US Navy Ships of the Twilight War

[Graebarde]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

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....

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

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.
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. 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 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.

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.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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/wikiped...group_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 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]

Originally Posted by bash

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.

Originally Posted by bash

As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks 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]

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]

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]

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

Thats one big fault with the game - they have the military using either diesel or gas for the game. In real life what they use is jet fuel - and they have since 1990 - meaning if you have JP-8 for tanks then you have it for jet planes as well.

[bash]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

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]

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...4-11max550.jpg

USS_Sphinx_Scrap-01.jpg

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by bash

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.