Shipbucket

Golly, your reply to my critique of your scenarios smacks of immature sullenness. In describing the improbable naval actions and, especially the political aftermath in the US, you're either ignorant of several facts, or, in Jacky Fisher florid language: "an idiot, quite devoid of himself!", and, since I know the latter not to be the case, I suspect the former.
First of all, the responsible officers, from Admiral down to CIC plotting officers, should be hanged from the nook of the yardarm of their ships for allowing such a cataclysm to take place. I know that USN officers can be both arrogant and overconfident, but incompetent? I think not. Maybe a few cases of timidity, inflexibility or haughtiness, sure, but I do not, sincerely believe them to be incompetent, which is the stare of mental alertness that you should need to possess to allow such events as you described above to take place. I agree that an initial surprise attack can be somewhat plausible, but the Americans would've recovered swiftly enough to enable them to launch a counter attack in full force.
As for you description of the political aftermath in the US, it appears very naive to me. I live in the US, and I take a very active and, I believe, informed interest in the political events here. In my family we represent each of the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans (GOP), so I have the gauge of the political wind very much.
First of all you claim that GW Bush and his administration lost the elections. What year is tat supposed to take place in? 2004? Well, if so, let me remind you then, that a certain Barack Hussein Obama was a freshman Senator from Illinois, who certainly had stirred people's minds and heart, but equally certainly was not - by far - a presidential issue!
If the year should be 2008, then, considering the implausibly high casualties inflicted on US and Allied forces and territorial losses too, do you seriously think the American constituency would vote into office a former community worker, with no military record, a baby-boomer furthermore, when the other candidate would've been a decorated former career officer, and long term Senator and War Hero, in the person of John McCain? I think not. And, also, if the latter year is the one referred by you, then the statement that George W Bush was defeated ( in election) is ludicrous, since we have a two-term limit here. In other words, the race for the White House would take place without an incumbent defending it!
Lastly, you say that the Tea Party movement is what you make it out to. Yes, of course, it's your privilege in your AU. The problem is that you have not made it out to be anything, except a scribble of letters in your AU event calendar.
I'm fully with Eswube in his criticism of certain aspects of your AU description. Like him I'm a trained historian too. That's why I attempted to deviate only a few degrees off course, in my own modest AU, about the Royal Hellenic Cruiser Force, since I realize that, deviating too much, too extremely, will sooner or later involve you with inescapable conflicts of historical and counter-factual acribi. In short, your "plausibles" are here in overt conflict with your created "Implausibles", causing confusion and, in fact historical warps that just cannot happen for this or that reason!
I reply to you with this rather lengthy and exhaustive explanation of my thoughts around this, because I truly respect you, and know you as being a knowledgeable and scholarly person, whose artisan skills are still impressing me. I mean this not as a personal attack, but rather as a useful consideration of what might be altered to make your story's loose ends meet in a believable fashion.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Guys, Golly does a lot of work around here that most of us never get to see. Give him some slack.
I personally feel differently. I feel that changes should be justified by something causing them, but that's the approach that I tend to prefer, and it is more limiting. For example, in one AU I help with, one of the nations doesn't have the internal pressures for Micro-computer development. What they do have is large family groups (10-40 individuals) and a high degree of national data networking. This drives their development of Mini-computers.

But hey, your sandbox, your rules. Now, where are the ships?
I have enough fun in the sandboxes that I play in as it is. Additionally, I don't foresee many changes in types (other than some real honest cruiser being built), just increases in numbers.
Now, normally I don't care one way or the other about AUs, but this is wrong on a technical level. The Kinematics for a Missile defense site in Poland preclude effective interception of the Over-the-Pole shots that Finnish and Soviet Missiles would take if they were headed toward North America. The interceptors literally can't hit the Outbound (and yes, they would be outbound relative to Poland) ICBMs. If the US wanted to defend North America against soviet ICBMs, they would place the interceptors in Alaska, North Dakota, and the North East US (Maine, ect). More on this can be found in Peter J. Mantle's The Missile Defense Equation: Factors for Decision Making.

Back in the real world, in a fit of irony, the Russian complaining (What about all of those S-200 batteries they built in the cold war that all had marginal ABM capabilities that the US had to plan for?) about the sites in Eastern Europe has led to the decision to remove the planned sites and replace them with shorter ranged systems like the SM-3 and THAAD. Both of these systems are, ironically, better suited to intercept Russian missiles targeted on Europe than the larger original interceptors were.

In one Final note, The 43rd President of the United States was not "George Bush Jr." His name is "George W. Bush", while his father's name is George H. W. Bush".

Edit: I could also go on about the Attacks on the carrier groups, but let me put it this way: AEGIS was designed to defeat the same type of Swarm attack that you have happen here, and the number of missiles that you fire off at the carrier groups don't come close to shooting them dry - that's one of the easier ways to take out a modern CVBG. That also presumes that you've fought through the air group in the first place, and I'd argue that the F-14Ds backed up by the E-2s that get off when the first one goes down (heck, the one in the air will spot the attack prior to it getting shot down) will maul the Backfires and the Fighters (remember, you're going to have two fighters and one E-2 up over every group). In short, the Backfires are the ones that will return to base with 1/4th of their numbers.

Yeah, CVBGs were designed around this threat. It won't work. In short, you've gone too far over the top.

Edit 2: The US strategy would be to strike at targets inside the USSR, not the formations on friendly soil, so yet again you're off.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Please, can we have some courtesy here? Is it really neccessary to lower the tone of what is (after all) an AU? Note, I'm not speaking as a moderator at the moment, but offering advice.

Um...I just want to submit drawings and see what amazing designs/renditions people come up with guys. Not really interested in anything else, especially AUs as they seem to be the cause of a lot of arguements and people getting their noses out of joint.

Keep the awesome imagery going and lets leave politics out of it.

Hey, my comments might get me kicked out of this forum but I felt the need to speak up here.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME


______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket

Its nice that this builds up discussion, and naturally, (As i said in the beging) this beeing somewhat "wank", it migth raise strong feelings. But like my point has always been, this is not supposed to be the most "perfect" exersice for most plausible Alternative history there can be. This is supposed to be the backstory of the ships Ive drawn and about to start posting soon... something, against what you weigth the ships and don't go wonder why suddenly Soviets don't have missileboat armadas anymore and what are those longrange guard ships of Finnish navy supposed to be about?

.
And thats why you start making your own AUs Biggest reason why I have a Finnish AU was that when I first read about Psilander's great Swedish empire, it didn't go well with my imagination, so I wanted to answer it.

But as for more detailed answers:

Ive never placed my plans of my enemy beeing Incompetent, I leave that to the Hollywood when they've invading the "reds" with their omnipotent forces of freedom. (This AU should be somewhat counter-move to those). But you have to also remember that war of the scale presented in this scenario is something none of the generation involved have any experience what so ever. Moments of despair and moments of indecissive are fairly common in all armies of all nations in situations of suprise attack. The victory in the naval engagements of mine comes mostly down from pure numbers. When you loose your main line of defence, In this case the Air defences, and most importantly, the intiative your plans and composition was to be all about, I don't find it anyway implausible that survivors of this fleet in middle of the combat cannot create the level of counter attack that would look pretty cool and patriotic against properly set technicolor middle-eastern sunset

The counter attack comes, eventually, in Barents sea, since even in modern world, You just don't create 2nd invasion wave and fleet out of nothing and send it within 24h to the place of the failured 1st wave. Someone else migth have choosen other strategy for the counterattack, but then again we are back of this beeing MY scenario, and If I would have been in command of the Western forces, I would have strike the enemy where its flanks are weakest, its defences most neglible and where I could in otherhand concentrate my best forces, that in this case would be the remaining US carriers and the MEF I in the atlantic.
If I would have played for imcompleteness, Im sure I would have commanded those assets straigth into mediterranean and into Persian Gulf, under enemy air and sea dominance and faced even more futile losses to the fleet that I pretty much cannot live whitout for exhange of penny gains I sure can live with out
could be, since its definetly not what I am after in this Scenario. But equally naive would be to anticipate that the current political field, climate and personas would be anyway same as they are in OTL situation that is propably the biggest antipole possible for my scenario.
The Missile defence shield in Baltic comes expecially trouplesome for the Soviets in case of intermediate range attacks to europe, cross Baltic. In sense of overal politeness, the counter-argument in international forums needs to be about the ICBMs, but it should be fairly obvious to both sides what it is really about. In this scenario particulary, since its mainly Finnish concern, and Finland doesen't posess ICBMs, only Eskander and Oka range assets. And their use in europe has always been attacking Germany and Danish straits (In this scenario they weren't used).
Also the political CB of the missileshield comes mainly from National Prestige. For Russia, Baltic is mere part of its SOI that can be violated, but for Finland its all of the SOI they've ever had, thus far more important for any political survibility.
The swarm missile attacks together with cordinated air attack from carriers and land based aircrafts was designed to take out CVBG's and if they would fail to deliver this, the whole 80 years investment for the fleet-air arm in this scenario would have been vain and utility. So when I wrote it not to fail, I kinda see it not going over the top. I do Agree that its also a scennario we have never seen and propably wont never see in future either to happen, so the judgement of its success/failure can only be academic.
You mean the overal counter-attack on Barents sea, or the Nuclear attack to Poland? Well I answer to both:
In OTL Soviets didn't have allies of the size of this scenarios Finland. And the real US strategy was (atleast give impression of capability) to attack the undefend [sic] flanks of Soviet periferia, which in this scenario are all ousted for Finnish controll. So there would not be any change to attack Soviet own soil, but even futher vunerability in the flanks that would/should tide the Soviets only trustworthy ally not to commit its forces for the main theather and possibly drag soviet formations (and specially naval and air assets) into these theathers as a shown of solidarity.

Of the nuclear attack, Ive remember reading somewhere (where I based my idea of it in first place) that if Soviets would have gotten breaktrough from the Fulda-gab and the western line of defence would have been broken, there wouldn't have been any other option to be made but to use the Nuclear option. Then again, in the "grand old WWIII" scenarios, the war would have been nuclear from day 1, so against this highly unorthodox storyline, you just have to improvise and make own judgment.
Biggest reason why I choose to go nuclear was to end the war quickly, since I have no plans to write about prolonged war that would end in mutants crawling in the ruins of modern civilisation. Another big difficoulty is that the western armies, expecially the OTL today ones are ill-suited for anything long lasting offensive of napoleonic or barbarossain fashion that is basicly needed in this case to win the intiative for the west. Ive have had to hugely over estimate them to beging with just to get even local superioirty sufficent to launch offensives. So it naturally leads into situation where such forces really need to win and win fast before the enemy can bring into its numbers, so If Ive ever played anything to "imcompetenes"'s sake in this story, it would have been in the strategical decission to attack in the Baltic front by the NATO commanders. It allowed them rather easy push to Lithuania, and cheap victory can even the books from the humiliation in the Persian Gulf, but it also opened the NATO's flanks terribly for the Soviet forces in Belarus. Once those masses begun to move, the desperate of the situation comes to play.
NATO and americans have just survived a bloody encirclement trap in the middle east (and breaking from it was perhaps one of the most bravest thing any side did in this war), so fear of getting the same repeated in Poland would have meen complete Soviet Victory on the war.

I choose to go nuclear, since thats what I would have done if I would have been in position to make such decission in such situation
I choose Augostow for the site, since nuclear attacks are bad and inhumane, so I felt I just couldn't take some random spot from the map. Ive visited Augustow personally couple of times as a kid when our family made big caravan trips via baltic to eastern Europe and after the antimosity of Lithuania, Augustow and Poland were always pleasent chance and the little town and the people were always welcome sigth

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Dear PB, your consideration and thoughtfulness is as always most welcome. However, if you truly read my statement, I was in no way denigrating or offensive against Golly, whom I, I reiterate, hold in much esteem and respect. I know him not to be a fool. We know how those operate, on what level their ideas and concepts work, since we've suffered them here, at SB. Golly is far removed from such notions. However, I stated then that I suspected the former, I e, being ignorant of several facts, and Golly has admitted so much. There's nothing, either strange or wrong with that, since we all suffer moments of that particular condition; just read some of my own less fortunate contributions on this site! However, ignorance becomes something far more sinister the moment you chose to ignore or dismiss valid criticism by some lofty, empty phrases, and this is where Golly himself, I hope inadvertently brought te discussion down low, since such dismissal entices a strong response which will reflect the first response's tenor of voice. Now, I'm still awaiting a creditable explanation of the political aftermath in the US, since Golly, did not really touch on that subject in his remarks on mines, instead electing to use a generalistic language. I know Golly, with his shown expertise and comprehensive knowledge can do better than that!

Again, my esteemed PB, I return to your remarks. I sincerely thank you for and appreciate your advice. I hope you feel more allayed by my follow-up response above as to the reason why I chose a relatively strong language to begin refuting Golly's reply.
leut_East, don't worry, you can not be thrown off our site for venting what you think are legitimate concerns about certain aspects of our discussion. If you implied a criticism of my remarks earlier, that's all fine, duly noted, but no harm done or offense taken!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Thats why you drop nuke on it ?

Here's my 5 cents: Polish part of NATO baltic push probably would be our main "first line" units, 11th "Lubuska" armoured cavalry division and two mechanised division, 12th and 16th. With support of 25th Air Cavalry Brigade, 23rd "Silesian" Artillery brigade and 1st "Brzeska" Engineering Brigade. Thats will be the bulk of our land forces. Polish inteligence always take a close look on Belarus, probably recognise preparations for major soviet attack but unable to convince politicians about imminent danger. Our politiciana have long and proud history of being totally incompetent in almost all aspects of life. Second line units, most reservist and couple of independing brigades even with Dutch and French ( ... French ) support would be roll over by massive armor attack. Polish units would fight hard, as anyone in defence of homeland but Nec Hercules contra plures.

Thats part of Golly AU is very highly probable.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Im too thick skinned to take critisism in bad and wrong way, so no worries, Ive not taken it as offence
Thick skin does seems to be married with stubbourness, so regardless of the basings of those critisism, its unlikely going to have much of effect on my work.
Despite there are hundreds of words written here, this all is just background stuff, not the main course of this menu...

If we go to the US politics issue, one has to understand that in scenario like this there is only two alternatives; either go in very superficial approach in sort of giving "face to the enemy" but leaving deep character devolpment elsewhere, since the enemy and struggle against it is not the paramount part of this project.
Alternatively I could have gone there with in depth, but in that case simple twisting of the current US political field wouldnt take me anywhere, since I would have to take account all of the course of US (or what ever other opposing nation in this scenario) politics ever since the point where the alternative aspects of this scenario would have starten to affect on it. That would have been way before year 1900 and containing so many butterflies that even thinking of it horror's me enough to be wise not to touch it any deeper If I would choose that approach, the main focus would still need to be on creating the Alternative British empire, that this scenario butcheres most (though no one seems to raise complaint of it ) If one lets its imagination roll little wider, who knows wheter there would even be a USA as we know it if the directions of this scenario would be followed most deeply.

So against that, wheter my account of US politics is incorrect or not is IMO kinda superflous and irrelevant issue.
And My idea is not (at this point atleast) create complete alternative world, but Soviet Union with carriers
Well I have to drop it somewhere didn't I and I think it has some fatal chivalry to drop it over something that you are atleast tinybit familiar with. Atleast the phantom ghosts of my nigthmare's would have some face on them, and I couldn't hide behind the cowardly cover of anonymity...
Yea woudl be pretty much what I imagined it to be. NATO would be aware of the units in Belarus all the time, but they have to gamble if they hope to win the intiative. Soviets themselves are not that keen on attacking west and in their perspective the local the conflict would stay, the better, since in Middle east they had won the controll for the moment. Begining of new front in the north would demand another contest of the air and sea controll, that would severly weaken the grip on the Middle east...

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

No problem, so let's get back to the AU The Mighty Finn can easily speak for himself

He also does some very impressive drawings.

...so I'm wondering where they are..... *runs*