4th ed T2K

[Raellus]

One of the main criticisms leveled at v4's setting- IMHO, a legitimate, very fair one- is that the Soviet Union, without major allies, nearly steamrolls NATO in the Twilight War and, at the Death of a Division starting point, is considerably stronger than its Euro-American enemies.

I'm not sure that this can be explained/justified to everyone's satisfaction but here are some ideas that I hope go some way to reconciling v4's setting with real world circumstances, geopolitics, and strategic military balance of forces.

The first two ideas don't really require any modifications to the v4 timeline. The others do.

NATO overconfidence stemming from the Gulf War
One could argue that this happened, IRL. Coalition forces had very little trouble smashing Iraqi units equipped with Soviet weapons and following- roughly- Soviet doctrine. This easy victory gives NATO the mistaken impression that it can handle a Soviet invasion of central Europe with much less trouble than was anticipated pre-1991*. This leads to institutional complacency and a draw-down of forces (not as dramatic as what happened after the IRL collapse of the Soviet Union, but still a RIF).
*If you're interested, I go into much more detail regarding the fallacy of this way of thinking in this thread:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=897

Economic drain of the former Warsaw Pact on NATO
Again, IRL, this was an issue that Germany had to deal with- East Germany's moribund economy was a millstone around the neck of W. Germany for at least a decade following reunification. Trying to incorporate the similarly weak economies of the other former Warsaw Pact nations into the European Union and/or NATO would put a strain on the democratic, capitalistic economies of Western Europe. This would likely result in a decrease in defense spending, regardless of the continued threat of the still-extant USSR.

Combine NATO overconfidence in its conventional military forces vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the economic drain of trying to incorporate former WTO nations into the EU/NATO, and you have a recipe for a weaker NATO c.1995.

AFAIK, the following scenarios are not part of the v4 setting. In fact, very little mention is made of parts of the world outside of Europe in the current v4 materials.

North Korean Invasion of the ROK
If North Korea views rising tensions in Europe and the Middle East as an opportunity to make a play for forced reunification, it could take advantage by launching an attack on the South. This would undoubtedly draw away several US divisions that could otherwise be deployed to Europe. It is also likely that Asia-Pacific allies like Australia would also send forces to aid the ROK.

PRC Invasion of Taiwan
I see this as much less likely as a DPRK invasion of the ROK, given that the Chinese military was not nearly as strong c.1995 as it is today. However, if the US appears distracted by a major war in Europe and/or a war in Korea, the PRC regime may see an opportunity to regain its rebellious province by force. This too would likely draw US forces and perhaps those of its Asia-Pacific allies, to defend Taiwan.

-

[Ursus Maior]

Thank you for the input and for sharing your ideas with us. I was wondering the same, though I have not, for now, come up with ideas that satisfy my understanding of the 1990s. My main critique with your points 1) and 2) is that the lack of a collapsing USSR and the (historically) desolate state of it in 1991 under your assumptions would have led to less vigilance and strength than historically, but a stronger USSR. That seems at least counter-intuitive to me.

Historically the dissolution of the USSR was something no-one expected to happen. It lead to a collapse of the military forces of Russia and the other successor states, but also billions of financial aid by Western countries. The former Eastern Bloc states were not integrated into NATO until the late 90s and into the EU until 2004 (Finland joined in 1995, but was not an Eastern Bloc nation). While we do not know about EU enlargement in FL's timeline, former Warsaw Pact countries were not admitted to NATO in that timeline. Because of that, a larger financial drain than happened historically is not likely.

Germany is a special case of course. Though, given the historical financial drain and the massive demobilization process that came with the complete elimination of GDR forces and equipment and the down-scaling of the active army as well as large parts of the territorial army (the latter was hit war worse than the actual field army), I do not see a heavier drain on FL's version of the Bundeswehr. Actually, that is quite unlikely, given the clear and present danger the USSR would still have played in FL's 1990s.

Maybe we should look at what makes the USSR such a formidable foe, instead of specific, as of yet not hinted to, weaknesses on NATO's side. With the Gang of Eight taking control and Gennady Yanayev dying under mysterious circumstances, one might think of internal strife or even struggle's for power and "active methods of consolidation" by surviving members of the junta. This reeks of a, maybe short but pronounced, period of internal cleansing, state terrorism and a generally shorter leash. Keeping some forms of liberalization, like small private businesses, but tightening the grip on the big state industry.

The nascent oligarchs of 1990/1991 might have to make the choice of falling in line or mysteriously dying, too, much earlier than in our history. Propaganda trials against "counter-revolutionary capitalists" and "imperialist agents" (i. e. uncovered NATO spies or their goons) might have been the only signs to the West that the USSR was trying to stay alive and using old methods. Other than that, freedom of press would have been reduced to levels not seen since 1968 and the Iron Curtain would have been simply moved back a little.

With the oligarchs never coming into being properly, the large sell-out of the Soviet economy does not happen. Since no republics, except the Baltics, leave the USSR, its industry and economy does not get torn up. This softens the blow to living standards, health care and, foremost, tax revenue, allowing for comparatively huge investments into the armed forces when compared to known history. This is basically what happened from 2000 onward under President Putin, but it saves the population ten years of grief and the economy the same time of total collapse and brain-drain from bright minded individuals and large swathes of the labour force to emigrate, drink themselves to death or simply being unemployed.

Avoiding the historical collapse would be the single most important factor in the USSR remaining a credible opponent. It does not, however, let the USSR actively close the huge gap in military prowess that existed by 1990 already. It merely saves it from total, historical downfall. But while the West will still move forward, avoiding collapse might still mean stagnation and thus (effectively) falling behind even more. That fact will be hard to compensate or write away by any publisher.

However, a few years after Desert Storm, the oil prices spike in 1994 and the USSR gets a huge increase in revenue, basically for free. This money can be spent on internal security, military hardware and further reforms. This is the first actual leap forward the USSR might be able to enjoy and since it comes right at the point when historical down-scaling in the West comes into full effect: Clinton is president for one year, all East German forces have been dissolved, the personnel of the Bundeswehr is reduced to ca. 360,000 soldiers (130,000 less than 1989), NATO forces have begun moving out of Central Europe for good.

Now, as mentioned, it's questionable all this will happen exactly the way it used to happen, especially, if NATO sniffs any huge sums of money being invested into the armed forces of the USSR. But if the Soviets play their hand well, they might look pretty weak and of course T2K NATO cannot know what "alternate history" it missed, when the August Coup succeeded. So scaling down will be the law of the land.

The USSR, of course, will have to deal with Chechnya, Nagorny-Karabakh and Transnistria (even, if Moldavia did non secede, though: did it?). However, these brush wars will give the armed forces a clear mission to safeguard the Union and it will give the KGB a chance to keep the army occupied. Also, new tactics and weapon systems can be tried out, the trauma of Afghanistan overcome and experience be won. This experience is something NATO will lack, at least as a cohesive structure, though parts of it will, of course, have participated in Desert Storm and peacekeeping the Balkans. That is not the same, though: The Gulf War might have led to overconfidence, I agree there, as we saw, when the USAF lost a F-117 Nighthawk over Serbia, because the F-117s used the same routes multiple times.

Do that against a near-peer enemy in the early days of "punitive air-strikes against an aggressor attacking a friendly, but neutral nation, and you might get eviscerated quickly. Though the obvious question would be, if NATO would treat the Soviet Army, that just surprise attacked Poland, treat like Serbia in 1999? I doubt this clear lack of military professionalism and I doubt even more it would happen more than once. Though one big screw-up might give the Soviets a sufficient edge for the initial clash.

My biggest problem here is that as per FL's timeline, the Soviet Union attacks Poland in a similar manner as it did attack the Ukraine in 2014 or Georgia in 2008: deception, propaganda warfare, instigation of riots and then an offensive thinly veiled as peacekeeping mission. The US answer that by conducting "a broad air bombing campaign against the advancing Soviet forces with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles". That's a unilateral approach by the USA which is stupid, but plays into the hands of the USSR: Poland is backed by a US air campaign, but there are no other belligerents. Now the USSR does the most idiotic thing it could do: It rips of it carefully donned mask of "coming in peace" and strikes against US installations in Germany, Turkey and the UK, triggering NATO Article 5; mutual defense. In order for that to make sense, there must have been a plan, even if it was dumb.

To put this into perspective, this is like Germany getting away with laying hands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 (equivalent to the USSR annexing the Baltic States), then attacking Poland and when France and the UK declare war, going on a killing spree against every other nation in Europe and America, drawing everybody into a war already in 1939. Why would the USSR do that? What's the plan here? By comparison, in Red Storm Rising the USSR starts a conventional war against NATO as a feint attack to have free hands in seizing Middle-Eastern oilfields. It's not a great plan and it fails, but it's a plan.

So, why would the USSR draw NATO into a war that until then had "only" been a punitive air-campaign by the USA and a ground-warfare campaign the Soviets certainly were winning. If the USSR had wanted a surprise attack against its former Bloc allies, strategic surprise could have been achieved better before NATO got involved than afterwards. But if it was not about Central or Eastern Europe, what is the goal of this war? A Clancyesque war for oil? Plundering Europe for revenue? Defense under the impression of an imminent attack?

I think that question needs an answer, before we can ask what went wrong on both sides. The question of the weakness of NATO is important, but it is likely connected to the reason of the war.

[Raellus]

All fair points, UM. I don't disagree with your assessment. I still think NATO weakness has to be a major factor in both the Soviet's calculations vis-a-vis launching a war and in explaining their early success when it got underway.

I didn't mention this earlier but I think another contributing factor to NATO weakness in the run-up to WWIII would be internal divisions in the former East Bloc countries (and, in particular, within reunified Germany). I think that communist fifth columns in Eastern Europe would be more troublesome in v4 timeline than they were IRL. Netflix did a doc on former DDR military and Stasi antigovernment activities in the days after reunification. There's a thread on that here:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....=perfect+crime

To sum it up, I can see these efforts being much more sustained and disruptive with an extant Soviet Union (providing moral and perhaps covert material support). I can also see similar operations taking place in the other former-WTO countries.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

My biggest problem here is that as per FL's timeline, the Soviet Union attacks Poland in a similar manner as it did attack the Ukraine in 2014 or Georgia in 2008: deception, propaganda warfare, instigation of riots and then an offensive thinly veiled as peacekeeping mission. The US answer that by conducting "a broad air bombing campaign against the advancing Soviet forces with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles". That's a unilateral approach by the USA which is stupid, but plays into the hands of the USSR: Poland is backed by a US air campaign, but there are no other belligerents. Now the USSR does the most idiotic thing it could do: It rips of it carefully donned mask of "coming in peace" and strikes against US installations in Germany, Turkey and the UK, triggering NATO Article 5; mutual defense. In order for that to make sense, there must have been a plan, even if it was dumb.

To put this into perspective, this is like Germany getting away with laying hands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 (equivalent to the USSR annexing the Baltic States), then attacking Poland and when France and the UK declare war, going on a killing spree against every other nation in Europe and America, drawing everybody into a war already in 1939. Why would the USSR do that? What's the plan here? By comparison, in Red Storm Rising the USSR starts a conventional war against NATO as a feint attack to have free hands in seizing Middle-Eastern oilfields. It's not a great plan and it fails, but it's a plan.

So, why would the USSR draw NATO into a war that until then had "only" been a punitive air-campaign by the USA and a ground-warfare campaign the Soviets certainly were winning. If the USSR had wanted a surprise attack against its former Bloc allies, strategic surprise could have been achieved better before NATO got involved than afterwards. But if it was not about Central or Eastern Europe, what is the goal of this war? A Clancyesque war for oil? Plundering Europe for revenue? Defense under the impression of an imminent attack?

I think that question needs an answer, before we can ask what went wrong on both sides. The question of the weakness of NATO is important, but it is likely connected to the reason of the war.

I agree with you that there's definitely something missing, as far as explanation goes. I have a hard time reconciling what v4 presents with real-world geo-political and military strategic considerations. I can't really explain it, but I'll try.

I did read the Soviet invasion of Poland as a fait accompli for a general offensive aimed at reconquering most, if not all, of the former WTO nations. In other words, the Soviets were planning on restoring a buffer between itself and the pre-'91 NATO nations by regaining control of the former WTO countries. The offensive's strategic objective was to do so, although its publicly stated objective was to save the Polish people from an oppressive military regime.

Maybe the Soviets didn't expect much resistance, given what happened in the Baltics (I have a hard time buying the tiny, poorly armed Baltics being allowed to break away in the first place). Maybe they figured that NATO wouldn't go to war to protect Poland, much like Britain and France didn't really go to war with Nazi Germany in 1939 (i.e. the Phony War/"Sitzkrieg").

Maybe the US airstrikes were too effective to be ignored and the Soviets were faced with the decision of calling off the offensive or starting the next, general offensive vs. NATO phase early?

I still very much prefer the v1 timeline, but I like trying to make things work, so this a fun thought exercise for me.

-

[Ursus Maior]

I read your contribution on A Perfect Crime (which I did not know before, so thanks for that hint) and I could imagine a USSR-backed or at least USSR-tolerated anti-reunification campaign by former members of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS, Ministry for State security, i. e. "Stasi"). However, I have three remarks, bear in mind that I have not watched the documentary yet.

1) I get the impression that the documentary proliferated a hyperbolic story of the amount of discontent in the early years of a reunified Germany. There were demonstrations against the Treuhand, the government agency that mostly ran the economic transformation of the former GDR, certainly. However, riots were - as far as I know - not happening. Strikes did happen numerous times, though.

2) The Stasi was dissolved in 1990, a couple of months before reunification. While an underground network certainly was a possibility and mostly likely a fact, including agents starting to work for Soviet and later Russian secret agencies, the main operational body of Stasi was so utterly wiped out in the last months of the GDR that any major operations would have been unthinkable. It is important to understand that, even before reunification, the Stasi lost its central headquarters, when it was stormed by anti-government protesters and the main archives were looted, as others had been (these incidents happened between December 1989 and January 1990). All members of Stasi were dismissed on March 31st 1990. A few hundred were hired on temporary contracts in order to dissolve the agency proper. A full set of files on Stasi employees even made it into the hands of the CIA (i. e. "Rosenholz files"), most likely being bought from KGB operatives, who were entrusted with these files by Stasi in order to safekeep Stasi secrets in Moscow, as collapse was evidently imminent. The two KGB agents in questions were soon found dead "under mysterious circumstances", which - as we learned in the past decades - seems to hint at KGB revenge killings. This shows however, in what a desolate state of affairs even KGB and Soviet secret agencies weree by early 1990. The USSR really is in a catastrophic mess by that date.

3) My main point here would be that any major spiel by late Cold War intelligence agencies would need to be a major theme for FL's 4th edition of T2K, were it to be easily accessible and credible for players. The historical USSR was weak, derelict and so immensely corrupt, that corruption - i. e. personal relations of individuals for the means of personal gains - were probably the only thing that kept the political system somewhat going. Whereas the hoipolloi were heading towards serious lacks of everything (in 1992 there was a notable decline in calorie intake within the Russian Federation), future oligarchs and the political elite were filling their pockets. Neither this nor the collapsing state of the USSR is a theme in FL's edition; nor is any large scale intelligence coup or counter-revolution.

To sum this up, what I find most baffling with this new edition is its lack of a concise theme for the well known setting of T2K. This leaves many questions open for players that would be highly relevant for many groups, some of which I was already asked, when giving a short introduction to one of my players, e. g.: Who started the war and why? How do Polish people feel about the war, i. e. what do they think of NATO, Americans, Germans, Soviets etc.? How do Swedish people feel? Is their a strong anti-American stance? [After all, Sweden was attacked by the US and then beaten into an alliance; which alone is dumb and contradicts pre-war arrangements, since Sweden was clearly to side with NATO in the event of a war.] And how do other NATO countries feel about the war, e. g. Germany had a strong anti-war stance both in politics and the masses, how does this interact with the US attacking the USSR first (yes, over the USSR attacking Poland)? Would Germans really support triggering Article 5 after US installations were hit in Germany? I could see this go both ways in the 1990s actually.

That none of this can be answered from the core rulebooks is a major drawback for this product. Especially since it's already "niche". I don't know about FL's other products, but they seem to be thematically strong (Coriolis and Alien come to mind), but from riffling through their books, deeper narratives do not seem to be part of their publication strategy. I might be wrong here, though, as I did not read to deep in any of their games.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I didn't mention this earlier but I think another contributing factor to NATO weakness in the run-up to WWIII would be internal divisions in the former East Bloc countries (and, in particular, within reunified Germany). I think that communist fifth columns in Eastern Europe would be more troublesome in v4 timeline than they were IRL.

As I mentioned before, none of the former Warsaw Pact nations was a NATO state historically by 1997 and FL agrees here. Keeping these states out of NATO might have been a major contributing factor for the USSR to attack, and they might have had help from within these states. But that is neither a theme or even mentioned, nor very likely: Poland was in open insurrection against communism before 1990, the CSFR had dissolved by the mid-nineties, but anti-communism was strong before and Romania had just shot its communist leader. The Czech Republic and Slovakia might have been easy targets, maybe Hungary and Bulgaria, too, and Romania would have been easy to beat militarily, but Poland had the the strongest and toughest army of all former Pact nations. In fact, during the August Coup of 1991 that army was mobilized against the Eastern Front, should the victors of that coup attempt an invasion. The Polish security apparatus actually expected exactly that, which FL describes.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I did read the Soviet invasion of Poland as a fait accompli for a general offensive aimed at reconquering most, if not all, of the former WTO nations. In other words, the Soviets were planning on restoring a buffer between itself and the pre-'91 NATO nations by regaining control of the former WTO countries. The offensive's strategic objective was to do so, although its publicly stated objective was to save the Polish people from an oppressive military regime.

Maybe the Soviets didn't expect much resistance, given what happened in the Baltics (I have a hard time buying the tiny, poorly armed Baltics being allowed to break away in the first place). Maybe they figured that NATO wouldn't go to war to protect Poland, much like Britain and France didn't really go to war with Nazi Germany in 1939 (i.e. the Phony War/"Sitzkrieg").

Maybe the US airstrikes were too effective to be ignored and the Soviets were faced with the decision of calling off the offensive or starting the next, general offensive vs. NATO phase early?

I could go with the USSR re-annexing the Baltics. It's not off the table today and certainly they would have been the first to suffer from a resurgent USSR in 1991. But an invasion by the USSR of its former allies, no matter how involuntary allies they were at times (e. g. Romania had basically stopped cooperating with Pact structures during the 1980s), would have been a stupid move. In 1945 these nations were not invaded, but liberated from German occupation and annexation. True, that difference was sometimes hard to notice, but it had credibility in the citizens of Poland and the other countries no being mass-murdered or declared sub-humans in the style Nazi Germany had done it. Certainly, there were atrocities committed by Soviets or local regimes, but in general life as better in several magnitudes after 1945 than between 1939 and 1945.

A military invasion and occupation would nullify that narrative and cost the USSR hundreds of thousands of troops to maintain occupation, cash to rebuilt and political goodwill; all of which would be lacking at home. That would doom all forms of gap-closing with the West or improving the economy. It would even make the situation of the USSR worse than before 1989. There's a reason after all, Russia never tried this, not even with former Soviet republics. As of now, Russia is only nibbling away from its neighbors what it can swallow. Or, almost.

The problem with such an alternate history clearly is that we know too much about that part of history for our imagination to trigger disbelieve. Certainly, no-one would have poked the Soviet Bear in the Nineties on purpose to cause a war. The USSR itself shouldn't be in a position to invade, so leaders wouldn't come up with a plan to do so. And the trope of the insane dictator and/or the hardline US president/general is feels stale at least.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I still very much prefer the v1 timeline, but I like trying to make things work, so this a fun thought exercise for me.

Yeah, v1 made the Germans the bad guys by having them attack the Soviet forces in Germany. That was one huge plot device that was totally out of the question and frankly got post-war Germany totally wrong. It's quite hard to write believable contra-factual history, as it turns out. In the 1980s this might have turned away a couple of German players, but coming up with a similar reason for war today, let's say a Polish
cabal of officers and their non-communist Ukrainian and Lithuanian co-conspirators who want to revive the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, would probably sound completely absurd or turn away a sizeable customer base.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

To sum this up, what I find most baffling with this new edition is its lack of a concise theme for the well known setting of T2K. This leaves many questions open for players that would be highly relevant for many groups...

That none of this can be answered from the core rulebooks is a major drawback for this product, especially since its already were "niche". I don't know about FL's other products, but they seem to be thematically strong (Coriolis and Alien come to mind), but from riffling through their books, deeper narratives do not seem to be part of their publication strategy. I might be wrong here, though, as I did not read to deep in any of their games.

[Emphasis added]

I agree with this 100%. FL erred on the side of under-explaining and what explanation they did offer only leaves the reader with more questions. As GM I like having freedom to customize the game world, but I think that FL kind of passed the buck to the GM as far as explaining a believable setting for his/her players. The GM has enough work to do without having to rationalize why the game world is the way that it is for his/her players.

-

[Cdnwolf]

I just want to say thank for everyone's input on this subject. I seem to have been away too long (my wife got sick and died a year ago) but I was one of the first to back this new kickstarter. It will now mean I have a hard copy of every version of the game including the rare TWL2013. And remember the messy discussions that one brought out.

All I say is remember it is just a game and it is up to the person running the session what he wants to do. Just have fun.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

All I say is remember it is just a game and it is up to the person running the session what he wants to do. Just have fun.

This is a vital perspective, and an important reminder. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

I seem to have been away too long (my wife got sick and died a year ago).

I'm sorry for your loss, Cdnwolf. I don't even want to imagine. We're glad to see you again.

-

[kato13]

My condolences to you on your loss Cdnwolf.

If this place can give you any comfort, distraction, or joy, I am glad we are here for you.

[Silent Hunter UK]

My condolences on your loss, Cdnwolf.

[Ursus Maior]

I'm sorry for your loss, Cdnwolf, my heartfelt condolences.

[Cdnwolf]

Thank you all for condolences. Life goes on and now I have the time to get back to all my old hobbies.

[swaghauler]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I feel your pain, sir. Mom died last year. Dad died this January. It just leaves you feeling drained and lost. I hope you enjoy your kickstarter merch.

I have the MUTANT:YEAR ZERO game and for a Twilight2000 style adventure I'd probably do the following...

Set the Hex size for scrounging/foraging to 1Km (down from ten).

Set the ranges in meters. The FL standard of a base 10-meter square is too coarse in my opinion. A person can COMFORTABLY occupy a single meter (or yard), so there is no reason to have such a large base range. I'm not really a fan of range bands anyway.

Set all encumbrances up in kilograms and do away with FL's encumbrance units. Twilight2000 is all about resource management to begin with. So just give me a common weight standard!

I would do away with the "ammo dice" system for rounds expended and use a system my group (and many others) pioneered in SHADOWRUN. Just give each weapon a rate of fire (like my dividing cyclic rate by 100) and allow the shooter to SELECT any number of dice based on that rate of fire. IF an AKM has a ROF of 6, then the shooter could take UP TO 6 additional dice for the success test. EACH ADDITIONAL DIE costs one round of ammo in addition to the initial round for single fire. ANY ROLL OF "1" on an Ammo Die will cost you one additional round of ammo (meaning THAT die costs 2 rounds of ammo).

There are other things I would change, but, in my opinion, these are the most GLARING issues that need fixed.

[Raellus]

So, a few folks, myself included, think that the POTUS ordering a USN aircraft carrier into the Baltic, in a show of force, is not very realistic or plausible (I supposed he might want it done, but any competent JCS Chief of Naval Operations would be able to talk him out of it).

Would it be slightly more plausible that instead of a CVN, the USN might send a task group based around one of the Iowa-class battleships* into the Baltic instead? It stands to reason that at least a couple of said behemoths would still be in service if the Soviet Union never dissolved. A modern battleship might not be considered as vulnerable/valuable as a supercarrier, so the risk wouldn't be quite as great, but the potential reward of sending a strong message to the Soviets would still be there. It probably wouldn't be seen as much of a threat as a CVN by the Soviets. Land based aircraft could provide air-cover for the task group.

*The battleship battle group typically consisted of one modernized battleship, one Ticonderoga-class cruiser, one Kidd-class destroyer or Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, one Spruance-class destroyer, three Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and one auxiliary ship such as a replenishment oiler. (from Wikipedia)

-

[Olefin]

The battleship would be a better choice for sure - for one its built to go in there and mix it up whereas a carrier isnt made for direct combat. The Iowa class was made to go head to head with Yamato or Bismark - thus it would make the perfect ship for a gun battle - and with the missiles it carried it had a credible long range punch as well.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The battleship would be a better choice for sure - for one its built to go in there and mix it up whereas a carrier isn[']t made for direct combat. The Iowa class was made to go head to head with Yamato or Bismark - thus it would make the perfect ship for a gun battle - and with the missiles it carried it had a credible long range punch as well.

While all of this is true, it would still be like shooting fish in a barrel. A BBBG was also not necessarily meant to go somewhere and complete a mission all on its own. The Balitc Sea is a tiny pond with its 377,000 km², bordering NATO countries Germany and Denmark (plus almost Norway), neutral countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland as well as the Baltic States plus the USSR in this timeline. It's a crowded place with nowhere to hide, absolutely no depth (the average is 55 m, but it actually only gets reliably below 50 m, once you approach the Polish coast. Once you get there, you're in Soviet hunting grounds, Warsaw Pact or not: that's well within Soviet missiles strike distances plus optimal territory for SSKs like the (improved) Kilo and not to speak of mines.

If you go in there, you do it full force, together with your allies Germany and Denmark, who specializes in mine-warfare, small submarines, ASW and AAW. Also, attacking Sweden is dumb, because that's not only a natural ally, but also the only way to go to maneuver. Essentially, attacking Sweden allows the USSR to close its pincers on any NATO force.

If the US wants to respond by sending a sizeable naval force within striking distance of Soviet territory, it should send a Carrier Strike Group and a Expeditionary strike group into Norwegian waters and work together with Denmark and Germany to "secure sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea" by sending a Ticonderoga class CG plus an Arleigh Burke-class DDG and 3-4 frigates under constant air-cover and supported by allied SSKs. A Tico is a juicy target, but far from the same as a CVN or BB.

My question is again: What's the strategic goal here? Apparently the carrier strike group is only sent into the Baltic Sea to duke it out with the Soviet fleet at Kaliningrad. That's not a strategy, it's a death sentence. In 1996 (actual history) the Russian Baltic Fleet numbered nine submarines, three cruisers, two destroyers, 18 frigates and 56 small vessels. But the defensive power of the fleet lay in the coast and its hinterland with its airfields, missile bases and of course long-range bombers available.

Assaulting Kaliningrad with a single CSG would amount to assaulting a cannon-spiked fortress with a host of light cavalry and a single catapult. The CSG has no amphibious element to deploy, cannot mount enough strikes to destroy all relevant targets and cannot endure the swarms of missiles it would have to face. Even if the CSG manages to level said fortress with a nuclear struke, what good does that do? It escalates the war immediately to its final phase, since the USN would just have attacked Soviet (even: Russian) soil with nukes.

If the ultimate goal is supporting the air strikes in Poland by attacking Soviet forces in or around Kaliningrad, that's a job for stealth bombers, which could be based in Norway or even Denmark. The B-2 went operational on January 1st 1997, the historical combat debut was 1999 during the Kosovo War. For T2K, June 1997 would be an ideal date, the USSR wouldn't know what hit it, especially if you mask the attack with a second deep-strike by B-52 launching cruise missiles and the better known stealth attack craft F-117. The latter were likely already known to Soviet SIGINT since 1991, so "seeing" their signatures pop up in a diversionary raid on targets in central Poland at the same time as B-52 launch AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles from afar, would draw all the attention away from B-2s. Tip off the Swedish that the B-52s would fly close to their airspace and you could even get away with B-2s overflying their mainland, while all radars are trimmed to watch the main show to the South.

Once that triple-strike is over, you assess the situation in order to figure out, if the Soviet threat has diminished enough for a CSG to enter the bathtub. But again, that needs a plan to follow. The Baltic Sea is not only carrier-unfriendly, it also has no need for a carrier, since every target is so close by anybody's airfields, you can just get up in the morning, drive to work, board your bomber and be home by noon. That's far better than sleeping in rancid cots and having to jump from a burning wreck into the water before breakfast, because hundreds of dancing vampires proved to outmatch your defense.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

While all of this is true, it would still be like shooting fish in a barrel. A BBBG was also not necessarily meant to go somewhere and complete a mission all on its own. The Balitc Sea is a tiny pond with its 377,000 km², bordering NATO countries Germany and Denmark (plus almost Norway), neutral countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland as well as the Baltic States plus the USSR in this timeline. It's a crowded place with nowhere to hide, absolutely no depth (the average is 55 m, but it actually only gets reliably below 50 m, once you approach the Polish coast. Once you get there, you're in Soviet hunting grounds, Warsaw Pact or not: that's well within Soviet missiles strike distances plus optimal territory for SSKs like the (improved) Kilo and not to speak of mines.

If you go in there, you do it full force, together with your allies Germany and Denmark, who specializes in mine-warfare, small submarines, ASW and AAW. Also, attacking Sweden is dumb, because that's not only a natural ally, but also the only way to go to maneuver. Essentially, attacking Sweden allows the USSR to close its pincers on any NATO force.

If the US wants to respond by sending a sizeable naval force within striking distance of Soviet territory, it should send a Carrier Strike Group and a Expeditionary strike group into Norwegian waters and work together with Denmark and Germany to "secure sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea" by sending a Ticonderoga class CG plus an Arleigh Burke-class DDG and 3-4 frigates under constant air-cover and supported by allied SSKs. A Tico is a juicy target, but far from the same as a CVN or BB.

My question is again: What's the strategic goal here? Apparently the carrier strike group is only sent into the Baltic Sea to duke it out with the Soviet fleet at Kaliningrad. That's not a strategy, it's a death sentence. In 1996 (actual history) the Russian Baltic Fleet numbered nine submarines, three cruisers, two destroyers, 18 frigates and 56 small vessels. But the defensive power of the fleet lay in the coast and its hinterland with its airfields, missile bases and of course long-range bombers available.

Assaulting Kaliningrad with a single CSG would amount to assaulting a cannon-spiked fortress with a host of light cavalry and a single catapult. The CSG has no amphibious element to deploy, cannot mount enough strikes to destroy all relevant targets and cannot endure the swarms of missiles it would have to face. Even if the CSG manages to level said fortress with a nuclear struke, what good does that do? It escalates the war immediately to its final phase, since the USN would just have attacked Soviet (even: Russian) soil with nukes.

If the ultimate goal is supporting the air strikes in Poland by attacking Soviet forces in or around Kaliningrad, that's a job for stealth bombers, which could be based in Norway or even Denmark. The B-2 went operational on January 1st 1997, the historical combat debut was 1999 during the Kosovo War. For T2K, June 1997 would be an ideal date, the USSR wouldn't know what hit it, especially if you mask the attack with a second deep-strike by B-52 launching cruise missiles and the better known stealth attack craft F-117. The latter were likely already known to Soviet SIGINT since 1991, so "seeing" their signatures pop up in a diversionary raid on targets in central Poland at the same time as B-52 launch AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles from afar, would draw all the attention away from B-2s. Tip off the Swedish that the B-52s would fly close to their airspace and you could even get away with B-2s overflying their mainland, while all radars are trimmed to watch the main show to the South.

Once that triple-strike is over, you assess the situation in order to figure out, if the Soviet threat has diminished enough for a CSG to enter the bathtub. But again, that needs a plan to follow. The Baltic Sea is not only carrier-unfriendly, it also has no need for a carrier, since every target is so close by anybody's airfields, you can just get up in the morning, drive to work, board your bomber and be home by noon. That's far better than sleeping in rancid cots and having to jump from a burning wreck into the water before breakfast, because hundreds of dancing vampires proved to outmatch your defense.

If your plan is to fight it out in the Baltic with the Soviets, there is no need to send a CVBG into the Baltic. The area is small enough that you can sit out in the Atlantic or the North Sea and have strike aircraft get close enough to lob Harpoons before your Tico's hit Kaliningrad with TLAMs or a TLAM-N (or several). You can refuel over Norway or Germany while they provide CAP/BARCAP.

[Olefin]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

She could probably take hits that would put a CVN on the bottom or completely combat ineffective and still fight

And I agree - sending a CVN into the Baltic is flat out suicide - the only way that carrier would be in the Baltic is if every Soviet airfield, missile base and long range bomber group was already destroyed -heck where she the Soviets would basically be able to hit her with long range missiles from the airspace directly above their airfields

All reference to that nuclear carrier being in the Baltic needs to be removed - and T2K is about a possible believable WWIII where, at least at the beginning, militaries are making strategic and tactical decisions that arent the equivalent of the Japanese throwing away their carriers at Leyte as decoys

if you really have to have a USN nuclear carrier in a port with massive damage then make it in the UK or possibly Norway

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

She could probably take hits that would put a CVN on the bottom or completely combat ineffective and still fight

And I agree - sending a CVN into the Baltic is flat out suicide - the only way that carrier would be in the Baltic is if every Soviet airfield, missile base and long range bomber group was already destroyed -heck where she the Soviets would basically be able to hit her with long range missiles from the airspace directly above their airfields

All reference to that nuclear carrier being in the Baltic needs to be removed - and T2K is about a possible believable WWIII where, at least at the beginning, militaries are making strategic and tactical decisions that arent the equivalent of the Japanese throwing away their carriers at Leyte as decoys

if you really have to have a USN nuclear carrier in a port with massive damage then make it in the UK or possibly Norway

Normally, the US would stick to blue water ops for a CVBG add let NATO allies deal with green/brown-water ops. I could see Germany, Denmark, and Norway operating in the Baltic while a US CVBG provides A-6/A-7/F-18 strike aircraft.

You really shouldn't be running a SAG in the Baltic as a USN operation. Especially concerning would be Soviet SS or SSKs and the Norwegians are going to be much better at ASW in the littorals, supported by P-3s out of Italy or the UK.

[Olefin]

Really the SAG wouldnt go into the Baltic until the Soviets had been pounded and their bases either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective - at that point you would see them there most likely escorting and providing fire power for a Marine unit to make a landing in Poland or Kaliningrad or the Baltics

Especially since if all you are using the SAG for is as a Tomahawk platform then you dont need to bring it into a slaughterhouse like the Baltic to do that

If you want a great book describing why going into the Baltic before the enemy air and navy is totally suppressed read Cauldron by Larry Bond where you see what happens to USN ships trying to convoy supplies to Poland and getting ambushed by the French and Germans

and that antiship weapons they faced were nothing like what the Soviets would have brought to the table

[Raellus]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that aggression vs. NATO will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

they are using the wrong ship and sending her in harms way where she doesnt need to be - deploying her to the Norwegian Sea sends the exact same message - her planes have more than enough range to hit any target from there - and if you want to saber rattle that is what battleships are for - i.e. dont mess with us - and 32 Tomahawks and Harpoons and 16 inch shells send a pretty potent message

Or look at it this way - sending in an asset to where she literally doesnt have enough time to turn around planes if she needs to use them before the enemy is all over her like white on rice - its like sending in one cop to take down a gang of 20 armed guys and have him face them down basically at point blank range

If he gets his gun out in time he might take a bunch down - but there is no way he gets to reload and that bullet proof vest can only take so many hits

[Raellus]

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

and a beached battleship using her guns can take a lot of pounding before she is totally knocked out - FYI that is exactly what the Japanese had planned for Yamato

and carriers make for crappy "beach her and use the crew for infantry" ideas - besides a small USMC contingent (in the 90's) about the only other armed crew are the pilots who have sidearms

the battleship crew doesnt have a lot of small arms either but they are a self contained artillery battalion until all the guns get knocked out

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

If your plan is to fight it out in the Baltic with the Soviets, there is no need to send a CVBG into the Baltic.

My point exactly.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

The problem is: All of the resilience of an Iowa is doing the mission no good, once the vampires from Kaliningrad have sent the Tico and all other ships in the task force to the - admittedly shallow - bottom of the Baltic Sea. Whatever the USN feared the Soviets could muster against it in a battle for the Atlantic would have been available to the Baltic Fleet as well; just more of it and in fewer time. There is no hiding and no evading radars in the Baltic, so a Soviet commander just needs to spam the task force and overwhelm the AA defense. None of the ships, except the BB, can take more than two hits to sink. Most will only take one hit and be a mission kill at least.

The Iowa then is completely unprotected against all threats an has nothing except it's armor to survive. It won't even see the torpedoes coming.

And as was pointed out: For its TLAMs to attack, an Iowa would not need to get into the Baltic Sea. You can do that from Norway and that's only because INF took out the BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile that previously sat in Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Belgium.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Really the SAG wouldnt go into the Baltic until the Soviets had been pounded and their bases either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective - at that point you would see them there most likely escorting and providing fire power for a Marine unit to make a landing in Poland or Kaliningrad or the Baltics

We're talking the neutralization of mainland Soviet combat effectiveness. What ever would have happened at that point is complete speculation. My bet: Either the Soviets would have asked for peace or hit the big red button, since at that point a NATO main offensive would come rolling across land towards them.

Either way, USN was planning to dominate the Barents Sea at that point, since it resembled a deepwater approach against the Soviet heartland, allowed to take out their boomer bastion(s) and would have opened up a third front to the North against Moscow.

Let the German, Danish, Dutch etc. navies handle the Baltics.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

That sounds like Alpha edition. The paragraph in the actual published edition goes like this:

"On June 6, US and Soviet ground forces engage in combat for the first time, west of Poznań in western Poland. Shortly after this clash, Soviet forces cross the borders of Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, and fighting erupts all along the new frontline through Eastern Europe.

The USS Harry S. Truman and its supporting squadrons spar with the Soviet Baltic Fleet out of Kaliningrad. The US asks Sweden to allow US troops and air defenses on the strategically located island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic."

So it's 1) full invasion and land-warfare along borders of the USSR with its former Warsaw Pact allies with US forces already in place to defend these nations (paragraph immediately prior to the first quoted here), then 2) CSG sails into the Baltic Sea and dukes it out with the Baltic Fleet, then 3) the US ask Sweden to join their war against the USSR.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

That sounds like Alpha edition.

Nope. I pulled it from the T2K4_Referees_Manual PDF released/downloaded just the other day. It's the watermarked version with my name and order number imprinted on it. Look at the top of p. 7.

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a strong statement to the Kremlin."

The quote you posted is 4-5 paragraphs down the page. The USS Truman is sent before the Soviets invade Poland, but it's still there when the shooting war with the US starts not long after.

-

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

This is an important point. Google 'tons of diplomacy' and what you get are lots of pictures of U.S. Aircraft Carriers (and the occasional Imperial Star Destroyer ).

We benefit from knowing that the timeline will result in a shooting war. So obviously we can look back and can easily criticize every non-optimal choice. But... in the real world, the calculations are not so easy.

Had the Soviets backed down after a carrier strike group entered the Baltic, it would be hailed as a brilliant diplomatic move. Of course we'd probably be playing a very different RPG from such a timeline... Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past age 2000.