Yugoslavia

[Raellus]

Where Did All the Tanks (and Subs) Go

Does Last Submarine categorically state that there are no operational Soviet diesel or nuclear attack subs by mid-'98

And also the US Army Sourcebook was very clear on what units got hit getting across - i.e. it mentioned several by name that ran into Soviet raiders and lost a lot of men and equipment getting to the front - and none of those three units have any losses mentioned in transit.

The VG's aren't super detailed or specific about how vehicle losses were incurred in every case. It's perfectly plausible that a ship carrying 42 ID's tanks was sunk with minimal loss of life, and therefore didn't warrant a mention.

Alternatively, perhaps the navy couldn't find a merchantman (or more than one) capable of carrying more than 10-20 MBTs so most of the 42nd IDs tanks were left in the States

On the other hand, if 42nd ID was in Yugoslavia as long as some of you think (based on the conflicting dates given in the USAVG), then combat attrition is a perfectly reasonable explanation for its small number of M60 MBTs in July, 2000.

[Olefin]

Last Submarine pretty much indicates that there arent any subs left except the two US subs that are mentioned - keep in mind how surprised the captain is in Boomer that the Soviets may have an operational Boomer that is still around - and its very late 1998 by the time the convoys sail for Yugoslavia - given the fuel condition I dont see the Soviets sending out diesel subs into the Med - which is the probable location of any interception - i.e. the US shipping lanes by then were either around the Cape to the Middle East or to Germany and the UK - going the Med route probably would be a total surprise to the Soviets -

as in "what the heck are they doing send three divisions thru the Med"

I am betting the lack of tanks by mid 2000 is much more so the lack of spares - that there are probably a lot of M60A4's sitting in US rear area depots that are non-operational - or its fuel considerations and they may have a lot of tanks left but literally no fuel to operate more than a few at a time

similar to what the Germans went thru in spring 45 - they literally lost hundreds of tanks because there was no fuel to run them and they got overrun at rear area bases and supply depots

[Raellus]

The Italian Job

Last Submarine pretty much indicates that there arent any subs left except the two US subs that are mentioned - keep in mind how surprised the captain is in Boomer that the Soviets may have an operational Boomer that is still around - and its very late 1998 by the time the convoys sail for Yugoslavia - given the fuel condition I dont see the Soviets sending out diesel subs into the Med - which is the probable location of any interception - i.e. the US shipping lanes by then were either around the Cape to the Middle East or to Germany and the UK - going the Med route probably would be a total surprise to the Soviets -

"Pretty much" I was hoping for a quote or something. Assuming it's an accurate representation of what is stated in Last Sub, Boomers were priority targets from day 1 of the war (routinely tagged and tailed during peacetime) so it makes sense that few, if any, of them would still be afloat in mid-t-late '98. But, Boomers and attack subs are different beasts. It's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be any Soviets attack subs still operating in the Atlantic in '98 (although I agree it's unlikely that any would still be operating in the Med, given it's limited routes of ingress and egress).

An alternative explanation is that a ship carrying 42nd ID's armor was sunk by an Italian* or Greek diesel boat. They're quiet and the Adriatic is their backyard.

*In my treatment of Kenya, Lions of Twilight, I had an Italian diesel sink the ship that was transporting the vehicles of 173rd's motorized battalion to Mombasa, which is why it ended up equipped with French armored cars.

-

[Rainbow Six]

The Polish Job

Does Last Submarine categorically state that there are no operational Soviet diesel or nuclear attack subs by mid-'98

If you accept Challenge as canon (I know some people do and some people don't; I also know it's often used as a reference point for a later article about some US Navy destroyers) the Poles have one

Challenge Magazine 25, Looter's Guide to the Baltic Coast
The current Polish naval presence at Gydnia consists of one Whiskey Class submarine, three Osa class guided missile patrol boats, five P6 Class patrol torpedo boats, and one T43 class ocean minesweeper

If the Poles have one it probably stands to reason that the Russians have a few (the Poles only had four to start with, so that represents 25% of their submarine fleet having survived to 2000 - that's impressive, although granted IRL they were all retired in 1986.)

[Raellus]

Humble Pie

Yeah, if the Poles can keep a sub operational in the Baltic, it stands to reason that the Soviets could keep at least a handful of attack subs alive in the Atlantic through 1998. In what time frame does Challenge say that Polish sub is operational

Also, I checked the color plate of the 42nd ID's M60A4 in the USVG and it's labelled as being from Spring, 1999. So, those of you who argued that the 42nd ID arrived in Yugoslavia in 1998, with or around the same time as the two US light infantry divisions, you're probably right, and I am probably wrong.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I know this is not Soviet, in regards to submarines, in Twilight Encounters, the adventure "What's Polish for G'Day" states that the French have at least one operational submarine operating in the Baltic although it doesn't mention any details about the sub.
It's implied that this sub travelled to Australia then back to Europe and probably will return the Australians home after the mission.

[Legbreaker]

While I know this is not Soviet, in regards to submarines, in Twilight Encounters, the adventure "What's Polish for G'Day" states that the French have at least one operational submarine operating in the Baltic although it doesn't mention any details about the sub.
It's implied that this sub travelled to Australia then back to Europe and probably will return the Australians home after the mission.

Ugh. That one short scenario with that one throwaway line about the "Organisation of Non-irradiated Nations" has perhaps given me more headaches than just about anything else over the last couple of years!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Well considering that the Aussies are listed as having said it in a jokey manner, you could write it off as being exactly that, a joke, with no substance behind it other than France and Australia co-operating on what could well be the only time they co-operate on such a scale.

[Southernap]

Okay so if we are talking about the convoy and its loses while in route lets pull somethings apart and think about this logically.

The presumption that any RO/RO ships would have survived post 1997 is interesting. Even more so based on how the write ups of the naval combat in the core rule book, "Last Submarine" trilogy, "Gateway to the Spanish Main", "Going Home" and the various Challenge write ups. Effectively all the pre-war fast supply ships and most modern merchant ships are sitting at the bottom of the ocean either from hostile attack or from being caught in port when the nuclear strikes were occurring. Nearly all of them agree that the major fleets of the pre-war era have quit to exist and that there are very few of the warring nations and neutral shipping in the combat zones that exists above small intra-coastal shipping. Anything that seems to go across the world is doing so at great risk to not only breaking down when it arrives or to attack by whatever lays out there past the edge of the "known" world.

If we are talking about the US trying to pull together some shipping, then we are talking about then for the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration National Defense Ready Reserve Fleet, the ships at the various "Ghost Fleet" stations, such as one at James River, VA located near Fort Eustis in the Chesapeake Bay. The other locations at least in pre-1989 timeline would have included:

• Beaumount Texas
• Suisan Bay, CA
• Long Beach, CA
• Bremeton, WA
• Buzzard Bay, MA
• Philadelphia, PA
• Norfolk, VA
• Newport News, VA
• Alameda, CA
• Baltimore, MD
• New Orleans, LA
• James River, VA

Which again most of these regions have a nuclear strike at or very nearby them in 1997 and therefore aren't giving up much. The few in non-targeted zones probably have the wrong types of ships to move any armor of any healthy amount successfully and rapidly offload it.

That list of places is just to name a few places. I have been near the one in the James river about 15 yrs ago. Which is a great place to go fishing. If you can do it and not get hassled by the game warden or security Most of the ships then were retired 1970s or some 1980s era bulk freighters or old freighters that were still using King Post cranes. Which is how the old amphibious cargo ships could do offload things like tanks into landing craft or on to piers. Most of them were poorly maintained and more then a few were slowly sinking at their anchorages due to poor maintenance.

So that said, we are probably looking in late 1997-1998 time frame. So very old cobble together freighters that use bulk cargo loading options and if we are lucky maybe a single larger more modern containerized freighter, but that is going to be on the very small size compared to ones that would have been in services in lines like Marsek or such in the period right before the war.
___________________________________
Okay all that said, so potential threats to the convoy post 2000 from naval units. All through the second page of this thread is the assumption about submarines. So lets talk about who had submarines and who didn't

Here are some nations during the Cold War from the Eastern North American Seaboard to Yugoslavia/Jugoslavia coast that has submarines

• Cuba
• France
• Spain
• Libya
• Italy
• Greece
• Turkey
• Egypt
• Canada

Out of that list only the French have nuclear powered submarines. The rest of those nations use some diesel-electric power for their submarines. The Cuban, Egyptian, Libyan submarines are some variant of a Soviet Whiskey or Foxtrot class. While the Greeks and Turks both had damned near clones of Type 209 submarine that was built by the Germans in the 1960s. That isn't an exhaustive list either, nearly all the major naval powers of South America had a submarine of either US WW2 vintage or some licensed copy of a German Type 206/209.

Trying to find a diesel-electric is a serious PITA. Let me put it this way as a good descriptor of ASW combat against a capable submarine, put your ear to your flashlight with the light on and try to hear the battery running.
___________________________________

It seems like a sideshow. I can't understand why, in terms of strategy, either the US or Soviet Union sent forces there (especially the latter, given that its new Warsaw Pact allies, the Italians and Greeks had already defeated the Yugoslavs and ignited internecine warfare.

So Yugoslavia/Jugoslavia (pick a dang spelling preference) was a weird country during the cold war. It was socialist, Tito was a socialist, however it was never fully went full bore in with the Soviets. If I remember reading the history right, Tito went from killing Germans to killing the NKVD for being the sons of unmarried women that they were. Going even further into the height of the Cold War during the period of Detente there was attempts by various presidents from Nixon on to woo Tito on over to our side or at least go non-aligned, but lean towards the socialists. Similar the Soviets tried to woo Tito to fully come on their team. Offering loans, arms, advisors and even offering to train their officers. One of the most famous ones that I know of is Milan Vego. So there is much more to the politics at the time that the game was being drafted with regards to Yugoslavia in the grander scheme of the Cold War.

So I think far from it being a side show, there was a feeling that ownership of Yugoslavia would have allowed for further control into the Carpathians and into the oil production areas around Poletsi as well major industrialized regions along the Danube and into what amounts to be Hungry, Czech, Southern Germany regions of heavy industry and arms manufacturing. Again owership of those regions and plants like koda would have been useful to again continued the war with weapons and heavy weapons like tanks or even some tankettes.


That is just my two shiny Lincoln heads on the whole matter.

[Legbreaker]

I think this is vaguely relevant to the overall conversation. https://youtu.be/iqK0MBfxlyo

[Rainbow Six]

Yeah, if the Poles can keep a sub operational in the Baltic, it stands to reason that the Soviets could keep at least a handful of attack subs alive in the Atlantic through 1998. In what time frame does Challenge say that Polish sub is operational

The article states that it refers to conditions as of the beginning of July 2000.

[Olefin]

I am betting the units got there pretty much undisturbed - as said before the US Army Sourcebook was pretty clear on who got nailed on the way and who didnt

and if the 42nd got sent there in Oct 98 with limited spares and fuel its pretty easy to see why they are down to 6 operational tanks by June 2000 - i.e. combat + breakdowns+lack of spares+lack of fuel+lack of kits to convert them over to alcohol (they arent in contact with the Milgov forces that have been doing this for two years in Germany and Poland)+overall lack of support = recipe to reduce number of tanks - especially over 21 months of combat and use

If they had arrived in late 1999 then I would say it was due to losing a ship or two for sure

Also all three divisions went by sea - if you look at the US Army Sourcebook if they went by air and sea or air alone it was made clear - all three of the Yugoslavia divisions went by sea alone

Also if you look the divisions that took hits from Soviet raiders or air on the way over all went over in 97 - i.e. by 98 of the five units that deployed by sea the only one mentioning Soviet raiders or air attacks is the 6th Marine going to Korea and that was in early 98

[Raellus]

It All Makes Sense Now

So I think far from it being a side show, there was a feeling that ownership of Yugoslavia would have allowed for further control into the Carpathians and into the oil production areas around Poletsi as well major industrialized regions along the Danube and into what amounts to be Hungry, Czech, Southern Germany regions of heavy industry and arms manufacturing. Again owership of those regions and plants like koda would have been useful to again continued the war with weapons and heavy weapons like tanks or even some tankettes.

I have come around to this way of thinking. Your earlier mention of the Yugoslavian offensive into Hungary (stopped at Lake Balaton) to link up with NATO forces pushing out of S. Germany lines up, time line-wise, with the arrival of the American divisions in Yugoslavia. It makes sense that they were sent to support said offensive. IF it had been successful, it would have establish a land corridor between Yugoslavia and S. Germany, cutting Hungary in half and essentially liberating Austria, not to mention getting one step closer to recapturing the Romanian oil fields.

So now sending US forces to Yugoslavia in mind-to-late '98 makes a lot of strategic sense.

As for the timing of 42nd ID's dispatch/arrival, after checking the color plate of the 42nd ID M60A4 in the USVG, it's decided pretty conclusively that its deployment happened in the final third of 1998, not late 1999 (that single reference must be a typo). That means the strength figure given in the USVG probably reflects almost two years' worth of combat attrition, rather than losses sustained during transit across the Atlantic/Med. That said, I still think there were Soviet subs operating as commerce raiders during that time.

Thanks to all of you for helping me work this out.

[Adm.Lee]

That was a lot of good discussion, all!

I was always willing to ignore the whole US deployment to Yugo. as silly IMC, but when you point to the timing with the NATO offensive south, it suddenly makes sense. So I am now in the same boat as Raellus, hopefully not a boat about to contact someone's sub in the eastern Med!

Sidebar: something that's influencing me is a game of Third World War (GDW) that I remember playing within the last 6 years or so-- about 4 weeks into the big war, NATO sent some of the still-arriving Americans into Croatia (7th LD, maybe the 101st or 10th MtnD) to help the Italians stave off a Pact drive there. It wasn't much force, but it was enough to stall a secondary drive. I was the Pact player, and that was definitely a disappointment that I remember, even as I thought, "Why is he doing that!"

[Raellus]

So I am now in the same boat as Raellus, hopefully not a boat about to contact someone's sub in the eastern Med!

Sidebar: something that's influencing me is a game of Third World War (GDW) that I remember playing within the last 6 years or so-- about 4 weeks into the big war, NATO sent some of the still-arriving Americans into Croatia (7th LD, maybe the 101st or 10th MtnD) to help the Italians stave off a Pact drive there. It wasn't much force, but it was enough to stall a secondary drive. I was the Pact player, and that was definitely a disappointment that I remember, even as I thought, "Why is he doing that!"

Interesting. In my T2kU (v1, of course), the US sends the 173rd Airborne Brigade from Vicenza, Italy to Romania in late December 1996, after the Italians break with NATO (but before they declare for the WTO) and Romania declares for NATO, to help the Romanians and Yugoslavians hold off the WTO invasion and defend the Ploesti Oil fields until more help can arrive. As it turns out, that help, IV Corps, doesn't arrive until autumn, 1998, and then it gets held up in Yugoslavia. It's a classic, "Good luck, you're on your own" scenario.

-