|
|
|
#1
01-11-2011, 12:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Sea Lanes
I'm not thinking of world shipping which is a different matter we already discussed. However, in T2K what sea lane could be available and where will piracy be really active?
Here are might thoughts: - Bosphorus: open desipite damages by the bomb that missed Istanbul - Gibraltar: open - Jutland: open - Suez Canal: destroyed by nukes - Panama Canal: I used to have it open with limited access but why should it be so. More likely destroyed. Major working harbors: - Macao (China) - Marseille (France) - Copenhagen (Denmark) - Arkhangelsk (Russia) - Riga (Latvia) - Several in Norway and Sweden - Portsmouth and Newcastle (UK) - Porto (Portugal) - Istanbul (Turkey) - Dakar (Senegal) - Cape Town (South Africa) - Savannah and Boston (USA) - Quebec (Quebec) - Several smaller harbors seeing more shipping these days Please complete the list, I'm missing several (Thanks Wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_seaports Major Sea Lane: Pacific Sealane: going from Europe/US to Falklands and Chile to several Islands in the Pacific. Piracy is extremely important in the Carribean, off the coasts of Portugal/Spain, in the Bay of Biscay and in the Mediterranean. A safer sea lane link the US west coast to various destinations in the Pacific Mediterranean Sea Lanes Again the most travelled seas, it is also the most dangerous. You better travel in convoy. Atlantic Sea Lanes Largely abandonned, they are especially unsafe due to mine hazards. African Sea Lane with the destruction of the Suez Canal, shipping is going trough the cape of good hope, making cape town the most important seaport and benefiting South Africa. Other major stop on the route are Madeira, Cabo Verde, Saint Helena, Reunion/Maurice, Zanzibar. Piracy exist all along the African coasts. Artic sea lane largely abandonned it linked Arkhangelsk to ports in the Atlantic Northern Sea Route A major sea route nowadays it is entirely controled by the Soviet Union. Just some rapid thoughts, feel free to complete. 
|
|
#2
01-11-2011, 03:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There's a few more in the UK and Ireland. Felixstowe (which is the UK's busiest container port according to wiki) and Harwich both survived, as did Plymouth. The main ports for the Scotland - Northern Ireland ferry service are untouched - Stranraer and Cairnryan in Scotland and Belfast and Larne in Northern Ireland. There would also be a number of smaller ports...for an extensive listing I'd defer to the list RN7 posted in his thread IIRC the only nuclear target in the Republic of Ireland was Bantry Bay, so all the other Irish ports should be OK - Dun Laoghaire and Rosslare both had regular ferry services to the UK. I guess only caveat would be that the absence of a port on a list of nuclear targets does not neccessarily mean that the port is still intact and / or in working order. They could have been plastered by conventional airstrikes or, in the case of those close to ground combat, destroyed by artillery or blown up etc, etc...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#3
01-11-2011, 05:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quebec City gets creamed by a 1 MT airburst to take out the refineries on both sides of the St. Lawrence. This probably flattens the entire city, and to take out all the refineries ground zero would have to be more or less above the river, and the port. One port that should be added is Churchill, Manitoba. Not only is it a notable (if not major) arctic port on Hudson's Bay, it's also the site of Canada's commercial spaceport. (Currently inactive but possibly reactivated for satellite launch during the Twilight War.) Tony
|
|
#5
01-11-2011, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just off he top of my head...
Don't forget the Singapore Strait - a very busy route, which (a few years ago, anyway) had a reputation for piracy even without the war. Can't remember if Singapore was a target or not, but even if it was, the Strait should be navigable. And don't forget Hormuz either - in and out of the Persian Gulf. There is a lot if local trade there, in dhows, as well as the oil. And Dubai is a port and historical pirate area. If Suez canal is closed, I don't think Aden and the Red Sea will have a great deal of traffic, but there are ports at Hodeida in Yemen, Jeddah in Saudi an Port Suez in Egypt, all on the Red Sea. And there wil probably be a fair bt of trade arounf the West Indies
|
|
#6
01-11-2011, 03:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
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
|
|
#7
01-11-2011, 04:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's a puzzle all right. Where would they move the capital to, and why? The problem with QC is that it's just not a big city, and tends to cluster around the river. The refinery and tank farm is only about 2-3km from the port, and about 5km from the iconic Chateau Frontenac and the National Assembly/parliament buildings in the old city. Probably it's the name that's most important. Even if the old city and the parliament buildings are gone, as long as they move the Québec National Assembly to somewhere within the city limits it counts symbolically. If needed, the airport is on the outskirts of the city upriver to the west, a relatively good spot and far away from advancing Canadian troops. As well or in conjunction, the strike on the refineries could have been off target and hit somewhere to the south, leaving most or part of the city/capital buildings/port intact. Getting back to the topic, I don't see the Northwest Passage as being a feasible route, unfortunately. Due to mysterious processes that are still hotly disputed by some in the USA (possibly involving the heating of a globe-like celestial body that may or may not be Earth by some unknown and disputed mechanism by a species that allegedly evolved from ape-like organisms) the ice has been rapidly retreating and the Northwest Passage will soon be navigatable by commercial traffic many months of the year. Given the conditions outlined in "Howling Wilderness", I see the ice shelf advancing as temperatures cool and moisture is locked up in the polar regions. Hudson's Bay and Churchill will still be accessible. On the west coast, the Port of Vancouver would be largely intact. In the BYB Canada target list only the refineries/oil storage facilities around Burrard Inlet get hit. These areas are either to the east of the Port of Vancouver facilities, the Robert's Bank Superport (a twin container port and coal terminal facility) to the south or the various facilities on the Fraser River like the Fraser Surrey Docks. The city is largely abandoned and in the Legion MccRae adventure "The River" the container port downtown also takes a direct hit, but that leaves several large port areas intact (if inoperative). Further, aside from the Singapore Strait the Strait of Malacca is the largest and busiest in the world. Piracy is a serious problem there but would probably decline with the collapse of world trade. Tony
|
|
#8
01-11-2011, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
01-11-2011, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hmmmm, I do believe that he called we'ins apes!!!! It's a good thing that I'm descended from the lone survivor of Roswell, otherwise I'd have to nuke the site from orbit....just to be sure! 
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#10
01-12-2011, 04:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I, of course, speak only for myself! Hey, what the hell are you doing here, anyways? Did you hear there was some colonists' daughters down here that needed rescuing from their virginity? Tony
|
|
#11
01-12-2011, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#12
01-12-2011, 04:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#13
01-12-2011, 04:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That's a great point. At least some of these areas would be mined by some power or another. Soviet subs or surface raiders may be able to lay minefields, even using nuclear mined. Or local combatants might want to isolate the area from trade for some reason. These minefields may be cleared or partially cleared over time. Tony
|
|
#14
01-12-2011, 06:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Unlike the Panama and Suez canals, the Bosphorus, etc, there's more than one path to take between the hundreds, even thousands of islands. Mining them all is probably beyond even the strongest of superpowers.
It's these many islands, inlets, etc that make it such a rich area for pirates - they can raid a ship and simply disappear before a response arrives. I'm sure the attempt would be made, and there's bound to be a few stray mines floating about to make the area even more dangerous to shipping, but it's unlikely any concerted effort would be made. You don't have to travel more than a few hundred miles more to avoid the worst choke points, and adding a day or three to the journey may avoid the area almost entirely.
__________________
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
|
|
#15
01-12-2011, 06:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quebec City, Quebec
Quebec City, Quebec would not be operating due to fact, all access to Quebec City can only be archived by way of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which would have mined sometime after the start of the twilight war. However St. John's Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador and Sydney, Nova Scotia would be functioning. I see both the harbours at busy places, due to three offshore oil fields around Newfoundland and Labrador and Steel Mill and Coal Mine in Nova Scotia.
__________________
"You're damn right, I'm gonna be pissed off! I bought that pig at Pink Floyd's yard sale!"
|
|
#16
01-12-2011, 06:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mines can be swept clear. With the Soviet navy at the bottom of the ocean, and most of it designed in the first place for defence close to home, I don't see mines playing a big part in the war away from the hotspots.
__________________
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
|
|
#17
01-12-2011, 09:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But a former USN sub driver I work with claims that many of the gaps in the Malay Barrier are too shallow for ocean-going shipping. He also tells me that one of the fears of the USN was India deciding to make a power play and blocking the major passages.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#18
01-12-2011, 09:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1 Sierra II SSN, able to carry up to 36 mines 2 Sierra I SSN, ditto 26 Victor III SSN, ditto 7 Victor II SSN, ditto 15 Victor I SSN, ditto 20 Kilo SS, able to carry up to 24 mines 18 Tango SS, ditto 40 Foxtrot SS, able to carry up to 44 mines 4 Kynda CG, able to carry up to 80 mines 7 Sverdlov CL, able to carry up to 200 mines 11 Udaloy DDG, able to carry up to 50 mines 14 Sovremennyy DDG, able to carry up to 80 mines 6 Kashin DDG, able to carry up to 40 mines 32 Krivak I/II FFG, able to carry up to 20 mines 3 Alesha ML, able to carry up to 300 mines 75 Natya/Yurka class MS, able to carry up to 20 mines I tried to keep the list to just ship types known to have served with the Soviet Indian Ocean Squadron; now this squadron numbers from 3 to as many as 20 ships, depending upon the local situation...still.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#19
01-12-2011, 03:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok, perhaps not designed, but intended.
We also know in the books that Soviet naval power, hell, all naval power of note, was on the bottom very early on (before the nukes I believe). There may well not have been time to lay minefields of any size in far off places. You can be sure though that surface ships would have a very hard time even attempting to mine a foreign port or shipping channel. However, even just one mine, or the rumour of mines can create delays and fear in ship crews.
__________________
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
|
|
#20
01-12-2011, 04:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's not only the Soviets that would seek to mine the St. Lawrence seaway (probably using sub-laid "bottom" mines which are hard to detect and sweep). Those mines could and if at all possible be cleared at some point and it would be difficult for the Soviets to repeat this operation. They might well lay a nuclear mine, however, to decide the issue once and for all! (Nuclear mines were developed but apparently never deployed, at least in our timeline.) Once the French decide to intervene in Quebec, whatever minelaying capability remained would be deployed to close the St. Lawrence again and any other Quebec ports. Even with regular minesweeping by the French it's hard to see how any aid could regularly reach the separatists, and indeed in AD2300 Quebec is no longer a separate nation. (In fact, it makes a kind of realpolitik sense that the French would actually want to broker a settlement to create a stable state in Canada (in counterpoint to a politically chaotic and hostile USA) rather than support an untenable independent Quebec state). As for Leg's point about other sea lane choke points and the possibility of bypassing dangerous areas, the ocean is indeed a large place and some dangerous areas can be avoided by taking alternate routes. Traffic passes through choke points like the Straights of Malacca primarily due to economics: it's simply the most efficient route and it would cost too much to go around. Also, these areas are thoroughly mapped with respects to tides and hazards, and are therefore safe and easy to navigate. More than one nation and faction would have reason to close off sea lanes in strategic areas, likewise others would seek to keep them open. It's debatable which would prevail in what area but probably all sea lanes and especially maritime choke points are still significantly more dangerous during and after the Twilight War. In the aftermath of the Twilight War, I think established sea lanes (even those that are hazardous) would be used for two reasons: fuel is so expensive that ships will still have to take the most efficient route, and without electronic navigational aids (like GPS, LORAN-C/CHAYKA, etc.) navigation is going to become much more difficult. Navigation won't be impossible in most places, but in close waters like off Malaysia/Singapore treading off the beaten path is asking for trouble that ships can't afford. Tony
|
|
#21
01-12-2011, 04:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For my part, I consider mines to be a real threat in T2K but a random one. You won't find large minefields as in ww2 but NATO's capability to clear the existing ones is equally reduced to nothing. Another thing, Soviets used to drop mines from aircrafts and Tu-95 Bear will flight much longer than B-2 Spirit. In addition, Antonovs can also be easily modified to drop mines.
|
|
#22
01-12-2011, 05:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Naval mines can be laid by pretty much any ship, including converted cargo vessels. You might still find large minefields of "moored" mines protecting installations or strategic inshore waters like ports, naval bases, river mouths, etc. Drifting mines are in theory banned but could still be used as "terror" weapons (not effective but still feared due to unpredictability) or as a consequence of becoming unmoored. I think the most common minefield would be made from "bottom mines" laid by aircraft and subs: Quote:
These weapons explode under a target and the resulting cavity (the "bubble jet effect") rupturing the target's hull or even breaking it apart. Tony
|
|
#23
01-12-2011, 05:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I doubt that the Soviet, or the rest of the NATO fleets would have fared any better. Note that this is within the first 12 months of the war.
__________________
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
|
|
#24
01-12-2011, 07:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"You're damn right, I'm gonna be pissed off! I bought that pig at Pink Floyd's yard sale!"
|
|
#25
01-12-2011, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Soviet naval writings stress both a defensive and a offensive use of mines; defensive to protect critical Soviet naval ports as well as provide secure locations for the SSBN force to shelter in. The offensive use is to blockade NATO ports, and critical chokepoints in the sea lanes....the Greenland-Iceland-UK gaps for certain, but based on some of the writings, I can see Gib, the Dardenalles, Suez, Hormouz and even the Malay barrier. There is an old naval saying that goes "any ship can be a minesweeper, once." The belts don't have to be heavy, but scattering 30-40 mines in a area and programming them to go active after a period of time....
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#26
01-13-2011, 04:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thanks for clarifying, I was thinking along those lines as well. Tony
|
|
#27
01-13-2011, 05:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
01-13-2011, 06:12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'll try and hunt for the article later...it was one of the first Challenges to come out after T2K was launched.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#29
01-13-2011, 06:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The article "The Baltic Coast: A Looter's Guide" is in Challenge #25, the first after T2K's launch. It's available on DrivethruRPG.com That said, there is a surviving Whisky-class diesel-electric coastal defence submarine, a T-42 class minesweeper and some Osa patrol boats. Any of these could lay mines. With a full load of fuel the Whiskey could manage 25,000km on the surface and 11,000 submerged. Tony
|
|
#30
01-13-2011, 06:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Cheers Dave
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
