US Navy Ships of the Twilight War [Archive]

View Full Version : US Navy Ships of the Twilight War

kato13

01-21-2010, 09:43 PM

shrike6 02-20-2004, 04:46 PM I'm trying to hobble together a list of the US Navy ships mentioned canonwise. Here's the list I have so far:

DD 981 John Hancock -- Going Home

LPD 13 Nashville -- RDF Sourcebook

LHA 3 Belleau Wood

FFG 11 Clark

FFG 25 Boone

FFG 28 Copeland

CA 139 Salem

CG 48 Yorktown

CGN 38 Virginia (beached) -- Satellite Down

DDG 31 Decatur (Sunk)

SSN 705 City of Corpus Christi -- Last Submarine

SSN 750 Newport News (Sunk?)

********************

Matt Wiser 02-20-2004, 07:09 PM There were three Forrest-Sherman DDs mentioned in a Challenge article on the New Jersey-Delaware area: Manley and Bigelow were the two that I remember without digging my issues out of the box they're in. Two were based at Norfolk, while Bigelow was based at Cape May.

On the old forum, I had four carrier battle groups that had survived, but two rarely sailed due to fuel shortages, and two were nuclear carriers, but the escorts rarely had the fuel to sail.

I also mentioned the Battleships and Salem's sister ship Des Moines. If you like, I can repost this.

********************

shrike6 02-20-2004, 09:13 PM Matt, I wouldn't mind seeing what you have, go ahead and repost when you have the chance. Thanks for mentioning the Challenge article I didn't know about that one.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-21-2004, 05:46 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, 06:21 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 02-21-2004, 06:35 PM USS Iowa (BB-61) Active Atlantic: Damage to #2 turret repaired 1992 after accidental explosion in 1989. Damaged by Type-65 torpedo fired from Soviet Akula-class SSN 8/24/97 and beached near Bremerhaven, FRG. Hulk stripped and destroyed as part of Operation OMEGA.

USS New Jersey (BB-62) Active Atlantic: Sunk by nuclear-tipped SS-N-19 SSMs fired from Oscar-class SSGN 9/8/97 off of Bergen, Norway.

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.

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Active Pacific: Active off Korea and Aleutians. Destroyed Soviet reinforcement convoy headed for Alaska 6/18/97. Damaged by conventional torpedo (one hit) in bow from Victor-II SSN 11/22/97 and headed for Pearl Harbor, HI for repairs. Diverted to Hilo after nuclear strike on Honolulu. In port Hilo for lack of fuel, but still seaworthy.

And the two Des Moines-class CAs-Salem is in RDF Sourcebook.

USS Des Moines (CA-134) Active Pacific: Involved in Korean Campaign since 5/1/97. In port Chinhae, ROK due to lack of fuel.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-21-2004, 06:44 PM OOPS-had Yorktown in LANTFLT when she's in RDF Sourcebook, my mistake. RDF Sourcebook has her hull number wrong-it's CG-48. In place of Yorktown with the Theodore Roosevelt CVBG substitute USS Thomas S. Gates (CG-51). The HSL det is still the same.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-21-2004, 06:54 PM Shrike: Belleau Wood's hull number is LHA-3.

********************

shrike6 02-21-2004, 11:48 PM You're right Matt, it is LHA 3. I went ahead and fixed it up above.

Just from taking a quick glance, it looks like the ships you've got listed doesn't overlap with the ships I was going to use in a project I'm working on, definitely cool. Thanks for reposting your Naval orbat.

Brian

********************

Matt Wiser 02-22-2004, 01:14 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.

********************

shrike6 02-22-2004, 06:59 PM corrected the Yorktown as well. Is this all of it Matt?

********************

Matt Wiser 02-23-2004, 12:42 AM That's all for the surface ships that are active. There are other surface ships (at Alameda, Bremerton in Washington, and Little Creek, as well as in England, Guam, and Korea, but are not very active. The ships listed sail at least once a month to six weeks. The nuclear cruisers of course are more active-and all had refuelings in the early '90s so they won't have to worry about their reactor cores running out. The Constellation carrier group has enough fuel to sail for home, but as long as 8th Army is in Korea, they stay in Guam. Even if sailing for just a day or so to keep the engines and bearings in good shape, and to keep crews from getting rusty, they are still active.

Give me a couple of days and I'll post what I had on subs: I found it hard to believe that there was only one SSN (City of Corpus Christi) left, and no boomers (missile boats). I had a few SSNs still active in LANTFLT and PACFLT, and missile boats as well, although what they'd target their missiles on is a question in 2000. Frank Frey had a Seawolf-class SSN attached to 5th FLT in Bahrain in a post on the old forum, and he had a USN force based out of Mombasa as part of the Lions of Twilight, but gave no details on composition, strength, etc.

PACFLT has four SSBNs and LANTFLT has three left. SSNs are more numerous in PACFLT: six. One based at Guam, four at Hilo, one at Bangor, WA (the Trident Sub Base) LANTFLT has only two SSNs (City of Corpus Christi is one). The Bangor SSN is USS Parche (SSN-683), the "special projects" boat. Her missions were classified before the war, and are still classified, with operations assigned her by the JCS at Colorado Springs.

********************

shrike6 02-23-2004, 08:31 AM Originally posted by Matt Wiser

Give me a couple of days and I'll post what I had on subs: I found it hard to believe that there was only one SSN (City of Corpus Christi) left, and no boomers (missile boats).

Personally, I've always looked at the Corpus Christi as the Battlestar Galactica, just because she's the only one known to survive doesn't mean there aren't a few Pegasus's lurking in other parts of the world.

********************

dawg180 02-23-2004, 10:28 AM I always thought there would be a heck of a lot more SSN's and SSBN's around- after all, they are the hardest to find. Surface vessels are easy to locate and pretty much have nowhere to hide when the nukes come. A good sub captain can be a sneaky bastard and keep from being found- he has a third dimension (to a degree) to use. Not to mention all US subs are nuclear powered and can stay submerged for 90 days (longer if they can stock more provisions for the crew)

********************

Matt Wiser 02-24-2004, 02:03 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.

********************

James1978 02-24-2004, 05:36 PM Minor nit. With the Cold War having continued, wouldn't a lot of Sturgeon class subs have still been in the fleet? In real life most of them didn't retire until after 1995 anyways. Also, a few Seawolf boats may have made it to the fleet given the continuing Cold War.

With the boomers, 7 surviving Ohios means that 10 got killed. Maybe I'm just buying into USN propaganda, but that would need some explaining. Does anyone know how long the Benjamin Franklin class was supposed to stay in service before the Cold War ended? In real life most of them didn't decomision until 1993-1995.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-24-2004, 05:53 PM Two reasons for seven surviving Ohios: 1) Two were at EB in Groton, CT, being refitted to carry Trident II when the nukes fell; that leaves eight. The boomers listed are active; thus: 2) Several other boomers are in port, but are inactive due to parts and personnel shortages. At both Bangor and Little Creek, other boomers are used as parts sources to keep the active boats going. Only one Ohio believed sunk by enemy action in the war. Bangor has the only dry dock that can handle an Ohio anywhere that survives intact. An expedition is planned to investigate King's Bay to determine if any equipment is still there and salvagable. More parts, personnel, etc. are at Bangor. Hence four surviving boomers. There is a floating dry dock that was moved from Pearl to Hilo before the Thanksgiving Massacre as a precaution to support PACFLT if Pearl was nuked. Columbus was rotated to Guam. When her tour is up, La Jolla will take her slot.

Frank Frey in a post on the old forum had a Seawolf active out of Bahrain (he called her USS Monitor IIRC).

********************

Matt Wiser 02-25-2004, 12:08 PM Here's another West Coast base:

NAS Whidbey Island, WA

VA-128: A-6E/F/KA-6D

VAQ-129: EA-6B

VF-124 det 1: F-14B

********************

shrike6 02-25-2004, 01:00 PM Originally posted by James1978

Minor nit. With the Cold War having continued, wouldn't a lot of Sturgeon class subs have still been in the fleet? In real life most of them didn't retire until after 1995 anyways. Also, a few Seawolf boats may have made it to the fleet given the continuing Cold War.

You do have a point, James. The last Permit class sub (USS Gato SSN 615) wasn't retired until April of 1996. Also keep in mind the USS Parche is a modified Sturgeon class sub.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-25-2004, 04:23 PM Point taken on Sturgeon and Permits-but the Seawolfs would have begun replacing both classes. Two, maybe three Seawolfs max before the nukes fall.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-25-2004, 04:31 PM How's this for a "special mission" for Parche: She takes PCs (a SEAL team, or recon marines) down to Baja for the Satellite Down mission. Or have a similar mission take place say, in the Soviet Far East or in someplace in SE Asia, with the SSN being the mode of transport.

********************

shrike6 02-26-2004, 01:49 PM Originally posted by James1978

Does anyone know how long the Benjamin Franklin class was supposed to stay in service before the Cold War ended? In real life most of them didn't decomision until 1993-1995.

Originally posted by Matt Wiser

Point taken on Sturgeon and Permits-but the Seawolfs would have begun replacing both classes. Two, maybe three Seawolfs max before the nukes fall.

I believe that (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) 30 to 35 years is the normal service life for nuclear submarines. The Permits had started being decommissioned as early as 1988 (SSN-607 USS Dace). So they probably would have started being scrapped. The Ben Franklins are in a gray area. They probably would have still had a couple of years left on them. Although my guess is that they still would have started retiring them. Also another question is would the US have built the six additional proposed OHIO class subs in this timeline?

********************

James1978 02-26-2004, 06:57 PM My guess is that that SSBNs 744- 749 would have been authorized, but based on the completion date of Louisiana (Sept 97), I'm not sure it would have mattered.

Had the Cold War not ended, some genius may have gotten the idea to turn some of the Ben Franklins into SSGNs. Two were converted to specops boats, perhaps more would have been in this world.

********************

shrike6 02-26-2004, 09:39 PM Originally posted by James1978

My guess is that that SSBNs 744- 749 would have been authorized, but based on the completion date of Louisiana (Sept 97), I'm not sure it would have mattered.

Good point on the Ohiios wasn't even paying attention to completion dates.

********************

Ed the Coastie 02-28-2004, 12:26 PM I don't know about Navy vessels, but I used to always keep my eye out for Coast Guard cutters mentioned in the various modules and Challenge adventures.

Naturally, being a former Coastie, I am well aware that the Coast Guard is that "small nucleus of highly-trained personnel about which the Navy gathers in time of war" -- some 98% of Coast Guard assets get transferred to Naval service. However, the largest Coast Guard cutters (not counting the 400' Polar-class icebreakers) are only 378' long and most are smaller. So it seems to me that many of them may have survived simply because they tend to be overlooked.

A handful of specific vessels not mentioned in the canon, but that have appeared in my own games:

The icebreaker USCGC Northwind (WAGB-282) had been decommissioned in 1989, only to be brought back into service and sent into the Gulf of Mexico to serve as a floating "patrol base" for a handful of 82' Point-class patrol boats. At the time of the events of "Gateway to the Spanish Main", she has moved to San Juan with her two surviving patrol boats: the Point Martin (WPB-82379) and Point Countess (WPB-82335). Also in San Juan is the USCGC Sedge (WLB-402) and the recently-recovered USCGC Citrus (WAGL-300).

The patrol boat USCGC Point Francis (WPB-82356) was visiting Avalon on Catalina Island when the November Nukes fell. She then became the core of the makeshift naval contingent of the Catalina Island Defense Force.

********************

Matt Wiser 02-29-2004, 12:08 AM The original plan was indeed for 24 Ohios, and I'm sure with a continuing Cold War the production of the Ohios might have been increased. EB I think could have done two a year if need be, along with their attack boat (LA and Seawolf) work. BTW the only state to never have a battleship, nuclear cruiser, or boomer named for it was Montana. Two battleships with that name were cancelled, one in 1922 (Washington Treaty), one in 1943 (lead of a class of super-Iowas with 12 16", 57,000 tons, etc.) before being laid down. An unbuilt Virginia-class CGN (CGN-42) may have been planned to be named Montana, but she was axed before being laid down, and one of the unbuilt Ohios might have carried the state name.

A Virginia-class SSN will probably carry the name (finally).

********************

Matt Wiser 03-01-2004, 03:27 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.

********************

James1978 03-01-2004, 10:10 PM Originally posted by Matt Wiser

The original plan was indeed for 24 Ohios, and I'm sure with a continuing Cold War the production of the Ohios might have been increased. EB I think could have done two a year if need be, along with their attack boat (LA and Seawolf) work.

I went and checked the lay down and commisioning dates on the Ohios and I think your're right. The construcion times were stretched out on the last few ships. During the 80s they averaged 2-3 years from lay down to commisioning, but the last two units took 6-7 years. The most laid down in a single year was three. So EB probably could have built and commisioned 3-4 more before war broke out.

Something else occured to me. I've heard that there were plans to build more Tigonderoga CGs, but that this option was not taken once the Cold War ended. So in the T2K world, the USN may have had more Aegis CGs as well.

********************

Matt Wiser 03-02-2004, 02:35 AM Sorry, James, but Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet says that the Ticonderogas were meant to be 27 ships. 27 planned, funded, and built. They were meant to compliment a strike cruiser (CSGN) that would have had Aegis, be nuclear powered, have VLS, etc. Not funded or built, unfortunately. They would have been the USN's equivalent to the Soviet Kirovs had they been built.

********************

James1978 03-02-2004, 03:06 PM That may be, but I'd swear I heard some admiral or navy official mention that there was some interest in more but that the decsion point was soon after the cold war ended so they never asked for them. Oh well.

The CGSN was cancelled in the 1970s when the Ticonderogas were still DDGs. Norman Friedman's US Cruisers has some info on the CGSN as well. I don't recall anything about VLS.

********************

kato13

04-25-2012, 09:44 PM

Moved from the archive.

Panther Al

04-25-2012, 10:39 PM

Great post full of very interesting info. One minor nit to one of the sections there, and thats the Connie. During the 80's, the connie was a bug nest: All the squadrons flying off of it was Hornets: it was the first CV to go all Bug. Now, as far as I can tell, that didn't change, as they found that a all bug CV allowed for more A/C and as other CV's discovered in exercises, a real PITA to get too as "One Second, there was nothing, and then, pow, someone kicked the hornet's nest..." as one pilot once put it. So, I dunno if there would be a Tom Squadron or two assigned to it.

Matt Wiser

04-25-2012, 10:59 PM

CVW-14 was Connie's air wing back in the '80s. After her SLEP, she got CVW-2. By that time, if there'd been no drawdown, each carrier air wing was to have two F-14D, two F/A-18A or C, one (some had two) A-6, one S-3, plus the VAQ, VAW, and HS squadrons.

Panther Al

04-25-2012, 11:10 PM

Fair 'nuff. :)

I just kept reading how it was a Hornet Nest in the late 80's, and never saw anything counter to that.

Learn something new everyday. :)

raketenjagdpanzer

04-26-2012, 12:04 PM

A couple of addenda if I may?

There are at present IRL five carriers as museums : Two in California, one in Corpus Christi and one in North Carolina.

Of these, I see three as still present or viable for any sort of use in a post-Twilight 2000 fashion (like, in 2010 or later, if the reconstructed US is interested in a deep blue water navy/power projection), namely the Intrepid, the Yorktown and the Lexington. Intrepid is in NYC, which wasn't hit by nukes.

Yorktown is in Corpus Christi which, again, I don't think was hit, and of course Lexington is in Charleston which I think (THINK) was spared.

Of the two remaining, the Hornet is in Alameda Bay, very dangerously close to a primary site - probably too damaged. Midway is in San Diego IRL, but wasn't retired there until 1991 - an event that may not have happened in the T2k universe.

Putting those ships back in service is probably not feasible, however, a USN desperate for sea assets as the US reconstructs might try anything. A few possible uses are: leave them where they are, use them as bases. Leave them where they are, strip them for parts to get other, smaller and more easily maintained ship seaworthy. Strip two for parts to get the least...stale?...seaworthy. Get them all afloat, but only use prop a/c (Hawkeyes, OV-10 Broncos, etc.), helos and Harriers. Or, finally, get them entirely rebuilt as ships of the line. This last one, in a strict by-the-book T2k 1e framework would require decades upon decades of work, as 90% of the potential workforce, infrastructure and crew to draw upon are dead. If you play fast and loose with your timeline it might be possible to get one ready to sail in perhaps a decade, the others a bit more quickly by applying lessons learned in the first instance.

Along those same lines there's a lot of ships of all classes distributed as museums (all well prior to the T2k timeline) - the Alabama, the Wisconsin etc. It would be worth looking in to to find out what museum moorings weren't hit to find out what might constitute a rebuilding US Navy. I realize a great many of those vessels are WWII, but like constituting an Air Force wing out of Broncos or a "tank" "division" out of scavenged Soviet armor, M998 ITVs and other things, it might be worth doing on a large scale. The inland infrastructure required to produce large ships (steel foundries, iron mines, etc.) are gone. Additionally, as modern ships of the line were atritted during the war, spare parts held for repair/refurbishing/rearming those ships could be diverted to modernize these reconditioned vessels.

It's fanciful, yes, but hey my hobby has giant robots, guys in robes who can say "alakazam" and fill 33,000 square feet with a roaring fire, and so on :)

Webstral

04-26-2012, 02:21 PM

Corpus Christi was badly affected by a refinery strike. The details are in Red Star/Lone Star. If time allows today, I'll look for the specifics.

raketenjagdpanzer

04-26-2012, 02:31 PM

Corpus Christi was badly affected by a refinery strike. The details are in Red Star/Lone Star. If time allows today, I'll look for the specifics.

Just checked Howling Wilderness, Charleston got shwacked too, so count both museum carriers out. The MilGov forces in Ft. Dix tried to re-settle NYC and establish law and order there and suffered heavy casualties, so moving Intrepid, much less re-fitting her, wouldn't happen before NYC itself is sorted out.

Olefin

04-26-2012, 05:05 PM

A Rock in Troubled Waters lists three Forrest Sherman DD's still very much afloat and in commission in late winter/early spring of 2001 as well as a coast guard vessel and several smaller vessels.

JHart

04-26-2012, 05:08 PM

Olefin

04-26-2012, 05:12 PM

I always take Howling Wildnerness as not very reliable - information they have in that module does not match info in other modules - for instance the Soviet Vehicle Guide specifically talks about the 49th Armored Division having a BMP-C captured in 1999 that served with the division for a number of years and finally retired and serving as a decoration at their HQ.

Howling Wildnerness says that the Milgov forces in the 90th Corps and Oklahoma are destroyed as fighting units by late 2001.

Sorry you cant have it both ways - you cant have one canon source say the division stayed intact and another saying it was destroyed.

Yet another reason I tend to ignore Howling Wildnerness. It contradicts not only other canon sources but in many places itself.

raketenjagdpanzer

04-26-2012, 08:21 PM

Museum Carriers and locations:

USS Yorktown is located in Charleston, South Carolina and was a museum ship before the start of the Twilight war. I've been on it and it looked to me that she would need a lot of work to get it operational. At best it could operate as an adhoc helo/amphib ship.

Charleston took a direct hit, though.

USS Hornet is located in Alameda, California . I've been on it and it appeared to be in good condition. In 1970 she was decommissioned at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton, WA. Didn't become a museum until 1996. Load it with some A-4s and helos, and the Grey Ghost could harass Mexican/Cuban forces in California, as long as the avgas lasts.

Alameda would've caught plenty of fallout and blast from the nukes that hit San Fran that Hornet is probably an irradiated wreck.

USS Intrepid is located in New York City, New York. Became a museum in the early '80s.

The only one on the list not right next door to or directly at a primary site, Intrepid is the only hope for a re-workable flattop.

USS Midway is located in San Diego, California. I've been on it and it is in great shape. The ship was decommissioned in 1992, her sister ship Coral Sea was decommissioned the year before. In the Twilight war, both ships could conceivably be reactivated and operate F-18s and helos.

Probably not decommissioned in the T2k 1e timeline.

USS Lexington is located in Corpus Christi, Texas. Decommissioned in 1991, and made a museum in 1992. Presumably still serviceable for the Twilight war, the Blue Ghost could operate planes or helos in the Gulf of Mexico.

Corpus Christi got hit.

I wish there were more salvageable big girls too but...thems the facts.

Matt Wiser

04-26-2012, 08:32 PM

Midway was originally planned to decommission in 1993. The end of the Cold War sped the process up, and she made her last cruise (the evacuation of dependents from Clark AB and Subic Bay after a volcano blew) in 1991. Coral Sea decommed in 1990. Both would've been available for reactivation in 1996, though it's more likely that Midway would've and Coral Sea used as a parts source.

Hornet would still have been at Bremerton Navy Yard when TDM happened. But forget about putting her to sea when you're trying to get what ships are available to sea as well. She would've been used as an accomodation hulk, and as a parts source for Oriskany if the decision had been made to reactivate her.

Legbreaker

04-26-2012, 10:10 PM

USS Intrepid was decommissioned in the mid 70's. It's unlikely to be in a decent shape by 95 let alone 2000. It's also damn close to Central Park which I believe is a bit of a stronghold for anti-government forces. They might get a bit upset at somebody taking "their" carrier".

- for instance the Soviet Vehicle Guide specifically talks about the 49th Armoured Division having a BMP-C captured in 1999 that served with the division for a number of years and finally retired and serving as a decoration at their HQ.

Howling Wilderness says that the Milgov forces in the 90th Corps and Oklahoma are destroyed as fighting units by late 2001.

Sorry you cant have it both ways - you cant have one canon source say the division stayed intact and another saying it was destroyed.

I don't see any contradiction here at all. Note that Howling Wilderness states destroyed as a fighting unit, not completely and utterly wiped off the face of the planet.

The US 5th ID is another example of destroyed as a fighting unit, however we know they weren't killed to the last man and that there's still some respectably sized chunks of it in late 2000 floating about. give it a year or two and the 5th could have been reconstituted using surviving personnel, but perhaps at 10% of it's pre July 2000 strength.

Targan

04-27-2012, 04:01 AM

The only one on the list not right next door to or directly at a primary site, Intrepid is the only hope for a re-workable flattop.

USS Intrepid was decommissioned in the mid 70's. It's unlikely to be in a decent shape by 95 let alone 2000. It's also damn close to Central Park which I believe is a bit of a stronghold for anti-government forces. They might get a bit upset at somebody taking "their" carrier".

I have a dim, distant and therefore unreliable recollection of reading somewhere that in RL the Intrepid was not an easy vessel to move from it's T2K era mooring location because it was effectively silted in place. That would add an additional level of difficulty to any refurbishment of the vessel as a mobile platform, because if it's immobile due to its keel being glued to the river bottom by megatons of mud it won't easily become mobile again (obviously), and because any refurbishment on the scale required for a ship that long out of active service would need to be undertaken at an appropriate facility, not at a tourist dock in downtown Manhattan. Getting it to an overhaul facility would first require a large-scale, time and resource consuming dredging operation. That's a lot of preliminary work for a time-critical, resource-heavy project which carried a risk of becoming unfeasible or irrelevant over the time scale of the war.

Olefin

04-27-2012, 10:34 AM

Leg,

If you read the Soviet Vehicle Guide it clearly implies the 49th holds together in the write up. The 5th was remnants here and there of 40 men or 50 men, but it wasnt a division any more. The way the original Escape scenario is written at most a couple hundred men made it out.

Heck in my campaign we ended up gathering almost every man of the 5th we could find - and in all it was about 140 men - hardly a division anymore. (the B troop of the Cav and Task Force Zulu for instance arent part of the 5th even if you have them join your group)

But the 49th is mentioned with a clear HQ and the BMP-C as a memorial there. A division isnt destroyed as a fighting unit and then has the kind of writeup mentioned in the Vehicle Guide.

Now the 90th Corps could still have broken up - keep in mind the Going Home scenario - some of the units stay on in Germany and are clearly still very much operational units but they arent responsible to Corps HQ anymore - so the 49th may have survived as an intact unit, still functional but not as part of 90th Corps which may have broken apart as a Corps.

Obviously at some point within the operational life of that BMP-C if the Guide is to be taken as canon they were stationed at Fort Sill again.

And one thing about Howling Wildnerness is that it gives projected events, not events that were ever detailed. I..e the canon basically stopped in the summer of 2001 - except for a couple of isolated Challenge magazine articles what happens past July of 2001 is pretty much up in the air.

And 2300AD while a good guide is not necessary the canon per se because so many events (like say the return of the forces in Kenya, the RDF and Korea home as organized units happening or the retaking of California and Arizona and New Mexico from the Mexicans or whatever) were never detailed.

And since there was no story bible that anyone associated with GDW ever produced saying what was about to happen besides Frank Frey's notes on Korea and what Howling Wildnerness says which a lot of people dispute, apparently even inside GDW itself if you look at all the contradictions, then the canon is very malleable as to what will happen after mid 2001.

(i.e. Satellite down is in Feb 2001, Kidnapped early summer 2001 and then it all stops in the US)

Oh and since Kidnapped and Howling Wildnerness are by the same guy thats why I group them together as having the same issues

raketenjagdpanzer

04-27-2012, 11:45 AM

I have a dim, distant and therefore unreliable recollection of reading somewhere that in RL the Intrepid was not an easy vessel to move from it's T2K era mooring location because it was effectively silted in place. That would add an additional level of difficulty to any refurbishment of the vessel as a mobile platform, because if it's immobile due to its keel being glued to the river bottom by megatons of mud it won't easily become mobile again (obviously), and because any refurbishment on the scale required for a ship that long out of active service would need to be undertaken at an appropriate facility, not at a tourist dock in downtown Manhattan. Getting it to an overhaul facility would first require a large-scale, time and resource consuming dredging operation. That's a lot of preliminary work for a time-critical, resource-heavy project which carried a risk of becoming unfeasible or irrelevant over the time scale of the war.

Back when they did have to do some work on it in the early 2000s IRL they were worried that she wouldn't budge because of the silt, but a few gentle pulls with tugs and she slid right out.

My thinking was more postwar, during reconstruction, when a rebuilding US would have more time to devote to such things rather than "Get it out and fix it and get it into the war", but otherwise, spot-on.

Legbreaker

04-27-2012, 11:54 AM

Yes, the vehicle in question was eventually displayed at Fort Sill, but that could have been YEARS later, after the war was well and truly over and the situation at home had stabilised.

I'm glad you can see that the destruction of 90th Corps as a fighting unit does not automatically mean the 49th was also destroyed. As of 01APR01 the 49th still had a respectable strength of 1200 men and 5 tanks and that's more than many Soviet Divisions and even a number of US Divisions too!

As for the US 5th ID, there's 60 US soldiers held in temporary prison arrangements in Zdunska Wola alone. That obviously can't be the only place they're held. Also, given the absolute pasting the 1st Brigade dished out to the Sov 124th Division, which incidentally was on the route the withdrawal of the 5th was to take, it would seem logical that a substantial portion of those US troops made it into the forest to the south, even if it was on foot.

Additionally, even if only a few hundred US soldiers made it out, and don't forget the 5th started out with 3,000 men and 42 MBTs (plus artillery, APCs, IFVs) that still makes them just as large, or even larger than a number of Pact Divisions. Sure they're disorganised and spread out, but they're not dead. The unit is destroyed as a fighting unit, but they're not all dead. The unit still exists, if only on paper. Some of their manpower and heavy equipment still exists, why else can a PC group just starting out roll up an M1 tank for a vehicle? All that group needs to do is link up with a few other groups just like them and they've got a company. A few more and they've got a battalion. (Admittedly that's unlikely to occur while on the run behind enemy lines).

I too have played in games where stragglers were picked up, prisoners rescued, hospitals liberated and a group of over a hundred gathered, and I'm certain we're not alone in that experience. Given that each PC group isn't exactly scouring the region for people and for the most part are probably avoiding contact and discovery, that would seem to imply there's plenty more out there.

The canon material does hang together if you take the time and look at it with an open mind. Some of it may not make perfect sense right away, such as why the Soviets invaded Alaska, but taken in context with everything else happening at the same time, possible and plausible explanations start to appear. As my signature says, nothing happens in isolation.

Open your mind to the possibilities. Don't dismiss things just because the answers don't immediately reach out and slap you in the face.

James1978

04-27-2012, 03:50 PM

Back when they did have to do some work on it in the early 2000s IRL they were worried that she wouldn't budge because of the silt, but a few gentle pulls with tugs and she slid right out.
They were right to be worried, and it took a lot more than a "few gentle pulls". The first time they tried to move her with seven tugboats, the Coast Guard shut them down after she moved only 15 feet before the propellers dug into the silt. Seems the 24 years worth of silt around the hull and propellers had locked her in pretty tight. It took removing 39,000 cubic yards of silt over three weeks of dredging to get her out, this time with five tugboats. And that was after they'd already dredged out 16,000 cubic yards prior to the first attempt to move her.

Now that was in 2006. I'm sure it wasn't so bad in the mid-90s, but I'm not sure it would be easy either.

Some sources indicate that she no longer has her engines, but this is apparently contrary to US Navy policy. Beyond brief mention in news articles, I couldn't find anything concrete either way.

Olefin

04-27-2012, 04:32 PM

Actually Leg the one thing that I dont agree with is how fast the 49th's tank strength went down - the Mexicans werent attacking them and neither were the Russians. They were fighting marauders - but if you read Lone Star the average marauder is armed with at best machine guns and maybe Molotov's - and against a modern tank that is a one way ticket to a very lopsided victory by the tank, even against large numbers of such marauders.

By the way Leg you will find I am very open to new ideas and possibilities. I just hate direct contradictions - i.e. when one author says one thing and another says something different about supposedly the same events.

Oh and glad to see you are looking at my campaign story - I am putting it up not to blow my own horn but instead to have people see how my exposure as a player influenced my ideas about the game in general.

raketenjagdpanzer

04-27-2012, 06:07 PM

They were right to be worried, and it took a lot more than a "few gentle pulls". The first time they tried to move her with seven tugboats, the Coast Guard shut them down after she moved only 15 feet before the propellers dug into the silt. Seems the 24 years worth of silt around the hull and propellers had locked her in pretty tight. It took removing 39,000 cubic yards of silt over three weeks of dredging to get her out, this time with five tugboats. And that was after they'd already dredged out 16,000 cubic yards prior to the first attempt to move her.

Now that was in 2006. I'm sure it wasn't so bad in the mid-90s, but I'm not sure it would be easy either.

Some sources indicate that she no longer has her engines, but this is apparently contrary to US Navy policy. Beyond brief mention in news articles, I couldn't find anything concrete either way.

Ahh...did not know about the issue with the silt or the dredging.

Legbreaker

04-28-2012, 01:11 AM

The one thing that I dont agree with is how fast the 49th's tank strength went down - the Mexicans werent attacking them and neither were the Russians.

Don't forget there's a very strong expansionist NA presence, with airpower just over the state border in the Ozarks. Not to mention the probability of desertions. It's also probable the 49th contains NA sympathisers and agents (just like all US units) which will be willing, and able to worth from within to further the NA's aims.

Olefin

04-28-2012, 06:46 PM

I am ignoring Howling Wilderness as to how it affects the US military dispositions in some areas - for instance the 90th Corps - for one if it is pivotal to MilGov then why no new troops from the 43000 that landed in Norfolk? A bunch of troops would have gone there for sure - as it said those oil assets were critical for MilGov.

Now what it says about what happened in NE - that is very believeable with the picture that Last Submarine painted - frankly MilGov authority falling apart there is not only believeable but inevitable with only that one unit there.

Panther Al

04-29-2012, 12:00 AM

Don't forget there's a very strong expansionist NA presence, with airpower just over the state border in the Ozarks. Not to mention the probability of desertions. It's also probable the 49th contains NA sympathisers and agents (just like all US units) which will be willing, and able to worth from within to further the NA's aims.

This I am gonna have to disagree: While on the whole, there might be something to what you say, and in some cases be spot on, this a is a case where your knowledge base puts you in the position I would be in if I was talking about things certain Aussie units would or wouldn't do. :)

The 49th is a Texan Unit. Not Texan as in, Based out of, but made up of Texans who view the Division as part of the greater whole of the US Army System only because they have to be - if they had their way (And the money to pay for it all) they would be a pure Texan Militia under no one's control other than the Governor. They believe they are the successors of all the Texan Units that date all the way back to when Texas was its own country, and before. And not as a Eastern Texas, or panhandle, or any of that, every time I dealt with them they was very strong on the Texan Unity Here to Serve and Defend All of Texas regardless sort of mentality.

If there is any unit in the entire US that views itself as a state militia more than a reserve for the Active Army more than the 49th - I don't know what it would be.

Yes, there might be a handful of NA folks in it. Yes, there would be desertions, but not to the degree that would be seen in other more adhoc units built up by combining various units from various states (the 49th Armoured is the *only* Armoured Division in the USANG that is solely made up of Texan Units) with the expected results in cohesion (IE, That SC NG General is sacrificing the Georgian units because he is trying to keep *his* states people intact... blah blah blah).

Legbreaker

04-29-2012, 02:43 AM

...this a is a case where your knowledge base puts you in the position I would be in if I was talking about things certain Aussie units would or wouldn't do. :)

You are quite probably right about that. However, I was mainly trying to illustrate how certain apparent discrepancies between resources can be explained by applying a little time, effort and logic. There's no need to ignore any of the published material if enough thought and consideration is put in, along with discussions just like this one with like minded Twilight enthusiasts.

Panther Al

04-29-2012, 04:59 PM

If you take the 2300 point of view where Texas went its own way, I think it would argue for the 49th being more or less still a going concern: and *very* believable.

If you go to the State House, there is the lobby there in the inside. On the Centre of the lobby floor is the great seal of Texas, arranged around it, is all the other people that at one time or another claimed Texas as part of it: The US Seal is no larger or smaller than any of the others - with room for more. :)

Always thought it was a clever way to say something without actually saying it. ;)

Olefin

04-30-2012, 12:10 AM

Actually Leg there is a great need to ignore the published material if it makes no sense - and the wasting away of the 49th is one place where it makes no sense - too many tanks and men gone in too short a time against forces that cannot seriously harm it.

This isnt an infantry division who doesnt belong in Texas getting bushwhacked by Texas marauders who know the land better than they do.

These are native Texans fighting on their own land, who know the terrain and where to fight and where not to fight. Its one thing if they were fighting Soviet armor and losing tanks - but not against Texan marauders.

There are a lot of things wrong with Howling Wildnerness but if I had to stake a claim on one of the most egregious things its what it tries to do to the 49th Armored.

Remember, like I said, this isnt a bunch of Idaho NG or NY National Guard units getting whipped or losing their morale fighting for land that isnt their own - this is their own home state, their own land and most importantly their own people they would be fighting for. The only defectors that would be happening would be Texian forces deserting to the 49th, not the other way around.

James Langham

04-30-2012, 01:13 AM

Maybe the desertions are locals returning to their homes to defend them?

Actually Leg there is a great need to ignore the published material if it makes no sense - and the wasting away of the 49th is one place where it makes no sense - too many tanks and men gone in too short a time against forces that cannot seriously harm it.

This isnt an infantry division who doesnt belong in Texas getting bushwhacked by Texas marauders who know the land better than they do.

These are native Texans fighting on their own land, who know the terrain and where to fight and where not to fight. Its one thing if they were fighting Soviet armor and losing tanks - but not against Texan marauders.

There are a lot of things wrong with Howling Wildnerness but if I had to stake a claim on one of the most egregious things its what it tries to do to the 49th Armored.

Remember, like I said, this isnt a bunch of Idaho NG or NY National Guard units getting whipped or losing their morale fighting for land that isnt their own - this is their own home state, their own land and most importantly their own people they would be fighting for. The only defectors that would be happening would be Texian forces deserting to the 49th, not the other way around.

Legbreaker

04-30-2012, 02:08 AM

Maybe the desertions are locals returning to their homes to defend them?

That makes perfect sense to me and goes a long way to explaining why the 49th deteriorate so quickly. As shown in the books, the 49th is away from home, the Mexicans have invaded, the Russians are in San Antonio, the countryside is in chaos and a number of areas have been nuked. Civil order has broken down and the law extends only as far as the end of a rifle barrel.

Many soldiers, having friends and family in this war zone, aren't going to like being stuck in another state fighting for other people when the situation at home is so grim. The fact that the entire Division is from Texas, and smaller units of battalion, company and even platoon size come from the same geographic regions or even towns is likely to work against the 49th staying together - entire subunits could well fade away in the night taking their vehicles with them to bolster their home towns defences.

In that light, even though they're all Texans, the 49th may well come apart even faster than units elsewhere made of of people from all over the country. Additionally, unlike many other units, home isn't beyond reach - a few weeks on foot could be sufficient to get them there, and Milgov isn't exactly in a position to chase after them.

Graebarde

04-30-2012, 07:42 AM

Museum Carriers and locations:

USS Yorktown is located in Charleston, South Carolina and was a museum ship before the start of the Twilight war. I've been on it and it looked to me that she would need a lot of work to get it operational. At best it could operate as an adhoc helo/amphib ship.

USS Hornet is located in Alameda, California . I've been on it and it appeared to be in good condition. In 1970 she was decommissioned at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Bremerton, WA. Didn't become a museum until 1996. Load it with some A-4s and helos, and the Grey Ghost could harass Mexican/Cuban forces in California, as long as the avgas lasts.

USS Intrepid is located in New York City, New York. Became a museum in the early '80s.

USS Midway is located in San Diego, California. I've been on it and it is in great shape. The ship was decommissioned in 1992, her sister ship Coral Sea was decommissioned the year before. In the Twilight war, both ships could conceivably be reactivated and operate F-18s and helos.

USS Lexington is located in Corpus Christi, Texas. Decommissioned in 1991, and made a museum in 1992. Presumably still serviceable for the Twilight war, the Blue Ghost could operate planes or helos in the Gulf of Mexico.

I don't know about the rest of the carriers as museums by the Lex is sunk in about 20 plus feet of mud, and was gutted well before becoming the museum. UNLESS they did a major yard on her, she wouldn't do much good. Also she is about a mile or two from the closest refinery on refinery row. While not physically damaged too badly I could she her listed in the mud and such an angle that it would probably not get moved post attack. No tugs big enough there to do the job for one thing, and major dredging to get her out of the muck. All that was brough in from NOLA IIRC when they planted her. I was living there at the time and it was big local news.

Graebarde

04-30-2012, 08:04 AM

IIRC the 49th was in Chicago awaiting shipment overseas when TDM came? For the life of me I can NOT see a heavy division shipping out of a Great Lakes port for ANY reason. There are too many other ports available. More of the genius of the designers for what ever the reason. 49th would have departed Corpus Christi, Beaumont and Galveston, just like the 1st Cav, 2nd Armor and 3rd Cav. WITH a sizeable escort IMO.

But if they had not been deployed by TDM (which I still find hard to comprehend keeping a heavy in the states while sending lights to NATO) and were in Chicago, and word arrived the Mexican's had invaded, I would see the whole division hitting the road for Texas.. MilGov--CivGov be damned, Texas is being invaded. As for personnel drifting off/deserting. The going to their home might be plausable, but as is pointed out, it would probably be whole units from ie Alice, since a few leaving would have to face the rest evenutally.. you have deserted your neighbors when you desert the unit.

Now on another side of the picture. My son was in the TxANG in '90, having just returned from a 4-year RA kick as an Airborne Ranger, and cherry popping in Panama. He was in a local battalion in South Texas. He would come home from drills so damn mad it was almost funny if it wasn't so serious. They went to Falfurias training area... with NO water to speak of, IN the summer. Had guys going tits up from heat. The leadership was abismal in that unit. The same unit was tagged to go to Honduras (iirc) for a training mission.. it took volunteers from three battalions to get one capable of going... mostly due to failing the drug test. When Iraq invaded Kuwait he reupped in the regulars, "I'm not going to war with those idiots, they'll just get somebody killed, namely themselves."

Yes they are Texians.. and generally are a good bunch of soldiers, but there are weak points in every unit.

Legbreaker

04-30-2012, 08:13 AM

And 91/92 seems a bit too early to see the war coming, especially in V1.0 where the war in the west wasn't even thought of until after the secret German talks in June 1996.

Olefin

04-30-2012, 08:14 AM

I have the opposite viewpoint Leg - and by the way the Russians may not be in San Antonio anymore - if you read Lone Star, Red Star they are clearly about to pull out and head home - in fact by mid 2001 they may be gone or so badly damaged by local guerrillas that they are no longer the threat that they were.

And if that oil and avgas in that module goes to MilGov - since they are the only force in the area that has the planes and helos that can make use of it - then its an even more powerful reason that the 49th would stay together. And I could see the Texans doing it, telling MilGov that you get the oil and avgas in exchange for letting us (i.e. the Texans) take care of our own affairs afterward.

I.e. its mid 2001, the oil from Gulf 40 is now giving MilGov the avgas and other fuel they need to have air support for another offensive into Texas and the 49th wants to go home and be that offensive. Given that information and the fact that the Texian forces arent exactly popular in most of Texas I would see them be the leading force behind that move.

Given the state of MilGov that kind of deal could easily be made. But not with a 49th that is falling apart.

Now that doesnt mean they stay with MilGov after they make that move - but they can do a lot more damage and reconquer a lot more territory together than piecemeal. And the 49th, intact and forming the basis of the new Texan Army, would explain how Texas becomes an independent nation.

Plus keep in mind that those tanks they have make them superior to any remaining Mexican unit in Texas. They could drive most of the Mexican units out of Texas considering the sorry state most of the Mexican forces are in by mid 2001.

There is no way that most of the 49th just gives up and goes home and lets Mexico and the Russians (especially the Russians) keep hold of large areas of Texas. Sorry its a game but it has to be realistic and thats not realistic. The only way those guys are going home is with Mexican and Soviet forces running for the border.

Oh and the 90th Corps could still thus fall apart afterward - i.e. the 49th heads south into Texas, does its job and then says its part of the new Texas Army and not the US - and without them there isnt much left of 90th Corps to hold Oklahoma against anyone else.

Legbreaker

04-30-2012, 09:04 AM

Yes they are Texians.. and generally are a good bunch of soldiers, but there are weak points in every unit.
And lets hope most of them are dead by 2000....

I have the opposite viewpoint Leg - and by the way the Russians may not be in San Antonio anymore - if you read Lone Star, Red Star they are clearly about to pull out and head home - in fact by mid 2001 they may be gone or so badly damaged by local guerrillas that they are no longer the threat that they were.

Small flaw with that logic - Howling Wilderness lists troop numbers as of 01APR01, just a touch before Mid 2001.
Now admittedly Red Star, Lone Star is supposed to occur in late November 2000, however communications post nuke aren't what they used to be and a walk to the next hilltop is considered a long distance road trip. News travels slowly in that environment, and isn't necessarily correct either. Just look at any of the rumour tables in any of the books for examples of just how screwed up information can be.

Note also that just because the Soviets have a chance of capturing an almost spent offshore oil well, doesn't mean they actually will. In fact since the whole thing sets a group of PCs up as major players, chances are they don't and therefore get stuck in San Antonio. Even if they do, it'll be months before there's enough oil available and a ship found, time in which the components of the 49th Division can fall apart and head home.

While even one Soviet or Mexican soldier remains in Texas, will any Texan rest?
Or will they want to drive them out?

Olefin

04-30-2012, 11:14 AM

Thats why I am rejecting the Howling Wilderness version of the 49th - given the events of Red Star, Lone Star and the weakness of both the Mexicans and the Soviets if they headed home it would be as a body - and as you said there isnt much that MilGov could do to stop them.

One idea could be that the 49th breaks up - and what you have left is what stays loyal to MilGov while the rest heads south and joins with the Grange forces to become the new Texan Army. So you have a US Army 49th Mech and you have a Texan Army 49th division.

It would also explain why the 49th in the Soviet Vehicle Guide is still headquartered at Fort Sill in OK. That is the part that stayed loyal and stayed with the US and thus is now in OK, while the rest went south and joined up with the new Texas nation.

That way you get both - i.e. you dont have a wasting away of the 49th that makes no sense given the situation in Texas but you also have the HW numbers applying only to MilGov forces. HW doesnt have Texan Army forces after all - and even if its not mentioned in canon so what? A lot of things as we have already found arent mentioned in canon - like where the 35 tanks came from that showed up in Iran in US forces in Jan 2001.

otherwise losing that many tanks to desertion or breakdowns in such a short time - sorry but not believeable

losing them because they go off in a group, leaving MilGov service as a unit and start to liberate Texas from the Mexicans and Russians on their own - yes that makes a lot of sense

Olefin

04-30-2012, 11:23 AM

and Leg I know you have your reading of the canon and I have mine - remember that canon is what you make of it

and yes we did play Texas - and our GM had it as part of MilGov landing forces after we confirmed the oil was ready to be pumped and had helped retake Gulf Forty to retake the Brownsville area using forces brought home from Europe

for our part we did one heck of an ambush of the Soviets - right out of Red Dawn right to popping out of holes in the ground with overhead cover and letting them have it with anti-tank missiles and explosives

not the canon per the module (as MilGov landing troops isnt part of it) - but for our GM its how we played it

dragoon500ly

08-24-2012, 06:15 PM

just did a little trip to the Alabama in Mobile Bay. That ship is in no condition for any action whatsoever.

The engine room is sealed off and would require several months of effort to restore to service according to our guide.

All of the armament is demilled, breechblocks either welded in place, or missing altogether.

The barbette supporting the number 2 16-inch turret has been extensively modified for tours, A whopping great hole has been cut into the armor to allow easy access.

And the ship is heavily silted in place.

Olefin

03-21-2019, 04:07 PM

There were USN ships that would have joined the fleet after the heavy losses early in 1997 - if you look at what was actually under construction you have at the least:

Arleigh Burke destroyers- Hopper, Ross, The Sullivans for sure - all completed after the dates for the big battles against the Soviets so they would have joined with what was left

McFaul is only possible if they speed her up - Ingalls gets nuked in Nov 1997 but Mahan, Decatur, Donald Cook and possibly Higgins are possible out of Bath before the electricity and fuel situation shut them down in late 1998, early 1999 - Mahan for sure

Amphib Warfare Ships - USS Bataan - Sept 1997 (Bonhomme Richard gets nuked along with Ingalls)

Submarines - USS Seawolf - 19 July 97 (this assumes they had the long down time in our reality)

Ballistic submarines - USS Louisiana - last of the Ohio's - commissioned Sept 6, 1997

Also possibly more Los Angeles class if they made more of them (Version 1) where the Cold War never ended - but not for V2.2

CVN - possibly USS Harry S Truman if they rushed her and got her out of Newport News before the area was nuked

not a lot of ships but a lot more capable than bringing ships in the boneyard or Reserve Fleet back into service - and added together you have the makings of a carrier battle group

Legbreaker

03-21-2019, 06:57 PM

Have to keep in mind the Soviets would be doing the same thing, and possibly even on a larger scale given they'd been fighting longer.
By mid 2000 it's conceivable this greater production on all sides would have been cancelled out through further small scale battles sinking and badly damaging the new vessels (not to mention sabotage, lack of trained crew, limited supplies of munitions, etc).
So regardless of a possibly accelerated production, the situation as stated in T2K really doesn't need to be altered.

Olefin

03-22-2019, 08:40 AM

I differ with you Legbreaker (boy big surprise there) that the ships may actually be surviving and werent sunk- the question as always is fuel - i.e. they may have been delivered and did fight in the war and may have been the escorts for either the convoys to Kenya or to the Middle East or to Korea - and or they may be stuck at a base somewhere - keep in mind that the all these ships post date the original authors canon writing (i.e. pre-Kenya/Korea releases) so they wouldnt have been in any of their releases - so could they be added to a scenario or area - yes - the addition of one or two Arleigh Burke's to the fleet in the Middle East or Kenya or stuck at a base in Korea wouldnt overly change those modules or power balances

And they would make an interesting addition to the Sea Lord of Jacksonville's forces (i.e. an Arleigh Burke in his fleet would be one heck of a ship to explain that he is a force to be reckoned with)

As for the subs - I never believed in the scenario of the USN being down to one submarine - no way that the Soviets get all the Ohio's for instance - but that doesnt mean they are all sitting at Norfolk fully armed and ready to go

the munitions part may be the biggest issue - look at an Arleigh Burke for instance - if you are out of missiles what do you have - answer one five inch gun and two Phalanx guns - i.e. you arent talking the battleship Missouri here

Legbreaker

03-22-2019, 10:46 AM

So what about all the Pact ships and subs in the same situation then?
You've proposed an increased navy for the US, but ignored all the other ship building nations, especially those of the direct enemy.

Raellus

03-22-2019, 11:01 AM

Olefin

03-22-2019, 12:22 PM

Good point, Leg.

Maybe Olefin is just focusing on the U.S.N. in this thread (look at the title).

But yes, a Soviet navy for which the Cold War didn't end (v1.0) would definitely be stronger than that which existed in 1984 or 1996 (IRL).

For example, at the very least, there would be one additional Kutzenov-class carrier, one Kirov-class heavy cruiser, one Slava-class cruiser (Admiral Flota Lobov/Ukrayina), one Gepard-class frigate (probably 3 total), and seven, not two, Neustrashnimyy-class frigates. These were just planned production figures too, not the result of accelerated wartime production. In fact, several of the above-mentioned vessels were already under construction (some were near completion). All of these vessels were cancelled, transferred, or sold off shortly before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, as Leg pointed out, Soviet wartime production would have begun at least a year before NATO wartime production so it stands to reason that there were actually a few more vessels than just those mentioned.

Yup you are right Raellus - I was just looking at the USN because the thread was dedicated to the US Navy specifically. And I agree that other navies would have had more ships as well - heck for that matter the RN, French, Italians, all would need to be looked at as well.

Leg wasnt ignoring the others on purpose (i.e. not implying that the US is the only Navy that added new ships) - if anything would be great to look at the other navies.

And as I said the number of new ships that could come down the ways in the time frame of the game after the major naval battles of 1996 and early 1997 wouldnt overbalance the game - even the Truman and the Louisiana. Especially if you are short on modern armaments for them and all they would have would be their guns systems (let alone considering the naval fuel situation outside of areas near working oil refineries and oil wells).

Olefin

03-22-2019, 12:27 PM

One idea for either Louisiana or Truman could be that they are being used to generate power somewhere because maybe they never got fully armed - or expended their armaments (and in the case of Truman her aviation fuel) - and now are being used purely as floating power stations.

And the ships that were never built but were planned before the Cold War ended included two SSBN - ie. SSBN-744 and 745

SSBN-744 (if it had been built as proposed) would have been launched in July 1997 at Bangor - but wouldnt have been scheduled for completion till 1998

SSBN-745 would have been launched in July 1998 at Bangor with a completion date of 1999

Given that timing that opens some intriguing ideas about what might have happened to them depending on when Bangor was abandoned by the USN - and given what happened in Last Submarine

Legbreaker

03-22-2019, 08:36 PM

Given there were more ships (not to mention more naval aviation assets) on all sides, doesn't it then stand to reason there would also be more battles, more losses and therefore the situation in the books really doesn't need adjusting?
We also know both sides used tactical nuclear weapons on land targets including troops, so it would seem given the lesser environmental impact (if only perceived) nuclear attacks on ships would have also been quite prevalent. Soviet guns may not have been as good, missiles can be shot down, but for a nuke, near enough is often good enough to serious damage a vessel and degrade it's ability to fend off following gun and missile attacks.
Additionally, mining an enemy's ports and shipping lanes is a very old and effective tactic, and given the number of Pact submarines and surface vessels capable of doing this, it appears logical some of those shiny new US ships would currently be blocking those ports and lanes albeit unwillingly.

Olefin

03-22-2019, 09:37 PM

Leg sorry but having some brand new shiny ships survive the war is a very likely probability. One thing the canon authors werent were naval experts (read the battle description in Satellite Down and you pretty much can see that immediately) and they really focused more on the army aspects of the war and not the naval - except Frank Frey who showed that yes the USN would still have surviving ships and an effective force where they had oil to keep them going.

And the Russian sub force basically got taken out - Last Submarine was very clear there - by mid-1997. If there had been more Soviet subs I highly doubt that the sub in Boomer would have been out there all by herself - i.e. Russian doctrine was that boomers got escorted if at all possible by other subs.

Most likely the newer ships were part of the escort for the Omega convoy and the convoy that took the reinforcements to the Middle East at the end of 2000. There is a very good chance they survived the war for the simple fact that I dont see either the Soviets or the Americans risking what few ships they had left after the huge losses in 1996 and 1997 - think the Japanese fleet in 1943 after they pulled out of Guadalcanal. Both sides probably conserved what they had as much as possible.

Also keep in mind that just because ships werent mentioned doesnt mean much in the canon - outside of the ships detailed by Frank in the Middle East and the ships in Satellite Down there are what - maybe a half dozen actual ships mentioned in the whole canon?

Also if the canon authors could forget or miss things like the 173rd Airborne or Sheridan tanks as part of the units in CA or Iran or the M88 tank recovery vehicle or the OPFOR units in CA then having those authors missing a few new ships joining up with the USN is pretty understandable.

Raellus

03-23-2019, 10:31 AM

think the Japanese fleet in 1943 after they pulled out of Guadalcanal. Both sides probably conserved what they had as much as possible.

Not quite. After Guadalcanal, the Japanese briefly "conserved" their main battle fleet with the hope that they could force the "decisive battle" of their established pre-war naval doctrine, especially as Allied forces hopped closer to the home islands. Hence the massive, wasteful, and ultimately futile (for the IJN) battles of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf in 1944. Even after their fleet was effectively shattered, the Japanese continued an aggressive defense, sortieing a small task force organized around the super-battleship Yamato to oppose the American landings at Okinawa. Again, it did not go well for the Japanese. As a result of these slaughters, by the end of the war, the IJN had very few warships left and most of those were laid up in port to do lack of fuel or irreparable damage. This last point seems particularly germane here.

This debate re T2K naval strength c.2000 is interesting, but how does the number and type of surviving warships impact typical gameplay? Most campaigns are land-based and warships hardly ever play a part. Anyway, due to the lack of fuel (and probably missiles), it doesn't really matter if the USN has 10 or 20 or 50 operational warships because only a handful can manage to leave port for any length of time.

-

bash

03-23-2019, 04:06 PM

This debate re T2K naval strength c.2000 is interesting, but how does the number and type of surviving warships impact typical gameplay? Most campaigns are land-based and warships hardly ever play a part. Anyway, due to the lack of fuel (and probably missiles), it doesn't really matter if the USN has 10 or 20 or 50 operational warships because only a handful can manage to leave port for any length of time.

-

Towards the end of my group's Red Dawn-esque Southern California campaign a handful of frigates and destroyers helped us liberate LA and San Diego. Their guns were able to cover MilGov forces coming down PCH. Between my group's spotting and their helicopters they could pound the Mexican forces on the coast with impunity.

Once oil is at least not super rare the US Navy would be very useful for post-Twilight recovery all along the coasts. They would also be able to contain New America and remove the ability to trade by blockading or capturing their ports.

Even under-armed ships would be useful if they can deliver cargo and provide signals and medical support for near-shore ground forces and civilians. They could be hard targets for pirates and such as you'd cover the decks with crew served weapons.

swaghauler

03-23-2019, 09:28 PM

Raellus

03-23-2019, 11:40 PM

I really think that the lack of seapower has more to do with lack of fuel and munitions than serviceable ships.

The typical medium-sized fishing vessel (think of the SMALLER crabbers in the deadliest catch) will burn a METRIC TON of fuel oil to sail around 50km at 12 knots. The OH Perry Class frigates would only go 16km per metric ton of fuel consumed due to their thirsty gas turbines. These are the same engines used by the Tico Class Cruisers, and the Burkes. I just don't see many ships making the crossing from America to Europe based solely on the fuel needed to do it.

Agreed. I appreciate the stats you posted to reinforce this point.

This brings me to my second issue with RAW Twilight. The idea that 80% of the fleets were sunk. The fleets (all combatants) are well dispersed with between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the fleet at sea during a given moment. The ocean is a big place and I simply find it hard to swallow that 8 in every 10 ships is resting at the bottom of it.

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

I also remember when in '91 the Coalition was predicting the loss of 800 to 1000 aircraft on the first day of the air war (with 2,250 total aircraft in the theater). We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign.

I see what you're getting at but, to be fair, the Iraqis were mostly incompetent. It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think the Soviets, especially with a couple of years of high-intensity modern warfare under their belts (China) would roll over as quickly as Saddam's bullies and conscripts. I don't want to belabor this point here because we have a whole thread devoted to it.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

The second thing I think would happen is that our NUCLEAR Subs and Carriers would end up being used for SEALIFT operations. You may not have enough aircraft or jet fuel to put a hundred aircraft into action, but a Nimitz Class Carrier can carry a buttload of equipment WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FUEL. Use a couple of LA Class SSNs for escorts and you have a "convoy" with tremendous lifting capacity and UNLIMITED RANGE. This is how I see the Navy using existing CVNs once the fuel and ordinance run out.

This is a really good point and could go a long way to explaining OMEGA and the subsequent transfer of troops to the Middle East. It also reminds me of the "raft" from the novel, Snow Crash. Sealift and power generation are two very useful things CVNs and SSNs could still do when the missiles run out.

bash

03-24-2019, 12:47 AM

We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign. I just don't see the losses that the Devs were predicting actually occurring. It's more likely that those ships are simply sitting idle through a lack of fuel and munitions.

Yeah the 80% casualty rate always struck me as goofy. It's not like modern navies sail around like this waiting for a small nuke to take out a battle group: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Rimpac_battlegroup_2006.jpg

I'd buy that 20% of naval forces were combat capable with another 20-30% laid up in port for lack of fuel or supplies to get back to their home port. Even then ships sitting around with no fuel strikes me as an author fiat situation. A military vessel outguns any random commercial vessel(s) and can acquire through gun barrel diplomacy the fuel and supplies they need to get to a friendly/home port. The same sort of logic that works for ground-based forces setting up cantonments also works for navel vessels trading protection for fuel with civilian ships. Besides if stills in the T2K universe can make alcohol that works in Diesel engines, they can make fuel that works in the turbines of modern naval vessels.

Navel vessels are also well equipped to coordinate over long distances. Even with satellite communications most (all?) modern navies still use long range HF for a lot of communications. So that 20-50% of ships capable of sailing can coordinate with friendly/allied ships far beyond the horizon. The average navy vessel would have a lot better long range comms than the average ground based unit post-TDM.

I can also easily see naval aviation being a fond memory post-TDM as military jets are resource intensive in peacetime, they would be resource black holes post-TDM. Flying combat sorties would quickly burn through fuel, parts, and munitions so once the supply chain breaks down every jet ends up a hangar queen. Navies (especially USN) would end up with heavy aviation casualties from canabalization as much from enemy action. Any plane that develops the slightest issue or takes damage would become a part donor for the rest of the air wing.

As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22639/this-is-the-only-photo-of-a-u-s-navy-supercarrier-being-sunk) and remained afloat (with no damage control). She had to be scuttled to get her to actually sink. That is not to say carriers are invulnerable or anything but very survivable.

Legbreaker

03-24-2019, 01:27 AM

A military vessel outguns any random commercial vessel(s) and can acquire through gun barrel diplomacy the fuel and supplies they need to get to a friendly/home port. The same sort of logic that works for ground-based forces setting up cantonments also works for navel vessels trading protection for fuel with civilian ships. Besides if stills in the T2K universe can make alcohol that works in Diesel engines, they can make fuel that works in the turbines of modern naval vessels.
Bear in mind that even a small ship burns through more fuel in an hour than an entire Squadron of M1 tanks. The fuel production capacity simply does not exist in T2K and no amount of firepower is going to change that.

As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22639/this-is-the-only-photo-of-a-u-s-navy-supercarrier-being-sunk) and remained afloat (with no damage control). She had to be scuttled to get her to actually sink. That is not to say carriers are invulnerable or anything but very survivable.

The exercise wouldn't have been much good if they'd actually sunk the ship too soon would it? Or if it had sunk before they'd had a chance to inspect the damage.
The whole point of this was to keep it afloat until they were ready to sink it on their terms and get as much data as possible in the process.

Olefin

03-26-2019, 01:25 PM

Actually Leg you are incorrect there as to the world as a whole in 2001 in T2K - there are several places where the fuel production still exists to keep ships fueled in 2001 in the T2K world - for one Kenya for another the Middle East for a third the ships the Soviets are keeping going in the Caspian - in all those areas there is still fuel being produced in sufficient quantities to keep a small number of full sized warships going - I would also most likely add California from the wells around Bakersfield as well

Olefin

03-26-2019, 01:32 PM

as for the effect of a small number of naval ships still being operational you have to look no further than either the Middle East or Kenya as to gameplay - in both areas you can actually do some kind of naval campaign play because there are still active naval ships there - for instance you can battle pirates or be inserted on missions as part of a group of Marines or transported infantry

And a still operational naval vessel gives a GM a chance to do his own version of a Last Submarine type module.

An example is the operational DD that is at Cape May in the Challenge Magazine article - as stated that DD could be used as part of a force stationed there to extract the gold from NYC that is in Armies of the Night once the player characters find it and contact MilGov - thus that one ship can provide aid to the characters and a source of NPC's as part of a NYC campaign - and they have limited fuel so its basically a one or two time part of any such campaign but not in such a way to overpower the scenario

Olefin

03-26-2019, 09:40 PM

bash

03-28-2019, 02:07 AM

Also remember that most ships run on the absolute lowest grade of oil - we arent talking rocket fuel here (or jet fuel which is what the Army is running their tanks on) - you can fuel a ship with stuff that would make most cars and tanks and other vehicles grind to a halt

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but even the turbines used in most USN ships can use a variety of fuels. While F-76 is preferred they can burn just about anything lighter than bunker oil (and probably bunker oil with treatment) in an emergency. A ship stuck in the western Pacific or Indian oceans could likely get themselves enough fuel to get to Persian Gulf and either join up with Task Force 76 or fuel up to get back to the US.

USN and NATO ships would be able to remain in contact via radio even after TDM. So CENTCOM (and by extension MilGov) is going to have a pretty good accounting of allied naval assets in the eastern hemisphere.

In general NATO navies not being totally wiped out isn't likely to affect a lot of adventures. They're something to consider if you're playing the Great Game to build a new 2300ad background but most T2K games are probably land locked.

Olefin

03-28-2019, 09:44 AM

in fact having a few more ships operational adds new possible scenarios for GM's - look at Last Submarine - one of the "adventures" in the module was to recover torpedoes to arm the submarine with - can easily see similar things to recover weapons, tech, etc.. to keep those ships going

I remember one person I talked to who told me that when they did the Satellite Down module it was done by that GM not to recover the satellite but to get the still operational Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles that were on board the Virginia as the reason the team was sent down there

rcaf_777

03-28-2019, 05:58 PM

Have you ever heard of the USS Sphinx, the ship to fight in four wars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sphinx_(ARL-24)

https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/19/1924.htm

http://www.jaimeelsabio.com/graphics/military/1988-arl-24-11max550.jpg

USS_Sphinx_Scrap-01.jpg

swaghauler

04-12-2019, 01:54 PM

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but even the turbines used in most USN ships can use a variety of fuels. While F-76 is preferred they can burn just about anything lighter than bunker oil (and probably bunker oil with treatment) in an emergency. A ship stuck in the western Pacific or Indian oceans could likely get themselves enough fuel to get to Persian Gulf and either join up with Task Force 76 or fuel up to get back to the US.

USN and NATO ships would be able to remain in contact via radio even after TDM. So CENTCOM (and by extension MilGov) is going to have a pretty good accounting of allied naval assets in the eastern hemisphere.

In general NATO navies not being totally wiped out isn't likely to affect a lot of adventures. They're something to consider if you're playing the Great Game to build a new 2300ad background but most T2K games are probably land locked.

Yes, this is true. The Navy has even used "distillate fuel" which is basically biodiesel.

swaghauler

04-12-2019, 02:13 PM

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

My point is that I personally don't see any surviving factions expending large amounts of resources to bring museum ships back into service when there are modern ships sitting in port for a lack of fuel and munitions. Why rehab a WW2 Cruiser that will require just as much "bunker" (the naval term for fuel) as a modern ship?

The ships that would be sailing either don't require those resources (like actual sailing vessels that don't need fuel) or are small enough to actually fuel (like smaller 40 to 60 foot powered vessels used as patrol vessels). The average 50ft powered boat will have a range around 500km. This is a decent range for setting up a regional campaign.

This is an advantage for most GMs because it is much easier to run a scenario using small boats armed with RPGs and MGs than to include a large Frigate or Destroyer in that fight. Most small vessels can also be manned by a two-man crew which better suits Twilight2000's smaller unit tactics too.

I STRONGLY suggest that any GMs looking at naval adventures in coastal areas or the various littoral regions take a look at sailboat listings from such sources as The Moorings Group or Boat Trader. A good 40ft to 60ft sailboat is the ideal floating base for a small group of PCs. They also make good pirate vessels when equipped with MGs. I have a strong preference for Catamarans myself.

Olefin

10-09-2019, 12:08 PM

Now that the East Africa sourcebook is official V2.2 canon with the update you can add the following officially to ships listed in Twilight 2000 canon - US, French and Kenyan

TF 212 - Kenya

CG 50 Valley Forge, SH-60 F Seahawk (flagship)
DDG 996 Chandler, SH-2F Seasprite
DDG 46 Preble
FF 1058 Meyerkord, SH-2F Seasprite
FFG 9 Wadsworth
DD 950 Richard S. Edwards
FF 1064 Lockwood (harbor defense)

TF 212.2 Patrol Group - Kenya

USCGC WMEC 725 Jarvis
PC 11 Whirlwind
MCM 7 Patriot
MHC 56 Kingfisher

TF Stryker - Kenya

LST-1190 Boulder (flagship)
LST-1185 Schenectady
LSD-32 Spiegel Grove
Alexander Bonnyman (ex-BDK 14 Mukhtar Avezov)
John Basilone (LCT-1037 Polnochny-B class)
LCU 2031 New Orleans
LCU 1619, 1643 (LCU 1610 class)
LCM 6 – ten
LCM 8 – six
LCAC 90

TF 233 - Kenya

AD 43 Cape Cod (flagship)
T-A0 146 Kawishiwi
AE 22 Mauna Kea
AOE 7 Rainier
AR 8 Jason
YTB-820 Wanamassa
T-ATF-172 Apache
Solstar (Salvage Tug)

Kenyan Navy - HQ Mombasa

P3126 KNS Nyayo (Missile Boat) – six functional Otomat missiles
P3127 KNS Umoja (Missile Boat) – missile system non-functional
P3123 KNS Harambee (Missile Boat)- five functional Gabriel missiles
L39 KNS Tana, L38 KNS Galana (Medium landing ships)
Small River Patrol Boats P943-P947

French Indian Ocean Squadron

Djibouti

A631 Somme (Fleet HQ)
A69 type Sloop F789 Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff
LCM CTM24, CTM25
EDIC Landing Ship Sabre

Reunion

Frigate F730 Floreal, AS 565 Panther
Frigate F732 Nivôse, AS565 Panther
Austral Class Patrol Ship F681 Albatros
BATRAL class Landing Ship L9034 La Grandiere
Naval Oiler C1GH22
P400 class P690 La Rieuse
Light Repair Ship A617 Garonne
RV Marion Dufresne II, AS350 B3

Mayotte

Patrol Boats P763, P790, P721
P400 class P683 La Boudeuse
LCM CTM18

Raellus

07-13-2020, 01:26 PM

rcaf_777

07-13-2020, 06:02 PM

More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34772/uss-bonhomme-richards-bridge-engulfed-in-flames-as-fire-rages-into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

So your saying that because a amphibious assault ship (not an Aircraft Carrier) that caught fire in port, (not a missile or torpedo strike) could catch fire and sink?

Well that interesting, but stinking a carrier at sea during any exercise is a lot different that sinking one at sea. So is a fire in port where all your hatches are open and no one is battle stations and no damage control parties are ready for a fire.

Maybe if I put wings on my grandmother she be a B-52?

Raellus

07-13-2020, 06:17 PM

Not constructive, not civil, rccaf_777. It's fine to disagree, but sarcasm and condescension are totally unnecessary (and contrary to our forum guidelines).

-

pmulcahy11b

07-13-2020, 07:23 PM

Just an aside -- was Bonhomme Richard active during the Twilight War? Anybody know enough about the ship to make up something off-the-cuff?

Raellus

07-13-2020, 08:00 PM

Just an aside -- was Bonhomme Richard active during the Twilight War? Anybody know enough about the ship to make up something off-the-cuff?

According to Wikipedia, the latest Bonhomme Richard was laid down 4/18/95, launched 3/14/1997. Given accelerated wartime production, I think it definitely would have been active during the Twilight War.

The national news reported this evening that the ship's fire suppression system was shut down for maintenance. I haven't heard or seen mention of winds in San Diego during the fire. Hypothetically, if she had happened to have been at sea when the fire broke out, it's entirely possible that winds (some generated by being under way) could have worsened the fire.

In a wartime scenario, it's quite possible that a missile or torpedo hit, or mine impact, could have knocked out the ship's FSS, leading to fire damage similar to, or likely even worse, than what we're seeing in the headlines. In WW2, many allied ships were lost to fire when their fire fighting equipment was badly damaged or destroyed.

Olefin

07-13-2020, 08:16 PM

I would agree with her being active during the war possibly even part of what was sent to the Persian Gulf or to bring the Marines to Korea. If I remember right during WWII damage to fire fighting equipment was part of the reason for at least one carrier being lost possibly even several - ie they couldn’t fight the fires due to the damage

stilleto69

07-14-2020, 02:50 AM

Tegyrius

07-14-2020, 06:25 AM

Olefin

07-14-2020, 07:44 AM

This thread does a great job of illuminating the always-interesting divide between fans who want to burn down aspects of canon they dislike and fans who want to find rational, internally-consistent explanations for them.

One item I don't believe I've seen discussed before, which came out of a side conversation elsewhere: how much of the Navy and Air Force sided with the Broward administration rather than Milgov?

- C.

Discussing aspects of the canon that they find unrealistic is hardly burning down the canon - if anything it’s ways to possibly improve the canon especially now that the 4th edition is on its way and most likely will not be tied to the Twilight 2300 AD timeline.

And some of the Navy definitely had to go with Civgov - after all they managed to transport three divisions to Yugoslavia and at least some support and supplies as well - which requires at least some kind of escort to do that - especially since the Italian and Greek navies most likely still had a few ships left that would have slaughtered unescorted transports

Legbreaker

07-14-2020, 08:38 AM

The Italian and Greek navies weren't exactly formidible in the first place, and after several years of fighting Turkey and later Nato there's a pretty good change all they'd have left is a few sail powered fishing boats with machineguns. Might be a few larger vessels, but fuel, ammo and parts would be in short supply rendering sorties few and far between.
An old rustbucket destroyer in Civgovs hands might well be sufficient to keep them at bay long enough to land the troops plus following reinforcements and supplies, especially if Italian/Greek forces weren't being directly threatened.

Raellus

07-14-2020, 11:27 AM

Remember Raellus, exercises are just that. The real world is the real world. During my time in the US Army, all the exercises we had, we always lost at least 1-2 platoons of tanks assaulting a position, but when we deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Shield/Storm we didn't lose 1 tank.

History has demonstrated time and again that those who discount their opponents in peacetime usually pay a heavy price in war.

Stilleto69, keep in mind that the Iragi military c1991 was not the Red Army c1986. Yes, they used a lot of similar equipment (although the Soviets usually didn't export their very best) and doctrine (much of which the Iraqi military misapplied), but to conclude that the US Army would have whipped the Red Army because Saddam got spanked is like arguing that North Vietnam would have beaten the United States in a total war because they whipped the US-equipped and trained ARVN in a limited one.

This topic is dealt with extensively in this thread:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897&highlight=Defense+Red+Army

After talking with my nephew, who severed about a carrier he told me that the attitude aboard the carrier during an exercise was just that "it's an exercise, it's not real." Whereas once they deployed to the Gulf war zone, the attitude aboard suddenly became "Oh, &&^&*, someone might actually try and shoot at us."

By that logic, wouldn't the OPFOR be half-assing it during those exercises too? In that case, the conclusion that CAG's are vulnerable to submarine attack still stands up (if both sides aren't trying, and the OPFOR still manages to sink a carrier, it stands to reason they could also do it if both sides were trying). Or are you contending that only USN sailors don't take exercises seriously? And, not to discount your nephew, but one person is a tiny small sample size. My little brother is career naval officer going on 20 years of service and he doesn't slack, or allow his sailors to slack, during exercises. You could poll the entire active duty USN about how hard they try during exercises and get a wide range of responses.

Discussing aspects of the canon that they find unrealistic is hardly burning down the canon - if anything it’s ways to possibly improve the canon especially now that the 4th edition is on its way and most likely will not be tied to the Twilight 2300 AD timeline.

Discussions of canon are inherently subjective. One man's "improvement" is another's "ruining it". Every GM is free to revise their own T2kU as they see fit, but trying to "fix" it for everyone is a slippery slope. v1 canon is what it is. Some of us want to reconcile with canon as much as possible (I fall into that camp); some want to revise or even rewrite it. Neither approach is wrong, necessarily. It becomes an issue when folks start using value words like "should" or "shouldn't", or pushing their POV hard on others.

re CivGov naval resources, there must be a few, as canon has CivGov sending reinforcements to Yugoslavia relatively late in the war. I can't imagine that they'd send troop ships, un-escorted, across the Atlantic and into the hostile Mediterranean.

cawest

07-14-2020, 05:08 PM

More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34772/uss-bonhomme-richards-bridge-engulfed-in-flames-as-fire-rages-into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

remember she only had a small crew on board, not a full crew and at battle stations. Now if the ship was in port and took a missile or trop? that might be different. the problem if fighting ship fires is that once the take hold, they are hard to put out. its like the golden hour for combat wounded, but for ships.

stilleto69

07-14-2020, 05:50 PM

Raellus

07-14-2020, 06:41 PM

Raellus, I think you might have misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say sometimes exercises can give a team/unit a false sense of reality. I.e. your point about the Iraqi Army, yes in hindsight we know all what happened, but when I was in the copula, commanding my tank, I could only envision them as the Soviet Army, because that's what I had been trained to fight (their equipment/doctrine/etc.)

But my main point about taking an assumption how things from exercises relate to the real world was like watching the Cleveland Browns beat the New England Patriots in a preseason game, and expecting the same result in the regular season. That was my point. Sorry if it missed you.

No need to apologize. Thanks for the clarification. You make a good point. Training and "real life" aren't the same thing. One can definitely draw the wrong conclusions about the latter based on the former. As you point out, sometimes, the underdog can derive false confidence from success in "practice" scenarios. I contend that it's the favorite that more often makes mistaken assumptions based on exercises/training maneuvers. If the favorite "wins", it bolsters overconfidence. If they "lose", they write it off to a fluke, beginners luck, or "we weren't really trying". In either case, when the SHTF, a rude awakening often awaits.

I feel like Desert Storm was the exception that proves this rule. The Coalition had been expecting a tough fight but a cakewalk (by comparison) ensued. They trained hard and were briefed to expect stiff resistance. In most cases, they faced little, if any. It was a best case scenario for the Coalition forces.

The argument that I've been making for years is that the US military drew the wrong conclusion from Desert Storm: that Soviet equipment and doctrine were far inferior to their American counterparts, and that a hot war in Central Europe would have gone much better for NATO than the Cold War think tanks predicted.

Tegyrius

07-14-2020, 07:54 PM

No need to apologize. Thanks for the clarification. You make a good point. Training and "real life" aren't the same thing. One can definitely draw the wrong conclusions about the latter based on the former. As you point out, sometimes, the underdog can derive false confidence from success in "practice" scenarios. I contend that it's the favorite that more often makes mistaken assumptions based on exercises/training maneuvers. If the favorite "wins", it bolsters overconfidence. If they "lose", they write it off to a fluke, beginners luck, or "we weren't really trying". In either case, when the SHTF, a rude awakening often awaits.

This. As someone who's designed, evaluated, or observed a handful of public safety exercises, I'll say that calibrating an exercise to the intended players is a delicate balance. Make it too easy, or make an exercise series too repetitive, and it becomes a pencil-whipping operation which no one takes seriously, and which generates no meaningful capability improvements (which are the ostensible point of said exercise). Make it too hard and your players go away demoralized, lacking confidence in their gear/training/leadership, and they learn nothing.

The need to demonstrate perfection in front of a political audience can be the worst possible factor in exercise design. In the public safety world, we emphasize that the point of exercises is to make mistakes and find failure points in safe, controlled, simulated circumstances so you can eliminate those problems before you're called on to do the same thing for real. Every time I run an exercise, whether tabletop or full-scale, I emphasize in my opening briefing that I expect and want mistakes - if everything goes perfectly during play, the exercise itself is a failure.

Based on discussions with law enforcement trainers with whom I've worked, as well as the few evolutions I've been fortunate enough to participate in, the same principles apply to force-on-force training in the LE world.

- C.

Olefin

07-15-2020, 12:05 AM

History has demonstrated time and again that those who discount their opponents in peacetime usually pay a heavy price in war.

Stilleto69, keep in mind that the Iragi military c1991 was not the Red Army c1986. Yes, they used a lot of similar equipment (although the Soviets usually didn't export their very best) and doctrine (much of which the Iraqi military misapplied), but to conclude that the US Army would have whipped the Red Army because Saddam got spanked is like arguing that North Vietnam would have beaten the United States in a total war because they whipped the US-equipped and trained ARVN in a limited one.

This topic is dealt with extensively in this thread:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897&highlight=Defense+Red+Army

By that logic, wouldn't the OPFOR be half-assing it during those exercises too? In that case, the conclusion that CAG's are vulnerable to submarine attack still stands up (if both sides aren't trying, and the OPFOR still manages to sink a carrier, it stands to reason they could also do it if both sides were trying). Or are you contending that only USN sailors don't take exercises seriously? And, not to discount your nephew, but one person is a tiny small sample size. My little brother is career naval officer going on 20 years of service and he doesn't slack, or allow his sailors to slack, during exercises. You could poll the entire active duty USN about how hard they try during exercises and get a wide range of responses.

Discussions of canon are inherently subjective. One man's "improvement" is another's "ruining it". Every GM is free to revise their own T2kU as they see fit, but trying to "fix" it for everyone is a slippery slope. v1 canon is what it is. Some of us want to reconcile with canon as much as possible (I fall into that camp); some want to revise or even rewrite it. Neither approach is wrong, necessarily. It becomes an issue when folks start using value words like "should" or "shouldn't", or pushing their POV hard on others.

re CivGov naval resources, there must be a few, as canon has CivGov sending reinforcements to Yugoslavia relatively late in the war. I can't imagine that they'd send troop ships, un-escorted, across the Atlantic and into the hostile Mediterranean.

Keep in mind that the canon implies that the USN was seriously damaged during the war but that there were still ships left in operation even as late as 2001 - ie the ships that escorted the Omega evacuation, the remaining ships at Cape May and in the Middle East and Kenya. And the canon does confirm that there are warships available for the 1999 movements of troops by both CivGov and MilGov. Per the V1 guide there are a few warships available as escorts - thus there must have been USN units that declared for CivGov.

Legbreaker

07-15-2020, 05:58 AM

Some of us want to reconcile with canon as much as possible (I fall into that camp); some want to revise or even rewrite it. Neither approach is wrong, necessarily. It becomes an issue when folks start using value words like "should" or "shouldn't", or pushing their POV hard on others.

That's pretty much my position too. Do what you like in your own group, but as a whole we should probably stick to making sense of what's already written rather than tearing it down and re-writing. More people will get more benefit that way and get a better understanding of the game world as a whole. From that understanding individuals can make their own changes with a higher likelihood of retaining an overall consistency and believably.

My view on this has remained the same for decades.

Legbreaker

07-15-2020, 06:09 AM

It's worth bearing in mind that the Pact navies were virtually destroyed very early on in the war and there wasn't much left in the latter couple of years besides a few scattered commerce raiders. This isn't to say the NATO forces were must better off though.
Given the limited enemy naval forces, it's possible later war convoys could have risked the crossing without escort and probably have made it unscathed, perhaps even undetected nine out of ten times (or possibly better, who knows?). A single lightly armed and obsolete escort may have been deemed more than sufficient to protect ten, twenty or more civilian vessels - it's often all that was available in WWII during the height of the Battle of the Atlantic....

With regard to exercises and training, failure is often a far better teacher than success. Even after 25+ years I still remember those times which resulted in a "loss" for the good guys quite clearly, yet the "wins" all meld together. Provided an honest and open discussion/debrief is carried out, everyone involved learns something and improves their abilities. Consistently winning just plays on confirmation bias and doesn't make the participants actually think.

However, consistently loosing does very little besides impact morale. Being "allowed" to win (when deserved) helps to cement good tactics and skills, and promotes critical thinking and imaginative problem solving.

Olefin

07-15-2020, 09:20 AM

Leg I know you want to go with the almost fully destroyed USN but the reality of the canon doesn’t show that. Most likely there are still a decent amount of ships left but they don’t have the fuel left or the weapons available to make them fully operational. For instance the USN and the Soviets still had the forces left that came to blows off the coast of Mexico that left only the Virginia still afloat albeit very heavily damaged pretty late in the war. And the US and Soviets still have the forces that are afloat and fully operational in the Caspian and Persian Gulf even in the spring of 2001.

Also keep in mind the fact that for a lot of modern ships if you don’t have missiles available that many of them are only armed with a single gun. That’s why older ships would be reactivated - more guns means they are actually worth the fuel to deploy them in a world where guns are now the main weapon as missiles run low on both sides. That’s why the Edwards is so effective off of Kenya - the USN had a lot of shells in stock and she is an all gun destroyer - and as such can still be fully effective and worth keeping operational whereas a more modern destroyer with only a single gun may not be

Rainbow Six

07-15-2020, 11:16 AM

Leg I know you want to go with the almost fully destroyed USN but the reality of the canon doesn’t show that.

Can you cite some evidence to back that claim up? Your reference to the USS Virginia for example - the battle mentioned in Satellite Down dates from March 1999 and as you say yourself left the sole surviving ship very heavily damaged (specifically it would have sunk within an hour if it hadn't been beached) so I don't follow how that can be used as an argument against a heavily damaged USN?

Raellus

07-15-2020, 11:46 AM

I don't think that anyone is arguing for an "almost fully destroyed" USN. However, the USN was the largest navy in the world when T2K was released, yet canon lists no more than a dozen extant, operational USN warships and submarines (of the latter, The Last, no less), c.2000. I don't recall if any are mentioned by name, but Going Home does state that the convoy will steam with a few escorts. Olefin, you've mentioned an Adventure module listing a ship or two off the west coast of the US in late 2000. So yes, there are operational USN warships in late 2000, but there are far, far fewer than there were at the beginning of the war.

Therefore, to reconcile canon, one must explain why so few warships survived a few years of high intensity naval warfare. My post of the Bonhomme Richard fire was attempting to take a step in that direction.

Several posters have made some pretty outrageous claims on this forum over the years, regarding the capabilities of the USN. For example, on these very boards, I've read that CAG's are essentially invulnerable to air, submarine, and surface attacks, and that supercarriers can sustain multiple SSN or torpedo hits and remain operational. Neither of these particular arguments have any basis in fact. They're based entirely on theory and the claims of the defense industry and DOD (Consider the source. Of course, they're going to claim that the systems that they exchange for billions of dollars are extremely reliable and effective). These arguments ignore numerous historical examples of the vulnerability, unreliability, and fragility of modern warships and their weapon systems.

Argument: Nothing could get through a carrier's Aegis AA screen.

Evidence For: Defense industry and DOD claims. Result of simulations & exercises.

Evidence Against: In 1987, an Aegis cruiser mistook an Iranian Airbus for an attack fighter and shot it down. Clearly, the system is not perfect. Arguments that Aegis will be able to detect, target, and hit every supersonic SSM swarming a CAG from multiple directions of attack is simply wishful thinking.

Theory: A carrier can sustain multiple SSN hits and remain operational.

Evidence For: ...

Evidence Against: Look at photos of the HMS Sheffield, and the Atlantic Conveyor (comparable in size to a supercarrier). Each were hit and sunk by single Exocet SSMs. The USS Stark was hit by two (one of which failed to detonate) after failing to detect either missile. The damage almost sunk the frigate, and required extensive repairs. Furthermore, most contemporary and subsequent Soviet SSMs were faster, longer-legged and carried larger payloads than Exocet.

Theory: A submarine couldn't sink a supercarrier with a torpedo. First of all, it couldn't get close enough to fire a torpedo. Second, even if hit, it could remain operational.

Evidence For: ...

Evidence Against: Allied submarines have repeatedly penetrated CAG ASW escort rings and launched successful torpedo attacks against carriers. It's extremely unlikely that every one of those successes was a fluke. As for torpedo damage, just watch SINKEX footage. Modern torpedoes are tremendously destructive. The HMS Conqueror sunk a US-built light cruiser, the General Belgrano, with two 21 inch Mk 8 mod 4 torpedoes (3 were launched; keep in mind that these weren't even the most modern torpedoes fielded by the RN at the time). I don't recall any warship surviving torpedo hits during the last decade or so of the Cold War.

Theory: The Cold War Soviet Navy sucked. It would have stood no chance against the USN in a total war scenario.

Evidence For: The sorry state of the Red Navy in the decade following the collapse of the USSR. War games.

Evidence Against: This one is impossible to prove or disprove either way. However, based on the preceding arguments examined above, it would be Quixotic to believe that NATO navies, fighting the Soviets in/close to their own [USSR] territorial waters (as per Soviet Naval Doctrine) would have emerged anywhere near unscathed.

Since the game-play focus of T2k is small unit land warfare, most of this theoretical parsing of naval strength c.2000 is moot anyway. But the evidence available suggests that full-scale naval warfare in 1990s would have been quite destructive.

Legbreaker

07-15-2020, 12:25 PM

Leg I know you want to go with the almost fully destroyed USN.

Umm, that's not what I said.

Legbreaker

07-15-2020, 12:36 PM

Can you cite some evidence to back that claim up? Your reference to the USS Virginia for example - the battle mentioned in Satellite Down dates from March 1999 and as you say yourself left the sole surviving ship very heavily damaged (specifically it would have sunk within an hour if it hadn't been beached) so I don't follow how that can be used as an argument against a heavily damaged USN?

Also need to remember canon (1st, 2.0 and 2.2) all state in 1997 At sea the plan fares even worse, as coastal missile boats and the remnants of Northern Fleet's shore-based naval aviation inflict crippling losses on the NATO fleet. By mid June the last major naval fleet-in-being in the world has been shattered.
Rather clear there's not much left on either side isn't it....
And that's only about 9 months into the war, and a month before nukes started to be used. Given ships need fairly regular replenishment, repair and replacement crew, and most ports (any any vessels caught in them) are destroyed or heavily damaged by nukes, it's not looking good for ANY naval forces by 2000.

The argument for a strong, or even significant US navy simply doesn't hold water. Some ships certainly do still exist as can be seen in the middle east, but they're rendered nearly impotent by lack of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, etc.

Spartan-117

07-15-2020, 12:51 PM

Also need to remember canon (1st, 2.0 and 2.2) all state in 1997
Rather clear there's not much left on either side isn't it....
And that's only about 9 months into the war, and a month before nukes started to be used. Given ships need fairly regular replenishment, repair and replacement crew, and most ports (any any vessels caught in them) are destroyed or heavily damaged by nukes, it's not looking good for ANY naval forces by 2000.

The argument for a strong, or even significant US navy simply doesn't hold water. Some ships certainly do still exist as can be seen in the middle east, but they're rendered nearly impotent by lack of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, etc.

I feel like half these sources contradict themselves.

USNAVCENT: The naval component, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (USNAVCENT), controls the last American carrier task force in the world, Task Force 76. USNAVCENT's main duties include keeping the Persian Gulf open and free of hostile warships and providing a sealift capacity for the transfer of personnel and supplies within the region. <<All hard to do without fuel/ammo<<

Also, if you don't want to sail around in big ships, you can always fly:

317th Tactical Airlift Wing HQ: Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia 357th Tac Airlift Sdn (180 men, 4 C-130s, 2 C-23s):
Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
756th Tac Airlift Sdn (170 men, 3 C-130s, 2 C-23s): Bushehr
81st Weather Recon Sdn (150 men, 2 WC-130Hs): Ad Damman, Saudi Arabia
32nd Aerial Refuelling Sdn (160 men, 1 KC-10, 2 KC-130s): Ad Damman, Saudi Arabia <<They have KC-130 tankers, that haven't been canalized for C-130 parts... The Spice Must Flow!

Although heavily damaged by nuclear and conventional at- tacks, a few of the oilfields and refineries in the Middle East still produce oil. Most is consumed locally, but a trickle is exported by the various nations who control the oilfields. This trade in oil is slowing, as attrition reduces the number of ships available. What remains is now mostly with nations of the Franco-Belgian Union.
Military units receive fuel according to their individual mission requirements. Fuel is available on the open market (diesel: $7 per liter, C/C); gas: $12 per liter, S/S). Avgas is reserved for military use only, but can be had on the black market ($22 per liter, R/R).

Olefin

07-15-2020, 03:22 PM

Can you cite some evidence to back that claim up? Your reference to the USS Virginia for example - the battle mentioned in Satellite Down dates from March 1999 and as you say yourself left the sole surviving ship very heavily damaged (specifically it would have sunk within an hour if it hadn't been beached) so I don't follow how that can be used as an argument against a heavily damaged USN?

The argument is that the USN was still operating such a task force off the Pacific as late as 1999 - thus the chances that the USN has ships available for escorting the MilGov and CivGov reinforcements to Europe and not just a “ramshackle destroyer” as was previously said is pretty high. Ie the USN isn’t completely down and out. And per the RDF and the notes that I used that Frank Frey posted there were definitely active US task forces still operational off the Persian Gulf and Kenya in 2001. And by heavily damaged I mean a USN that couldn’t even provide a single escort ship for three divisions heading for Europe thru the Med.

Olefin

07-15-2020, 03:29 PM

Rainbow Six

07-15-2020, 04:33 PM

The argument is that the USN was still operating such a task force off the Pacific as late as 1999 - thus the chances that the USN has ships available for escorting the MilGov and CivGov reinforcements to Europe and not just a “ramshackle destroyer” as was previously said is pretty high. Ie the USN isn’t completely down and out. And per the RDF and the notes that I used that Frank Frey posted there were definitely active US task forces still operational off the Persian Gulf and Kenya in 2001. And by heavily damaged I mean a USN that couldn’t even provide a single escort ship for three divisions heading for Europe thru the Med.

OK, so the reality of the canon is actually that it accounts for what, maybe twenty to twenty five ships? There’s seven in the RDF Sourcebook, five in the Korean Sourcebook, the John Hancock is mentioned in Going Home, there’s a reference to Tarawa in the V2 Nautical Guide, the destroyers mentioned in Challenge magazine, and the Corpus Christi plus however many you put in Kenya (I haven’t read that so I don’t know the exact figure).

That’s out of a US Navy that peaked at 594 vessels in 1987 according to Wikipedia. So we’re missing 569 vessels give or take a few. I just wanted to make sure that there was nothing in canon that I didn’t know about that accounted for at least some of that number given your earlier statement, but it appears that there isn’t, so the reality of canon doesn’t really support anything (one could argue that if anything it supports the opposite view as something like over 95 % of the US Navy’s strength is unaccounted for. That’s a pretty big number).

That’s fine, it’s obviously up to each individual how they want to interpret what might have happened to those missing ships. FWIW I’d be inclined to agree with the view put forward by several people that there are still sufficient ships out there not specifically mentioned to carry out escort tasks and what not (I don't know who used the phrase “ramshackle destroyer” but it wasn't me), although again you need to pay attention to timing - FYI the Civgov reinforcement mission to Yugoslavia took place in probably 1998, maybe 1999 (there’s a likely discrepancy in the US Army Vehicle Guide - the 76th and 80th Divisions are quoted as deploying to Yugoslavia in October 1998, at which point they came under the command of IV Corps. Same source states the 42nd Division deployed in the autumn of 1999, together with IV Corps HQ. So unless IV Corps operated without its HQ for a year that’s probably a typo and the three Divisions deployed in October 1998. Having enough ships to provide an escort force in October 1998 doesn’t really prove anything one way or the other if you’re talking about Summer 2000 as your game point.

Olefin

07-15-2020, 05:04 PM

I am talking about 1998-1999 - that’s the Virginia battle, that’s the escort missions for the last MilGov and CivGov reinforcements to Europe and Korea, that’s the sailings for the convoys that brought the forces to Kenya that enabled the US to keep the refinery and port at Mombasa in operation. So they weren’t reduced to sending unescorted troopships for those ops. And earlier I posted the ships that are part of the forces based in Kenya which were based on Frank’s notes as well as my own imagining. They include a small patrol force, a naval task force centered on a missile cruiser and an amphib/support force that is there to provide support both for Kenya and for the forces in the Gulf.

Rainbow Six

07-15-2020, 05:12 PM

I am talking about 1998-1999. that’s the Virginia battle, that’s the escort missions for the last MilGov and CivGov reinforcements to Europe and Korea, that’s the sailings for the convoys that brought the forces to Kenya
OK, so we're agreed that excepting Kenya, none of this proves anything one way or the other about the possible state of the US Navy in the summer of 2000 (and the Virginia battle isn't really relevant as none of those ships survived, so again if anything it only supports the worst case scenario, i.e. the existence of a ship or ships in service in 1999 is not proof that the same ships are still operational in 2000) and the actual reality of canon is that somewhere in the region of 569 vessels are unaccounted for?

Raellus

07-15-2020, 05:39 PM

OK, so the reality of the canon is actually that it accounts for what, maybe twenty to twenty five ships? There’s seven in the RDF Sourcebook, five in the Korean Sourcebook, the John Hancock is mentioned in Going Home, there’s a reference to Tarawa in the V2 Nautical Guide, the destroyers mentioned in Challenge magazine, and the Corpus Christi plus however many you put in Kenya (I haven’t read that so I don’t know the exact figure).

The KPS isn't officially canon, but thanks for including it. Here's a freebie for those of you who don't have a copy.

Chinhae

This small coastal city, 16 miles (25 km) west of Busan, is the home of the ROK Naval Academy and a joint ROKN-USN base. A small flotilla of operational USN vessels (USS Missouri, USS Vincennes, USS Des Moines, USS Duncan, and USS Semmes) rests at anchor in the harbor, stranded due to lack of fuel. The 1st Brigade, 7th ID, assists the beached sailors in defending the city and its harbor. Marauders from the Busan area are becoming an increasing nuisance in the area. [Emphasis added]

So yeah, those five vessels aren't going anywhere until fuel can be found/transported to the port. This is given as a mission teaser elsewhere in the sourcebook.

And earlier I posted the ships that are part of the forces based in Kenya which were based on Frank’s notes as well as my own imagining. They include a small patrol force, a naval task force centered on a missile cruiser and an amphib/support force that is there to provide support both for Kenya and for the forces in the Gulf.

The naval force you've created for East Africa is the exception that proves the rule. It's pretty much the only operational naval TF in the world by 2001 (you effectively tripled named USN vessels in canon with your source book).

Based on Rainbow 6's research in the balance of canon, there's less than a dozen additional operational (meaning at sea or ready to put to sea) USN vessels worldwide by that same year. So yeah, according to canon, the USN is shattered. What we're doing here is trying to determine how that end result came about. There are a few major naval battles described in canon. AFAIK, those that are occurred in the N. Atlantic and Mediterranean. I tried to fill in the gaps for the pacific by positing the following in the KPS (again, non-canonical):

U.S. 7th Fleet

From December of 1996, through 1998, U.S. 7th Fleet was actively engaged against Soviet and KPA naval forces in the waters around Korea. Just days after the North Korean invasion of the ROK, 7th Fleet CVGBs conducted air strikes against North Korean naval facilities, destroying most of the KPA fleet at anchor. Errant KPA submarines were duly hunted down and sunk before they could do much damage. Soviet subs proved more formidable prey, frequently inflicting losses on convoys and USN ASW task forces before being sent to the bottom in turn.

In the summer of 1997, a 7th Fleet Expeditionary Strike Group, supported by a CVBG and a Battleship Battle Group, conducted the amphibious assault landing of 4th Marine Division and 6th ROK Marine Brigade "Black Dragon" on the North Korean coast south of Nampo (using the Taedong River to shield the Marines' left flank). 16-inch naval gunfire delivered by the battleship USS Missouri proved invaluable in destroying KPA coastal artillery and anti-aircraft defenses. The operation was a resounding success and USN losses were negligible.

Successful CVBG raids against Soviet naval facilities at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, and Vladivostok, USSR nevertheless resulted in significant aircraft and surface vessel losses to 7th Fleet. Additional losses were accrued during fleet actions around the Kuriles and off the Kamchatka Peninsula (these were joint operations with U.S. 3rd Fleet). 1997 witnessed Soviet nuclear strikes on U.S. naval bases in the United States, Japan, the Philippines, destroying several more USN Pacific Fleet vessels at anchor. By July 2000, very few 7th Fleet vessels remain operational, and most of these are laid up in port due to lack of fuel (see the entry for Chinhae on p. 37).

So, add in a few smaller, limited engagements, submarine v. convoy escort duels, strikes against naval bases, accidents (a la Bonhomme Richard), mine strikes, and above all else lack of fuel and the missile/torpedo drought, and, for all intents and purposes, by 2001, the USN has more or less ceased to exist.

Except, of course, off the coast of E. Africa.

-

rcaf_777

07-15-2020, 08:41 PM

Argument: Nothing could get through a carrier's Aegis AA screen.

Evidence For: Defense industry and DOD claims. Result of simulations & exercises.

Evidence Against: In 1987, an Aegis cruiser mistook an Iranian Airbus for an attack fighter and shot it down. Clearly, the system is not perfect. Arguments that Aegis will be able to detect, target, and hit every supersonic SSM swarming a CAG from multiple directions of attack is simply wishful thinking.

What about the Soviet Navy Failing to achieve a significant Navy break out into the Atlantic.

General Omar Bradley said "Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk logistics." So let look at the Soviet Navy.

The Soviet Navy's organizational structure was divided into four major fleets: the Northern, Pacific, Black Sea, and Baltic Fleets, which were under the separate command was the Leningrad Naval Base. In addition, Soviet Navy had a smaller fleet, Caspian Flotilla, operated in the Caspian Sea and followed by a larger fleet, 5th Squadron, in the Middle East.

So how many of these ports are where their ships can come and go with harassment or surveillance while they attempt to break out into the major ocean?

The answer is only the Caspian Sea due to fact that its is an inland sea with access to to baltic via Lenin Volga–Don Shipping Canal. The rest are all within striking point major US/NATO allies, both the Northern and Baltic Fleets would have travel through the Greenland to Iceland or Iceland to UK Gaps.

NATO know this and good idea of ASW assets. Now how hard to do you think it's going to be or Naval assets to break out and continue to operate and return to port to resupply and repair and refuel (if needed)? NATO has many more bases to operate and resupply in the Atlantic.

Also in the Atlantic where is the priority for submarines? You going to sink a Carrier or Convoys?

Also what the whats the state of Soviet Navy Given is earlier war with China?

Given this would you not agree the US and NATO will have unrestricted movement in the Atlantic? Dose mean an easy victor? no it means force projection, which is the right assets where they are need. The Soviets can't do this do to their long line of communications and logistics.

While the Soviet due have a Cuba, you have get through major US/NATO surfaces groups and get pass the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) which in 1961 detected a Soviet nuclear submarine west of Norway coming into the Atlantic through the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap.

https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_25/sosus.htm

As a base Cuba is subject to major US attacks and is location in Caribbean does not make a great base due it being close to the us and its distance from Halifax NS (NATO's major Convoy departure point for Europe).

Olefin

07-15-2020, 08:48 PM

rcaf_777

07-15-2020, 08:51 PM

For those who want to see more about the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6)

USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) Firefighting Efforts, July 12th

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiJZQcmNl_E

USS Bonhomme Richard Tour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63UWBnxbzg

LCAC Operations aboard USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) Exercise Cobra Gold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQKhHj6E7oc

USS Bonhomme Richard Flight Deck OPS Forward Deployed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChH1mhGYxcs

USS Nimitz - VIP Tour & Flight Deck Action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuLSG47Gv4

rcaf_777

07-15-2020, 08:55 PM

https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_25/sosus.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

https://dosits.org/galleries/technology-gallery/locating-objects-by-listening-to-their-sounds/sound-surveillance-system-sosus/

https://dosits.org/people-and-sound/history-of-underwater-acoustics/the-cold-war-history-of-the-sound-surveillance-system-sosus/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R462zEQ6RQA

Spartan-117

07-15-2020, 10:31 PM

Keep in mind that I followed Frank Frey’s notes on what ships would be at Mombasa - I added the amphib and repair/support task force but the patrol and combat task force are per what he had in mind. So while you have operational ships the overall combat capable force is in line with what Frank Frey had for his unpublished Kenya module.

And given the fact that the Mombasa refinery and port is what is keeping the US forces in the Middle East a going concern there definitely would be operational US Naval ships there. And the USN is definitely a going concern in the Persian Gulf - that is an operational carrier task force with a heavy cruiser that still has ammo - ie they just supported the Marines landing at Char Bahar in late 2000.

As far as the other ships most likely you have an awful lot of ships laid up in various ports due to lack of fuel or that the USN isn’t using due to only having a single 5 inch gun as armament. That’s why the two DD’s at Cape May are still operational - they have some fuel and they have multiple guns - making them actually worth using. I highly doubt the USN lost 500 plus ships sunk or so badly damaged they can never be used again

However having bunch of ships out of fuel or no weapons beyond shells for their single 5 inch gun and the 50 cals - and thus not really being able to perform any useful function - heck yes

What I don't get is why that entire Africa premise is needed at all. RDF makes it clear that there's surviving refinery capacity in the Middle East. "Most is consumed locally, but a trickle is exported by the various nations who control the oilfields." THEY EXPORT OIL. Diesel costs less than Eth. That's not just cannon.. that's old school SENIOR Cannon... No take backs Frank Frey.

If Mombasa or Kenya was so important to the RDF in the Middle East, I'd probably get more than one sentence, which doesn't' mention oil, when I search the RDF PDF for Mombasa or Kenya.

SOCCENT provides the majority of military advisors for the
region. Its Special Forces A Teams are in action from Iran to
Kenya and work with such ethnic/racial groups as the Kurdish
hill tribes of southwestern Iran and the Masai warriors of Kenya.

That's it. It's not Kenya supporting the RDF with its refinery. It's ODAs supporting Masai warriors.

Personally, I think sending the 173rd to Mombasa comes across as a malaria ridden fever dream with 'white savoir' overtones IMHO. It's a superfluous bolt-on to allow expansion of game into Big Safari territory. That's my take at least.

Raellus

07-16-2020, 12:29 AM

@rcaf_777: It wasn't Soviet naval doctrine to push surface forces out into the Atlantic. Their surface forces were designed to operate close to Soviet territorial waters in a defensive posture. This would allow land based bombers to support them with standoff SSM swarms against attacking NATO naval forces. This is supported by canon's description of massive naval engagements off of Norway and in the N. Atlantic.

Given this would you not agree the US and NATO will have unrestricted movement in the Atlantic? Dose mean an easy victor? no it means force projection, which is the right assets where they are need. The Soviets can't do this do to their long line of communications and logistics.

I don't fully agree. I think NATO would have naval superiority in the mid-Atlantic, but not naval supremacy. I think they'd have more freedom of movement than Soviet naval assets (or merchant shipping), but not total freedom of movement. I think that Soviet submarines would cause trans-Atlantic convoys a lot of problems.

Soviet submarines, both SSBNs and attack boats, would be pre-positioned prior to an anticipated declaration of war. IIRC, in v1, there's a lapse of several weeks between W. Germany's invasion of E. Germany and US involvement in what would become WW3. That would have given the Soviets plenty of time to sortie submarine commerce raiders.

Thanks for the links on SOSUS. I think most of us are aware of its existence. I'm not sure what that post was supposed to prove, through. No one here has claimed it would be easy for Soviet submarines to operate in the Atlantic. It would, however, be possible, regardless of what SOSUS advocates claim (based solely on theory, simulations, and exercises). AFAIK, SOSUS was never battle tested in a major naval conflict. Would it have worked as advertised? We just don't know. It is also vulnerable to sabotage, which I am sure has crossed Soviet planners' minds.

The RW PLN was pretty pathetic when T2K was first written. It wasn't much better, IRL, in the mid-1990s. I don't reckon that it would have done much damage to the Soviet naval forces in the Pacific. I'm sure Soviet naval forces in the Pacific would sustain some losses in defeating the PLN, but I think the bulk of the Pacific Red Fleet would survive to fight the Americans and Pacific Allies once they'd entered the war.

-

Olefin

07-16-2020, 12:42 AM

What I don't get is why that entire Africa premise is needed at all. RDF makes it clear that there's surviving refinery capacity in the Middle East. "Most is consumed locally, but a trickle is exported by the various nations who control the oilfields." THEY EXPORT OIL. Diesel costs less than Eth. That's not just cannon.. that's old school SENIOR Cannon... No take backs Frank Frey.

If Mombasa or Kenya was so important to the RDF in the Middle East, I'd probably get more than one sentence, which doesn't' mention oil, when I search the RDF PDF for Mombasa or Kenya.

SOCCENT provides the majority of military advisors for the
region. Its Special Forces A Teams are in action from Iran to
Kenya and work with such ethnic/racial groups as the Kurdish
hill tribes of southwestern Iran and the Masai warriors of Kenya.

That's it. It's not Kenya supporting the RDF with its refinery. It's ODAs supporting Masai warriors.

Personally, I think sending the 173rd to Mombasa comes across as a malaria ridden fever dream with 'white savoir' overtones IMHO. It's a superfluous bolt-on to allow expansion of game into Big Safari territory. That's my take at least.

There was considerable discussion about Kenya and what Frank Frey was going to have in his unpublished Kenya module - the Mombasa refinery was important as there weren’t working refineries that could support the US forces in Iran after the war went nuclear in Iran - and that is why the 173rd was there - to protect the refinery and keep it operational for the RDF - and that there were forces that were trying to attack Kenya and that is also why the Americans were there - and it was also mentioned as well in Kings Ransom - one of the characters had been stationed in Kenya for two years and had only just returned to Iran from there. And to me those forces are a logical extension of the US effort in Iran - you aren’t going to be able to fight long without refined oil - and Mombasa has the refinery that can get you that - and the port you need to ship it

Rainbow Six

07-16-2020, 01:22 AM

And given the fact that the Mombasa refinery and port is what is keeping the US forces in the Middle East a going concern

Are you saying that the overall premise of the American presence in Kenya is that Kenyan oil is what's sustaining the US in the Middle East?

That's an...interesting...take. Let's park for the moment the fact that according to wikipedia oil doesn't appear to have been discovered in Kenya until 2012 (as I said, I haven't read the African sourcebook so presume there's some sort of butterflying away of that) and isn't scheduled to hit full production / exportation until 2024. Full production looks like it might be in the region of 46,000 barrels per day (i.e. three to four years from now).

https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenyas-crude-oil-production-to-hit-46000-bpd-in-2023/

In 1998 (the closest I could find to 1996) Saudia Arabia was producing just short of ten million barrels per day.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265190/oil-production-in-saudi-arabia-in-barrels-per-day/

So parking the fact that Kenya was really producing zero barrels per day in 1996 and using the best case (2023) figure of approx 50,000 (rounded off), Kenyan production was approx half of one per cent of Saudi Arabia's (and that's only Saudi Arabia - that doesn't include Kuwait, the UAE, etc which probably adds at least another four to five million barrels).

I realise that refineries in the Gulf have suffered damage, but as has already been mentioned, there's still sufficient production / refining facilities available in the Gulf to allow export (RDF Sourcebook pg12). Even a 99% reduction in production would still leave somewhere around three times Kenya's full 2023 production. So I find the idea that Kenyan oil 'is what is keeping US forces in the Middle East a going concern' to be quite implausible.

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 01:37 AM

as there weren’t working refineries that could support the US forces in Iran after the war went nuclear in Iran

Page 12 RDF sourcebook -

"OIL
Although heavily damaged by nuclear and conventional at- tacks, a few of the oilfields and refineries in the Middle East still produce oil. "

it says 'and refineries'

Not 'and refinery'

it's 'and refineries...'

Even earlier on Page 3:
"The RDF Sourcebook is intended to familiarize referees (and players, to a lesser extent) with the region around the Persian Gulf which has become the primary "stomping grounds" of the U.S. Central Command. It is in this area (where a few remain- ing oil refineries produce a trickle of fuel) that the war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union is still being fought on something resembling the old terms."

again, we're using English plurals.

It is in this area.. where a few remaining oil refineries produce a trickle of fuel...

Let's break down 'this area...'

Page 20/21 we get an order of battle, by country, and hey, neither Kenya nor the 173rd are listed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Deployment_Joint_Task_Force

No 173rd there. Not in the CENTCOM successors organization either. 173rd is EUCOM's airborne unit.

Is MORE refining capacity useful, sure, probably. But this is not the lynchpin of RDF operations in the middle east. Asserting that there weren't working refineries in the region to support U.S. forces just doesn't carry much water, unless we are retconning out these passages in the RDF sourcebook.

=============================================

Really though, what's super disappointing about the whole 'one refinery left in Kenya' premise, is that it jeopardizes earlier work. In this case, the entire campaign premise for the RDF sourcebook -

"In most places in the world of Twilight: 2000 the military chain of command has completely broken down and soldiers have been left to their own resources. In the Persian Gulf things are different. There is still a functioning chain of command and a conventional war to be fought. This situation provides players and referees with the option of gaming regular military missions. Some gaming groups may prefer this more structured form of game to the anarchy of Europe and most of the United States. Others may enjoy it occasionally as a change of pace. In any event, the purpose of this campaign guide chapter is to provide more options to gaming groups, not limit those options."

Well, I know you players wanted something different, but some dude in Africa screwed up (or the Navy didn't get the tanker back) and now we have no refined petrochemicals, so I guess we fight disease and starvation here in the desert while schlepping everywhere on foot.

You pretty much have to retcon out the raison d'être for the RDF Sourcebook to begin with: a reduction in tenuous food and fuel logistics, so you can have a more mission focused gaming experience where half your time isn't brewing and foraging.

And why and for what purpose do we need to retcon out ... and refineries...? Just so you can get to a point where the whole U.S. presence in the region is dependent on Kenyan refining capacity. That's sad.

Legbreaker

07-16-2020, 01:50 AM

And don't forget as I previously mentioned, WWII convoys often only had ONE warship as escort, usually an older WWI era destroyer (at least earlier on), and many times convoys sailed without any escorts at all. And that's when there were far more enemy vessels in the area than in T2K.

Without more modern munitions such as missiles and torpedoes, most warships are little more than floating targets. Yes, they still have .50 cal machineguns, GPMGs and (in some cases) they might be lucky enough to have a few rounds for a single 76mm gun. The launchers for the missiles etc may still be serviceable, but what good are they without the ammo? We also know torpedoes were scarce as only a handful could be scrounged up from the entire east coast area controlled by Milgov to arm the Los Angeles.

Submarines are clearly in very short supply (only two known to still exist in 2000, plus one French sub mentioned in "What's Polish for G'Day"), and airpower is virtually non-existent, so the only likely threats will be surface vessels after 1997. It may well be that the troop ships and cargo vessels sent by Civgov acted as their own escorts - just slap a TOW, AA gun, etc on the deck and you should be able to scare off most of the probable opponents.

As for the situation in the middle east, yes, there are some ships there being held for sea lift duties, but how often do they actually sail? How long does it take to produce enough fuel to supply them for not only the initial landing, but the continuing resupply operations for the troops on the ground?

Also, where are the munitions coming from to resupply them? Pretty sure there's no factories in the region churning out Harpoons, and there's certainly nothing coming from the US (or anywhere else for that matter, except MAYBE France - not that they'd be sharing).

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 02:01 AM

As for the situation in the middle east, yes, there are some ships there being held for sea lift duties, but how often do they actually sail? How long does it take to produce enough fuel to supply them for not only the initial landing, but the continuing resupply operations for the troops on the ground?

Also, where are the munitions coming from to resupply them? Pretty sure there's no factories in the region churning out Harpoons, and there's certainly nothing coming from the US (or anywhere else for that matter, except MAYBE France - not that they'd be sharing).

1) They sail enough to send recruiters to Europe, then sail them and their recruits back to the Middle East.... lol

One of the alternatives at Bremerhaven will be a "recruiting booth" offering the option of service with CENT- COM rather than returning to the United States.

If they missed the boat, there is the distinct possibility that recruiters for CENTCOM will attempt to locate remaining stragglers in Europe and offer to lift them out and to the Persian Gulf.

2) Is there anything in cannon about Israel being nuked? I couldn't find anything in RDF. They have been developing/producing their own ASMs since '62. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_(missile)

Legbreaker

07-16-2020, 02:21 AM

1) They sail enough to send recruiters to Europe, then sail them and their recruits back to the Middle East....
Or did they simply send a radio signal asking for volunteers?
It also wouldn't take much to get those volunteers around to the middle east - it's not like they've got anything more than their personal equipment and rifle, everything else had to be left to the Germans. The fuel used could have been part of the oil from the tanker found floating in the North Sea (or wherever it was) by the Germans.

2) Is there anything in cannon about Israel being nuked? I couldn't find anything in RDF. They have been developing/producing their own ASMs since '62. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_(missile)

Not a thing as far as I can see, but would Israel be any more willing to share their missiles than the French? Would they even be compatible? How would they get them over to Iran through a region openly hostile to Israel?
Sure, they could be flown across, but cargo aircraft are notoriously vulnerable and it's far from the most economical way to do it anyway.

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 03:24 AM

Or did they simply send a radio signal asking for volunteers?

They didn't, because they entry literally says there will be a "recruiting booth". I mean, if you have a mission need to send recruiters and you have the fuel to do so, and you have to transport these people back anyway, why not send a ship. Which is the foundation of the campaign premise - CENTCOM has resources to conduct more normalized military operations than other almost any other command anywhere else in the world.

I mean, really, if you wanted to flaunt "The recruiting officer (the referee) should stress all the benefits of service in the Middle East (fuel in abundance, air support, regular supplies and pay, and so on). In fact, the recruiting of- ficer would probably greatly overstate the advantages, describ- ing the area of operations as virtually a modern U.S. oil shiekdom, and U.S. soldiers living in luxury between their mis- sions," a radio transmission is not a great sales method. Showing up, in a big boat, with fuel, is going to help sell that premise. It's why you see sales people roll in Cadillacs and not Yugos.

And let's revisit that quote - fuel in abundance, air support... That's not overstating the case because the next sentence is literally all about how to overstate all of that!

Not a thing as far as I can see, but would Israel be any more willing to share their missiles than the French? Would they even be compatible? How would they get them over to Iran through a region openly hostile to Israel?
Sure, they could be flown across, but cargo aircraft are notoriously vulnerable and it's far from the most economical way to do it anyway.

So the reason you get to play Israelis in the sourcebook, is because

"The Jor- danians and the Israelis had done about as much as they could do in their area. Their respective governments decided that a presence in the Persian Gulf area would at least insure them a greater say in oil allocation. The Jordanians sent their crack 5th Armored Division. The Israelis sent the 35th Parachute Brigade, the 7th Armored Brigade, and supporting units."

So Israel is there to get a share of oil/fuel. And as the book establishes, that has a cost ($7 for diesel, etc.). Fiat currency, like the Shekel, is probably not going to pay the bill. So, it's the barter system... What do they have that the RDF might want? How about munitions? You asked where munitions for this fleet might be coming from, this is a possible answer.

So maybe it's not this particular missile, or maybe a U.S. frigate gets a mount refitted during a layover after escorting fuel over - the payment is the missile system (or whatever the munition is bartered between the parties).

Again, if I have a task force, and I have fuel for that task force (plus enough to trade), and I have an ally who wants fuel (enough to ante up the Blood part of Blood and Treasure), and they possibly have munitions production capabilities based on a long history of weapons development and surviving infrastructure (the transfer of which which would also serve to protect their forces in region as well), I'm pretty sure that can all work out.

And to recap - Kenya does not have to be involved.

Legbreaker

07-16-2020, 08:46 AM

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 09:32 AM

You know that people already there in Bremerhaven could have staffed that booth? It's the same army after all and there's no need to send a person when a message will do.

Another point is recruiters lie. It's a well known fact within the military that they'll oversell the good things and totally whitewash the bad. They're worse than used car salesmen and real estate agents like that. The RDF sourcebook says pretty much the same thing.
"Fuel in abundance" probably just means you get almost enough to complete the mission (you need to scrounge the fuel needed to get home again), "air support" means there's a couple of banged up aircraft nearby that fly about once a month but god help you if you ask for it if you're in less danger than being currently overrun by an entire Soviet mechanised battalion.
Prewar that small stretching of the truth would still paint a bleak picture. After several years in Europe, it's pure utopia.

The "overstating" mentioned in the RDF Sourcebook looks to me to involve pure fabrication rather than simple stretching of the truth. Sure, SOME soldiers might experience SOME of the perks mentioned, but only the truly blessed, extremely high ranking, or very corrupt (ie Supply Sergeant "Crapgame" in Kelly's Heroes) would get more than a few of them.

Let's presume said booth is filled with Army EUCOM staff who are shilling for CENTCOM billets. The PCs still have to be moved from one theater to the next. Which takes ships or aircraft and fuel. Which again, the RDF Sourcebook says CENTCOM has.

The RDF Sourcebook is intended to familiarize referees (and players, to a lesser extent) with the region around the Persian Gulf which has become the primary "stomping grounds" of the U.S. Central Command. It is in this area (where a few remain- ing oil refineries produce a trickle of fuel) that the war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union is still being fought on something resembling the old terms.

Just seems like you guys are injecting a lot of stuff that's just NOT in there.

Keyword Searches that receive 0 hits:

Brewing
Foraging
Alcohol
Distill
Ethanol
Methanol
Scrounge
Scrounging

Survival gets 1 hit: Twilight: 2000 29 is Game Designers' Workshop's trademark for its role-playing 30 game of survival in a devastated world.

Brew gets 3 hit: all part of Hebrew.

Still is found on 17 pages and none of them are for 'an apparatus used to distill liquid mixtures'. They all for other definitions of the word.

And let's finish on your two banged up aircraft:

USAFCENT: Air support is provided by the U.S. Air Forces Central Command (USAFCENT). The operational headquarters is the 9th Air Force. Originally, USAFCENT was slated to receive the equivalent of 7 Air Force Wings, but other considerations prevented this. USAFCENT wound up with the equivalent of three. Although its numbers have diminished, USAFCENT's air craft remain a potent combat force. In the summer of 1998, the surviving fixed wing elements of the US Navy and the US Marine Corps' 1st Marine Air Wing came under command of USAFCENT for administrative and operational purposes.

We don't have to guess what the composition is. We don't have to figure out what things 'probably' mean. It's all outlined in the book in the: Orders of Battle - This listing represents conditions as of January 1, 2001. All locations are in Iran, unless otherwise noted.

9th US Air Force (USAFCENT) HQ: Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
VFC-76 (60 men, 2 F-14Ds, 6 F/A-18s): Naval air units under USAFCENT control, Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
HR-28 (30 men, 4 UH-60s): Naval air units under USAF CENT control, Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
VOJ-204 (4 Fokker F-27s, 2 Breuget Atlantiques): Naval air units under USAFCENT control, Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
1st Marine Air Wing HQ: Marine air units under USAF CENT control, Bandar Abbas
VMFA-214 (50 men, 4 F-18s): Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia VMFA-442 (60 men, 6 AVSBs): Bandar Abbas VMFA-119 (100men, 4AV-8Bs, 7 CH-53E, 6AH-1Ts,
2 UH-60s): Bandar Abbas
HMC-332 (50 men, 6 AH-1Vs): Bandar Abbas HMHR-301 (20 men, 6 CH-53s): Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
1st Tac Ftr Wing HQ: Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
94th Tac Ftr Sdn (140 men, 4 F-15s): Al Qatif, SA
93rd Tac Ftr Sdn (160 men, 5 F-16s): Al Qatif, SA 72nd Tac Ftr Sdn (140 men, 3 F-16s): Dharan, SA
4th Tac Ftr Wing HQ: Bushehr
303rd Tac Ftr Sdn (160 men, 4 A-10s): Bushehr 180th Tac Ftr Sdn (155 men, 4 A-7s): Bandar-e
Khomeyni

Plus those C-130s I mentioned earlier.

Jesus are we reading the same book? Is this a Hallmark Special where we finally find out some of you can't read gud?

Legbreaker

07-16-2020, 11:33 AM

With the oil from the German tanker there's no need for fuel to be sent from the middle east. In fact it'd be very dangerous to do so especially with the situation in the English Channel as shown in Boomer. Any transit would really need to be around the western side of the UK.

As for airpower, just because those craft are listed doesn't mean they're all operational, or even undamaged. As mentioned, parts are hard to come by as are munitions. Fuel is more plentiful than elsewhere, but still not in quantities that allow indiscriminate use (just look at the black market prices compared to IRL). My comment about air support being limited and anyone calling for it without a VERY good reason being hauled over the coals stands.

There's also a near zero chance of any flights between the middle east and Germany - just look at how many enemy units are between them. Sure, you could take the long way around, but I don't see too many aircraft on the list with the required range, certainly not without refuelling somewhere. That of course requires fuel to be available at a location where they aren't going to get shot at and the locals aren't wanting the fuel supplies for themselves.

In flight refuelling? Sure, they've got a couple of tankers, but just look at how many were required by the British Vulcan attacks on Port Stanley. https://youtu.be/ng_X2dHJpZ4?t=284
Also, tankers and cargo/passenger aircraft are extremely vulnerable and would need escorting, which of course requires even more fuel and tanker capacity.
And all this for what? One C-130 making the journey?

Now, lets get on to your misunderstanding of what I was saying about the "couple of banged up aircraft". What I was actually saying is that it probably all that would be available at any one time to a brigade commander, not the total of aircraft in the entire theatre. Also, just because there are so many aircraft in the theatres doesn't mean they're all available at all times - even just general routine maintenance will have some of them unavailable without prior planning for a large operation. As for the rest, well, as I've already implied, it's quite likely most will be out of effective range when needed, or even if they are in the area, may not be carrying the right mix of munitions (as an example could be carrying all air to air when a ground attack mission is called for).

Even today IRL it's not uncommon for air power or even artillery to be unavailable. There's often times when a battalions own mortars are not available for a company to call upon because they've been tasked to support another company. That situation would only be worse in T2K.

Olefin

07-16-2020, 11:46 AM

Yes I know Kenya didn’t produce oil - it’s the fully working refinery that is the important part as well as a working port and shipyard that haven’t been damaged by the war. The Saudis and others are still producing oil but their refineries have taken a lot of damage and aren’t anywhere near full capacity - Mombasa’s is fully functional - that makes it worth the US intervention to keep that refinery going. And the fully functional port is needed to be to support the US efforts in the Middle East as well. The 173rd wasn’t mentioned in the original canon as it wasn’t in existence when it was written. Frank was going to have it be reconstituted for the war and sent to defend Kenya along with other forces - primarily to keep that refinery and port going.

That was going to be in his Kenya module which he was working on when GDW shut down.

Marc Miller has put the East Africa Kenya sourcebook as a canon book for V2.2. Thus it’s now part of canon and those ships are part of the surviving USN forces. And the 173rd - at least as of April 2001 - is still in Kenya and still defending the refinery along with the reconstituted 2nd Armored which was rebuilt using the surviving 300 men who were in Europe and adding forces that had been sent to Kenya in 1998 and 1999.

There are a few test wells by 2001 producing a very small amount of oil - the refinery is refining oil shipped from the Middle East wells to Kenya for refining. Once the Saudis and others get their refineries working again then Mombasa is not going to be so critical to the war effort in the Middle East. But until then it’s the only game in town for a fully working refinery at full capacity.

That doesn’t retcon anything - there are remaining refineries in the Middle East - working at a fraction of capacity. Mombasa’s isn’t one of them. That’s why the US is there - that and the port and also to make use of what is left of Kenya’s working factories - including one that makes ammunition

Olefin

07-16-2020, 11:59 AM

And why aren’t the forces in Kenya mentioned in the RDF? Because they have been spun off under their own command structure AFRICOM - they are no longer part of CENTCOM. The RDF shows the US forces under CENTCOM command in the Iranian/Saudi theater. Those forces do not include the forces that are deployed in Africa- that is a separate theater and command structure. Also notice that they are using the joint CIA/DIA intelligence service and that ambassador Thayer is mentioned in the sourcebook in agreement with canon as well as the special forces deployed to Kenya - which are now under SOCAFRICA control.

Raellus

07-16-2020, 12:02 PM

Marc Miller has put the East Africa Kenya sourcebook as a canon book for V2.2.

It's only canon for v2.2? Good to know.

I'm not a maths guy, but would it be more or less efficient to fuel tankers full of crude and escort them (also requiring refined fuel) from the Persian Gulf to the Kenyan refinery (or are there more than one), rather than just refining the Gulf crude in the operational refineries already in the region (per the RDF sourcebook)?

If I had to guess, I'd go with less efficient, maybe even much less efficient. Hopefully, someone with better match skilz can confirm or refute this hasty conclusion.

Also, wouldn't it take longer, and require burning more fuel, to transport refined fuel from Kenya to Europe (around the Cape of Good Hope) and/or the Americas ("" or by crossing the Indian & Pacific Oceans) than it would via the Med? That, however, assumes that the Suez canal is still open. Does anyone know if its status is mentioned in canon?

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 12:14 PM

I'm not arguing it's going to be aircraft, just that they are an option, because the RDF has fuel, ships, and aircraft available. Again, rocking up in the big ship sells tickets to CENTCOM better than anything else.

Now, lets get on to your misunderstanding of what I was saying about the "couple of banged up aircraft". What I was actually saying is that it probably all that would be available at any one time to a brigade commander, not the total of aircraft in the entire theatre. Also, just because there are so many aircraft in the theatres doesn't mean they're all available at all times - even just general routine maintenance will have some of them unavailable without prior planning for a large operation. As for the rest, well, as I've already implied, it's quite likely most will be out of effective range when needed, or even if they are in the area, may not be carrying the right mix of munitions (as an example could be carrying all air to air when a ground attack mission is called for).

Even today IRL it's not uncommon for air power or even artillery to be unavailable. There's often times when a battalions own mortars are not available for a company to call upon because they've been tasked to support another company. That situation would only be worse in T2K.

Yeah, out of 50+ aircraft, all but a couple, ONCE A MONTH, are down for maintenance. Sure, that seems reasonable.

So for an Orbat like:

999th Infantry Division
Manpower: 4000
Tanks: 2

Which is pretty common - What would the availability of those tanks look like? Would you find them to be unavailable for similar reasons (maintenance, no ammo, etc.?), 1/50th unit availability of 1/30th of the time? <so like the coax is available every third Thursday.>

For all those dudes, are only 2.66 available on any given day?

Or would you accept that ORBAT as is, with those vehicles and personnel available for combat operations when needed and then allocate them appropriately?

Olefin

07-16-2020, 12:18 PM

It’s mentioned that the French got it open again in the East Africa Sourcebook which is based on the French forces in Djibouti and that those forces would be there to defend the ability to transit thru the Canal. Also that getting the US forces from Germany to Iran by going all the way around the Cape given the condition of the ships described would most likely have taken too long. They left in November and got there before Christmas - that screams passage thru the Canal. Also I don’t see the French having the build up they have with the Canal out of operation.

And Marc said that he wanted it specifically written for V2.2 - it can be used for V1 but you have to modify some of the material presented in it for V1. The character generation pages and the animal encounters for instance.

And yes it would be worth it to ship the oil to Kenya for refinement - you can get a hell of a lot of it refined in a much shorter time period.

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 12:38 PM

Rainbow Six

07-16-2020, 12:38 PM

It's only canon for v2.2? Good to know.
LOL...V1 for the win, always. I don't think I could tell you the first thing about the 2.2 timeline? Does anyone use it?

I'm not a maths guy, but would it be more or less efficient to fuel tankers full of crude and escort them (also requiring refined fuel) from the Persian Gulf to the Kenyan refineries, rather than just refining the Gulf crude in the operational refineries already in the region (per the RDF sourcebook)?

If I had to guess, I'd go with less efficient, maybe even much less efficient. What do y'all think about this?
Yeah, to me it makes zero sense to ship unrefined crude across the Indian Ocean to be refined and then shipped back again. I think shipping oil to the Gulf is analogous to shipping snow to Alaska.

Some rough numbers from here

http://abarrelfull.wikidot.com

If my maths are right, the combined output of current refineries in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Iran is somewhere in the region of five million barrels per day (4,971,000 rounded off). I can't easily ascertain what that figure might have been in 1996 / 1997 but let's knock 10 per cent and call it four and a half million. That's the main producers - if you include Qatar, Jordan, and Oman you'll get another 600,000 to 700,000.

The total output of Kenya's solitary refinery is listed as 90,000 barrels per day. Let's knock of the same 10 per cent for 1996 / 1997 levels and that gives is 81,000. So even if the main producers in the Middle East had suffered 90% damage (i.e. nowhere near full capacity) they'd still comfortably exceed Kenya's (full capacity) production. And you don't have to factor in fuel for the tankers / ships. And, as we've already established, the Gulf refineries are producing enough to export. Ergo, they have a surplus. At least according to the RDF Sourcebook and V1 canon.

Sure, as was mentioned upthread, it doesn't hurt to have MORE capacity, but to posit that the 'the Mombasa refinery and port is what is keeping the US forces in the Middle East a going concern' makes no sense to me - Mombassa represents a small fraction of the total refinery capacity available in the Gulf. And I seriously doubt that the fuel costs involved in convoying oil backwards and forwards across the Indian Ocean would justify an attempt.

There's also practicalities. An Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC) can easily carry two million barrels. Refined at a rate of 81,000 barrels per day that would take about 25 days to process a complete load. Add in shipping time and you're probably talking about a month. Let's go back to our Gulf refineries and presume 90% damage, which leaves capacity to process approx 450,000 barrels per day. That would take less than five days to process the same 2,000,000 barrels. And there is precisely zero chance of your ULCC sinking on the way back, taking your 2,000,000 barrels of refined oil to the bottom of the IO.

Rainbow Six

07-16-2020, 12:43 PM

And yes it would be worth it to ship the oil to Kenya for refinement - you can get a hell of a lot of it refined in a much shorter time period.
Can you provide any numbers to justify that claim? (If you're going to quote specific percentage damage to the Gulf refineries I presume you'll have page numbers from published material to back your claims up. Also, how many barrels do you propose to ship?)

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 12:59 PM

LOL...V1 for the win, always. I don't think I could tell you the first thing about the 2.2 timeline? Does anyone use it?

Yes, I too do not have one single care to give about the 2.2 timeline. I'm pretty sure Predator shows up during that timeline at some point.

And by Predator, I mean this Predator..

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Predator_%281987%29_-_The_Predator.jpg

Not this one. I could live with this one.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/MQ-1_Predator%2C_armed_with_AGM-114_Hellfire_missiles.jpg/600px-MQ-1_Predator%2C_armed_with_AGM-114_Hellfire_missiles.jpg

Anyway, being able to not have Frank Frey's half-conceived Kenya refinery premise eviscerate the RDF sourcebook carve-out created beforehand, solves all my problems.

Honestly, the best suggestion I've ever heard is to have 'The Heard' deployed to Romania when they declare for NATO. That's a EUCOM unit solving a EUCOM problem and that's that my solution for my 1.0 Twilight universe for where they end up.

Rainbow Six

07-16-2020, 01:23 PM

Honestly, the best suggestion I've ever heard is to have 'The Heard' deployed to Romania when they declare for NATO. That's a EUCOM unit solving a EUCOM problem and that's that my solution for my 1.0 Twilight universe for where they end up.
I have to say, that does sound like a damn good idea.

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 01:28 PM

I have to say, that does sound like a damn good idea.

It does right? Sure they end up in the mountains with the partisans when Soviet armor rolls through, but that really does solve a lot issues. And it gives another location for adventures in Europe with NATO PCs and Romanian partisans fighting together against the Soviets, which hasn't really been explored.

Genius idea really. I can't claim any credit for it, but I'm certainly going to adopt it.

Raellus

07-16-2020, 02:25 PM

This discussion appears to have veered off track. Let's keep the focus of this thread on the USN in the Twilight War.

If you'd like to discuss Kenya, check out these threads:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=5380&highlight=east+africa

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2312

For discussion of alternate locations for the 173rd Airborne BCT:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6111

And a new thread for discussing black gold, Texas Tea (oil, that is):

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6112

Olefin

07-16-2020, 07:26 PM

Is that the same, 'Give me $800 for this Kickstarter tier and you'll be written into the Traveller Galaxiad' Marc Miller? Because Marc Miller is to pen-and-paper RPGs, as Tom Clancy is to computer games - the check cleared, SHIP WHATEVER!

Asking for a friend.

Actually no that’s the Marc Miller who owns the T2K V1 and V2.2 timelines and who has officially stated that the Kenya Sourcebook is canon. The reason it’s V2.2 and not V1 is that he told me he had no interest in releasing new V1 official canon material and he wanted it written specifically for V2.2. Since he owns those two timelines he is the arbiter if what is canon and what isn’t and he accepted the East Africa Sourcebook as canon. Personally I wish he would also accept what Raellus wrote for Korea and Europe as well as canon. They are as good as anything released originally. And I didn’t give him squat to get it to be canon. He looked at it, told me it would be canon and it was released. And I would appreciate you going somewhere else with BS suggesting I paid to get the material declared canon.

Sorry Spartan but that is a little past the pale - especially considering your friend is most likely the person who told me that trying to get anything published for the game was a fools errand. Luckily I didn’t take that advice

Spartan-117

07-16-2020, 09:53 PM

Actually no that’s the Marc Miller who owns the T2K V1 and V2.2 timelines and who has officially stated that the Kenya Sourcebook is canon. The reason it’s V2.2 and not V1 is that he told me he had no interest in releasing new V1 official canon material and he wanted it written specifically for V2.2. Since he owns those two timelines he is the arbiter if what is canon and what isn’t and he accepted the East Africa Sourcebook as canon. Personally I wish he would also accept what Raellus wrote for Korea and Europe as well as canon. They are as good as anything released originally. And I didn’t give him squat to get it to be canon. He looked at it, told me it would be canon and it was released. And I would appreciate you going somewhere else with BS suggesting I paid to get the material declared canon.

Sorry Spartan but that is a little past the pale - especially considering your friend is most likely the person who told me that trying to get anything published for the game was a fools errand. Luckily I didn’t take that advice

Pretty sure that's the same Marc Miller. Is there another Marc Miller who ran the Traveller 5 kickstarter a few years back?

Also, I never said, you gave him $800 to be in the Galaxiad (along with T5, which in fairness, did happen)... I said I was asking for a...friend. INTERNET TIP OF THE DAY: Often times when someone posts that on the Internet, they are asking a question about themselves, but they would like for attribution to be to a third party.

Unless we've suddenly grown closer than I might realize, again, I wasn't actually talking about you.

Really though, if you were a friend, I'd probably want to talk about the narcissism of bringing everything back to yourself. And then I'd want to have a discussion about how bringing up your module and the word cannon in many, many of your posts, really seems like another manifestation of that narcissism.

But that's if we were friends.

Olefin

07-17-2020, 12:23 AM

Spartan - go somewhere else with your crap. What you are doing along with your new thread you posted is in total violation of the guidelines here. Its very obvious what you are doing and enough is enough.

Keep It Civil

We can all agree to disagree but let's make sure to do so respectfully. No name-calling, sarcasm, or other childishness is appropriate or welcome here. If you are upset with someone and want them to know about it, send them a PM and try to work it out privately. If another member is really getting on your nerves, you can use the forum tools to place that person on your ignore list. We don't tolerate flame wars here.

Please don't attempt to incite internecine forum conflict with deliberately provocative and/or inflamatory posts. In interweb parlance, please don't be a troll.

Keep It Constructive

Folks post a lot of original T2K material here, most of it of the highest quality. Many contributors invite and welcome constructive criticism. If, however, they do not solicit feedback, then it's poor form to pipe in give it anyway. And please, don't post just to tear down the hard work of others. If you really don't like something that someone else has posted, and can't express this respectfully and with the intention of creating a constructive dialogue with the poster, then you should probably just keep it to yourself.

Spartan-117

07-17-2020, 04:26 AM

rcaf_777

07-17-2020, 01:19 PM

Some good Info

The U.S. Navy in the World (1991-2000): Context for U.S. Navy Capstone Strategies and Concepts by Peter M. Swartz with Karin Duggan

https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/D0026416.A2.pdf

rcaf_777

09-10-2020, 04:44 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28o8z0ns57w&list=TLPQMTAwOTIwMjBRb5cTAYCfKg&index=4

This footage shows the USS George Washington aircraft carrier in a strange cloud that appears almost like a force field. The ship, however, is actually undergoing testing of its "aqueous film-forming fire suppression system."

bash

09-10-2020, 10:48 PM

Vespers War

09-10-2020, 11:24 PM

rcaf_777

09-13-2020, 12:28 PM

The PFAS in the AFFF is unpleasant stuff. It takes a fairly high exposure to have any significant odds of long-term health effects, but it has a serum half-life of 4-5 years, so cumulative intake can get high. It's been linked to elevated cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, hypothyroidism, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. It's better than burning, but it's not ideal.

Yeah look in the video the crew is full PPE and talk how if would used to decon the ship as well as fighting fires. This is just infor for person who dont know ship borne systems

rcaf_777

09-18-2020, 06:27 PM

Operation Trident Fury: Canadian and United States Navy forces converge for live fire exercise to sink the HMCS Huron.

https://parallaxfilm.com/episode/sinking-a-destroyer/
http://www.canadaka.net/Video/707-exercise-trident-fury-2007-hmcs-huron-sinking.html

Info on HMCS Huron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Huron_(DDG_281)

Despite being damaged by HMCS Regina with a Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missile, 57 mm gunfire and CIWS rounds, it was 76 mm naval gunfire from its twin Algonquin that was responsible for sinking the hulk of Huron.