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....

[Webstral]

I agree that players well inland may not find their situation much changed by adjustments to the timelines or events at sea in 1997. On the other hand, certain interpretations of the v1 chronology may allow for significant changes in some areas. It was suggested some time ago (sorry, I can't remember who came up with the idea) that nuclear powered carriers and submarines moored at a harbor and used for electricity like the Virginia is in Satellite Down could offer a crucial resource to the local community. If one turns electricity into natural gas for fuel or ammonia for fuel and fertilizer, then surviving nuclear power plants could be worth their weight in platinum. As was pointed out earlier, the tool shops of a fleet carrier would be secure and come with their own specialists.

Going along with Olefin's recent observation about Strike Fleet Atlantic being shattered, we may take the interpretation that the fleet was largely sunk or that many of the ships were so damaged that they were incapable of further operations without repairs. I can imagine that for every USN fleet carrier lost 2-3 more might have survived hits from torpedoes or missiles without being sunk. Depending on the level of damage, these ships would have been sent someplace repair work could be executed. There are not very many places where this work can be done. The US Navy would have dispersed damaged carriers and submarines waiting for a berth in the repair cycle to the greatest degree practicable to lessen their vulnerability to nuclear attack. The nuke strike against coastal Virgina may have knocked out facilities there. The Mexican invasion would have knocked out San Diego. Other facilities may have been unable to continue operating very long given the disruption of the national economy and infrastructure.

As a consequence of all this, damage to subs and carriers of the USN may have resulted in a number of ships with nuclear power plants being sent to important coastal areas--perhaps even areas along the Mississippi or other major rivers that could be reached by a limping nuclear sub or carrier. This is turn would provide a huge benefit to the local military and local government. With electricity and nuclear technicians on hand, a cantonment with a nuclear carrier or sub moored in the harbor would have an asset whose value would be hard to overstate. Used judiciously (a very important qualifier), the electricity from a nuke boat or fleet carrier could run machines, create fuel, and create fertilizer. While this won't affect cantonments well inland very directly, the impact along the coast could be huge in some areas. Combined with an airship construction program by Milgov in Colorado, the ability of Milgov to rebuild the interdependent industrial network could be advanced very considerably. I need to think about this some more.

[jester]

Another factor one should think about if you followed the shattered fleet scenario.

Fleets or task forces are almost like a living being. Each vessel or vessel class is an important organ if you will.

Again, lets use Jutland for another example. The destroyers conduct a screening operation like the imfamous "Death Ride" or like was done with Taffy III at the Battle of Leyte. They turn and attack a superior force/screen/delaying action. And are decimated. (We can also use the sea portion of the Battle of Okinawa) the means of decimation is the GMs choice.

But, the convoy be it troops or supplies is left vulenerable and left to their fate.....every vessel for its self. This can also be said for larger more vulnerable vessels. Because without a destroyer screen to protect from submarines or aircraft your carriers and battleships and even cruisers will be highly vulnerable. They make for the nearest port that provides refuge.

Now, the submarine has won the day. Did the destroyers sink all of the submarines? Or are they still lurking out there? Your vessel can take the risk, then again do they have the fuel? Did they sustain damage? They can't take many more hits. Did they loose a lot of crew in the action? Did signifigant members of the crew desert once they reached land?

Plus, pre 2000 there were ALOT more non combat vessels like fleet oilers and other supply ships that could fill the scenario of a vessel stuck in port. Pre 2000 a good number of our capital vessels were oil burners thus there was a requirement for fleet oilers which would be defenseless in a battle and have to flee or seek safety in a port.

[Matt Wiser]

If you guys recall the Naval stuff I did a while back, I mentioned several surviving carriers with some escorts, several each SSNs and SSBNs, and detailed the fate of the battleships and the two Des Moines-class heavy cruisers. I, for one, never did buy the slaughter of the USN that the writers envisioned.

[Olefin]

I agree with you Matt that the authors went too far. The battle in Satellite Down has the Soviet Navy able to outnumber the Virginia task force - which somehow implies that the Soviets have more ships in the Pacific than the Americans do by that stage of the war - a sheer impossibility given the huge disparity in ships between what the Soviets had in the Pacific and the IO versus what the US had

[Webstral]

Matt, were you the one who proposed putting a CVN in New York Harbor?

[Matt Wiser]

No. I had a pair of operational carriers on the West Coast and a pair on the East Coast. One of the latter and its battle group joined the TF 34 evacuation as escorts. Eisenhower and Theodore Roosevelt were the two on the East Coast. Nimitz was on the Pacific Coast (Alameda), and Constellation was in Guam. America was in a Norwegian fijord needing repairs before she could go home, and Independence was laid up in Oman.

Abraham Lincoln was the carrier at Alameda that was being used as a power source and workshop (her arresting gear had taken an AS-4 missile hit).

[Olefin]

I could see several nuclear submarines performing that duty as well including those that took damage so that they were no longer combat effective - i.e. can'y submerge safely or damage to their fire control system or periscopes or other gear where the reactors are still good to go but the sub isnt

[Webstral]

Having a CVN at Alameda is such a good idea that I copied it for Blue Two. I also threw in a nuclear sub in the same role, though I haven't specified which one.

I wondering whether running a nuclear powered vessel as far as possible up towards Sacramento might appeal to the powers that be. The electricity could be used to synthesize ammonia. Ammonia would be hugely valuable from 1998onward. As an added bonus, it can be burned as a fuel with half the energy value per liter of diesel. (I will have to recheck my information on that ratio.) The islands in the Delta given over to farming would be a real boon to Milgov. They are convenient to the urban population of the Bay Area, which will be needed for labor. They are adjacent to fresh water supplies. They are relatively defensible--especially if a waterborne force with natural gas or ammonia running its engines is available for patrols and rapid reaction. With ammonia for fertilizer, plentiful labor, and almost year-round growing conditions, the Delta could be a HUGE asset.

[Matt Wiser]

The ship channel to Sacramento may be too shallow. Stockton, maybe, as they do have a deep-water ship channel to Stockton.

[jester]

But the Delta and these islands are also subject to flooding are they not? Or, a drought? An island can easily become a prison. Forces move up river and manipulate the flow of water and these bastions are toast.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

The ship channel to Sacramento may be too shallow. Stockton, maybe, as they do have a deep-water ship channel to Stockton.

I agree the draft of a CVN may prohibit movement of such an asset to Sacramento. I haven’t looked up the figures yet. I was thinking along the lines of a sub running on the surface, to be honest.

Originally Posted by jester

But the Delta and these islands are also subject to flooding are they not? Or, a drought? An island can easily become a prison. Forces move up river and manipulate the flow of water and these bastions are toast.

The issues raised here are important and merit attention.

The Sacramento River Delta islands are, in fact, subject to flooding—or they would be if they were not protected by levees. I don’t know the history of levee construction in the Delta, but by the 1980’s levees keeping the Sacramento River from interfering with farming on the islands in the Delta amounted to hundreds of miles of levees around the perimeter of these islands. It’s a fascinating display of private civil engineering. I would not have imagined that the effort involved would have been worthwhile, but the farmers who got the job done apparently thought otherwise. Pumping of groundwater over the years led to considerable areas of the Delta islands having a lower level than the river during much of the year. I attended an event in the Delta this summer, and I drove roads paved on the tops of many of these levees. Dry land below the level of the river makes an odd sight. The area protected by levees is so great that there is concern that a major earthquake resulting in a breach of these levees would cause the Sacramento River to run backwards from the San Francisco Bay [as a whole] as the river flooded the islands. This would cause brackish water from the estuary to enter the Delta and contaminate the fresh water supplies being pumped out of the Delta. This gives some idea of the acreage under the till behind these levees. Such an earthquake has not happened yet.

Drought is a real problem in California. As I write, water shortages are prompting California agriculture to adapt. However, the problem of drought seems most easily mitigated when one is adjacent to a major river. While no one is going to break a levee to let in water, creating a vacuum inside a pipe will enable the farmers to move water from the river over the levees and into the basin behind the levees. While this does not solve all of the engineering problems of distributing the water across the island, its ready availability in quantity at very manageable distances from the perimeter of each island would make the islands more drought resistant than almost any other location in California.

Security concerns should not be taken lightly. It’s the cornerstone of the Twilight: 2000 reality, after getting enough to eat. That much said, I think the locals are going to have to look more at the likely threats than the worst case scenarios. In the case of the Sacramento River Delta, intensive use of the farmland and diversion of energy in the form of ammonia to agriculture on the islands does not mean that all of Milgov’s forces in the area relocate to the islands, blow the bridges connecting them to the mainland, sink their boats, and hunker down behind the levees. The Delta would play a part in the overall security scheme for a much larger area. The area in question includes the Sacramento area, the East San Francisco Bay, and the area between them. In a larger sense, the Sixth US Army security zone encompasses the entire SF Bay Area, Sacramento, and the central portion of the Central Valley. While Sixth US Army does not have firm control of every part of its AO (how could it?), significant hostile forces within that zone would have a tough time operating at any distance from their own secure bases. It’s one thing for marauder bands or a local warlord to control one or a few neighborhoods in Oakland, where penetration of the urban landscape by other armed bodies would be difficult. It’s another for forces hostile to Milgov to leave their defensible area, travel to another part of the Bay Area (much less outside the Bay Area), and undertake some major action without drawing a significant response from Milgov.

Manipulating the flow of water through the Delta would require very significant effort on someone’s part. A number of dammed rivers feed into the tributaries of the Sacramento River. The dams are spread along the eastern rim of the entire Central Valley. Control of a given dam would allow an interested party to cut off the water or release it. However, it should be remembered that there are many tributaries of the Sacramento River. Stopping the flow of water from a given dam would cut off a measurable portion of the water entering the Delta but not meaningful portion from the standpoint of denying the Delta water for agriculture. By the same token, blowing the dam would release the reservoir and increase the volume of water entering the Delta significantly. However, the floodwater would dissipate itself during its movement downstream. The Delta is some distance from the dams that manage the flow of water into the Delta. Thousands of miles of irrigation ditches along the route of the floodwater would reduce its volume and impetus considerably. There would be a noticeable rise in the water level in the Delta once the leading edge of the flood arrived, but the levees were designed to deal with this sort of thing under the premise that large storms in the Central Valley below the dams would result in surges in the water level.

Blowing several dams simultaneously would create a much bigger problem, to be sure. The question becomes, who would do this? The most likely culprits would be the Mexican Army. Of the various parties who might be interested in damaging Milgov in its northern California cantonment, the Mexican Army has the best mix of means, motive, and opportunity. However, getting teams with the right equipment and the right knowledge to a single dam inside the [nominal] US occupation zone in mid-1998 or later would be a challenge. Getting several teams to several dams would be a very great challenge. Even without hydroelectric capability due to EMP, the dams are still very important strategic assets. Opening or closing the sluices would be a task of major importance for agriculture in the Central Valley. At least through the Mexican invasion in mid-1998, these dams probably would have security of some sort. After the invasion, the need for security would become even more pronounced due to the threat of Mexican infiltration and sabotage. Whether and for how long government forces can continue to provide security at any given dam is an interesting question.

Getting back to the idea that hostile forces would move upriver to interfere with the flow of water, I think the idea would have merit under very different circumstances. Under the conditions that prevail in California north of Bakersfield after the Exchange, it’s hard to imagine who would execute such a scheme on a scale to be of genuine concern to Milgov.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The question becomes, who would do this? The most likely culprits would be the Mexican Army. Of the various parties who might be interested in damaging Milgov in its northern California cantonment, the Mexican Army has the best mix of means, motive, and opportunity.

Getting back to the idea that hostile forces would move upriver to interfere with the flow of water, I think the idea would have merit under very different circumstances. Under the conditions that prevail in California north of Bakersfield after the Exchange, it’s hard to imagine who would execute such a scheme on a scale to be of genuine concern to Milgov.

Orrin Ladd's California Dreaming write up about California in T2K mentions some Soviet forces with the Mexican Army occupying Southern California.

The KGB operates as advisors to the Mexican Army. Although serving only as technical advisors and intelligence gatherers, the KGB provides clandestine assistance to the FMRP faction in the region.

The GRU also operates as advisors to the Mexican Army. They prefer to keep out of the squabbles between the various Mexican factions. Although they work alongside the KGB, like the GRU and KGB around the world, they have their share of mutually hostile encounters.

Spetznaz Group 509: Originally a group of Russian and Eastern Bloc mercenaries working throughout Latin America. Most came from an elite background and most often worked as bodyguards or as cadre for various military and para-military forces. They too found themselves stranded when the war with the Americans broke out and offered their services to the Mexican Government.