San Diego Based Article?

[kalos72]

I for the life of me cannot find an article/story written about San Diego. Something like there was a massive artillery fight on the island of Coronado and such...it was a good read.

Anyone know what I am thinking of

[kalos72]

Found it! I thought was San Diego based but instead its a good read for the Pacific....

[kalos72]

Anyone have any thoughts on this article

Not sure who wrote it but its as much detail as I have ever seen about the Pacific or the Navy in general honestly.

[Olefin]

It definitely predates me being on the board

and while its very interesting it has a lot of issues with the canon

I am usually not a canon defender but it adds Soviet units that would have been in the canon Soviet Forces V1 and V2.2 versions

And Project Pyoter is definitely a canon buster - I dont see the Soviets being able to transit anything like that kind of force especially in the Pacific - if you want to see how bad a shape they were in look at Satellite Down to give you an indication of what they had left as to naval forces - and you need A LOT of ships to transit even a single division let alone whole armies

And the New Jersey battle is definitely one that needs some rewrites - 30mm CWS isnt going to do squat to an incoming 16 inch shell - even if they did get hits that somehow kept them from detonating the impact speed and size of those shells would have blown huge holes in Frunze - and hell if you are at 2300 yards why not just go ahead and ram while you are at it - plus she has 12 5inch guns that at 2300 yards would turn Frunze into Swiss Cheese

plus those teakwood decks have 7.5 inches of armor plate under them - those SS-N-19's would probably bounce off her

[kalos72]

Id love to get your opinion on the separation...I am not well versed in pure canon.

[Cherper]

Interesting project, but the whole battle with the Frunze and New Jersey was almost laughable. The idea that a 30mm shell weighing less than 3 kg knocking a 406mm shell weighing more than 800kg off target is a stretch.

The rest of the project does give some ideas for further development.

[kalos72]

Well, I know the state of the worlds navies is always a sore subject but this story seems to have ALOT of firepower left in the world.

Just look at whats sitting in CA...

I for one, have always thought that attrition of parts and fuel had more to do with the lack of naval activity/support and not that every ship destroyed except for one submarine.

[Cherper]

I agree that the attrition of lack of parts would grind the navies to a halt. Without petroleum and parts most heavy machinery will literally grind to a halt. The bigger the machine the more maintenance it would need.

I could see a number of ships more or less mothballed in scattered ports around the world. The ship is afloat, may have some armaments, and could influence the local region but is probably not capable of offensive actions.

These ships could be great strongholds. Tough to capture, but could hold a wealth of gear.

[unkated]

Pacific Fleet Comments

I started having trouble with it in the beginning:

Opening Moves

"Despite the outbreak of hostilities between the US and USSR in Europe in 1996, the Pacific Rim started out as a relatively quiet area."


Um, Russia is fighting China in 1995 and makes no moves along the Pacific Coast No attempts at blockade Does nothing with their fleet units at Cam Rahn Bay

In the 1990s, (in our timeline, anyway) the Chinese PLAN was beginning to expand. So was their air force, which would give them some force to push back. Sounds like an active War Zone.

None of the Western Powers do any counter moves The JDF naval forces stay in port The US Fleet stays east of the International Dateline

No armed assurance of commerce missions in 1995 Consider what the western powers did during the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War to protect neutral shipping running through the Arabian Gulf; this would be to oppose the Soviet Union in a timeline where the Cold War did not end.

I would imagine that if nothing else, 1995-96 in the Pacific would be a period of increased tension - there is a major way going on, with western powers (US at least) want to ship in equipment and ammo, and it being in the Soviet interest to prevent it, preferably without triggering a 2-front war.

Then increase the tension from actual shooting in Europe.

OTOH, if the Soviets, under pressure form the West keep away from the China Coast, there's nothing really to prevent them from keeping a close watch on the few Soviet ports (which was done in the 1980s & 1990s anyway).

In either case, by 1996, when NATO does enter the fray in Europe, it does not seem to me like it would be "quiet." More like "primed to explode."



First Big Fight

I have trouble with the notion that a large surface (soviet) SAG could leave harbor in time of war much less get into gun or missile range without a lot of warning. It says that this fight takes place in deep water, but the Sea of Japan is rather limited in size (yes, three hundred miles is small when your missiles and planes have ranges that are 3-10 times that.

Submarines at 45 knots are a) deaf and b) quite noticeable - yes, even an Alfa and Akula. That they can move a distance, turn and fire a spread of torpedoes I can believe. That they can fire a targeted spread and hit a moving target that they did not see (guessing at its likely location) and that heard them coming with 4 of 8 (and hit other targets with any of the others) I cannot swallow.

Is the Carl Vinson group 6 hours ship travel time (6x30 = 180 nm) That's well within its air envelope - either for protection or attack. Not to mention that off Korea is Japan, with a hitherto untouched US air force backed by JSDFAF.

So, I have some problems with both the strategic and tactical tenor of what I have read so far.

Uncle Ted

[stormlion1]

I worked on the New Jersey when it was brought to Camden to be turned into a museum and while the superstructure was relatively thin armored in spots there is little that was punching through to the armored sections. The Bridge alone had 17" of armor and could be sealed up with just telescopes to be used to see. The AK-130 gun system would bounce off the armored sections barely putting a dent. When you hit the armored sections there thick! The Kirov's were missile boats and even those would have to work at it to penetrate the ships armored core. Finally it mentions the Jersey heading for Yokota. A Air Base in Japan I was stationed at in the 90's. Not Yokosuka. And we don't know what happened to the Jersey after the Battle as its not listed anywhere at the end with other surviving ships or as sunk.

[swaghauler]

I started having trouble with it in the beginning:

Opening Moves

"Despite the outbreak of hostilities between the US and USSR in Europe in 1996, the Pacific Rim started out as a relatively quiet area."


Um, Russia is fighting China in 1995 and makes no moves along the Pacific Coast No attempts at blockade Does nothing with their fleet units at Cam Rahn Bay

In the 1990s, (in our timeline, anyway) the Chinese PLAN was beginning to expand. So was their air force, which would give them some force to push back. Sounds like an active War Zone.

None of the Western Powers do any counter moves The JDF naval forces stay in port The US Fleet stays east of the International Dateline

No armed assurance of commerce missions in 1995 Consider what the western powers did during the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War to protect neutral shipping running through the Arabian Gulf; this would be to oppose the Soviet Union in a timeline where the Cold War did not end.

I would imagine that if nothing else, 1995-96 in the Pacific would be a period of increased tension - there is a major way going on, with western powers (US at least) want to ship in equipment and ammo, and it being in the Soviet interest to prevent it, preferably without triggering a 2-front war.

Then increase the tension from actual shooting in Europe.

OTOH, if the Soviets, under pressure form the West keep away from the China Coast, there's nothing really to prevent them from keeping a close watch on the few Soviet ports (which was done in the 1980s & 1990s anyway).

In either case, by 1996, when NATO does enter the fray in Europe, it does not seem to me like it would be "quiet." More like "primed to explode."



First Big Fight

I have trouble with the notion that a large surface (soviet) SAG could leave harbor in time of war much less get into gun or missile range without a lot of warning. It says that this fight takes place in deep water, but the Sea of Japan is rather limited in size (yes, three hundred miles is small when your missiles and planes have ranges that are 3-10 times that.

Submarines at 45 knots are a) deaf and b) quite noticeable - yes, even an Alfa and Akula. That they can move a distance, turn and fire a spread of torpedoes I can believe. That they can fire a targeted spread and hit a moving target that they did not see (guessing at its likely location) and that heard them coming with 4 of 8 (and hit other targets with any of the others) I cannot swallow.

Is the Carl Vinson group 6 hours ship travel time (6x30 = 180 nm) That's well within its air envelope - either for protection or attack. Not to mention that off Korea is Japan, with a hitherto untouched US air force backed by JSDFAF.

So, I have some problems with both the strategic and tactical tenor of what I have read so far.

Uncle Ted

I have to agree with your assessment of the Pact's tactics. This is why I have always suggested in my posts that the USSR would sorte its fleet early in the conflict with China as commerce raiders. If NATO did take sides with the Chinese; Russia would want the fleet "at sea" when that happened. They were well aware of the technological edge NATO had after the 91 Gulf War. The best option for survival would be to "disperse" the fleet and force NATO to hunt for them. The Pact fleet was ideal for use as a commerce raiding force. Russian ships are fast and tend to have better fuel endurance than comparable NATO ships. They do not have the "detection range" of most NATO ships, nor do they carry a large number of reloads for their weapons. These two factors are major handicaps in a sustained naval engagement. The Russians would fare much better "running from" a NATO task force and hitting merchant shipping instead. You can, in theory, disable an entire task force (by denying it fuel) by simply sinking one commercial tanker. If NATO loses enough merchant shipping; you can stall a fairly large ground offensive too. The Russians would need "ports abroad" to rest and resupply from. This could draw Cuba, and certain South American and African countries into the conflict when NATO took steps to kill Pact raiders who were in these countries territorial waters. I also see many ships on both sides being "stranded" by a lack of fuel later in the conflict.

[RN7]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

[stormlion1]

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

-Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise

[Cherper]

One other thing that I thought was implausible was the fitting of the ships to sail. The size of sails needed to move even a small frigate would be huge. A couple of sails like those pictured would maybe move the ships at a knot or two, but the stress on the masts would be incredible. Don't know if it would even be possible.

[kalos72]

Yeah alot of this is someone reading Popular Mechanics or something and going overboard with it. :P

But there are sailing ships that could be comparable...HMS Warrior perhaps

What got me is the staggering amount of tonnage thats still out there.