US Navy Ships of the Twilight War

[Graebarde]

IIRC the 49th was in Chicago awaiting shipment overseas when TDM came For the life of me I can NOT see a heavy division shipping out of a Great Lakes port for ANY reason. There are too many other ports available. More of the genius of the designers for what ever the reason. 49th would have departed Corpus Christi, Beaumont and Galveston, just like the 1st Cav, 2nd Armor and 3rd Cav. WITH a sizeable escort IMO.

But if they had not been deployed by TDM (which I still find hard to comprehend keeping a heavy in the states while sending lights to NATO) and were in Chicago, and word arrived the Mexican's had invaded, I would see the whole division hitting the road for Texas.. MilGov--CivGov be damned, Texas is being invaded. As for personnel drifting off/deserting. The going to their home might be plausable, but as is pointed out, it would probably be whole units from ie Alice, since a few leaving would have to face the rest evenutally.. you have deserted your neighbors when you desert the unit.

Now on another side of the picture. My son was in the TxANG in '90, having just returned from a 4-year RA kick as an Airborne Ranger, and cherry popping in Panama. He was in a local battalion in South Texas. He would come home from drills so damn mad it was almost funny if it wasn't so serious. They went to Falfurias training area... with NO water to speak of, IN the summer. Had guys going tits up from heat. The leadership was abismal in that unit. The same unit was tagged to go to Honduras (iirc) for a training mission.. it took volunteers from three battalions to get one capable of going... mostly due to failing the drug test. When Iraq invaded Kuwait he reupped in the regulars, "I'm not going to war with those idiots, they'll just get somebody killed, namely themselves."

Yes they are Texians.. and generally are a good bunch of soldiers, but there are weak points in every unit.

[Legbreaker]

And 91/92 seems a bit too early to see the war coming, especially in V1.0 where the war in the west wasn't even thought of until after the secret German talks in June 1996.

[Olefin]

I have the opposite viewpoint Leg - and by the way the Russians may not be in San Antonio anymore - if you read Lone Star, Red Star they are clearly about to pull out and head home - in fact by mid 2001 they may be gone or so badly damaged by local guerrillas that they are no longer the threat that they were.

And if that oil and avgas in that module goes to MilGov - since they are the only force in the area that has the planes and helos that can make use of it - then its an even more powerful reason that the 49th would stay together. And I could see the Texans doing it, telling MilGov that you get the oil and avgas in exchange for letting us (i.e. the Texans) take care of our own affairs afterward.

I.e. its mid 2001, the oil from Gulf 40 is now giving MilGov the avgas and other fuel they need to have air support for another offensive into Texas and the 49th wants to go home and be that offensive. Given that information and the fact that the Texian forces arent exactly popular in most of Texas I would see them be the leading force behind that move.

Given the state of MilGov that kind of deal could easily be made. But not with a 49th that is falling apart.

Now that doesnt mean they stay with MilGov after they make that move - but they can do a lot more damage and reconquer a lot more territory together than piecemeal. And the 49th, intact and forming the basis of the new Texan Army, would explain how Texas becomes an independent nation.

Plus keep in mind that those tanks they have make them superior to any remaining Mexican unit in Texas. They could drive most of the Mexican units out of Texas considering the sorry state most of the Mexican forces are in by mid 2001.

There is no way that most of the 49th just gives up and goes home and lets Mexico and the Russians (especially the Russians) keep hold of large areas of Texas. Sorry its a game but it has to be realistic and thats not realistic. The only way those guys are going home is with Mexican and Soviet forces running for the border.

Oh and the 90th Corps could still thus fall apart afterward - i.e. the 49th heads south into Texas, does its job and then says its part of the new Texas Army and not the US - and without them there isnt much left of 90th Corps to hold Oklahoma against anyone else.

[Legbreaker]

Yes they are Texians.. and generally are a good bunch of soldiers, but there are weak points in every unit.

And lets hope most of them are dead by 2000....

I have the opposite viewpoint Leg - and by the way the Russians may not be in San Antonio anymore - if you read Lone Star, Red Star they are clearly about to pull out and head home - in fact by mid 2001 they may be gone or so badly damaged by local guerrillas that they are no longer the threat that they were.

Small flaw with that logic - Howling Wilderness lists troop numbers as of 01APR01, just a touch before Mid 2001.
Now admittedly Red Star, Lone Star is supposed to occur in late November 2000, however communications post nuke aren't what they used to be and a walk to the next hilltop is considered a long distance road trip. News travels slowly in that environment, and isn't necessarily correct either. Just look at any of the rumour tables in any of the books for examples of just how screwed up information can be.

Note also that just because the Soviets have a chance of capturing an almost spent offshore oil well, doesn't mean they actually will. In fact since the whole thing sets a group of PCs up as major players, chances are they don't and therefore get stuck in San Antonio. Even if they do, it'll be months before there's enough oil available and a ship found, time in which the components of the 49th Division can fall apart and head home.

While even one Soviet or Mexican soldier remains in Texas, will any Texan rest
Or will they want to drive them out

[Olefin]

Thats why I am rejecting the Howling Wilderness version of the 49th - given the events of Red Star, Lone Star and the weakness of both the Mexicans and the Soviets if they headed home it would be as a body - and as you said there isnt much that MilGov could do to stop them.

One idea could be that the 49th breaks up - and what you have left is what stays loyal to MilGov while the rest heads south and joins with the Grange forces to become the new Texan Army. So you have a US Army 49th Mech and you have a Texan Army 49th division.

It would also explain why the 49th in the Soviet Vehicle Guide is still headquartered at Fort Sill in OK. That is the part that stayed loyal and stayed with the US and thus is now in OK, while the rest went south and joined up with the new Texas nation.

That way you get both - i.e. you dont have a wasting away of the 49th that makes no sense given the situation in Texas but you also have the HW numbers applying only to MilGov forces. HW doesnt have Texan Army forces after all - and even if its not mentioned in canon so what A lot of things as we have already found arent mentioned in canon - like where the 35 tanks came from that showed up in Iran in US forces in Jan 2001.

otherwise losing that many tanks to desertion or breakdowns in such a short time - sorry but not believeable

losing them because they go off in a group, leaving MilGov service as a unit and start to liberate Texas from the Mexicans and Russians on their own - yes that makes a lot of sense

[Olefin]

and Leg I know you have your reading of the canon and I have mine - remember that canon is what you make of it

and yes we did play Texas - and our GM had it as part of MilGov landing forces after we confirmed the oil was ready to be pumped and had helped retake Gulf Forty to retake the Brownsville area using forces brought home from Europe

for our part we did one heck of an ambush of the Soviets - right out of Red Dawn right to popping out of holes in the ground with overhead cover and letting them have it with anti-tank missiles and explosives

not the canon per the module (as MilGov landing troops isnt part of it) - but for our GM its how we played it

[dragoon500ly]

just did a little trip to the Alabama in Mobile Bay. That ship is in no condition for any action whatsoever.

The engine room is sealed off and would require several months of effort to restore to service according to our guide.

All of the armament is demilled, breechblocks either welded in place, or missing altogether.

The barbette supporting the number 2 16-inch turret has been extensively modified for tours, A whopping great hole has been cut into the armor to allow easy access.

And the ship is heavily silted in place.

[Olefin]

There were USN ships that would have joined the fleet after the heavy losses early in 1997 - if you look at what was actually under construction you have at the least:

Arleigh Burke destroyers- Hopper, Ross, The Sullivans for sure - all completed after the dates for the big battles against the Soviets so they would have joined with what was left

McFaul is only possible if they speed her up - Ingalls gets nuked in Nov 1997 but Mahan, Decatur, Donald Cook and possibly Higgins are possible out of Bath before the electricity and fuel situation shut them down in late 1998, early 1999 - Mahan for sure

Amphib Warfare Ships - USS Bataan - Sept 1997 (Bonhomme Richard gets nuked along with Ingalls)

Submarines - USS Seawolf - 19 July 97 (this assumes they had the long down time in our reality)

Ballistic submarines - USS Louisiana - last of the Ohio's - commissioned Sept 6, 1997

Also possibly more Los Angeles class if they made more of them (Version 1) where the Cold War never ended - but not for V2.2

CVN - possibly USS Harry S Truman if they rushed her and got her out of Newport News before the area was nuked

not a lot of ships but a lot more capable than bringing ships in the boneyard or Reserve Fleet back into service - and added together you have the makings of a carrier battle group

[Legbreaker]

Have to keep in mind the Soviets would be doing the same thing, and possibly even on a larger scale given they'd been fighting longer.
By mid 2000 it's conceivable this greater production on all sides would have been cancelled out through further small scale battles sinking and badly damaging the new vessels (not to mention sabotage, lack of trained crew, limited supplies of munitions, etc).
So regardless of a possibly accelerated production, the situation as stated in T2K really doesn't need to be altered.

[Olefin]

I differ with you Legbreaker (boy big surprise there) that the ships may actually be surviving and werent sunk- the question as always is fuel - i.e. they may have been delivered and did fight in the war and may have been the escorts for either the convoys to Kenya or to the Middle East or to Korea - and or they may be stuck at a base somewhere - keep in mind that the all these ships post date the original authors canon writing (i.e. pre-Kenya/Korea releases) so they wouldnt have been in any of their releases - so could they be added to a scenario or area - yes - the addition of one or two Arleigh Burke's to the fleet in the Middle East or Kenya or stuck at a base in Korea wouldnt overly change those modules or power balances

And they would make an interesting addition to the Sea Lord of Jacksonville's forces (i.e. an Arleigh Burke in his fleet would be one heck of a ship to explain that he is a force to be reckoned with)

As for the subs - I never believed in the scenario of the USN being down to one submarine - no way that the Soviets get all the Ohio's for instance - but that doesnt mean they are all sitting at Norfolk fully armed and ready to go

the munitions part may be the biggest issue - look at an Arleigh Burke for instance - if you are out of missiles what do you have - answer one five inch gun and two Phalanx guns - i.e. you arent talking the battleship Missouri here

[Legbreaker]

So what about all the Pact ships and subs in the same situation then
You've proposed an increased navy for the US, but ignored all the other ship building nations, especially those of the direct enemy.

[Raellus]

Good point, Leg.

Maybe Olefin is just focusing on the U.S.N. in this thread (look at the title).

But yes, a Soviet navy for which the Cold War didn't end (v1.0) would definitely be stronger than that which existed in 1984 or 1996 (IRL).

For example, at the very least, there would be one additional Kutzenov-class carrier, one Kirov-class heavy cruiser, one Slava-class cruiser (Admiral Flota Lobov/Ukrayina), one Gepard-class frigate (probably 3 total), and seven, not two, Neustrashnimyy-class frigates. These were just planned production figures too, not the result of accelerated wartime production. In fact, several of the above-mentioned vessels were already under construction (some were near completion). All of these vessels were cancelled, transferred, or sold off shortly before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, as Leg pointed out, Soviet wartime production would have begun at least a year before NATO wartime production so it stands to reason that there were actually a few more vessels than just those mentioned.

[Olefin]

Good point, Leg.

Maybe Olefin is just focusing on the U.S.N. in this thread (look at the title).

But yes, a Soviet navy for which the Cold War didn't end (v1.0) would definitely be stronger than that which existed in 1984 or 1996 (IRL).

For example, at the very least, there would be one additional Kutzenov-class carrier, one Kirov-class heavy cruiser, one Slava-class cruiser (Admiral Flota Lobov/Ukrayina), one Gepard-class frigate (probably 3 total), and seven, not two, Neustrashnimyy-class frigates. These were just planned production figures too, not the result of accelerated wartime production. In fact, several of the above-mentioned vessels were already under construction (some were near completion). All of these vessels were cancelled, transferred, or sold off shortly before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And, as Leg pointed out, Soviet wartime production would have begun at least a year before NATO wartime production so it stands to reason that there were actually a few more vessels than just those mentioned.

Yup you are right Raellus - I was just looking at the USN because the thread was dedicated to the US Navy specifically. And I agree that other navies would have had more ships as well - heck for that matter the RN, French, Italians, all would need to be looked at as well.

Leg wasnt ignoring the others on purpose (i.e. not implying that the US is the only Navy that added new ships) - if anything would be great to look at the other navies.

And as I said the number of new ships that could come down the ways in the time frame of the game after the major naval battles of 1996 and early 1997 wouldnt overbalance the game - even the Truman and the Louisiana. Especially if you are short on modern armaments for them and all they would have would be their guns systems (let alone considering the naval fuel situation outside of areas near working oil refineries and oil wells).

[Olefin]

One idea for either Louisiana or Truman could be that they are being used to generate power somewhere because maybe they never got fully armed - or expended their armaments (and in the case of Truman her aviation fuel) - and now are being used purely as floating power stations.

And the ships that were never built but were planned before the Cold War ended included two SSBN - ie. SSBN-744 and 745

SSBN-744 (if it had been built as proposed) would have been launched in July 1997 at Bangor - but wouldnt have been scheduled for completion till 1998

SSBN-745 would have been launched in July 1998 at Bangor with a completion date of 1999

Given that timing that opens some intriguing ideas about what might have happened to them depending on when Bangor was abandoned by the USN - and given what happened in Last Submarine

[Legbreaker]

Given there were more ships (not to mention more naval aviation assets) on all sides, doesn't it then stand to reason there would also be more battles, more losses and therefore the situation in the books really doesn't need adjusting
We also know both sides used tactical nuclear weapons on land targets including troops, so it would seem given the lesser environmental impact (if only perceived) nuclear attacks on ships would have also been quite prevalent. Soviet guns may not have been as good, missiles can be shot down, but for a nuke, near enough is often good enough to serious damage a vessel and degrade it's ability to fend off following gun and missile attacks.
Additionally, mining an enemy's ports and shipping lanes is a very old and effective tactic, and given the number of Pact submarines and surface vessels capable of doing this, it appears logical some of those shiny new US ships would currently be blocking those ports and lanes albeit unwillingly.