Recommissioned US Navy ships

[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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

perhaps they were caught without room to manoeuvre?

About sure, the sea there is narrow with drifting ice at some points and batteries of coastal defense missiles firing in hanger. Sending carriers there is stupid at best. I hoped the admirals in charge were killed and if not, they should have been court marshalled. That move matches some of the most stupid ones in naval history: Trafalgar (french side) or the Spanish grand armada to England.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

Atlantic, they were in the Atlantic. Then, you're right, the TF had been reduced to Virginia and 2 ships.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Good point

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Atlantic, they were in the Atlantic. Then, you're right, the TF had been reduced to Virginia and 2 ships.

If we're talking about the engagement that resulted in USS Virginia's grounding prior to Satellite Down then it was the Pacific.

The direction this thread has taken is giving me wracking spasms of deja vu. The last time we got into a throw down, stand up fight about this topic a whole lot of valued forum members threw up their hands and walked away. Some are yet to return. Do we really need to go through that again?

Those who participated in the original 'debates' are well aware of one anothers' positions. The new members can have a look at the thread map and the archives if they want to bring themselves up to speed.

I for one still have strong opinions on these matters but I don't have the heart to voice them again. I still hold some hope that Chico et al will return to these forums some day.

[kato13]

I still hold some hope that Chico et al will return to these forums some day.

This thread (solely due to one poster) has me literally counting the days until I never have to look at this forum again.

[Bluedwarf]

Speaking of reactivating old ships, I came across an gem that the HMS Victory, predating the United States, is still in commission! Given the technology left, it could well be one of the last full strength warships, and could certainly make a very interesting scenario, given that it would be one of the few vessels that would not be short of ammunition (creating gunpowder of the sort it could use is not exactly rocket science, given I know some high school kids who used to do it!)

The old wooden vessels would not be suseptible to rust, like the lighter GRP and Aluminium hulls of many smaller craft. But historically pressing civilian craft into service has always occurred in massive numbers whenever war broke out, and many of these vessels have been equally as effective as dilapdated warships, as the example above makes clear.

With regards to the Caspian fleet being stuck, that would only apply to the larger vessels, with the river system in spring and summer enabling many FACs and even some frigates access to the Baltics and the North Sea.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the Soviet Navy was primarily focused on defence, and so they never planned on major assaults far from home. Hence, the destruction of the Northern Nato fleet at a time when they had few major surface combatants is entirely in line with the way they would prepare for war. Ie mines, aircraft and shore batteries as previously mentioned could be expected to be devestating, because that is what they were built and trained for. They have been slow to develop the surface combatants because, in their philosophy, that is not the most significant part of their Naval Defence strategy, unlike the west. They had huge numbers of missile weilding vessels that were transportable over land that would be devestating against the older vessels, as the Israelis discovered when a now dated Osa class vessel (a 165t rail transportable vessel of which the Soviets built around 200 in the early 80's) sank an updated Israeli destroyer in the 6 day war. China had about 120 of these as well, btw. Their punch is only as dated as the missiles they launched.

Interestingly, in 1984, USSR had 80 Whiskey class subs in reserve, plus another 50 in service, having been replaced by Foxtrot class vessels. These vessels, launched in the 1950's, would certainly have been reactivated, though how many would have actually been useable may be another question. But given warning it is very conceiveable they could all be made operational, though unlikely they would have been grouped together with any fleet as such.

While many of their capital ships are dated, the 12 Sverdlov class gun cruisers vessels would likely be more serious threats due to the fact that they used boilers to drive steam turbines and guns instead of missiles. While they would have had a harder time surviving initially, those that did would serve better in a lower tech post-nuke world that the more deadly but more tech-dependant vessels. Similar to the Iowa, Brooklyn, Ceylon and De Ruyter classes of vessels (USA, USA, UK and Netherlands respectively). But it is surviving the initial years that would be the problem. Looking at the age of vessels in service on both sides, it is unlikely that any that were not in reserves would be better than civilian vessels, with the latter probably being preferable due to the better conditions.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Targan

Do we really need to go through that again?

I'm not seeing anything like that at all, just an honest, open and constructive discussion which is explaining a lot about what happened to the naval forces world wide. Sure there's the possibility of people getting upset, but that's possible about ANY topic.
Mind you, I can't understand why anyone would get upset about a game...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

If we're talking about the engagement that resulted in USS Virginia's grounding prior to Satellite Down then it was the Pacific.

My mistake, I have been tired lately and miss-read the stuff about ten times.

[Isochron]

With both sides having heavy losses in the number of ships, either side could have used nukes on ships (which I doubt due to strategic importance) or used aircraft launched Air to Ship missiles (much more likely). Both sides had very effective missiles.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Isochron

With both sides having heavy losses in the number of ships, either side could have used nukes on ships (which I doubt due to strategic importance) or used aircraft launched Air to Ship missiles (much more likely). Both sides had very effective missiles.

In 1995 the US still had more than 10000 nuclear warheads and the Soviets had a little under 35000. With Twilight they would more probably have maintained their pre-Berlin Wall level of 20000 (US) and 40000 (USSR) and you can expect both sides to built a few more before 1997. I'm not sure that strategic considerations come into the pictures with such numbers as two countries take nukes for candies.

Such considerations would only had been for UK, France and China.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Tangentially to this, I had always thought that post 2001 (like around 2003, perhaps) the US Military would start giving thought to putting the Navy back together as best they could around surviving ships (John Hancock, City of Corpus Christi, and possibly other, unmentioned ones) and pulling "display" or "museum" vessels out for use.

Not for use in the actual Twilight War itself, mind you, but as part of the reconstruction effort.

The idea of A1 Skyraiders recovered from Davis Monthan AFB flying off the deck of the re-floated Intrepid while wacky and probably wholly impossible is one that makes me smile.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Isochron

With both sides having heavy losses in the number of ships, either side could have used nukes on ships (which I doubt due to strategic importance) or used aircraft launched Air to Ship missiles (much more likely). Both sides had very effective missiles.

There are several countermeasures for conventional anti-ship missiles. Some believe (I'm not among them) that just a couple of Tico class guided missile cruisers could defeat almost any ASM threat to a supercarrier. As for nukes, there are several Soviet ASMs designed to carrier low-yield nuclear payloads expressly for the purpose of taking out a US carrier group. As Mo pointed out, there were literally thousands of warheads out there on both sides so there'd really be no reason to skimp should the need arise.

Once again, I'm not arguing that the Soviets needed to resort to nukes to cause heavy NATO naval casualties, but it is a viable alternative explanation for the de facto destruction of NATO naval power in the N. Atlantic.