RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:19 AM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 842
Default

The squadrons are at 50-75% strength, due to picking up 'Orphans" from carriers sunk or crippled during the war. The big issue is Jet fuel-or the shortage of it, along with getting fuel for the ships at Chinhae so that if the recall comes, they can go home.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-14-2018, 07:14 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
Olefin, thanks for posting that. If anyone can find the material on the carriers-and I am looking through my notes for that information, that would be greatly appreciated.
Matt I found this on a CD with old Twilight 2000 stuff I had in storage. Is this what you are looking for?


Subject: The Battleships
Posted by: Matt Wiser
Date: 11/23/2002 01:37


There was a request for info on the fate of the Iowa-class battleships: Iíll also throw in the two Des Moines-class heavy cruisers.

Iowa: Active in Atlantic. Provided fire support for NATO ground forces in Norway and at Kola. Sunk by Oscar-class SSGN 11/26/97 E of Iceland.
Nonnuclear SS-N-19 Shipwreck SSMs used.

New Jersey: Active in Atlantic. Sunk Soviet light cruiser Sverdlov off Grenada (referred to in Gateway to the Spanish Main). Supported NATO forces in Norway, Kola, Baltic. Mined off Bremerhaven, Germany 2/17/98 and beached as constructive total loss. Hulk stripped and destroyed during Operation OMEGA.

Missouri: Active in Pacific. Supported US forces in Korea. Torpedoed by Victor-III class SSN and made port in Pusan, Korea. Destroyed in port when Pusan nuked 10/24/97.

Wisconsin: Active in Pacific. Supported US forces in Korea and bombarded Petrapavlosk-Kamchatka. Wiped out Soviet convoy headed for Alaska. Torpedoed in bow by Victor-II class SSN and sent to Pearl Harbor for repairs. Diverted to Hilo while at sea when Honolulu nuked. Still at Hilo, capable of going to sea (only 1 torpedo hit), but immobile for lack of fuel.

Des Moines: Reactivated from Mothballs 1/97. Sent to Pacific 7/97 and assigned to 7THFLT in Japan.
Active throughout Korean Campaign. In port at Chinhae, ROK and immobile for lack of fuel.

Salem: Reactivated from Mothballs 1/97. Sent to Persian Gulf and assigned to 5THFLT 7/97. Still active in Gulf as of 1 Jan 2001. She is the Flagship of 5THFLT. Supported defense of Bushehr and landings at Chah Bahar.


Subject: RE: the carriers (LONG)
Posted by: Matt Wiser
Date: 11/19/2002 14:03


Interesting question: hereís my take on this:

1) LANTFLTís carriers were no doubt involved in stopping SOVNORTHFLT from breaking the GIUK gap in Dec of í96, and supported the Norweigan and Kola campaigns (where they got pretty well beat up). Iíd say there would be ONE big carrier still operating-My choice for this: USS Eisenhower (CVN-69) and CVW-7, with her (depleted) battle group.
Home ported at Little Creek, VA (outside Norfolk). Two of her escorts are nuclear powered: USS South Carolina (CGN-37) and USS Mississippi(CGN-40). Two Aegis ships: USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) and USS Stout (DDG-55). One Destroyer: USS Scott (DDG-995) Two Frigates: USS Carr (FFG-52) and USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58)

CVW-7 shore-based at NAS Oceana, VA when not embarked:
VF-142 (F-14D)
VF-143 (F-14D)
VFA-131 (F/A-18C)
VFA-136 (F/A-18C)
VA-34 (A-6F/KA-6D)
VAW-121 (E-2C)
VAQ-139 (EA-6B)
VS-37 (S-3B)
HS-5 (SH-60F/HH-60H)

Two other carriers, USS America (CV-66) is immobolized at Tromoso, Norway unable to go to sea due to damage from BACKFIRE-launched AS-4 missiles. CVW-1 flies out of Bodo AB. USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) is at Portsmouth, England with CVW-8. She is still capable of going to sea, but needs reactor fuel. The British are attempting to procure the fuel so that the ship can return home. LANTFLT has two Amphibious carriers: USS Wasp (LHD-1) and USS Nassau (LHA-4) also at Little Creek.

2) Not much canon info on PACFLT, but Iíll give PACFLT USS Nimitz (CVN-68) with CVW-9. Based IRL at Evrett, WA-her T2K home is NAS Alameda, CA.
One PACFLT carrier is theortically availiable: USS Constellation (CV-64) with CVW-2. She is immobolized at Guam for lack of fuel. Aircraft are based at nearby Andersen AFB. Sorties are VERY infrequent due to fuel shortages. Two amphib carriers are also around: USS Bataan (LHD-5) at Sasebo, Japan, supporting the US Eighth Army in Korea; and USS Peleliu (LHA-5) at Hilo, HI. The latter ship sails in Hawaiian waters supporting Hawaiian Reconstruction. Sailings are infrequent due to fuel shortages.
The carrier immobolized at Muscat, Oman is USS Independence (CV-62) with both torpedo damage and ASM damage. If a yard with supertanker size drydock was availiable, it would take 18 months of repairs to get her seaworthy. A caretaker crew is aboard, but most have been reassigned to other 5thFLT ships in the Gulf.

2) Soviet Navy had four Kiev-class ASW carriers: 2 in NORTHFLT and two in PACFLT. All sunk 1996-97. The two Kusnetsov-class ships-Kusnetsov herself was sunk at the GIUK gap, while Varyag was sunk in a carrier-v-carrier battle with USS Nimitz and her battle group. Two other members of the class (unnamed and unlaunched) destroyed when Nikoliyev shipyard in Ukraine nuked.

3) Royal Navyís three Invincible-class CVS: two sunk, Illustrious at GIUK, Invincible at Kola. HMS Ark Royal at Portsmouth immobilized for lack of fuel (sheís nonnuclear).

4) Indian carriers Vikrant and Virrat both casualties of the Indo-Pakistani conflict-Vikrant nuked in Bombay naval base, Virrat sunk by a (lucky) Pakistani submarine attack.

5) Spanish and Thai carriers: Rota NB in Spain was nuked to deny the nearby oil refinery to NATO. The carrier was not in port-escorting tanker convoy to Spain w/battle group, but is immobilized at Cadiz for lack of fuel. The Thai carrier is in a similar condition at her home port in Thailand.

6) The French: The Charles De Gaulle in the T2K timeline completed in 1995 and her sister Richileu in 1997. CDG is active in the Gulf per the RDF revised OB. Richileu active in the Med out of Toulon.


Matt Wiser
02-21-2004, 04:46 PM

OK Shrike, Here goes:

PACFLT: HQ Hilo, HI (relocated from Pearl Harbor)
US Third Fleet: HQ Hilo, HI

Home Port: NAS Alameda, CA
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) with CVW-15 (tailcode NL)
VF-51: F-14D
VF-111: F-14D
VFA-27: F/A-18C
VFA-97: F/A-18C
VA-52: A-6F
VS-37: S-3B
VAQ-134: EA-6B
VAW-114: E-2C
VQ-5 det 5: ES-3B
HS-4: SH-60F/HH-60H
USS Antietam (CG-54) w/HSL-45 det 3 (SH-60B)
USS Chosin (CG-65) w/HSL-41 det 7 (SH-60B)
USS California (CGN-36)
USS Stethem (DDG-63)
USS Paul F. Foster (DD-964) w/ HSL-41 det 2 (SH-60B)
USS Estocin (FFG-15) w/HSL-84 det 2 (SH-2F)
USS Halyburton (FFG-40) w/ HSL-45 det 5 (SH-60B)

US 7th Fleet: HQ Naval Station Guam
USS Constellation (CV-64)w/ CVW-2 (tailcode NE)
VF-1: F-14D
VF-2: F-14D
VFA-137: F/A-18C
VFA-151: F/A-18C
VA-145: A-6F
VA-155: A-6F
VS-38: S-3B
VAQ-131: EA-6B
VAW-116: E-2C
VQ-5 det 6: ES-3B
HS-14: SH-60F/HH-60H
USS Anzio (CG-68) w/ HSL-45 det 2 (SH-60B)
USS Port Royal (CG-73) w/ HSL-49 det 1 (SH-60B)
USS Mississippi (CGN-40)
USS Ramage (DDG-61)
USS Carney (DDG-64)
USS Fletcher (DD-992) w/ HSL-49 det 8 (SH-60B)
USS Gary (FFG-51) w/HSL-45 det 6 (SH-60B)

Shore-based at NAS Lemoore, CA:
VF-124: F-14A/B/D
VFA-125: F/A-18A/B/C/D
VS-41: S-3B
HCS-5: HH-60H
VFC-13: A-4F/M
VP-65: P-3C
VP-91: P-3C
HS-10: SH-60F
HSL-41: SH-60B
HC-1: CH-53E
VP-31: P-3C

Shore-based NAS Alameda, CA
HM-15: MH-53E
CVW-15 is shore-based at Alameda when not embarked.

Shore-based at Anderson AFB, Guam
VRC-50: C-2A, US-3A, C-130F
VQ-1: EP-3E
VQ-5: ES-3B, S-3A
HC-5; HH-46A
CVW-2 is shore-based at Anderson when not embarked.


Matt Wiser
02-21-2004, 05:21 PM


LANTFLT: HQ Little Creek Amphibious Base, VA

US Second Fleet: Little Creek

USS George Washington (CVN-73) w/CVW-17 (tailcode AA)
VF-74: F-14B
VF-103: F-14B
VFA-81: F/A-18C
VFA-83: F/A-18C
VA-34: A-6F/KA-6D
VAQ-132: EA-6B
VAW-125: E-2C
VS-30: S-3B
HS-9: SH-60F/HH-60H
VQ-6 det 2: ES-3B
USS Normandy (CG-60)w/ HSL-44 det 1 (SH-60B)
USS South Carolina (CGN-37)
USS Mitscher (DDG-57)
USS Briscoe (DD-977) w/ HSL-46 det 7 (SH-60B
USS Elrod (FFG-55) w/ HSL-42 det 6 (SH-60B)

US Naval Forces Europe: Portsmouth, England
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) w/CVW-8 (tailcode AJ)
VF-41: F-14D
VF-84: F-14D
VFA-15: F/A-18C
VFA-87: F/A-18C
VA-65: A-6E
VA-36: A-6E
VS-24: S-3B
VAQ-141: EA-6B
VAW-124: E-2C
HS-3: SH-60F/HH-60H
VQ-6 det 4: ES-3B
USS Yorktown (CG-48)w/ HSL-42 det 4(SH-60B)
USS Hue City (CG-66)w/HSL-44 det 5 (SH-60B)
USS Arkansas (CGN-41)
USS Cole (DDG-67)
USS Scott (DDG-995)w/HSL-36 det 2 (SH-2F)
USS Hayler (DD-997)w/ HSL-44 det 6 (SH-60B)
USS McIrney (FFG-8)w/ HSL-42 det 7 (SH-60B
USS Simpson (FFG-56)w/ HSL-46 det 1 (SH-60B)

Shore-based at NAS Oceana, VA:
VF-101: F-14A/B/D
VFA-106: F/A-18A/B/C/D
VA-42: A-6E/F, KA-6D
VAW-120: E-2C, C-2A
HSL-40: SH-60B)
VP-30: P-3C
VP-45: P-3C
CVW-17 is shore-based at NAS Oceana when not embarked

CVW-8 is shore-based at RNAS Yevoliton, England when not embarked.


Matt Wiser
02-22-2004, 12:14 AM


The folks who put RDF Sourcebook made a typo-Yorktown's hull Number is CG-48, not CG-45. That number was for an unbuilt Virginia-class CGN.

Here are several amphibs and other warships:

US Third Fleet: Hilo, HI.

USS Boxer (LHD-6) VMA-322 with AV-8B embarked. Ship was en route to Persian Gulf when nuclear exchange hit CONUS. In Port at Hilo, HI. Occasionally sails in Hawaiian waters supporting PACCOM's reconstruction efforts.

USS Forrest Sherman (DD-931) reactivated Jan 97. Assigned Pacific and based at Pearl Harbor. At sea when Honolulu nuked and now based at Hilo. She escorts Boxer on her infrequent cruises. Only other ship active at Hilo on a routine basis is the Coast Guard Cutter USCG Chase (WHEC-718).
A number of interisland civilian ships have been pressed into Navy service to support Hawaiian ops and reconstruction.

US Seventh Fleet: Divided between Guam and Chinhae, ROK.

USS Semmes (DDG-18): Chinhae, ROK. One of only two 7th FLT ships in Korea active on a regular basis. Frequent Patrols in Yellow Sea supporting SEAL operations in North Korea and in China. Other active ship in Korea is USS Vincennes (CG-49) with HSL-47 det 1 (SH-60B)

Guam: USS Essex (LHD-2) at NS Guam. She "shows the flag" in the Marianas: VMA-124 with AV-8B embarked for but never arrived in Korea, She had also embarked Marine replacements for Korea, but put into Guam after nuclear exchange reached CONUS.

Marines formed into the 41st MEU (Provisional). Her escort is USS Turner Joy (DD-951); reactivated Jan 97 and assigned Pacific. Escorted Essex on her transPac and remains based at Guam. Provides fire support for Marines and Army's 1-294 Infantry Battalion (GU NG). Additional Marines that never made it to Korea are on Saipan and Tinian organized into the 42nd MEU (Prov) on Saipan and 43rd MEU (Prov) on Tinian. Several interisland ships pressed into Navy service to support Marines.


Matt Wiser
02-24-2004, 01:03 AM


Here's the subs in both PACFLT and LANTFLT:

PACFLT

NS Guam:

USS Columbus (SSN-762). No shortage of Mk-48 torpedoes, but Harpoon SSMs and Tomahawks are in limited supply. Frequent patrols to China, North Korean, and Soviet Far East waters, with occasional patrols to SE Asia.

Hilo, HI:

USS La Jolla (SSN-701)
USS Houston (SSN-713)
USS Helena (SSN-725)
USS Topeka (SSN-754)

Torpedoes are still reasonably availiable; but Harpoons and Tomahawks are in short supply. Patrols to Alaska, Soviet Far East, China, and adjacent waters.

SubBase Bangor, WA:

USS Parche has already been mentioned. Milgov is still very secretive regarding her missions. A platoon from SEAL Team 1 is assigned to the boat.
The boomers belong to Submarine Squadron 17.

USS Florida (SSBN-728)
USS Alabama (SSBN-731)
USS Alaska (SSBN-732)
USS Nevada (SSBN-733)

All four boats executed SIOP when ordered on Thanksgiving Day, 1997. None expended their whole load of missiles; Nevada only expended two, as an example. Missile tubes were reloaded and the boats continue patrols, with Florida and Alaska launching in 1998 (four and two respectively), and Nevada launching in 1999 (two). Torpedoes are still availiable at Bangor.

LANTFLT: All boats are based at Little Creek, VA.

USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN-705)
USS Tuscon (SSN-770)

Both boats have a shortage of torpedoes and Harpoon/Tomahawk, and 705 is used as a "special missions" boat. Tuscon conducts patrols in Atlantic waters, from South Africa and Brazil to the Barents Sea. Both avoid combat unless it is unavoidable.

The boomers belong to the relocated Submarine Squadron 20, originally from King's Bay, GA.

USS West Virginia (SSBN-736)
USS Nebraska (SSBN-739)
USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)

All missile boats still carry a full missile loadout, as well as torpedoes. The boats executed SIOP launches, and several post-SIOP launches in 1998-99. Before King's Bay was abandoned, the three boats loaded replacement missiles, submarine spare parts, and maintainance personnel for both the subs and missiles.


Matt Wiser
02-25-2004, 11:08 AM


Here's another West Coast base:

NAS Whidbey Island, WA

VA-128: A-6E/F/KA-6D
VAQ-129: EA-6B


Matt Wiser
03-01-2004, 02:27 AM


Frank Frey in one of his posts on the 173rd Airborne in Kenya mentioned a USN/USCG JTF operating out of Mombasa against the local pirates, smugglers, and other scum in the area.
My guess as to composition:

USS Morton (DD-948) Reactivated Forrest-Sherman class DD. Reactivated Jan 97 and originally assigned Pacific. Deployed to Mombasa Jul 97 and based there since. Ship is very active.
USS Lockwood (FF-1064) Knox-class FF. Retired in 1991 but reactivated Oct 96 and assigned Pacific. Provided local ASW cover with HSL-84 det 6 (SH-2F). Another Knox-class FF, USS Bagley (FF-1069) was assigned, but bow blown off by torpedo from Victor-II SSN 7/7/97. Hulk used as a parts source for Lockwood. Her SH-2 also used as parts source, with crew reassigned to local base duties, or as advisors to Kenyan Navy.
VP-69 (USN Reserve from NAS Whidbey Island, WA) provides local aviation support with 4 flyable P-3C Orions for MP/ASW.
SEAL support is from Naval Reserve elements originally assigned to SEAL Team 2. Their main support vessel is the Cyclone-class gunboat USS Thunderbolt (PC-12), along with a number of PB Mk III and Stinger (improved PBR) patrol craft. Mine countermeasures are handled by USS Patriot (MCM-7)

Coast Guard is represented by the cutter USCG Jarvis (WHEC-725), originally assigned from San Francisco. A USN helo det from HSL-84 (det 10) with SH-2 deployed with the ship. Helo lost in accident in 1998 over land. Four Island-class patrol boats round out the force, and do work with SEALS as necessary. No USCG aviation deployed.

VF-124 det 1: F-14B
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:35 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,028
Default

I remember that post RN7 - Matt is the post in the fanzine an updated and modified version of that original post?

i.e. some differences in details

fanzine post

USS Missouri (BB-63)
Active Pacific: Active off Korea and in containment of SOVPACFLT 1996-
97. In port at Chinhae, ROK due to lack of fuel.

original post

Missouri: Active in Pacific. Supported US forces in Korea. Torpedoed by Victor-III class SSN and made port in Pusan, Korea. Destroyed in port when Pusan nuked 10/24/97.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-14-2018, 09:02 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 842
Default

Made a change and decided that Missouri should have made it. But they were approaching Pusan for a 24-hour stop to refuel and take on stores when it was struck.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-14-2018, 10:14 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 52
Default

This is probably a stupid question and I don't remember whether it was asked back in the day or not. I was wondering what if any naval assets were available to Civgov after the split?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-14-2018, 10:27 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 52
Default

I also remember there was a problem with one of the Forest Shermans because it had been scrapped IRL before the Twilight War for some reason I think it was the USS Morten. I know you had another FS class ship as replacement but I don't remember which one that was but I don't remember what that was.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:34 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
This is probably a stupid question and I don't remember whether it was asked back in the day or not. I was wondering what if any naval assets were available to Civgov after the split?
I doubt there was much as MilGov controls all the surviving naval base infrastructure, and allied nations overseas also support MilGov. There might have been a few ships whose officers were sympathetic to CivGov, but the reality of survival would sway their decisions on who to support. Maybe in CivGov controlled areas you would have some river or coastal patrol craft, but not much else.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:16 PM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
I doubt there was much as MilGov controls all the surviving naval base infrastructure, and allied nations overseas also support MilGov. There might have been a few ships whose officers were sympathetic to CivGov, but the reality of survival would sway their decisions on who to support. Maybe in CivGov controlled areas you would have some river or coastal patrol craft, but not much else.
I can't argue with the logic of that but at the same time there is the peculiar situation of US IV Corps in the Balkans. How were they convinced to side with Civgov with no hope of resupply. I suppose one could say the remnant governments of Yugoslavia and Romania convinced the IV Corps to side with Civgov that just doesn't seem logical to me. If anything I would think those generals would inform those governments whose side they were siding with and the governments would follow suit.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-15-2018, 02:38 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,028
Default

If you look at the East African Sourcebook you can see the ship that used in the place of the scrapped Forrest Sherman DD

As for Civgov - always wondered where they got the ships to send those three divisions to Yugoslavia - that is one of the big "what the heck??!!" parts of the whole canon

First off you have to get shipping and get them some kind of escorts for three divisions that included a division that had tanks - personally I am thinking they may have used Coast Guard cutters for escorts - I dont see the USN going over to Civgov but the Coast Guard that I could see

Second off you need to get the fuel to send three divisions over - not the single one Milgov sent - and Milgov controlled almost all the remaining fuel reserves

Third you have to have commanders gullible enough to somehow think they were going to get re-supplied by basically a rebel government when Milgov controlled almost all the remaining oil and military equipment reserves and not only agreed to get on the ships but stayed loyal thru resupply collapsing and didnt say "screw this" and do what it took to try to link up with Milgov forces in Austria
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-15-2018, 03:01 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,557
Default Stop the CivGov Hate!

I think the best way to handle those, "what the heck?" issues with canon is to work out a plausible explanation. I prefer that approach to complete RETCONs. If not all of the U.S. Army sided with MilGov, it stands to reason that not all of the USN did either. There's your escorts right there (although I do like the idea of including some Coast Guard vessels). I don't see it as too far out of the realm of possibilities for CivGov to possess enough refined fuel oil to power a fleet on a one-way trip to Europe (if not a round trip). Perhaps the commanders of the divisions sent to Yugoslavia were true believers- loyal CivGov men and ardent anti-communists who believed in fighting for a free, CivGov-aligned Europe. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Anyway, here's an idea that occurred to me- a way to target enemy forces in harbor without quite as much collateral damage as an airburst or ground strike nuke. Both Soviets and U.S. developed nuclear torpedoes in the 1950s and '60s. I suppose that it's possible to program such a torpedo to run straight and shallow. It seems like it would be a pretty ideal anti-harbor weapon- that one could bag several vessels and damage piers and such without wrecking inland areas (most major ports abut cities). Thoughts?
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:05 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 842
Default

I believe that was one of the original strategic missions for Soviet subs: firing nuclear torpedoes into NATO ports. The Type 53-68 nuclear torpedo is a straight-runner, with a 10-20 KT yield. It's getting into range of a port, with the ASW defenses usually present, that would be the problem.

The Mark 45 ASTOR nuclear torpedo for the USN was retired in 1977.

An alternative weapon would be standoff ASW rockets like the SS-N-15/16 or SUBROC/Sea Lance. They're meant to kill ballistic-missile subs at standoff range, especially if they're getting ready to fire. They don't move-and neither do ports. Simply fuze the nuclear depth charge to detonate shallow, and you do wreck the port and the ships in it.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:28 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,028
Default

"Stop the CivGov Hate!"

hey do we have a new catch phrase for the site?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-15-2018, 09:57 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
I believe that was one of the original strategic missions for Soviet subs: firing nuclear torpedoes into NATO ports. The Type 53-68 nuclear torpedo is a straight-runner, with a 10-20 KT yield. It's getting into range of a port, with the ASW defenses usually present, that would be the problem.
Yeah, I was thinking such an attack would take place later in the war, when there were fewer ASW assets about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
An alternative weapon would be standoff ASW rockets like the SS-N-15/16 or SUBROC/Sea Lance. They're meant to kill ballistic-missile subs at standoff range, especially if they're getting ready to fire. They don't move-and neither do ports. Simply fuze the nuclear depth charge to detonate shallow, and you do wreck the port and the ships in it.
I like that idea too. It just seems a lot cleaner if the goal is to kill ships in port without doing a heap of collateral damage.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-16-2018, 06:52 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,028
Default

thats why the attack on Casablanca was using a decent size nuke - the idea was to kill the port and the ships in it - not just kill the ships themselves - actually be a good way to go after French assets as well if you are just trying to damage for instance an oil terminal but not the city itself - i.e. sink the tankers in the port and damage the terminal and loading facilities but not take out the city and cause a ton of civilian casualties
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-16-2018, 10:25 AM
lordroel lordroel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The Neterlands
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
thats why the attack on Casablanca was using a decent size nuke - the idea was to kill the port and the ships in it - not just kill the ships themselves - actually be a good way to go after French assets as well if you are just trying to damage for instance an oil terminal but not the city itself - i.e. sink the tankers in the port and damage the terminal and loading facilities but not take out the city and cause a ton of civilian casualties
Wonder, what do you consider to be a decent size nuke.
__________________
| Alternate Timelines | home of a small but active alternate history community |
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-16-2018, 12:56 PM
unkated unkated is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 389
Default

IIRC, there was mention in the Yugoslav material of some battle in the Med against the Italian and Greek navies, either trying to run supplies to Turkey or to reinforce the IV Corps.

(Sending IV Corps to Yugoslavia is one that doesn't make sense to me either, but if you like high level conspiracy....
  • The Chief of Staff of someone high in CivGov's military is a MilGov sleeper.
  • Said sleeper put in all the paperwork to get IV Corps and naval escort sent away from CivGov's northeast enclave, perhaps while his chief was elsewhere.
  • The true purpose of IV Corps's mission is to weaken CivGov by removing ~30,000 trained troops and their equipment and sending them out of the country - if you like your MilGov evil).


There was a mention I remember reading in this forum of a major north Pacific naval battle, where the Soviets slammed 2-3 US CVBGs with nukes, creating the conditions to allow them to scamper across the Alaska invasion force. (I don't really buy it either, but we way as well dredge that up as a possibility and show the link). Or did I misremember that?

Uncle Ted
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-16-2018, 01:32 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,028
Default

A decent size nuke is 200kt plus - if you look at nuclear torpedoes their yield is much less - thus if you want to sink ships and damage port facilities but not take out the whole port and city with it you would use a nuclear torpedo - but if you want to take out the port as a whole and sink as many ships as possible you use a much larger weapon

for instance the US Mark 45 torpedo only had an 11 kiloton warhead - still decent sized but hardly by itself big enough to take out a major port and the city surrounding it
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-16-2018, 05:03 PM
mpipes mpipes is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 154
Default

What was Soviet doctrine as far as using nukes at sea?

It pretty well known now that they planned to start using nukes almost from the start of a war in Europe. Was the same true for their navy. I've always had the view that they would want to avoid crossing that threshold at sea. They would have lost those exchanges in effect, as their navy was tied pretty tightly to their bases and had little ability to "scatter" like the US had and US doctrine was to take out the bases with nukes if the Soviets started using their nukes against navy ships.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-16-2018, 09:36 PM
lordroel lordroel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The Neterlands
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post

for instance the US Mark 45 torpedo only had an 11 kiloton warhead - still decent sized but hardly by itself big enough to take out a major port and the city surrounding it
But enough to cause severe damage to the port i guess.
__________________
| Alternate Timelines | home of a small but active alternate history community |
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-17-2018, 08:52 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,028
Default

probably would depend where it went off and how big the harbor is - at very least it would be very bad news for any nearby ships or subs when it went off - and if it went off right next to loading terminal or docks you can pretty much kiss them goodbye
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 10:32 PM.


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