RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-03-2018, 06:34 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

FYI I have looked at several websites and have found photos of her when she arrived in New Orleans - and what arrived was a useable ship that arrived under her own power and in good condition - she appeared to be well maintained and in good condition upon arrival in 1989 - https://delange.org/CabotR/CabotR.htm
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-03-2018, 07:12 PM
The Dark The Dark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
Actually if it's in the reserve fleet it would probably be kept in a decent state, they have a significant maintenance program to ensure the ships can be put back into service. That's not to say that every ship in the reserve fleet would be seaworthy, some of the oldest ones are getting a bit "thin in the hull"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/dot/ndrf.htm
What the global security writeup does infer though is that the longer a ship has be sitting in the reserve fleet, the greater the likelihood it will be scrapped or sunk (as artificial reefs)
It depends - the JRRF (and the NRDF in general) has both "retain" and "non-retain" ships, and the latter get just enough work done to keep them from sinking before they can be scrapped. The Sturgis (a former nuclear power barge built from a Liberty ship) was overhauled twice in fifty years - once when she first went into the JRRF in 1967 and again in the 1990s when they wanted to evaluate the decay rate of residual radioactive contamination. She just went to the breakers this year. A light carrier would likely get similar treatment, since it would be considered of low value compared to the nuclear fleet carriers, and pretty much anything it can do could be done as well or better by a Tarawa, Iwo Jima, or Wasp.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-04-2018, 02:59 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

except for two factors on this particular light carrier

she had been in active service until 1989 and was delivered in working condition with fully serviced engines, navigation gear, etc.. - she wasnt towed into port in late 1989 she was sailed in by a full crew of Spanish sailors

and she went into drydock and came out in 1993 with a fully blasted and painted hull, asbestos removed on several decks and otherwise worked on

this isnt a ship thats been sitting around in the Reserve Fleet since the 1950's or Vietnam - she was flying sorties as late as August 1989
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-04-2018, 05:40 PM
The Dark The Dark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
except for two factors on this particular light carrier

she had been in active service until 1989 and was delivered in working condition with fully serviced engines, navigation gear, etc.. - she wasnt towed into port in late 1989 she was sailed in by a full crew of Spanish sailors

and she went into drydock and came out in 1993 with a fully blasted and painted hull, asbestos removed on several decks and otherwise worked on

this isnt a ship thats been sitting around in the Reserve Fleet since the 1950's or Vietnam - she was flying sorties as late as August 1989
Yeah, I conflated two topics into one - the Gage, which was sitting around in the Reserve Fleet since the 1950s, and the original topic of the Cabot (which was only ever in reserve from 2-11-47 to 10-27-48). Mea culpa.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-04-2018, 06:28 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,605
Default

To be fair to The Dark though, I had made a general statement regarding the reserve fleet and his answer was in response to that.

Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 05-04-2018 at 06:31 PM. Reason: adding missing word
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-04-2018, 06:46 PM
mcchordsage's Avatar
mcchordsage mcchordsage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
These type of ships would be used as the basis and I am sure more modern ones were in the works to serve as Escort Carriers of WWIII. The Navy has practically had several of these ships used to carry Marine landing forces, don't recall the name of the vessels, but they too could be press into Escort Carrier type service too.

In the Persian Gulf they could be used as staging asset for the Heli-borne forces. In and around Korea for the same reason and in the North Sea and Baltic Sea in support of the protecting Marine units in those areas.
Almost a decade later, but that would've been the Thetis Bay. CVE to an LPH while the USMC was monkeying around with at-sea ready forces in the late 50s and early 60s.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-05-2018, 09:41 AM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

Speaking of Aircraft carriers, I was reading The RDF Sourcebook and noted that there's a whole (small) carrier battle group still standing and operational, built around the LHA-3 Bellau Wood. The book notes that its air wing stands at 3 UH-60s, however, it (and its sister ships) are still active and protect oil transports going to the US, moving troops around, etc.

There's at least 2 USMC air wings in the region as well with operational Harriers; if "carrier" ops were needed, the resources are right there.

(note LHA-3 and her sister ships are oil-fueled steam turbine ships).

Anyway, thought that was pretty interesting.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-05-2018, 11:54 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,573
Default Container Ship-Carrier Conversions

This is a bit of tangent, but I wouldn't be surprised to see container ships converted to ersatz escort carriers during WWIII. I seem to remember reading that both the U.S./UK had contingency plans to do just that during the Cold War. Essentially, on the said container ships, you lay runway matting over a single layer of shipping containers. The containers contain workshops, spare parts, weaponry, etc. The matting acts as a makeshift landing pad for helicopters and/or STOL/VTOL aircraft.

The idea is to provide convoys with ASW protection, without dedicating fleet carriers or amphibs to the task. I suppose that such a conversion vessel could also provide air support to amphib operations.

IIRC, during the 1982 Falklands war, a container ship (the Atlantic Conveyor or similar vessel) was used as a floating base for Sea King and Wessex transport helicopters).

I suppose a container ship runway could be used to launch STOL turboprop light attack aircraft such as OV-10 Broncos and/or A-1 Skyraiders, as well as Harrier jump jets.

IIRC, there's a thread about the above somewhere around here.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-05-2018, 12:56 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
This is a bit of tangent, but I wouldn't be surprised to see container ships converted to ersatz escort carriers during WWIII. I seem to remember reading that both the U.S./UK had contingency plans to do just that during the Cold War. Essentially, on the said container ships, you lay runway matting over a single layer of shipping containers. The containers contain workshops, spare parts, weaponry, etc. The matting acts as a makeshift landing pad for helicopters and/or STOL/VTOL aircraft.

The idea is to provide convoys with ASW protection, without dedicating fleet carriers or amphibs to the task. I suppose that such a conversion vessel could also provide air support to amphib operations.

IIRC, during the 1982 Falklands war, a container ship (the Atlantic Conveyor or similar vessel) was used as a floating base for Sea King and Wessex transport helicopters).

I suppose a container ship runway could be used to launch STOL turboprop light attack aircraft such as OV-10 Broncos and/or A-1 Skyraiders, as well as Harrier jump jets.

IIRC, there's a thread about the above somewhere around here.
SCADS, although at the moment I can't recall what the acronym stood for.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-05-2018, 09:29 PM
mcchordsage's Avatar
mcchordsage mcchordsage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
SCADS, although at the moment I can't recall what the acronym stood for.
Shipborne Containerized Air Defense Systems? Containerized system to deliver the needed supplies to convert a container ship for Harrier operations. Was an early 1980s effort I think.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-05-2018, 09:39 PM
copeab's Avatar
copeab copeab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 658
Default

Reminds of early in WWII where some British merchant ships were fitted with a catapult-launched Hurricane for use against German Fw 200 Condors acting as spotters for U-boats. The Hurricanes were usually successful in driving off the Condors, but later finding the convoy so the pilot could ditch nearby (the ships had no way of recovering the aircraft) was a bit tricky ...
__________________
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://copeab.tripod.com
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-06-2018, 12:03 AM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 158
Default

I have been told part of the Cabot debacle was because the museum's board hired a goofball to command the ship with a made up resume as a retired navy Captain. By the time they realized he was a nut case and had no idea what he was doing A LOT of damage due to his incompetent neglect and bungled repairs/maintenance/conversion work had been inflicted on the ship. They were never able to crawl out of the hole he left in the budget to get her in any kind of shape for museum tours.

I understand the Navy was extremely pissed, because they had recommended several officers for the job that the board ignored for the guy they selected, who apparently had some political pull with someone on the board. There may have been a lawsuit filed by some of the investors...not sure.

Last edited by mpipes; 05-06-2018 at 04:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-06-2018, 01:07 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is online now
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 933
Default Shipborne Containerized Air Defense Systems

Shipborne Containerized Air Defense Systems
Attached Images
   
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-06-2018, 01:20 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcchordsage View Post
Shipborne Containerized Air Defense Systems? Containerized system to deliver the needed supplies to convert a container ship for Harrier operations. Was an early 1980s effort I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
Shipborne Containerized Air Defense Systems
Yes, that's it exactly. Thank you both.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-06-2018, 06:54 PM
The Dark The Dark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 275
Default

The American equivalent was ARAPAHO, which looked to outfit containers with ASW electronics and load 6 to 8 helicopters or Harriers on board, taking up about 30% of the cargo space of (then-current) container ships to convert them to ASW carriers/convoy escorts. When tested (by the Royal Navy) on RFA Reliant off Lebanon in 1984, the lack of watertightness proved to be a problem; helicopters had to be washed down twice daily to prevent salt corrosion, and despite being in the (relatively calm) Mediterranean, the hangar was often awash in 2-3 inches of salt water from spray and rolling.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:52 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is online now
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark View Post
The American equivalent was ARAPAHO
Actually no it was not ARAPAHO Army Pre-positioned Sustainment Maintenance Facility. Was a concept convinced by Naval Air Systems Command for a portable, modularized aviation facility intended for installation aboard container ships.

The differences are

1. It be installed in less than twenty-four hours and included all components necessary for V/STOL aircraft operations: flight deck, hangar, fuel, and crew accommodations.

2. ARAPAHO was designed be taken off a ship, and moved shore, to be set up as a complete self-sustaining facility to do Aviation Unit Maintenance (AVUM), Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM), and selected depot work.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ip/arapaho.htm
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:53 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is online now
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 933
Default

https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ip/arapaho.htm

Copied from the above link in case you can't get it to work

ARAPAHO Army Pre-positioned Sustainment Maintenance Facility

In the Arapaho program, the Naval Air Systems Command developed a portable, modularized aviation facility intended for installation aboard container ships. It can be installed in less than twenty-four hours and included all components necessary for V/STOL aircraft operations: flight deck, hangar, fuel, and crew accommodations. It was estimated to cost less than $20 million per set.

ARAPAHO was a research and development project to demonstrate the feasibility of equipping merchant ships with emergency aviation support in wartime and of operating ASW helicopters and other combatant aircraft from these vessels. ARAPAHO at-sea testing was completed 07 October 1982 at the Norfolk International Terminal, Norfolk, Va., when the 18,000-ton container ship Export Leader - configured with a portable modular aviation facility - returned to port after having logged 178 day and 45 night helicopter landings.

The history of the floating maintenance facility goes back to World War II. There was a big fight between the Army Air Force and the Navy over the need for a floating aircraft repair facility. After a great deal of debating among themselves, they came up with three ships. These ships were used in the Pacific when the Americans were island hopping. Before troops could get a facility ashore, they were going to another island. So they put these repair facilities aboard these small ships that were converted for it and they would island hop with the invasion force and were very successful.

After the end of World War II, there was no need for them and they were all dismantled and done away with because no one saw the need for that type of thing in the future. In Korea, there was not a need for them; or if there was, it had such a low priority that no one ever resurrected the concept. In the early 1960s the AV-5 Albemarle, a WWII seaplane tender, was taken out of the James River Fleet off of Fort Eustis and taken down to Charleston. She was converted and renamed ARVH-1 Corpus Christi Bay [ARVH = Aircraft Repair Ship, Helicopter].

Then there was a plan in the late 1960s and early 1970s for a floating aircraft maintenance facility which would have consisted of a small aircraft carrier [an escort carrier] with a hanger built on the flight deck. That was considered to be cost prohibitive at the time and the idea was dropped.

By the mid-1980s there was a plan to resurrect this capability with the project Arapaho, building a modular facility aboard a container ship. The advantage of the Arapaho over the floating aircraft maintenance facility such as the Corpus Christi Bay is that it could be taken off the ship, moved shore, and set up as a complete self-sustaining facility to do Aviation Unit Maintenance (AVUM), Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM), and selected depot work.

The ability to support the planned force development in all of its potential roles was essential to accomplishment of the Army's missions under the National Security and National Military Strategies. During 1992 the Army took several steps to improve its ability to support its forces in combat and in operations other than war. These covered a wide spectrum of logistical issues such as war reserves; repair parts; tactical water; petroleum, oil, and lubricants; and the industrial base. In the process, the Army leadership had to balance considerations of force structure design, mobility, and personnel end strength with the available resources to properly sustain its forces.

To provide non divisional Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM) and limited depot support in an operational area, the Army established its Pre-positioned Sustainment Maintenance Facility (ARAPAHO) program. Operating as either a sea-based or land-based facility, ARAPAHO consisted of a designated non divisional AVIM unit's personnel with equipment installed in shelters. Logisticians designed the unit for loading on board a C-5 Seawitch class or larger container ship within twenty-four to thirty-six hours of receiving movement orders, and they envisioned deployment at sea within six days. The unit can use on-board Operational Ready Float (ORF) and Forward Repair Activities (FRA) and will use extended prescribed load list/authorized stockage list (PLL/ASL). ARAPAHO's ability to deploy rapidly would hopefully save forces from waiting sixty days for a ground-based AVIM unit. As a self-transportable unit, ARAPAHO can also quickly redeploy after completing its initial mission.
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-07-2018, 11:37 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is online now
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 933
Default Other Ideas

Here is a link for pictures and stats for RFA Reliance (A131), already talked about there is a really good picture here too

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/br...astronomer.htm

Other examples of ships like this are:

RFA Argus (A135) of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which began her career as container ship. The ship was requisitioned in 1982 for service in the Falklands War and purchased outright in 1984 for use as an Aviation Training Ship

RFA Engadine (K08) was a helicopter support ship of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The need for Engadine was seen in the mid-1960s as more and more helicopters were deployed from Royal Navy aircraft carriers and surface combatants. She was decommissioned in 1989 and sold to new owners in Greece and left the UK in 1990. Broken up in India in 1996
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-10-2018, 08:36 AM
unkated unkated is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 401
Default

Now, there's an interesting possibility -

Sale of the Cabot, operational if disarmed, into private hands, who turn out to be New America, who load up say 500 well-armed troops, half a dozen helicopters, and go William Walker on Jamaica in 1998/9, in order to provide a safe secure home base...

It isn't going far, and some refill fuel an be raided from the Dutch ABC islands...

Uncle Ted
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-10-2018, 11:17 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated View Post
Now, there's an interesting possibility -

Sale of the Cabot, operational if disarmed, into private hands, who turn out to be New America, who load up say 500 well-armed troops, half a dozen helicopters, and go William Walker on Jamaica in 1998/9, in order to provide a safe secure home base...

It isn't going far, and some refill fuel an be raided from the Dutch ABC islands...

Uncle Ted
Or another may be that it ends up docked at Jacksonville after it runs short of fuel and it becomes part of the Sea Lord of Jacksonville's forces - having a carrier would make him much more formidable even if its just for show - after all most of the world's carriers are either out of action due to damage, out of fuel for either the ship or their planes or sunk
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-10-2018, 11:33 AM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

Per canon, as in, printed by GDW, how much of the US Navy is left as fleet-in-being?

Matt Weiser wrote a pretty good "fanon" writeup in GLYOYO #1; just wondering where the GDW pubs outline what ships are left.

USS City of Corpus Christi, SSGN-981 an Ohio-class SSBN (The Last Sub)

USS John Hancock, DD981, Spruance class (Going Home)

USS Nashville, LPD-13, Austin-class transport dock (The RDF Sourcebook)
USS Bellau Wood, LHA-3, Tarawa-class (The RDF Sourcebook)
USS Clark, FFG-11, Oliver Hazard Perry class (The RDF Sourcebook)
USS Boone, FFG-25*, Oliver Hazard Perry class (The RDF Sourcebook)
USS Copeland, FFG-28*, Oliver Hazard Perry class (The RDF Sourcebook)
USS Salem, CA-139**, Des Moines class heavy cruiser (The RDF Sourcebook)
USS Yorktown, CG-45, Ticonderoga class (The RDF Sourcebook)

...

*=the ship registry numbers are flipped, Boone is FFG-28 and Copeland is FFG-25.

** = now, this is interesting. Salem was decomissioned in 1954. Per Wikipeida:
Quote:
The ship was surveyed in 1981 for possible reactivation as part of the 600 ship navy project, and while the inspection results showed she was in excellent condition, funding to reactivate Salem and her sister Des Moines could not be secured from Congress.
So, even by Twilight:2000's timeline, she wasn't put back in service. However, at some point, she was. She wasn't made into a museum ship until 1994, so that means she sat in the reserve fleet after the 1981 examination. But, again, "she was in excellent condition", so by the T2k timeline, she must have been returned to Naval service rather than given over to museum caretakers in the 1990s. Either that or she was brought back into service to bolster the Navy after losses. I lean towards the former, since finding personnel qualified and gathering the resources to re-tool and make fully combat-worthy a ship of that age would be at best very difficult after even a limited nuclear war...
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-10-2018, 12:19 PM
unkated unkated is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Or another may be that it ends up docked at Jacksonville after it runs short of fuel and it becomes part of the Sea Lord of Jacksonville's forces - having a carrier would make him much more formidable even if its just for show - after all most of the world's carriers are either out of action due to damage, out of fuel for either the ship or their planes or sunk
By canon (Urban Guerilla), Jacksonville was victimized by a nuclear near-miss that went off in the waters a few miles off shore and drenched the area in radioactive mud, steam and seawater. This led to most of the population fleeing or dying.

Uncle Ted
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-10-2018, 02:28 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unkated View Post
By canon (Urban Guerilla), Jacksonville was victimized by a nuclear near-miss that went off in the waters a few miles off shore and drenched the area in radioactive mud, steam and seawater. This led to most of the population fleeing or dying.

Uncle Ted
And that shows one of the inconsistencies of the modules - if you had a near miss that close that produced that effect then how do you have the Sea-Lord of Jacksonville in 2001 - he is referred to quite clearly in the letters that were intercepted in Urban Guerilla - i.e that the NA had already infiltrated his organization and was working to be able to take over his organization

Jacksonville and Mayport are separated by several miles so that near miss may have devastated the areas along the coast but may have spared a lot of Jacksonville itself - also was the miss in a direct line to Mayport or was it also the south - if that is where it hit then Jacksonville Beach and places like that could have been nailed but must of the city could have been spared

and not sure if the nuke was a surface detonation or airburst

FYI - the idea that a nuke could have caused a wave effect is faulty - https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...s__107709.html - if it was a surface burst you can get lots of water and mud shot up in the air but not a wave - it takes a hell of a lot more energy than one megaton to create any kind of appreciable wave
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-10-2018, 02:30 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
And that shows one of the inconsistencies of the modules - if you had a near miss that close that produced that effect then how do you have the Sea-Lord of Jacksonville in 2001 - he is referred to quite clearly in the letters that were intercepted in Urban Guerilla - i.e that the NA had already infiltrated his organization and was working to be able to take over his organization

Jacksonville and Mayport are separated by several miles so that near miss may have devastated the areas along the coast but may have spared a lot of Jacksonville itself - also was the miss in a direct line to Mayport or was it also the south - if that is where it hit then Jacksonville Beach and places like that could have been nailed but must of the city could have been spared

and not sure if the nuke was a surface detonation or airburst

FYI - the idea that a nuke could have caused a wave effect is faulty - https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...s__107709.html - if it was a surface burst you can get lots of water and mud shot up in the air but not a wave - it takes a hell of a lot more energy than one megaton to create any kind of appreciable wave
My memory could be faulty but wasn't the strike list "Air-burst unless otherwise noted"?
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-10-2018, 03:35 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

I think you are right there - if I remember right the list actually said surface when it was a surface burst - i.e. that part at least it didnt leave to chance

Keep in mind however that the list in Howling Wilderness DID NOT exactly match the actual attacks - and before I get the usual rap in the mouth for saying that I mean that the details of the actual attacks varied from the simple list in HW versus for instance Urban Guerilla

Pointed that out last night in another thread - i.e. the attack on Cape Canaveral wasnt a simple one megaton surface burst attack - it was a series of ten 0.1MT surface bursts that added up to one megaton - but if all you had was HW you would think it was a single one megaton bomb
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-10-2018, 03:43 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

That "10 hits" thing is ridiculous overkill. I mean, it's canon, so whatcha gonna do, but seriously that's just beyond silly. It's like shooting a lego building eight times with a .22 :P

Anyway, for myself, I'd take the strike list, dial it into Nukemap, and get your best estimate effects from there (but this is wandering far afield, my apologies).

Back to carriers...I could swear to God there was another one mentioned as being in the Gulf, stuck in port (in Kuwait?) due to damage...grr what WAS it...I've discussed the very thing myself.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-10-2018, 04:03 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

Matt mentioned the carrier stuck in the Gulf - but it wasnt canon - but the canon really didnt mention ships very much - and it would make sense that there are ships stuck in various ports all over the world due to damage of various types - that is why the Korean Sourcebook and the East African one actually started detailing out more of what is left of the USN in those areas

and I agree its overkill - I used to work at NASA - and there is no way in hell you need 10 0.1MT nukes to take the place out - heck one was on the VAB building itself - the building is big but you dont need that much of a bomb to take it out - and nuking the pads themselves is MASSIVE OVERKILL - I can see hitting the air force base that way because its so spread out and there are so many targets there - but NASA can be taken out pretty easily with one or two nukes - you dont need ten spread out all over the place - hell just an EMP bomb would have done the job - not going to be doing much if you fry the shuttles and the launch computers
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-10-2018, 05:17 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default

Well, there are shelters between the SSPF and ONC buildings. I'm sure the Soviets would've tried to fry anyone in those, too. But yeah 10 100kt warheads is massive overkill.

It does lend some credence to the idea that the reason the TDM wasn't as bad as it might have been was because we had a working SDI/Missile Shield, and coming from launches at the Cape, the Soviets might've been making sure there'd be no future missions from there (spiteful, but, eh.)

EDIT:

Anyway, to bring this back around, yes, there's a light aircraft carrier in the USN inventory, along with the aircraft, the fuel to fly them, the personnel to man them, etc. as outlined in the RDF Sourcebook, and it's keeping POL flowing to the US (well, trickling) as the flagship in a protective convoy...
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:04 PM
The Dark The Dark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
Per canon, as in, printed by GDW, how much of the US Navy is left as fleet-in-being?
A debatable one: in 2000, USS Tarawa is still in service in the Atlantic per Nautical/Aviation Handbook, page 57. However, that Handbook was primarily intended for use with Merc, so I could see this one being argued either way.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-18-2018, 04:07 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark View Post
A debatable one: in 2000, USS Tarawa is still in service in the Atlantic per Nautical/Aviation Handbook, page 57. However, that Handbook was primarily intended for use with Merc, so I could see this one being argued either way.
The Tarawa is really more for the Nautical Aviation Handbook - and I agree that is for Merc not for Twilight 2000

Now that doesnt mean she isnt still around - but I always look at that resource as being one for that version of the game
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 02:12 PM.


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