Sea Lanes

[Legbreaker]

Mines can be swept clear. With the Soviet navy at the bottom of the ocean, and most of it designed in the first place for defence close to home, I don't see mines playing a big part in the war away from the hotspots.

[dragoon500ly]

Unlike the Panama and Suez canals, the Bosphorus, etc, there's more than one path to take between the hundreds, even thousands of islands. Mining them all is probably beyond even the strongest of superpowers.
It's these many islands, inlets, etc that make it such a rich area for pirates - they can raid a ship and simply disappear before a response arrives.
I'm sure the attempt would be made, and there's bound to be a few stray mines floating about to make the area even more dangerous to shipping, but it's unlikely any concerted effort would be made. You don't have to travel more than a few hundred miles more to avoid the worst choke points, and adding a day or three to the journey may avoid the area almost entirely.

I'm still researching this one...

But a former USN sub driver I work with claims that many of the gaps in the Malay Barrier are too shallow for ocean-going shipping. He also tells me that one of the fears of the USN was India deciding to make a power play and blocking the major passages.

[dragoon500ly]

Mines can be swept clear. With the Soviet navy at the bottom of the ocean, and most of it designed in the first place for defence close to home, I don't see mines playing a big part in the war away from the hotspots.

Don't know about most of the Soviet Navy being designed for home defense; My 1993 copy of the Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World has this to say...

1 Sierra II SSN, able to carry up to 36 mines
2 Sierra I SSN, ditto
26 Victor III SSN, ditto
7 Victor II SSN, ditto
15 Victor I SSN, ditto
20 Kilo SS, able to carry up to 24 mines
18 Tango SS, ditto
40 Foxtrot SS, able to carry up to 44 mines
4 Kynda CG, able to carry up to 80 mines
7 Sverdlov CL, able to carry up to 200 mines
11 Udaloy DDG, able to carry up to 50 mines
14 Sovremennyy DDG, able to carry up to 80 mines
6 Kashin DDG, able to carry up to 40 mines
32 Krivak I/II FFG, able to carry up to 20 mines
3 Alesha ML, able to carry up to 300 mines
75 Natya/Yurka class MS, able to carry up to 20 mines

I tried to keep the list to just ship types known to have served with the Soviet Indian Ocean Squadron; now this squadron numbers from 3 to as many as 20 ships, depending upon the local situation...still.

[Legbreaker]

Ok, perhaps not designed, but intended.
We also know in the books that Soviet naval power, hell, all naval power of note, was on the bottom very early on (before the nukes I believe). There may well not have been time to lay minefields of any size in far off places.
You can be sure though that surface ships would have a very hard time even attempting to mine a foreign port or shipping channel.

However, even just one mine, or the rumour of mines can create delays and fear in ship crews.

[helbent4]

Quebec City, Quebec would not be operating due to fact, all access to Quebec City can only be archived by way of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which would have mined sometime after the start of the twilight war. However St. John's Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador and Sydney, Nova Scotia would be functioning. I see both the harbours at busy places, due to three offshore oil fields around Newfoundland and Labrador and Steel Mill and Coal Mine in Nova Scotia.

CA,

It's not only the Soviets that would seek to mine the St. Lawrence seaway (probably using sub-laid "bottom" mines which are hard to detect and sweep). Those mines could and if at all possible be cleared at some point and it would be difficult for the Soviets to repeat this operation. They might well lay a nuclear mine, however, to decide the issue once and for all! (Nuclear mines were developed but apparently never deployed, at least in our timeline.)

Once the French decide to intervene in Quebec, whatever minelaying capability remained would be deployed to close the St. Lawrence again and any other Quebec ports. Even with regular minesweeping by the French it's hard to see how any aid could regularly reach the separatists, and indeed in AD2300 Quebec is no longer a separate nation. (In fact, it makes a kind of realpolitik sense that the French would actually want to broker a settlement to create a stable state in Canada (in counterpoint to a politically chaotic and hostile USA) rather than support an untenable independent Quebec state).

As for Leg's point about other sea lane choke points and the possibility of bypassing dangerous areas, the ocean is indeed a large place and some dangerous areas can be avoided by taking alternate routes. Traffic passes through choke points like the Straights of Malacca primarily due to economics: it's simply the most efficient route and it would cost too much to go around. Also, these areas are thoroughly mapped with respects to tides and hazards, and are therefore safe and easy to navigate. More than one nation and faction would have reason to close off sea lanes in strategic areas, likewise others would seek to keep them open. It's debatable which would prevail in what area but probably all sea lanes and especially maritime choke points are still significantly more dangerous during and after the Twilight War.

In the aftermath of the Twilight War, I think established sea lanes (even those that are hazardous) would be used for two reasons: fuel is so expensive that ships will still have to take the most efficient route, and without electronic navigational aids (like GPS, LORAN-C/CHAYKA, etc.) navigation is going to become much more difficult. Navigation won't be impossible in most places, but in close waters like off Malaysia/Singapore treading off the beaten path is asking for trouble that ships can't afford.

Tony

[Mohoender]

We also know in the books that Soviet naval power, hell, all naval power of note, was on the bottom very early on (before the nukes I believe). There may well not have been time to lay minefields of any size in far off places.

In fact, what we know is that surface ships get to the bottom of the sea. Little is said on the subs. What we can guess is that little survive the exchange but also that they are active at launching the nukes.

For my part, I consider mines to be a real threat in T2K but a random one. You won't find large minefields as in ww2 but NATO's capability to clear the existing ones is equally reduced to nothing.

Another thing, Soviets used to drop mines from aircrafts and Tu-95 Bear will flight much longer than B-2 Spirit. In addition, Antonovs can also be easily modified to drop mines.

[helbent4]

In fact, what we know is that surface ships get to the bottom of the sea. Little is said on the subs. What we can guess is that little survive the exchange but also that they are active at launching the nukes.

For my part, I consider mines to be a real threat in T2K but a random one. You won't find large minefields as in ww2 but NATO's capability to clear the existing ones is equally reduced to nothing.

Another thing, Soviets used to drop mines from aircrafts and Tu-95 Bear will flight much longer than B-2 Spirit. In addition, Antonovs can also be easily modified to drop mines.

Mo,

Naval mines can be laid by pretty much any ship, including converted cargo vessels. You might still find large minefields of "moored" mines protecting installations or strategic inshore waters like ports, naval bases, river mouths, etc. Drifting mines are in theory banned but could still be used as "terror" weapons (not effective but still feared due to unpredictability) or as a consequence of becoming unmoored.

I think the most common minefield would be made from "bottom mines" laid by aircraft and subs:

Bottom mines

Bottom mines are used when the water is no more than 60 meters (180 ft) deep or when mining for submarines down to around 200 meters (660 ft). They are much harder to detect and sweep, and can carry a much larger warhead than a moored mine. Bottom mines commonly use pressure sensitive exploders, which are less sensitive to sweeping.

These mines usually weigh between 150 and 1,500 kilograms (330 to 3,300 pounds), including between 125 and 1,400 kg (275 to 3,090 pounds) of explosives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine

These weapons explode under a target and the resulting cavity (the "bubble jet effect") rupturing the target's hull or even breaking it apart.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Little is said on the subs.

The Last Submarine mentions that all but two (I think) US subs were left near the end of 1997. One went down shortly after (before Christmas) and the other is the sub the module deals with.

I doubt that the Soviet, or the rest of the NATO fleets would have fared any better.

Note that this is within the first 12 months of the war.

[Canadian Army]

CA,

It's not only the Soviets that would seek to mine the St. Lawrence seaway (probably using sub-laid "bottom" mines which are hard to detect and sweep). Those mines could and if at all possible be cleared at some point and it would be difficult for the Soviets to repeat this operation. They might well lay a nuclear mine, however, to decide the issue once and for all! (Nuclear mines were developed but apparently never deployed, at least in our timeline.)

Once the French decide to intervene in Quebec, whatever minelaying capability remained would be deployed to close the St. Lawrence again and any other Quebec ports. Even with regular minesweeping by the French it's hard to see how any aid could regularly reach the separatists, and indeed in AD2300 Quebec is no longer a separate nation. (In fact, it makes a kind of realpolitik sense that the French would actually want to broker a settlement to create a stable state in Canada (in counterpoint to a politically chaotic and hostile USA) rather than support an untenable independent Quebec state).

As for Leg's point about other sea lane choke points and the possibility of bypassing dangerous areas, the ocean is indeed a large place and some dangerous areas can be avoided by taking alternate routes. Traffic passes through choke points like the Straights of Malacca primarily due to economics: it's simply the most efficient route and it would cost too much to go around. Also, these areas are thoroughly mapped with respects to tides and hazards, and are therefore safe and easy to navigate. More than one nation and faction would have reason to close off sea lanes in strategic areas, likewise others would seek to keep them open. It's debatable which would prevail in what area but probably all sea lanes and especially maritime choke points are still significantly more dangerous during and after the Twilight War.

In the aftermath of the Twilight War, I think established sea lanes (even those that are hazardous) would be used for two reasons: fuel is so expensive that ships will still have to take the most efficient route, and without electronic navigational aids (like GPS, LORAN-C/CHAYKA, etc.) navigation is going to become much more difficult. Navigation won't be impossible in most places, but in close waters like off Malaysia/Singapore treading off the beaten path is asking for trouble that ships can't afford.

Tony

I did not mean the soviets laying mines, I meant Maritime Command, aka the Royal Canadian Navy. They would do this as precaution to prevent soviet subs from penetrating the St. Lawrence seaway, just like in the Battle of the St. Lawrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_St._Lawrence

[dragoon500ly]

In fact, what we know is that surface ships get to the bottom of the sea. Little is said on the subs. What we can guess is that little survive the exchange but also that they are active at launching the nukes.

For my part, I consider mines to be a real threat in T2K but a random one. You won't find large minefields as in ww2 but NATO's capability to clear the existing ones is equally reduced to nothing.

Another thing, Soviets used to drop mines from aircrafts and Tu-95 Bear will flight much longer than B-2 Spirit. In addition, Antonovs can also be easily modified to drop mines.

The Soviets were always considered to have the largest mine inventories of any of the major naval powers; according to Norman Polmar's "Guide to the Soviet Navy" they had between 350,000 and 400,000 naval mines (of 48 different types) stockpiled. While a portion dates back to World War II, a large number are modern mines capable of being planted in depths of up to 3,000 feet (915m). Polmar goes on to make the claim that this is several times the size of the US/NATO mine inventory.

Soviet naval writings stress both a defensive and a offensive use of mines; defensive to protect critical Soviet naval ports as well as provide secure locations for the SSBN force to shelter in. The offensive use is to blockade NATO ports, and critical chokepoints in the sea lanes....the Greenland-Iceland-UK gaps for certain, but based on some of the writings, I can see Gib, the Dardenalles, Suez, Hormouz and even the Malay barrier.

There is an old naval saying that goes "any ship can be a minesweeper, once." The belts don't have to be heavy, but scattering 30-40 mines in a area and programming them to go active after a period of time....

[helbent4]

I did not mean the soviets laying mines, I meant Maritime Command, aka the Royal Canadian Navy. They would do this as precaution to prevent soviet subs from penetrating the St. Lawrence seaway, just like in the Battle of the St. Lawrence.

CA,

Thanks for clarifying, I was thinking along those lines as well.

Tony

[Mohoender]

The Last Submarine mentions that all but two (I think) US subs were left near the end of 1997. One went down shortly after (before Christmas) and the other is the sub the module deals with.

Right, I had forgot about that one.

[Rainbow Six]

Little is said on the subs.

Going from memory I think there was a Challenge article about the Baltic Coast of Poland which described what was left of the Polish Navy. I seem to recall it pretty much consisted of a handful of patrol boats, but there was mention of a submarine, although I can't recall if it was operational.

I'll try and hunt for the article later...it was one of the first Challenges to come out after T2K was launched.

[helbent4]

Going from memory I think there was a Challenge article about the Baltic Coast of Poland which described what was left of the Polish Navy. I seem to recall it pretty much consisted of a handful of patrol boats, but there was mention of a submarine, although I can't recall if it was operational.

I'll try and hunt for the article later...it was one of the first Challenges to come out after T2K was launched.

Dave,

The article "The Baltic Coast: A Looter's Guide" is in Challenge #25, the first after T2K's launch. It's available on DrivethruRPG.com

That said, there is a surviving Whisky-class diesel-electric coastal defence submarine, a T-42 class minesweeper and some Osa patrol boats. Any of these could lay mines.

With a full load of fuel the Whiskey could manage 25,000km on the surface and 11,000 submerged.

Tony

[Rainbow Six]

Dave,

The article "The Baltic Coast: A Looter's Guide" is in Challenge #25, the first after T2K's launch. It's available on DrivethruRPG.com

Thanks Tony, I thought it was that one but wasn't certain.

Cheers

Dave