This is exactly what I am thinking about - not as political scenario, but purely on tactical/strategical level.
Britain and France against both USA and USSR? It's absolutely unwinnable scenario.
USSR prepared Tu-4K missile-armed bombers and Tu-16T torpedo bombers to fly to Egypt and Syria, so they could strike against Coalition Navy. Considering that air defense of British and French fleets were essentially the same as during World War 2 - neither side have guided missiles or supersonic deck fighters - the modern bombers with standoff missiles and high-altitude torpedoes could literally obliterate the whole fleet.
American deck fighters flying escort for Soviet missile-carrying bombers against British fleet would be a sight to see.
RAT-52 rocket-propelled torpedo.
No, they're fucked. They can't get them in time and they wouldn't make enough of a difference if they did.
Bend over, put their heads between their legs, and kiss their asses goodbye.
By 1956 France was rebuilding from WWII devastation , licking its wounds from Indochina while fighting an awful bush war in Algeria. No way we can and would pick a fight with Uncle Sam. Plus, most of the military gear was american, so just cut spares and the french are doomed.
So, basically, they are late for the only battle they wouldn't be obsolete for.
No, I don't believe there was anything that the Anglo-French could have done. The US had two bigger carriers already in the area, and sent two more carriers that were even bigger yet. All of them had good jets. Well, jets that were good for the time.
I am driving precisely in this direction. IF they had been able to react, what could they technically do?
Bit harsh there cause all the worlds fleets were still basically WW2 fleets. The US in 1956 only had 1 or 2 ships with SAMs. The US Navy first supersonic fighter F11 wouldnt enter service till the next year 1957.
I mean the RN could do both using the armoured carriers for the strike role while the light fleets can be used for AS role
Dilandu's confidence in the capabilities of Soviet forces and the uselessness of NATO is a useful antidote to most posters confidence in the capabilities of NATO forces and the uselessness of the Soviets.
Indeed, but it's the motivation that I think a bit questionable here. Would the Soviets intervene along with Americans if they see things are getting really serious? Or just sit back and enjoy the show? Would Nasser not be persuaded to some kind of arrangement if UK/France showed some kind of resolve and planning?
It is true that Britain's amphibious force at the time of Suez was built around the LST(3) and LCT(8) with max speeds of 12-13 knots. But there were also 11 merchant cargo liners engaged as troopships (the equivalent of many of the wartime LSI(L))
I'd expect that the Soviets would sit back and enjoy watching NATO destroy itself.
Good luck preventing a 2-carrier group from forcing past Gibraltar.
Maybe so, but USN at least have much more capable deck interceptors in Skyray's and Demon's (and even Cutlasses), which were significantly faster and carried missile armament, not merely guns. Granted, both Sparrow-I and early model Sidewinders were rather primitive; but they were workable against large high-altitude bombers.
That can be at least interesting. )))
Couple of RN submarines waiting for them as they past Gibraltar, like Ark Royal in WW2
One thing i find quite hypocritical of the whole US reaction to the suez crisis, yes i get the geoplotics aa to why. But if it was opposite and panama was threating to nationalise the panama canal i can only begin to think how the us would react in the 50s
Agian they had only just entered service with the usn that year and the british would have the firestreak enter next year. They could probably rush it into service in 56 if they had too. While Sea Venoms aint the best its better tha what the french were using. Realistically the gun armed DH.110 should have be brought instead of the sea venoms, the DH.116 for the light fleets and navalised P.1081 instead of the later sea hawk variants.
From the list of ships on Wiki I count 12 LST(3).
On the other hand why believe any LSD available wouldn't have been otherwise engaged before being required for Musketeer.1956 You also assume that the LST(3) would be "scattered". Do you have details of their employment prior to being called up for Musketeer?
A couple of 15-knot T-class with Mark 8 torpedoes are not an especially credible threat to two carrier groups.
They'd be a credible threat to the FDR (Midway-class), but likely not credible threat to Forestall.
According to rn organisation and shil deployments 1947 to 2013 https://www.naval-history.net/xGW-RNOrganisation1947-2013.htm , the royal navy had 4x S class and 3x T class boats in the mediterranean bases at malta. While be WW2 vintage they are still are credible threat to the carriers especcially through the straight at gibraltar. It only takes 1 boat to get luckly. Correct me if im wrong but CVA didnt carry an ASW aircraft in there airwings too
It was seriously proposed postwar to hang on to OCEANWAY for amphibious training and development, but this didn't come to pass.
It is also not coincidence that the wartime LSD, APA and AGC have similar speeds: they were designed to function as a 15-16 knot landing force. The LSD was needed not to transport troops, but to transport landing craft preloaded with equipment - the limited troop capacity should be understood as essentially for vehicle crews.
You mean the country that, when it decided to conquer Europe, took the entire continent uniting against it for more than a decade to bring it down? Or the one that fought Germany to a standstill in 1914?
If the USN is particularly worried, all it has to do is scream through the strait at 30 knots. Unless the submarine is in the exact right place, the only thing it can do is send rude messages on the Aldis lamp.
Night attack with land-based torpedo bombers?
