RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-06-2011, 12:38 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
great impact
An impact, solely an impact. Nothing that overwhelming.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-06-2011, 12:57 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Does anyone have any information on which Soviet bloc ships might be reactivated, or how quickly the Pact could pump out warships?
I'd have to say it seems more logical for the Soviets to start production sooner than anyone else given they're already at war with China. The Soviets also have a need to expand their navy to try and blockade all shipping to Chinese ports and their allies.
I can buy a swift and massive increase in the Soviet navy much more than I can any other nation on the planet given their earlier entry into hostilities.
__________________
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
  #33  
Old 09-06-2011, 05:03 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Here is a good and viable source

http://russian-ships.info/eng/

However, you have to check every ship and try to cross reference what you find on it. Still, DOOSA and ships that have been given to the sailing clubs are the most readily available.

One thing is important to note and it is that most ship are small units including small frigates, corvettes, minewarfare and patrol boats.

The larger units would largely be discraded depend on wether or not the Kremlin allow them real financing. I would expect a number of destroyers to be returned to full duty: Kanin, Kildin and Kotlin classes but I'm not sure about the Sverdlov. It is true that the Soviet have been at war longer but I aslo think that they would prefer to focus on their newer ships and they were building plenty in the late 1980's.

I expect the aircraft carriers building program to be carried as planned in the 1980's, I expect more Slava, Udaloy, Sovremenyy, Neustrachimy, Gepard, Nanuchka, Tarantul and Pauk to be built. Same thing for the submarines.

You can also have the Matka hydrofoil entering full production to replace the aging Osa but I'm not convinced.

It will also depend of the game you play. With V1.0, tensions had been rising for some times before the war and funding obviously came. With v2.2, all the ships that were scrapped between 1987-1992 are indeed scrapped.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-06-2011, 09:10 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default Soviet Ships that can be recommissioned

If that can help

These ships are given by fleet with their names but no pennant number and their location regarding the fleet is fairly accurate from what you can find out. When it comes to smaller ships (these with no name at all), there can be some more around. Of course, this is what could be, not what it is. To note, all these ships were about 10 years younger than the US destroyers that had gone through the FRAM program.

Additional ships might exist as well from, for example, the Osa-class or various types of torpedo boats. For ships that were in the process of decommissioning, I simply consider that the process ended. Kynda and Kresta I might not have been decommissioned at all. I didn't include the surviving Skoryy-class destroyers but a handful might still be around. I have a tendency to have them among the raiders sent to the Atlantic (as the Smolnyy training ships) for two reason: they carry a fair amount of gun rounds and you don't spare much valuable ships to chase cargo and tankers when 130mm and 76mm rounds can do the job just fine... and if the crews complain a bit: "Na Rodinia Tavarischi vi Geroy Sovyetskogo Soyuza"

Surviving Sverdlov-class would probably add the weapon systems still on display with the Mikhail Kutuzov (4 to 6 30mm AD systems and 2 SA-4 AD systems).

Submarines type are incomplete but the number of whiskey also include the surviving Zulu-class.

North Fleet:
- Cruiser “Vice-Admiral Drozd” (Kresta I-class)
- Cruiser “Alexandr Nevskiy” (Sverdlov-class)
- Cruiser “Murmansk”
- Destroyer “Gremyashchiy” (Kanin-class)
- Destroyer “Derzkiy”
- Destroyer “Boykiy”
- Destroyer “Zorkiy”
- Destroyer “Nesokurshimyy” (Kotlin-class)
- Destroyer “Spokoynyy”
- Destroyer “Skromnyy”
- 6 Riga-class Frigates
- 10 Poti-class Corvettes
- 4 Kronshtadt-class Corvettes
- 2 T43-class Seagoing Minesweepers

Baltic Fleet
- Cruiser “Admiral Zozulya” (Kresta I-class)
- Cruiser “Grozny” (Kynda-class)
- Cruiser “Sverdlov” (Sverdlov-class)
- Destroyer "Prozorlivyy" (Kildin-class)
- Destroyer “Nastoychivyy” (Kotlin-class)
- Destroyer “Blagorodnyy”
- Destroyer “Spehnyy”
- Destroyer “Svetlyy”
- 6 Riga-class Frigates
- 3 SO1-class Corvettes
- 12 Poti-class Corvettes
- 2 Kronshtadt-class Corvettes
- 4 T43-class Seagoing Minesweepers
- 14 Whiskey-class SSK

Pacific Fleet
- Cruiser “Sevastopol” (Kresta I-class)
- Cruiser “Vladivostok”
- Cruiser “Admiral Fokin” (Kynda-class)
- Cruiser “Riga”
- Cruiser “Admiral Senyavin” (Sverdlov-class)
- Cruiser “Alexandr Suvorov”
- Destroyer “Gnevnyy” (Kanin-class)
- Destroyer “Upornyy”
- Destroyer “Vyzyvayushchiy” (Kotlin-class)
- Destroyer “Vozbuzhdennyy”
- Destroyer “Vyderzhannyy”
- Destroyer “Skrytnyy”
- Destroyer “Burlivyy”
- 5 Riga-class Frigates
- 18 Whiskey-class SSK

Black Sea Fleet
- Cruiser “Admiral Golovko” (Kynda-class)
- Cruiser “Mikhail Kutuzov” (Sverdlov-class)
- Cruiser “Zhdanov”
- Destroyer "Bedovyy" (Kildin-class)
- Destroyer "Neulovimyy"
- Destroyer “Nakhodchivyy” (Kotlin-class)
- Destroyer “Sveduschiy”
- Destroyer “Plamennyy”
- 5 Riga-class Frigates
- 11 Poti-class Corvettes
- 1 Kronshtadt-class Corvette
- 2 T43-class Seagoing Minesweepers
- 14 Whiskey-class SSK

Caspian Sea Flotilla
- 3 Riga-class Frigates
- 1 Kronshtadt-class Corvette
- 4 T43-class Seagoing Minesweepers

Last edited by Mohoender; 09-06-2011 at 09:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-06-2011, 05:33 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

So basically you're looking at a fairly significant number of vessels, many of which are actually newer than the US ships available for recommissioning and since the Soviets have a reputation for simple, rugged designs which can be churned out fairly quickly with little care for the wellbeing of neither workers or crew....
Added in the head start the Soviets undoubtedly have because of the war with China and it's no real surprise the US and every other navy is shattered by mid 1997.
__________________
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
  #36  
Old 09-06-2011, 06:16 PM
Isochron Isochron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paradise, CA
Posts: 66
Default

I would expect the NATO navies are in better shape than the Soviet Navy, the NATO countries have more larger navies than the Eastern Block.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-06-2011, 06:45 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

And this is borne out in the books, but even after the Pact fleets are gone, they were still able to destroy Nato's remaining naval forces off the coast of Norway.

How did they manage that? Probably by using all those recommissioned and new ships they had on the go because of the Chinese war. They were able to use their greater than IRL navy to decimate the western forces before the final decisive encounter in June 1997. After that date you're left with both sides able to field little more than individual ships here and there all suffering heavy battle damage which post November simply cannot be repaired fully.

In the period between June and November I see every last ship able to move under it's own power being needed at sea, even if damaged, to escort supply convoys across the Atlantic - there's simply no choice but to keep them out and active as there's just no other ships still floating.

As was shown by the German U-Boats in WWII, it doesn't take much to inflict catastrophic losses on unescorted civilian freighters, which is one of the big reasons why western navies are so strong compared to their expected cold war adversaries.
__________________
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
  #38  
Old 09-06-2011, 07:52 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,559
Default

If the Soviet Navy didn't have any significant battle groups left against which to retaliate, they might have resorted to taking out USN carrier task forces with tac-nukes. That would even things up pretty fast...

I prefer to think that the Soviets had a couple of genius admirals who were able to come up with some tricks that helped the Soviet navy come up with the above result using more conventional means. I like the scenarios Larry Bond and Tom Clancy dreamt up for Red Storm Rising.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-06-2011, 07:58 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

I'm all for using nukes, however with the first of them not used until the 9th of July 1997 and the Nato fleet destroyed 3-4 weeks earlier in mid June 1997....
__________________
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
  #40  
Old 09-06-2011, 08:17 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 840
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
If the Soviet Navy didn't have any significant battle groups left against which to retaliate, they might have resorted to taking out USN carrier task forces with tac-nukes. That would even things up pretty fast...

I prefer to think that the Soviets had a couple of genius admirals who were able to come up with some tricks that helped the Soviet navy come up with the above result using more conventional means. I like the scenarios Larry Bond and Tom Clancy dreamt up for Red Storm Rising.
I always felt that the Soviet Navel Leadership was more than able to come up with such plans.

But then, from what I have read (A great deal, but I am by no means a subject matter expert) the Soviet Navy an attritional force: it can be best summed up (In a overly simplistic fashion) of using a fire hose to stop an avalanche. Its possible: Use a big enough hose (Quality of Ships) with enough water (Quantity of Ships) handled by someone that has some talent (Quality of Leadership) you can actually do so. The question is: Did they meet the three challenges?
__________________
Never use finesse when force works.

Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-06-2011, 08:36 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Well, if we use canon, they apparently did. How else can it be explained that the total assembled navies of Nato were destroyed without them resorting to nukes? It obviously cost them everything to do it, but once the last effective naval force was on the bottom, what real use would they have for a navy besides the usual coastal patrols, etc?
Sure it would be nice to have warships and landing craft, but it's not absolutely VITAL if there's no effective opposing force.
__________________
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
  #42  
Old 09-06-2011, 08:58 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Well, if we use canon, they apparently did. How else can it be explained that the total assembled navies of Nato were destroyed without them resorting to nukes? It obviously cost them everything to do it, but once the last effective naval force was on the bottom, what real use would they have for a navy besides the usual coastal patrols, etc?
Sure it would be nice to have warships and landing craft, but it's not absolutely VITAL if there's no effective opposing force.
Does canon specifically state that no naval nukes are used against NATO sea forces? I don't recall that it does. That said, I don't think it's necessary as far as explaining NATO's naval losses.

If the Soviets could sucker major NATO naval forces closer to land- especially land controlled by the USSR (like NW Norway and/or the Kola Penninsula) they could reduce the NATO navies' sensor advantage and overwhelm them with firepower.

According to canon, there's a major battle in the Norwegian Sea, is there not? A major Soviet naval sortie (two or three battle groups along with fast attack missile boats) and Naval air forces launching from land bases could do a lot of damage before hitting the bottom themselves.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-06-2011, 09:33 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Does canon specifically state that no naval nukes are used against NATO sea forces?
Not exactly, but close enough:
Quote:
On July 9th, with advanced elements of the 1st German Army on Soviet soil, the Soviets begin using tactical nuclear weapons.
It's a very specific date for a VERY important event in history.
The 9th of July, 1997 is the day the war turned nuclear and hell flung open it's doors.
__________________
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
  #44  
Old 09-06-2011, 10:33 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Not exactly, but close enough:

It's a very specific date for a VERY important event in history.
The 9th of July, 1997 is the day the war turned nuclear and hell flung open it's doors.
OK, but couldn't naval nukes have been used after this date? Does canon state that the Soviet and NATO navies were pretty much sunk (pardon the bad pun) before July 9th, 1997?
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-06-2011, 11:37 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 847
Default

Canon only deals with the Naval War in the North Atlantic/Norweigan Sea/Kola areas, except for TF 76 in the PG. No info at all about the Pacific, Med, etc. On the old board, I had quite a lot on the naval war, and Antenna should still have some of that on his board. Having three or four surviving carriers and amphibious assault ships, some cruisers and destroyers, etc. is a lot more realistic, IMHO. There's no way that the entire fleets of both the USN and the Soviet Navy would be sunk prior to TDM. And that's surface forces. There'd be more subs surviving than surface ships, including boomers, IMHO.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-06-2011, 11:55 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

The first problem might simply come from general confusion in canon materials regarding that matter. Indeed, it states that by mid-June the last major fleet-in-being in the world has been shattered (meaning NATO) but that is far from answering everything (considering v1.0 and even less with v2.2).

1) Most of the Soviet Northern Fleet was destroyed by late 1996. At most by mid-June 1997, they had 1 aircraft carrier, 1 battlecruiser, 2 guigded missiles cruisers, 7 destroyers and 8 frigates left to their Northern Fleet but a large number of coastal ships and submarines.
2) NATO made an unforgiving mistake by moving most of its fleet North. Therefore, allowing the Soviets to use all that they have left to their best effects.
3) What of the submarines? At the time the Soviets had something between 300-400 (IRL) and as they had been at war for over a year, they had produce more.
4) On June 27th (1-2 weeks later), NATO provides a strong covering force to the Mediterranean convoys but these are defeated by light fleet elements of the Greek Navy.
5) What has happened to the Far East and Indian Ocean? Iran is on US side and US has no opposing fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Another problem simply comes from the fact that the game is land oriented and the authors have not done much work on naval aspects. However, it becomes important with game developments and further inconsistencies.

Satellite down: The Nuclear Cruiser Virginia leading TF115 (1 cruiser and 5 destroyers including at least 1 Forrest Sherman) is defeated by a force 6 soviet destroyers in 1999????? Ok the Soviet had a lucky strike on Virginia but TF115 not capable of holding its own??? As much as I don't underestimate Soviet capabilities, I don't understand how that can be possible. Even less with 80% of the Soviet Fleet at the bottom of the Sea by late 1996. Six soviet destroyers is all that should be left to USSR in 1997 and to do such major damages, the fleet should have been made almost entirely of Sovremenny-class destroyers.

Still, I remind you that in this book the game states that US had 32 nuclear guided-missile cruisers stationed around the world (WOW!!). IRL 9 had been commissioned. V1.0 assumes clearly that the world navies had been expended to a large extend before the Twilight War. Therefore, assuming RL figures to the game might not be entirely accurate.

RDF has quite a viable if small fleet being described and the Soviet Caspian Flotilla as given if not at full streength remains substantial but landlocked. Why does it remain in the Caspian Sea where it is of no use while it could have been tranfered to the Black Sea?

Going Home can't be possible with some remnant of the naval forces
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-07-2011, 12:37 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
OK, but couldn't naval nukes have been used after this date? Does canon state that the Soviet and NATO navies were pretty much sunk (pardon the bad pun) before July 9th, 1997?
Absolutely! But there doesn't appear to be the need for naval nukes after June 97. There's just not a lot of decent targets left.
As for carriers left in other theatres, I don't buy it. Europe is the main stage, Europe is where the "big push" is taking place with Korea and the middle east as sideshows. There's almost no reason why the various carriers and their supporting fleets would stay away from the "Norwegian adventure" if the Soviet fleets elsewhere were believed to be neutralised (as seems to be indicated in canon).

The Nato fleet in my understanding was sunk by "superior/sneaky" Soviet tactics in the tight confines of the area. The remnants of Naval aviation, shore batteries, fast torpedo boats, missiles and even a few old subs, used well would be more than enough to massacre the Nato ships if they were asleep at the wheel thinking all they needed to do was provided shore bombardment for the landing forces they were escorting at the time. This is especially likely if in the previous six months of the war, the Soviet subs had been efficiently sinking western vessels and whittled the remaining fleet down. Given that earlier actions may have eliminated, or at least reduced the anti-air capabilities of the ships involved through sinking's, damage, or simply lack of ammo for the CIWS, it's conceivable the Soviet air assets would have a very large impact (as per canon).

It also appears the last engagement against Soviet naval forces was about two months earlier (late spring) after what can only be described as a furious running series of battles, it's understandable that Nato crews may have relaxed their guard. This makes even more sense given the overwhelming success the land forces were having on almost all fronts - it's quite believable everyone thought the end of the war was in sight, which can only be called a fatal mistake.

What is a "major fleet" anyway. Does it have to have a carrier at it's heart and consist of 20 or more other ships? Or could it be little more than a cruiser and 3-4 destroyers? Canon states the "last major fleet in being" was "shattered". This doesn't necessarily mean sunk either, but potentially could mean damaged to the point of scuttling or those ships still afloat could need 12 months in dry dock - something that doesn't happen with the nukes starting shortly after.
__________________
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
  #48  
Old 09-07-2011, 12:49 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
4) On June 27th (1-2 weeks later), NATO provides a strong covering force to the Mediterranean convoys but these are defeated by light fleet elements of the Greek Navy.
Obviously can't have been all that strong then, or perhaps they were caught without room to manoeuvre?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
5) What has happened to the Far East and Indian Ocean? Iran is on US side and US has no opposing fleet in the Persian Gulf.
Exactly. Why would the US need a fleet of any real power in the area? What we see in RDF Sourcebook has to be almost the entirety of that fleet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
Satellite down: The Nuclear Cruiser Virginia leading TF115 (1 cruiser and 5 destroyers including at least 1 Forrest Sherman) is defeated by a force 6 soviet destroyers in 1999????? Ok the Soviet had a lucky strike on Virginia but TF115 not capable of holding its own??? As much as I don't underestimate Soviet capabilities, I don't understand how that can be possible. Even less with 80% of the Soviet Fleet at the bottom of the Sea by late 1996. Six soviet destroyers is all that should be left to USSR in 1997 and to do such major damages, the fleet should have been made almost entirely of Sovremenny-class destroyers.
My reading is the six soviet ships were all that were available at the time in the Pacific. It's possible other ships exist around the globe in varying states of readiness either short on fuel, ammunition, crew or stuck in port with damage they can't get repaired.
It's also very likely TF115 was also damaged/short on ammo/lacking crew/etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
Going Home can't be possible with some remnant of the naval forces
Which is shown by the USS John Hancock being the flagship. We also know the Tarawa was in the Baltic in Spring 2000 (from the aviation book - Osprey colour plate), but logic has it out of action in some way by October/November. If it wasn't, there's no logical reason it wouldn't have been the flagship.
__________________
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
  #49  
Old 09-07-2011, 01:34 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
perhaps they were caught without room to manoeuvre?
About sure, the sea there is narrow with drifting ice at some points and batteries of coastal defense missiles firing in hanger. Sending carriers there is stupid at best. I hoped the admirals in charge were killed and if not, they should have been court marshalled. That move matches some of the most stupid ones in naval history: Trafalgar (french side) or the Spanish grand armada to England.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
My reading is the six soviet ships were all that were available at the time in the Pacific. It's possible other ships exist around the globe in varying states of readiness either short on fuel, ammunition, crew or stuck in port with damage they can't get repaired.
It's also very likely TF115 was also damaged/short on ammo/lacking crew/etc
Atlantic, they were in the Atlantic. Then, you're right, the TF had been reduced to Virginia and 2 ships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Which is shown by the USS John Hancock being the flagship. We also know the Tarawa was in the Baltic in Spring 2000 (from the aviation book - Osprey colour plate), but logic has it out of action in some way by October/November. If it wasn't, there's no logical reason it wouldn't have been the flagship.
Good point
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-07-2011, 01:54 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
Atlantic, they were in the Atlantic. Then, you're right, the TF had been reduced to Virginia and 2 ships.
If we're talking about the engagement that resulted in USS Virginia's grounding prior to Satellite Down then it was the Pacific.

The direction this thread has taken is giving me wracking spasms of deja vu. The last time we got into a throw down, stand up fight about this topic a whole lot of valued forum members threw up their hands and walked away. Some are yet to return. Do we really need to go through that again?

Those who participated in the original 'debates' are well aware of one anothers' positions. The new members can have a look at the thread map and the archives if they want to bring themselves up to speed.

I for one still have strong opinions on these matters but I don't have the heart to voice them again. I still hold some hope that Chico et al will return to these forums some day.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-07-2011, 02:16 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,311
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
I still hold some hope that Chico et al will return to these forums some day.
This thread (solely due to one poster) has me literally counting the days until I never have to look at this forum again.

Last edited by kato13; 09-07-2011 at 02:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-07-2011, 04:58 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Do we really need to go through that again?
I'm not seeing anything like that at all, just an honest, open and constructive discussion which is explaining a lot about what happened to the naval forces world wide. Sure there's the possibility of people getting upset, but that's possible about ANY topic.
Mind you, I can't understand why anyone would get upset about a game...
__________________
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
  #53  
Old 09-07-2011, 05:37 AM
Bluedwarf Bluedwarf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5
Default On a lighter note

Speaking of reactivating old ships, I came across an gem that the HMS Victory, predating the United States, is still in commission! Given the technology left, it could well be one of the last full strength warships, and could certainly make a very interesting scenario, given that it would be one of the few vessels that would not be short of ammunition (creating gunpowder of the sort it could use is not exactly rocket science, given I know some high school kids who used to do it!)

The old wooden vessels would not be suseptible to rust, like the lighter GRP and Aluminium hulls of many smaller craft. But historically pressing civilian craft into service has always occurred in massive numbers whenever war broke out, and many of these vessels have been equally as effective as dilapdated warships, as the example above makes clear.

With regards to the Caspian fleet being stuck, that would only apply to the larger vessels, with the river system in spring and summer enabling many FACs and even some frigates access to the Baltics and the North Sea.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Soviet Navy was primarily focused on defence, and so they never planned on major assaults far from home. Hence, the destruction of the Northern Nato fleet at a time when they had few major surface combatants is entirely in line with the way they would prepare for war. Ie mines, aircraft and shore batteries as previously mentioned could be expected to be devestating, because that is what they were built and trained for. They have been slow to develop the surface combatants because, in their philosophy, that is not the most significant part of their Naval Defence strategy, unlike the west. They had huge numbers of missile weilding vessels that were transportable over land that would be devestating against the older vessels, as the Israelis discovered when a now dated Osa class vessel (a 165t rail transportable vessel of which the Soviets built around 200 in the early 80's) sank an updated Israeli destroyer in the 6 day war. China had about 120 of these as well, btw. Their punch is only as dated as the missiles they launched.

Interestingly, in 1984, USSR had 80 Whiskey class subs in reserve, plus another 50 in service, having been replaced by Foxtrot class vessels. These vessels, launched in the 1950's, would certainly have been reactivated, though how many would have actually been useable may be another question. But given warning it is very conceiveable they could all be made operational, though unlikely they would have been grouped together with any fleet as such.

While many of their capital ships are dated, the 12 Sverdlov class gun cruisers vessels would likely be more serious threats due to the fact that they used boilers to drive steam turbines and guns instead of missiles. While they would have had a harder time surviving initially, those that did would serve better in a lower tech post-nuke world that the more deadly but more tech-dependant vessels. Similar to the Iowa, Brooklyn, Ceylon and De Ruyter classes of vessels (USA, USA, UK and Netherlands respectively). But it is surviving the initial years that would be the problem. Looking at the age of vessels in service on both sides, it is unlikely that any that were not in reserves would be better than civilian vessels, with the latter probably being preferable due to the better conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-07-2011, 10:17 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,555
Default Shipbuilding and Shipyards, the USSR

source material from the 3rd and 4th Editions, Guide to the Soviet Navy.

To put it simply, the shipbuilding capacity of the Soviet Union is impressive. The USSR has 20 major shipyards (one with more than 2,000 full-time employees) compared to 16 for the US, as well as 700+ smaller shipyards. Four of these shipyards build only warships: Severodvinsk (submarines); Kaliningrad (destroyers and amphibious warships); Petrovskiy (small combatants) and the Sudomeky portion of the Leningrad Admiralty Association (submarines). These yards employee some 215,000 workers (this is considered to be the low estimate by Western intelligence agencies of the 1985-1990 period).

The Soviets build some 6 million deadweight tons (a supertanker is roughly 100,000 DWT by the way) of merchant shipping in the period 1986-1990 with another 4.2 million deadweight tons produced by shipyards in Finalnd, Germany and Poland (all purchased by the USSR).

Now, deadweight tonnage is not the same as full load displacement tonnage, but any way you cut it, 10.2 million tons is a lot of hulls!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-07-2011, 12:50 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
If we're talking about the engagement that resulted in USS Virginia's grounding prior to Satellite Down then it was the Pacific.
My mistake, I have been tired lately and miss-read the stuff about ten times.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-07-2011, 01:23 PM
Isochron Isochron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Paradise, CA
Posts: 66
Default

With both sides having heavy losses in the number of ships, either side could have used nukes on ships (which I doubt due to strategic importance) or used aircraft launched Air to Ship missiles (much more likely). Both sides had very effective missiles.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-07-2011, 01:48 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isochron View Post
With both sides having heavy losses in the number of ships, either side could have used nukes on ships (which I doubt due to strategic importance) or used aircraft launched Air to Ship missiles (much more likely). Both sides had very effective missiles.
In 1995 the US still had more than 10000 nuclear warheads and the Soviets had a little under 35000. With Twilight they would more probably have maintained their pre-Berlin Wall level of 20000 (US) and 40000 (USSR) and you can expect both sides to built a few more before 1997. I'm not sure that strategic considerations come into the pictures with such numbers as two countries take nukes for candies.

Such considerations would only had been for UK, France and China.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-07-2011, 03:02 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,199
Default

Tangentially to this, I had always thought that post 2001 (like around 2003, perhaps) the US Military would start giving thought to putting the Navy back together as best they could around surviving ships (John Hancock, City of Corpus Christi, and possibly other, unmentioned ones) and pulling "display" or "museum" vessels out for use.

Not for use in the actual Twilight War itself, mind you, but as part of the reconstruction effort.

The idea of A1 Skyraiders recovered from Davis Monthan AFB flying off the deck of the re-floated Intrepid while wacky and probably wholly impossible is one that makes me smile.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-07-2011, 06:21 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,120
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer View Post
...the US Military would start giving thought to putting the Navy back together as best they could around surviving ships (John Hancock, City of Corpus Christi, and possibly other, unmentioned ones) and pulling "display" or "museum" vessels out for use.
That's going to happen world wide I would think as resources become available. You might even see a few conflicts between Milgov and Civgov over who actually owns grounded or abandonned vessels of all types.
__________________
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
  #60  
Old 09-07-2011, 06:50 PM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,199
Default

Hang on a tick; isn't there a Carrier Battle Group still alive and well in the Gulf per the RDF? The Carl Vinson and a few others at least. That's a pretty big stick all things considered.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 07:15 AM.


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