PDA

View Full Version : NATO Forces in Africa during the Twilight War (v1.0)


Raellus
05-25-2010, 04:36 PM
I do apologize if I missed a pertinent thread in the archive (I checked- I promise!) but I'd like to know more about the canonical set up for NATO forces in Africa.

I've heard snippets here and there- the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Kenya (?), an unpublished module pertaining to same- and I'm really curious.

What do you know about this topic? Are there published materials regarding NATO forces in Africa? Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Raellus
05-25-2010, 09:42 PM
OK, so I found this in the archive and it's a good start.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2099

But...

I would still like to know what the 173rd ABCT is doing in Kenya in the first place. Anyone?

shrike6
05-25-2010, 10:02 PM
If I remember right, the reason they are in Kenya, Mombasa in particular, is that they are securing one of the last remaining oil refineries in the region.

Fusilier
05-25-2010, 10:03 PM
OK, so I found this in the archive and it's a good start.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2099

But...

I would still like to know what the 173rd ABCT is doing in Kenya in the first place. Anyone?

Supposedly it was to protect a refinery I believe.

shrike6
05-25-2010, 10:05 PM
What do you know about this topic? Are there published materials regarding NATO forces in Africa? Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated.

The only real published materials, by published I'm assuming you mean canon, is in the NATO Vehicle Guide 2nd edition which gives a listing of French Forces in Africa.

Raellus
05-25-2010, 10:08 PM
If I remember right, the reason they are in Kenya, Mombasa in particular, is that they are securing one of the last remaining oil refineries in the region.

Thanks. Any idea where the oil would be coming from? AFAICT, Kenya has no known oil deposits.

Also, when in the v1.0 timeline does the 173rd get deployed to Kenya?

shrike6
05-25-2010, 10:15 PM
Thanks. Any idea where the oil would be coming from? AFAICT, Kenya has no known oil deposits.

I always assumed the Persian Gulf.

Also, when in the v1.0 timeline does the 173rd get deployed to Kenya?
Frank had a post on the Herd that went into more detail than the one in the archive. If I remember right, I wanna say 1997. I'll take a look and see if I can't find the old post.

HorseSoldier
05-25-2010, 10:52 PM
I always assumed the Persian Gulf.

Nigeria? Though how it gets from Nigeria to Kenya I can't guess -- I don't see road traffic from point A to point B being viable in the T2K era.

shrike6
05-25-2010, 10:54 PM
I guess you guys do have it in the archive.
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1630

And Frank didn't say exactly when the the Herd went to the Africa.

HorseSoldier
05-25-2010, 11:03 PM
Well, if it was to secure surviving oil production infrastructure, but they still had viable airlift to get them there I'd guess it would have been early '98 or so. Earlier and it wasn't an issue, later and the ability to get a brigade there and even make a half-hearted attempt to support it logistically is off the table.

Abbott Shaull
05-25-2010, 11:05 PM
One has to remember that 173rd when the game originally was printed and even up until the GDW closed was more or less a Airborne Infantry Task Force rotating a Battalion from the 2nd Brigade (325th Airborne Infantry Regiment) in and out of the base in Italy. The unit was known as the
Southern European Task Force (SETAF). Which in 2000 the was transformed into the 173rd Airborne Brigade in 2000. At the time it was still basically an over sized battalion, but listed as Brigade. Just before it jumped into Northern Iraq, after the 4th Mechanized Division was denied rights to land and move through Turkey, had a second Parachute Infantry Battalion activated, with Airborne Field Artillery Battalion, Forward Support Battalion, Cavalry Troop, and other Support units.

It was only after Cold War that it decided to turn this Task Force into larger force as response to various NATO Allies reducing their forces as well as the brutal breakup of Yugoslavia help in slowly re-organizing the over sized battalion task force into a force with two Parachute Infantry Battalions, 1 Airborne Artillery Battalion, 1 Forward Support Battalion and other Support units.

Ironically in 2008 the SETAF was reactivated and morphed into the US Army Africa Command in October 2009.

HorseSoldier
05-25-2010, 11:16 PM
I think part of the backstory for the 173rd being in Africa was that the battalion at Vicenza was fleshed out into a true brigade before the Twilight War kicked off (is it art imitating life if art does it first? :)).

SETAF is otherwise one of the US units not accounted for in the Twilight timeline, though I always kind of figured they got overrun when the Italians defected.

shrike6
05-25-2010, 11:22 PM
Nigeria? Though how it gets from Nigeria to Kenya I can't guess -- I don't see road traffic from point A to point B being viable in the T2K era.

That's why the Persian Gulf is the only that makes sense given its relative proximity. Plus I would think that the refineries in the Gulf would be taken out early by the Soviets to deny their use to the US et al.

Raellus
05-26-2010, 12:43 AM
This is great guys, thanks.

My next question is, what exactly is the 173rd being sent there to protect the refineries from?

The Kenyan military, although quite modest, would have been able to defend the refineries from the various marauder units listed in the first archive thread (I haven't looked at the other yet). A whole American brigade seems a bit like overkill if the threat is just brigands and such. Better to send in a couple of SF A-Teams to bolster the Kenyan military. It seems like an entire brigade could be put to better use somewhere else. When all the Soviets would have to do to deny the Kenyan refineries to NATO is nuke them, what's the point? I must be missing something.

Is there a pro-communist revolution/coup in Kenya in the late '90s or after the Twilight War begins? That would make the Soviets think twice about nuking the refineries. If so, using an entire brigade combat team to capture and secure them for NATO would make more sense. I'm just trying to make sense of all of this.

Fusilier
05-26-2010, 12:53 AM
Can't nuke all the refineries.

In my time line, I had the 173rd operating mostly in South Africa and other places (ala Hackett's book concepts regarding events in Africa). Kenya was pretty much stable as can be, but keeping a petroleum supply active ends up being worth shifting the brigade there later on - even if only to act as a theater deployable reserve type of deal.

Raellus
05-26-2010, 12:55 AM
Can't nuke all the refineries.

Why not? I'm not trying to be snarky or anything; I just want to hear your reasoning.

And why not deploy to Nigeria instead of Kenya? One explanation is that the Nigerian oilfields/refineries have already been nuked into oblivion (probably by the Soviets). Another is that it would be harder to ship Persian Gulf oil around the Cape of Good Hope to Nigerian refineries than just around the Horn of Africa to Kenya. I still feel like I'm missing this piece of the puzzle as well.

Fusilier
05-26-2010, 01:19 AM
Mmm... Because it wasn't a total nuclear exchange. I stick with the notion that it was a limited exchange. It is limited since we can clearly see in canon that there are still lots of valuable targets untouched.

For each shot one side fired they could expect to lose the same in return. Each side seemed only willing to go just far enough as to help knock the other one out of the game - not send it back to the stone age and suffer the same consequence as well. Also...

Maybe the refinery there isn't large.

Maybe it was deemed being geographically isolated from any consumer worth keeping the product from.

Maybe it was felt Kenya would descend into chaos and render the fuel unobtainable without having to risk a nuke.

Maybe it was already damaged by bombers operating out of Mozambique or one of the many other African places the Soviets and Cubans have forces based in.

Maybe in the chaos and confusion of losing Soviet command and control, it was spared like so many other places when there was nobody left to coordinate/order any more launches. Or they figured there was enough mutual damaged suffered and the exchange needed to be stopped.

For me - Nigeria went the way of the other side (as per Hackett's book again).

Rainbow Six
05-26-2010, 07:35 AM
This isn't mentioned in canon anywhere, but just for info the British Army has maintained a permanent presence in Kenya since 1963 - the British Army Training and Liaison Staff Kenya (BATLSK) based at Kahawa Barracks outside Nairobi.

http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/overseas-deployments/932.aspx

Its numbers are small, and I would suppose it's debatable whether or not it would have remained in place at all in the event of a full blown War, but in the event that it did I'd imagine it's highly possible that its troops might find themselves attached to the 173rd Airborne (if you have the 173rd deploying to Kenya that is; otherwise they'd probably end up operating alongside the Kenyan Army).

Cheers

Raellus
05-26-2010, 10:01 AM
@Fusilier: All valid points. Taken together, it is a compelling case. My thinking was that as soon as the U.S. put a brigade on the ground to defend the refineries, no matter how modest they happen to be, they just became that more tempting of a target for a nuke. Two birds with one stone and all that.

Perhaps the Soviets had some hope of someday capturing the facilities. That might make them hold off.

That's why I think a communist revolution/coup in Kenya is the way to go. The Soviets and Cubans could have advisors there to assist the revolutionaries. That would both give NATO a reason to send in a brigade combat team AND force the Soviets to think twice about nuking the facilities.

@Rainbow6: Excellent! Thanks. That would be a great way to include commonwealth troops in the campaign. Another way I just thought of would be to include European PMCs tasked with guarding the refineries prior to the arival of the 173rd. And then there's embassy personel.

Frank Frey
05-26-2010, 10:39 AM
Greetings,

The 173rd Airborne Brigade was deployed to Kenya for several reasons.
1.) To provide security for the port of Mombasa and for the oil refineries there.
2.) To help secure Kenya from the depradations of any number of warlord armies so that the country could continue to serve as a staging area for operations in the Gulf.
3.) MilGov cut a deal with the French. The French supply the vehicles and the equipment and the US supplies the manpower for a cut of the oil. This arrangement, BTW, has led to a number of American paras wearing the famous French "lizard" pattern camo fatigues.
In effect, the 173rd are mercenaries fighting for France. Sort of an American Foreign Legion if you will.

Out Here,
Frank Frey

Raellus
05-26-2010, 11:15 AM
Wow! That really casts Franco-American relations in a whole new light. We discuss France's role in the Twilight War a lot here and, to the best of my knowledge, this has never come up. It's almost worth its own thread!

Couple more questions for you Frank. What kind of vehicles* and equipment do the French send and how do they get it there?

Second, when and how is the 173rd et al transported to Kenya?

Much thanks!

*I've always wanted an excuse to have American paratroops rolling in Panhard VBL scout cars!

EDIT: Apparently, the U.S. already uses a small number of VBL variants as NBC scouts- ULTRAV M11 (I just found this on Wikipedia). They also use German Fox 6x6 APCs for the same thing. What's with buying foreign-made wheeled APCs for NBC stuff?

TiggerCCW UK
05-26-2010, 01:00 PM
Raellus, as far as the Fox goes I think its used because its one the best NBC vehicles around. I've no experience of the Fox, I'm basing that on the fact that the US, the UK and (iirc) some Middle Eastern countries all use the NBC version but not any other version. Also iirc it is listed as a US used vehicle in either the US vehicle guide or the East Euro source book.

HorseSoldier
05-26-2010, 07:43 PM
EDIT: Apparently, the U.S. already uses a small number of VBL variants as NBC scouts- ULTRAV M11 (I just found this on Wikipedia). They also use German Fox 6x6 APCs for the same thing. What's with buying foreign-made wheeled APCs for NBC stuff?

I've never heard about us using VBLs, but the Fox NBC recon vehicle are nice, as far as creature comforts go (padded bucket seats, A/C). Not a job I'd want, though -- had a couple friends nearly get killed several times between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad during the invasion, being in an essentially unarmed vehicle that headquarters' they were attached to often stuck in randomly dangerous locations as an after thought to getting their tanks and Bradleys situated.

Abbott Shaull
05-26-2010, 10:04 PM
Not a job I'd want, though -- had a couple friends nearly get killed several times between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad during the invasion, being in an essentially unarmed vehicle that headquarters' they were attached to often stuck in randomly dangerous locations as an after thought to getting their tanks and Bradleys situated.

Gee how come this doesn't surprise me.

Raellus
05-27-2010, 04:47 PM
Greetings,
2.) To help secure Kenya from the depradations of any number of warlord armies so that the country could continue to serve as a staging area for operations in the Gulf.

As far as African militaries go, Kenya really seems to have its stuff squared away. They appear to be better organized, trained, and equipped than most sub-Saharan militaries. I think a larger threat to Kenya and the port/refineries than warlords and insurgencies is needed to justify bringing in an entire U.S. Airborne BCT. From a purely gaming standpoint, the more bad guys arounds the better, and it would be good to offer the PCs more challenging opponents. I'm worried that lightly equipped warlord "armies" wouldn't pose too much of a problem for well trained, well equipped paratroopers.

There are a couple of options to correct this. First is to have the Kenyan military, or a portion thereof, join the bad guys. This would definitely up the threat level as well as justifying the move by Milgov to "secure" (i.e. seize) the refineries in the first place. You could set this up with a coup or succession crisis. I'm kind of reluctant to do this, though, because it would make pretty much the vast majority of Africans in the game into a villain and that smacks of imperialist attitudes.

The second option would be to have Tanzania, having lost their Chinese patrons to WWIII, pushed to invade Kenya and seize the refineries by the Soviets. This would be another threat (in addition to those already identified by Frank) that the already overstretched Kenyan military could not face alone. I'm kind of leaning this way because it keeps the Kenyan military as one of the good guys while still giving the PCs a more well equipped (relatively speaking) adversary to contend with.


3.) MilGov cut a deal with the French. The French supply the vehicles and the equipment and the US supplies the manpower for a cut of the oil. This arrangement, BTW, has led to a number of American paras wearing the famous French "lizard" pattern camo fatigues.
In effect, the 173rd are mercenaries fighting for France. Sort of an American Foreign Legion if you will.


I'm really looking forward to seeing what equipment the French would be providing- how much, what type, and how do they get it to Kenya?

I also really need to know when and how the 173rd arrives in Kenya.

Thanks!

StainlessSteelCynic
05-27-2010, 06:17 PM
While not specifically addressing the things you're asking about, I thought this may be of interest.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/africa97/africa97.htm
It's about the US military mission to Kenya in 1996 or thereabouts.

From a brief read of that document, I think you could argue that Kenya would be one of the few nations in the region receptive to Western forces so perhaps sending a brigade to Kenya does a few things - shows the Kenyans that the US is committed to their well-being & security, maintains a Western presence in the region and also provides a safe harbour for Western and pro-Western forces in the region. That's not including whatever benefits could be got from the oil refineries and so on.

Frank Frey
05-28-2010, 12:51 PM
Raellus,

According to my notes, the 173rd was shipped to Kenya in early 1997. There is nothing in my notes about how they were deployed. That's all I've got.

Frank Frey

Raellus
05-28-2010, 01:11 PM
According to my notes, the 173rd was shipped to Kenya in early 1997. There is nothing in my notes about how they were deployed. That's all I've got.


Thanks, Frank. That really helps. I do have a couple more questions, though. Sorry to be such a pest.

If the 173rd deploys in early '97, air transport shouldn't be any trouble at all.

About the French...

'97 seems early to be cutting a deal with MilGov (IIRC, it hadn't formed yet) so this must have happened in '98. Any idea what kind of gear the French sent to Kenya?

I figure it could have been a shipment of wheeled AFVs (Panhard VLBs, VABs, and either AMLs or ERC 90 F4s*), originally intended for an African ally. With many African nations in complete chaos, the French decide to cut a deal with the more trustworthy Americans for a cut of the oil. Does that sound OK?

*All of which already have sub-Saharan African customers. I'd love to include Giat AMX-10 6x6s but they have not been as extensively exported.

Frank Frey
05-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Raellus,

No problem...Airlift would make the most sense at that time. As far as cutting deals with the French, yea, 1998 sounds right. It wasn't an overnight thing either.When the final deal was cut, it basically just formalized on paper what had been going for a while.
As for the equipment, let your imagination run with it. Hell, IIRC I had an American armored cav unit that had been re-equipped with AMX-13's. The aviation unit (228th Aviation Bn.) was using a lot of Gazelles and Pumas.
Hope this helps.

Frank Frey

StainlessSteelCynic
05-31-2010, 12:19 AM
I have another possible reason for why NATO forces may be based in Kenya.
Water.
Part of the river system that provides life for Egypt runs through Kenya. A 1929 agreement between Britain and Egypt gave Egypt nearly exclusive use of the water from the Nile to the detriment of those British possessions that also accessed the river system. To quote part of the agreement "No irrigation or power works are to be constructed on the River Nile or its tributaries, or on the lakes from which it flows... which would entail prejudice to the interests of Egypt."

It's the aftermath of a world war, Kenya needs resources especially water for agriculture. Perhaps they start to construct irrigation systems and the Egyptians object to the point of threatening war. It might be a long drive through Sudan to attack Kenya but there are highways literally leading from Egypt right up to Kenya and the Egyptians might choose naval or air attacks instead.
The Egyptians might not even attack directly, they may pay Sudanese or Ethiopian rebels to attack (or even Somalians).

Here's an article that prompted this train of thought
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypt-warns-that-new-nile-agreement-could-prove-a-death-sentence-1987519.html

Raellus
05-31-2010, 01:37 PM
I have another possible reason for why NATO forces may be based in Kenya.
Water.

It's the aftermath of a world war, Kenya needs resources especially water for agriculture. Perhaps they start to construct irrigation systems and the Egyptians object to the point of threatening war. It might be a long drive through Sudan to attack Kenya but there are highways literally leading from Egypt right up to Kenya and the Egyptians might choose naval or air attacks instead.

The Egyptians might not even attack directly, they may pay Sudanese or Ethiopian rebels to attack (or even Somalians).


That's a very interesting idea. An Egyptian-backed Sudanese invasion in '98 or later would add yet another adversary for the 173rd in Kenya. I might add that to my Proud Lion scenario/campaign setting. Thanks.

Raellus
06-06-2010, 04:53 PM
I'm putting together a deployment map for a Kenya campaign and I have a couple more questions about the 173rd's ORBAT.

In addition to the 228th Aviation Battalion, there's a 173rd Aviation Company listed in Frank's notes. A TOE for the 228th is given but there's nothing specific for the 173rd Aviation Company. What would this company's TOE look like? (I should probably go back through the archives again but I don't recall seeing this).

Also listed is a 173rd Recon Company. From what I've read, an entire LRS company for a Brigade-sized units is a little on the large side. LRS Companies (about 190 men) were planned for Corps. Independent divisions had Detachments of around 90 men, IIRC). If this is the case in T2K 1997, then the 173rd likely has an LRC Detachment instead of a Company.

How would such a unit be deployed when the Brigade has an entire country to cover? Would the LRS detachment's six-man teams be attached to each Battalion? Would the detachment be kept together under Brigade HQ? If the latter, I'm guessing that each Battalion could put together its own small LRS unit for local reconaissance tasks.

I'm seeing the Brigade's four infantry battalions being dispersed around the country, with one each at Nairobi and Mombasa and another in the western highlands, one of Africa's most productive agricultural areas. That leaves one without a home, ATM. I'm assuming that the three batteries of the 173rd Field Artillery Battalion would be attached to three of the infantry battalions. The north of the country is volatile but relatively barren and possibly not worth holding on to too tightly. I'm thinking of posting an SAS mobile group up there. They'd be good for busting Somali and Sudanese "technicals".

There is mention of at least one 5th SFG A-Team training Masai warriors so that would place them in the south as well, along the Tanzania frontier. I'm still pondering whether 5th SFG would have another A-Team to spare for Kenya in mid-'97 and/or beyond.

HorseSoldier
06-06-2010, 10:50 PM
Is the Recon Company a LRS unit or is it the brigade (light) cavalry troop?

shrike6
06-06-2010, 11:38 PM
Frank uses alot of archaic US military unit designations especially with the aviation units. You'd have to figure out what the modern equivalents are. As far as the 173rd Recon Company goes, if you want a guess, when the modern irl 173rd Abn was formed from SETAF. One of its units was the 173rd Recon Company which eventually got redesignated the 74th Infantry Detachment (LRS).

Abbott Shaull
06-08-2010, 06:22 AM
I think part of the backstory for the 173rd being in Africa was that the battalion at Vicenza was fleshed out into a true brigade before the Twilight War kicked off (is it art imitating life if art does it first? :)).

SETAF is otherwise one of the US units not accounted for in the Twilight timeline, though I always kind of figured they got overrun when the Italians defected.

Actually I wrote it off as re-inforcement for the 82nd Airborne Division in the Middle East or some obscured Inter-Allied Airborne/Airmobile unit that was used as Fire Brigade during 1996 and 1997.

HorseSoldier
06-08-2010, 12:45 PM
The SETAF battalion, plus the airborne battalion from Alaska (part of 6th LID in the Twilight War, I think) and the Canadian Airborne Regt would potentially give the NATO commander in Norwat a pretty handy airborne/airmobile pocket brigade during the campaign in Scandinavia.

Abbott Shaull
06-09-2010, 06:22 AM
Yes if it was moved to Norway and the local commander merge the Canadian Airborne Regiment, SETAF, and the Battalion from the 6th ID would go a long way to give the 6th ID it 3rd Brigade since it relayed on Reserve Brigade to round it out, and there was no telling how long it would take to get that brigade combat ready.

HorseSoldier
06-09-2010, 10:27 AM
I'm not sure who their round out would have been, too -- if I remember the NATO 1989 OrBat correctly they simply did not have a full brigade from the reserves in '89, just 5-297th Infantry from the AK 'Guard. One of the USAR combat brigades that GDW has in an infantry division and who were actually slated for the Iceland Defense Force mission would have be one option, especially if the IDF mission could be redistributed or something.

Abbott Shaull
06-09-2010, 04:34 PM
Yeah, if I remember correctly the unit that GDW had assigned was suppose to deployed to Iceland. Never really brought that the 6th Infantry Division in all out war like that would deployed entirely to Norway. One Brigade to reinforce the 10th Mountain that was sent there too maybe. I would see the Brigade with the Airborne battalion left in Alaska in case the Soviet tried to invade Alaska.

stilleto69
06-10-2010, 02:33 AM
In my version of the game I had the 47th ID alerted earlier and deployed to Norway while the 6th ID (L) remained in Alaska, just in case.

Abbott Shaull
06-10-2010, 08:59 AM
With how the Army is moving Brigades about to form an Operational Division, I leaning toward a revamp of the the ORBAT for the war. Which would give the back story why the US didn't activate several new Division that one would believe could of activate even if they were largely paper divisions when the nukes started to fall in Nov of 1997. Not only that it give me a reason to make Armor and Mechanized Division more unique than being identical or near identical depending on what Mechanized/Armor/Cavalry Division you were assigned too. Kinda like the WWII light Armored Division...

HorseSoldier
06-10-2010, 10:38 AM
GDW built a lot of divisions up out of what were designated as seperate brigades. I don't think there were any units in the 'Guard or USAR that were set up to provide divisional assets beyond what could just be cobbled together from the brigades' MTOEs.

A more likely course of action would be those units staying seperate or attaching over to one division or anothjer, either as needed or semi-permananetly depending on the situation.

Raellus
06-10-2010, 10:58 AM
Here's a semi-related question:

After OMEGA, canon has some of the troops evacuated from Europe being sent to Iran, correct? Do you think any of them would get dropped off in Kenya, first? The 173rd would have been going on a couple of years without any significant replacements. They could use some "fresh" manpower.

HorseSoldier
06-10-2010, 11:06 AM
The idea certainly seems reasonable to me. I never really bought into the idea the evacuation was just going to dump a bunch of demobilized veterans off in the Virginia area. Plussing up remaining OCONUS forces and the either filling out CONUS units or forming new ones seems likle a much more plausible idea.

Abbott Shaull
06-12-2010, 12:25 PM
I think many of the NG and Reserve Brigades would be assigned to a specific rear area Corps and then they rotate to Divisions that are at the front as other Brigades were needed to be replace due the fact they needed rest and reorganization. Much like they have in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where a Divisional HQ will have one or two of it component Combat Brigades along with support Brigades, and have the other Combat Brigade come from other Divisions, NG, or Reserve units.

Granted that many Divisions that would be created after the start war would be lacking in certain aspect such as Aviation assets. As for other assets, many of these would come from Corps and Army units sent down to make Divisions operational.