New Chinese Carrier

[mikeo80]

I have been reading about the launch and sea trials of the PRC's first carrier.

From some of the pictures I have seen, this thing is an odd looking duck.

Front sloping ramp like HMS Invincible class carriers.

What looks like side mount catapult launchers like USS Nimitz class.

It's like the PRC could not make up its' mind on what to build.

Also, no mention in articles if this thing is oil or a nuclear driven ship.

IIRC all active US carriers are now nuclear.

My $0.02

Mike

[cavtroop]

It's the old Russian carrier 'Riga' or Ukranian 'Varyag':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag

[Matt Wiser]

You can bet that Pacific Fleet will be keeping an eye on her. Subs following her to get acoustic signature, hull photos, etc once she sails outside PRC territorial waters, for one thing. P-3s flying close is another. Not to mention that the U.S. allies in the region will be watching this as well-and maybe start their own carrier programs (the ROKs and JMSDF may go the "Harrier-carrier" route with something that can support F-35B operations). And every sub driver in the Western Pacific, whether USN, ROKN, JMSDF, Taiwanese, etc. will look at that ship and be thinking "target." Remember that every sub driver, regardless of what Navy they are in, views all surface ships as the enemy.

[Mohoender]

Some sources also claim that two more carriers are under construction. Anyway, China has stated that it intends to have three carriers (to match ROK and Japan navies). New class of LPD are also being launched.

China's obvious intention is to build a navy that will allow it to have some projection capability but with no intention to compete with the US Navy. What would be the point?

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

[Legbreaker]

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

While not saying that they have any interest at all in offensive actions (besides against Taiwan and Nepal and very local areas), it's worth mentioning that the China of today is completely different to that of most of the last 3,000 years. Communist China is a relative newcomer to the scene with the last 60 years or so not much more than a drop in the historical ocean of the region. Who knows what the current generation, or more importantly, the coming generation of rulers have in mind...

[95th Rifleman]

While not saying that they have any interest at all in offensive actions (besides against Taiwan and Nepal and very local areas), it's worth mentioning that the China of today is completely different to that of most of the last 3,000 years. Communist China is a relative newcomer to the scene with the last 60 years or so not much more than a drop in the historical ocean of the region. Who knows what the current generation, or more importantly, the coming generation of rulers have in mind...

People tend to make too much of Chinese communism, it goes back to the cold war when everything red was bad.

The basic chinese culture and attitude hasn't changed for 3000 years, they favour buffer zones around china that can give them time to react to hostile actions (like Korea and Taiwan) but favour an economic approach to empire building, they always have. The rise of China today just shows that they are sticking to their old methods of economic domination as opposed to military expansion.

The chinese are not stupid.

[dragoon500ly]

While it is something that the various intelligence agencies and the Navy will be keeping a close eye on, from an offensive point of view, its not much of a threat.

Please consider that with a force of three carriers, the PRC will, most likely have one in port for repair/maintenance, one working up (training) or recovering from sea duty, and one at sea. I can see surges with two carriers at sea but it would be doubtful if they can support all three at sea for anything more than short periods of time.

[Mohoender]

While it is something that the various intelligence agencies and the Navy will be keeping a close eye on, from an offensive point of view, its not much of a threat.

Agree. However, it will fill an important gap in Chinese defensive capability. It will strengthen their regional defense and allow them to protect their commercial shipping against piracy and terrorist threats.

It will also allow them to take an acitve part in future international operations, seriously increasing their diplomatic weight. As soon as China gets a projection capability I bet that they might be less opposed to international military operations.

[dragoon500ly]

The PRC's carrier is the former Russian "Varyag", second of the Kuznetsov-class.

Accordinging to "Combat Fleets of the World"; full load displacement is 67,000 tons, she has 4 sets of boilers/steam tubines that deliver 200,000 shp and gives the ship a max speed of 32 knots. Like the previous Kiev-class, the Kuznetsov carries a heavy armament of 16 SS-N-19 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!!!), 24 SA-N-9 VLS SAM (each VLS capable of launching up to 384 SAMs!), 8 CADS-1 CIWS (8 tube laucher for SA-N-11 SAMs and 2 30mm gatlings),6 AK-630 CIWS 30mm gatling guns as well as 2 RBU-12000 ASW RL (10 barrels). Air group consists of 24 Su-27 Flanker and 9-12 Helix-A and -C ASW/AEW helicopters.

Sooooo, just what does this all mean?

The PRC's design will carry heavy SSM and SAM armament, well in excess of any US carrier. But the weapons loadout comes at a heavy price. The real weapon of any carrier is not the number of missiles it can carry, but the size of her air group and her ability to maintain that air group for extended operations.

This was the real weakspot of the Kiev and Kuznet-classes, they are incapable of fielding large air groups and they do not have the on-board resources to maintain their aircraft or the magazine/fuel tankage to support the aircraft for more than 3-5 days.

Most likely, their operational role will be that of fleet air defense, early warning and anti-submarine warfare.

Of course, this is all conjecture, there has been no reliable, released info on their armament/air group. I talked with a couple of air dales in my office and they are of the opinion that the PRC's carrier will very likely be a near-copy of the Soviets, at least as far as its armament/air group mix. Even removing the SSMs and many of the SAMs will only free up enough space to increase the air group to 45-55 aircraft.

[Panther Al]

It seams that many are taking a serious look at this new Chinese carrier: the wall street journal has a front page above the fold article on it. Dunno if it's on the free side of their Internet page, but worth peeking at.

[Targan]

Dunno if it's on the free side of their Internet page, but worth peeking at.

I don't know if that was an intentional pun on your part Panther Al, but thanks for the LOL either way :D

[Fusilier]

...from an offensive point of view, its not much of a threat.

It's a significant threat. When your not looking at it like a no holds barred WW3 apocalypse between the world's superpowers.

Instead of comparing it that of the US navy's carriers, consider the local nations and how the purchase of a single old diesel electric sub or handful of fighter jets has been enough to increase tensions in the past.

If you are Southeast Asian or from the Philippines for example, this is a rather big deal.

[Benjamin]

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

Really? Ask the Vietnamese as recently as 1979 about that. And while I have no problem with China enlarging its own military to better fit her role as a global economic power, her immediate neighbors have every reason to be wary of her growing power.

Benjamin

[Mohoender]

Really? Ask the Vietnamese as recently as 1979 about that. And while I have no problem with China enlarging its own military to better fit her role as a global economic power, her immediate neighbors have every reason to be wary of her growing power.

Benjamin

It was an answer to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia a year earlier and China withdrew after it. It is a border clash more than a war. In any ways can it qualify as an invasion war (by invasion war, I mean a war in which the invader intend to gain territory). To this, you can add, the Chinese involvement in the Korean war. China is backing its allies. This is quite normal even if these allies are questionable.

Try to take Tibet from Chinese rule and you can expect a full scale war with China.

[Mohoender]

Accordinging to "Combat Fleets of the World"; full load displacement is 67,000 tons, she has 4 sets of boilers/steam tubines that deliver 200,000 shp and gives the ship a max speed of 32 knots. Like the previous Kiev-class, the Kuznetsov carries a heavy armament of 16 SS-N-19 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!!!), 24 SA-N-9 VLS SAM (each VLS capable of launching up to 384 SAMs!), 8 CADS-1 CIWS (8 tube laucher for SA-N-11 SAMs and 2 30mm gatlings),6 AK-630 CIWS 30mm gatling guns as well as 2 RBU-12000 ASW RL (10 barrels). Air group consists of 24 Su-27 Flanker and 9-12 Helix-A and -C ASW/AEW helicopters.


This figures cannot apply to the Shi Lang (not exactly at least). Don't forget than Varyag had been delivered without weaponry, navigation systems and propelling systems. There might be some significant differences.

I agree with what you say about the defensive roles of such carriers but utside of US carriers this is true of any current carrier. Still an airgroup of 30 aircrafts plus around 10 helicopters is more than enough to make your point when your purpose is to defend commercial lanes and be acitve in an international intervention. The focus on ASW warfare is, however, a misunderstanding, helicopters being far better fitted to this task than aircrafts.

The Kuznetsov design is more than a match for ships such as the Indian carriers, the Chakri Naruebet, the Hiei-class, the Sao Paulo, the Charles de Gaulle, the Invincible. It still remains a match for the future Queen Elizabeth.

Of course, it cannot compete with the US carriers but why would you commit suicide by declzring war to the USA when you are big enough not to be attacked by this same USA and when a far better option is to trade with US?

[ShadoWarrior]

If China had a "border clash" with Vietnam, what was the outright Chinese invasion of India in 1962, another "border clash"? China is a very real threat to all of her neighbors.

[Fusilier]

It gets called a "border clash" when it fails as an invasion I guess...

But I see that the Vietnamese refer to it as "war" though, but who are they to decide? It only involved a opposing force that commanded more divisions than the United States Army has on paper.

Regardless, the point stands that China has indeed attacked another foreign power, and Vietnam is good example no matter what you call it or why it happened (supporting Pol Pot of all things).

The deep rooted distrust between Vietnamese and China didn't begin in 1979 either. For over a thousand years much of Vietnam was controlled by the Chinese. The sentiment of distrust and dislike continues to this very day, and once you throw in ahem, border clashes and battles for the Spratly's, it won't be going away anytime soon.

[Legbreaker]

The Chinese people are roughly the same, the leadership of the past half century is definately different in almost all ways.

[dragoon500ly]

It's a significant threat. When your not looking at it like a no holds barred WW3 apocalypse between the world's superpowers.

Instead of comparing it that of the US navy's carriers, consider the local nations and how the purchase of a single old diesel electric sub or handful of fighter jets has been enough to increase tensions in the past.

If you are Southeast Asian or from the Philippines for example, this is a rather big deal.

And this is a valid point. It is certainly going to lead to military build-up in the region. And that means all kinds of problems 2-3 years down the road.

But what can nations in the region do? South Korea and Japan would be the most likely to lay down new ship construction, Vietnam will certainly start building missile boats and I expect trying to get their hands on submarines. The Philippines are not currently able to sustain a military build up at least not without a massive infusion of loans from the US. India is already adding new naval construction, the question is can their economy sustain any meaningful build up.

[Legbreaker]

...a massive infusion of loans from the US.

Umm, you have seen what's happening with the US economy lately haven't you? ;)
It doesn't really matter what regional neighbours can or cannot do. The fact is China has, and will continue over the coming years, radically changed the perceived balance of power in Asia.
Given the US financial woes, chances are that in 10-15 years or so they will be nowhere near the military check on China they are now. China, whether we like it or not, is the emerging superpower and is likely to be the only super power within a few decades. With the massive debt the US has on it's back, some serious spending cuts will have to be made. These cuts have to include military spending and a dramatic reduction in force projection capability.

[Panther Al]

And to cull one of my earlier posts in another thread, lets not forget this:




The Spratly's. In short, a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one. So far we have told everyone that we are backing the Philippines, and Vietnam and China has had naval battles over them: in 88 the ChiCom navy sank a Vietnamese Troop transport that was heading to a marked Vietnamese island. The Chinese has also recently occupied (with armed troops) an island claimed by the Philippines and have told them that under no circumstances will China permit anyone to explore for oil: particularly addressed to the Philippines.



Now: This is where almost all the angst in the area is rooted around. Despite what China says, one look at a map will tell you that they don't have a dog in this hunt. But they are forcing it anyways. And so far they have bullied, shot, and killed to keep that dog in the hunt. What makes anyone think that as the Peoples Liberation Army's Navy (And aint that a mouthful) gets more powerful as they get more peaceful?

[Fusilier]

Despite what China says, one look at a map will tell you that they don't have a dog in this hunt.

One of their best bits of evidence to push the "we own them" is that old Chinese vases and porcelain have been found on some of the islands.

[Panther Al]

True enough: But the question is, how and why? Was it an official Chinese Settlement? Was it traders, or people who bought Chinese goods because that was what they wanted?

I honestly have no answer to this: So it could be, and it might not be. You's pays your money, and you's take the chances.

[Fusilier]

True enough: But the question is, how and why? Was it an official Chinese Settlement? Was it traders, or people who bought Chinese goods because that was what they wanted?

I honestly have no answer to this: So it could be, and it might not be. You's pays your money, and you's take the chances.

I was being sarcastic... or something like that.

[Panther Al]

I figured you was, but still, I am fussy enough to point out such things. After all, for fun one long weekend I decided to (using the info in the TW2K books) to figure out how much of *everything* a US ACAV regiment would need: From food to bullets, from trucks to tanks, to how many sets of uniforms, how much in the way of spares (Figured at 2.5% of total weight of everything that might need them), and how much of everything it would take to move said regiment 600km. And how much it would take to move said muchness, etc, etc, etc...

[95th Rifleman]

China has always seen it's direct neighbours as "buffer" zones. Historicly they have always been keen on having these nations as client states or occupied protectorates, this is nothing new and can't really be linked to their relatively new communist government. They have been scrapping over Korea and taiwan for centuries (if not longer).

Some folks in the west are still obsessed with this capatalism v communism thing and see China as the new russia, an evil red beast just waiting to spread communism like a crimson plague across the world.

Sure China is a potential threat to it's direct neighbours if they can't secure client state status over them, but this has been the case for 3 thousand years. On a global scale the Chinese are more focused on economic dominance because it's the age old method by which they have always succeeded. It took a superior maritime, economic empire (the British) to knock them off their perch and now there is no longer such a threat as America is in China's pocket now, financialy speaking.

[dragoon500ly]

Umm, you have seen what's happening with the US economy lately haven't you? ;)
It doesn't really matter what regional neighbours can or cannot do. The fact is China has, and will continue over the coming years, radically changed the perceived balance of power in Asia.
Given the US financial woes, chances are that in 10-15 years or so they will be nowhere near the military check on China they are now. China, whether we like it or not, is the emerging superpower and is likely to be the only super power within a few decades. With the massive debt the US has on it's back, some serious spending cuts will have to be made. These cuts have to include military spending and a dramatic reduction in force projection capability.

Something been happening Beyond the Beltway? Another congressman showing his wenie on YouTube perhaps? :rolleyes:

IMHO what is happening is that the PRC understands that the end of PaxAmerica is coming and they are simply positioning themselves to start the PaxChina.

It is doubtful that the PRC will be able to sustain the global reach that the US enjoyed. But certainly I expect them be the dominant power in the Far East and to be able to project, at least, naval and diplomatic power. Will they reach superpower status? Doubt it, if the last 50 odd years have shown us anything, any nation that reaches for that status will certainly implode at some point from the sheer cost.

And while this is all going on, it seems that everyone has forgotten a certain terrorist organization....anybody truly believe that with the death of OBL, that they aren't making plans for a little payback?

[pmulcahy11b]

One surprising thing I heard yesterday is that economist are worried because China's economy appears to be flattening -- they've had less than 3% GDP growth the past three years, and each year it's been falling a little. At the beginning of the 20th century, they were the world's third largest economy, and at the beginning of the 21st, they're still the world's 3rd largest economy.

The US hegemony was born out of World War 2. Maybe China will remember this and engineer a cataclysmic war to bring them out front?

[RN7]

Some sources also claim that two more carriers are under construction. Anyway, China has stated that it intends to have three carriers (to match ROK and Japan navies). New class of LPD are also being launched.

China's obvious intention is to build a navy that will allow it to have some projection capability but with no intention to compete with the US Navy. What would be the point?

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?


Invasion of northern Dzungaria (1949)
Invasion of Tibet (1950)
Korean War (1950-1953)
Sino-Indian War (1962)
Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969)
Battle of the Paracel Islands (1974)
Sino-Vietnam War (1979)
Sino-Vietnam Border Conflicts (1979-1990)

[ShadoWarrior]

The US hegemony was born out of World War 2. Maybe China will remember this and engineer a cataclysmic war to bring them out front?
To be "out front" they'd have to win such a war, or at least profit from it. There'll be no winners from a World War 3, even if the Chinese managed to engineer a war in which they didn't get sucked into it themselves. Military issues aside (and that's a big assumption), crashing the global economy (which WW3 would certainly do) would hurt China enough to prevent them from dominating the world.

BTW, even if one ignores US interests, Russia would not sit idly by and permit China to replace the US as the world's superpower. While there's little love lost between Russia and the US, Russia knows that they're safe from the US (despite their frequent protestations to the contrary). There's no love lost between Russia and China. They've hated each other forever.

[Legbreaker]

And while this is all going on, it seems that everyone has forgotten a certain terrorist organization....anybody truly believe that with the death of OBL, that they aren't making plans for a little payback?
While not for a moment diminishing the impact the actions of that particular organisation has had, effectively they've done nearly nothing compared to say just one year during the cold war.

I'm certainly NOT saying they don't need dealing with once and for all, but realistically, they're a relatively minor player in the grand scheme. It seems from this side of the world they just got lucky with the world trade centre, etc - virtually nobody had heard of them before, and they don't appear to have done very much since.

*dons flame retardant suit*

[Webstral]

Perhaps the best way to look at the future is to see a multipolar world much like the pre-WW2 world. The US, EC, CIS, PRC, and India all will be major players on the world stage going into the future. I, for one, look forward to a multipolar world. We Americans might learn to keep our best qualities while altering some of the ones that keep tripping us up.

[mikeo80]

Perhaps the best way to look at the future is to see a multipolar world much like the pre-WW2 world. The US, EC, CIS, PRC, and India all will be major players on the world stage going into the future. I, for one, look forward to a multipolar world. We Americans might learn to keep our best qualities while altering some of the ones that keep tripping us up.

That would be an admirable future. But only if Americans can learn from history.....

Oh, wait....

History is an ELECTIVE in some school systems. And the versions of history now taught can be very (COUGH COUGH) enlitening.

Case in point, I remember about 20 years ago, my youngest step daughter asked me the question....

"Who won the Second World War"?

And She WAS SERIOUS!!!!!!!

My $0.02

Mike

[Panther Al]

That would be an admirable future. But only if Americans can learn from history.....

Oh, wait....

History is an ELECTIVE in some school systems. And the versions of history now taught can be very (COUGH COUGH) enlitening.

Case in point, I remember about 20 years ago, my youngest step daughter asked me the question....

"Who won the Second World War"?

And She WAS SERIOUS!!!!!!!

My $0.02

Mike

Heh. When I was a recruiter I did a lot of high school visits. While in one of the local "good" schools, I overheard two students talking about a class they had, in which they learned that we ended WW2 by nuking the North Korean capital. I stopped, and asked, where did you learn this? They gave me a 3 year old text book that said in it - amongst other things - that is how it happened. Brought it up to the principle, and he looked blank. Even the history teacher there was certain of it, after all, it was published. Of course, thankfully, the assistant principle blew her top, and had the book replaced. But they was teaching this for 3 years and *no one* noticed.

Sheesh.

[Fusilier]

They gave me a 3 year old text book that said in it - amongst other things - that is how it happened.

What?

What school district was this?

[Raellus]

Heh. When I was a recruiter I did a lot of high school visits. While in one of the local "good" schools, I overheard two students talking about a class they had, in which they learned that we ended WW2 by nuking the North Korean capital. I stopped, and asked, where did you learn this? They gave me a 3 year old text book that said in it - amongst other things - that is how it happened. Brought it up to the principle, and he looked blank. Even the history teacher there was certain of it, after all, it was published. Of course, thankfully, the assistant principle blew her top, and had the book replaced. But they was teaching this for 3 years and *no one* noticed.

Sheesh.

I'm a high school history teacher and this is hard to believe. I can see students being confused and mixing up a couple of events, but an error that egregious in a textbook and a teacher who didn't know any better?

Was this a private school or some kind of alternative or charter school?

[Panther Al]

I'm a high school history teacher and this is hard to believe. I can see students being confused and mixing up a couple of events, but an error that egregious in a textbook and a teacher who didn't know any better?

Was this a private school or some kind of alternative or charter school?

What?

What school district was this?

A public High School in NW Ohio. To be.. for the lack of a better word.. fair, this teacher felt also that teaching the history of war mongering periods to be counterproductive, and instead focused on the more uplifting social miracles that lift humanity over its barbarous past... etc etc etc.

[95th Rifleman]

There is a similar school of thought in British education.

We are slowly but surely airbrushing our our more militant past in favour of a fluffy bunny focus.

I wonder if the british governemnt would of been so keen to go into Afghanistan if the previous two wars he have fought there would of been more prominent in the classroom over the past few decades.

[Fusilier]

This thread requires a reaction pic.

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/5069/1312692250002.jpg

[Panther Al]

Back on subject:


The US made another statement about the whole Chinese Carrier issue: For the second time, The USS George Washington escorted by the USS John McCain, made a port visit to Danang, where they took aboard a passel of high ranking military and governmental visitors. A little trash talking ensued: Basically saying that the US has been doing carriers for a hundred years, ours is bigger, and we got 11 of them.

But the most interesting bit to me, is this is the *second* visit.

[Mohoender]

That would be an admirable future. But only if Americans can learn from history.....

Oh, wait....

History is an ELECTIVE in some school systems. And the versions of history now taught can be very (COUGH COUGH) enlitening.

Case in point, I remember about 20 years ago, my youngest step daughter asked me the question....

"Who won the Second World War"?

And She WAS SERIOUS!!!!!!!

My $0.02

Mike

Don't be that mean about your own school system. Of course, you know that the French school system has been superior by far and for years.;) Here is an exemple of it:

A few years ago as I was a staff assistant in one of the good Paris school (pre-college level) I had a great conversation with an entire class about Nazi Germany. The kids had just done a terrific argumentation on how bad Nazi thesis were and I was impressed (truly):cool:. Obviously, I started to talk about Adolf Hitler and realized that the entire class was looking at me, puzzled. The least shy of them, then, asked whom I was talking about.:confused:

They were perfect at describing how bad nazis were, they simply didn't know who Adolf Hitler was.:D

[pmulcahy11b]

That reminds me of something from about fifteen years past. My brother Mark and I were having a merry discussion about Tet and I insisted it was a military victory for the US and South Vietnamese, but a political defeat for us.

My nephew, James, was confused. He told us he had no idea where Vietnam was, or what happened there.

I imagine he knows better now, since he's been in the Army for about 4 years and had a couple of tours in Afghanistan now.

[mikeo80]

Don't be that mean about your own school system. Of course, you know that the French school system has been superior by far and for years.;) Here is an exemple of it:

A few years ago as I was a staff assistant in one of the good Paris school (pre-college level) I had a great conversation with an entire class about Nazi Germany. The kids had just done a terrific argumentation on how bad Nazi thesis were and I was impressed (truly):cool:. Obviously, I started to talk about Adolf Hitler and realized that the entire class was looking at me, puzzled. The least shy of them, then, asked whom I was talking about.:confused:

They were perfect at describing how bad nazis were, they simply didn't know who Adolf Hitler was.:D

I get what you are saying.

But my step-daughter knew the US was in WWII. But who else? What sides? Nada. Needless to say, a quick and accurate history "refresher" was administered.

My $0.02

Mike

[Mohoender]

At least she was lucky enough ta have you around Mike.:)

[Mohoender]

My nephew, James, was confused. He told us he had no idea where Vietnam was, or what happened there.


You should have been proud. US spent almost as much time to forget about the Vietnam War than we did about the Algerian War. The only reason we know where Algeria is comes from the number of french citizen of Algerian descent.;):D

[95th Rifleman]

Back on subject:


The US made another statement about the whole Chinese Carrier issue: For the second time, The USS George Washington escorted by the USS John McCain, made a port visit to Danang, where they took aboard a passel of high ranking military and governmental visitors. A little trash talking ensued: Basically saying that the US has been doing carriers for a hundred years, ours is bigger, and we got 11 of them.

But the most interesting bit to me, is this is the *second* visit.

On the subject of trash talk....

We Brits invented aircraft carriers and ours had steel decks so kamikazes kinda bounced off, just saying :p

Being British means being arrogantly proud of past military triumphs, mostly becuase the current British military sucks due to cost cutting.

[Panther Al]

On the subject of trash talk....

We Brits invented aircraft carriers and ours had steel decks so kamikazes kinda bounced off, just saying :p

Being British means being arrogantly proud of past military triumphs, mostly becuase the current British military sucks due to cost cutting.

Not to mention you brits figured out angled decks, the landing light/mirror thing, and I want to say steam cats. After all, in 1914 the HMS Ark Royal (2nd of the name) was if I recall correctly, the first British Carrier. Granted, it was technically a seaplane tender, but it was equipped with a flight deck and from what I read fixed wing aircraft did operate off of it once or twice. It even saw service as the HMS Pegasus as a carrier for Fighters till it was decommissioned in 1946.

Which makes one wonder: You all had every advantage to being *the* carrier navy, you came up with all the good ideas before anyone else, yet...

RN aviators are temping on US carriers in order to preserve naval aviation skills till you all get one again. Someone needs to explain to the powers that be that the QE class of carriers needs to get done in jig time, and kept in commission full time the both of them!

[pmulcahy11b]

Carriers brings up another side of the military and the public. Carriers are all about force projection. Other countries love to hate the US, until they need help; then they love us. Until they've gotten the help they need -- then they hate us again. American soldiers are great to have around to contribute to the local economy and do the heavy fighting and heavy-lifting humanitarian work -- but otherwise, they're just good targets for rocks and insults and IEDs.

The American public loves its military at the beginning of the war, but when it gets a little expensive, they don't like us so much anymore. And when you retire or go out on disability or simply come home from the military, they'd rather just forget about us. Even the military only likes its troops when they're working well for them. If you're injured or have some kind of personal problem, your superiors just want you to shut up and get back to work. And the government at large might find their soldiers useful, but if you are disabled or retired, they'd prefer to simply forget about you. Use you up and throw you away.

[Legbreaker]

And when you retire or go out on disability or simply come home from the military, they'd rather just forget about us. Even the military only likes its troops when they're working well for them. If you're injured or have some kind of personal problem, your superiors just want you to shut up and get back to work. And the government at large might find their soldiers useful, but if you are disabled or retired, they'd prefer to simply forget about you. Use you up and throw you away.

I hear that. It's not just the Americans either, same things happen all around the world in supposedly civilised countries. Sometimes I think the poorer countries treat their ex-soldiers MUCH better that the west. At least they have a great retirement plan - if you manage to accumulate enough power to stage a successful coup anyway! ;)

[Panther Al]

Kipling said it best:

*snippage*


Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

[Webstral]

The American public loves its military at the beginning of the war, but when it gets a little expensive, they don't like us so much anymore.

Over the years, I have become increasingly Heinleinic in my outlook on politics. Only those who serve should be eligible for Congress or President. The non-serving elected officials can cluck sorrowfully about how awful war is, but only those who have carried the rifle understand what it means. Yes, many fine people will be left off the roster. But the authority to start a war should belong to those who have placed themselves in a position to fight. Decisions about how to treat veterans should be made by people who are capable of balancing bean counting with membership in the brotherhood. Policy on pay and privileges should be determined by people who have as deep a connection to the fighting men and women as to the paid representative of the defense contractor in the district. The Greeks obligated every property-owning man to stand in the phalanx with his fellow citizens. Later, free men could make their contribution by rowing aboard the fighting ships. The theme of political power stemming from a willingness to place one's life in jeopardy for the well-being of the state has a direct application to a modern American society far more focused on personal liberties than on personal responsibilities and contribution.

[95th Rifleman]

Not to mention you brits figured out angled decks, the landing light/mirror thing, and I want to say steam cats. After all, in 1914 the HMS Ark Royal (2nd of the name) was if I recall correctly, the first British Carrier. Granted, it was technically a seaplane tender, but it was equipped with a flight deck and from what I read fixed wing aircraft did operate off of it once or twice. It even saw service as the HMS Pegasus as a carrier for Fighters till it was decommissioned in 1946.

Which makes one wonder: You all had every advantage to being *the* carrier navy, you came up with all the good ideas before anyone else, yet...

RN aviators are temping on US carriers in order to preserve naval aviation skills till you all get one again. Someone needs to explain to the powers that be that the QE class of carriers needs to get done in jig time, and kept in commission full time the both of them!

There is something about the British that makes us abandon innovation as soon as we win a war.

In the wars against the French in the early 19th century (the first truly world war) we pioneered naval sciences and technologies, we developed the rifle into a true weapon of modern warfare and kick-started the industrial revolution.

50 years later we had forgoteen almost everything we learned.

In WW1 we invented the tank, after the war british pioneers developed the principles of armoured warfare that the Germans would turn into Blitzkrieg. yet we thew it all away and developed insanely incompetent theories of cruiser and infantry tanks.

Today the British military is a joke. It's been an interesting British trait that whenever we go to war we lose in the first six months. We then go home, have a think, sort things out and come back to kick the over guy's arse halfway across Europe. It happened against the French in 1793 when the British expeditionary forces where soundly beaten then by 1815 we had proved ourselves to be masters of war in Europe (and good at burning presidential homes in Washington :D ).

In WW1 the initial British forces took a pounding but we came back fighting, same in WW2. The Falklnads garrison was overwhelmed in the course of a day but we built a force in record time and took them back.

I think we have a perverse pleasure in making the other guy think he's won before bitch slapping him.

[LBraden]

No no no no.

It takes 6 months to gather the intell for the SAS and also sober up the Irish and Scottish divisions to fight the war.

[95th Rifleman]

No no no no.

It takes 6 months to gather the intell for the SAS and also sober up the Irish and Scottish divisions to fight the war.

You have a point, takes a while to explain to the paddies and scots that they need to stop fighting the English for a bit and fight some other poor bastard.

[Mohoender]

Other countries love to hate the US, until they need help; then they love us. Until they've gotten the help they need -- then they hate us again. American soldiers are great to have around to contribute to the local economy and do the heavy fighting and heavy-lifting humanitarian work -- but otherwise, they're just good targets for rocks and insults and IEDs.


It all comes to politics and, still I disagree. Why would you hate US? Governments do and people often follow there governments but US is a great people (It's on purpose that I don't say country) with great qualities and several drawbacks or weaknessess. With US people might have been disappointed about the late political directions. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and we all hoped for a world without war. It didn't last a decade. I'm not saying US is guilty of anything but I defend the idea that for over 20 years our politicians (from all our countries) repeteadly missed several occasions to do better than bellow average. As you said, people wait too much from US while they should do it for themselves. However, I'm 40 and don't forget that my parents have been raised with that idea and that US governments where the first one to imply it.

About US soldiers, they are the visible part of the politics and it's why they get targeted. Too bad too few more often think about truly blaming the true responsibles: politicians.

I'm happy with what is happening at La Haye. I might not agree with the way it was done but I was glad to see Saddam being trialed, I'm equally satisfied to see Mubarak facing justice. I found it a pity not to have seen any charge being retained against Ariel Sharon or François Mitterand. I have seen Rumsfeld is going to be sued on the Charge of Torture. DSK being sued on the Charge of Sexual Assault... I'm not bringing up any judgement on these (only a court can do so) but it is a progress.

If people get a feeling of justice, it might release a bit of the hatred directed at those only carrying up orders. Of course, I'm an idealist.:)

[natehale1971]

You have a point, takes a while to explain to the paddies and scots that they need to stop fighting the English for a bit and fight some other poor bastard.

Actually it takes the six months to brew the booze that bribes the Scots and Irish as they are sobering them up, then doing the 'carrot' effect to convenice them into going and fighting the damn war!

I think the training goes something like this...

"Oh.. ah git a hangover... gimme a damn beer!"

"We can't <insert bady guy name here> stole all our booze, why do you think you've sobered up."

"Da Bastaards.... get 'em!"

[Legbreaker]

Takes six months to ship all the booze away from Ireland and Scotland to the war zone, thereby encouraging their normal behaviour to be relocated to the "zone of destruction".

[pmulcahy11b]

There is something about the British that makes us abandon innovation as soon as we win a war.

There's a saying that us Americans are always fighting our last war instead of the war we're fighting now.

[natehale1971]

Takes six months to ship all the booze away from Ireland and Scotland to the war zone, thereby encouraging their normal behaviour to be relocated to the "zone of destruction".

Oh that's a good one.. :)

[Webstral]

There's a saying that us Americans are always fighting our last war instead of the war we're fighting now.

That particular shortcoming is widespread, though we're especially good at it. The analogy is especially applicable to what's happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shock and awe, indeed. It takes more than a very strong single at the beginning to make a classic album.

[95th Rifleman]

That particular shortcoming is widespread, though we're especially good at it. The analogy is especially applicable to what's happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shock and awe, indeed. It takes more than a very strong single at the beginning to make a classic album.

Iraq in paticular made me cringe. The vast might of the US army, trained and equipped to fight WW3 agaist the Russians going straight into an insurgency.

The worst thing is that so many people told the high level planners what they where walking into and yet they still had the attitude that the Iraqis would just be grateful and give no trouble.

I remember an American friend telling me he thought it'd be like WW2 with Germany and Japan, America would liberate them and they would just do as they where told. He didn't like it when I voiced the opinion that a nation that is bombed into the stoneage tends to be more pliable than a nation you blitzkrieg to their capital and set up shop, I said it'd me more like France under German occupation than Japan under American.

[Webstral]

The worst thing is that so many people told the high level planners what they where walking into and yet they still had the attitude that the Iraqis would just be grateful and give no trouble... I said it'd me more like France under German occupation than Japan under American.

Like so many nations of great power, we endure leadership and a body politic that is fixated on false visions of what we can accomplish without making any adaptations to our existing strengths and modus operendi. We get some things right. Sadly, the well-directed efforts of many are derailed by poor strategy and a parochialism on the part of far too many that borders on the tragicomic. The Green Zone in 2004-2005 is a classic example. When 3rd ID set up shop, the brigade that took control of the area that would become our AO in OIF 3 promptly hired locals to do everything. This was wise, since the economy (what economy there was) was completely upended by the invasion, liberation, and occupation. When 1st CD came in, the new sheriff fired all of the locals and requested--requested--Americans and other "reliable" foreign nationals be brought in to do the work the local nationals had been doing. Surprise, surprise--a sharp uptick in violence.

Of course, the whole problem goes back to the very nature of the society. We have no patience. We have an attention span measured in minutes. We elect a leadership who gives voice and action to our neurotic inability to focus on anything for longer than a single season of the local sports franchise. This leadership creates a command climate in which the military is focused predominently on killing people and breaking things to the exclusion of all other activities. In fairness, killing people and breaking things well is a fine art and must be practiced rigorously--which is to say to the exclusion of everything else. Asking a tanker who has spent his career rising to battalion command by killing folks and breaking things to make good decisions regarding policing and counterinsurgency is probably asking too much. The same can be said of the infantry. The infantry maneuvers, closes with, engages, and destroys the enemy. Policing is not our forte, if we're adequately trained for high-tempo conventional combat. If we're adequately trained for policing, then we become something besides infantry in the traditional sense of the word. Multi-tasking is a better sound bite than a reality.

This gets back to who ought to be President. A military man understands that a force organized, trained, and equipped to fight conventional wars makes a poor nation-building/counterindurgency force. Certainly, the guys on the ground will do their very best. They may actually do their jobs well. So did the Germans on the ground on the Eastern Front. A strategy that fails to match the existing human and material resources with the situation on the ground negates most or all of the efforts of the folks fighting the war. A President with some time in combat has a halfway decent chance of understanding this. A President with no real military time, advised by other men with no military time, is susceptible to all manner of hubris and wishful thinking. Ah, if only we could get the likes of Colin Powell to run...!

[pmulcahy11b]

The worst thing is that so many people told the high level planners what they where walking into and yet they still had the attitude that the Iraqis would just be grateful and give no trouble.

GEN Shinzeki, who IIRC was the JCS Chariman at the time, tried to warn the rest of the warplanners what was going to happen if they implemented the favored warplan for Iraq, and got forced into retirement by Bush for his trouble. I remember something about his figures indicating that we would need 600,000 ground troops alone plus twice the amount of aircraft we had committed to the operation, and even then it wouldn't be a simple takedown and lockdown. He was not in favor of invading Iraq, IIRC.

[95th Rifleman]

You can drive from one end of Northern Ireland to the other in one day, they spoke the same language as us and where the same race. Yet it took 30'000 soldiers to keep the peace (barely).

The original estimates for Iraq where 5000 soldiers 3 years after the invasion.

[Webstral]

The estimates I saw were more in the range of 350,000. However, I don't know if this figure includes the defeated Iraqi Army serving under a new regime. If Shinseki intended for the Iraqi Army to be kept, it's entirely conceivable that an estimate of 600,000 troops was presented. Of course, the entire Iraqi Army was kicked out the door and into arms of the insurgency. Good Lord, we Americans really can be hopeless yokels sometimes.

The precedence of politics over good sense--of civilian know-it-alls over military men--of bean counting over effectiveness--brings us back to some of the ironies built into Twilight: 2000. The chronology of v1 never actually says why NATO attacks across Poland or what the final plan was. It would be interesting to hear conversations between the Joint Chiefs and the White House regarding the feasibility of invading the Soviet Union with the forces in the field. Equally, it would be interesting to know what advise the State Department gives in early 1997. Surely someone must realize that the lives of the regime hang in the balance; therefore, the Kremlin would never consider allowing the West to occupy Soviet soil. Why was this message not included in the decision to cross the Soviet-Polish border? Did the Secretary of State tell the President this and find himself ignored or replaced? Was the keep-your-mouth-shut message delivered inside the State Department?

[natehale1971]

I always thought of it as the NATO forces crossing the border beause the Soviets were retreating so fast that the commanders engaged really didn't want to allow them a chance to recover and rebuild. and the battle was moving so fast that the higher ups didn't get a full understanding of what was happening, and when they did they gave the orders to pull back out of Soviet Territory (well, 90% of NATO didn't see the Baltic states as legally part of the Soviet Union so that's possible answer as well) it was too late.

[Webstral]

The timetables involved don’t suggest a very rapid advance across Poland. The drive across the Oder starts sometime in April. The first German troops cross the Soviet border on 9 July. Thus the drive across Poland takes 2-3 months, depending on when in April the offensive begins. Even at two months, the offensive isn’t especially rapid by mechanized standards. At any rate, Soviet withdrawal, though forced, doesn’t seem likely to involve an out-of-control retreat.

Crossing the Soviet border involves more than a few local commanders pushing a bit too hard. This would be a major decision. Even civilian politicians in the West would have known that crossing the Soviet border would run the risk of nuclear escalation like nothing that had happened in the war thus far. If the leaders weren’t prepared to run that risk, they would have established guidelines to prevent rogue crossings. For instance, a stop line parallel to the Soviet border and thirty miles inside Poland would have prevented chance crossings of the border by NATO troops. Such a line does not appear to have been established.

I do agree that the desire to prevent the Soviets from rebuilding their combat strength would have been a primary goal. In fact, it would have been a strategic goal since NATO clearly wanted to end the war as soon as possible. The evidence for this lies in the timetable. NATO and China together could have fielded at full mobilization literally hundreds of divisions by drawing on manpower reserves much, much greater than the manpower reserves of the Soviet Union. The Soviet system in the late 1980’s (which we project forward into the 1990’s) included some 200-250 divisions, depending on whose count one believes. The Soviet military included virtually every service-aged man in the country, since all men were drafted and kept on the books in Mobilization Only divisions long after their initial commitment was up. The system was created so that the Soviets could field an army capable of winning a short war while exploiting the gigantic manpower and industrial resources of the USSR. In part, the concept reflected sensibilities emerging from the Great Patriotic War. In part, the concept reflected the fact that the enemies of Soviets had much greater mobilization potential than the Soviets if another global war of attrition started. The Soviets had to win quickly or not at all.

However, full mobilization costs something. Western politicians may not have felt the public support would have been present for an extended build-up, which would mean an extended disruption of daily life. In a very real sense, the start of WW3 for Europe and North America was the fault of the Germans—just like the first two wars. Polling would reveal the degree to which the electorate felt that way. Therefore, the US Administration decided to go for broke without fully mobilizing and force the USSR out of the war in 1997.

[Raellus]

Read Cobra II. It was truly eye-opening. The architect of our early failure in securing post-Saddam Iraq was Donald Rumsfeld. The dude put all kinds of pressure on general Franks to do the job with the absolute minimum of manpower. This, and the decision to completely disband the Iraqi army, led to the bloody mess that followed.

[natehale1971]

Web... couldn't the NATO forces been pushing into the Baltic States to liberate them? and that be what the writers of the game meant when talking about NATO forces crossing onto Soviet Soil? Many of NATO nations onsidered the Baltic states occupied territory while the Soviets & Warsaw pact considered them 'soviet soil'....

Looking at the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Baltic states were among the first to start protesting for indepedenece (even before some of the Warsaw Pact states).

This has made me think that could be what happened.. that NATO moved into the Baltic states, thinking it wouldn't have resulted in a nuclear exchange combined with what you've posted might work at explaining what happened.

[Legbreaker]

Looking at the unit histories, it's evident the push was not on a narrow front but rather spread out about as wide as it could be. Just look at how many Divisions were involved, then think about how much space each needs just sitting still and you start to get an idea of just how big 1996-97 really was.

This was no minor skirmish with limited aims, this was full on, all out, go for broke WAR!

[Webstral]

Read Cobra II. This, and the decision to completely disband the Iraqi army, led to the bloody mess that followed.

Don't get me started unless you want to issue more warnings about the f-bomb.

[Webstral]

Looking at the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Baltic states were among the first to start protesting for indepedenece (even before some of the Warsaw Pact states).

This observation is both factual and a creditable effort to incorporate real history into the Twilight timeline.

I can’t say that NATO forces did not cross into the Soviet Union in July, 1997 solely for the purpose of liberating the Baltic States. I’m reasonably certain that liberating some or all of the Baltics would be a selling point for the operation into the Soviet Union. However, loss of the Baltics would not force the USSR out of the war. The bottom line is that the Western Allies and China wanted to win the war—presumably without starting a nuclear war (which everyone would lose). The NATO offensive into the USSR has to be seen in the light of forcing the Soviets to the bargaining table, preferably on terms dictated by NATO and the PRC.

General Sir John Hackett suggests a shape to this scheme in The Third World War. He suggests that after NATO repulses the initial Soviet invasion of the FRG, some leaders want to go so far as to render the Soviet Union incapable of threatening Europe again. Obviously, the Soviet nuclear arsenal puts the outright destruction of the Soviet state out of the question. However, Hackett has his theoretical Western leaders posit that announced limited war aims which would guarantee the continued existence of the Soviet state, albeit in somewhat reduced form, would enable the Western Allies to forestall nuclear war. The suggested stop line would be along the Dvina and Dnepr Rivers. Loss of Soviet territory west of this line would sufficiently hobble the Soviet economy and manpower reserves to prevent the Soviets from renewing their invasion of Europe. A happy side effect would be the liberation of Eastern Europe.

Hackett’s idea seems well-suited to explaining the events of the v1 chronology. I’ll outline the events I believe are important:

• Dec 1997: Anglo-American (and Canadian) forces cross the border.
• Feb 1997: Soviet and Czechoslovak forces launch an offensive into southern Germany but lack the strength to make any significant gains.
• Apr 1997: NATO launches its offensive across Poland
• Jul 1997: German forces cross into the USSR
• Jul 1997: The USSR initiates tactical nuclear war

There is a lengthy hiatus between the Anglo-American entrance into the war in Germany and the start of offensive operations into Poland. There are several possible explanations for the long pause. My preferred explanation is that the fresh Anglo-American forces hit the exhausted Pact forces in Germany like a pile driver. Comparisons between the NATO attack across the North German Plain in the DDR and Operation Desert Storm are not entirely out of place, although neither the pace of the advance nor the very low casualty rate are replicated. Still, the fresh and intact heavy divisions of III, V, and VII US Corps, and I and II British Corps, supported by the full weight of the USAF in Europe, proves overwhelming against the Pact defenders. After some brutal fighting, NATO forces close up on the borders of the DDR and stop.

At this point, the Western Allies want to call a halt to the fighting. They’ve gotten what they wanted, and it’s cost them a pretty hefty bag of casualties. The Germans had been severely handled. The Anglo-Americans have gotten their noses bloodied, too. German reunification is a fact. To the Western way of thinking, the Soviets ought to respond to a peace initiative. The Soviets have gotten the worst of the fighting in Germany. The Soviets are still bogged down in China. Surely they will make peace if NATO guarantees that there won’t be further action against the Pact.

Unfortunately for the West, there has been a regime change. This was inevitable, really. The German invasion of the DDR in October [surely would have] prompted calls for full-scale war with the West before NATO could marshal its full strength. I have personified this idea with Premier Dmitri Danilov and Defense Minister Sergei Sauronski. Danilov wants to keep the war with Germany limited to war with Germany because he doesn’t believe the Soviet Union can win a conventional war against NATO or even afford to wage one. Sauronski believes the war has already started; therefore, the Soviets should use their advantage of in-place forces and shorter lines of communication to achieve the greatest possible advantage before the European allies can mobilize and before US forces can be brought to Europe. Danilov wins the argument. When the English speaking members of NATO join the fight, Danilov pays with his life.

Sauronski isn’t about to make peace with Germany still united. The USSR still has an advantage in the median term because true mobilization of Western manpower and resources will take a year or more. The Soviet Union can go to full mobilization, launch a counteroffensive in Europe, and then call for a peace that will reestablish the status quo ante bellum in Europe at the bare minimum. Once that is done, the USSR can finish business with China once and for all.

The Pact offensive in February is intended to peel away members of NATO. France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece already have quit. Although the Soviets don’t have the strength they need to go over to the offensive in Europe by February, they want to influence the nascent peace talks in Geneva. Although the Netherlands and Denmark have refused to help reunify Germany, they have remained part of the NATO alliance. Dutch and Danish forces have assumed control over the southern part of Germany where US forces have been based. Sauronski orders the February invasion of southern Germany to inflict such casualties on the Dutch that the Netherlands will drop out of the alliance or make a separate peace. Unfortunately, he overestimates the offensive capabilities of the Pact forces in western Czechoslovakia while underestimating the fighting abilities and resolve of the Dutch. The crisis passes as Canadian, Danish, and German forces, liberally supported by NATO air power, arrive in southern Germany.

At this point, the Western Allies realize that it will take additional measures to get the Sauronski regime to quit the war—at least the war in Europe. The two options for NATO are to attempt to use the forces in the field to force a solution in the near term or mobilize overwhelming power in the long term. The second option virtually assures victory, but it will be very costly. Additionally, there is the fighting in Korea, North China, and the Persian Gulf. The longer global fighting goes on, the more the war will cost. Also, Western public opinion might not support a general mobilization and all its attendant discomforts to finish a war the [damned] Germans started. For this reason, the remaining NATO allies decide to try to finish the thing in 1997.

The Western Allies announce that they will continue fighting until the Soviets get serious about peace. They announce that they will advance across Poland and Belarus to the Dvina-Dnepr Line, there to stop. The intent is not to destroy the USSR, they say. The intent is to impose peace by denying the Soviet Union the economic and material resources to wage war.

The build-up in eastern Germany takes until April. The infrastructure in the DDR has been badly damaged, and the tonnage of materiel to be moved is staggering. SACEUR really has paid attention to the supply issues that have plagued all of the mechanized operations to that point, and he is determined to get the needed supplies forward. Also, losses in manpower and vehicles take some time to make good.

The NATO offensive in Poland runs afoul of amazingly extensive defenses. The Soviets, determined to husband their armored reserves, have created a labyrinth of obstacles, fire bases, and strong points that can be manned by foot mobile Soviet and Polish reservists. Almost from the start, NATO suffers tremendous losses. Western forces adapt, but the offensive slows to a crawl. Operation Desert Storm this ain’t. The Soviets launch local mechanized counterattacks to keep NATO forces off-balance. This is a different modus operendi than the Allies fought in the DDR.

Still, by the end of June NATO forces are nearly at the Soviet border. Despite the best efforts of the Pact, they have been unable to recreate the kind of show-stopping defensive works of the Chinese in early 1996. Everywhere, the war has turned against the USSR. In the Far East, the Chinese are rolling forward. In the Middle East, Coalition forces have liberated Kuwait again and are moving north in Iran. While the involvement of Greece and Italy more-or-less on the Soviet side is welcome, there have been no drastic changes. If Sauronski doesn’t get things turned around soon, he’ll pay with his life.

He uncorks the nuclear genie.

So there is my rather long-winded short version of the hows and whys of the v1 chronology relative to the aborted invasion of the western Soviet Union.