Version 1.0 Setting Background

[Mahatatain]

I’m in the process of setting up a new face to face T2k campaign and I’m considering using the original version 1.0 setting background (the one which starts in 1995) rather than the version 2.2 setting that incorporates the collapse of the Soviet Union. My question is therefore whether anyone has had a go at filling in the v1.0 background for the years 1985 to 1994 to work out which real events fit in this timeline and, more importantly, which don’t.

The most obvious events (off the top of my head) that won’t have occurred are:
- the collapse of the Soviet Union and other communist regimes
- the re-unification of Germany
- the end of the Cold War
- the reduction in the size of the British Army

I’m sure that there will be more than this so I was wondering if anyone had thought about this already and had written something up on it?

Thanks for any constructive thoughts and comments.

Mahatatain.

[Rainbow Six]

Off the top of my head two "debatable" events are

1. The first Gulf War (I think Webstral put together a piece a while back that presented a scenario where GW1 still took place, but you have to bear in mind that from a UK perspective at least all the tanks got taken from Germany which seriously reduced the strength of the BAOR at the time - debatable whether that would have happened with an ongoing Cold War.

2. The fall of apartheid. There have been a couple of threads about South Africa before where this has come up. IIRC the white South African Government first started talking to the ANC during the second half of the 80's, but it's debatable where things might have gone if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed (one of the major fears of the white Government was that the ANC would turn the country into a communist state - to a certain extent the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered many of those fears null and void).

[B.T.]

Two more "debatables":

1. The situation in former Yugoslavia: Had it happened, with the cold war still ongoing? Had it happened with another outcome?

2. "Restore Hope" and the whole Somalia affair, including the "Black Hawk Down" scenario.

Both situations affected military doctrines and, in some instances, international military colaboration.

[Mahatatain]

Thanks for the other suggestions of things to resolve.


1. The first Gulf War (I think Webstral put together a piece a while back that presented a scenario where GW1 still took place, but you have to bear in mind that from a UK perspective at least all the tanks got taken from Germany which seriously reduced the strength of the BAOR at the time - debatable whether that would have happened with an ongoing Cold War.

Well from a British perspective without the end of the Cold War I think that you can argue that the cuts that occurred as part of "Options for Change" wouldn't have happened so Gulf War 1 is probably still possible but with assets from the UK rather than BAOR. It's an interesting one to work out though!


2. The fall of apartheid. There have been a couple of threads about South Africa before where this has come up. IIRC the white South African Government first started talking to the ANC during the second half of the 80's, but it's debatable where things might have gone if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed (one of the major fears of the white Government was that the ANC would turn the country into a communist state - to a certain extent the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered many of those fears null and void).
I'm really not sure about this one and you're quite possibly right that the white South African government wouldn't have made a deal with the ANC if the Soviet Union is still in existence and is still a major backer of communism around the world. I've got this vague memory of reports of the ANC being covertly backed by the Soviet Union but I have no idea whether that's actually true or not.

This is certainly an interesting one to include though as it further illustrates how different an alternative history the v1.0 background is.


1. The situation in former Yugoslavia: Had it happened, with the cold war still ongoing? Had it happened with another outcome?

I don't think that Yugoslavia can have collapsed for the v1.0 background to work as it still exists as a country in the background. I think that the collapse can provide some very useful insight for the different factions if you set a campaign there though.


2. "Restore Hope" and the whole Somalia affair, including the "Black Hawk Down" scenario.

Personally I like this as a back story event for American soldiers from the relevant units so I will try to leave this in.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Personally I like this as a back story event for American soldiers from the relevant units so I will try to leave this in.

Restore Hope and the black hawk down scenario likely wouldn't have happened; Somalia was propped up by the USSR (Said Barre was leader of the SRSP) for a time, and without them being out of business, in '93 Somalia would have not gotten to the stage it was at. At the very least the USSR wouldn't have let the UN come in, then US "peacekeepers".

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks for the other suggestions of things to resolve.


Well from a British perspective without the end of the Cold War I think that you can argue that the cuts that occurred as part of "Options for Change" wouldn't have happened so Gulf War 1 is probably still possible but with assets from the UK rather than BAOR. It's an interesting one to work out though!

Not sure if the lack of Options would have made that much difference to be honest...I don't think its effects began to be really felt until 1992/93. I think even the pre Options rmy lacked the resources to send a Division to the Gulf and maintain a strong presence in Germany. A quick flick through Gulf War One by Hugh McManners suggests that the BAOR was stripped virtually to the bone to make sure the 1st Armoured Division was at full strength in the Gulf, with the Armoured Regiments bearing the brunt of it. There is a quote from a Major General assigned to the MOD that "every single tank engine we possessed had to go [to Saudi Arabia] leaving Germany for years afterwards with empty hulks." Apparently this was on Thatcher's direct orders as a result of concerns over reliability.


I'm really not sure about this one and you're quite possibly right that the white South African government wouldn't have made a deal with the ANC if the Soviet Union is still in existence and is still a major backer of communism around the world. I've got this vague memory of reports of the ANC being covertly backed by the Soviet Union but I have no idea whether that's actually true or not.

This is certainly an interesting one to include though as it further illustrates how different an alternative history the v1.0 background is.

To be honest, I think this one could go either way. There is ample evidence that the apartheid Government were already talking to the ANC well before the Soviet Union collapsed, so it's quite possible that South Africa might still have ended up with an ANC Government, but possibly with a different (i.e. slower) timescale than happened IRL.

[Webstral]

1. The first Gulf War (I think Webstral put together a piece a while back that presented a scenario where GW1 still took place, but you have to bear in mind that from a UK perspective at least all the tanks got taken from Germany which seriously reduced the strength of the BAOR at the time - debatable whether that would have happened with an ongoing Cold War.


This is a fair point. However, a solution can be found. The US wants UK troops on the ground for the purpose of showing solidarity. Once both parties agree to the desirability of this, I think there are answers to the challenge of getting the requisite British formations to Saudi without badly weakening the BOAR.

One possibility is to mobilize British reserve units to take the place of the units going to Saudi near the beginning of the crisis. The timing ought to be staggered with the arrival of US formations taking the place of VII Corps so that the Soviets don't begin to get the idea that NATO is attempting a build-up in Europe using the situation in the Gulf as a screen.

Another possibility is for American formations to take the place of the British formations. The US would have to mobilize another National Guard division, and there would be transportation issues.

Another possibility is for one of the other NATO allies to call up reserves to replace the missing British formations. If one is creative, the exercise could serve other good purposes. For instance, Spain might deploy its division earmarked for NATO (though I don't know if this division was serving in that role at the time).

[Rainbow Six]

This is a fair point. However, a solution can be found. The US wants UK troops on the ground for the purpose of showing solidarity. Once both parties agree to the desirability of this, I think there are answers to the challenge of getting the requisite British formations to Saudi without badly weakening the BOAR.

One possibility is to mobilize British reserve units to take the place of the units going to Saudi near the beginning of the crisis. The timing ought to be staggered with the arrival of US formations taking the place of VII Corps so that the Soviets don't begin to get the idea that NATO is attempting a build-up in Europe using the situation in the Gulf as a screen.

Another possibility is for American formations to take the place of the British formations. The US would have to mobilize another National Guard division, and there would be transportation issues.

Another possibility is for one of the other NATO allies to call up reserves to replace the missing British formations. If one is creative, the exercise could serve other good purposes. For instance, Spain might deploy its division earmarked for NATO (though I don't know if this division was serving in that role at the time).

Agreed, there are solutions, although we would have probably had to rely on help from others as our own Reserves would have been primarily light infantry so we couldn't have made a like for like replacement (the Territorial Army did not have any heavy armoured units at that time, and hadn't done for a number of years - the main combat reinforcement tasked to the BAOR was the 2nd Infantry Division, which was made up of two Brigades of truck borne infantry and two towed Artillery Regiments (a Royal Artillery Regiment is equivalent to a Battalion) and the Regular Army's only Airmobile Brigade).

The idea of a US National Guard Division mobilising is a good one, otherwise perhaps the FRG could have mobilised some of their reserves.

Another possibility would have been for the UK to replace the vehicles sent to the Gulf with ones from its war stocks. IRL this did not happen as the threat of Soviet attack was deemed sufficiently low as to not warrant it, however with an ongoing Cold War that would have been different - or, as Mahatatain suggested, rather than denuding the BAOR, we could have gone straight to the war stocks and sent those vehicles from the UK to the Gulf.

Problem with that of course is that then we wouldn't have had any war stocks left!

All in all, I think the US National Guard deployment sounds like the best option. Either that or possibly downsizing the UK presence in the Gulf to a Brigade rather than a Division and filling the gaps in the BAOR as best as possible.

[James Langham]

This is a fair point. However, a solution can be found. The US wants UK troops on the ground for the purpose of showing solidarity. Once both parties agree to the desirability of this, I think there are answers to the challenge of getting the requisite British formations to Saudi without badly weakening the BOAR.

One possibility is to mobilize British reserve units to take the place of the units going to Saudi near the beginning of the crisis. The timing ought to be staggered with the arrival of US formations taking the place of VII Corps so that the Soviets don't begin to get the idea that NATO is attempting a build-up in Europe using the situation in the Gulf as a screen.

Another possibility is for American formations to take the place of the British formations. The US would have to mobilize another National Guard division, and there would be transportation issues.

Another possibility is for one of the other NATO allies to call up reserves to replace the missing British formations. If one is creative, the exercise could serve other good purposes. For instance, Spain might deploy its division earmarked for NATO (though I don't know if this division was serving in that role at the time).

Don't forget BAOR was stipped of almost all stores and ammunition in order to put 1st (UK) Armoured Division in the field. Troops were not a problem as reservists could easily be called up. Things for them to use were at a premium.

[Legbreaker]

Iraq was an ally of the USSR. Would anyone really have risked starting WWIII is the USSR hadn't disintegrated?
My feeling is the world would have quietly turned it's back on Kuwait in that situation and tried it's best to forget about it. Might have been a few harsh words flying backwards and forwards, but I just don't buy the West risking starting something with the other world superpower over a tiny, insignificant country which had a history as part of the province of Basra according to Wiki.
The Iraq-Kuwait dispute also involved Iraqi claims to Kuwait as a territory of Iraq. After gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1932, the Iraqi government immediately declared that Kuwait was rightfully a territory of Iraq, as it had been associated with Basra until the British creation of Kuwait after World War I and thus stated that Kuwait was a British imperialist invention. Kuwait had been a part of the Ottoman Empire's province of Basra, something that Iraq claimed made it rightful Iraq territory. Its ruling dynasty, the al-Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain. Britain drew the border between the two countries in 1922, making Iraq virtually landlocked.
There appears to also have been a number of other tensions between the two including Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oilfields, overproducing oil and thereby reducing the barrel price even though Opec had agreed not to do this. Iraq at the time had a tremendous debt from the earlier Iraq-Iran war and were suffering badly from this reduction in price.

So, given all the issues, it's very possible the US would have turned it's back and the coalition would never have been formed. It would have been very easy to justify non-intervention, especially when the risk of pulling in the USSR was so high.

Without the 90-91 war, Nato would also have missed out on learning a lot of valuable lessons. Reorganisations would not have occurred until sometime after 1996 (instead of 91-95), new vehicles and weapon systems not researched and produced, doctrine not updated. Cold war assumptions and practises would have remained in play until fighting in 1996-97 caused them to be reassessed - probably too late to do any good since nukes started to rain down in July 97.

[Rainbow Six]

So, given all the issues, it's very possible the US would have turned it's back and the coalition would never have been formed. It would have been very easy to justify non-intervention, especially when the risk of pulling in the USSR was so high.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

With specific regard to the thread, i.e filling in the V1.0 background the RDF Sourcebook would certainly seem to imply that Kuwait is still an Independent State, given it is mentioned as a location for French troops iirc.

So presumably we have two options - "butterfly" the whole thing away by saying the Iraqi invasion never happened in the first place or accept that it did happen but the Iraqis were no longer occupying Kuwait by the later part of the decade, either because they were repelled somehow or a negotiated settlement was reached?

[Badbru]

Or, you could reverse the logic and say it was the catalyst to start the Twilight war as the invasion, and the western worlds response to it drew soviet involvement. It might end up being Twilight1995 but a few people have recently stated that that wouldn't be a bad option either.

[Legbreaker]

With Soviet backing of Iraq in 89-90, it may be that Kuwait wouldn't have done anything to provoke invasion by Iraq too (ie the slant drilling, over production, refusal to lease Umm Qasr, Kuwaits offer of $9 billion instead of the $10 billion Iraq wanted in damages, etc). There were dozens of points of friction between the two countries. A Soviet backed Iraq could well have convinced Kuwait to back down on a point or two, thereby avoiding the invasion and subsequent war entirely.

In my opinion, IRL the chaos going on in the Pact countries in the 89-95 era encouraged other countries to take actions they wouldn't have dreamed of if the USSR was still stable and in control.

[Rainbow Six]

I don't have a copy of the RDF Sourcebook, so this may already be covered in the timeline, but we also have to factor in a different Government in Iran as well - the Iran Nowin. How pro Western are they presented as in the RDF Sourcebook? I'm sure someone mentioned before a quote about the Iranian Air Force operating F16's, so they're presumably friendly enough to be buying US hardware.

And when did they come to power? And how? Would that have any bearing on a potential Gulf War 1?

[Louied]

FWIW,
Rainbow and I had this discussion a while back. I like to follow Webstrals timeline of events, I premise that the "Black Winter" so polarized Western public opinion against the Soviets/WP that the U.S. was almost forced to act (Thatcher even more forcefully tells Bush not to go "wobbly" !) At this point the Soviets are still dealing with mopping up the "Black Winter" plus there are now rumblings of discontent in the Baltic Republics (such as there were IRL). Iraq moves without the Soviets approval, which embarrasses their patron. In an effort to rehabilitate their public image after the "Black Winter" and to perhaps push a different headline into the front pages of the foreign press, the Soviets give the West a free hand concerning Iraq (of course on the understanding that there would be no regime change, which I think fits nicely into the IRL historical scenario).

As for the British Army, it is just doable IMHO. IRL the ENTIRE operational Challenger fleet was in the Gulf, all that was left in BAOR were hulks stripped of engines and needed equipment. I believe (don't have access to my notes at the moment) power pack production was at least doubled, all going to the Gulf. Now there were three Armd Rgts plus the majority of a fourth in two bdes in theatre by Jan 91. In 1990 there were twelve Armd Rgts in eight bdes in BAOR plus two Armd Rgts in the UK (one functioned as a demo/training unit). IMC I have all RAC Rgts not in the Gulf reduced to 3 Sabre Sqns (which is what each RAC fielded from 1945-1975. 4 Sqns came about during the Wide Horizon reorganization. This was supposed to go in 1982 those reforms were reversed but most kept four sqns) and all equipped/re-equipped with Chieftain (800-900 in stock in 1991. 7 Rgts had been converted to Challenger, the other 7 were Chieftain). I also have 5 RTR reforming, giving the British eleven Armd Rgts. with approx. 500 Chieftains operational. An additional Armd Bde formed and 1 Inf Bde (UKMF, IRL had a wartime deployment to Denmark but the CDS wanted to get rid of this commitment and redeploy it to BAOR ) deploys to BAOR, this takes care of replacing the two Bdes in the Gulf. Oh and BTW, you also need to count on a large recall to the colors of reservists ( a lot larger than IRL).

[Mahatatain]

Thanks again for all the comments and insights – very useful indeed.

For the timeline I’m creating I think that Operation Restore Hope in Somalia won’t have happened as I agree with raketenjagdpanzer.

GW1 presents a much larger problem though because without the lessons learned there, as Legbreaker pointed out, there are a load of other changes that would need to be made, particularly in the form of new vehicles and weapon systems that wouldn’t have been developed and I don’t fancy attempting to try to work out (as a GM) what doesn’t exist (I don’t think that I have the knowledge to do it anyway!). I could simply just take what’s in the books but as I’m using a variant of the v2.2 rules that is already blurred and I’m going to end up in lots of conversations with my players regarding what gear is and isn’t available.

I therefore need to keep GW1 in the background somehow and my thought is to have a smaller scale version of GW1 that involves less commitment in terms of British troops but which still generates the learnings that the real one did. While this might have some slightly unrealistic elements to it I don’t think that it’s a major issue. It will cause increased friction between NATO and the Soviet Union but then that just helps explain the eventual descent into the Twilight War several years later.

One thing though – several people have mentioned Webstral’s timeline of events. Does anyone have a link to this because I would like to have a read and quite possibly just use it!:D

Lastly I need to go and refresh my memory of Iran according to the RDF sourcebook as that is also different to reality and needs to be covered off.

Thanks for all the comments.

Mahatatain.

[Raellus]

In my opinion, IRL the chaos going on in the Pact countries in the 89-95 era encouraged other countries to take actions they wouldn't have dreamed of if the USSR was still stable and in control.

I agree. In my T2KU, the Soviet Bloc doesn't fall, and the USSR's continuance as a global superpower prevents client/satellite states like Iraq and Yugoslavia from going off script, so to speak. Therefore, in my T2KU, there's no GW1 and no Balkans wars. I don't know exactly why I don't like the idea of GW1 being a part of the Twilight War timeline, but I just don't.

I like to look at T2K as an alternate history/universe where the Cold War doesn't end, but instead goes hot. It's probably a function of growing up during the last decade of the Cold War, and discovering T2K in '86. If I'd come to the game later, like after GW1, I think my preferences would be a little different. But there's definitely more than a hint of nostalgia at play for me.

[Mahatatain]

I agree. In my T2KU, the Soviet Bloc doesn't fall, and the USSR's continuance as a global superpower prevents client/satellite states like Iraq and Yugoslavia from going off script, so to speak.
Just being picky a little Rae (sorry) but can you really describe Yugoslavia as a satellite state of the USSR? I'm not an expert on the history of Yugoslavia but Tito fell out with Stalin in 1948 and I thought that Yugoslavia was always regarded as a bit of an independent communist state from then onwards. For a start I don't believe that they were ever members of the Warsaw Pact and they also founded the Non-Aligned Movement.

[dude_uk]

One thing though – several people have mentioned Webstral’s timeline of events. Does anyone have a link to this because I would like to have a read and quite possibly just use it!:D


http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~antenna/webstral/index2.htm

A truly excellent read. The only grating thing about it, is that there has not been a sequel!:D

It gives solutions to several Gulf War headaches and in fact gives opportunities for later problems. Namely:

1) The Gulf War is allowed to go on because Hussain starts it without Soviet permission.
2) The Soviets then use it as political currency to curry favour with the west.
3) It gives the Soviets a chance to see the armoured UK/US war machine in action with no cost to themselves.

With regards to the British, either downgrading the force to a Brigade level formation or going one Brigade with Challenger 1 and Warrior and one with Chieftain and FV432. There were 180 challengers that went to the gulf, which then left around 850 Chieftains in the UK/Germany.

Part of me thinks that all the shiny toys went to the gulf in our timeline, so that BAE/Vickers et all would have decent footage for the foreign sales market. ;)

[Raellus]

Just being picky a little Rae (sorry) but can you really describe Yugoslavia as a satellite state of the USSR? I'm not an expert on the history of Yugoslavia but Tito fell out with Stalin in 1948 and I thought that Yugoslavia was always regarded as a bit of an independent communist state from then onwards. For a start I don't believe that they were ever members of the Warsaw Pact and they also founded the Non-Aligned Movement.

You're absolutely right, Mahatatain. However, the Yugoslavs always had to look over their shoulders and consider the potential reaction of their powerful Slavic neighbor before acting. IIRC, Yugoslavia (under Tito) at one point considered annexing Albania but decided against it because they did not want to draw the ire of the Soviet Union. Even though the Yugoslavs tried to straddle the fense between east and west, there was always a bear in the room. With a healthy, robust Soviet union looking right over their shoulder, it is debatable whether the Yugoslavian government would have allowed the dissent and nationalism that led to the breakup and ethnic conflict which enveloped the country in the early '90s. Even if it did start to break up in a continued Cold War scenario, it's possible that the Soviet Union could have stepped in to stop it from doing so. They could have justified it to the west as a peacekeeping mission. This would certainly have increased tensions between east and west. Now that I think about it, I kind of like this idea because it segues nicely into the start of WWIII in Europe five or six years later.

It may be a case of correlation without causation but I don't think it's any coincidence that the breakup of Yugoslavia began shortly after the fall of the Soviet empire and not before.

[B.T.]

I don't know, if this is a silly idea, but just thinking:

IIRC, Yugoslavia fell apart after Tito's death. In a Twilight version, Tito's death and uprisings in Yugoslavia might have been starting a little earlier, coincidantially while there was trouble in Kuwait. Then it could be, that the NATO states (and allies) went for Saddam, whereas the Soviets are "helping the socialist brothers" in Yugoslavia.
Therefore both things could have been happening: A downscaled GF1 and a Soviet peacekeeping mission on the Balkans.

[James Langham]

Without the Gulf War, the British Army may well have looked at replacing the Challenger I. It had a very poor image after the Canadian Army Trophy Competition in 1987 and only it's performance in the Gulf gave it the good image back (it ironically achieved the longest range kill of the war at 4k). Without the war it may well have been replaced faster (and even if the Challenger II is bought it is likely it will have a different name).

[Mahatatain]

Thanks again for all the help/comments.

dude_uk - thanks for the link - I'll have a read of the 81 pages......

Rae/B.T. - I see what you mean about Yugoslavia (though it's also interesting to speculate what would have happened if Milošević had managed to keep it together as a country) but for the purposes of filling in the gap in the v1.0 background/timeline I need to keep Yugoslavia together as a country so that it can side with Romania in 1996 and both can then join NATO. Therefore the Yugoslav Wars can't happen in the timeline, at least in the same way as they did in reality.

James - that's exactly why I need to include GW1 in some form - without it there is a whole load of technology advances/changes that need to be reviewed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On a separate note are there any other major events in world history that need to be reconsidered for the v1.0 background/timeline to make sense?

Thanks for all the help.

Mahatatain.

[Legbreaker]

The technology itself doesn't need to change much at all given both editions of the game were written before any significant lessons could be learnt (or before even knowledge of the lessons in V1.0).
It's just as matter of resisting the urge to introduce additional tech and alter orbats from what they otherwise would have been. Essentially, just leave everything as it is in the books and you save a hell of a lot of trouble for yourself.

[Graebarde]

Let me tell you how I played out the scenario. I have used it for the start of a game played entirely in the US with a group of 'civilians', so it's primarily a back story to the game, but.......

The date of Iraq's invasion/incusrion/what ever you want to call it, occured in 1996. The Iraqi forces had been reequipped by the Soviets after their war with Iran in the 80's. Guns for oil as it was. They also had Soviet 'advisors and technicians' in country. At the time there WERE the 6th largest army in the world, yada yada...

The second thing I had was the relationship between the Saudi's and US was on-off affair. There WAS pressure agains them resulting from 'infadels on Saudi soil.'

So the stage is set per se.

Day one: The Republican Guard Corps with Special Forces roll into Kuwait. Yes there was saber rattling for a short time before. But as they were as stated in essence a Soviet satellite/client, no actions were taken before K-day.

On the SAME day, in the early morning hours, a large freighter was making passage up the Suez from the south. In the narrow track of water, which is not all that deep either, it is scuttled by explosions. Egyptian forces are searching for crewmen from the freighter. This action effectively closes the Suez canal. US forces from the east coast are now faced with an added minimum of two weeks transit as they have to go south around the Cape.

The sun rises on the Persian Gulf. The Indian Ocean CTF (I have it as the Eisenhower) has been dispatched to the Gulf with the Amphibs in tow. As they approach the coast of Oman, south of the Straights of Hormuz, a super tanker is making passage. BOOM!! An unexplained explosing rips through the tanker, setting it adrift and on fire. Was it a missle? mine? torpedo? Nobody knows, but the CFT is stopped short until it can be determined.

Iraq has also sent a message to the Saudi's telling them IF they do not evict the infadels, or make effort to interfer in Kuwait, they might face the same. It does have the effect of causing the Saudi's to hesitate, buying time for the Iraqi to consolidate, which they do rapidly. Much faster than might be expected. (it's my game guys, in their ideal world.)

Day Two: Kuwait has fallen rapidly in the face of overwhelming forces. Follow-on has come across the desert from the north west and is positioning along the Saudi northern border. Iraq sends it's warning again, and this time says if the infadels are not sent packing immediately, Saudi will pay. NO forces from the US are forthcoming at the moment, but there is a scramble in CONUS to find units to deploy. The RDF is centered around the 24th Mech Division and 9th Infantry as well as the 6th ACCB. The ready brigade from the 82nd sits on the tarmac waiting for a green light.

Day Three: The US limited number of troops in Saudi have NOT been sent packing. The Suez is still closed and will probably be for a while. Secondary exlposions have occured on the freighter. SoH are shut as the tanker continues to burn and drift. NO OIL IS COMING OUT OF THE GULF. Oil prices have shot through the roof in the US. Up three dollars at the pump in three days. First brigade of the 24th have been loaded on Fast Transports and are heading for the long trip to PG. Marine regiment from Okinawa is loading rapidly for transit to PG.

Day Four: Early morning. Iraqi corps rolls south across the Saudi border. A second corps heads southwest across the desert for KKMC. Special Forces brigade heads for the major pipeline running across the north Saudi.

Saudi gives the green light to US for aid. Combat airwing from US, which has prestaged in Italy during the past couple of days, heads for Saudi. Ready Brigade from 82nd is given green light and is wheels up within a very short time. Mission is to secure airheads for the 9th as much as anything. 9th is loading at McChord for a very long flight. Heavy elements of the division are loading on vessels in the Puget Sound.

The Iraqi forces are making good headway down the coast and across the desert. By afternoon, the pipeline has been breached, rather two pumping stations have been damaged enough no oil flows west.

The first wave of the 82nd gets a warm greeting. Iraqi fighters jump them. Yes it is a bloody loss for the Iraqi, but they still manage to down four C141 loaded with paratroopers, who were not prepared to make a jump. It was suppose to be a landing at a 'friendly' airfield.

Iraq warns Saudi's their oil fields will burn if they do NOT turn the infadels away. Too late for them to do such, as there is now blood in American eyes.

MEU elements from the IO task force are airlifted in jumps from ship to Bahrain. Oman has given permission for landing of heavy elements of the division. Marines begin amphibious landing OTS into Oman. They face a 500 plus road march north. A logitics nightmare.

Mine sweepers are working hard to clear the straights.

The cargo vessels at Diego Garcia with equipment for a heavy brigade slice are underway. WHERE will they unload? Oman does not have all the facilities they might need. (I was/am not 100% on this, but that is where the vessels need to unload at this time.)

Day Five: Iraqi forces fighting Saudi forces along the coastal highway with good results against the Saudi's. KKMC is being approached. Heavy fighting.

82nd has the remnants of their ready brigade on the ground in the Saudi capital. Speed bumps against the Iraqi armor. First elements of 9th are on the ground. Marines are forming for movement north. Every HET in Oman has been given to help with the move, which is barely enough for the tank company and AmTracks. Crews go with their vehicles.

Long range attacks on Iraqi forces by Naval Aviation off the Eisenhower has slowed the process, however hard lessons are learned by the surviving aviators. Iraqi Air Defense is better than thought. The Iraqi air force is also in the furball, though suffer heavy losses.

Day Six:
Some time after midnight, reports of oil wells afire reach HQ. The threat has been fulfilled. Iraqi SF units are busy in the oil fields. 9th elements are sent to clean them out.

Marines from Bahrain are forming hasty defense line at Dahrain. By mornings light the Iraqi are within 30 miles of their location. Air attacks continue against the column with AAA/SAM fire taking the toll. It's a war of attrition at this time. USAF is busy up north, as the ALOC has moved south around the area where Iraqi fighters have still attacked transports.. with success at a cost.

By sundown, the air above northern Saudi has become a black oily cloud as close to 200 wells and counting are afire.

In the US, two refinerys have had 'unexplained' explosions: BP Houston, and Belle Chase LA. over the past two days. The oil prices are through the roof. Pump price of gas is rapidly approaching ten dollars a gallon. Srock market is in turmoil with bubble burst. down 20% in the week. Precious metals are up as is the rest of the commodity market.

Day Seven:
Marines from Oman are still half a day from Dahrain as Iraqi artillery, much of it MRL, rains down on them. 9th elements have arrive to assist the defense of what the US knows is a life line to the gulf at Dahrain.

Troops are spread thin on the ground. (Note there is no build up of two months to fight this war. It's boots on the ground into the line fighting.)



To make a long story short... Yes the Iraqis are pushed back north. It's a bloody fight from day one. The corps coming from the north through KKMC has reached the capital by end of day 9. SCUD attacks decimate facilities, primarily port side and airfield. USAF has taken a hit from the first wave of SCUDS. The SCUDS were more effective than thought as well. So much for intelligence reports and suppositions.

Oman is used until the straights are cleared, which took the better part of two weeks before the Eisenhower was allowed passage. They never did learn what caused the tanker to explode. It sank when it was run aground out of shipping lanes.

Other attacks occured in the US before the war in Europe started. One of mention is the LNG carrier that wiped out Perth Amboy NJ and much of the area, which caused quite a panic in NYC with reports of a nuclear attack. The ensuing firestorm was what did the majority of the damage to the city. Cost of life was extremely high as well. The American people are enraged, much like they were after 9/11.

Nasty Guard is mobilizing for a war in the Gulf. In GW1(2) there was a problem with the NG round out brigades. I recall two in particular that did not meet the criteria for deployment within the alloted time. MS brigade for 1 CAV had major problems, as did the LA guard brigade for the 5th.

Personally I never liked the round-outs and being MY game, I had the guard organized in 25 divisions regionally much as they had through their histories. The Regular army had 18 divisions and six brigades and 9 cavalry regiments/brigades of with four were ACCB, for 23 division equivalent active. The USMC had three active and one reserve division. Total force ready withing 120 days (on paper at least) was 52 divisions. Note that not all of the NG elements were full strength, nor were all the regulars for various reasons. This count does not include special operations units.

Just my take on the start of the Twilight war. I know it is not even close to canon. As for the war in Europe, it starts and funcitons much as what was envisioned by the cold war. NOT with intrigue of the Germans, though when the war started, there were defections by DDR units to FRG units, but it was a bloody long and hard fought war from the start. It started in October, at the end of REFORGER, as divisions were worn out from field exercise and the division returning to the states was in trumoil of going home.

Soviets rolled from barracks to the attack. The Norway theater was filled by 10th Mountain, 6th Marines task force, and 34th Infantry from Minnesota area (it was their war time mission to defend Norway.) As the game I have is set in Minnesota, the loss of troops from the 34th hits home.

[Mahatatain]

My only comment, I don't see Gorbachev making such a statement. By '86 or so, he and Reagan were having competing charm offensives. My thinking is, after Chernenko dies in 1985, he names Viktor Chebrikov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Chebrikov) to the top slot...and he begins to make things worse instead of better.
I saw this in the 1990 Timeline thread and it set me thinking that Gorbachev doesn't work in the timeline I'm putting together so I'm going to replace him wth Viktor Chebrikov. Thanks for the info Jason.