm trucks

[keithturkjr]

I agree with you. The majority of their antiship missiles like the malakhit, moskit and termit have much, much higher AP power than blue forces.

And some of the ships that carry them aren't even targetable by antiship missiles (only in this game), one example is the komar which will kill you f111g if you try to attack it and arent watching.
No offence to anyone intended here, but the Komar ship is a total peice of ♥♥♥♥ in real life.

I think that a big group of komars and nanuskas can absolutely decimate the blueforce navy, specifically because the kongo that we only get one of is the only ship that can fire on the komar with a mere cannon before its termit doom rods are within range, and once just one of those missiles hits your lafayette it is the kiss of death.

Yes you can kill the boats with Tram intruders, F-111c, and antiship missile launchers (with the exception of komar and a few other types they can fill their decks with, but red force also has these items, and blueforce should have viable ships too.

There seems to be a really big double standard in the game, 'its all give red force all the best stuff or you're just a nato fanboy'.

[BloodstarAzara96]

nato's navy is good when they work together and use tactics. Ur ships are nice but well..you never were number 1 in navy. Soviets were. Americas big navy probably isnt showcased in this for balance purposes. But yeah. Maybe in the next installment. Soviet navy is really easy to beat if you can bleed them dry of their missles.

[Haru]

I think NATO is better with its cannon..

[Aluroon]

NATO navy can win, but you can't be stupid about it. I see a lot of NATO players trying to trade missiles with PACT players, which is a formula for disaster. My favorite is the *skirmish, lose a bunch of stuff, withdraw and let PACT resupply* recipie, which is kind of amusing to watch.

Learn to screen your capital ships, use CWIS ships intelligently, and go for the throat when PACT has spammed off its missiles and floating a bunch of rubber duckies.

[Aluroon]

Oh, and stop using Kongos. They're worthless missile bait not worth the card in your deck.

[Zapp Brannigan]

I hear this constantly on WG forums, and I have no idea where it comes from. The idea that the Soviet navy was qualitatively better than NATO. We'll never know for sure because they thankfully never clashed, but in most war scenarios I've heard of form the 80's/90's in the Cold War the assumption was that NATO would be dominant in the air and at sea, and the Soviets would be dominant on land. This is particularly true in Asia, where the Baltic and Black Sea fleet are pretty much out of the equation and China and North Korea had no serious fleet at this time.

In the absence of an actual conflict, you can also look at history. The USSR, and Russia in general have had very few periods in their existence where they fielded a dominant navy. The last modern naval conflict the Russians had was at Tsushima, where the Japanese cleaned their clocks. During the same period the US became the most dominant naval power in the world. Then consider that it was supplemented by the fleets of Britain and Japan, which themselves were some of the largest fleets in the world at the time. History has shown that NATO and Japan were superior to the Russians both in quantity and quality of naval assets. I just don't see how the USSR could be considered superior.

Publicado originalmente por მղցεɾ ἶղƈმɾղმէ:

nato's navy is good when they work together and use tactics. Ur ships are nice but well..you never were number 1 in navy. Soviets were. Americas big navy probably isnt showcased in this for balance purposes. But yeah. Maybe in the next installment. Soviet navy is really easy to beat if you can bleed them dry of their missles.

[GrandHardy]

Publicado originalmente por Han Solo:

I hear this constantly on WG forums, and I have no idea where it comes from. The idea that the Soviet navy was qualitatively better than NATO. We'll never know for sure because they thankfully never clashed, but in most war scenarios I've heard of form the 80's/90's in the Cold War the assumption was that NATO would be dominant in the air and at sea, and the Soviets would be dominant on land. This is particularly true in Asia, where the Baltic and Black Sea fleet are pretty much out of the equation and China and North Korea had no serious fleet at this time.

In the absence of an actual conflict, you can also look at history. The USSR, and Russia in general have had very few periods in their existence where they fielded a dominant navy. The last modern naval conflict the Russians had was at Tsushima, where the Japanese cleaned their clocks. During the same period the US became the most dominant naval power in the world. Then consider that it was supplemented by the fleets of Britain and Japan, which themselves were some of the largest fleets in the world at the time. History has shown that NATO and Japan were superior to the Russians both in quantity and quality of naval assets. I just don't see how the USSR could be considered superior.

Publicado originalmente por მղցεɾ ἶղƈმɾղმէ:

nato's navy is good when they work together and use tactics. Ur ships are nice but well..you never were number 1 in navy. Soviets were. Americas big navy probably isnt showcased in this for balance purposes. But yeah. Maybe in the next installment. Soviet navy is really easy to beat if you can bleed them dry of their missles.

I would certainly say that Nato would have numerical superiority and would most likely dominate the air which in turn would allow them to dominate the seas, but for russian ships being totally inferior to US ships, have you anything to back that up?

[Zapp Brannigan]

Honestly I don't, because the record is devoid of actual clashes between NATO and Pact fleets. In fact there are almost no records of surface combatants of any real size clashing since WW II. The closest would probably be the Falklands War, but I'm not sure if Argentinian and British ships ever actually clashed in that conflict.

Absent that direct data, I look to each nation's historical record. Great Britain and the US both have strong seafaring traditions that go back hundreds of years. This makes sense given their long coastlines and commercial interests. Historically naval power tends to beget more naval power. I know that sounds circular, but it is true. Nations that field large ocean going navies tend to do better in naval conflicts than do nations that are not as experienced. The last major global conflict was WW II, a war in which the US and GB fought and won naval engagements all over the globe, and in which the Soviets did next to nothing. In the decades after WW II it was the US fleet that had a truly global presence, dwarfing that of the Soviet fleet at all points in history.

Now this is not conclusive of course, but your question I think begs the question in turn, what evidence do you have to back up that the USSR fielded a qualitatively superior navy compared to that of NATO's?

Publicado originalmente por crazyhardy:

Publicado originalmente por Han Solo:

I hear this constantly on WG forums, and I have no idea where it comes from. The idea that the Soviet navy was qualitatively better than NATO. We'll never know for sure because they thankfully never clashed, but in most war scenarios I've heard of form the 80's/90's in the Cold War the assumption was that NATO would be dominant in the air and at sea, and the Soviets would be dominant on land. This is particularly true in Asia, where the Baltic and Black Sea fleet are pretty much out of the equation and China and North Korea had no serious fleet at this time.

In the absence of an actual conflict, you can also look at history. The USSR, and Russia in general have had very few periods in their existence where they fielded a dominant navy. The last modern naval conflict the Russians had was at Tsushima, where the Japanese cleaned their clocks. During the same period the US became the most dominant naval power in the world. Then consider that it was supplemented by the fleets of Britain and Japan, which themselves were some of the largest fleets in the world at the time. History has shown that NATO and Japan were superior to the Russians both in quantity and quality of naval assets. I just don't see how the USSR could be considered superior.

I would certainly say that Nato would have numerical superiority and would most likely dominate the air which in turn would allow them to dominate the seas, but for russian ships being totally inferior to US ships, have you anything to back that up?

[GrandHardy]

Publicado originalmente por Han Solo:

Honestly I don't, because the record is devoid of actual clashes between NATO and Pact fleets. In fact there are almost no records of surface combatants of any real size clashing since WW II. The closest would probably be the Falklands War, but I'm not sure if Argentinian and British ships ever actually clashed in that conflict.

Absent that direct data, I look to each nation's historical record. Great Britain and the US both have strong seafaring traditions that go back hundreds of years. This makes sense given their long coastlines and commercial interests. Historically naval power tends to beget more naval power. I know that sounds circular, but it is true. Nations that field large ocean going navies tend to do better in naval conflicts than do nations that are not as experienced. The last major global conflict was WW II, a war in which the US and GB fought and won naval engagements all over the globe, and in which the Soviets did next to nothing. In the decades after WW II it was the US fleet that had a truly global presence, dwarfing that of the Soviet fleet at all points in history.

Now this is not conclusive of course, but your question I think begs the question in turn, what evidence do you have to back up that the USSR fielded a qualitatively superior navy compared to that of NATO's?

Publicado originalmente por crazyhardy:

I would certainly say that Nato would have numerical superiority and would most likely dominate the air which in turn would allow them to dominate the seas, but for russian ships being totally inferior to US ships, have you anything to back that up?

No, i don't really agree with you on that i'm sorry. I mean, if we look at WW2, it was more about numbers than technology, basically who had the most ships with the most guns. But in world war two, many british ships found themselves inferiour to German ships one on one, and Germany have never really had a strong seafaring back ground. I like to base things on hard evidence, not asumptions.

[Hetman Alphazulu90]

Its actually kinda realistic, what would be the biggest threat to the Soviet Navy in a WWIII scenario? NATO AShM plane spam, :D

This is my view(It may be wrong)
One on one a Soviet ship will probably beat any NATO ship 1 on 1, they have superior AShM, CIWS, and gun systems (these are just the ones I know of). NATO ships were built for fleet defence and sub hunting. They have superior air defence systems and ECM systems because of this. Naval aviation was seen NATOs biggest asset in defeating the Soviet navy, and was invested in greatly.

[Zapp Brannigan]

I can't agree that WWII clashes were just about quantity and not quality, this ignores the enormous strides the US made in fire control systems, damage control systems, radar, and naval aviation from 1941-1945. Japanese AA systems on their ships were woefully inept compared to US systems developed after Pearl Harbor. The Zero was one of the finest naval fighters in the world to start the war, but was technologically nearly obsolete at the end.

But my overall point referencing WW II was that the US fleet in the Cold War sprung from those titanic clashes during WW II. After WW II the US Navy benefited from having thousands of battle hardened officers and men who had been in actual combat, which informed the tactics, theory, and ship construction in the decades that followed.

The Russians have none of this. The last major Russian fleet action was 100 years ago when they were smashed and humiliated by the Japanese. The only time a Russian fleet ever beat a Western power in a major fleet engagement that I am aware of was in the early 1700's. NATO contains countries with centuries of naval dominance, Russia has none.

You say that you like to base things on hard evidence. I'll ask again, what is your hard evidence that the USSR fielded a qualitatively superior fleet compared to NATO during the 80's and 90's?

Publicado originalmente por crazyhardy:

Publicado originalmente por Han Solo:

Honestly I don't, because the record is devoid of actual clashes between NATO and Pact fleets. In fact there are almost no records of surface combatants of any real size clashing since WW II. The closest would probably be the Falklands War, but I'm not sure if Argentinian and British ships ever actually clashed in that conflict.

Absent that direct data, I look to each nation's historical record. Great Britain and the US both have strong seafaring traditions that go back hundreds of years. This makes sense given their long coastlines and commercial interests. Historically naval power tends to beget more naval power. I know that sounds circular, but it is true. Nations that field large ocean going navies tend to do better in naval conflicts than do nations that are not as experienced. The last major global conflict was WW II, a war in which the US and GB fought and won naval engagements all over the globe, and in which the Soviets did next to nothing. In the decades after WW II it was the US fleet that had a truly global presence, dwarfing that of the Soviet fleet at all points in history.

Now this is not conclusive of course, but your question I think begs the question in turn, what evidence do you have to back up that the USSR fielded a qualitatively superior navy compared to that of NATO's?

No, i don't really agree with you on that i'm sorry. I mean, if we look at WW2, it was more about numbers than technology, basically who had the most ships with the most guns. But in world war two, many british ships found themselves inferiour to German ships one on one, and Germany have never really had a strong seafaring back ground. I like to base things on hard evidence, not asumptions.

[GrandHardy]

Publicado originalmente por Han Solo:

I can't agree that WWII clashes were just about quantity and not quality, this ignores the enormous strides the US made in fire control systems, damage control systems, radar, and naval aviation from 1941-1945. Japanese AA systems on their ships were woefully inept compared to US systems developed after Pearl Harbor. The Zero was one of the finest naval fighters in the world to start the war, but was technologically nearly obsolete at the end.

But my overall point referencing WW II was that the US fleet in the Cold War sprung from those titanic clashes during WW II. After WW II the US Navy benefited from having thousands of battle hardened officers and men who had been in actual combat, which informed the tactics, theory, and ship construction in the decades that followed.

The Russians have none of this. The last major Russian fleet action was 100 years ago when they were smashed and humiliated by the Japanese. The only time a Russian fleet ever beat a Western power in a major fleet engagement that I am aware of was in the early 1700's. NATO contains countries with centuries of naval dominance, Russia has none.

You say that you like to base things on hard evidence. I'll ask again, what is your hard evidence that the USSR fielded a qualitatively superior fleet compared to NATO during the 80's and 90's?

Publicado originalmente por crazyhardy:

No, i don't really agree with you on that i'm sorry. I mean, if we look at WW2, it was more about numbers than technology, basically who had the most ships with the most guns. But in world war two, many british ships found themselves inferiour to German ships one on one, and Germany have never really had a strong seafaring back ground. I like to base things on hard evidence, not asumptions.

Your talking about the skill of the crew now, i was talking purely about the ships.

[Zapp Brannigan]

How do we know that Soviet ships had superior missiles, ECM, and gun systems when their missiles, ECM, and gun systems were never tested against NATO ships? To my knowledge they've never been tested against any ships. At least with NATO their navies have been involved in some conflicts since WW II (Falklands, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc....). I'm not saying they were involved in major fleet actions, but at least they were deployed in wartime as major supporting elements in each conflict and are known to have functioned.

The major conflicts fought by the USSR scarcely involved their navy.(Afghanistan, Hungary, China, etc...). It's arguable that the Russian navy has not been engaged in a major military conflict since the Russo-Japanese War in the early 1900's, a war in which the Russian navy was humiliated.

Publicado originalmente por AlphaZulu90:

Its actually kinda realistic, what would be the biggest threat to the Soviet Navy in a WWIII scenario? NATO AShM plane spam, :D

This is my view(It may be wrong)
One on one a Soviet ship will probably beat any NATO ship 1 on 1, they have superior AShM, CIWS, and gun systems (these are just the ones I know of). NATO ships were built for fleet defence and sub hunting. They have superior air defence systems and ECM systems because of this. Naval aviation was seen NATOs biggest asset in defeating the Soviet navy, and was invested in greatly.

[GrandHardy]

Publicado originalmente por Han Solo:

How do we know that Soviet ships had superior missiles, ECM, and gun systems when their missiles, ECM, and gun systems were never tested against NATO ships? To my knowledge they've never been tested against any ships. At least with NATO their navies have been involved in some conflicts since WW II (Falklands, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc....). I'm not saying they were involved in major fleet actions, but at least they were deployed in wartime as major supporting elements in each conflict and are known to have functioned.

The major conflicts fought by the USSR scarcely involved their navy.(Afghanistan, Hungary, China, etc...). It's arguable that the Russian navy has not been engaged in a major military conflict since the Russo-Japanese War in the early 1900's, a war in which the Russian navy was humiliated.

Publicado originalmente por AlphaZulu90:

Its actually kinda realistic, what would be the biggest threat to the Soviet Navy in a WWIII scenario? NATO AShM plane spam, :D

This is my view(It may be wrong)
One on one a Soviet ship will probably beat any NATO ship 1 on 1, they have superior AShM, CIWS, and gun systems (these are just the ones I know of). NATO ships were built for fleet defence and sub hunting. They have superior air defence systems and ECM systems because of this. Naval aviation was seen NATOs biggest asset in defeating the Soviet navy, and was invested in greatly.

The fact that they have more guns and have been developing CIWS before the americans, and put more of their CIWS guns on a ship then Nato do. Russian destroyers are built around Surface warfare