RPG Forums

RPG Forums (http://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (http://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   US Navy Ships of the Twilight War (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1527)

Rainbow Six 07-15-2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84005)
Leg I know you want to go with the almost fully destroyed USN but the reality of the canon doesnít 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84005)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six (Post 84006)
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
Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84009)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six (Post 84006)
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 ďramshackle destroyerĒ as was previously said is pretty high. Ie the USN isnít 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 couldnít even provide a single escort ship for three divisions heading for Europe thru the Med.

Olefin 07-15-2020 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84009)
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.

Shattered doesnít mean destroyed - the Japanese fleet was shattered after Leyte Gulf - and still had operational ships that fought on with the last real sortie being off Okinawa by the Yamato. And the US didnít have most ports hit by nukes - Boston and NYís harbor were untouched by nukes as was several ports in the Gulf and along the Pacific Coast and elsewhere.

And the ships in the Gulf and Kenya are fully operational - they just used the ones in the Gulf to land opposed at Char Bahar and are doing operational patrols in the Gulf and the IO. The RDF specifically refers to the USN ships there as the last operational carrier task force.

Rainbow Six 07-15-2020 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84011)
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 ďramshackle destroyerĒ as was previously said is pretty high. Ie the USN isnít 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 couldnít 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? Thereís seven in the RDF Sourcebook, five in the Korean Sourcebook, the John Hancock is mentioned in Going Home, thereís 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 havenít read that so I donít know the exact figure).

Thatís out of a US Navy that peaked at 594 vessels in 1987 according to Wikipedia. So weíre missing 569 vessels give or take a few. I just wanted to make sure that there was nothing in canon that I didnít know about that accounted for at least some of that number given your earlier statement, but it appears that there isnít, so the reality of canon doesnít really support anything (one could argue that if anything it supports the opposite view as something like over 95 % of the US Navyís strength is unaccounted for. Thatís a pretty big number).

Thatís fine, itís obviously up to each individual how they want to interpret what might have happened to those missing ships. FWIW Iíd 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 ďramshackle destroyerĒ 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 (thereís 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 thatís probably a typo and the three Divisions deployed in October 1998. Having enough ships to provide an escort force in October 1998 doesnít really prove anything one way or the other if youíre talking about Summer 2000 as your game point.

Olefin 07-15-2020 05:04 PM

I am talking about 1998-1999 - thatís the Virginia battle, thatís the escort missions for the last MilGov and CivGov reinforcements to Europe and Korea, thatís 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 werenít 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 Frankís 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84016)
I am talking about 1998-1999. thatís the Virginia battle, thatís the escort missions for the last MilGov and CivGov reinforcements to Europe and Korea, thatís 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six (Post 84015)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84016)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 84007)
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 VolgaĖDon 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/u...e_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

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

rcaf_777 07-15-2020 08:51 PM

The difference between a Landing Helicopter Dock an Supper Aircraft Carrier
 
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

Sound Surveillance System
 
https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/u...e_25/sosus.htm

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

https://dosits.org/galleries/technol...-system-sosus/

https://dosits.org/people-and-sound/...-system-sosus/

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

Spartan-117 07-15-2020 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84022)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcaf_777 (Post 84020)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan-117 (Post 84025)
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 werenít 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 arenít 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84022)
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-...0-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/...rrels-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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84027)
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_...int_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'Ítre 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84032)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan-117 (Post 84033)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan-117 (Post 84033)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84034)
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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84034)
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

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.

Spartan-117 07-16-2020 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84037)
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 didnít produce oil - itís the fully working refinery that is the important part as well as a working port and shipyard that havenít been damaged by the war. The Saudis and others are still producing oil but their refineries have taken a lot of damage and arenít anywhere near full capacity - Mombasaís 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 wasnít mentioned in the original canon as it wasnít 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 itís 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 itís the only game in town for a fully working refinery at full capacity.

That doesnít retcon anything - there are remaining refineries in the Middle East - working at a fraction of capacity. Mombasaís isnít one of them. Thatís why the US is there - that and the port and also to make use of what is left of Kenyaís working factories - including one that makes ammunition

Olefin 07-16-2020 11:59 AM

And why arenít 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84040)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 84039)
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

Itís 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 donít 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

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.

Rainbow Six 07-16-2020 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 84042)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raellus (Post 84042)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 84044)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six (Post 84046)
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/wikiped...e_Predator.jpg

Not this one. I could live with this one.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan-117 (Post 84048)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six (Post 84049)
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....ht=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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan-117 (Post 84045)
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 thatís 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 itís 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 isnít 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 didnít 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 didnít take that advice


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.