RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2018, 03:18 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Changes in Oil Movement pre TDM

The China thread has brought up an interesting point about how oil would have gotten to China during the initial phases of the war.

Is there any canon summary anywhere of how the oil trade was disrupted/changed until the nuke exchange (I am thinking Kings Ransom might mention it).

Barring that does anyone have thoughts on how Oil/NG logistical routing might change.

I am assuming Europe loses Russian NG at some point and Alaska might need to provide the US with some losses from the gulf.

Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-08-2018, 04:49 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

keep in mind you need to consider timeline

V1 no Soviet NG to Europe

I would think that initially the Soviets would not have stopped oil shipments to China considering almost all of it was carried in neutral flagged tankers or worse yet NATO countries tankers - i.e. a Chinese tanker would have been fair game but not other country's ships - this is pre the war spreading to Europe when it was seen as a dispute between China and the Soviets only

in many ways the Soviets may have had restrictions on what they could and could not hit at sea or in ports much like what the US had in Vietnam when we couldnt touch ships bringing in supplies for the Vietnamese

now once the war started with the US that would have been different - but that could have got the Chinese thru 1995 and much of 1996 - especially if they used southern ports or for that matter Hong Kong to bring the oil in

You could see the US escorting oil tankers into China to "ensure the freedom of the seas"prior to the war starting with the US - i.e. basically daring the Soviets to hit the US escorts and thus provide a caus belli for the war

now after the war starts between the Soviets and the US the question would be how much oil would be getting to China once the US and NATO need every drop they can get even if the US was escorting the tankers still
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:06 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
keep in mind you need to consider timeline

V1 no Soviet NG to Europe
I believe there was gas going to Europe. The Bond film "The Living Daylights" from 1987 had someone escaping from Eastern Germany in a Gas Pipeline.

Confirmed
Quote:
The Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod pipeline was constructed in 1982–1984 with Western financing to provide Soviet gas to the Western European market.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia..._energy_sector
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:12 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

I think we certainly have to consider mines and submairnes. The soviets could go after neutral tankers with a bit of deniability with these.

Heck even the threat would force some tankers away, for insurance reasons if nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-08-2018, 10:21 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

and those mines and subs would have had USN ships escorting the tankers - and you bring up a Soviet mine or sink a Soviet sub and its off to war we go - the Soviets werent trying to get the US to join the war - and there is a precedent - the US escort of the tankers in the Persian Gulf and what they did to the Iranians to keep the sea lanes clear
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:28 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and those mines and subs would have had USN ships escorting the tankers - and you bring up a Soviet mine or sink a Soviet sub and its off to war we go - the Soviets werent trying to get the US to join the war - and there is a precedent - the US escort of the tankers in the Persian Gulf and what they did to the Iranians to keep the sea lanes clear
I don't think it is so cut and dry.

First this is not WWII nor are we discussing just the Straights of Hormuz. There are over 20,000 cargo ships during this time (man at times like this I miss Chico more than usual). The US was trying to get 800 warships so not every ship is going to be escorted.

I believe the soviets supplied sea mines to over 25 countries during the cold war so that muddies the waters a bit in terms of guilt (like the mines the Iranians laid). Also the US (CIA) mined a Nicaraguan harbor in 1984 and damaged a soviet tanker. That did not end up being a prelude to war. Neither did a US ship getting damaged by an Iranian mine.

If a few neutral tankers go down in the Malacca Straits, can we be 100% sure it is not Vietnam or Burma (heck it could be blamed on India or Indonesia who each might want to take China down a peg).


I do think that the Soviets would not risk too much in 95 (when they are winning), but in spring 96 when things start to go bad (but before the German crossing) we might have to think about them starting to bend the rules a bit.

Last edited by kato13; 10-09-2018 at 12:37 AM. Reason: removed something mildly political
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:22 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

FYI escorting fuel tankers for China and by extension South Korea and Japan could help explain how the Soviets managed to get their forces to Alaska and the Canadian Pacific coast - i.e. that the USN had to make such a big commitment to protecting shipping to support their forces in Korea and to escort tankers and other supply ships for China (and probably South Korea and Japan as well) that there werent enough to cover the North Pacific adequately - and that the Soviets took advantage of that to get their forces over for the invasion of Alaska and Canada
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:29 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

One thing to keep in mind is that China until the mid-90's really didnt import fuel - they just didnt have enough cars to need more oil than they produced - so the real question may be how quickly did the Soviets damage their oil producing centers to where it became necessary to import fuel to keep their war effort going?

Given the success of the initial Soviet invasion how much of China's oil production would have been either in their area of occupation or in range of tactical aircraft in say the first six months of the war?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:07 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
One thing to keep in mind is that China until the mid-90's really didnt import fuel - they just didnt have enough cars to need more oil than they produced - so the real question may be how quickly did the Soviets damage their oil producing centers to where it became necessary to import fuel to keep their war effort going?

Given the success of the initial Soviet invasion how much of China's oil production would have been either in their area of occupation or in range of tactical aircraft in say the first six months of the war?
Their oil consumption would definitely be up even if there weren't a lot of imported oil to begin with. All of their armed forces should be using significantly more oil on a wartime footing versus peacetime. Also depending on how you interpret the winter of 1995-96 ""Winter had witnessed a flood of new modern equipment through Chinese ports from NATO nations particularly the United States." Depending on what you classify as modern equipment we sent them. The only equipment we gave to them for sure were Tank Breaker/Javelin systems and Assault Breaker/MLRS/ATACMS/JSTARS systems. We may be sending the Chinese 100s of Abrams Tanks as well, not exactly known as the Prius of Tanks.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:53 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

I could definitely see the US shipping them older surplus APC's for sure - considering that a lot of the Chinese infantry were either walking or riding in trucks (or for that matter using pack horses)

sending three hundred or so M113APC's would have definitely helped for sure - let alone older M48 and M60 tanks

And doesnt necessarily have to be the US - Turkey had 1500 plus old M59 APC's still in service in the mid-90's - and again its a heck of a lot better than a truck to go into combat with

Last edited by Olefin; 10-09-2018 at 03:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:51 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
I could definitely see the US shipping them older surplus APC's for sure - considering that a lot of the Chinese infantry were either walking or riding in trucks (or for that matter using pack horses)

sending three hundred or so M113APC's would have definitely helped for sure - let alone older M48 and M60 tanks

And doesnt necessarily have to be the US - Turkey had 1500 plus old M59 APC's still in service in the mid-90's - and again its a heck of a lot better than a truck to go into combat with
I could see the US sending them older tanks as you mentioned as well if for no other reason then some Chinese Tanks use a Chinese Copy of the 105mm Gun. So the Ammo for the 105mm is already in their supply chain. The M60s and M48A5s would be a match for most of the Soviet armor they face early on anyways. They don't have to be to be built and are available in large quantities.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:00 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,325
Default

Can't see M1's being sent to China, but older M48's and M60's sure. 105mm guns should be sufficient to reinforce what China already had, the older tanks are cheaper and mostly out of service anyway, there's plenty of ammo and parts available, and you can cram more on the transport ships too.
Then there's the issue of sensitive electronics. Do you really want China getting their hands on the latest generation of range finders, etc? Even though the west was supporting China, they were still a communist country...
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:45 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
The China thread has brought up an interesting point about how oil would have gotten to China during the initial phases of the war.

Is there any canon summary anywhere of how the oil trade was disrupted/changed until the nuke exchange (I am thinking Kings Ransom might mention it).

Barring that does anyone have thoughts on how Oil/NG logistical routing might change.

I am assuming Europe loses Russian NG at some point and Alaska might need to provide the US with some losses from the gulf.

Any thoughts?

Haven't seen any canon reference to how oil got to China during initial phases of the war, although it is quite possible I have overlooked one. Oil shipments from the Middle East to China would have been a priority target for Soviet submarines in the Indian and Pacific Ocean, and even non-Chinese tankers heading into the South China Sea would have been a big target.

In V.1 Vietnam is pro-Soviet and at war with China and sailing anywhere near the Vietnamese coast were Soviet naval forces are known to be present would be a major risk for shipping.

Other countries including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc also imported a lot of oil from the Middle East. It is likely that tanker routes to these countries would be altered to avoid the Sino-Soviet war. Oil tankers heading to Japan for example might sail in convoys south of the traditional Strait of Malacca route, and head through the Timor Sea near Australia and up into the Pacific to the west of the Philippines and then onto the west coast of Japan. The Soviets would be notified in advance of these convoys to avoid attacks on neutral shipping, and they would likely be escorted by Japanese or South Korean warships and maybe even the US Navy as well as they are US allies. Some Chinese tankers may tag along on these convoys as the Soviets would be reluctant to attack them.

Also the major Chinese port on the South China Sea is Hong Kong, and at this period it was still a British territory. British tankers may be shipping oil to China via Hong Kong, and attacking British tankers under Royal Navy escort would be a big risk for Soviet submarines due to the fact that it would be a direct attack on NATO shipping.

As for gas shipments to Western Europe from Russia, I think its a fair assumption that it will be cut off once the West Germans cross the inter-German border. Probably a big increase in US oil and gas production is Alaska and Gulf of Mexico once the Twilight War swings into full force, and probably a lot of oil and gas coming up from Venezuela as well.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:58 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

NATO arms shipments to China would face one major problem. The Chinese used the same calibre small arms ammunition and tank and artillery rounds as the Soviets. NATO calibre ammunition is not compatible with Soviet ammunition. So NATO would have to reequip the PLA with very large quantities of NATO weapons.

On the other hand NATO could supply China with large quantities of anti-tank missiles and SAM's quite easily. A squadron of C-130's can transport a large quantity of anti-tank missiles and SAM's to China from any number of destinations in the Far East very quickly and make repeat flights without having to worry about Soviet submarines and naval mines.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:55 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
NATO arms shipments to China would face one major problem. The Chinese used the same calibre small arms ammunition and tank and artillery rounds as the Soviets. NATO calibre ammunition is not compatible with Soviet ammunition. So NATO would have to reequip the PLA with very large quantities of NATO weapons.
On the other hand, it's not that hard to churn out millions of rounds of 5.45, 7.62S and 7.62L in short order. Those three calibres have been available in bulk to civilians for decades, much of it produced outside the Pact aligned countries and China.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-10-2018, 02:27 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
On the other hand, it's not that hard to churn out millions of rounds of 5.45, 7.62S and 7.62L in short order. Those three calibres have been available in bulk to civilians for decades, much of it produced outside the Pact aligned countries and China.
But its the heavier tank and artillery rounds that the PLA need
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-10-2018, 03:16 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,325
Default

Which is where the M60s, etc would come in. I just cannot buy the US sending M1s to China.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-10-2018, 07:39 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Which is where the M60s, etc would come in. I just cannot buy the US sending M1s to China.
I completely agree with Leg on this one - especially considering that fact that you have US units that were still equipped with the M60's - that right there says that there arent excess M1 tanks to send - i.e. the US needs all that they have just to equip their own forces
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-10-2018, 09:24 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,337
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Could Taiwan get M-1s? It is under discussion now so it could be a possibility.

I can't believe Taiwan is not mentioned in either the V1 rules or the BYB. I thought I recalled Mainland China making peace with Taiwan after the first nukes were used (they did not need another front) but that might have been my own idea.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:02 AM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
NATO arms shipments to China would face one major problem. The Chinese used the same calibre small arms ammunition and tank and artillery rounds as the Soviets. NATO calibre ammunition is not compatible with Soviet ammunition. So NATO would have to reequip the PLA with very large quantities of NATO weapons.
You're not totally right on this. The Chinese did have license to produce a copy of the 105mm L/7 Tank Gun and used it on their Type 79 and Type 88 MBTs. Which makes the case for M60 and M48A5s that much stronger. since 105mm ammo is already in their supply chain.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:53 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
Could Taiwan get M-1s? It is under discussion now so it could be a possibility.
In 1995-96 with war looming? Not likely.
Also Taiwan don't really need them in the T2K timeline - they've got this nice big "moat" around them and their only real enemy in the region is somewhat "distracted" by those pesky Ruskies!
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:05 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

I could see Taiwan getting tanks in one scenario - i.e. they are on the way to China and the nukes hit (both China and South Korea) and the convoy or ships with them literally decides safest place in a storm is Taiwan and they never go further - or Taiwan after the strikes says sure US we will send you stuff for Korea but we want something in exchange (i.e. you need food, ammo, etc. but we get to keep the tanks in those ships that took shelter in our ports)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:24 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
You're not totally right on this. The Chinese did have license to produce a copy of the 105mm L/7 Tank Gun and used it on their Type 79 and Type 88 MBTs. Which makes the case for M60 and M48A5s that much stronger. since 105mm ammo is already in their supply chain.
The Type 79 and Type 88 tanks were armed with Chinese licence procured variants of the British designed L7 105mm tank gun. China built around 100 Type 79 and 500 Type 88A/B tanks that were mainly used by Chinese forces rather than exported. After 1995 Chinese tank production switched over to the Type 88C or Type 96 tank armed with a copy of the Soviet 125mm gun.

So out of a tank fleet of over 8,000 units in the mid-1990's about 600 at most can use NATO ammunition, and after the Soviets invade in 1995 that is a rapidly dwindling number of tanks. Replacement tanks could of course be built but the factory that produced the Type 79 and Type 88 tanks and many other Chinese vehicles was 617 Institute, Inner Mongolia No. 1 Machinery Plant at Baotou in Inner Mongolia in Northern China, and it lay right in the path of invading Soviet forces.

Regarding supplying China with surplus M48 and M60 tanks, that is another argument.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:07 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Which is where the M60s, etc would come in. I just cannot buy the US sending M1s to China.
Surplus M60 and M48's could be supplied to China but likely from US National Guard units that had their tanks replaced with M1's. Maybe some older tanks from Western Europe as well. But I don't think we are talking about huge numbers, and tank deliveries will stop after the West Germans cross the Inter-German border in October 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:08 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
Could Taiwan get M-1s? It is under discussion now so it could be a possibility.

I can't believe Taiwan is not mentioned in either the V1 rules or the BYB. I thought I recalled Mainland China making peace with Taiwan after the first nukes were used (they did not need another front) but that might have been my own idea.
I don't think the US would be supplying anyone with M1's as they want them for their own forces. But other tanks certainly.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-10-2018, 04:52 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,191
Default

I know that China does have another armored vehicles manufacturer - but dont think they can make tanks - Shaanxi Baoji Special Vehicles Manufacturing - they are more wheeled vehicle manufacturers

As for Batou - I can see that factory not being in the path of the initial drive into China - it looked more like they were going for Manchuria and a direct path to Beijing - if they didnt go for it right off the bat you could see the Chinese putting everything they had to defend it - however it definitely would have been on the list of nuke sites for sure in 1997 - i.e. if the Soviets didnt take it out already you can count on it being a memory by the end of August 97
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.