US Navy Ships of the Twilight War

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

think the Japanese fleet in 1943 after they pulled out of Guadalcanal. Both sides probably conserved what they had as much as possible.

Not quite. After Guadalcanal, the Japanese briefly "conserved" their main battle fleet with the hope that they could force the "decisive battle" of their established pre-war naval doctrine, especially as Allied forces hopped closer to the home islands. Hence the massive, wasteful, and ultimately futile (for the IJN) battles of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf in 1944. Even after their fleet was effectively shattered, the Japanese continued an aggressive defense, sortieing a small task force organized around the super-battleship Yamato to oppose the American landings at Okinawa. Again, it did not go well for the Japanese. As a result of these slaughters, by the end of the war, the IJN had very few warships left and most of those were laid up in port to do lack of fuel or irreparable damage. This last point seems particularly germane here.

This debate re T2K naval strength c.2000 is interesting, but how does the number and type of surviving warships impact typical gameplay? Most campaigns are land-based and warships hardly ever play a part. Anyway, due to the lack of fuel (and probably missiles), it doesn't really matter if the USN has 10 or 20 or 50 operational warships because only a handful can manage to leave port for any length of time.

-

[bash]

Originally Posted by Raellus

This debate re T2K naval strength c.2000 is interesting, but how does the number and type of surviving warships impact typical gameplay? Most campaigns are land-based and warships hardly ever play a part. Anyway, due to the lack of fuel (and probably missiles), it doesn't really matter if the USN has 10 or 20 or 50 operational warships because only a handful can manage to leave port for any length of time.

-

Towards the end of my group's Red Dawn-esque Southern California campaign a handful of frigates and destroyers helped us liberate LA and San Diego. Their guns were able to cover MilGov forces coming down PCH. Between my group's spotting and their helicopters they could pound the Mexican forces on the coast with impunity.

Once oil is at least not super rare the US Navy would be very useful for post-Twilight recovery all along the coasts. They would also be able to contain New America and remove the ability to trade by blockading or capturing their ports.

Even under-armed ships would be useful if they can deliver cargo and provide signals and medical support for near-shore ground forces and civilians. They could be hard targets for pirates and such as you'd cover the decks with crew served weapons.

[swaghauler]

I really think that the lack of seapower has more to do with lack of fuel and munitions than serviceable ships.

The typical medium-sized fishing vessel (think of the SMALLER crabbers in the deadliest catch) will burn a METRIC TON of fuel oil to sail around 50km at 12 knots. The OH Perry Class frigates would only go 16km per metric ton of fuel consumed due to their thirsty gas turbines. These are the same engines used by the Tico Class Cruisers, and the Burkes. I just don't see many ships making the crossing from America to Europe based solely on the fuel needed to do it.
This brings me to my second issue with RAW Twilight. The idea that 80% of the fleets were sunk. The fleets (all combatants) are well dispersed with between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the fleet at sea during a given moment. The ocean is a big place and I simply find it hard to swallow that 8 in every 10 ships is resting at the bottom of it. I also remember when in '91 the Coalition was predicting the loss of 800 to 1000 aircraft on the first day of the air war (with 2,250 total aircraft in the theater). We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign. I just don't see the losses that the Devs were predicting actually occurring. It's more likely that those ships are simply sitting idle through a lack of fuel and munitions.

The second thing I think would happen is that our NUCLEAR Subs and Carriers would end up being used for SEALIFT operations. You may not have enough aircraft or jet fuel to put a hundred aircraft into action, but a Nimitz Class Carrier can carry a buttload of equipment WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FUEL. Use a couple of LA Class SSNs for escorts and you have a "convoy" with tremendous lifting capacity and UNLIMITED RANGE. This is how I see the Navy using existing CVNs once the fuel and ordinance run out.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I really think that the lack of seapower has more to do with lack of fuel and munitions than serviceable ships.

The typical medium-sized fishing vessel (think of the SMALLER crabbers in the deadliest catch) will burn a METRIC TON of fuel oil to sail around 50km at 12 knots. The OH Perry Class frigates would only go 16km per metric ton of fuel consumed due to their thirsty gas turbines. These are the same engines used by the Tico Class Cruisers, and the Burkes. I just don't see many ships making the crossing from America to Europe based solely on the fuel needed to do it.

Agreed. I appreciate the stats you posted to reinforce this point.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

This brings me to my second issue with RAW Twilight. The idea that 80% of the fleets were sunk. The fleets (all combatants) are well dispersed with between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the fleet at sea during a given moment. The ocean is a big place and I simply find it hard to swallow that 8 in every 10 ships is resting at the bottom of it.

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I also remember when in '91 the Coalition was predicting the loss of 800 to 1000 aircraft on the first day of the air war (with 2,250 total aircraft in the theater). We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign.

I see what you're getting at but, to be fair, the Iraqis were mostly incompetent. It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think the Soviets, especially with a couple of years of high-intensity modern warfare under their belts (China) would roll over as quickly as Saddam's bullies and conscripts. I don't want to belabor this point here because we have a whole thread devoted to it.

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

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The second thing I think would happen is that our NUCLEAR Subs and Carriers would end up being used for SEALIFT operations. You may not have enough aircraft or jet fuel to put a hundred aircraft into action, but a Nimitz Class Carrier can carry a buttload of equipment WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FUEL. Use a couple of LA Class SSNs for escorts and you have a "convoy" with tremendous lifting capacity and UNLIMITED RANGE. This is how I see the Navy using existing CVNs once the fuel and ordinance run out.

This is a really good point and could go a long way to explaining OMEGA and the subsequent transfer of troops to the Middle East. It also reminds me of the "raft" from the novel, Snow Crash. Sealift and power generation are two very useful things CVNs and SSNs could still do when the missiles run out.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You're probably right, but after a couple of Red Storm Rising-style Backfire strikes on carrier battle groups, a couple of large fleet actions (at least one is mentioned in canon- Norwegian Sea, IIRC), tactical nuclear strikes on naval ports and vessels at sea (inferred), plus attrition of convoy escorts, naval strength on both sides would be seriously curtailed. If Harpoon taught us anything, it's that there are dozens, if not scores, of scenarios for naval battles in WWIII. Total attrition probably wouldn't come close to 80%, I agree, but as several of us have pointed out, after the oil dries up or goes up in flames, 90+% of surviving vessels (i.e. non-nuclear powered ones) would be next to useless. So, higher warship numbers c. 2000 are pretty much moot.

My point is that I personally don't see any surviving factions expending large amounts of resources to bring museum ships back into service when there are modern ships sitting in port for a lack of fuel and munitions. Why rehab a WW2 Cruiser that will require just as much "bunker" (the naval term for fuel) as a modern ship?

The ships that would be sailing either don't require those resources (like actual sailing vessels that don't need fuel) or are small enough to actually fuel (like smaller 40 to 60 foot powered vessels used as patrol vessels). The average 50ft powered boat will have a range around 500km. This is a decent range for setting up a regional campaign.

This is an advantage for most GMs because it is much easier to run a scenario using small boats armed with RPGs and MGs than to include a large Frigate or Destroyer in that fight. Most small vessels can also be manned by a two-man crew which better suits Twilight2000's smaller unit tactics too.

I STRONGLY suggest that any GMs looking at naval adventures in coastal areas or the various littoral regions take a look at sailboat listings from such sources as The Moorings Group or Boat Trader. A good 40ft to 60ft sailboat is the ideal floating base for a small group of PCs. They also make good pirate vessels when equipped with MGs. I have a strong preference for Catamarans myself.

[Olefin]

Now that the East Africa sourcebook is official V2.2 canon with the update you can add the following officially to ships listed in Twilight 2000 canon - US, French and Kenyan

TF 212 - Kenya

CG 50 Valley Forge, SH-60 F Seahawk (flagship)
DDG 996 Chandler, SH-2F Seasprite
DDG 46 Preble
FF 1058 Meyerkord, SH-2F Seasprite
FFG 9 Wadsworth
DD 950 Richard S. Edwards
FF 1064 Lockwood (harbor defense)

TF 212.2 Patrol Group - Kenya

USCGC WMEC 725 Jarvis
PC 11 Whirlwind
MCM 7 Patriot
MHC 56 Kingfisher

TF Stryker - Kenya

LST-1190 Boulder (flagship)
LST-1185 Schenectady
LSD-32 Spiegel Grove
Alexander Bonnyman (ex-BDK 14 Mukhtar Avezov)
John Basilone (LCT-1037 Polnochny-B class)
LCU 2031 New Orleans
LCU 1619, 1643 (LCU 1610 class)
LCM 6 – ten
LCM 8 – six
LCAC 90

TF 233 - Kenya

AD 43 Cape Cod (flagship)
T-A0 146 Kawishiwi
AE 22 Mauna Kea
AOE 7 Rainier
AR 8 Jason
YTB-820 Wanamassa
T-ATF-172 Apache
Solstar (Salvage Tug)

Kenyan Navy - HQ Mombasa

P3126 KNS Nyayo (Missile Boat) – six functional Otomat missiles
P3127 KNS Umoja (Missile Boat) – missile system non-functional
P3123 KNS Harambee (Missile Boat)- five functional Gabriel missiles
L39 KNS Tana, L38 KNS Galana (Medium landing ships)
Small River Patrol Boats P943-P947

French Indian Ocean Squadron

Djibouti

A631 Somme (Fleet HQ)
A69 type Sloop F789 Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff
LCM CTM24, CTM25
EDIC Landing Ship Sabre

Reunion

Frigate F730 Floreal, AS 565 Panther
Frigate F732 Nivôse, AS565 Panther
Austral Class Patrol Ship F681 Albatros
BATRAL class Landing Ship L9034 La Grandiere
Naval Oiler C1GH22
P400 class P690 La Rieuse
Light Repair Ship A617 Garonne
RV Marion Dufresne II, AS350 B3

Mayotte

Patrol Boats P763, P790, P721
P400 class P683 La Boudeuse
LCM CTM18

[Raellus]

More evidence that modern naval vessels are vulnerable to fire.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...into-the-night

This and other recent instances of accidents at sea resulting in sinking or extended time in dry dock, plus numerous stories about how submarines- especially 70s and 80s-vintage diesel boats- have "sunk" US and NATO aircraft carriers during exercises demonstrates, IMHO, that attrition in a full-scale, modern naval war would be extremely high- perhaps, as high as the canon authors wrote it.

[bash]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

We lost 75 aircraft during the WHOLE campaign. I just don't see the losses that the Devs were predicting actually occurring. It's more likely that those ships are simply sitting idle through a lack of fuel and munitions.

Yeah the 80% casualty rate always struck me as goofy. It's not like modern navies sail around like this waiting for a small nuke to take out a battle group: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...group_2006.jpg

I'd buy that 20% of naval forces were combat capable with another 20-30% laid up in port for lack of fuel or supplies to get back to their home port. Even then ships sitting around with no fuel strikes me as an author fiat situation. A military vessel outguns any random commercial vessel(s) and can acquire through gun barrel diplomacy the fuel and supplies they need to get to a friendly/home port. The same sort of logic that works for ground-based forces setting up cantonments also works for navel vessels trading protection for fuel with civilian ships. Besides if stills in the T2K universe can make alcohol that works in Diesel engines, they can make fuel that works in the turbines of modern naval vessels.

Navel vessels are also well equipped to coordinate over long distances. Even with satellite communications most (all?) modern navies still use long range HF for a lot of communications. So that 20-50% of ships capable of sailing can coordinate with friendly/allied ships far beyond the horizon. The average navy vessel would have a lot better long range comms than the average ground based unit post-TDM.

I can also easily see naval aviation being a fond memory post-TDM as military jets are resource intensive in peacetime, they would be resource black holes post-TDM. Flying combat sorties would quickly burn through fuel, parts, and munitions so once the supply chain breaks down every jet ends up a hangar queen. Navies (especially USN) would end up with heavy aviation casualties from canabalization as much from enemy action. Any plane that develops the slightest issue or takes damage would become a part donor for the rest of the air wing.

As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks and remained afloat (with no damage control). She had to be scuttled to get her to actually sink. That is not to say carriers are invulnerable or anything but very survivable.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by bash

A military vessel outguns any random commercial vessel(s) and can acquire through gun barrel diplomacy the fuel and supplies they need to get to a friendly/home port. The same sort of logic that works for ground-based forces setting up cantonments also works for navel vessels trading protection for fuel with civilian ships. Besides if stills in the T2K universe can make alcohol that works in Diesel engines, they can make fuel that works in the turbines of modern naval vessels.

Bear in mind that even a small ship burns through more fuel in an hour than an entire Squadron of M1 tanks. The fuel production capacity simply does not exist in T2K and no amount of firepower is going to change that.

Originally Posted by bash

As to large ships like carriers, USS America took a beating in a SINKEX for four weeks and remained afloat (with no damage control). She had to be scuttled to get her to actually sink. That is not to say carriers are invulnerable or anything but very survivable.

The exercise wouldn't have been much good if they'd actually sunk the ship too soon would it? Or if it had sunk before they'd had a chance to inspect the damage.
The whole point of this was to keep it afloat until they were ready to sink it on their terms and get as much data as possible in the process.

[Olefin]

Actually Leg you are incorrect there as to the world as a whole in 2001 in T2K - there are several places where the fuel production still exists to keep ships fueled in 2001 in the T2K world - for one Kenya for another the Middle East for a third the ships the Soviets are keeping going in the Caspian - in all those areas there is still fuel being produced in sufficient quantities to keep a small number of full sized warships going - I would also most likely add California from the wells around Bakersfield as well

[Olefin]

as for the effect of a small number of naval ships still being operational you have to look no further than either the Middle East or Kenya as to gameplay - in both areas you can actually do some kind of naval campaign play because there are still active naval ships there - for instance you can battle pirates or be inserted on missions as part of a group of Marines or transported infantry

And a still operational naval vessel gives a GM a chance to do his own version of a Last Submarine type module.

An example is the operational DD that is at Cape May in the Challenge Magazine article - as stated that DD could be used as part of a force stationed there to extract the gold from NYC that is in Armies of the Night once the player characters find it and contact MilGov - thus that one ship can provide aid to the characters and a source of NPC's as part of a NYC campaign - and they have limited fuel so its basically a one or two time part of any such campaign but not in such a way to overpower the scenario