RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-24-2010, 06:53 AM
Blakrider Blakrider is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth AU
Posts: 11
Default World War 2 era landing craft

well since my first ideas for additions to campaigns fell flat here are a few others.
some of the old WW2 ships have found new life. i know for a fact that a few of the Tour bouts used around New York are actually ww2 LCI's (2 have still have patched bullet holes from the war and were used evacuate people from Manhattan on 9/11)
Attached Files
File Type: doc LCI (L).doc (266.0 KB, 108 views)
File Type: doc LST Landing Ship, Tank.doc (179.0 KB, 157 views)
File Type: doc LSM - Landing Ship, Meduim.doc (161.0 KB, 129 views)
File Type: doc LCT Mk 6.doc (417.0 KB, 115 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-24-2010, 06:55 AM
Blakrider Blakrider is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth AU
Posts: 11
Default

alot of the landing craft ended up being used as car ferries for river barges and a few countries still use them as landing ships or replenishment ships
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-24-2010, 12:29 PM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Good stuff thanks. I wonder if the smaller ships could be made from scrapped tankers and such.

My players are caught between just moving back to sailing ships or try to take advantage of some of the technical benefits of the newer designs and such. Wind power is cheap and easy but you just cant move the volume.
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2010, 07:11 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalos72 View Post
Wind power is cheap and easy but you just cant move the volume.
Not that there would be many around post Twilight War but the bigger clipper ships at the end of the Age of Sail could move some pretty impressive tonnages, especially over longer distances where their lack of a fuel load requirement made them more economically efficient than steam powered vessels.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-25-2010, 07:28 AM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Thats true...I wish someone had stats for ships like that.
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:40 AM
Blakrider Blakrider is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth AU
Posts: 11
Default car ferry

here is somthing you may enjoy the specs for a typical channel cat ferry, im sure they were pressed into service and LSD.
Attached Files
File Type: doc Star of the North Vehicle Passenger Ferry.doc (79.0 KB, 128 views)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2010, 10:45 AM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Again, nice find.
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2010, 04:20 AM
mikeo80 mikeo80 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 962
Default Just wondering

I read somewhere on this site that the four Iowa class battleships had been activated just like IRL.

I was thinking about the USS Alabama, USS Massachussets, and the USS North Carolina.

IF things get really squirley, wouldn't the govt reach for ANYTHING that floats and has weapons? If any of those ships needed something rebuilt, I think the Navy dept has all of the specs from WWII when these mighty ships were built.

Just my mind drifting down a different path.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2010, 05:08 AM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

hummm that gives me some good ideas. I'm thinking USS Texas..........
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2010, 05:21 AM
mikeo80 mikeo80 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog 6 View Post
hummm that gives me some good ideas. I'm thinking USS Texas..........
IIRC, there was a book in the late 80's - early 90's that featured the USS Texas. I have no idea of the title. In that book the Texas had been refitted with partical accelorators as main weapons and incorporated some kind of shielding tech.

A little past the tech normally talked about in this forum ???
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-26-2010, 07:58 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,537
Default

Yes, once the majority of current naval shipping was on the bottom, the military would probably start scrounging around for whatever was available. However, with most of the older vessels being little more than rusted out hulks, it may not be worth the time and effort to conduct major works. It's likely that any modifications/upgrades would consist of little more than slapping a few anti-air guns and missiles onto existing civilian craft.

By Christmas 1997 the world is in bad shape. Nukes were first used by the Soviets on the 9th of July 1997 (in both China and Europe - both 1.0 and 2.0/2.2). This would undoubtedly have caused world wide panic as the reports of nuclear escalation rolled in across the news services. Many skilled workers, required to operate the shipyards, will have "run for the hills". Some would trickle back in the coming months, but never enough to satisfy demand and even keep up with repairs on existing warships.

And then there was the escalation.
Version 2.0/2.2 states:
Quote:
In the west, NATO air units begin making deep nuclear strikes against communication hubs in Czechoslovakia and Poland in an attempt to slow the Warsaw Pad advance. The Pact responds with similar strikes against German industrial targets and major port cities. NATO's theater nuclear missiles are launched against an array of industrial targets and port cities in the western Soviet Union. Throughout October the exchanges continue, escalating gradually. Fearful of a general strategic exchange, neither side targets the landbased ICBMs of the other, or launches so many warheads at once as to risk convincing the other side that an all-out attack is in progress. Neither side wishes to cross the threshold to nuclear oblivion in one bold step, and so they inch across it, never quite knowing they have done so until after the fact.
First, military targets are hit (including the first decapitating strikes at US targets). Then Industrial targets clearly vital to the war effort, followed by economic targets of military importance (transportation and communication, oil fields and refineries). Then major industrial and oil centers in neutral nations are targeted, to prevent their possible use by the other side. Numerous warheads are aimed at logistical stockpiles and command-control centers of the armies in the field. The civilian political command structure is first decimated, then eliminated (almost by accident In some cases). The exchanges continue, fitfully and irregularly, through November and then gradually peter out.
Version 1.0 has:
Quote:
In the west, NATO air units began making deep nuclear strikes against communication hubs in Czechoslovakia and Byelorussia in an attempt to slow the Warsaw Pact advance. The Pact responded with similar strikes against German industrial targets and major port cities. NATO's theater nuclear missiles were launched against an array of industrial targets and port cities in
the western Soviet Union. Throughout October the exchanges continued, escalating gradually. Fearful of a general strategic exchange, neither side targeted on the land-based ICBM's of the other, or launched so many warheads at once as to risk convincing the other side that an all-out attack was in progress. Neither side wished to cross the threshhold to nuclear oblivion in one bold step, and so they inched across it, never quite knowing they had done it until after the fact.
First, military targets were hit. Then industrial targets clearly vital to the war effort. Then economic targets of military importance. Then transportation and communication, oil fields and refineries. Then major industrial and oil centers in neutral nations, to prevent their possible use by the other side. Numerous warheads were aimed at logistical stockpiles and command control
centers of the armies in the field. Almost accidentally, the civilian political command structure was first decimated, then eliminated. The exchange continued, fitfully and irregularly, through November and early December, and then gradually petered out.
As we can see both are very similar. The only significant difference is that 2.0/2.2 specifically states attacks were made against US targets.
Howling Wilderness has this:
Quote:
With the first use of tactical nuclear weapons in September...
This has to be a typo as BOTH histories state nukes were first used on the 9th of July. My suggestion is that this should have read "strategic" rather than "tactical" due to the information quoted above about the escalation. By reading over the preceding several paragraphs (see the books), it seems the first long range strikes began in September.

While not specifically stated anywhere in V1.0, it is therefore not unreasonable to assume some limited strikes were made against US soil prior to the 28th of November 1997. These limited, even surgical attacks would have inflicted damage far beyond their actual physical effects by driving away people from potential target areas and keeping them away.

Bear in mind too that the last fleet of US/NATO warships were not sunk until approximately 3 weeks (sometime in June 1997) before the first nuke was used anywhere in the world. It is doubtful, as mentioned here http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2462 that there'd have been any significant headway made into even organising a search for potential warships to rebuild before the panic really set in.

One more thing. With no effective enemy naval forces anywhere in the world, what would be the driving force behind such a huge undertaking? Where is the benefit versus cost?
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-26-2010, 09:30 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
This has to be a typo as BOTH histories state nukes were first used on the 9th of July.
Probably but not necessarily. The first use of nukes may have been ICBM-launched or medium range missile launched, although I would tend to agree that it is a typo as you would expect the first use of nukes to have been "battlefield nukes" or bomber-deployed. But who knows? Perhaps the first use of nukes was the Soviets launching MIRVs from ICBMs on massed PLA ground forces?
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-26-2010, 10:11 AM
Blakrider Blakrider is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Perth AU
Posts: 11
Default

your also forgetting Legbreaker that it wasnt the one large massive wave of missiles but a few here and a few there. as it states.

"fearful of a General (massive) strategic exchange, neither side launched so many warheads at once to risk of as convincing the other side that it was all-out attack. neither side wished to cross over Nuclear oblivion in one bold step threshold, so they inched across it, never quite realizing they had already done it till after the fact."
(page 28 Ref Manual V.1)

it goes on to state that the nukes fell from July till early December.

and there was a 2nd smaller exchange in fall/winter '98

this gives those that dont panic time... tiem to possible move resources and items to less tempting target areas, and to try to get head, even if doomed to failure...

ever wondered what both CivGov and MilGov use to more the trickle of troops to Europe in mid to late '99? my guess was alot of former rust buckets and anthing else that can float
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-26-2010, 10:27 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,661
Default

Someone brought the point up in the light carrier thread that a lack of fuel would be a serious issue post-TDM. Even if an old warship could be refurbished- an expensive and time-consuming process under the best of circumstances- finding enough fuel to give it any sort of mobility or operational freedom would be extremely difficult, at best.

I like the idea of bringing older ships back to action once the war starts, but as many have pointed out, there's really not that much time until the nuclear exchanges start. Once that happens, some of these old ships would be destroyed, some would remain unfinished as the workers flee (or die), and some would be left without any signicant fuels to get them moving again.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-26-2010, 06:46 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
Perhaps the first use of nukes was the Soviets launching MIRVs from ICBMs on massed PLA ground forces?
The first nukes were used on BOTH fronts on the 9th of July.
In the east we had the absolute flattening of the Chinese with massive amounts of tactical nukes.
In the west they were limted in number and scale, at least in the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakrider View Post
your also forgetting Legbreaker that it wasnt the one large massive wave of missiles but a few here and a few there. as it states.
Exactly! There were small numbers of nukes flying about almost on a daily basis. Most may have been falling in Europe and China, but it's possible, even probable that some fell on continental North America too. The nukes that fell within the US borders may not have inflicted the scale of damage they were elsewhere in the world, but they didn't need to. Even just one falling would have been enough to send the entire country into a panic - take a look at the reaction when two planes flew into the world trade centre, the country was effectively at a standstill for days with NO flights and heightened security everywhere. And that was relatively small scale compared to a nuke...

One nuke alone would be enough to ground all flights (EMP), bring public transport (trains, trucks, buses) to a grinding halt, and send anyone in the cities with a car, motorbike, bicycle, or strong legs into the hills. News reports of continuing strikes throughout the world would keep them there.

The exchange in 1998 is almost irrelevant - the damage had already been done.

So yes there may have been time to move some resources around, but the manpower is likely to have been lacking. Also, where are you going to move them to? From one potential nuke site to another... Soviet spies and satellites are sure to have been providing updated target information.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-26-2010, 06:56 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
So yes there may have been time to move some resources around, but the manpower is likely to have been lacking. Also, where are you going to move them to? From one potential nuke site to another... Soviet spies and satellites are sure to have been providing updated target information.
I've always felt that blinding those spy satellites would have been a priority for the US, NATO, Russia, and China. All those ASAT programs that "really don't exist" would be unwrapped in short order. I don't think anyone would have blinked at extending the war into space.
__________________
How did the universe get so weird? -- Michio Kaku

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-26-2010, 07:38 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,537
Default

I do tend to agree, but even one surviving through to late November 1997 would have probably been enough for updating targets.
Spies on the ground would have been just as useful too.
The internet may have been in it's infancy at the time, however I'm sure there'd have been plenty of BBS's around for "trainspotter" types. This information would have been very useful (after checking for accuracy of course) to those making the targeting decisions. Internet and general computer security was (and still is so I understand) VERY inadequate at the time although I'm sure there'd have been at lease some attempts to minimise publication of such information. The problem is of course that the internet is global, any one country alone can do little.

Getting back to the original purpose of this thread, I do see the older vessels which were still maintained and in use being acquired by the military. Landing craft of almost any age would be handy to have when planning operations near water (if only to assist in logistics freeing up more modern designs for combat type roles). Unfortunately it's unlikely that there'd have been any great move to requisition these vessels until relatively late in the game - say mid to late 1997. Getting them, especially the smaller vessels unsuited to ocean travel, from the US to where they're needed (Europe, the middle east and Korea) might prove difficult.

If they were collected on the west coast ready for transport to Korea, I can see somebody realising they weren't going to make it across the Pacific and instead sending them up towards Alaska. Who knows, maybe the plan may have been to send them around via the coast anyway but they get sidetracked when the Soviets invade across the strait?

These old vessels could be very useful for transporting military units and material up and down the coastline.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-27-2010, 02:46 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
I've always felt that blinding those spy satellites would have been a priority for the US, NATO, Russia, and China. All those ASAT programs that "really don't exist" would be unwrapped in short order. I don't think anyone would have blinked at extending the war into space.
In my campaign one of the prominent NPCs in the PCs' group was a USAF pilot who had fired an ASAT missile from an F-15 early in the war. The ASAT phase ended quickly and he ended up in a USAF fighter wing before eventually ending up way behind enemy lines in Poland in 1998 after his Eagle suffered some kind of catastrophic mechanical failure and fell out of the sky. When the PCs found him he was working as a tinker and technician in a reasonably secure and well fortified village. I liked running Lt John Truman Johnson, callsign "Renegade", he was a good guy. Made a nice moral counterbalance to the generally anti-hero (ok, lets be honest, war criminal) PCs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
If they were collected on the west coast ready for transport to Korea, I can see somebody realising they weren't going to make it across the Pacific and instead sending them up towards Alaska. Who knows, maybe the plan may have been to send them around via the coast anyway but they get sidetracked when the Soviets invade across the strait?

These old vessels could be very useful for transporting military units and material up and down the coastline.
I very much agree with this.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-27-2010, 11:35 AM
Canadian Army's Avatar
Canadian Army Canadian Army is offline
No-Intensity Conflict Specialist
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 269
Default

Quote:
i know for a fact that a few of the Tour bouts used around New York are actually ww2 LCI's (2 have still have patched bullet holes from the war and were used evacuate people from Manhattan on 9/11)
Landing Craft Infantry Large (LCI (L))

M/V Circle Line VII (ex-LCI (L)-191)
Tour Boat for Circle Line Sightseeing

M/V Circle Line VIII (ex-LCI (L)-179)
Tour Boat for Circle Line Sightseeing

M/V Circle Line X (ex-LCI (L)-758)
Tour Boat for Circle Line Sightseeing

Quote:
some of the old WW2 ships have found new life.
Landing Ship Tank (LST)

M/V Cape Henlopen(ex-USS Buncombe County (LST-510))
Auto Ferry for Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc.; Orient Point, New York (Long Island)

Landing Craft Tank (LCT)

Outer Island (ex-LCT-203)
Dredge and Construction Barge, Bayfield, WI
__________________
"You're damn right, I'm gonna be pissed off! I bought that pig at Pink Floyd's yard sale!"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-27-2010, 05:13 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Army View Post
Landing Ship Tank (LST)

M/V Cape Henlopen(ex-USS Buncombe County (LST-510))
Auto Ferry for Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc.; Orient Point, New York (Long Island)
The others I can see being snapped up in about three seconds once the need was established, but this one I think would stay where it is for a while. The arguement would be made by it's owner/operator that it's a vital transportation link for the area. The others are nothing more than tour boats and a dredge (the latter being important, but not enough I would think to save it from requisition unless it had undergone major reworking for it's new role).
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-27-2010, 06:25 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
In my campaign one of the prominent NPCs in the PCs' group was a USAF pilot who had fired an ASAT missile from an F-15 early in the war. The ASAT phase ended quickly and he ended up in a USAF fighter wing before eventually ending up way behind enemy lines in Poland in 1998 after his Eagle suffered some kind of catastrophic mechanical failure and fell out of the sky. When the PCs found him he was working as a tinker and technician in a reasonably secure and well fortified village. I liked running Lt John Truman Johnson, callsign "Renegade", he was a good guy. Made a nice moral counterbalance to the generally anti-hero (ok, lets be honest, war criminal) PCs.
Here's a little spiel on ASATs from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

One of my favorite NPCs was also a downed fighter pilot -- USAF Captain Pamela Wagner, the Twilight War's top-scoring ace with 42 kills. She flew an F-16F Scamp (the version that was in reality only an experimental version of the F-16, with the cranked-arrow wings). The players had been told a lot of stories by the locals about her bravery and intelligence, and they they had heard of Captain Wagner -- they expected to meet some sort of Amazon. She turned out to be a short, pixieish (but tough) blond with short hair and barely over 5 feet tall. She almost got word out about the PC's whereabouts to friendlies after the group managed to steal a functioning A-37, but she got blown out of the sky by a ZSU-30-6 -- she didn't get out that time.
__________________
How did the universe get so weird? -- Michio Kaku

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-28-2010, 02:38 AM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
Here's a little spiel on ASATs from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

One of my favorite NPCs was also a downed fighter pilot -- USAF Captain Pamela Wagner, the Twilight War's top-scoring ace with 42 kills. She flew an F-16F Scamp (the version that was in reality only an experimental version of the F-16, with the cranked-arrow wings). The players had been told a lot of stories by the locals about her bravery and intelligence, and they they had heard of Captain Wagner -- they expected to meet some sort of Amazon. She turned out to be a short, pixieish (but tough) blond with short hair and barely over 5 feet tall. She almost got word out about the PC's whereabouts to friendlies after the group managed to steal a functioning A-37, but she got blown out of the sky by a ZSU-30-6 -- she didn't get out that time.
very nice.....
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.