Canon module omissions - RDF module

[Olefin]

Wanted to start a discussion on various omissions and see if we can come up with what good suggestions would be for filling the holes -

just to be clear I am not talking about corrections or changes to data that is in the modules

I am referring to stuff that was referred to and then left out

For instance

In the RDF module there are the following omissions that are mentioned but then never detailed

1) The USN fleet is said to contain mulitple civilian ships for supporting forces in Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as small patrol craft but they are never detailed as to how many and what they might be

2) A French task force built around the Jean Bart (which I think they meant to say the Joan de Arc) is said to be in the area but never detailed as to composition

3) SOCCENT is not detailed at all - there are ranger and special forces battalions, SEAL TEAMS, etc.. but no idea on how big they are, how many they are, etc..

there are also Special Air and naval forces assigned as well but again they are left out and not detailed

There may be more but thats a nice starting list

So what do people think should have been in the module to flesh out these areas but wasnt there because they were overlooked?

Love to see what kind of ideas people come up with

And again - these would be suggestions for people to use who may play the RDF module

for instance in Kings Ransom there is this detail that gives some detail of what may be missing as to SOCCENT

US TEAM BRAVO-99/5TH SPECIAL FORCES GROUP

Team Bravo-99 is the controlling headquarters for the six
Special Forces A-Teams that operate in the area.

Referee's Note: The A-teams that comprise B-99 are deeply
committed to the people of Iran. In many cases, it is nearly impossible
to distinguish them from the locals. The Green Berets
like it that way.

Leaders: Major Tony Garth is the CO of Bravo-99. Captain
Harry Mikulis is the Operations and Intelligence Officer.
Where Found: B-99 is located in Lordegan. Its component ATeams
can be found throughout the area.

Numbers: The current strength of Bravo-99 is 50 men. Each
A-Team averages six Green Berets each.

Weapons: A mixture of small arms of the world, NATO and
Warsaw Pact weapons predominating.

[pmulcahy11b]

IIRC, SOCCENT didn't exist at the time GDW wrote that module. An omission from our viewpoint, but not at the time.

[Legbreaker]

I prefer to focus on what's in the books, not what's been left out. The gaps leave room for extrapolation in whichever why we like - within reason and as long as it's believable.

[Olefin]

I see your point Legbreaker - and not trying to be nitpicky but instead see what people think may be there more as a way of exploring people's ideas in the forum on what should fill those holes.

For instance there are no support ships for the USN - but no task force goes anywhere without at least one oiler and one repair ship for doing repairs.

And the small patrol boats could be used by someone for an adventure - so like to get a flavor for what people think those could be.

[boogiedowndonovan]

You might want to do a search on Matt Wiser's posts. Outside of the DC group he is probably the best OOB guy (IMHO).

He did some work on an RDF air orbat, and may have done something for the French Navy.

-bdd

[Olefin]

thanks donovan for the information- or should I call you boogie?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I see your point Legbreaker - and not trying to be nitpicky but instead see what people think may be there more as a way of exploring people's ideas in the forum on what should fill those holes.

For instance there are no support ships for the USN - but no task force goes anywhere without at least one oiler and one repair ship for doing repairs.

And the small patrol boats could be used by someone for an adventure - so like to get a flavor for what people think those could be.

That USN support ship might be sitting at the bottom of the Gulf or the Indian Ocean.

[Rainbow Six]

The Royal Navy maintains at least one warship and one Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel in the Persian Gulf. That might have been reinforced during 1996 on the T2K timeline.

Whether they’re still afloat or not by the end of 2000 is quite another matter.

There's also been some debate about whether there would be a Royal Air Force presence or not. Personally I'm inclined to think that if there is it would be minimal - perhaps a Squadron each of Jaguars and strike Tornados and a flight of Hercules. They'd probably rely on the Americans for air defence - RAF air defence interceptors would be in short supply and needed for home defence.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

While we're discussing the region, I'm guessing Diego Garcia got a good pasting, right? I don't have the RDF sourcebook handy.

[Rainbow Six]

I haven't a clue if Diego Garcia is mentioned anywhere to be honest...

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I haven't a clue if Diego Garcia is mentioned anywhere to be honest...

I can't imagine it wasn't hit - it is an enormous asset and for it to be left sitting there is unimaginable. It's a landing site for intercontinental bombers, a staging point for navy sorties, special forces, the entire RDF...yeah, I'm thinking on Thanksgiving day DG probably got a good smacking around.

[Rainbow Six]

I can't imagine it wasn't hit - it is an enormous asset and for it to be left sitting there is unimaginable. It's a landing site for intercontinental bombers, a staging point for navy sorties, special forces, the entire RDF...yeah, I'm thinking on Thanksgiving day DG probably got a good smacking around.

Agreed...and given the size of it it really wouldn't take a lot of warheads to take it out of commission.

[James1978]

3) SOCCENT is not detailed at all - there are ranger and special forces battalions, SEAL TEAMS, etc.. but no idea on how big they are, how many they are, etc..
My copy is in storage, but I seem to recall that the V.2 US Vehicle Guide lists manpower for the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger). I personally question the entire regiment deploying to CENTCOM, but maybe that's just me.

The SEALS may have been attached to the Amphibious Corps for administrative purposes by 2000.

I'm sure part of the 160th SOAR deployed to CENTCOM, but by 2000 they may have been absorbed into the 101st Air Assault Division.

[James Langham]

An obvious answer may be the creation of extra Bns in Europe (and North America as it is invaded).

My copy is in storage, but I seem to recall that the V.2 US Vehicle Guide lists manpower for the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger). I personally question the entire regiment deploying to CENTCOM, but maybe that's just me.

The SEALS may have been attached to the Amphibious Corps for administrative purposes by 2000.

I'm sure part of the 160th SOAR deployed to CENTCOM, but by 2000 they may have been absorbed into the 101st Air Assault Division.

[James1978]

An obvious answer may be the creation of extra Bns in Europe (and North America as it is invaded).
In the context of a general mobilization, I don't disagree. In fact, I find it quite likely.

But the RDF Sourcebook makes it sound like the entire pre-war regiment deployed to CENTCOM with all three battalions. That just strikes me as odd since the US entered the war in Europe before CENTCOM was able to deploy in any strength. You'd think at least a battalion would be handy as a raid force for 7th Army early on.

[Olefin]

The support ships have to be there - otherwise those ships wouldnt be operational - and clearly the carrier task force is operational

most likely they were left out by Frank, just like he left out the civilian ships and small patrol boats

alternatively - and as I am in the process of doing - they may be in Kenya so they would be out of range of any Soviet attack - in his notes he had several support ships for the forces there - and I am using that as a guide

he also listed several different Special Forces units who are there as part of what was deployed to CENTCOM originally but then sent to Kenya

may post some of that here to give a flavor of what may be there based on his Kenya notes

[Matt Wiser]

Didn't do anything on the French Navy, so if someone there knows 'em better than I do, have at it!

I'd have one of the Sacramento-class AOEs in the PG: they'd be handy, and would also run down to Kenya on supply runs and would be able to take care of themselves, given the lack of serious threats by 2000.

[Targan]

I can't imagine it wasn't hit - it is an enormous asset and for it to be left sitting there is unimaginable. It's a landing site for intercontinental bombers, a staging point for navy sorties, special forces, the entire RDF...yeah, I'm thinking on Thanksgiving day DG probably got a good smacking around.

I wonder if Darwin and other northern Australian bases and airfields might have been viable dispersal points/emergency points of relocation for some of those assets?

[Webstral]

In the context of a general mobilization, I don't disagree. In fact, I find it quite likely.

But the RDF Sourcebook makes it sound like the entire pre-war regiment deployed to CENTCOM with all three battalions. That just strikes me as odd since the US entered the war in Europe before CENTCOM was able to deploy in any strength. You'd think at least a battalion would be handy as a raid force for 7th Army early on.

It could be that the 4th Bn remained at Benning School for Boys to train a whole new battalion, in addition to individual replacements.

[James Langham]

I put it down to transport difficulties, after all the logical units to deploy to Europe are heavy units (see notes about difficulties in deploying even light units to the Middle East).

In Europe maybe a Bn was formed from volunteers of units already there? Might be an article in that...

In the context of a general mobilization, I don't disagree. In fact, I find it quite likely.

But the RDF Sourcebook makes it sound like the entire pre-war regiment deployed to CENTCOM with all three battalions. That just strikes me as odd since the US entered the war in Europe before CENTCOM was able to deploy in any strength. You'd think at least a battalion would be handy as a raid force for 7th Army early on.

[Legbreaker]

I haven't a clue if Diego Garcia is mentioned anywhere to be honest...
From memory, it's been discussed before a while back. I think the consensus was it was stripped of supplies fairly early on, and then pasted by the Soviets in late 1997.
The support ships have to be there - otherwise those ships wouldnt be operational - and clearly the carrier task force is operational

Not at all. There's plenty of ports in the area the ships can dock at and take on fuel, food, ammo, etc. It's not like they're operating over huge distances far away from their fuel supplies.
Also, just because the ships are there, do they really have to be at sea? Doesn't it make more sense given the limited irreplaceable ammunition and crews, for them to only put to sea when actually needed?

[Rainbow Six]

OK, a stab at the French Naval Forces in the region:

Jeanne D’Arc (R97) – helicopter cruiser
Armament
• 1 x MM38 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 4 x 100mm guns
Helicopters: 8 x Super Frelon

Georges Leygues (D640) – Anti Submarine Frigate
Armament
• 1 x Crotale EDIR Anti Air Missile Launcher
• 2 x Simbad Anti Air Missile Launchers
• 1 x 100mm gun
• 2 x 20mm guns
• 1 x MM38 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 2 x Torpedo Tubes
Helicopters: 2 x Westland Lynx

Provides specialised anti sub capability with back up anti air role (according to wiki, Georges Leygues usualy accompanied Jeanne D'Arc on ops)

La Fayette (F710) – Frigate
Armament
• 1 x MM40 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 1 x 100mm gun
• 2 x 20mm guns
• 1 x Crotale CN2 Anti Air Missile Launcher
Helicopter: 1 x Eurocopter Panther

Stealth Frigate, commissioned 1996 - gives additional anti air capability

Jean Bart (D615) – Anti Air Frigate
Armament
• 1 x SM-1MR Anti Air Missile Launcher
• 2 x Mistral CIWS Anti Air Missile Launchers
• 2 x L5 Torpedo Tubes
• 1 x MM40 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 1 x 100mm gun
• 2 x 20mm anti aircraft guns
Helicopter: 1 x Eurocopter Panther

Specialised anti air capability (and the only ship we know is there)

Orage (L9022) – Landing Platform Dock
Armament
• 2 x Simbad Anti Air Missile Launchers
• 2 x 30mm anti aircraft guns
Helicopters: 4 x Super Frelon

Somme (A631) – Replenishment Oiler
Armament
• 1 x 40mm gun
• 1 x Simbad Anti Air Missile Launcher

Améthyste (S605) – Submarine
Armament
• 4 x Torpedo Tubes

So, that gives a helo carrier, an anti sub frigate, an anti air frigate, a "generalised" frigate, a specialised landing platform for amphibious ops, a supply ship, and a sub.

Thoughts?

[Olefin]

OK, a stab at the French Naval Forces in the region:

Jeanne D’Arc (R97) – helicopter cruiser
Armament
• 1 x MM38 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 4 x 100mm guns
Helicopters: 8 x Super Frelon

Georges Leygues (D640) – Anti Submarine Frigate
Armament
• 1 x Crotale EDIR Anti Air Missile Launcher
• 2 x Simbad Anti Air Missile Launchers
• 1 x 100mm gun
• 2 x 20mm guns
• 1 x MM38 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 2 x Torpedo Tubes
Helicopters: 2 x Westland Lynx

Provides specialised anti sub capability with back up anti air role (according to wiki, Georges Leygues usualy accompanied Jeanne D'Arc on ops)

La Fayette (F710) – Frigate
Armament
• 1 x MM40 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 1 x 100mm gun
• 2 x 20mm guns
• 1 x Crotale CN2 Anti Air Missile Launcher
Helicopter: 1 x Eurocopter Panther

Stealth Frigate, commissioned 1996 - gives additional anti air capability

Jean Bart (D615) – Anti Air Frigate
Armament
• 1 x SM-1MR Anti Air Missile Launcher
• 2 x Mistral CIWS Anti Air Missile Launchers
• 2 x L5 Torpedo Tubes
• 1 x MM40 Exocet Anti Ship Missile Launcher
• 1 x 100mm gun
• 2 x 20mm anti aircraft guns
Helicopter: 1 x Eurocopter Panther

Specialised anti air capability (and the only ship we know is there)

Orage (L9022) – Landing Platform Dock
Armament
• 2 x Simbad Anti Air Missile Launchers
• 2 x 30mm anti aircraft guns
Helicopters: 4 x Super Frelon

Somme (A631) – Replenishment Oiler
Armament
• 1 x 40mm gun
• 1 x Simbad Anti Air Missile Launcher

Améthyste (S605) – Submarine
Armament
• 4 x Torpedo Tubes

So, that gives a helo carrier, an anti sub frigate, an anti air frigate, a "generalised" frigate, a specialised landing platform for amphibious ops, a supply ship, and a sub.

Thoughts?

That is a very balanced and realistic French squadron for the Middle East - and I think the submarine is a good inclusion. Clearly the French should still have. What you have there supports all the missions that they have and definitely has the anti-air assets you would need to survive in one of the few areas where the Soviet air threat is very real and still very capable.

Add in the landing ship and oiler and you have a very capable group that can project power, support both naval and land operations, give their troops good flexiblity as to naval landings and would give anyone planning an air attack on them a very very bloody nose indeed.

Plus considering the size of the French Navy it would show a clear committment to the region while not weakening them in areas like the Med and the English Channel or off the coast of Senegal that they clearly (from canon modules) are making places they want to control.

[Olefin]

From memory, it's been discussed before a while back. I think the consensus was it was stripped of supplies fairly early on, and then pasted by the Soviets in late 1997.

Not at all. There's plenty of ports in the area the ships can dock at and take on fuel, food, ammo, etc. It's not like they're operating over huge distances far away from their fuel supplies.
Also, just because the ships are there, do they really have to be at sea? Doesn't it make more sense given the limited irreplaceable ammunition and crews, for them to only put to sea when actually needed?

ammo for this group may not be an issue - the US had large stocks in the area as did the Saudis so they may actually be still very well equipped - I can see, for instance, MilGov sending the Corpus Christi there after she drops off the Soviet scientists back in the US and getting herself a fresh loadout of Harpoons and torpedoes.

[Legbreaker]

ammo for this group may not be an issue - the US had large stocks in the area as did the Saudis so they may actually be still very well equipped - I can see, for instance, MilGov sending the Corpus Christi there after she drops off the Soviet scientists back in the US and getting herself a fresh loadout of Harpoons and torpedoes.

How many years of war has there been again?
Didn't the manufacturing facilities around the world get pretty much wiped out in the nuke strikes of 1997 and 1998?
No, there's no way in the universe I can believe there's anything like enough ammo for the ships and units in the area, let alone enough to send elsewhere!

[Webstral]

On the subject of the Rangers, I think there are a couple of possibilities for why a battalion doesn’t end up in Europe or Korea. Once the balloon goes up in Germany, there’s a good 6-7 weeks for the US to move forces overseas. This is plenty of time for the Rangers to go in by air if that’s the decision. They don’t, though. It seems to me that someone thinks the Rangers will be more useful someplace else.

My first line unit NCO while I was on active duty at the beginning of the 1990’s told me that the real purpose of the Rangers was to seize an airfield so the 82nd could go in. If the Rangers did nothing else, they’ve had paid their way by taking the airfield and relieving the 82nd of the necessity of jumping. He had just come off a 3-year stint as the senior enlisted chemical warfare guy at the regimental HQ. He requested a mech slot at Carson because he was a crispy critter after 3 years and thought he’d like to see his family again. Anyway, such observations about the Rangers have to be taken with a grain of salt, but they provide some interesting insight into how the Rangers might get used at the beginning of WW3.

Once the Germans and the Soviets started fighting, the Soviets probably put pressure on their clients to mobilize and put pressure on the Western Allies. A while ago, I wrote a piece designed to integrate Operation Desert Storm into the v1 chronology. If Iraq assembled new forces to go after Kuwait again, this would put additional pressure on CENTCOM. Of course, we’d have to make some adjustments to events in Iran or at least acknowledge that Iran never softened its attitude towards the US.

By the time might have come to send the Rangers forward, the relative density of the European and Korean battlefields might have called into question the cost-benefit ratio of using a Ranger battalion for raiding in either theater. In the Gulf, on the other hand, lower densities might have made using the Rangers and the 82nd in airmobile operations much more palatable. Also, since the heavy gear going to Europe was consuming the transport that would have been bringing the heavy metal to the Gulf, it may be that CENTCOM was offered the full regiment as a sop.

[manunancy]

How many years of war has there been again?
Didn't the manufacturing facilities around the world get pretty much wiped out in the nuke strikes of 1997 and 1998?
No, there's no way in the universe I can believe there's anything like enough ammo for the ships and units in the area, let alone enough to send elsewhere!

I'm not familiar with teh timeline to tell for sure, but would it be possible to have a shortage of ships nearby to either use or haul out the hardware ? In such a case it may well have laid there until something able to use it was sent there.

[Rainbow Six]

That is a very balanced and realistic French squadron for the Middle East - and I think the submarine is a good inclusion. Clearly the French should still have. What you have there supports all the missions that they have and definitely has the anti-air assets you would need to survive in one of the few areas where the Soviet air threat is very real and still very capable.

Add in the landing ship and oiler and you have a very capable group that can project power, support both naval and land operations, give their troops good flexiblity as to naval landings and would give anyone planning an air attack on them a very very bloody nose indeed.

Plus considering the size of the French Navy it would show a clear committment to the region while not weakening them in areas like the Med and the English Channel or off the coast of Senegal that they clearly (from canon modules) are making places they want to control.

One interesting nugget I came across whilst looking this up was a question mark over whether the T2K French Navy might include a CVN. In our timeline the Charles De Gaulle wasn't commissioned until 2001, but that was five years behind schedule (construction actually started in 1989 and was halted on four separate occasions - reading between the lines it looks like it may have been due to costs) so I think in a V1 timeline where the Cold War continues it's not impossible that the CDG might have been commissioned on time.

[Webstral]

Many of the assumptions about the French Navy seem to be based on the idea that there is no Franco-Soviet nuclear exchange of any sort that would account for a number of French vessels. As I have said on many occasions, I find this line of thinking to be out of character for the Soviets. These are not nice guys. If anything, the Anglo-American invasion of East Germany in late 1996 following the apparent Pact success in containing the West German invasion will prove to them that you address your potential enemies while you have the means in hand. Once the nukes start flying, the Soviets are going to hit the French specifically to keep them from making dramatic changes to the balance of power in the post-Exchange world. Imagining otherwise is to give the Soviets either a generosity of character or a naivete that is incompatible with the Soviet regime that fought WW3.

[Rainbow Six]

Many of the assumptions about the French Navy seem to be based on the idea that there is no Franco-Soviet nuclear exchange of any sort that would account for a number of French vessels.

Not at all (at least as far as I'm concerned). I think we all understand from canon that neutral nations are caught up in the 1997 nuclear exchange. However I don't buy into the theory that all the French Naval bases were nuked. As I've stated in the past, the Soviets didn't nuke any of the major UK Naval bases (Portsmouth, Plymouth, Rosyth) during the War and the UK was an active belligerent, so using that precedent I think it's not unreasonable to assume that one or more French bases may also not have been nuked.

Be assured, I have given the idea of a potential Soviet nuclear strike on France a good degree of thought, and am quite certain French targets would have been hit (this is confirmed in the BYB quotes below), however in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may have to agree to disagree on the potential target list.

Although ostensibly neutral in the War, France was still subjected to nuclear attacks to deny its port and oil refining facilities to NATO. Damage was largely confined to the coasts, but the resulting casualties were severe.

So we know some French Ports were attacked, but not which ones.

Marseille is the largest undamaged City, although it is in bad shape compared to its pre War condition.

The first part of this statement doesn’t really help much, since I believe Marseille is the second largest City in France (in terms of population) after Paris, so all I infer from that is that Paris was attacked in some way. However it is also a port City, so this serves as confirmation that not every port City was nuked. To be fair, Marseille is not a French Naval Base.

[Webstral]

Be assured, I have given the idea of a potential Soviet nuclear strike on France a good degree of thought, and am quite certain French targets would have been hit, however in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may have to agree to disagree on the potential target list.

Thanks for keeping the emotion low, dude.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree on the target list, given the lack of data. I also don't believe for a moment that the Soviets would have hit every naval base. There's plenty of room for gray between the extremes of an untouched France and a France that has had every naval base nuked.

The fact that UK naval bases weren't hit raises some interesting questions. Did the Soviets want to put a fairly low ceiling on the exchange? This is certainly plausible. Did the Soviets think hitting the baases might not be necessary because losses to the Royal Navy were so great without hitting the bases that there was little to gained by putting another (quid pro quo) nuke on the table? This is also possible. The latter is a question to be answered by someone with a lot more naval savvy than I have, though.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not familiar with the timeline to tell for sure, but would it be possible to have a shortage of ships nearby to either use or haul out the hardware ? In such a case it may well have laid there until something able to use it was sent there.

Doubtful. I'm not a navy person, but my understanding is warships don't carry a huge amount of ammunition on board, but rely on fairly regular resupply from support ships (the John Hancock for example only carried about 475-500 rounds for it's 5" gun, and as far as I can see anywhere only the 8 Harpoon missiles loaded in the launchers - can't find much on the other systems).

With the lack of a resupply ship in the area (likely sunk by the Russians I'd think), the limited amount in the various warships is all they can count on for the duration. If there was one, you'd think it important enough to have been included in the OOB.

[Ironside]

Of course, all we know about the UK naval bases is that they weren't hit by weapons of 1MT and above. It certainly doesn't preclude them being hit by smaller weapons.

[Rainbow Six]

It's not impossible that the UK bases were hit with sub 1mt weapons, but certainly in the case of Portsmouth I think it's unlikely given the fact that it is the new UK Capital and is referred to on multiple occasions in the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom.

I’m no naval expert either, but I'm inclined to accept Webstral's theory that the RN had already suffered such heavy losses that the Soviets no longer viewed it as a threat to be be the most plausible explanation - there’s the quote about the last major naval fleet in the World being shattered by June 1997. Either that or they had already suffered heavy enough conventional damage to make nuking them unneccessary.

(Probably noteworthy that that quote specifically says “in the World”. One could use that as an argument in favour of the French Navy also having suffered significant losses, but it would then have to be extended to include all Navies. But we know that even after that point the French retain the capability to move a large force to the Middle East (and also combat troops to Canada, per Challenge #30), and patrol the English Channel and elsewhere - there are other references to the French Navy here and there, chiefly (I think) in the Last Submarine trilogy, e.g. page 48 of Med Cruise, which states “The French have come to view the Western Mediterranean as their own private Sea”.)

[Legbreaker]

(Probably noteworthy that that quote specifically says “in the World”. One could use that as an argument in favour of the French Navy also having suffered significant losses, but it would then have to be extended to include all Navies. But we know that even after that point the French retain the capability to move a large force to the Middle East (and also combat troops to Canada, per Challenge #30), and patrol the English Channel and elsewhere - there are other references to the French Navy here and there, chiefly (I think) in the Last Submarine trilogy, e.g. page 48 of Med Cruise, which states “The French have come to view the Western Mediterranean as their own private Sea”.)

The French only have about 9,600 in the middle east (plus ship crews) arriving from the 24th August 1998, and I can only find notes regarding "military advisors" being in Quebec ("Both U.S. governments agreed that France was interfering in a Canadian regional issue and said that France should remove its advisors from Quebec") as of late June 1999 (rumours confirmed by agents sent by Canadian West Military Government of "French combat troops and supplies entering Quebec).

With regard to the middle east troops, there's indications this occurred in stages. In Quebec, the few surviving agents may have only spotted the advisors who'd been there a while and consolidated into one place/unit.

It is therefore plausible the French only had a handful of suitable ships available, and whatever is going on in Quebec could be very low key and consist of just a company or so of troops and their supporting equipment.

[Rainbow Six]

It is therefore plausible the French only had a handful of suitable ships available, and whatever is going on in Quebec could be very low key and consist of just a company or so of troops and their supporting equipment.

Fair point re: Quebec...I don't think there's anything that conclusively proves one way or the other how strong the French presence is - it's even suggested that the French ultimatum to the Canadian government could be a bluff

"The Canadian Federal Government, uncertain of whether or not the French could carry out their threat..."

It would probably also behoove the French to have the Canadians thinking that they (the French) were there in greater numbers than they actually were, something that could be achieved by supplying the Quebec forces with French uniforms and weapons - from a distance Canadian agents wouldn't know whether they were watching French combat troops or Quebec Separatists in French uniform.

[Olefin]

This is in relation to the comments made by Leg on ammuntion levels for the US ships in the Persian Gulf - if anyone has torpedoes and Harpoons and other ammo to spare its probably those ships.

The major fighting against the Soviets occurred in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not the IO or the Persian Gulf. Thus if there is anywhere where the USN would have Harpoons and torpedoes and other ammo still in relative abundance it would be the ships in the Persian Gulf and also off of Kenya (as per Frank Frey's notes on his unpublished Kenya module there is another task force there as well)

Obviously those ships werent sent there without some kind of ammo and repair ships - and you dont use Harpoons against land targets. Plus there had to be a CV or CVN in the area for the F-14D's to find their way there - and a CV or CVN means an SSN once was there. So the chance of finding reload torps for her in an ammo ship docked in Mombasa or Saudi Arabia is pretty high.

Now I am not saying she gets a full load out - but a few Harpoons and a half dozen more torpedoes - easily. And I highly doubt canon will be thrown completely out of whack if the Corpus Christi gets re-armed - she is still only one sub.

[James1978]

Do I think that the ships in the PG/IO have Harpoons and torpedoes? Yes, but . . . not necessarily the ones a submarine needs. Surface ships will have a mixture of Mk.46 and Mk.50 torpedoes, not the Mk.48 ADCAP the submarines shoot. The Harpoons and Tomahawks on the surface ships aren't the same model as the ones that can be launched from submarines.

Now if there happens to be a Submarine Tender in the region or if a damaged boat limped into port, then I could see it.

The major fighting against the Soviets occurred in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not the IO or the Persian Gulf. Thus if there is anywhere where the USN would have Harpoons and torpedoes and other ammo still in relative abundance it would be the ships in the Persian Gulf
To play Devil's Advocate, that also makes CENTCOM a great place to raid for naval munitions badly needed in theaters where major fighting is occurring.

[Legbreaker]

The major fighting against the Soviets occurred in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not the IO or the Persian Gulf.
There's no indication the specific ships in the RDF Sourcebook were always in the gulf. It's entirely possible they are the remnants of shattered fleets from elsewhere, perhaps even the North Sea, gathered there due to the availability of fuel and to help secure that resource.

Plus there had to be a CV or CVN in the area for the F-14D's to find their way there - and a CV or CVN means an SSN once was there.
Yes, it's possible such a ship existed, however the F-14s and other naval aircraft could just as easily have been flown in from other theatres using the last of the available avgas there. Better to send all your planes and pilots to where the fuel is than have them sit unused in Germany or Korea on the off chance of capturing a small supply to allow them an hour or two in the air.

[Rainbow Six]

Yes, it's possible such a ship existed, however the F-14s and other naval aircraft could just as easily have been flown in from other theatres using the last of the available avgas there. Better to send all your planes and pilots to where the fuel is than have them sit unused in Germany or Korea on the off chance of capturing a small supply to allow them an hour or two in the air.

It's possible that if any USN aircraft carriers were lost in the Eastern med their aircraft could have found their way to RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus. From Cyprus it's a reasonably short hop to the Gulf.

[Olefin]

there would have been at least one carrier in the IO during the war - and those ships most likely are what escorted the Marines and the rest of the RDF to the Gulf - i.e. they didnt get there by accident, they are what brought them there

Especially as the carrier is a Marine assault carrier and the Salem would be used as a gunfire support ship for a Marine landing.

There is no way the US wouldnt have had a CV or CVN there - not with a mid 90's start to the war.

And the mix of planes in the provisional squadron screams "flown off either a crippled or lost carrier". The F-14D is the best clue - there were only three carriers that flew them at that time - Stennis, TR and if I remember correctly one CV.

If you read the RDF they arrived before the nuking and before the big fleet battles in the Atlantic - so they arent remnants sent after those battles but instead escorts and assigned ships sent before they occurred. I.e. the 24th ID arrived in March of 1997 before the last remaining fleet was shattered in the timeline and the Marines arrived in June of 97 just about the time that the last big fleet battle was occuring.

so that leaves out those ships (or at least most of them) being shattered fleet units from the Atlantic -they would have been dedicated escorts and fire support ships.

Obviously they have taken losses - I doubt that two Marine Divisions arrived on the only the USS Nashville LPD-13 and the USS Belleau Wood LHA-3.

[Legbreaker]

Why can't any of the RDF ships be from the Atlantic battles? Is it not possible that some, even all of the ships that escorted the troops in 1997 were sunk, redeployed, or otherwise removed from the area. Is it not possible that one or more of the RDF ships were shifted into the area between June 1997 and July 2000?
I'm not saying that any of them are, just that's it's possible since we're not specifically told otherwise. Also, like the aircraft, it makes sense to send your conventionally powered ships to operate in the same area where fuel is available.

It is indeed likely some sort of carrier was initially included to support the landings and following actions, but, as has been noted previously, carriers are big juicy targets for the enemy. There's no reason to believe whatever was there isn't on the bottom due to sabotage, enemy naval action, aerial bombing or any number of a multitude of possibilities.

As I proposed a while back, it's possible the Tarawa was stationed in the gulf until 2000 when it was shifted to Europe to support the Spring Offensive there. It's possible it was one of the ships which carried the initial force of Marines to the area, but it's just as possible it was always in Europe and had elements of the 2nd MARDIV attached.

[James1978]

And the mix of planes in the provisional squadron screams "flown off either a crippled or lost carrier". The F-14D is the best clue - there were only three carriers that flew them at that time - Stennis, TR and if I remember correctly one CV.
Yea, but that was in real life where a total of only 55 F-14Ds were built and the last one was delivered in 1994. In a world where the Cold War never ended, there would be more than that.

Not that real life deployments are binding here, but for those who are curious:
* VF-2 "Bounty Hunters", CVW-2. Deployed on USS Constellation CV-64 May 1994 to June 2003.

* VF-11 "Red Rippers", VW-14. Deployed on USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 February 1994 to November 1996 before converting to F-14Bs.

* VF-31 "Tomcatters", CVW-14. Deployed on USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 February 1994 to November 1996, on USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 June 1998 to May 2003, on USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 May to November 2004. Moved to CVW-8 and was on USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 December 2005 to March 2006.

* VF-124 "", PACFLT Readiness Squadron. Small number served briefly.

[Olefin]

Leg in this case canon says differently about those ships being any part of the Kola debacle

the US would never, and I mean never, have sent two divisions of Marines into the Persian Gulf without an escort of some type, let alone all the other forces - for one they would get massacred on the way in without at least anti-air equipped ships - heck one sub could massacre them - and they showed up intact as compared to what happened to what they tried to send to Korea

Also keep in mind that the force that escorted the 24th ID, 6th ACCB, etc.. in March could have been part of the Kola debacle and I have no problems with that

But the Marines showed up and did a forced landing with gunfire support in June at the same time of the Kola disaster - that means those ships had to be there already - no way, even at full speed they make it from the Gulf to Kola in time - and Salem needs escorts with anti-air missiles or she is dead meat too

[Legbreaker]

the US would never, and I mean never, have sent two divisions of Marines into the Persian Gulf without an escort of some type, let alone all the other forces - for one they would get massacred on the way in without at least anti-air equipped ships
Obviously. Nobody is saying otherwise, however there's no evidence that the ships listed in the RDF Sourcebook are the same ships that where there in 1997.

...and they showed up intact as compared to what happened to what they tried to send to Korea.
Please provide your references. All I can find is that the 16th Regiment of the 6th Marines, came under attack during transit in February 1998. No other Korean theatre units (about 7 Divisions worth) show any evidence of this.


Also keep in mind that the force that escorted the 24th ID, 6th ACCB, etc.. in March could have been part of the Kola debacle and I have no problems with that.
Umm, that's what I've been saying, however further investigation shows this as unlikely as US Marines conducted landing operations from the 4th of June while "naval guns pounded the Soviet positions". Marines were still landing in the latter half of June which reduces the chance of their naval escorts being involved off Kola to virtually nil.

However, none of that means those ships remained in the gulf for the remainder of the war. It's very possible given the destruction of the Nato fleets elsewhere, numerous ships in the middle east had to be redeployed to secure resupply convoys. It's possible only a skeleton force was left in the Gulf in latter 1997 and those ships in the RDF Sourcebook represent ships which have migrated to where the fuel is over a period of several years.

[Olefin]

Possibly the frigates - but Salem and the two landing ships are definitely ones that came with the Marines when they came in 1997.

And the 6th Marine division is what I was referring to - i.e. what happens to a unit that insnt properly escorted into a war zone.

We know that the Salem had to be there June 4, 1997 for instance

On June 4th, the American forces arrived off the coast of Iran.
While US Navy SEALs and Marine Force Recon units executed
sabotage missions, naval guns pounded the Soviet positions.
At dawn, on June 5th, the US Marines began landing operations.

I highly doubt those naval guns were just a bunch of frigates with their one or two guns

We also know the Salem was there for sure in 1997 by this line

By early September (1997), the Soviets had chased the Americans back to their original starting positions. The 24th ID held Bandar-e Khomeyni.
The 101st AAD and the 9th ID held the Bushehr-Ganaveh area
while the 3rd Marine Division held onto Bandar Abbas with
assistance from the USS Salem and her battle group. The only
bright spot came on the 17th of September when the lead
elements of the US 1st Marine Division made contact with the
3rd Marine Division's perimeter around Bandar Abbas.

thus the Salem and her battle group were there in 1997 for the invasion and the gun support in 1997

so those ships in the RDF have probably been there the entire time since I doubt they had the fuel to go all the way back to the US and then come back - especially with the US putting sailing ships into commission in the USN as early as May of 1998 according to A Rock In Troubled Waters to be used as patrol ships

[Legbreaker]

Possibly the frigates - but Salem and the two landing ships are definitely ones that came with the Marines when they came in 1997.
There's no definitive evidence of those three ships at that time. They could have arrived later.
In fact I'll go further and say the Salem was very unlikely to have been there due to it having been decommissioned in 1959 (and IRL removed from the reserve list in 1991), and the disastrous Kola battles didn't occur until after the June landings. There would be no pressing need to rush an ancient cruiser armed only with guns back into service prior to then.

And the 6th Marine division is what I was referring to - i.e. what happens to a unit that insnt properly escorted into a war zone.
There's more and larger units which were attacked in the Atlantic in early 1997. This was before the Kola battles and the destruction of Nato fleets.
We know that the Salem had to be there June 4, 1997 for instance
No, we don't. We only know naval gunfire was provided, and have been given no indication of it's source.
We also know the Salem was there for sure in 1997 by this line
We only know it was there by September. However, how likely is it that any ship would remain on station for 3 years without returning to home. Even in WWII ships didn't stay away that long.
All we really know is the Salem was there in 1997 and there again in 2000. We have little knowledge of what happened to it in the meantime and no knowledge of it's escorts and how they changed.

I highly doubt those naval guns were just a bunch of frigates with their one or two guns
Agreed, but it is possible. Sustained and accurate 76mm gunfire can be quite effective.

so those ships in the RDF have probably been there the entire time since I doubt they had the fuel to go all the way back to the US and then come back - especially with the US putting sailing ships into commission in the USN as early as May of 1998 according to A Rock In Troubled Waters to be used as patrol ships
It's possible, however it's also highly probable a resupply ship was included in the task force at the time. Additionally, fuel could have been obtained from other ports along the way.
As I've indicated before, any resupply ship would have been a prime target for the enemy and could have been attacked and sunk at any time up until 2000 (although it's likely it would have been hit much earlier due to it's strategic value), which explains why it's not listed in the RDF Sourcebook.

[Matt Wiser]

If you want to send Salem off somewhere between '97 and 2000, that's your campaign. If I was CG, I MEF at Bandar Abbas and trying to hold onto the enclave, I'd want that cruiser and those nine 8-inch guns. Longer reach than a puny 76-mm on a Perry, and lots more punch. Lots more. A 76-mm can't flip a tank. An 8-inch HC round can. You're a Marine requesting NGFS, and what would you rather have?

In any event, Salem's not going anywhere distant after TDM because she needs to stay close to her fuel supply. Maybe escorting a convoy or two down to Mombasa and back, but that's about it. Again, if you want to use the info I developed for the Navy in 2000-it's on Antenna's board and make things a lot more grim for the Navy than they likely would've been-Leg, that's your perogrative. Personally, there would have been a LOT more ships and subs surviving than what GDW's writers said. Like I said: only one SSN left and no boomers for the USN? Hardly.

[Legbreaker]

It's a game.
It's supposed to be grim.
What's likely to have occurred if WWIII had actually happened isn't important.

Why? Because it's a game.

[Olefin]

I agree with Matt about Salem and her being there earlier - and right now in the Kenya sourcebook I am working on I am using Frank's notes that show at least two supply ships there and adding a couple more - I am having them based there to keep them out of range of Soviet attack aircraft in the Gulf with them going up there as needed.

As for her being in the navy in 1997 - with the war start in 1996 the Marines would need fire support ships - most likely all four Iowa's came back in and they grabbed both of the CA's they still had in storage as well.

Have a feeling (since Korea wasnt detailed) that at least one BB is still in Korea, maybe more, basically stranded from the fuel situation from coming home (BB's use a LOT of fuel after all) and that others may have been lost in various fights

By the way that is one area that is about as flexible as it gets - outside of the US Vehicle Guide and the few timeline mentions in the original release there isnt much (except maybe on Challenger article) in the original version of game to detail Korea at all

[Webstral]

It's a game.
It's supposed to be grim.
What's likely to have occurred if WWIII had actually happened isn't important.

Why? Because it's a game.


Leg, you’ve raised an important issue. Each of us needs to choose for himself where our narrative of the real world intersects with our narrative of the game world. Each of us needs to decide how much credence to give each part of the body of written material. There are plenty of gaps left to be filled. There are ambiguities to be interpreted. There are contradictions. There are omissions. There are errors. And there are ideas that are poorly-considered, though there are fewer of these than in many other games. As with all fictional narratives, the Twilight: 2000 narrative diverges from the (hardly agreed-upon) narrative we use to describe the real world. We all have decisions to make.

[Olefin]

I agree Webstral - thats why I like to fill in the pieces if it adds to the game -one reason I asked about their French fleet is trying to fill in a hole not only for the RDF but also for what they may have off East Africa which is where I am looking at now.

Also with luck thinking about those gaps and omissions will stir up good conversation, possibly submittals of ideas and who knows - maybe new sourcebooks, modules, mini-adventures and maybe even get people to start up campaigns again.

Hey we can hope

[Matt Wiser]

I agree with Matt about Salem and her being there earlier - and right now in the Kenya sourcebook I am working on I am using Frank's notes that show at least two supply ships there and adding a couple more - I am having them based there to keep them out of range of Soviet attack aircraft in the Gulf with them going up there as needed.

As for her being in the navy in 1997 - with the war start in 1996 the Marines would need fire support ships - most likely all four Iowa's came back in and they grabbed both of the CA's they still had in storage as well.

Have a feeling (since Korea wasnt detailed) that at least one BB is still in Korea, maybe more, basically stranded from the fuel situation from coming home (BB's use a LOT of fuel after all) and that others may have been lost in various fights

By the way that is one area that is about as flexible as it gets - outside of the US Vehicle Guide and the few timeline mentions in the original release there isnt much (except maybe on Challenger article) in the original version of game to detail Korea at all

Check the Navy stuff I did a while back: I have the battleship Missouri and the Salem's sister ship Des Moines in Korea. They're stranded at Chinhae, ROK due to lack of fuel.

[Olefin]

Matt - can you send me a link to those posts?

very very interested!

Thanks

[Matt Wiser]

I'll do better: here's some of the Navy stuff, including surviving carrier groups and some other ships and subs. The battleships are included.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1527&highlight=battleship

[Olefin]

Thanks Matt!!

[Olefin]

By the way been doing some research on the French Army and some changes need to be done to the RDF module as well for them

For one the French have had a permanent presence in Dijibouti long before 1995. So they didnt just show up - they have been there all along.

Also from the composition of the French forces in the RDF its obvioius the French have seen some pretty hard fighting

The 1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in the game is described as having 600 men and 24 AFV's. The TOE for that regiment is 930 men plus 48 AMX-10 RC, which would be the AFV in this case. That means they have lost half their armored cars since the war began.

That force is part of the French 6th Light Armored Brigade normally, but that brigade was not part of the forces that saw combat in Germany and the Netherlands during the invasion.

Given that level of losses you can see that the French have had a much harder time of it in Africa and WWIII in general that was thought if that is indicative of the losses they have taken (i.e. a third of the personnel and half their armored vehicles in this one regiment alone)

[Legbreaker]

It's worth noting the definition of TOE.
An organizational design document based on current doctrine and available equipment. It shows the basics of a unit's structure and their wartime requirements (both for personnel and equipment).A TOE prescribes the normal mission, organizational structure, and personnel and equipment requirements for a military unit and is the basis for an authorization document. Units are constituted and activated in accordance with an approved TOE.
It's also worth noting "TOE" is an American term. It could have radically different meanings in other countries.

Regardless, a "TOE" represents the authorised level of manpower and equipment and may not represent the true facts. I personally have never served in a unit which had 100% of it's authorised manpower and equipment - some of the units I was with had as little as 25%.

That fact can go a long way to explain the 1st FLCR differences.

Additionally, it is fairly common for units to be tapped for reinforcements. A unit which has been depleted of experienced NCOs and officers for example could expect to receive qualified replacements from another unit which did not see such heavy engagements. This is another possible explanation for the apparent drop in manpower from it's authorised levels.

Furthermore, with manufacturing destroyed, damaged or lacking necessary resources, it's quite possible the 1st FLCR could have been tapped for it's heavy equipment also to replace combat losses.

Therefore, the 1st FLCR is likely to have suffered some losses, but they don't have to be all, or even significantly, from actual engagement with an enemy.

[James Langham]

Nice bit of research, is this trend the same across the rest of the French units there?

By the way been doing some research on the French Army and some changes need to be done to the RDF module as well for them

For one the French have had a permanent presence in Dijibouti long before 1995. So they didnt just show up - they have been there all along.

Also from the composition of the French forces in the RDF its obvioius the French have seen some pretty hard fighting

The 1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in the game is described as having 600 men and 24 AFV's. The TOE for that regiment is 930 men plus 48 AMX-10 RC, which would be the AFV in this case. That means they have lost half their armored cars since the war began.

That force is part of the French 6th Light Armored Brigade normally, but that brigade was not part of the forces that saw combat in Germany and the Netherlands during the invasion.

Given that level of losses you can see that the French have had a much harder time of it in Africa and WWIII in general that was thought if that is indicative of the losses they have taken (i.e. a third of the personnel and half their armored vehicles in this one regiment alone)

[Olefin]

Leg, I got my data from the French Defense Dept site - which is in French by the way and you need to google translate it - the English version of the site has no info on it that is useable.


Here for instance is the address for the 6th Light Armored Brigade

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/presentation/organisation-des-forces/brigades/6e-brigade-legere-blindee

To be clear Leg and James - what is on that site is the actual serving manpower and equipment, not a TOE or projected strength, but the actual number of men and women who are physically part of those units, including where they have been posted in the past. So your argument Leg doesnt hold up in this case, the site is very specific about how many men and in most cases tanks or armored fighting vehicles are physically in reality in the units themselves (i.e. living breathing servicemen and women, not what could be there but what is there), not a projection or TOE statement that is not the real strength.

thus you can see clearly the errror in the RDF module about when the French arrived in Djibouti - they didnt show up in 1995, they were there all along and have been since 1962!

James if you look at the information it clearly is a trend - I looked at several different formations and you can clearly see a trend that shows the French have taken a lot of losses

To summarize so far

1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in reality is 930 men and 48 AMX-10 RC, in the game its 600 men and 24 AFV's. (which would be the AMX-10 RC vehicles)

13th Foreign Legion Demi-brigade (posted in Djibouti since 1962) in reality is 800 men, in the game its 500 men and they would only have been in that country - they havent been posted anywhere else to take casualties

2nd Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - in reality its at 1230 men organized into ten companies, making it the largest regiment in the French Army (that is a direct quote from the site referenced above). In the game it has 600 men. That is over 50 percent casualty rate!

2nd Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment- which has seen no fighting since it arrived in the Middle East - in reality it has 1140 men organized into 9 compainies, in the game it has 600 men. Again almost a 50% casualty rate.

3rd Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - in reality it has 675 men organized into 5 companies, in the game it doesnt appear but its very obvious that it should be the deployed unit and not the 1st Regiment

1st Marine Regiment - 933 men and 18 AMX 10 RC in reality - in the game they have 500 men and no vehicles, meaning they have lost all their armor and almost half their men.

2nd Marine Regiment - 933 men (broken down as 58 officers, 269 NCO, 606 other ranks) in reality, in the game they are at 500 men - again a huge loss rate

3rd Marine Parachute Regiment - in reality 1120 men in 8 companies, in the game they are down to 750 men

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/presentation/organisation-des-forces/troupes-de-marine/3e-regiment-de-parachutistes-d-infanterie-de-marine

Plust two big errors that anyone could have found if they had done minimum research

1st Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - this formation is an administrative regiment and is not a field formation and hasn't been for decades - they are not deployable.

5th Mixed Marine Regiment - should be in Djibouti and equipped with AMX 10 RC tanks - its been there since 1965 and is still there today - never been redeployed. -definitely should have been mentioned in the RDF setup


Sorry Leg - this is a clear pattern of the French taking a lot of casualties with some units being reduced by 50 percent or more, in several cases units that would only have been in Africa. Thus the French, in many ways, have taken almost as bad a beating as the Americans have in the RDF in fighting the Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans, etc.. at Djibouti. These are not fresh units showing up - these are units that have seen a heck of a lot of combat, with deep holes in their TOE's and a lot of equipment and vehicles gone.

They havent taken those casualties in the Middle East itself - the canon is very clear that they are not doing any fighting there. Some of these units are going to show up in what I am doing for Kenya, which will mention events in surrounding countries as well including Djibouti.

I am continuing to do research but so far the trend is definitely a large reduction in manpower and vehicles for every unit I have seen so far in the French FAR, including among units that have done nothing but be garrison troops since they showed up.

There is fighting mentioned in Senegal and Mauritania against pro-Soviet guerrillas in the bio of the French commander of the FAR - but that wouldnt explain the losses in the units that were in Djibouti the whole time.

[Olefin]

By the way researching the French units and their deployments in Africa has really given me some great ideas for Twilight 2000 campaigns. Given how disorganized Africa became during the war and how France expanded into the area both during and post war it gives a great place for those wanting to play campaigns where the characters are trying to restore order in a broken world (as compared to just trying to survive)

And surprised how much French equipment was not mentioned in the RDF - all kinds of interesting vehicles that they had that characters definitely would have encountered (they did a good job on tanks but stuff like the P4, the VAB, the VBL, etc.) - at least they finally got mentioned by the time the NATO Vehicle Handbook came out in 1991

[James Langham2]

Leg, I got my data from the French Defense Dept site - which is in French by the way and you need to google translate it - the English version of the site has no info on it that is useable.


Here for instance is the address for the 6th Light Armored Brigade

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/presentation/organisation-des-forces/brigades/6e-brigade-legere-blindee

To be clear Leg and James - what is on that site is the actual serving manpower and equipment, not a TOE or projected strength, but the actual number of men and women who are physically part of those units, including where they have been posted in the past. So your argument Leg doesnt hold up in this case, the site is very specific about how many men and in most cases tanks or armored fighting vehicles are physically in reality in the units themselves (i.e. living breathing servicemen and women, not what could be there but what is there), not a projection or TOE statement that is not the real strength.

thus you can see clearly the errror in the RDF module about when the French arrived in Djibouti - they didnt show up in 1995, they were there all along and have been since 1962!

Maybe we should treat this as when French reinforcements arrived?

James if you look at the information it clearly is a trend - I looked at several different formations and you can clearly see a trend that shows the French have taken a lot of losses

To summarize so far

1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in reality is 930 men and 48 AMX-10 RC, in the game its 600 men and 24 AFV's. (which would be the AMX-10 RC vehicles)

13th Foreign Legion Demi-brigade (posted in Djibouti since 1962) in reality is 800 men, in the game its 500 men and they would only have been in that country - they havent been posted anywhere else to take casualties

Maybe small detachments posted elsewhere?

2nd Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - in reality its at 1230 men organized into ten companies, making it the largest regiment in the French Army (that is a direct quote from the site referenced above). In the game it has 600 men. That is over 50 percent casualty rate!

End of enlistments? Disease?

2nd Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment- which has seen no fighting since it arrived in the Middle East - in reality it has 1140 men organized into 9 compainies, in the game it has 600 men. Again almost a 50% casualty rate.

Lack of parachute capable replacements?

3rd Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - in reality it has 675 men organized into 5 companies, in the game it doesnt appear but its very obvious that it should be the deployed unit and not the 1st Regiment

1st Marine Regiment - 933 men and 18 AMX 10 RC in reality - in the game they have 500 men and no vehicles, meaning they have lost all their armor and almost half their men.

2nd Marine Regiment - 933 men (broken down as 58 officers, 269 NCO, 606 other ranks) in reality, in the game they are at 500 men - again a huge loss rate

3rd Marine Parachute Regiment - in reality 1120 men in 8 companies, in the game they are down to 750 men

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/presentation/organisation-des-forces/troupes-de-marine/3e-regiment-de-parachutistes-d-infanterie-de-marine

Plust two big errors that anyone could have found if they had done minimum research

1st Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - this formation is an administrative regiment and is not a field formation and hasn't been for decades - they are not deployable.

Maybe renamed for a reason (I'm being charitable here...)

5th Mixed Marine Regiment - should be in Djibouti and equipped with AMX 10 RC tanks - its been there since 1965 and is still there today - never been redeployed. -definitely should have been mentioned in the RDF setup


Sorry Leg - this is a clear pattern of the French taking a lot of casualties with some units being reduced by 50 percent or more, in several cases units that would only have been in Africa. Thus the French, in many ways, have taken almost as bad a beating as the Americans have in the RDF in fighting the Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans, etc.. at Djibouti. These are not fresh units showing up - these are units that have seen a heck of a lot of combat, with deep holes in their TOE's and a lot of equipment and vehicles gone.

They havent taken those casualties in the Middle East itself - the canon is very clear that they are not doing any fighting there. Some of these units are going to show up in what I am doing for Kenya, which will mention events in surrounding countries as well including Djibouti.

I am continuing to do research but so far the trend is definitely a large reduction in manpower and vehicles for every unit I have seen so far in the French FAR, including among units that have done nothing but be garrison troops since they showed up.

Vehicles due to gradual wear and tear? Transfer to allies?

There is fighting mentioned in Senegal and Mauritania against pro-Soviet guerrillas in the bio of the French commander of the FAR - but that wouldnt explain the losses in the units that were in Djibouti the whole time.

[Olefin]

I think one big mistake people make in looking at the canon is thinking that the French took very few casualties during the war. If you look at the casualty rates that are implied in the RDF its very obvious that the French have been involved in hard fighting throughout Africa since 1995 - fighting that has reduced their units by quite a bit, although as I said not anywhere near the levels seen elsewhere in the world.

As for why they havent been reinforced and the losses made good - its probably a good bet that the fighting in the Netherlands and Germany, which was never detailed, led to the French losing a decent amount of troops and equipment. Those losses, plus the need for French troops to keep order in France and Belguim itself, combined with their needs in Western African and Saudi Arabia/Iraq , have kept the units in the RDF that have seen significant fighting in Africa from being built back up again.

[RN7]

The French had ground and air forces based across Africa in the years leading up to the Twilight War. Most French army units in Africa were Foreign Legion and Marine forces, largely composed of light and motorised infantry equipped with light armoured vehicles, 81mm and 120mm mortars and Milan ATGW. There were also a few armoured cavalry units, field artillery batteries and some helicopters, particularly in Djibouti and the Central African Republic. The relatively light French forces in the region could however be quickly reinforced from France. The French Air Force also had small detachments or combat jets, transports and helicopters located in air bases across Africa, with a full combat jet fighter squadron in Djibouti. In the mid-1980's Chad became a focus of French activity in Africa due to the Libyan invasion of the northern Chad and its support for guerrillas in Africa. French special forces were rumoured to be operating in Chad at this time and there was a powerful Air Force component stationed in the country. French forces in Africa are listed from the NATO Order of Battle 1989/V8.5 and the IISS Military Balance 1990/91 and 1991/92.


CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC (Bagui): (1,200 troops)
Air Force: (100 troops) (2x Jaguar, 1x C-160)
Army: (1,100 troop) (6x AML-90, 17x VAB, 6x 105mm, 1x Cessna O-1E, 3x Puma)

CHAD (Abeche, Moussoro, N'Djamena): (1,100 troop)
Air Force: (200 troops) (6x Mirage F1, 2x C-160, 2x Puma, 4x Crotale SAM)
Army: (900 troops) (4x Hawk SAM)

DJIBOUTI (Djibouti City): (4,000 troops)
Air Force: (500 troops) (10x F-1C, 1x C-160, 3x Alouette III)
Army: (3,500 troops) (24x AMX-10RC, 51x VAB, 12x 155mm, 5x Puma)

GABON (Libreville): (800 troops)
Air Force: (100 troops) (2x Jaguar, 1x C-160, 2x Alouette III)
Army: (650 troops)
Navy: (50 troops) (1x Atlantic)

IVORY COAST (Abidjan): (500 troops)
Army: (500 troops) (1x Ecureuil)

SENEGAL (Dakar): (1,250 troops)
Air Force: (100 troops) (1x C-160, 1x Alouette III)
Army: (1,100 troops)
Navy: (50 troops) (1x Atlantic)


LA REUNION (Mayotte): (4,200 troop)
Air Force: (100 troops) (1x C-160, 2x Alouette III)
Army: (3,200 troops)
Navy: (900 troops) (1x Atlantic)
12x Ships (4x Frigates, 4x Patrol Craft, 1x Amphibious Vessel, 3x Support Vessel)

[Olefin]

The French had ground and air forces based across Africa in the years leading up to the Twilight War. Most French army units in Africa were Foreign Legion and Marine forces, largely composed of light and motorised infantry equipped with light armoured vehicles, 81mm and 120mm mortars and Milan ATGW. There were also a few armoured cavalry units, field artillery batteries and some helicopters, particularly in Djibouti and the Central African Republic. The relatively light French forces in the region could however be quickly reinforced from France. The French Air Force also had small detachments or combat jets, transports and helicopters located in air bases across Africa, with a full combat jet fighter squadron in Djibouti. In the mid-1980's Chad became a focus of French activity in Africa due to the Libyan invasion of the northern Chad and its support for guerrillas in Africa. French special forces were rumoured to be operating in Chad at this time and there was a powerful Air Force component stationed in the country. French forces in Africa are listed from the NATO Order of Battle 1989/V8.5 and the IISS Military Balance 1990/91 and 1991/92.


CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC (Bagui): (1,200 troops)
Air Force: (100 troops) (2x Jaguar, 1x C-160)
Army: (1,100 troop) (6x AML-90, 17x VAB, 6x 105mm, 1x Cessna O-1E, 3x Puma)

CHAD (Abeche, Moussoro, N'Djamena): (1,100 troop)
Air Force: (200 troops) (6x Mirage F1, 2x C-160, 2x Puma, 4x Crotale SAM)
Army: (900 troops) (4x Hawk SAM)

DJIBOUTI (Djibouti City): (4,000 troops)
Air Force: (500 troops) (10x F-1C, 1x C-160, 3x Alouette III)
Army: (3,500 troops) (24x AMX-10RC, 51x VAB, 12x 155mm, 5x Puma)

GABON (Libreville): (800 troops)
Air Force: (100 troops) (2x Jaguar, 1x C-160, 2x Alouette III)
Army: (650 troops)
Navy: (50 troops) (1x Atlantic)

IVORY COAST (Abidjan): (500 troops)
Army: (500 troops) (1x Ecureuil)

SENEGAL (Dakar): (1,250 troops)
Air Force: (100 troops) (1x C-160, 1x Alouette III)
Army: (1,100 troops)
Navy: (50 troops) (1x Atlantic)


LA REUNION (Mayotte): (4,200 troop)
Air Force: (100 troops) (1x C-160, 2x Alouette III)
Army: (3,200 troops)
Navy: (900 troops) (1x Atlantic)
12x Ships (4x Frigates, 4x Patrol Craft, 1x Amphibious Vessel, 3x Support Vessel)

and we know, per the RDF canon, that more got moved in starting in 1995 both in Western Africa and Djibouti

RDF page 19

1995. The Foreign Legion Operational Group was activated and
sent to Djibouti to assist in internal security duties. A task force
of French Marine Infantry was stationed at Dakar at the request
of the Senegalese government. In 1998, when the Franco-
Belgian Union was formed, Senegal and Djibouti became
member nations.

The biggest break came when the governments
of Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia gave permission for France to station
troops in their countries (to the chagrin of some Americans
in the region). The Paris government responded quickly and by
fall of 1998, the 9th Marine Infantry Division and the 2nd Brigade
of the 1 1 th Airborne Division were in the region along with supporting
elements. There they have remained, providing a visible
symbol of France's commitment to the stability of the region
(and to assure that France gets its share when the Americans
leave).

Structure: The FAR, like CENTCOM, is composed of forces
from all the military services of the nation. The ground force
component consists of the 9th Marine Infantry Division, the 11th
Airborne Division, the 1st Light Armored Division, and the
Foreign Legion Operational Group. The naval component is built
around the Guided Missile Cruiser Jean Bart, and her escorts.
Special operations are handled through the Unconventional Warfare
Operations Group, which controls the Marine Commando
Group (naval commandos) and the 1 st Marine Parachute Regiment.
Not all of these units are fully deployed in the Persian Gulf
area as France has other responsibilities, mainly in west Africa.

[RN7]

I think with the exception of French forces already in Djibouti and one Senegalese parachute regiment, the FAR was sent from Europe to the Middle East.

per RDF..

Rapid Action Force (FAR) HQ: Djibouti, Djibouti

Foreign Legion Operational Group (GOLE) HQ: Djibouti
13th Foreign Legion Demi-brigade (500 men) Djibouti
1st Foreign Legion Infantry Rgt (600 men) Basra, Iraq
2nd Foreign Legion Infantry Rgt (600 men) Djibouti
1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Rgt (600 men, 24 AFVs): Djibouti
2nd Foreign Legion Parachute Rgt (600 men) Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt

11th Airborne Division HQ: Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
2nd Brigade HQ: Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
425 Airborne Support Command (300 men): Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
1st Senegalese Parachute Rgt (600 men): Al Qatif, SA
6th Marine Parachute Rgt (750 men): Al Qatif, SA
3rd Marine Parachute Rgt (750 men): Al Qatif, SA
1st Airborne Chasseur Rgt (750 men): Al Qatif, SA
1st Marine Parachute Rgt (700 men): Basra, Iraq
1st/35th Abn Arty Rgt (200 men): Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
3rd Troop, 1st Airborne Hussar Rgt (120 men, 24 AFVs): Al Qatif, Saudi Arabia
2nd Company, 17th Airborne Engineer Rgt
2nd Company, 5th Combat Helicopter Rgt (12 Dauphin, 4 Ecureils, 4 Super Pumas)

9th Marine Division HQ: Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt
Marine Group HQ: Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt
1st Marine Infantry Rgt (500 men): Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt
2nd Marine Infantry Rgt (500 men): Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt
1st/11th Marine Arty Rgt (180 men): Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt
1st Company, 1st Marine Tank Rgt (120 men, 13 AFVs): Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt

Middle East Aviation Group HQ: Al Kuwayt, Kuwayt
15th Ftr Squadron (200 men, 16 Mirage 2000s)
25th Ftr Squadron (200 men, 16 Mirage 2000s)
292nd Attack Squadron (200 men, 16 Mirage 4000s)
161st Transport Squadron (300 men, 8 Transall C-160)
193rd Air Refuelling Squadron (300 men, 4 KC-110s)


The FAR in real life was composed of five divisions with 48,000 troops. From NATO Order of Battle 1989/V8.5

Force d'Action Rapide (FAR) - St Germain-en-Laye, France

4th Division Aeromobile - Nancy, France: 5,100 troops
1st Regiment d'Infanterie (RI): 64 Milan, 8 81mm mortars, 12 120mm mortars
1st Regt d'Helicopteres de Combat (RHC): 8 Gazelle, 24 Gazelle/HOT, 8 Gazelle/20mm, 24 Super Puma
3rd Regt d'Helicopteres de Combat (RHC): 8 Gazelle, 24 Gazelle/HOT, 8 Gazelle/20mm, 24 Super Puma
5th Regt d'Helicopteres de Combat (RHC): 8 Gazelle, 24 Gazelle/HOT, 8 Gazelle/20mm, 24 Super Puma
4th Regiment de Commande-ment et de Manoeuvre (RCS): 8 Gazelle, 8 Super Puma
9th Regiment de Soutien Aéromobile – Phalsbourg

6th Division Legere Blindee (DLB) - Nimes, France: 7400 troops ( Light Armoured Division)
1st Regiment de Spahis (RS) – Valence: 36 AMX10RC, 3 VAB, 12 VAB/HOT
1st Regiment Etrangere de Cavalerie (REC) – Orange: 36 AMX10RC, 3 VAB, 12 VAB/HOT
2nd Regt Etrangere d'Infanterie (REI): VAB Regiment
21st Regt d'Infanterie de Marine (RIMa) – Fréjus: VAB Regiment
68th Regiment d'Artillerie (RA) – La Valbonee: 24 155mm towed
43rd Regiment d’Artillerie de Marine – La Valbonne: Mobilisation only
6th Regiment Etrangere du Genie (REG)(Foreign Legion Combat Engineers)
6th Regiment de Commande-ment et de Soutien (RCS)

9th Division Marine - St Malo, France: 8000 troops
Regiment d'Infanterie-Chars de Marine (RICM) – Vannes: 36 ERC-90S (to AMX-10RC, 1990), 3 VAB, 12 VAB/HOT
1st Regt d'Infanterie de Marine (RIMa) – Angoulême: 36 ERC-90S (to AMX-10RC, 1990), 3 VAB, 12 VAB/HOT
2nd Regt d'Infanterie de Marine (RIMa) – Le Mans: Marine Infantry Regiment
3rd Regt d'Infanterie de Marine (RIMa) – Vannes: Marine Infantry Regiment
11th Regiment d'Artillerie de Marine (RAMa) – La Lande d’Ouee: 24 155mm towed
2nd Regiment d’Artillerie de Marine (RAMa) – Montlhery: Mobilisation only
6th Regiment du Genie (RG)(Combat Engineers) – Angers: 2 companies
9th Regiment de Commande-ment et de Soutien (RCS) – Nantes

11th Division Parachutiste - Toulouse, France: 13,500 troops
1st Regiment de Hussards Parachutists (RHP) – Tarbes: 36 ERC 90S, 12 Milan
1st Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine (RPIMa) – Bayonne
3rd Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine (RPIMa) – Carcasonne
6th Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine (RPIMa) – Mont de Marsan
8th Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine (RPIMa) – Castres
1st Regt de Chasseurs Parachutiste (RCP) – Saint-Médard-en-Jalles Camp de Souge
9th Regt de Chasseurs Parachutiste (RCP) – Pamiers
2nd Regiment Etrangere Parachutiste (REP) – Calvi
35th Regiment d'Artillerie Parachutiste (RAP) – Tarbes: 24 105mm towed
24th Regiment d’Artillerie – Saint Avold: Mobilization only
17th Regiment du Genie Parachutiste (RGP)(Airborne Combat Engineers) – Montauban
7th Regiment Parachutiste de Commande-ment et de Soutien (RPCS) – Castres
14th Regiment Parachutiste de Commande-ment et de Soutien (RPCS) – Toulouse

27th Division Alpine - Grenoble, France: 8,500 troops
4th Regiment de Chasseurs metropolitains (RCh): 36 ERC 90S, 3 VAB, 12 Jeeps w/Milan
6th Battalion Chasseurs Alpin (BCA) – Varces: Alpine Infantry Battalion
7th Battalion Chasseurs Alpin (BCA) – Bourg Saint Maurice: Alpine Infantry Battalion
11th Battalion Chasseurs Alpin (BCA) – Barcelonnette: Alpine Infantry Battalion
13th Battalion Chasseurs Alpin (BCA) – Chambéry: Alpine Infantry Battalion
27th Battalion Chasseurs Alpin (BCA) – Annecy: Alpine Infantry Battalion
159th Regiment d'Infanterie Alpine (RIA) – Briancon: Alpine Infantry Battalion
93rd Regiment d'Artillerie Alpine – Varces: 24 AU50 105mm towed
75th Regiment d’Artillerie Alpine – Varces: Mobilization only
7th Battalion du Genie Alpine (BGDA) – Avignon:
27th Groupe-ment d'Helicopteres (GHL): 19 Gazelle, 11 Super Puma, 30 Gazelle/HOT
27th Regiment de Commande-ment et de Soutien (RCS) – Grenoble

FAR Organic Units

17th Regiment de Commande-ment et de Soutien (RCS) – Maisons-Lafitte:
28th Regiment de Transmissions – Orleans:
602nd Regiment de Circulation Routiere – Dijon:
511th Regiment du Train:

The 4th Division Aeromobile actually had 241 helicopters, including 90 Gazelle/HOT and 84 Super Puma transports. In real life I doubt that all of the FAR divisions could actually be deployed to the Middle East, as France doesn't have the logistical capacity to transport a force that size overseas. GDW may in fact have got it right with the forces it has listed in the RDF Sourcebook. Despite its size and the high quality of manpower the FAR is actually a bit lightly armed, especially in comparison to the tank heavy armies of the Middle East. The French probably sent an armoured and self-propelled artillery regiment or two from Europe. The French AMX-30 MBT was too lightly protected to go up against many modern tanks. GDW lists the French using the AMX-40 (it was never built and only intended for export), but more likely the new Leclerc tank.

The French Middle Eastern Aviation Group seems to be fantasy in the main. I don't have a list of French Air Force squadrons but only the 15th Fighter squadron seems to actually exist. Also only one prototype of the Mirage 4000 was ever built which was an F-15 class fighter/bomber, and the KC-110 must be a typo as no such aircraft exists. More likely one squadron of Rafale fighter, one of Mirage 2000D strike-fighters and one squadron of Jaguar ground attack, with some C-160 and KC-135's. Also the French naval missile cruiser Jean Bart doesn't exist, unless GDW actually mean the missile destroyer D615 Jean Bart which was commissioned in 1991.

[Olefin]

The French Middle Eastern Aviation Group seems to be fantasy in the main. I don't have a list of French Air Force squadrons but only the 15th Fighter squadron seems to actually exist. Also only one prototype of the Mirage 4000 was ever built which was an F-15 class fighter/bomber, and the KC-110 must be a typo as no such aircraft exists. More likely one squadron of Rafale fighter, one of Mirage 2000D strike-fighters and one squadron of Jaguar ground attack, with some C-160 and KC-135's. Also the French naval missile cruiser Jean Bart doesn't exist, unless GDW actually mean the missile destroyer D615 Jean Bart which was commissioned in 1991.

The French had a Jaguar squadron in Djibouti and I am assuming that they sent that to the Middle East for sure - it was their only modern attack aircraft already in the area. They did have C-160's at Djibouti and Reunion and a few helicopters as well - the detachment at Djibouti

The Jaguars were from Escadron de chasse 3/11 Corse - if I remember correctly they had 10-12 total Jaguars