US/Soviet incidents?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I was told by an acquaintence there was an incident in the 1980's where a Soviet bomber was shot down over Alaska and the Soviet escort fighters managed to fire on the F15 that downed the bomber.

All of this happened over US territory and preceeded the downing of Korean Air Lines 007.

Any truth?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I didnt see anything in cursory searches...but as you can imagine, anything that happened in Alaska duting the height of the cold war is likely to be filed in the shredder.

After all...Alaska was the first strike cradle of the US.

[The_Sonarman]

One would hope the (then) USSR's military wouldn't be so reckless. Wars start in precisely that manner.

[The_Sonarman]

As to US/Soviet incidents, it has long been rumored amongst bubbleheads (rumored, mind you) that the USS Scorpion was the victim of a Soviet/US shootout, and the US vessel lost. USS Scorpion, a US fast attack nuclear sub, lost with all hands.

Personally, knowing how lousy the Soviet sub fleet was, and how easily the US subs tracked those boats, I discount this possibility to explain the Scorpion's loss.

However, the rumor persists.

[DesertFox]

Sonar, this is interesting. All I ever read about the Soviet subs was how good they were. You obviously have a less-than-good opinion of them. Can you say more?

[The_Sonarman]

DF,

Well, the Sov fleet might have improved after I left the US Navy in 1979. This might even have happened, given the equipment and plans to cut improved warship screws (propellors) was sold to the USSR "way back". As I recall, Swedish company, 9-axis NC mill and the software to run it, etc.

However, when I was "in", and for the 2-3 decades preceeding that, the Soviet Subs were incredibly noisy... easily tracked. They made crap, in terms of silencing and stealth.

The caveate (and there always seems to be one) is ..... the soviets had 3x times as many subs as we did. I don't know how a war would go, given that 3-1 advantage. I know it would have been bloody, on both sides.

Tactically speaking, stake out one soviet sub (operating noisy) as wolf bait, with one or two other soviet subs operating quietly nearby. Wait for the US sub to kill the (intentionally) noisy soviet sub (US torpedo attack reveals the US sub is in the area), then attack the US sub with the soviet units who have been waiting in ambush.

On a strictly numbers basis, this is "a good deal" for the soviets. I have no doubt this is precisely what they would have done, to destroy the US sub fleet.

I for one am ENORMOUSLY happy the majority of the soviet sub fleet is now (and has been) rusting away in-place. In pure numbers, it was a most fearsome force. The nice thing about ships, subs, and the like is..... once maintenance isn't being done (or even mothballing), those vessels rust and go bad quickly, to the point it is impossible to refit and rearm those hulls. The only option.... scrap 'em.

There is currently a bunch of screaming and moaning about soviet sub nuclear reactors in those rusting hulks. I say.... let 'em rust. They're fine, right where they are. I'd rather the soviet fleet rust away, than to meet them on the high seas in the submarine equivalent of a knife fight. To this day (between the US and USSR), I still don't know who "would have won".

An analogy and a anecdote.

Winston Churchill, in interviews and his memoirs, said the only thing that worried him in the war was the german U-boats. Not german tanks, aircraft, troops, V-1's, V-2's, etc. He wasn't scared by "the blitz" (ie. massive German bombing of England's cities). German Subs scared him. Why?

The German U-boat force ALONE nearly collapsed Britain. Not the German air raids, bombing, etc. Britain is a maritime nation (ie. one large island), heavily dependent on maritime supply and commerce.

Nazi Germany started WW2 too early, with 70 obsolete subs. Admiral Doenitz was trying to build a sub force of 300 subs, before they declared war. Hitler wouldn't wait the predicted two years to have this sub fleet built. Even starting the war with an obsolete sub fleet, the U-boats damn near singlehandedly broke and defeated Britain. This was an obsolete sub fleet. Just think what would have happened if Doenitz had even half of his modern fleet. I suggest Hitler would taken all of Europe, including Britain, and Africa. Then, he would have been able to concentrate on Russia (instead of the two front war which ultimately defeated him), and Hitler likely would have taken Russia, as well. Having taken all these

The soviet Navy (at it's peak) consisted of well over 300 subs (remember Doenitz's target of 300 U-boats to close the Atlantic and starve England?). The soviet Navy subs are also much more sophisticated than the U-boat force, as well, consisting of many nuclear powered (and nuclear armed) vessels.

"Island America" is just larger than England, and we too are a maritime nation. Could we be "starved out", like Germany tried to do with Britain? I don't think so, but the analog stands. Certainly, the USSR closing our trade routes, as well as trade routes to resupply Europe in a theoretical WW3, would be seriously hampered, if not prevented, by the sov sub force loose in the Atlantic and Pacific.

DBF (Diesel Boats Forever)

[ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: The Sonarman ]