Blocking the Suez, Twilight style

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

there were lots of strategic mistakes in the timeline - i.e. things like not nuking York PA or Hagerstown MD - i.e. the Bradley, M109, M88, M8 Buford production line+Caterpillar+Harley in York and the A-10 production line and Mack Trucks engine plant in Hagerstown MD - in V1 they might have restarted the A-10 line and that engine plant would definitely be of huge use to the military

Those are relatively minor strategic mistakes compared to failing to close the Suez canal. Failing to strike a few factories might result in the US producing a few hundred more AFVs and combat aircraft- if the production lines can continue to operate when deprived of power and parts, that is. And even then, the US still has to get that stuff to the fronts (easier said than done) before it can hurt the USSR. Failing to effectively close the Suez canal would continue to allow the US to resupply the RDF with reinforcements, ammunition, etc. Closing the Suez isolates the RDF, increasing the odds that the Soviets can destroy it.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and the Soviets hit both refineries at the southern exit/entrance of the Canal with 250kt air bursts and did a real job on the shipping in the area - thus they didnt need to hit the Canal itself - they plugged the exit/entrance

That's v2.2 "canon", correct? You mentioned that earlier, I believe. I'm looking at alternatives for v1.

-

[Olefin]

Yes the strikes on the Suez refineries are canon per Marc Miller for V2.2 since they are part of the Africa timeline that has them in it.

[CraigD6er]

It would suit the Soviets far more than the west to block it during the war, but wold they go all out and nuke it? Not immediately I don't think.
I always imagined a 2-tier blockage from the Warpact side. If the Middle East states are still more friendly to the Soviets than the Americans then they would still be trying to keep same onside. The chance to get tens of thousands of allied troops behind the RDF alone would be worth avoiding too much infrastructure damage. If they assume they will win the war, or at least not lose, the Soviets will want the canal back in service asap. Either way, setting off nukes would be a bad move. However, if the war starts to go badly for the Soviets, or the west wins the ME states over, then the gloves come off and it goes to the second tier and in a fit of pique the canal gets obliterated.
Blocking it via sabotage, strategic strikes etc would be easier than clearing it when there is a global war ongoing.
As an aside, in my TL I relocated most of the RDF and allied forces. It was as they said when the RDF was formed, 'too much to lose, too little to win'. I felt that to deploy those forces, probably well out on a limb, was too risky and they would be better used in Europe or Korea. Keeping them supplied would have been far too much effort given the state of the rest of the world, especially if any of the states around there were actively pro-Soviet. With a war still ongoing in China, and in Europe, I'm not sure the Soviets would have been able to commit enough troops to bull through Iran anyway, again not without a lot of active support from Iraq and others.

As a Cold Waters player, I love choke points where I can position my little submarine and wait for an enemy surface fleet to pass through. Suez is the ultimate choke point and major forces might just avoid it all together if enough of their ships are torpedoed en route to the canal or after leaving it. Longer routes outside of normal shipping channels would be safer and preferred once unrestricted submarine warfare is authorized.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Those are relatively minor strategic mistakes compared to failing to close the Suez canal. Failing to strike a few factories might result in the US producing a few hundred more AFVs and combat aircraft- if the production lines can continue to operate when deprived of power and parts, that is. And even then, the US still has to get that stuff to the fronts (easier said than done) before it can hurt the USSR.

+1. Also, I've always thought that Twilight 2000 is supposed to be reminiscent of the Dark Ages not the Stone Age, which is where it would have probably landed up if every town in the USA that had some sort of connection to military production got nuked. That starts to move into the territory of Mutually Assured Destruction and takes the game World in a different direction.

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's v2.2 "canon", correct? You mentioned that earlier, I believe. I'm looking at alternatives for v1.

I agree that in V1 the Suez Canal would be a tempting target for the Soviets. Nukes would likely be the easiest way to do it but if you wanted to look at alternatives maybe Spetznaz boarded ships in transit and planted conventional explosives that scuttled multiple vessels in the Canal, thus blocking it? I don’t really know how feasible that would be - I mean, I presume scuttling a number of vessels in transit is feasible but that supposes that the Spetznaz team(s) manage to get in country with all of their kit and then successfully get aboard multiple vessels (I’m presuming there would be some sort of shoreside security…). I mean, I work in marine logistics but this isn’t really the sort of thing that we talk about…

Slightly more low tech option…GRU recruit Islamic groups (probably using some sort of false flag approach) to fire RPG’s at vessels in transit from shore.

I don’t think either of those are particularly good alternatives though. A nuke seems a lot simpler and more likely to achieve success though. I just wonder if scuttling vessels in transit might be an option if the Soviets didn’t want to do permanent / long term damage for whatever reason, ‘only’ close it for six months.

And yeah, the fact that the Panama Canal is still functional seems like an oversight on the part of the author of that module. Of course that also sets a precedent for another option for Suez in V1, namely that it is also still open and navigable.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Maybe Spetznaz boarded ships in transit and planted conventional explosives that scuttled multiple vessels in the Canal, thus blocking it? I don’t really know how feasible that would be - I mean, I presume scuttling a number of vessels in transit is feasible but that supposes that the Spetznaz team(s) manage to get in country with all of their kit and then successfully get aboard multiple vessels (I’m presuming there would be some sort of shoreside security…). I mean, I work in marine logistics but this isn’t really the sort of thing that we talk about…

The Sinai is big and barren, with plenty of places to hide. Neither the Egyptians nor the Israelis have never been able to completely eliminate terrorists and smugglers who use the Sinai as a base of operations or transit area. I'm only guessing, but I doubt that security is tight along the entire length of the canal (Britannica states that the canal is 193km/120 miles long).

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Slightly more low tech option…GRU recruit Islamic groups (probably using some sort of false flag approach) to fire RPG’s at vessels in transit from shore.

+1 That's probably the way to start- using proxies. It's simple, low cost/low risk, and deniable. Combine said proxies with a couple of covert Spetnaz teams providing direction and support, and a couple of Soviet diesel subs or SSNs prowling choke points, and one could bottle up the canal for quite some time, without having to completely destroy it.

@Spartan: Cold Water sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out. I remember playing an old DOS version of Silent Service on a friends IBM in high school. Good times.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I don’t think either of those are particularly good alternatives though. A nuke seems a lot simpler and more likely to achieve success though. I just wonder if scuttling vessels in transit might be an option if the Soviets didn’t want to do permanent / long term damage for whatever reason, ‘only’ close it for six months.

Agreed. I don't think the Soviets nuke it until it becomes clear to them that they won't be able to seize it, or keep it closed through conventional means. When they realize that they won't be able to control the canal any longer, then it would become a strategic imperative to deny it to their enemies (or potential future rivals like France).

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

And yeah, the fact that the Panama Canal is still functional seems like an oversight on the part of the author of that module. Of course that also sets a precedent for another option for Suez in V1, namely that it is also still open and navigable.

I wonder if the designers had an adventure module focusing on the Panama Canal in the early planning stages and that's why they didn't nuke it. Obviously, if they did have a Panama Canal project in the offing, it never materialized.

-