San Diego Based Article?

[kalos72]

I for the life of me cannot find an article/story written about San Diego. Something like there was a massive artillery fight on the island of Coronado and such...it was a good read.

Anyone know what I am thinking of?

[kalos72]

Found it! I thought was San Diego based but instead its a good read for the Pacific....

[kalos72]

Anyone have any thoughts on this article?

Not sure who wrote it but its as much detail as I have ever seen about the Pacific or the Navy in general honestly.

[Olefin]

It definitely predates me being on the board

and while its very interesting it has a lot of issues with the canon

I am usually not a canon defender but it adds Soviet units that would have been in the canon Soviet Forces V1 and V2.2 versions

And Project Pyoter is definitely a canon buster - I dont see the Soviets being able to transit anything like that kind of force especially in the Pacific - if you want to see how bad a shape they were in look at Satellite Down to give you an indication of what they had left as to naval forces - and you need A LOT of ships to transit even a single division let alone whole armies

And the New Jersey battle is definitely one that needs some rewrites - 30mm CWS isnt going to do squat to an incoming 16 inch shell - even if they did get hits that somehow kept them from detonating the impact speed and size of those shells would have blown huge holes in Frunze - and hell if you are at 2300 yards why not just go ahead and ram while you are at it - plus she has 12 5inch guns that at 2300 yards would turn Frunze into Swiss Cheese

plus those teakwood decks have 7.5 inches of armor plate under them - those SS-N-19's would probably bounce off her

[kalos72]

Id love to get your opinion on the separation...I am not well versed in pure canon.

[Cherper]

Interesting project, but the whole battle with the Frunze and New Jersey was almost laughable. The idea that a 30mm shell weighing less than 3 kg knocking a 406mm shell weighing more than 800kg off target is a stretch.

The rest of the project does give some ideas for further development.

[kalos72]

Well, I know the state of the worlds navies is always a sore subject but this story seems to have ALOT of firepower left in the world.

Just look at whats sitting in CA...

I for one, have always thought that attrition of parts and fuel had more to do with the lack of naval activity/support and not that every ship destroyed except for one submarine.

[Cherper]

I agree that the attrition of lack of parts would grind the navies to a halt. Without petroleum and parts most heavy machinery will literally grind to a halt. The bigger the machine the more maintenance it would need.

I could see a number of ships more or less mothballed in scattered ports around the world. The ship is afloat, may have some armaments, and could influence the local region but is probably not capable of offensive actions.

These ships could be great strongholds. Tough to capture, but could hold a wealth of gear.

[unkated]

I started having trouble with it in the beginning:

Opening Moves

"Despite the outbreak of hostilities between the US and USSR in Europe in 1996, the Pacific Rim started out as a relatively quiet area."


Um, Russia is fighting China in 1995 and makes no moves along the Pacific Coast? No attempts at blockade? Does nothing with their fleet units at Cam Rahn Bay?

In the 1990s, (in our timeline, anyway) the Chinese PLAN was beginning to expand. So was their air force, which would give them some force to push back. Sounds like an active War Zone.

None of the Western Powers do any counter moves? The JDF naval forces stay in port? The US Fleet stays east of the International Dateline?

No armed assurance of commerce missions in 1995? Consider what the western powers did during the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War to protect neutral shipping running through the Arabian Gulf; this would be to oppose the Soviet Union in a timeline where the Cold War did not end.

I would imagine that if nothing else, 1995-96 in the Pacific would be a period of increased tension - there is a major way going on, with western powers (US at least) want to ship in equipment and ammo, and it being in the Soviet interest to prevent it, preferably without triggering a 2-front war.

Then increase the tension from actual shooting in Europe.

OTOH, if the Soviets, under pressure form the West keep away from the China Coast, there's nothing really to prevent them from keeping a close watch on the few Soviet ports (which was done in the 1980s & 1990s anyway).

In either case, by 1996, when NATO does enter the fray in Europe, it does not seem to me like it would be "quiet." More like "primed to explode."



First Big Fight

I have trouble with the notion that a large surface (soviet) SAG could leave harbor in time of war much less get into gun or missile range without a lot of warning. It says that this fight takes place in deep water, but the Sea of Japan is rather limited in size (yes, three hundred miles is small when your missiles and planes have ranges that are 3-10 times that.

Submarines at 45 knots are a) deaf and b) quite noticeable - yes, even an Alfa and Akula. That they can move a distance, turn and fire a spread of torpedoes I can believe. That they can fire a targeted spread and hit a moving target that they did not see (guessing at its likely location) and that heard them coming with 4 of 8 (and hit other targets with any of the others) I cannot swallow.

Is the Carl Vinson group 6 hours ship travel time? (6x30 = 180 nm) That's well within its air envelope - either for protection or attack. Not to mention that off Korea is Japan, with a hitherto untouched US air force backed by JSDFAF.

So, I have some problems with both the strategic and tactical tenor of what I have read so far.

Uncle Ted

[stormlion1]

I worked on the New Jersey when it was brought to Camden to be turned into a museum and while the superstructure was relatively thin armored in spots there is little that was punching through to the armored sections. The Bridge alone had 17" of armor and could be sealed up with just telescopes to be used to see. The AK-130 gun system would bounce off the armored sections barely putting a dent. When you hit the armored sections there thick! The Kirov's were missile boats and even those would have to work at it to penetrate the ships armored core. Finally it mentions the Jersey heading for Yokota. A Air Base in Japan I was stationed at in the 90's. Not Yokosuka. And we don't know what happened to the Jersey after the Battle as its not listed anywhere at the end with other surviving ships or as sunk.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by unkated

I started having trouble with it in the beginning:

Opening Moves

"Despite the outbreak of hostilities between the US and USSR in Europe in 1996, the Pacific Rim started out as a relatively quiet area."


Um, Russia is fighting China in 1995 and makes no moves along the Pacific Coast? No attempts at blockade? Does nothing with their fleet units at Cam Rahn Bay?

In the 1990s, (in our timeline, anyway) the Chinese PLAN was beginning to expand. So was their air force, which would give them some force to push back. Sounds like an active War Zone.

None of the Western Powers do any counter moves? The JDF naval forces stay in port? The US Fleet stays east of the International Dateline?

No armed assurance of commerce missions in 1995? Consider what the western powers did during the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War to protect neutral shipping running through the Arabian Gulf; this would be to oppose the Soviet Union in a timeline where the Cold War did not end.

I would imagine that if nothing else, 1995-96 in the Pacific would be a period of increased tension - there is a major way going on, with western powers (US at least) want to ship in equipment and ammo, and it being in the Soviet interest to prevent it, preferably without triggering a 2-front war.

Then increase the tension from actual shooting in Europe.

OTOH, if the Soviets, under pressure form the West keep away from the China Coast, there's nothing really to prevent them from keeping a close watch on the few Soviet ports (which was done in the 1980s & 1990s anyway).

In either case, by 1996, when NATO does enter the fray in Europe, it does not seem to me like it would be "quiet." More like "primed to explode."



First Big Fight

I have trouble with the notion that a large surface (soviet) SAG could leave harbor in time of war much less get into gun or missile range without a lot of warning. It says that this fight takes place in deep water, but the Sea of Japan is rather limited in size (yes, three hundred miles is small when your missiles and planes have ranges that are 3-10 times that.

Submarines at 45 knots are a) deaf and b) quite noticeable - yes, even an Alfa and Akula. That they can move a distance, turn and fire a spread of torpedoes I can believe. That they can fire a targeted spread and hit a moving target that they did not see (guessing at its likely location) and that heard them coming with 4 of 8 (and hit other targets with any of the others) I cannot swallow.

Is the Carl Vinson group 6 hours ship travel time? (6x30 = 180 nm) That's well within its air envelope - either for protection or attack. Not to mention that off Korea is Japan, with a hitherto untouched US air force backed by JSDFAF.

So, I have some problems with both the strategic and tactical tenor of what I have read so far.

Uncle Ted

I have to agree with your assessment of the Pact's tactics. This is why I have always suggested in my posts that the USSR would sorte its fleet early in the conflict with China as commerce raiders. If NATO did take sides with the Chinese; Russia would want the fleet "at sea" when that happened. They were well aware of the technological edge NATO had after the 91 Gulf War. The best option for survival would be to "disperse" the fleet and force NATO to hunt for them. The Pact fleet was ideal for use as a commerce raiding force. Russian ships are fast and tend to have better fuel endurance than comparable NATO ships. They do not have the "detection range" of most NATO ships, nor do they carry a large number of reloads for their weapons. These two factors are major handicaps in a sustained naval engagement. The Russians would fare much better "running from" a NATO task force and hitting merchant shipping instead. You can, in theory, disable an entire task force (by denying it fuel) by simply sinking one commercial tanker. If NATO loses enough merchant shipping; you can stall a fairly large ground offensive too. The Russians would need "ports abroad" to rest and resupply from. This could draw Cuba, and certain South American and African countries into the conflict when NATO took steps to kill Pact raiders who were in these countries territorial waters. I also see many ships on both sides being "stranded" by a lack of fuel later in the conflict.

[RN7]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

[stormlion1]

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

-Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise

[Cherper]

One other thing that I thought was implausible was the fitting of the ships to sail. The size of sails needed to move even a small frigate would be huge. A couple of sails like those pictured would maybe move the ships at a knot or two, but the stress on the masts would be incredible. Don't know if it would even be possible.

[kalos72]

Yeah alot of this is someone reading Popular Mechanics or something and going overboard with it. :P

But there are sailing ships that could be comparable...HMS Warrior perhaps?

What got me is the staggering amount of tonnage thats still out there.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

Let alone her five inch guns which would be pumping out shells at the Kirov and nailing her over and over at 2300 yards.

[stormlion1]

In many ways a Iowa class would dominate in modern warfare even with there age. Remember that the main argument against them whenever anyone wanted to mothball them was high crew requirements (about 2000 men) and cost of fuel to run them and to support them. Plus the fact they just don't make the ammunition or the powder for them anymore.

And yet they are still considered the go-to source for a landing operation today. When we were converting the Jersey we were told outright that nothing major could be touched as it could be recalled at any point and I remember one Navy SOB telling us that the more work we did now was the less work they would need to do when they towed across the river to the Philly Shipyard when the ship would be needed again.

[kalos72]

This article brings up another good question...

US Armed Forces in the Pacific...Korea, Japan, Philippines...like the write about the Air Force in Europe.

[stormlion1]

Well the bottom of the original story does list the Air Force units and such in Japan. I remember because it said my old base had only two C-130's with no fuel left. But an actual map with a write up would be nice. Maybe update the whole thing though because quite a bit is just so off.

[kalos72]

Good call, I didnt see that the last time I read it.

Anyone have thoughts on San Diego itself? I haven't seen anything that says it got nuked, which is odd to me.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Cherper

One other thing that I thought was implausible was the fitting of the ships to sail. The size of sails needed to move even a small frigate would be huge. A couple of sails like those pictured would maybe move the ships at a knot or two, but the stress on the masts would be incredible. Don't know if it would even be possible.

It wouldn't. For several reasons;

1. No where near enough sail area.

2. Hull is a poor shape for sailing - and it gets worse if it starts to heel (like it would with wind pushing on the sails.

3. Modern naval hulls have no keel; if you had enough sails and avoided heeling over completely, you'd make horrible leeway (slide in the direction of the wind).

4. To run the hydraulics to steer (and weapons systems, electronics, ventilation and plumbing), you'd to run a generator system. And a small wind-powered thing is NOT going to cut it.

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Originally Posted by RN7

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

There is no reason for the Kirov to wait around for Battleship to get within gun range; in fact, it would be criminal; the zampolit aboard would have the captain arrested and appoint a commander to maintain range at a few hundred nautical miles.

The Tomahawks are LAND attack missiles, and are not that effective at sea. Also, more to the point is the number of launchers available. Iowas carry 32 Tomahawks, but can only launch 8 at a time. Same for Harpoons.

Yeah, no CIWS system is going to protect against guns.

They are made to locate and target missiles, which move much slower, and have systems that can be hurt in the few seconds before the missile hits the ship. They cannot target incoming shell fire, and if they could, you have the mismatch of mv-squared - like me charging a semi-trailer to deflect it head-on.

Also... (from Iowa class page)

Owing to the original 1938 design of the battleships, the Tomahawk missiles could not be fitted to the Iowa class unless the battleships were rebuilt in such a way as to accommodate the missile mounts that would be needed to store and launch the Tomahawks. This realization prompted the removal of the anti-aircraft guns previously installed on the Iowas and the removal of four of each of the battleships' ten 5"/38 DP mounts. The mid and aft end of the battleships were then rebuilt to accommodate the missile magazines. At one point, the NATO Sea Sparrow was to be installed on the reactivated battleships; however, it was determined that the system could not withstand the overpressure effects from firing the main battery.[79] To supplement the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Iowas, five FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missile firing positions were installed. These secured the shoulder-launched weapons and their rounds for ready use by the crew

One 16-in shell would not disintegrate the Kirov. Kirov is a decent sized ship. There's a reason that other ship combat systems were developed.
But indeed Kirov is not armored and she would being to degrade (lose systems that she needs to fight) almost immediately.

[stormlion1]

The smart move for a Kirov would have been to missile spam the US Battlegroup alongside other missile firing ships and hope for the best. Then get the hell out of dodge. And at the same time the US Fleet would have continued the favor. The Russian fleet listed was nowhere near enough though to take on a US Battlegroup with both a carrier and a Battleship. Now if the spammed a single target (if they could pick one out that is) it would be possible to hit a Iowa enough times to knock it out of the fight.

Then again in this scenario I fully expect those missiles to have nukes so if even one got through it would be all she wrote for the target ship and those near it.

[unkated]

I did like the Boras - the light cruiser sized hovercraft. They are just the kind of slightly outre engineering concept that the Soviets could make work - where a western government would stop to consider the opportunity cost vs benefit, and go build three of something else instead.

However, note that such a beast would use a LOT of fuel at each outing; and, of course making it large enough to carry a lot of fuel will make it too heavy to operate, so it will not have a lot of range. And presumably the lack of fuel is what stopped their further use.

[On a side note, where we all laughed at the Soviet hovercraft designs in the Soviet Vehicle Guide, the Soviets did have a small number of hover-transports for seaborne landings - some 50 that were platoon sized, 10 that were company-sized (100t), and a few that were battalion sized (310t); the Boras would be ~10xs as heavy.]

However, the two that attacked USS Munro off Australia had no reason to get within visual range at all; somehow I doubt that Munro could close the range if they can make 40-45 kn. The Boras would enter their radar envelope, get a fix, fire, turn away. Radar would tell them if probably if there is a hit; major change in Munro's speed would be a giveaway, at which point they could turn back for survivors. if not, they are already opening the distance on Munro.

Uncle Ted

[kalos72]

So...thinking about ways to counter the Soviet navy in the Pacific, would you go PT boats again with torpedos or try and develop a simple anti-ship missile system perhaps?

Or maybe sailing ships, with engine backups, with hidden torpedo tubes? Maybe disguised as fishing boats?

It would seem like some of the older torpedos are pretty simple tech wise...

[stormlion1]

Subs, lots of subs.

[kalos72]

And since making new Los Angeles class submarines MIGHT be out of the realm of realistic....

Creative options?

Another question for me is, why do we still think we need to project into the South Pacific here? None of those countries can help us rebuild...cept maybe Japan/Australia.

[unkated]

It's not creative, but it is simple and obvious, and would probably be done 5 minutes after the climax of the Battle of the Aleutians - (if not as soon as tac nukes start flying)

2 nukes to take out the Navy base in Petrapavolvsk and Vladivostok. Bye bye stocks of navy parts and ammo and fuel. And repair facilities. Pretty much done right there.

BTW, this can also be done by conventional TLAM attack launced by sub or by B-52 standing off a few hundred miles as soon as the US enters the war.

Uncle Ted

[RN7]

Originally Posted by unkated

There is no reason for the Kirov to wait around for Battleship to get within gun range; in fact, it would be criminal; the zampolit aboard would have the captain arrested and appoint a commander to maintain range at a few hundred nautical miles.

That's right and you didn't hear me saying that as it would be obvious suicide for the Kirov.

Originally Posted by unkated

The Tomahawks are LAND attack missiles, and are not that effective at sea.

But the RGM/UGM-109B variant of the Tomahawk is a anti-ship missile.

It was developed at the same time as the BGM-109A TLAM-N and was operationally deployed first. Instead of TERCOM (which is useless over water), the TASM uses a radar guidance system similar to Harpoon, including the strapdown three-axis attitude/heading reference system and AN/DSQ-28 J-band active radar seeker. The TASM was a very agile missile capable of flying at high or low altitude trajectories, and could include sea-skimming or pop-up high-angle diving in the terminal phase. The TASM was removed from warships in 1994 and all TASM missiles were converted to TLAM, but not in the Twilight War eh!

Originally Posted by unkated

Also, more to the point is the number of launchers available. Iowas carry 32 Tomahawks, but can only launch 8 at a time. Same for Harpoons.

But the Kirov also only carries 20 SS-N-19 as the size of the missile limits the platforms on which it can operate and be launched from and the number of reloads. Can all of the 20 SS-N-19 be fired at once?

Originally Posted by unkated

Also... (from Iowa class page)

One 16-in shell would not disintegrate the Kirov. Kirov is a decent sized ship. There's a reason that other ship combat systems were developed.
But indeed Kirov is not armored and she would being to degrade (lose systems that she needs to fight) almost immediately.

Kirov is a very lightly armoured ship compared to an Iowa Class battleship. Its side armour in the area of the nuclear reactor compartments, command operations room and above the SS-N-19 battery is 100 mm, and everywhere else it ranges from 35mm to 70mm. Even in its best protected areas it would barely withstand a hit from a 5"/38 or Harpoon or Tomahawk TASM. But there is absolutely no way it could tank the firepower of a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7. Just how much damage do you think a 2,700 pound HE or AP shell or two travelling at 820 metres per second could do to a ship as lightly armoured as a Kirov with a practically unprotected nuclear reactor?

[stormlion1]

Kirov Class was designed as a command ship and a missile cruiser. Not a battleship. It would spam missiles and get out of dodge because it outright couldn't stand in the line of battle like the scenario lists. Its got paper thin armor and a light gun. The armor is almost secondary to its design and the gun for shore bombardment and defense against light attackers of the day. Not a World War 2 battleship. If there had been a war the admirals of the Russian Navy would have done everything in there power to keep there ships as far away from an Iowa as they could. And they would gave wished they had those Sovetsky Soyuz Battleships they cancelled in the 40's.