Recommissioned US Navy ships

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If the Soviet Navy didn't have any significant battle groups left against which to retaliate, they might have resorted to taking out USN carrier task forces with tac-nukes. That would even things up pretty fast...

I prefer to think that the Soviets had a couple of genius admirals who were able to come up with some tricks that helped the Soviet navy come up with the above result using more conventional means. I like the scenarios Larry Bond and Tom Clancy dreamt up for Red Storm Rising.

I always felt that the Soviet Navel Leadership was more than able to come up with such plans.

But then, from what I have read (A great deal, but I am by no means a subject matter expert) the Soviet Navy an attritional force: it can be best summed up (In a overly simplistic fashion) of using a fire hose to stop an avalanche. Its possible: Use a big enough hose (Quality of Ships) with enough water (Quantity of Ships) handled by someone that has some talent (Quality of Leadership) you can actually do so. The question is: Did they meet the three challenges?

[Legbreaker]

Well, if we use canon, they apparently did. How else can it be explained that the total assembled navies of Nato were destroyed without them resorting to nukes? It obviously cost them everything to do it, but once the last effective naval force was on the bottom, what real use would they have for a navy besides the usual coastal patrols, etc?
Sure it would be nice to have warships and landing craft, but it's not absolutely VITAL if there's no effective opposing force.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Well, if we use canon, they apparently did. How else can it be explained that the total assembled navies of Nato were destroyed without them resorting to nukes? It obviously cost them everything to do it, but once the last effective naval force was on the bottom, what real use would they have for a navy besides the usual coastal patrols, etc?
Sure it would be nice to have warships and landing craft, but it's not absolutely VITAL if there's no effective opposing force.

Does canon specifically state that no naval nukes are used against NATO sea forces? I don't recall that it does. That said, I don't think it's necessary as far as explaining NATO's naval losses.

If the Soviets could sucker major NATO naval forces closer to land- especially land controlled by the USSR (like NW Norway and/or the Kola Penninsula) they could reduce the NATO navies' sensor advantage and overwhelm them with firepower.

According to canon, there's a major battle in the Norwegian Sea, is there not? A major Soviet naval sortie (two or three battle groups along with fast attack missile boats) and Naval air forces launching from land bases could do a lot of damage before hitting the bottom themselves.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Does canon specifically state that no naval nukes are used against NATO sea forces?

Not exactly, but close enough:

On July 9th, with advanced elements of the 1st German Army on Soviet soil, the Soviets begin using tactical nuclear weapons.

It's a very specific date for a VERY important event in history.
The 9th of July, 1997 is the day the war turned nuclear and hell flung open it's doors.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not exactly, but close enough:

It's a very specific date for a VERY important event in history.
The 9th of July, 1997 is the day the war turned nuclear and hell flung open it's doors.

OK, but couldn't naval nukes have been used after this date? Does canon state that the Soviet and NATO navies were pretty much sunk (pardon the bad pun) before July 9th, 1997?

[Matt Wiser]

Canon only deals with the Naval War in the North Atlantic/Norweigan Sea/Kola areas, except for TF 76 in the PG. No info at all about the Pacific, Med, etc. On the old board, I had quite a lot on the naval war, and Antenna should still have some of that on his board. Having three or four surviving carriers and amphibious assault ships, some cruisers and destroyers, etc. is a lot more realistic, IMHO. There's no way that the entire fleets of both the USN and the Soviet Navy would be sunk prior to TDM. And that's surface forces. There'd be more subs surviving than surface ships, including boomers, IMHO.

[Mohoender]

The first problem might simply come from general confusion in canon materials regarding that matter. Indeed, it states that by mid-June the last major fleet-in-being in the world has been shattered (meaning NATO) but that is far from answering everything (considering v1.0 and even less with v2.2).

1) Most of the Soviet Northern Fleet was destroyed by late 1996. At most by mid-June 1997, they had 1 aircraft carrier, 1 battlecruiser, 2 guigded missiles cruisers, 7 destroyers and 8 frigates left to their Northern Fleet but a large number of coastal ships and submarines.
2) NATO made an unforgiving mistake by moving most of its fleet North. Therefore, allowing the Soviets to use all that they have left to their best effects.
3) What of the submarines? At the time the Soviets had something between 300-400 (IRL) and as they had been at war for over a year, they had produce more.
4) On June 27th (1-2 weeks later), NATO provides a strong covering force to the Mediterranean convoys but these are defeated by light fleet elements of the Greek Navy.
5) What has happened to the Far East and Indian Ocean? Iran is on US side and US has no opposing fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Another problem simply comes from the fact that the game is land oriented and the authors have not done much work on naval aspects. However, it becomes important with game developments and further inconsistencies.

Satellite down: The Nuclear Cruiser Virginia leading TF115 (1 cruiser and 5 destroyers including at least 1 Forrest Sherman) is defeated by a force 6 soviet destroyers in 1999????? Ok the Soviet had a lucky strike on Virginia but TF115 not capable of holding its own??? As much as I don't underestimate Soviet capabilities, I don't understand how that can be possible. Even less with 80% of the Soviet Fleet at the bottom of the Sea by late 1996. Six soviet destroyers is all that should be left to USSR in 1997 and to do such major damages, the fleet should have been made almost entirely of Sovremenny-class destroyers.

Still, I remind you that in this book the game states that US had 32 nuclear guided-missile cruisers stationed around the world (WOW!!). IRL 9 had been commissioned. V1.0 assumes clearly that the world navies had been expended to a large extend before the Twilight War. Therefore, assuming RL figures to the game might not be entirely accurate.

RDF has quite a viable if small fleet being described and the Soviet Caspian Flotilla as given if not at full streength remains substantial but landlocked. Why does it remain in the Caspian Sea where it is of no use while it could have been tranfered to the Black Sea?

Going Home can't be possible with some remnant of the naval forces

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

4) On June 27th (1-2 weeks later), NATO provides a strong covering force to the Mediterranean convoys but these are defeated by light fleet elements of the Greek Navy.

Obviously can't have been all that strong then, or perhaps they were caught without room to manoeuvre?

Originally Posted by Mohoender

5) What has happened to the Far East and Indian Ocean? Iran is on US side and US has no opposing fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Exactly. Why would the US need a fleet of any real power in the area? What we see in RDF Sourcebook has to be almost the entirety of that fleet.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Satellite down: The Nuclear Cruiser Virginia leading TF115 (1 cruiser and 5 destroyers including at least 1 Forrest Sherman) is defeated by a force 6 soviet destroyers in 1999????? Ok the Soviet had a lucky strike on Virginia but TF115 not capable of holding its own??? As much as I don't underestimate Soviet capabilities, I don't understand how that can be possible. Even less with 80% of the Soviet Fleet at the bottom of the Sea by late 1996. Six soviet destroyers is all that should be left to USSR in 1997 and to do such major damages, the fleet should have been made almost entirely of Sovremenny-class destroyers.

My reading is the six soviet ships were all that were available at the time in the Pacific. It's possible other ships exist around the globe in varying states of readiness either short on fuel, ammunition, crew or stuck in port with damage they can't get repaired.
It's also very likely TF115 was also damaged/short on ammo/lacking crew/etc

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Going Home can't be possible with some remnant of the naval forces

Which is shown by the USS John Hancock being the flagship. We also know the Tarawa was in the Baltic in Spring 2000 (from the aviation book - Osprey colour plate), but logic has it out of action in some way by October/November. If it wasn't, there's no logical reason it wouldn't have been the flagship.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK, but couldn't naval nukes have been used after this date? Does canon state that the Soviet and NATO navies were pretty much sunk (pardon the bad pun) before July 9th, 1997?

Absolutely! But there doesn't appear to be the need for naval nukes after June 97. There's just not a lot of decent targets left.
As for carriers left in other theatres, I don't buy it. Europe is the main stage, Europe is where the "big push" is taking place with Korea and the middle east as sideshows. There's almost no reason why the various carriers and their supporting fleets would stay away from the "Norwegian adventure" if the Soviet fleets elsewhere were believed to be neutralised (as seems to be indicated in canon).

The Nato fleet in my understanding was sunk by "superior/sneaky" Soviet tactics in the tight confines of the area. The remnants of Naval aviation, shore batteries, fast torpedo boats, missiles and even a few old subs, used well would be more than enough to massacre the Nato ships if they were asleep at the wheel thinking all they needed to do was provided shore bombardment for the landing forces they were escorting at the time. This is especially likely if in the previous six months of the war, the Soviet subs had been efficiently sinking western vessels and whittled the remaining fleet down. Given that earlier actions may have eliminated, or at least reduced the anti-air capabilities of the ships involved through sinking's, damage, or simply lack of ammo for the CIWS, it's conceivable the Soviet air assets would have a very large impact (as per canon).

It also appears the last engagement against Soviet naval forces was about two months earlier (late spring) after what can only be described as a furious running series of battles, it's understandable that Nato crews may have relaxed their guard. This makes even more sense given the overwhelming success the land forces were having on almost all fronts - it's quite believable everyone thought the end of the war was in sight, which can only be called a fatal mistake.

What is a "major fleet" anyway. Does it have to have a carrier at it's heart and consist of 20 or more other ships? Or could it be little more than a cruiser and 3-4 destroyers? Canon states the "last major fleet in being" was "shattered". This doesn't necessarily mean sunk either, but potentially could mean damaged to the point of scuttling or those ships still afloat could need 12 months in dry dock - something that doesn't happen with the nukes starting shortly after.