RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2018, 03:18 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,720
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Changes in Oil Movement pre TDM

The China thread has brought up an interesting point about how oil would have gotten to China during the initial phases of the war.

Is there any canon summary anywhere of how the oil trade was disrupted/changed until the nuke exchange (I am thinking Kings Ransom might mention it).

Barring that does anyone have thoughts on how Oil/NG logistical routing might change.

I am assuming Europe loses Russian NG at some point and Alaska might need to provide the US with some losses from the gulf.

Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-08-2018, 04:49 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

keep in mind you need to consider timeline

V1 no Soviet NG to Europe

I would think that initially the Soviets would not have stopped oil shipments to China considering almost all of it was carried in neutral flagged tankers or worse yet NATO countries tankers - i.e. a Chinese tanker would have been fair game but not other country's ships - this is pre the war spreading to Europe when it was seen as a dispute between China and the Soviets only

in many ways the Soviets may have had restrictions on what they could and could not hit at sea or in ports much like what the US had in Vietnam when we couldnt touch ships bringing in supplies for the Vietnamese

now once the war started with the US that would have been different - but that could have got the Chinese thru 1995 and much of 1996 - especially if they used southern ports or for that matter Hong Kong to bring the oil in

You could see the US escorting oil tankers into China to "ensure the freedom of the seas"prior to the war starting with the US - i.e. basically daring the Soviets to hit the US escorts and thus provide a caus belli for the war

now after the war starts between the Soviets and the US the question would be how much oil would be getting to China once the US and NATO need every drop they can get even if the US was escorting the tankers still
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:06 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,720
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
keep in mind you need to consider timeline

V1 no Soviet NG to Europe
I believe there was gas going to Europe. The Bond film "The Living Daylights" from 1987 had someone escaping from Eastern Germany in a Gas Pipeline.

Confirmed
Quote:
The Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod pipeline was constructed in 1982–1984 with Western financing to provide Soviet gas to the Western European market.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia..._energy_sector
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:12 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,720
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

I think we certainly have to consider mines and submairnes. The soviets could go after neutral tankers with a bit of deniability with these.

Heck even the threat would force some tankers away, for insurance reasons if nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-08-2018, 10:21 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

and those mines and subs would have had USN ships escorting the tankers - and you bring up a Soviet mine or sink a Soviet sub and its off to war we go - the Soviets werent trying to get the US to join the war - and there is a precedent - the US escort of the tankers in the Persian Gulf and what they did to the Iranians to keep the sea lanes clear
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:28 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,720
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
and those mines and subs would have had USN ships escorting the tankers - and you bring up a Soviet mine or sink a Soviet sub and its off to war we go - the Soviets werent trying to get the US to join the war - and there is a precedent - the US escort of the tankers in the Persian Gulf and what they did to the Iranians to keep the sea lanes clear
I don't think it is so cut and dry.

First this is not WWII nor are we discussing just the Straights of Hormuz. There are over 20,000 cargo ships during this time (man at times like this I miss Chico more than usual). The US was trying to get 800 warships so not every ship is going to be escorted.

I believe the soviets supplied sea mines to over 25 countries during the cold war so that muddies the waters a bit in terms of guilt (like the mines the Iranians laid). Also the US (CIA) mined a Nicaraguan harbor in 1984 and damaged a soviet tanker. That did not end up being a prelude to war. Neither did a US ship getting damaged by an Iranian mine.

If a few neutral tankers go down in the Malacca Straits, can we be 100% sure it is not Vietnam or Burma (heck it could be blamed on India or Indonesia who each might want to take China down a peg).


I do think that the Soviets would not risk too much in 95 (when they are winning), but in spring 96 when things start to go bad (but before the German crossing) we might have to think about them starting to bend the rules a bit.

Last edited by kato13; 10-09-2018 at 12:37 AM. Reason: removed something mildly political
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:45 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
The China thread has brought up an interesting point about how oil would have gotten to China during the initial phases of the war.

Is there any canon summary anywhere of how the oil trade was disrupted/changed until the nuke exchange (I am thinking Kings Ransom might mention it).

Barring that does anyone have thoughts on how Oil/NG logistical routing might change.

I am assuming Europe loses Russian NG at some point and Alaska might need to provide the US with some losses from the gulf.

Any thoughts?

Haven't seen any canon reference to how oil got to China during initial phases of the war, although it is quite possible I have overlooked one. Oil shipments from the Middle East to China would have been a priority target for Soviet submarines in the Indian and Pacific Ocean, and even non-Chinese tankers heading into the South China Sea would have been a big target.

In V.1 Vietnam is pro-Soviet and at war with China and sailing anywhere near the Vietnamese coast were Soviet naval forces are known to be present would be a major risk for shipping.

Other countries including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc also imported a lot of oil from the Middle East. It is likely that tanker routes to these countries would be altered to avoid the Sino-Soviet war. Oil tankers heading to Japan for example might sail in convoys south of the traditional Strait of Malacca route, and head through the Timor Sea near Australia and up into the Pacific to the west of the Philippines and then onto the west coast of Japan. The Soviets would be notified in advance of these convoys to avoid attacks on neutral shipping, and they would likely be escorted by Japanese or South Korean warships and maybe even the US Navy as well as they are US allies. Some Chinese tankers may tag along on these convoys as the Soviets would be reluctant to attack them.

Also the major Chinese port on the South China Sea is Hong Kong, and at this period it was still a British territory. British tankers may be shipping oil to China via Hong Kong, and attacking British tankers under Royal Navy escort would be a big risk for Soviet submarines due to the fact that it would be a direct attack on NATO shipping.

As for gas shipments to Western Europe from Russia, I think its a fair assumption that it will be cut off once the West Germans cross the inter-German border. Probably a big increase in US oil and gas production is Alaska and Gulf of Mexico once the Twilight War swings into full force, and probably a lot of oil and gas coming up from Venezuela as well.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:58 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

NATO arms shipments to China would face one major problem. The Chinese used the same calibre small arms ammunition and tank and artillery rounds as the Soviets. NATO calibre ammunition is not compatible with Soviet ammunition. So NATO would have to reequip the PLA with very large quantities of NATO weapons.

On the other hand NATO could supply China with large quantities of anti-tank missiles and SAM's quite easily. A squadron of C-130's can transport a large quantity of anti-tank missiles and SAM's to China from any number of destinations in the Far East very quickly and make repeat flights without having to worry about Soviet submarines and naval mines.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:55 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
NATO arms shipments to China would face one major problem. The Chinese used the same calibre small arms ammunition and tank and artillery rounds as the Soviets. NATO calibre ammunition is not compatible with Soviet ammunition. So NATO would have to reequip the PLA with very large quantities of NATO weapons.
On the other hand, it's not that hard to churn out millions of rounds of 5.45, 7.62S and 7.62L in short order. Those three calibres have been available in bulk to civilians for decades, much of it produced outside the Pact aligned countries and China.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-10-2018, 02:27 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
On the other hand, it's not that hard to churn out millions of rounds of 5.45, 7.62S and 7.62L in short order. Those three calibres have been available in bulk to civilians for decades, much of it produced outside the Pact aligned countries and China.
But its the heavier tank and artillery rounds that the PLA need
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-10-2018, 03:16 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Which is where the M60s, etc would come in. I just cannot buy the US sending M1s to China.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:02 AM
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Civgov Heartland
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
NATO arms shipments to China would face one major problem. The Chinese used the same calibre small arms ammunition and tank and artillery rounds as the Soviets. NATO calibre ammunition is not compatible with Soviet ammunition. So NATO would have to reequip the PLA with very large quantities of NATO weapons.
You're not totally right on this. The Chinese did have license to produce a copy of the 105mm L/7 Tank Gun and used it on their Type 79 and Type 88 MBTs. Which makes the case for M60 and M48A5s that much stronger. since 105mm ammo is already in their supply chain.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:24 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
You're not totally right on this. The Chinese did have license to produce a copy of the 105mm L/7 Tank Gun and used it on their Type 79 and Type 88 MBTs. Which makes the case for M60 and M48A5s that much stronger. since 105mm ammo is already in their supply chain.
The Type 79 and Type 88 tanks were armed with Chinese licence procured variants of the British designed L7 105mm tank gun. China built around 100 Type 79 and 500 Type 88A/B tanks that were mainly used by Chinese forces rather than exported. After 1995 Chinese tank production switched over to the Type 88C or Type 96 tank armed with a copy of the Soviet 125mm gun.

So out of a tank fleet of over 8,000 units in the mid-1990's about 600 at most can use NATO ammunition, and after the Soviets invade in 1995 that is a rapidly dwindling number of tanks. Replacement tanks could of course be built but the factory that produced the Type 79 and Type 88 tanks and many other Chinese vehicles was 617 Institute, Inner Mongolia No. 1 Machinery Plant at Baotou in Inner Mongolia in Northern China, and it lay right in the path of invading Soviet forces.

Regarding supplying China with surplus M48 and M60 tanks, that is another argument.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.