4th ed T2K

[Ursus Maior]

The battleship would be a better choice for sure - for one its built to go in there and mix it up whereas a carrier isn[']t made for direct combat. The Iowa class was made to go head to head with Yamato or Bismark - thus it would make the perfect ship for a gun battle - and with the missiles it carried it had a credible long range punch as well.

While all of this is true, it would still be like shooting fish in a barrel. A BBBG was also not necessarily meant to go somewhere and complete a mission all on its own. The Balitc Sea is a tiny pond with its 377,000 km2, bordering NATO countries Germany and Denmark (plus almost Norway), neutral countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland as well as the Baltic States plus the USSR in this timeline. It's a crowded place with nowhere to hide, absolutely no depth (the average is 55 m, but it actually only gets reliably below 50 m, once you approach the Polish coast. Once you get there, you're in Soviet hunting grounds, Warsaw Pact or not: that's well within Soviet missiles strike distances plus optimal territory for SSKs like the (improved) Kilo and not to speak of mines.

If you go in there, you do it full force, together with your allies Germany and Denmark, who specializes in mine-warfare, small submarines, ASW and AAW. Also, attacking Sweden is dumb, because that's not only a natural ally, but also the only way to go to maneuver. Essentially, attacking Sweden allows the USSR to close its pincers on any NATO force.

If the US wants to respond by sending a sizeable naval force within striking distance of Soviet territory, it should send a Carrier Strike Group and a Expeditionary strike group into Norwegian waters and work together with Denmark and Germany to "secure sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea" by sending a Ticonderoga class CG plus an Arleigh Burke-class DDG and 3-4 frigates under constant air-cover and supported by allied SSKs. A Tico is a juicy target, but far from the same as a CVN or BB.

My question is again: What's the strategic goal here Apparently the carrier strike group is only sent into the Baltic Sea to duke it out with the Soviet fleet at Kaliningrad. That's not a strategy, it's a death sentence. In 1996 (actual history) the Russian Baltic Fleet numbered nine submarines, three cruisers, two destroyers, 18 frigates and 56 small vessels. But the defensive power of the fleet lay in the coast and its hinterland with its airfields, missile bases and of course long-range bombers available.

Assaulting Kaliningrad with a single CSG would amount to assaulting a cannon-spiked fortress with a host of light cavalry and a single catapult. The CSG has no amphibious element to deploy, cannot mount enough strikes to destroy all relevant targets and cannot endure the swarms of missiles it would have to face. Even if the CSG manages to level said fortress with a nuclear struke, what good does that do It escalates the war immediately to its final phase, since the USN would just have attacked Soviet (even: Russian) soil with nukes.

If the ultimate goal is supporting the air strikes in Poland by attacking Soviet forces in or around Kaliningrad, that's a job for stealth bombers, which could be based in Norway or even Denmark. The B-2 went operational on January 1st 1997, the historical combat debut was 1999 during the Kosovo War. For T2K, June 1997 would be an ideal date, the USSR wouldn't know what hit it, especially if you mask the attack with a second deep-strike by B-52 launching cruise missiles and the better known stealth attack craft F-117. The latter were likely already known to Soviet SIGINT since 1991, so "seeing" their signatures pop up in a diversionary raid on targets in central Poland at the same time as B-52 launch AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles from afar, would draw all the attention away from B-2s. Tip off the Swedish that the B-52s would fly close to their airspace and you could even get away with B-2s overflying their mainland, while all radars are trimmed to watch the main show to the South.

Once that triple-strike is over, you assess the situation in order to figure out, if the Soviet threat has diminished enough for a CSG to enter the bathtub. But again, that needs a plan to follow. The Baltic Sea is not only carrier-unfriendly, it also has no need for a carrier, since every target is so close by anybody's airfields, you can just get up in the morning, drive to work, board your bomber and be home by noon. That's far better than sleeping in rancid cots and having to jump from a burning wreck into the water before breakfast, because hundreds of dancing vampires proved to outmatch your defense.

[3catcircus]

While all of this is true, it would still be like shooting fish in a barrel. A BBBG was also not necessarily meant to go somewhere and complete a mission all on its own. The Balitc Sea is a tiny pond with its 377,000 km2, bordering NATO countries Germany and Denmark (plus almost Norway), neutral countries like Poland, Sweden and Finland as well as the Baltic States plus the USSR in this timeline. It's a crowded place with nowhere to hide, absolutely no depth (the average is 55 m, but it actually only gets reliably below 50 m, once you approach the Polish coast. Once you get there, you're in Soviet hunting grounds, Warsaw Pact or not: that's well within Soviet missiles strike distances plus optimal territory for SSKs like the (improved) Kilo and not to speak of mines.

If you go in there, you do it full force, together with your allies Germany and Denmark, who specializes in mine-warfare, small submarines, ASW and AAW. Also, attacking Sweden is dumb, because that's not only a natural ally, but also the only way to go to maneuver. Essentially, attacking Sweden allows the USSR to close its pincers on any NATO force.

If the US wants to respond by sending a sizeable naval force within striking distance of Soviet territory, it should send a Carrier Strike Group and a Expeditionary strike group into Norwegian waters and work together with Denmark and Germany to "secure sea lines of communication in the Baltic Sea" by sending a Ticonderoga class CG plus an Arleigh Burke-class DDG and 3-4 frigates under constant air-cover and supported by allied SSKs. A Tico is a juicy target, but far from the same as a CVN or BB.

My question is again: What's the strategic goal here Apparently the carrier strike group is only sent into the Baltic Sea to duke it out with the Soviet fleet at Kaliningrad. That's not a strategy, it's a death sentence. In 1996 (actual history) the Russian Baltic Fleet numbered nine submarines, three cruisers, two destroyers, 18 frigates and 56 small vessels. But the defensive power of the fleet lay in the coast and its hinterland with its airfields, missile bases and of course long-range bombers available.

Assaulting Kaliningrad with a single CSG would amount to assaulting a cannon-spiked fortress with a host of light cavalry and a single catapult. The CSG has no amphibious element to deploy, cannot mount enough strikes to destroy all relevant targets and cannot endure the swarms of missiles it would have to face. Even if the CSG manages to level said fortress with a nuclear struke, what good does that do It escalates the war immediately to its final phase, since the USN would just have attacked Soviet (even: Russian) soil with nukes.

If the ultimate goal is supporting the air strikes in Poland by attacking Soviet forces in or around Kaliningrad, that's a job for stealth bombers, which could be based in Norway or even Denmark. The B-2 went operational on January 1st 1997, the historical combat debut was 1999 during the Kosovo War. For T2K, June 1997 would be an ideal date, the USSR wouldn't know what hit it, especially if you mask the attack with a second deep-strike by B-52 launching cruise missiles and the better known stealth attack craft F-117. The latter were likely already known to Soviet SIGINT since 1991, so "seeing" their signatures pop up in a diversionary raid on targets in central Poland at the same time as B-52 launch AGM-86 ALCM cruise missiles from afar, would draw all the attention away from B-2s. Tip off the Swedish that the B-52s would fly close to their airspace and you could even get away with B-2s overflying their mainland, while all radars are trimmed to watch the main show to the South.

Once that triple-strike is over, you assess the situation in order to figure out, if the Soviet threat has diminished enough for a CSG to enter the bathtub. But again, that needs a plan to follow. The Baltic Sea is not only carrier-unfriendly, it also has no need for a carrier, since every target is so close by anybody's airfields, you can just get up in the morning, drive to work, board your bomber and be home by noon. That's far better than sleeping in rancid cots and having to jump from a burning wreck into the water before breakfast, because hundreds of dancing vampires proved to outmatch your defense.

If your plan is to fight it out in the Baltic with the Soviets, there is no need to send a CVBG into the Baltic. The area is small enough that you can sit out in the Atlantic or the North Sea and have strike aircraft get close enough to lob Harpoons before your Tico's hit Kaliningrad with TLAMs or a TLAM-N (or several). You can refuel over Norway or Germany while they provide CAP/BARCAP.

[Olefin]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

She could probably take hits that would put a CVN on the bottom or completely combat ineffective and still fight

And I agree - sending a CVN into the Baltic is flat out suicide - the only way that carrier would be in the Baltic is if every Soviet airfield, missile base and long range bomber group was already destroyed -heck where she the Soviets would basically be able to hit her with long range missiles from the airspace directly above their airfields

All reference to that nuclear carrier being in the Baltic needs to be removed - and T2K is about a possible believable WWIII where, at least at the beginning, militaries are making strategic and tactical decisions that arent the equivalent of the Japanese throwing away their carriers at Leyte as decoys

if you really have to have a USN nuclear carrier in a port with massive damage then make it in the UK or possibly Norway

[3catcircus]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

She could probably take hits that would put a CVN on the bottom or completely combat ineffective and still fight

And I agree - sending a CVN into the Baltic is flat out suicide - the only way that carrier would be in the Baltic is if every Soviet airfield, missile base and long range bomber group was already destroyed -heck where she the Soviets would basically be able to hit her with long range missiles from the airspace directly above their airfields

All reference to that nuclear carrier being in the Baltic needs to be removed - and T2K is about a possible believable WWIII where, at least at the beginning, militaries are making strategic and tactical decisions that arent the equivalent of the Japanese throwing away their carriers at Leyte as decoys

if you really have to have a USN nuclear carrier in a port with massive damage then make it in the UK or possibly Norway

Normally, the US would stick to blue water ops for a CVBG add let NATO allies deal with green/brown-water ops. I could see Germany, Denmark, and Norway operating in the Baltic while a US CVBG provides A-6/A-7/F-18 strike aircraft.

You really shouldn't be running a SAG in the Baltic as a USN operation. Especially concerning would be Soviet SS or SSKs and the Norwegians are going to be much better at ASW in the littorals, supported by P-3s out of Italy or the UK.

[Olefin]

Really the SAG wouldnt go into the Baltic until the Soviets had been pounded and their bases either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective - at that point you would see them there most likely escorting and providing fire power for a Marine unit to make a landing in Poland or Kaliningrad or the Baltics

Especially since if all you are using the SAG for is as a Tomahawk platform then you dont need to bring it into a slaughterhouse like the Baltic to do that

If you want a great book describing why going into the Baltic before the enemy air and navy is totally suppressed read Cauldron by Larry Bond where you see what happens to USN ships trying to convoy supplies to Poland and getting ambushed by the French and Germans

and that antiship weapons they faced were nothing like what the Soviets would have brought to the table

[Raellus]

Clarification

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

[Olefin]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that aggression vs. NATO will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."

I still think that if you're going to send any USN force into the Baltic at all, an Iowa-class battleship battle group makes more sense, both strategically and tactically.

-

they are using the wrong ship and sending her in harms way where she doesnt need to be - deploying her to the Norwegian Sea sends the exact same message - her planes have more than enough range to hit any target from there - and if you want to saber rattle that is what battleships are for - i.e. dont mess with us - and 32 Tomahawks and Harpoons and 16 inch shells send a pretty potent message

Or look at it this way - sending in an asset to where she literally doesnt have enough time to turn around planes if she needs to use them before the enemy is all over her like white on rice - its like sending in one cop to take down a gang of 20 armed guys and have him face them down basically at point blank range

If he gets his gun out in time he might take a bunch down - but there is no way he gets to reload and that bullet proof vest can only take so many hits

[Raellus]

You Almost Sunk My Battleship!

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

[Olefin]

You are essentially preaching to the choir, Olefin.

Another "advantage" a battleship would have over an aircraft carrier, in this scenario, is that a damaged battleship can be beached and the use of its guns can continue. This was done in at least a couple of instances (that I know of) during WW2 (including in the Baltic by the Germans, IIRC).

An aircraft carrier, on the other hand, can fly off any of its surviving aircraft to other carriers or airbases within range, but the vessel itself becomes essentially useless until repaired (if it can even make it back to a port with adequate facilities, that is).

-

and a beached battleship using her guns can take a lot of pounding before she is totally knocked out - FYI that is exactly what the Japanese had planned for Yamato

and carriers make for crappy "beach her and use the crew for infantry" ideas - besides a small USMC contingent (in the 90's) about the only other armed crew are the pilots who have sidearms

the battleship crew doesnt have a lot of small arms either but they are a self contained artillery battalion until all the guns get knocked out

[Ursus Maior]

If your plan is to fight it out in the Baltic with the Soviets, there is no need to send a CVBG into the Baltic.

My point exactly.

[Ursus Maior]

The battleship group would have pretty good teeth as part of any attack on the Soviets - Iowa has 32 Tomahawks all on her own and could easily have nuclear armed versions if need be and the Tico's would help defend her and add more Tomahawks as well - and she is a lot more survivable than a carrier

The problem is: All of the resilience of an Iowa is doing the mission no good, once the vampires from Kaliningrad have sent the Tico and all other ships in the task force to the - admittedly shallow - bottom of the Baltic Sea. Whatever the USN feared the Soviets could muster against it in a battle for the Atlantic would have been available to the Baltic Fleet as well; just more of it and in fewer time. There is no hiding and no evading radars in the Baltic, so a Soviet commander just needs to spam the task force and overwhelm the AA defense. None of the ships, except the BB, can take more than two hits to sink. Most will only take one hit and be a mission kill at least.

The Iowa then is completely unprotected against all threats an has nothing except it's armor to survive. It won't even see the torpedoes coming.

And as was pointed out: For its TLAMs to attack, an Iowa would not need to get into the Baltic Sea. You can do that from Norway and that's only because INF took out the BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile that previously sat in Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Belgium.

[Ursus Maior]

Really the SAG wouldnt go into the Baltic until the Soviets had been pounded and their bases either destroyed or rendered combat ineffective - at that point you would see them there most likely escorting and providing fire power for a Marine unit to make a landing in Poland or Kaliningrad or the Baltics

We're talking the neutralization of mainland Soviet combat effectiveness. What ever would have happened at that point is complete speculation. My bet: Either the Soviets would have asked for peace or hit the big red button, since at that point a NATO main offensive would come rolling across land towards them.

Either way, USN was planning to dominate the Barents Sea at that point, since it resembled a deepwater approach against the Soviet heartland, allowed to take out their boomer bastion(s) and would have opened up a third front to the North against Moscow.

Let the German, Danish, Dutch etc. navies handle the Baltics.

[Ursus Maior]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move called ill-advised by critics meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

That sounds like Alpha edition. The paragraph in the actual published edition goes like this:

"On June 6, US and Soviet ground forces engage in combat for the first time, west of Poznań in western Poland. Shortly after this clash, Soviet forces cross the borders of Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, and fighting erupts all along the new frontline through Eastern Europe.

The USS Harry S. Truman and its supporting squadrons spar with the Soviet Baltic Fleet out of Kaliningrad. The US asks Sweden to allow US troops and air defenses on the strategically located island of Gotland in the middle of the Baltic."

So it's 1) full invasion and land-warfare along borders of the USSR with its former Warsaw Pact allies with US forces already in place to defend these nations (paragraph immediately prior to the first quoted here), then 2) CSG sails into the Baltic Sea and dukes it out with the Baltic Fleet, then 3) the US ask Sweden to join their war against the USSR.

[Raellus]

That sounds like Alpha edition.

Nope. I pulled it from the T2K4_Referees_Manual PDF released/downloaded just the other day. It's the watermarked version with my name and order number imprinted on it. Look at the top of p. 7.

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move – called ill-advised by critics – meant to send a strong statement to the Kremlin."

The quote you posted is 4-5 paragraphs down the page. The USS Truman is sent before the Soviets invade Poland, but it's still there when the shooting war with the US starts not long after.

-

[Spartan-117]

I'm not trying to justify the decision by either the v4 writers or their characters, but the USS Truman isn't sent into the Baltic during a shooting war between the USSR and NATO. It's deployed after the Soviet invasion of the Baltic States, but before the war starts in Poland. It's saber rattling, meant to send a signal to the Soviets that continued aggression vs. Eastern European states will not be met with insouciance. From the v4 referee's manual:

"The newly commissioned USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier sails into the Baltic Sea, a bold move called ill-advised by critics meant to send a
strong statement to the Kremlin."
-

This is an important point. Google 'tons of diplomacy' and what you get are lots of pictures of U.S. Aircraft Carriers (and the occasional Imperial Star Destroyer ).

We benefit from knowing that the timeline will result in a shooting war. So obviously we can look back and can easily criticize every non-optimal choice. But... in the real world, the calculations are not so easy.

Had the Soviets backed down after a carrier strike group entered the Baltic, it would be hailed as a brilliant diplomatic move. Of course we'd probably be playing a very different RPG from such a timeline... Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past age 2000.