miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 6, 2021 21:13:21 GMT
What am I, chopped liver? Looking at the original post on www.changingthetimes.net it makes clear its a switch between 13th Mar 1942 and 13th Mar 2002. Not sure of the significance of those dates - although checking the below it was the day that MacArthur, on his escape from Bataan "Cagayan on Mindanao Island" but that does have some impacts. Also what may not have been made clear is that it affects only "the continental (i.e. lower 48 states)" which means that for the 1942 world Alaska, Hawaii and any other overseas territories as they were then are still in their 1942 mode. As such the 2002 Hawaiian bases and ships there and presumably those at sea elsewhere aren't brought along. I can't see anything about forces based overseas being returned home? Also only those satellites above the US at the time of the ISOT are actually still about so vast bulk of the satellite system is lost. If I may quote from the cited scenario... However, 2002 is an interesting case. Alaska, Hawaii, and (here's the
kicker) all overseas US military forces are still of the 2002 variety.
The 1942 USA would find itself in an unbelievable situation, but
already gearing for war.The interpretation is that this is a time switch and the inversion has a bewildered 1942 America in 2002 but with overseas forces familiar with and equipped with 2002 assets, while the 1942 situation has the 2002 US continental 48 dragged back into the past. How does that affect the 1942 US projected forward? As a Grandfather paradox writ large it ceases to be a functional event and never actually happens. However the 2002 US looks around at 1942 and is horrified to discover it has George Bush in charge of the crisis it is in. The physical plant and assets outside the US transposed is lost, but so what? The knowledge and the core abilities to produce assets remain and so do the US continental based forces. This is not a good thing. Speculation about Klukkers and Aryan nations psychopaths does not reckon with the decade old Patriot Act and Homeland Security apparatus. Those clowns are not a problem. It is the temptation of the Bush administration to schwerpunkt that is the problem. Remember who is Secretary of Defense? Donald Rumsfeld.I would be very worried. At this point in 1942 - looking at page 73 of Lordroel's WWII in real time, which includes the 13th March 42. The Japanese are probing the Solomons prior to their 1st landings there and southern Burma has been lost while the last days are coming for the defenders of Bataan as the Japanese, having secured most of their primary gains in the south are moving units back to the Philippines to finish off the forces there. There are regular heavy losses in American home waters and the Caribbean to the German and Italian subs operation in the region. The Soviet offensives over the winter are petering out but German losses have been heavy over the winter. 1. SOSUS and the coastal sonar arrays could be active. 2. SS(N) units based in the CONUS are available. Figure 2 dozen boats. Drumbeat is going to look very different. So will the Pacific War in the next 180 days. That is how long I give Kido Butai to remain alive. After that, it is the Japanese merchant marine and they will not last long either. One of the things about sea denial is that if one cannot supply an invading army with replacement ammunition, they sort of die when the defenders load up and go hunting for stranded troops. 3. Speaking of which, how is Wainwright going to react to air dropped rifles, mortars, antitank missiles, and parachuted in experts who will be teaching the FEAA troops how to use M-16s, M-4s, M-240s and all the other gee whiz Buck Rogers stuff delivered? How will Homma react to seeing his "invincible soldiers mowed down by modernized infantry? 4. I think that Burma will still be lost. There is only so much assets and time to act to stabilize the global situation. 5. The UK is going to look very strange when the USAF shows up? I give the Luftwaffe 90 days and then we will see how Germany likes rocket artillery. Thinking about it there are positives and negatives for the allies. The positives are that a much more powerful and advanced US is available and it also have a hell of a lot of information that will be very useful to the down-time powers. Including if necessary nuclear weapons. 6. The big negative is the Bush Administration. They had hubris. 7. US information will be valueless as the condition sets, options and industrial base is vastly different requiring different priorities and different actions to achieve victory (Whatever that is.), in a world where a genuine mismatch between the US and everybody else exists. See my previous posts for how that works. Some things are easier (air and sea warfare.). Others are much harder, (Land warfare) since the sea lift for expeditionary and amphibious warfare does not exist and has to be built. Expect lots of hovercraft and fast troop ferries of the Austal type to come out of Northrop Ingalls as an example. The negatives are that the 1942 allies have seen one of their most important powers has been removed from play and that will cause a lot of disruption until they can adjust to the new arrival and it to them. This may be especially an issue in terms of logistic and force projection. For instance I think most of the trans-oceanic shipping available to the US is no longer suitable for anywhere else in the world. The giant container ships and even larger super-tankers are going to be incapable of docking anywhere else. Or in most cases would have difficulty unloading their cargoes. I suspect that for a while at least trans-Atlantic shipping might have to go by rail to Canada then be loaded onto down-time shipping at say Quebec or Halifax. Similarly while up-time weaponry is very lethal other than some units with virtually unlimited range, such as nuclear subs, are unlikely to be able to play a role across an ocean. However once they realise where they are the relatively small number of enemy subs in local waters should be fairly easy play. 1. Plans for Reforger are dusted off. 2. The US Army managed to port land supplies in Somalia. Also the Iraq War was an exercise in trying to play logistics in a region of the world unfriendly to containerized shipping. Solution? Roll-on and Roll-off. 3. 1942 UK is going to see box lift cranes and container ship piers built. Which port? Manchester? Works for me. 4. Runways will still have to be poured. Give his Majesty's government the required specs for B-1 Lancers and C-141a and send tech experts or fly in a Red Horse Battalion and get cracking. 4. Nuclear submarines are self contained underwater sortie weapons. All they need is food, weapons and a safe anchorage to switch out crews. They are designed to be satellite and radio directed to an area of ocean which needs to be sanitized of enemy shipping. They by 1942 standards are invulnerable to enemy countermeasures and are methodical killers. They will be the prime platform of first use in the naval war. 5. The point about runways is that they be there. USAF forces operate forward by flying their logistios in. Bombs, fuel, spare parts, replacements in persons and aircraft, all come in by air. 6. The same applied and applies to field mobile tactical ballistic missiles. BALLISTIC. The Pershing used satellites to hit within 10 meters of its aim point. Without satellites it was more like 200 meters. That means it flew like a powered artillery shell. No need for satellites. Just a good artillery plotting solution and an inertial navigation system. These systems were transporter erector launcher based and FLOWN in. Miletus12's ideas about using some quickly established airfield's or other launch sites in the UK has potential but there might be supply and command and control issues, plus with satellites largely gone guidance might be an issue. Probably more an issue with missiles than a/c?
See my above remarks about an air bridge? The Cold War Americans were expeditionary in that they expected to face oceans infested with Russian subs as well as expected to lose their satellite networks to Russian anti-satellite weapons. They planned for it. Hence the huge inventory of military air transports and tankers and air national guard units tasked to ferry the stuff I mentioned to who knows where to fight who knows when. That was how the first Gulf War operation began, as an Air Bridge to Saudi Arabia. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,093 
Likes: 49,488
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 7, 2021 3:49:02 GMT
Think we also have a lady onboard stevep. |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,623
Likes: 11,340
|
Post by gillan1220 on Dec 7, 2021 4:47:08 GMT
Looking at the original post on www.changingthetimes.net it makes clear its a switch between 13th Mar 1942 and 13th Mar 2002. Not sure of the significance of those dates - although checking the below it was the day that MacArthur, on his escape from Bataan "Cagayan on Mindanao Island" but that does have some impacts. Also what may not have been made clear is that it affects only "the continental (i.e. lower 48 states)" which means that for the 1942 world Alaska, Hawaii and any other overseas territories as they were then are still in their 1942 mode. As such the 2002 Hawaiian bases and ships there and presumably those at sea elsewhere aren't brought along. I can't see anything about forces based overseas being returned home? Also only those satellites above the US at the time of the ISOT are actually still about so vast bulk of the satellite system is lost. I think it was stated at some point all the forces in Pearl Harbor, Guam, Asia, Australia, the Middle East, and Europe were returned to the USA. So yes, you'd have soldiers unexpectedly sent back home on the spot. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Dec 7, 2021 12:05:01 GMT
Think we also have a lady onboard stevep .
OK point noted. Apologies to miletus12. Was using guys in the non-sexual term but sorry for any offense caused.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Dec 7, 2021 12:19:54 GMT
Looking at the original post on www.changingthetimes.net it makes clear its a switch between 13th Mar 1942 and 13th Mar 2002. Not sure of the significance of those dates - although checking the below it was the day that MacArthur, on his escape from Bataan "Cagayan on Mindanao Island" but that does have some impacts. Also what may not have been made clear is that it affects only "the continental (i.e. lower 48 states)" which means that for the 1942 world Alaska, Hawaii and any other overseas territories as they were then are still in their 1942 mode. As such the 2002 Hawaiian bases and ships there and presumably those at sea elsewhere aren't brought along. I can't see anything about forces based overseas being returned home? Also only those satellites above the US at the time of the ISOT are actually still about so vast bulk of the satellite system is lost. I think it was stated at some point all the forces in Pearl Harbor, Guam, Asia, Australia, the Middle East, and Europe were returned to the USA. So yes, you'd have soldiers unexpectedly sent back home on the spot.
If so then that improves matters although it didn't mention any sudden appearance of them in the initial parts of the story. If that does occur then it gives a lot more forces available. There will be issues with non-nuclear naval force and ground units. Also while an air bridge, with some preparation in the UK would enable the USAF - which in itself is going to be a shock to the down-time US Army - to operate from Britain fairly quickly it doesn't resolve the markedly more important problem of getting supplies to the UK! If the country starves and its own production collapses from lack of supplies because the US can no longer ship supplies over then its not going to be a forward base. That's why I mentioned the possibility of somewhere in Canada ending up as the primary focus for the Trans-Atlantic supply route. To a degree if we get on top of the U boats a lot quicker then Britain could import more foodstuff especially from the southern cone or even Australia although that would need more ships due to the distance and some security regarding the Japanese and also raiders.
In time somewhere, probably Liverpool or Glasgow would be developed as a 2002 capable port. Manchester is an inland port due to the late 19thC Manchester_Ship_Canal but its max beam is ~20m and length ~183m so I doubt it would be useful for modern cargo ships.
Steve
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 7, 2021 13:50:33 GMT
If so then that improves matters although it didn't mention any sudden appearance of them in the initial parts of the story. If that does occur then it gives a lot more forces available. There will be issues with non-nuclear naval force and ground units. Also while an air bridge, with some preparation in the UK would enable the USAF - which in itself is going to be a shock to the down-time US Army - to operate from Britain fairly quickly it doesn't resolve the markedly more important problem of getting supplies to the UK! If the country starves and its own production collapses from lack of supplies because the US can no longer ship supplies over then its not going to be a forward base. That's why I mentioned the possibility of somewhere in Canada ending up as the primary focus for the Trans-Atlantic supply route. To a degree if we get on top of the U boats a lot quicker then Britain could import more foodstuff especially from the southern cone or even Australia although that would need more ships due to the distance and some security regarding the Japanese and also raiders. The British are carrying 80% of the North Atlantic freight in 1942. Between the Canadians and British the escort forces at present by count are also 80%. We have a discussion ongoing about Drumbeat and the lack of US escorts, but that is not much different from 1942 actual events. This time we have another big problem. Vernon Clark, admiral and CNO (N-1) USN. If I may quote from the article? In plain English, this "individual" changed a successful WWII derived industrial maritime maintenance model of rotating ships into and out of refit according to a calendar system that underpinned USN readiness and ability to deploy, especially its submarine readiness, to a demand repairs only as needed, deferred scheduling system and reduced the shore establishment to save money via false economies. This was a repeat of the idiocies implemented by a famous 1930s predecessor, Harold Stark. He also did some good with social engineering to reduce racism in the American navy, but that sure did not help with breakdowns in ships and crew morale as a result of being stuck in a navy whose ships did not work. A further indictment of Vernon Clark was his rabid support of "questionable" procurement programs like DDG 2000 and the Littoral Combat Ship. His cutbacks in officer training in watch-standing and basic seamanship has also time traveled forward to a fleet, once known for its ship handling skills, becoming the laughing-stock of NATO when it comes to basic seamanship. He will have to be replaced. One will want a mean no good rotten individual to handle this naval crisis. He will be the perfect candidate to face the chaos of March 1942. In time somewhere, probably Liverpool or Glasgow would be developed as a 2002 capable port. Manchester is an inland port due to the late 19thC Manchester_Ship_Canal but its max beam is ~20m and length ~183m so I doubt it would be useful for modern cargo ships. . Given the clown club in Washington, do not be surprised if this is an implemented solution, because some of the dumb stuiff carried out in "Iraqi Freedom" was this insane. Liverpool might be a secondary candidate but its sea frontier is actually more difficult to police and sanitize. The rail tie ins for 1942 might not be as efficient, either from a logistics point of view.. As for cargo ships, one will have to use 2002 techniques to mass produce roll-on, roll off Liberty ships of about 13,000-15,000 tonnes DWT. This would be vessels of the 150-200 meters by 25-30 meters beam and about 5 meters draft with a planned cruise speed of 40 km / hr. (25 knots). The result would be like a small car ferry currently used for importing vehicles from Japan to the United States. That model can park alongside a pier and drive loaded trucks off a ramp onto that pier and straight onto a road. No cranes needed. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Dec 7, 2021 14:26:43 GMT
If so then that improves matters although it didn't mention any sudden appearance of them in the initial parts of the story. If that does occur then it gives a lot more forces available. There will be issues with non-nuclear naval force and ground units. Also while an air bridge, with some preparation in the UK would enable the USAF - which in itself is going to be a shock to the down-time US Army - to operate from Britain fairly quickly it doesn't resolve the markedly more important problem of getting supplies to the UK! If the country starves and its own production collapses from lack of supplies because the US can no longer ship supplies over then its not going to be a forward base. That's why I mentioned the possibility of somewhere in Canada ending up as the primary focus for the Trans-Atlantic supply route. To a degree if we get on top of the U boats a lot quicker then Britain could import more foodstuff especially from the southern cone or even Australia although that would need more ships due to the distance and some security regarding the Japanese and also raiders. The British are carrying 80% of the North Atlantic freight in 1942. Between the Canadians and British the escort forces at present by count are also 80%. We have a discussion ongoing about Drumbeat and the lack of US escorts, but that is not much different from 1942 actual events. This time we have another big problem. Vernon Clark, admiral and CNO (N-1) USN. If I may quote from the article? In plain English, this "individual" changed a successful WWII derived industrial maritime maintenance model of rotating ships into and out of refit according to a calendar system that underpinned USN readiness and ability to deploy, especially its submarine readiness, to a demand repairs only as needed, deferred scheduling system and reduced the shore establishment to save money via false economies. This was a repeat of the idiocies implemented by a famous 1930s predecessor, Harold Stark. He also did some good with social engineering to reduce racism in the American navy, but that sure did not help with breakdowns in ships and crew morale as a result of being stuck in a navy whose ships did not work. A further indictment of Vernon Clark was his rabid support of "questionable" procurement programs like DDG 2000 and the Littoral Combat Ship. His cutbacks in officer training in watch-standing and basic seamanship has also time traveled forward to a fleet, once known for its ship handling skills, becoming the laughing-stock of NATO when it comes to basic seamanship. He will have to be replaced. One will want a mean no good rotten individual to handle this naval crisis. He will be the perfect candidate to face the chaos of March 1942. In time somewhere, probably Liverpool or Glasgow would be developed as a 2002 capable port. Manchester is an inland port due to the late 19thC Manchester_Ship_Canal but its max beam is ~20m and length ~183m so I doubt it would be useful for modern cargo ships. . Given the clown club in Washington, do not be surprised if this is an implemented solution, because some of the dumb stuiff carried out in "Iraqi Freedom" was this insane. Liverpool might be a secondary candidate but its sea frontier is actually more difficult to police and sanitize. The rail tie ins for 1942 might not be as efficient, either from a logistics point of view.. As for cargo ships, one will have to use 2002 techniques to mass produce roll-on, roll off Liberty ships of about 13,000-15,000 tonnes DWT. This would be vessels of the 150-200 meters by 25-30 meters beam and about 5 meters draft with a planned cruise speed of 40 km / hr. (25 knots). The result would be like a small car ferry currently used for importing vehicles from Japan to the United States. That model can park alongside a pier and drive loaded trucks off a ramp onto that pier and straight onto a road. No cranes needed.
Yes British and allied shipping is carrying the bulk of the goods but how well can those ships interact with 2002 ports? Their not designed for container traffic and the ports may struggle with the older systems that the ships can use. It may be that this isn't a massive problem but the bulk of the trans-oceanic ships still in 2002 US ports may not be much use in the rest of the world for a while. Not to mention that the bulk of them probably aren't either US or UK owned/crewed so there could be some issues using them.
No point in massively enlarging a 58km canal when there is a port at Liverpool that is much easier to modernize. "Policing and sanitizing" won't be an issue for the bulk of the goods that would be coming through the port anyway. Agree that Bush junior wasn't the brightest bulb but suspect that would be a step too far even for his administration.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 7, 2021 14:33:43 GMT
San Diego and Philadepha still have the old style kingposts and derrick crane lifts.
Remember the Turkish fiasco and the airborne operation substitute and NATO troubles getting an air bridge to work through European airspace during OIF? The Rumsfield circus was not pretty when it twisted arms.
Magnetic bottom mines are a concern in 2002 and in 1942. Just because the Germans did not think they could do it in the shallows off Liverpool, does not mean it could not be done. Manchester because of the trench in the Irish sea off the nearby coast is a bit harder and there is a current that makes submarine emplacement difficult.
One thing that makes the similar situation at New York (1942) and the real disaster of Charleston, SC was that similar underwater naval geography.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,093
Likes: 49,488
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 7, 2021 15:12:13 GMT
Magnetic bottom mines are a concern in 2002 and in 1942. Just because the Germans did not think they could do it in the shallows off Liverpool, does not mean it could not be done. Manchester because of the trench in the Irish sea off the nearby coast is a bit harder and there is a current that makes submarine emplacement difficult. For a navy of the size of the US Navy, having only 14 Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships is going to be a problem. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Dec 8, 2021 18:39:08 GMT
San Diego and Philadepha still have the old style kingposts and derrick crane lifts. Remember the Turkish fiasco and the airborne operation substitute and NATO troubles getting an air bridge to work through European airspace during OIF? The Rumsfield circus was not pretty when it twisted arms. Magnetic bottom mines are a concern in 2002 and in 1942. Just because the Germans did not think they could do it in the shallows off Liverpool, does not mean it could not be done. Manchester because of the trench in the Irish sea off the nearby coast is a bit harder and there is a current that makes submarine emplacement difficult. One thing that makes the similar situation at New York (1942) and the real disaster of Charleston, SC was that similar underwater naval geography.
Ah I didn't know they would still have such a capacity in 2002. That would improve matters a lot. 
As I understand it the canal starts very near Liverpool so I can't see any advantage in trying to take traffic into Manchester - let alone the huge delays and costs of massively expanding the existing canal?
Steve
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Dec 8, 2021 18:41:25 GMT
Magnetic bottom mines are a concern in 2002 and in 1942. Just because the Germans did not think they could do it in the shallows off Liverpool, does not mean it could not be done. Manchester because of the trench in the Irish sea off the nearby coast is a bit harder and there is a current that makes submarine emplacement difficult. For a navy of the size of the US Navy, having only 14 Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships is going to be a problem.
That would depend on where the KM tried to mine and how likely it would be that their subs would survive to get that close given the combination of 1942 and 2002 resources.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,093
Likes: 49,488
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 8, 2021 19:04:47 GMT
For a navy of the size of the US Navy, having only 14 Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships is going to be a problem. That would depend on where the KM tried to mine and how likely it would be that their subs would survive to get that close given the combination of 1942 and 2002 resources.
Well i asume the KM would mine the routes the US Navy of 2002 is going to use as the head towards the Med ore the United Kingdom. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Dec 8, 2021 20:09:29 GMT
That would depend on where the KM tried to mine and how likely it would be that their subs would survive to get that close given the combination of 1942 and 2002 resources.
Well i asume the KM would mine the routes the US Navy of 2002 is going to use as the head towards the Med ore the United Kingdom.
There could be a fair number of routes and U boats are getting vulnerable in shallow waters closed to Britain in terms of 1942 technology and forces let alone 2002 ones. Plus as miletus12, says the bulk of the up-time forces could come and be supported by air bridge.
Not to mention this assumes the Germans knowing/guessing a lot about what's happening where.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 16, 2021 17:51:20 GMT
I forgot to mention that US crypto will be reading everyone's cables, radio message and telephone calls as soon as the Americans (NSA) build the spy communication sites in northern Alaska, Australia and the UK.
That might take a year or two.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 16, 2021 18:03:20 GMT
I forgot to mention that US crypto will be reading everyone's cables, radio message and telephone calls as soon as the Americans (NSA) build the spy communication sites in northern Alaska, Australia and the UK. That might take a year or two. Wonder if a diplomatic ruckus will materialize over this? I know nations spy on each other all the time, but considering that the US is from sixty years into the future and has the technology to prove it, I can imagine everyone else being wary of American surveillance capabilities. |
|
