On behalf of all the non-Americans out there, I'd like to remind everyone that the US has not (as far as I can recall) fought any significant conflict alone.

WWI - the US entered late. Although inexperienced and using (on the whole) outdated tactics, their additional numbers helped tip the balance.

WWII - The US entered late. It was essentially left up to the British Commonwealth to hold off in Europe, Africa, the middle east AND Asia. In this time the only real help from the US was with equipment (Lend-Lease).

Korea - This was a UN operation with troops from all over the world

Vietnam - more of a US show than most, but still involved units from other countries

Gulf war - UN operation, or as good as. Units came from just about everywhere

Iraq 2003 - included troops from the US, UK and Australia

T2K - on the nato side includes Germany, Norway, Denmark, USA, UK, Holand, and Canada (just to name a few).

Well that not saying much since most Armies during a time of war are largely conscripted in nature after military action starts. How effective any of these Armies depends on the training the leadership. There have been times in history when Armies who for all practical purposes should of lost the war, but due to excellent leadership and some luck they pull off.

Granted taking a look at the conscripted Army of WWII and compare it to Korea is comparing Apple to Oranges. They were two complete different Armies. The WWII had several years of training before they were sent into battle to train together and the so called "dead wood" could be left at home before they deployed. The Korean War was come as you are war, where the troops had very little training over what they got in garrison to help in the fighting.

Yes entered late, but they US Army had plenty of time to trained in both wars before they entered combat.


Come as you are war. Units were rushed into battle due to need to support the South Korean military that was almost overran before the it started.

Troops received extra intense training before they deployed, but with the units that were there for the duration and with the individual replacement program, very little unit cohesiveness.

Spent several months for build up and intensive training while they defensive line. Seen limited ground action during this time and repelled Iraqi push south and various probes during this time too. Exposed the flaw of thinking of Round-out Brigades could be deployed combat in rapid fashion, not one of the so called Round-out Brigade made it to the theater.

Back to come as you are war again, undertaking of major war with limited resources that were already committed. Instead of individual replacement after every 12 month like there was in Vietnam, after the fall of the Iraqi government. Entire units at Divisional HQ with individual Brigade were rotated in and out after tours ranging from 12 month and upward to 15 months (many of the times these tours were extended on upwards of three months). Marine units usually rotated in and out at higher turn over rate. Troop drain for another theater of operations.

Again a come as you are war. There was limited time to train after the Germans started the war and when they ask for help, but still the units had to go to war as they were with limited stand up training.

Funny thing is I don't recall anyone saying the US went to all these wars on there own....Did I miss something...

The point is that most posts appear to be written as if the US were the central, if not only participants.

Clearly this is not the case.

The last time the US fought a war without allies was the Spanish-American War...

... but for the life of me I cannot understand why you brought this fact up. Are any of us gringos saying that we did?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

I don't think there is an overt mention but there was a casual ignoring of it. Such as saying Desert Storm provides an additional option for combat experience for US troops, when it would provide it for many nations.

Sorry sir, no such implication has been given. I think you are punching at phantoms.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

Well you have to admit post WWII, US forces were the central participants (from a command perspective) in all of the conflicts you mentioned. Actually if you look at the command structure of Allied forces at they end of WWII they would probably be considered the central participant as well.

I am "guilty" of US-centriic thinking in the game, but the game kinda starts out that way so I can see how people get into that mindset.

If someone wants to chime in on how a V1 Desert Storm would have effected other nations I can't imagine there would be any objections. I would actually be very interested in hearing how the conflict effected British forces.

...or anyone's forces, for that matter. I'm sure we'd all derive good value from seeing some work on how a v1 Desert Storm would affect the preparedness of the Australian military for the Twilight War. Leg, is that a mission you'd be willing to take on?

Webstral

Going on near 20 year old memory, I think we only had two frigates and a supply ship involved - no ground forces beyond the odd individual on exchange.
It's hard to say how that would impact on land forces...

Okay, where do you want to take this? Over to the "In Defense of the Red Army" thread?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp?

In all this arguing back and forth, this may be the most perceptive comment I've read.

If we go with a canon v1 USSR and WTO, then there is no upheaval in Eastern Europe and the WTO alliance is firmly in place and firmly under the control of the USSR. So NATO member states might be unwilling to send conventional forces to the Persian Gulf and therefore give the WTO a window of opportunity to attack during a period of rising East-West tensions.

So, if the US cannot create a wide enough coalition of forces with sufficient conventional conventional strength to force Saddam out of Kuwait, then how does the West proceed? You can't threaten Iraq with nuclear forces because they don't have any of their own and there seems to be an unwritten law of international brinksmanship that somehow states with nuclear arsenals are not allowed to use such weapons against states that don't have them. So no nuking Iraq. Diplomatic pressure on Iraq clearly has no effect. Forcing the Soviets to fix it by using nuclear brinksmanship and diplomatic and economic pressure presumes that the Soviets can even get Iraq to budge. Which I don't believe they could accomplish.

Maybe to your ver 1 canon answer is that Saddam invaded and got to KEEP Kuwait! Or at least until Saddam starts looking to start a war with Syria (dreams of a pan-Arabic State from the Persian Gulf to the Med?) and the KGB pulls off a coup that topples his regime in 1991! As a gesture of good faith to their Arab neighbors the new (more pro-Soviet) Iraq disgorges Kuwait as an independent state, maybe even allowing the Emir to return.

There. Problem solved. Iraq invades in 1990, USSR fixes problem in 1991. The Sovs expect kudos from the Arab world as peacemakers and liberators, but instead (according to ver 1 canon) they are seen by the Arab world as Imperialistic meddlers.

The only problem with this idea is the we have to accept that the US and Western Europe would need sit around for a year and take no decisive military action against Iraq. Is that really likely? Could the US and Western Europe really be so completely impotent. Particularly the US, which is still stinging from the humiliation of the Iran Hostage Crisis and the bombings and kidnappings in Lebanon.

At the bare minimum... the absolute minimum we should expect a division sized or greater US military force permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia in order to prevent Saddam from going after that country next. Or at least until the post-Saddam government withdraws from Kuwait.

Of course having US troops stationed in Iraq, even for a year, might still mean that Osama Bin Laden gets to create Al Queda for the purpose of "freeing" Saudi Arabia from US "occupation." With the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan still ongoing, Islamic fundamentalism will probably still emerge as the enemy of the West and Soviet Communism. Or maybe, the Saudi government takes Bin Laden up on his offer to create an army of Mujahideen (like in Afghanistan) to fight the Iraqi occupation. Of course, I always thought Bin Ladin's idea was pretty bone-headed... what with Kuwait having no history of insurgency (unlike Afghanistan), no terrain appropriate to hide guerilla forces in (unlike Afghanistan), and no border conducive to smuggling in weapons and foreign fighters (unlike Afghanistan). Add to that the brutal efficiency of Saddam's secret police in an urban environment, and Osama's plan to push Saddam out of Kuwait looks doomed to failure.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

IMO The Turks would need to apply serious pressure. If Nato could get them to commit to crossing the northern Iraqi border (perhaps with a promise look the other way on how they handle Kurdish Rebels), the rest of the Coalition could get away with having the US 18th Corps and the 5th and 8th Mechanized (Rounded with the 192nd and the 197th) plus marine assets as the core of the force. National Guard and Reserve Units would need to be mobilized as Europe's reserve.

I don't know much about what other coalition members would be able to provide, I expect Nato's commitment would be generally lower, but the forces from the Middle East would probably be the same or larger.

What we need to do is work out which units from which countries were available for a middle eastern operation.
Perhaps there were enough units from other nations to kick Iraq out.
Perhaps China led the coalition... ;)

I'd be happy to take a look at that, although due to work / family commitments it'll probably take me a while.