[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I was partly working from an Arctic article I got from around here, I think it's Chico's group? That one has a Soviet counterattack after NATO's push stalls out. The 10th US Mtn Div tries to shortcut thru Sweden as it retreats, and is pursued by the Soviets. There is some shooting between US and Swedes trying to intern them. The Soviets end up leaving a division behind there.

That's an interesting premise. Does that scenario include Finland at all?

I guess I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. I want to involve Sweden in WW3, but without altering the v1 timeline too much. This, of course, is a very subjective exercise. Omitting Finland from the war is a pretty significant change, and complicates the strategic picture in the region too much, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

If the Soviets want this to be more than a punishment, they need to commit some big forces, at least a Front.

Agreed. One way to explain less of Soviet presence in Sweden (i.e an Army- equivalent to a NATO Corps- rather than a Front) is that Stavka intended to send additional formations to Sweden in follow-up waves once the beachhead was well-established and transport freed up, but the war took a turn for worse elsewhere and the Soviets just didn't have any "spare" units to significantly reinforce their Army (corps) in Sweden.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I did go for '98, as that would be after NATO shuts down Norway as an active theater, and the Americans, British, and other non-Norwegian units have left for Germany. That might seem like an opportunity for the Soviets?

That makes sense. Going by the v1 timeline, the closer to 2000 that events get, the fewer air and sea assets there are available. If the Soviets are going to invade Sweden by sea and air, they're going to been ships and aircraft, and, maybe more importantly, fuel for them. By mid-1998 in the v1 timeline, all of those things are in much shorter supply. That's why I went with '97 instead.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I squared that circle by having the Marines show up in the initial NATO reaction, then get pulled out again for the 2000 offensive on the Polish Baltic coast.
Danish troops would be a good idea, too, though their territorials are probably tied down with civil defense.
Now that you have me thinking about it, the Danish division and Canadian brigade that appear in the 2000 Baltic coast offensive might be better used here?

Yes, I think so. This is a bit of a stretch, but maybe one could explain US XI Corps getting left behind during OMEGA by placing it in Sweden instead of NW Poland. AFAIK, no explanation is given in canon for why XI Corps does not make its way to Bremerhaven in November 2000. A lot of virtual ink has been expended here trying to come up with a likely explanation (without consensus).

You don't have a USMC unit in your Sweden c.2000?

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I looked at the Soviet Vehicle Guide, and noticed there were 2 short armies in the Reserve Front. Two of the divisions in the 9th Guards Army matched, or were close to, the numbers of the divisions FL used. QED, I moved the 3rd MRD over there, too. The naval and desant guys were a no-brainer.

I like that idea. I'm all for using forces described in the VG's as basically just sitting around far from an active front. In my mind, they're fair game to be put to good use elsewhere. There are also a few RL late Cold War Red Army formations that didn't make it into the SVG. I used a couple in the KSB (with Marc Miller's blessing).

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Yeah, that island would be great to have, perhaps more useful than the mainland south of Stockholm if there were plans to push the offensive further towards Denmark or Germany. But, as you say, sometimes you can only get one target with the forces you have.

I figure that capturing Gotland would be in Soviet strategic plans as a second or third phase operational objective. Again, the Soviets don't get around to it due to limited forces.

-