Cold war submarines etc...

[Lucky13]

Wasn't sure where to put this thread, either here or at "Modern" since both cover the cold war period.
Anyhoo, which were the pros and cons between the western allies and eastern allies and their subs, both diesel and nuclear powered?
Were the Warsawa pact always a step behind Nato, or did they once in a while catch up and even at some point take the lead?
What about the surface fleet?

Alfa class submarine.

Akula class submarine.

 

[MilitaryAttractions]

I know its an old thread but I have a vid to share!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YECHB_t_X0

 

[parsifal]

There was no point in time where the Soviets were ahead of the west in terms of technology or overall capability. Soviet subs were noisy, dangerous, and not as fast. their detection systems were inferior, and their weaponary more than a little outdated. none of this mattered in a scenario that involved a nuclear first strike, or where the main role of the VMF submarine fleet was tofollow US carrier task forces around and on declaration launch suicide missions to sink those carriers.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I had a job reading intell reports from RAN diesel electric subs whose job it was to sit on the bottom outside certain Russian ports and gather data on their noise signatures. Basically ID the vessel visually 9oir by whatever means). then record its distinctive noise signature. Slight imperfections in the props would produce quite distinctive noise signatures that could then be used to id the vessel anywhere in the world more or less immediately after detection. Soviets never had the technology to do that. With the retirement of the diesel electric subs from the USN, neither did the US fleet, and their guppyfied Gatos were noisy as hell anyway.

 

[MilitaryAttractions]

There was no point in time where the Soviets were ahead of the west in terms of technology or overall capability. Soviet subs were noisy, dangerous, and not as fast. their detection systems were inferior, and their weaponary more than a little outdated. none of this mattered in a scenario that involved a nuclear first strike, or where the main role of the VMF submarine fleet was tofollow US carrier task forces around and on declaration launch suicide missions to sink those carriers.

Ehh im not sure I would agree 100% with that. Off the top of my head the Soviets had the supercavitating torpedo and another sub that had a lightweight hull made from titanium. Then there was the Typhoon, largest subs ever built and the only to feature the twin side-by-side hulls.

 

[Robert Porter]

Not to mention able to dive deeper. The Russians had some degree of parity but did indeed suffer from a lot of faults as well. But they could have ended a carrier fleet at the cost of their own lives which was probably a goal in a first strike scenario.

 

[parsifal]

Russian subs were notoriously noisy, notoriously dangerous and possessed hopelessly out of date detection and targeting systems. They never had a chance against our guys and they knew it. How do I know that/ because in 1982 I met a couple of Russian sailors in Singas. I had a security clearance at that time, so I had to be careful, but these guys just sang like birds about how bad their stuff was.

You know you have their six when you can routinely park your own boat just outside their most important naval base in the Pacific, for up to a week and just sit on the bottom recording acoustic signatures without them even knowing you are there, and do that several times a year....