Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1481  
Old July 29th, 2013, 04:02 PM
Derek Pullem Derek Pullem is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by giobastia View Post
Do you want the sinking of USS Nimitz or USS America? No problem, I can make them sunk. The Soviets launched two times their missiles. One of the launches (especially the first one, from bombers) could have been luckier. I can also open a poll: would you like one carrier sunk? Two carriers sunk? All three alive? That's a detail, believe me. The strategic outcome would be the same: a Soviet bastion opened to air and naval attack. Once you opened it and put your ships inside, despite your heavy or light casualties, you have already changed the course of the war.
Author's choice - the narrative should not be a democracy

The question now is with the land forces in retreat, client states disintergrating and the nuclear deterrent under threat, what is there to stop the Russians from using nukes (or at least threatening) - and how far will NATO go down the road to winning a nuclear exchange given the fact that they have some elements of a nuclear shield in place (however leaky) and some advance warning of a decision to launch
Reply With Quote
  #1482  
Old July 29th, 2013, 04:03 PM
Bob in Pittsburgh Bob in Pittsburgh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 218
It's your story tell it the way you want to.
Reply With Quote
  #1483  
Old July 29th, 2013, 04:56 PM
giobastia giobastia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Pullem View Post
Author's choice - the narrative should not be a democracy

The question now is with the land forces in retreat, client states disintergrating and the nuclear deterrent under threat, what is there to stop the Russians from using nukes (or at least threatening) - and how far will NATO go down the road to winning a nuclear exchange given the fact that they have some elements of a nuclear shield in place (however leaky) and some advance warning of a decision to launch
That's the point, really.
Reply With Quote
  #1484  
Old July 29th, 2013, 04:59 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by giobastia View Post
Do you want the sinking of USS Nimitz or USS America? No problem, I can make them sunk. The Soviets launched two times their missiles. One of the launches (especially the first one, from bombers) could have been luckier. I can also open a poll: would you like one carrier sunk? Two carriers sunk? All three alive? That's a detail, believe me. The strategic outcome would be the same: a Soviet bastion opened to air and naval attack. Once you opened it and put your ships inside, despite your heavy or light casualties, you have already changed the course of the war.
I'll stick with what you've got Globastia. To me the sinking of U.S. carriers was always far, far more likely in the first 36 hours of the war when the most Soviet assets were available and they had the advantage of surprise.

By the way, it would be interesting if a missile hit an American ship and the warhead did not detonate...but after the fire was put out and the missile examined it was found to be an unarmed nuclear warhead!!!

Kind of a cool "believe it or not" thing that comes out after the war is over.
Reply With Quote
  #1485  
Old July 29th, 2013, 06:11 PM
Jotun Jotun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ze Bocage Mudflats
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via ICQ to Jotun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Kitchens View Post
I'll stick with what you've got Globastia. To me the sinking of U.S. carriers was always far, far more likely in the first 36 hours of the war when the most Soviet assets were available and they had the advantage of surprise.

By the way, it would be interesting if a missile hit an American ship and the warhead did not detonate...but after the fire was put out and the missile examined it was found to be an unarmed nuclear warhead!!!

Kind of a cool "believe it or not" thing that comes out after the war is over.
I second this. A modern CVBG is just about the meanest and hardest-hitting collection of military hardware imaginable, apart from yet another CVBG. The Soviet Union relied on Macross Missile Massacre tactics to penetrate the defences of such a battle group. This ability has pretty much evaporated as the war progressed.


The nuclear dud is a stroke of genius, I must admit.
__________________
Ebil bocagist CONSPIRATOR!
Reply With Quote
  #1486  
Old July 29th, 2013, 06:13 PM
Scientist Shan Scientist Shan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by giobastia View Post
It's not bias, it's a modern naval battle: if you win the initiative you'll take all. And it's not credible to waste missiles against destroyers and frigates. If you have 40 missiles, you have to concentrate them on major vessels in order to saturate their defenses.
The Soviets are launching their missiles at extreme range and while under attack meaning their targetting isn't likely to be precise.

And NATO has plenty of destroyers and frigates, so an outer layer of air defence ships would be likely and if any got overwhelmed it would be better that they got hit rather than a carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)
Reply With Quote
  #1487  
Old July 29th, 2013, 07:01 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jotun View Post
I second this. A modern CVBG is just about the meanest and hardest-hitting collection of military hardware imaginable, apart from yet another CVBG. The Soviet Union relied on Macross Missile Massacre tactics to penetrate the defences of such a battle group. This ability has pretty much evaporated as the war progressed.


The nuclear dud is a stroke of genius, I must admit.
Not really a dud. I assume it would work if armed. Just the Soviet commander had a nuclear armed cruise missile or two but didn't want to actually go nuclear but figured they would be nothing but fuel for the fires if he didn't flush all his missiles when he launched. So he didn't arm the nuclear warhead and simply fired it. Figuring if it hit a U.S. ship at least the missiles engine fire would do some good.
Reply With Quote
  #1488  
Old July 29th, 2013, 07:12 PM
Otis R. Needleman Otis R. Needleman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Kitchens View Post
Not really a dud. I assume it would work if armed. Just the Soviet commander had a nuclear armed cruise missile or two but didn't want to actually go nuclear but figured they would be nothing but fuel for the fires if he didn't flush all his missiles when he launched. So he didn't arm the nuclear warhead and simply fired it. Figuring if it hit a U.S. ship at least the missiles engine fire would do some good.
No, he wouldn't do that at all. Either the nuke gets used as a nuke or it stays in the magazine. And most likely he wouldn't launch anything with a nuclear warhead without Moscow's permission or orders.
Reply With Quote
  #1489  
Old July 29th, 2013, 07:33 PM
Craig Craig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 111
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Kitchens View Post
...To me the sinking of U.S. carriers was always far, far more likely in the first 36 hours of the war when the most Soviet assets were available and they had the advantage of surprise.
Always thought (usually while standing CIC watch aboard NIMITZ) that the biggest danger to a Nimitz-class might be a MIRV cluster aimed at last reported position. Of course that works better with nukes and so not so much an option here.

Remember, it is Ass to Blast and Flank Speed.
Reply With Quote
  #1490  
Old July 29th, 2013, 10:57 PM
Timmy811 Timmy811 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by giobastia View Post
Do you want the sinking of USS Nimitz or USS America? No problem, I can make them sunk. The Soviets launched two times their missiles. One of the launches (especially the first one, from bombers) could have been luckier. I can also open a poll: would you like one carrier sunk? Two carriers sunk? All three alive? That's a detail, believe me. The strategic outcome would be the same: a Soviet bastion opened to air and naval attack. Once you opened it and put your ships inside, despite your heavy or light casualties, you have already changed the course of the war.
I'd like one sunk, or at least damaged. A Nimitz class carrier could probably survive being hit by a couple of missiles.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09camaro
shapes are the backbone of any sufficiently advanced technology that has been applied to military and civilian use.
Reply With Quote
  #1491  
Old July 29th, 2013, 11:17 PM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otis R. Needleman View Post
No, he wouldn't do that at all. Either the nuke gets used as a nuke or it stays in the magazine. And most likely he wouldn't launch anything with a nuclear warhead without Moscow's permission or orders.
I thought of perhaps the Kirov commander saying "Hell, it's one more thing to burn and cook off once the American air strike gets here, so I'll just launch it unarmed. Americans will probably shoot it down anyway so it doesn't matter."
Reply With Quote
  #1492  
Old July 30th, 2013, 12:55 AM
Herzen's love-child Herzen's love-child is offline
hipster bon vivant
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: la costa a sinistra
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by giobastia View Post
Avoiding the Soviet strong defenses (SA-7 and SA-10 missile batteries), British and Norwegian F-16s have launched their standoff AGM-109H Tomahawk missiles.
Great TL, Giobastia. One of the best I've seen detailing a plausible conventional (so far) WWIII.
Minor nitpick -- The AGM-109H Tomahawk air-to-ground missile never entered service. I don't know off-hand if there was a comparable missile in service that was F-16 compatible. Possibly the shorter-ranged AGM-84 Harpoon used on UK F-16s at the time. Though not by Norway. The U.S. had them in service but only on B-52H's.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html
__________________
Quote:
The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~ Tommy Smothers

Last edited by Herzen's love-child; July 30th, 2013 at 02:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1493  
Old July 30th, 2013, 03:10 AM
hzn5pk hzn5pk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 446
My vote is that one US carrier gets hit and the French carrier gets hit. Both survive but need to be repaired.

Also, would Reagan be getting on the phone with the Russians, or perhaps the Swedes for peace negotiations. Would Reagan try this when the tide turned and before things went nuclear. Peace demands are that Russian armies move back to Russia.

East Germany is united to West Germany. Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary are open to democracy.

Germany is NATO.

Poland, Czech, and Hungary are neutral

Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria are still Warsaw Pact.
Reply With Quote
  #1494  
Old July 30th, 2013, 03:59 AM
Dayton Kitchens Dayton Kitchens is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by hzn5pk View Post
My vote is that one US carrier gets hit and the French carrier gets hit. Both survive but need to be repaired.

Also, would Reagan be getting on the phone with the Russians, or perhaps the Swedes for peace negotiations. Would Reagan try this when the tide turned and before things went nuclear. Peace demands are that Russian armies move back to Russia.

East Germany is united to West Germany. Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary are open to democracy.

Germany is NATO.

Poland, Czech, and Hungary are neutral

Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria are still Warsaw Pact.
After three months of brutal bloodshed including assassinations and chemical weapons attacks, as has been argued before it probably would not be enough for NATO.

At the very least you would have to throw in

1) Admission of war guilt
2) Complete withdrawal of Soviet support for other communist regimes.
3) Complete Soviet withdrawal from the Middle East.
4) Massive cuts in Soviet nuclear weapons
5) Limits on the size of Soviet conventional forces (the Soviets probably don't get to keep much of a navy at all).

The only thing I think MIGHT prod NATO into peace talks relatively early is some problems with NATO. Fears over the situation in Italy deteriorating and/or West German dissatisfaction with the fact that NATO has not liberated East Germany yet and/or the West Germans start getting militant and announcing they are going to

"Drive the bastards (Soviets) all the way to the Eurals even if we have to do it ourselves".
Reply With Quote
  #1495  
Old July 30th, 2013, 04:34 AM
Timmy811 Timmy811 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1000 or more
NATO demands as I see them

1 - Soviet Armed Forces must withdraw from all foreign nations.
2 - The Warsaw Pact must be dissolved and the nations within given complete independence. They, and any other nation (Finland) that so wishes are allowed to join NATO if they desire to.
3 - East Germany will be annexed by West Germany, and Austria will be given the option to join the reunited Germany.
4 - ROK will annex the DPRK (excepting the territory occupied by the PRC)

War Guilt and Arms cuts are unwise and unenforceable in the long run. You can't force people to believe their mistakes are their fault, and arms can be manufactured in secret. Furthermore, such demands will cause the USSR to be more desperate, and fight on longer, increasing the probability of a nuclear exchange.

------
I'm a bit disappointed the situation with China and India has gone nowhere so far.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09camaro
shapes are the backbone of any sufficiently advanced technology that has been applied to military and civilian use.
Reply With Quote
  #1496  
Old July 30th, 2013, 06:53 AM
Dan Dan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Medeshamstede UK
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy811 View Post
NATO demands as I see them

1 - Soviet Armed Forces must withdraw from all foreign nations.
2 - The Warsaw Pact must be dissolved and the nations within given complete independence. They, and any other nation (Finland) that so wishes are allowed to join NATO if they desire to.
3 - East Germany will be annexed by West Germany, and Austria will be given the option to join the reunited Germany.
4 - ROK will annex the DPRK (excepting the territory occupied by the PRC)

War Guilt and Arms cuts are unwise and unenforceable in the long run. You can't force people to believe their mistakes are their fault, and arms can be manufactured in secret. Furthermore, such demands will cause the USSR to be more desperate, and fight on longer, increasing the probability of a nuclear exchange.
3 - NEVER going to happen. NATO would never suggest it and the Soviets would be likely to continue the war over that single point alone. In the Soviet mind it would be "Western capitalists trying to rebuild the third Reich so the fascist beast can rape the Motherland again". A re-united and Neutral Germany being neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact is a possibility though.

1 & 4 I think are no brainers, point 1 for absolute certain.

2 I don't think will fly either really in it's entirety, especially the part about other nations being allowed to join NATO. Nominally, the rest of the Warsaw Pact Nations are independant, heavily led but independant all the same. I think more likely is that the Warsaw Pact Nations will be encouraged to leave should their post war governments desire it, but short of the Soviet Union collapsing and ceasing to exist as a state, former Warsaw pact nations will not join NATO. Even post collapse, look at the hoops the Ukraine had to jump through and the rancour it caused with Russia when they tried to join OTL a few years back.

I thoroughly agree with your last point regarding war guilt though. Assigning war guilt didn't work out too well last time...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by usertron2020 View Post
1) And if pigs could fly they'd be really fat bats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPlanInfrared View Post
Number one rule when you invade Russia : DO NOT invade Russia.
Reply With Quote
  #1497  
Old July 30th, 2013, 07:06 AM
Scientist Shan Scientist Shan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 461
I think Timmy's list is a good one.

Though like Dan I have my doubts about Austria unifying with NATO.

But there's no way a reunited Germany wouldn't be in NATO.

The Germans will want the support of NATO and the other NATO countries will want the security of Germany's military under NATO's safeguard.

I've read that the whole purpose of NATO was to 'keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down'. Those necessities wont change after the war.
Reply With Quote
  #1498  
Old July 30th, 2013, 07:32 AM
urielventis urielventis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Paris Area
Posts: 35
Hi giobastia
First off all congratulation for your timeline, it is really entertaining.

On your question of an hit on an aircraft carrier, the two US carrier have modern CIWS (phalanx + sea sparrow) while the French on is only equipped with 100mm gun (some replaced by mistrall launchers on the Clemenceau between 1985 and 1987, later on the foch) and .50 machine gun. So the french carrier is a lot more vulnerable. And I'm french so it is not french bashing, just that I think that our carrier of this period are very weakly defended.

What could be interesting is an "too close" interception of an incoming missile by a phalanx turret, the carrier will be showered with fragments igniting several fire and mission killing it for half an hour. I believe this happen during phalanx test.
Not a complete kill, but something that will stress the US admiral a bit:
"What happen ? Is it a hit ?"

Continue your good work.
Reply With Quote
  #1499  
Old July 30th, 2013, 07:43 AM
Jotun Jotun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ze Bocage Mudflats
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via ICQ to Jotun
Austria and Germany united? Never. This won't fly.
__________________
Ebil bocagist CONSPIRATOR!
Reply With Quote
  #1500  
Old July 30th, 2013, 08:37 AM
Nebogipfel Nebogipfel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Münster
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jotun View Post
Austria and Germany united? Never. This won't fly.
Yes, but then again I would expect a massive shift to the right especially in the directly affected/invaded countries afterwards. So this issue would probably pop up anyway in post-war Europe.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.