The War That Never Was

[Webstral]

A few weeks ago I finished The War That Never Was, which tells a story of WW3 at the end of the 1980’s. The narrative is both dense and sparse. The author tries to cover all of the major naval theaters, plus some of the ground war in areas most directly affected by combat operations at sea. There’s a lot happening. Characterization is so limited that Clancy looks rich by comparison, which is a trade-off the author makes for covering so much action in so many places in one novel of reasonable length.

In a nutshell, the author describes Allied naval victory everywhere within 50 days of the start of operations. He paints a picture of the supremacy of naval aviation and submarines over surface units. For the purpose of the coming commentary, I would like to focus on the fighting in the Norwegian Sea and around the Kola Peninsula.

The author posits a situation in which Soviet naval forces in the Far North are very badly damaged after enjoying good initial successes. His narrative regarding the fate of the Soviet offensive into Norway parallels the events in the v1 chronology. The action around the Kola Peninsula differs very significantly. Whereas in the v1 chronology NATO attacks the Kola Peninsula in June, 1997 after seven months of NATO-Pact fighting, in The War That Never Was Strike Fleet Atlantic goes after the Kola Peninsula less than six weeks in.

We have had some discussion about the bias and shortcomings of the v1 chronology regarding the treatment of naval issues. The Twilight: 2000 creators are grunts, not squids. The author of The War That Never Was is a squid at heart, if not in fact. While I can’t say for certain that his portrayal of NATO actions in the Far North is realistic, the math seems reasonable enough.

In The War That Never Was, the Soviets make their initial bid in Norway and achieve good initial success. The Soviets possess the initiative, which gives them significant advantages. In the v1 chronology, the advantages of having the initiative will be diminished by the fact that the fighting has been going on in Europe for 6 weeks by the time the Americans get involved. By the time the Soviets make their move NATO will be at a heightened level of readiness. The result will be more NATO ships closer to their wartime stations than if there had been no fighting in Germany. I doubt that NATO would be fully mobilized—especially the non-anglophone members. However, I also doubt that the USN, RN, Royal Danish Navy, or Norwegian Navy would be at peacetime manning and patrols with a hot war blazing in Germany. Where exactly the line would be drawn between full mobilization and deployment and peacetime deployment would be a very interesting subject for someone with more naval chops than I have to explore in detail.

After the initial shock wears off in The War That Never Was, NATO recovers nicely in the Far North. Once NATO gets 3 fleet carriers into action in the Far North, supported adequately by land-based aircraft and submarines, they take it to the Soviets in a major way. Strike Fleet Atlantic moves east into the Barents Sea to work over the Kola Peninsula systematically and thoroughly. The author notes through his rudimentary characters that NATO air attacks against Soviet assets on the Kola Peninsula cannot put the air or naval bases out of action permanently. What they can do is put these bases out of the fight for a few weeks and greatly diminish the combat capability of Soviet naval aviation operating out of the Kola bases for several months.

All of this said, I’m thinking of a way to correlate the events of the v1 chronology with what seems like a plausible set of developments outlined by an author with greater knowledge than I have. What if the 2 histories are not incompatible? What if Strike Fleet Atlantic moves directly against the Kola Peninsula following the denouement of the Soviet offensive in Norway in Dec 97? What if Strike Fleet Atlantic suffers losses but manages to inflict very significant damage on Soviet naval and aviation assets in the Far North, then withdraws in anticipation of an early peace due to the smashing success of Anglo-American involvement in Germany? What if the Soviets camouflage the movement of significant maritime strike aircraft and coastal defense ships to the Kola Peninsula in anticipation of a return by NATO forces? What if, anxious to score another solid victory to drive the Soviets to the bargaining table, the Americans invest heavily in a gamble characterized by hubris on the part of the senior American leadership and a cunning born of desperation on the part of the Soviets? A concerted deception plan might give NATO the idea that the Soviets no longer have the assets to launch a major strike from the Kola Peninsula. Combined with some bad decisions on the part of the Americans and luck favoring the Soviets, we could imagine a serious reversal of fortune in the Far North after the earlier success.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Webstral, I honestly do think that there can be a reconciliation between various novels/treatises about WW3 and the T2k timeline because overall, the end goal should be to create a gameworld that embodies the original idea - create a military themed game that lets the PCs adventure just like a D&D game does.

While a post-apocalyptic world readily allows that, it could just as easily be the kind of situation that China was in during the late 1800s/early 1900s with various factions and warlords controlling different parts of the nation and various foreign powers trying to get a slice of the pie - just applied on a much larger scale. I believe this was the sort of gameworld that GDW was trying to create for the then upcoming Armor21 game but it's also quite apparent in their Dark Conspiracy game (the corporations are the warlords in this instance!)

Ultimately, the timeline history isn't as important to many players as it should be. It can be summed up in a conversation reported here many years back (but similar conversations have been had everywhere) when one of the forum members (Gen X) hosted a game for some new players (Gen Y). When detailing the history of the conflict, one of the new players said something along the lines of "That's all very interesting but we just want to play".
I'm not saying the timeline is unimportant but I am saying that the timeline can easily be shaped to contain the more accurate info available to us now = as long as the end result is still the kind of gameworld envisioned by GDW because ultimately, many of your players won't pay it too much mind.

[Olefin]

I have always said that the authors didnt know how to handle naval matters - modules like Med Cruise (sorry but 18 men cant run a submarine 24/7 - its just not possible), Satellite Down (the last battle makes no sense - if she still has missiles on board that can be fired then why didnt they use them?), and the complete destruction of the US fleet to the point that there is nothing left on the West Coast at all?

And also they dont understand the difference between a fleet being shattered and a fleet being completely sunk.

After Leyte Gulf the Japanese fleet was shattered - but they had dozens of ships still left in commission and were still a dangerous force - however the days of Japan controlling the oceans was over.

There is a much more probable fate for the USN that still works within the game boundaries - a force that no longer put together fleets and control whole oceans but is lucky to be able to put together small task forces like you see in the Indian Ocean and during the evacuation from Europe. And one where there are still lots of ships left afloat but its more like what the Japanese fleet had by August of 1945 - i.e. where most of their navy was either too damaged, too low on ammo or too low on fuel to be of much use. With them having on both coasts a small but effective force of submarines, destroyers and other craft left but not one that could control an ocean, at least not for a long time to come

Meaning that instead of worrying about enemy fleet actions you need instead to do things like protect fishing boats and coastal commerce. Given that rationale for what you need a navy for now, even if major USN combatants are still around and still able to fight, you really would be better off using their crews and what fuel you have to keep cutters and patrol boats going and only use the majors if really needed - like in A River Runs Thru It when they used one of their destroyers for fire support.

Heck just the USN having very few missiles left would make them a much diminished force - read "The Seventh Carrier" sometime - its a series of books where a Chinese missile defense system being launched means that nothing jet or rocket powered can fly and suddenly the USN, with the exception of a few battleships and heavy cruisers, is reduced to ships that only have a single naval gun as their only weapon and are completely helpless before old WWII ships that still have their full complement of naval guns. It would be much the same here - a Ticonderoga class cruiser without any missiles left to fire is not really that effective a ship to use what little is left of your naval fuel to keep active.

You would get a much better bang for your buck using that fuel to keep transport ships and patrol ships and coast guard cutters going - especially considering that the only real effective fleet in the world, which is the French one, has more than enough to do just trying to keep France from being inundated by refugees, guarding against attacks by pirates on what is left of their commercial sea traffic and supplying their forces in Africa and the Middle East.

[Slappy]

I think there's an interesting point here. I'm as much of a timeline geek as the next guy still reading T2k message boards.

That said, much of that history and reconciliation will be largely irrelevant to PCs in their given situations. They will be highly focused on their local situation and anything happening more than 50km away for most of them will be perceived only through rumor and speculation.

They need to know who generally who the friends and foes are and some of the back story, but not the full timeline. Definitely not the full timeline after the nukes start flying and they're deployed, at which point any information is going to be suspect for all but the most connected.

Much of the back story for a campaign or adventure setting can be accomplished with some hand waving. A lot of the extra design is better applied to extra realism in the next village down the road.

Again, I love the timeline development and all the work done here to expand on the canon and to compensate for some holes (naval idiocy being a big one), just differentiating between timeline activities and play activities.

[Olefin]

I agree with you Slappy that the timeline in general may not intrude into many players campaigns - but if you have to do a naval one then the discussions on the naval situation could matter to them greatly - on the other hand if your whole campaign takes place in the Rockies or central Poland or Manchuria then it really doesnt matter much how big the navy is or if the canon about naval losses is accurate or not.

[jester]

I've always taken any naval history with a large grain of salt....except when it comes to my idea for an Alaskan Campaign....and then it is a hodge podge of Pact merchant and fishing vessels and captured vessels that can only venture to reinforce and resupply their forces in the Spring.....

1.) How many warm water ports does Russia have? How many are open for shipping and traffic all year?

2.) Choke points for its naval forces?

In my view, once hostilities begin, it would be foolish for either party to engage. Think the battle of Jutland.

Ivan would have to stay in the Baltic and Black seas. Otherwise, when they put to sea in those choke points they would suffer losses that make any further action senseless.

The Russians had limited carrier capability. And once away from land supported aircraft they would be at a serious disadvantage to a gauntlet of NATO land based aircraft as well as US carrier forces.

So, in my view, once hostilities begin, vessels outside of the Black Sea and out of the Med would be on their own and able to hit convoys, but even those would most likely be tracked from the time they left the Straights of Denmark, or Gibraltar or the Black Sea. As well as other facilities in Iceland, Scotland and all the other countries along the route.

And as stated, they would need air superiority over Western Europe to support a breakout which I don't see.

Next, a NATO force entering the Baltic and Black Sea would be a costly venture as well. Because any force would be well within range of Russian land based aircraft which would allow Russian naval forces to operate in relative safety.

The only naval force the Russians have who wouldn't have to run a gauntlet would be the Pacific Fleet...but, again they are frozen in for half the year. So, their setting sail would be predictable and could be caught. Also, what major industry for refitting naval vessels of building such vessels do the Russians have on the Pacific? Coupled with the distance and a lack of a direct line of transportation, Russian Forces would for the most part be isolated and on their own.

The only route for any long term naval operations would be submarine operations transiting under the North Pole to attack shipping in the North Pacific and North Atlantic. And again with SOSUS and other sensors the GIUK Gap is no longer a safe zone for submarines. I think attrition would take its toll on Russian submarine forces in short order.

However, vessels at sea could have their own T2K scenario of, "Good luck, you're on your own." After all, most naval facilities would be primary targets as well as the entrance and exits blockaded so they would not have a way home anyways....and here is an idea for a scenario;

The Russians knowing this, set up a submarine support facility on a remote island in the North Atlantic, Pacific of somewhere else. And the PCs mission, find it and take it out.

Toss in some Comerce Raiders or supply vessels akin to the US's Maritime Prepositioned Ships or interned ships like in the movie "Das Boot" with the interned ship in Spain that acts as a supply ship for the submarines....