CENTCOM Viability

[kalos72]

So in my campaign, by April 2001 we have roughly 1% of total Texas per-war oil production started again. Thats about 5000 barrels per day / 170k gallons of diesel / 30k gallons of jet fuel.

Now as the Texas Military District, the entire eastern part of the state east of 35, improves, Mississippi and LA get pacified and California is cleared of hostiles, production numbers can only increase.

CENTCOM was viewed as being a requirement due to it being the only place the US can get oil from in 2000.

Would keeping an oil source from the Soviets or French perhaps, be important enough to keep CENTCOM active or would it make more sense to pull out and get the troops back to the US?

Thoughts?

[dragoon500ly]

I would have to say yes, CENTCOM would need to be maintained for as long as possible, if only to deny to the Soviets the working oil wells and refineries. It would also give give MILGOV an edge with the French.

[kalos72]

Thats true, I was almost more concerned about giving the French another leg up on the US then the Soviets honestly.

But then I thought it also might get the French involved against the Soviets in the Middle East, both fighting for the oil. Right now, CENTCOM is in the middle.

Would the French, who obviously are interested or they wouldn't have committed the forces there in the first place find enough reason to increase hostilities against the Soviets if the oil was in jeopardy?

[dragoon500ly]

Too true, but I believe that MILGOV's opinion would be that anything that got the French more involved against the Soviets, even if it was in the Middle East and not Europe...May not be such a bad thing.

Would they desire an escalation in WWIII?

Not really, but maybe something to counter balance the Soviets and get them to start thinking, enough is enough.

[kalos72]

WANT no? Prefer to increase hostilities rather then give it all to the Soviets? Perhaps.

Would the Soviets really want to keep fighting, no dealing with a French Army that still has the majority of its armor/aircraft/navy?


From the RDF Sourcebook:
SPECIAL NOTE: FRANCO-SOVIET RELATIONS

The relations between France and the Soviet Union are interesting. They are engaged in a low intensity proxy war with each other. The main battleground is, of course, the Middle East.

The French, however, are slowly gaining the upper hand. The
Soviet lines of communications and supply into the Transcaucasus Military District are virtually nonexistent. Only the strong presence of the KGB Border Guards give Moscow any say in events in Iran. The French are taking advantage of the increasing isolation of the Soviet Transcaucasus Front by
increasing logistical aid to CENTCOM.

[swaghauler]

This is another place where my timeline varies from the Cannon. In my world, Russia never received the economic stimulus that the West gave them in reality. This means that we had NO INFLUENCE on Russian policy.
As a result, a desperate Russia needed resources and money to stave off an imminent collapse and the US gave them someone who could help. Iraq needed to rearm after the 91' Gulf War. UN sanctions would have made this impossible but for Russia's desperation. Russia sold Iraq T-54Ms and T62Ms with both "bra armor" and Kontakt 1 reactive armor, laser range finders, laser guided munitions, Gen 2 passive NV, and automotive upgrades for their regular army. They gave the Republican Guard units T64BMs with upgraded Kontakt 1 reactive armor, Gen 2 passive NV, and automotive upgrades. they also upgraded Iraq's T72s to T72Ms as well as giving them "upgraded" T72Ms from Russia's own stock. This gave Iraq an new tank force of 5000 T54Ms, 1000 T62M "command tanks," 2000 T72Ms and 3000 T64BMs for the Republican Guard. They also sold Iraq huge quantities of towed artillery and Sprut B 125mm AT guns, older wire guided AT missiles and huge numbers of AA guns.

At the same time, Russia began supplying Iran with military technology in the face of ever hardening UN sanctions against BOTH powers. All of these military sales allowed Russia to not only stave off collapse but also to upgrade her own military to better T80M and T90M tanks, newer self-propelled artillery and AT Missiles, as well as other newer equipment for the troops.
This would force the US to have a large CENTCOM force to counter any moves by now "pro-Russian" Iraq or Iran. In my timeline, that occurs in 1998. As a result, there is just as big a war in The Gulf as there is in Europe.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

This is another place where my timeline varies from the Cannon. In my world, Russia never received the economic stimulus that the West gave them in reality. This means that we had NO INFLUENCE on Russian policy.

I suspect you could support this background with just saying that oil prices were higher than historical. That weakens the West while getting Iran & Iraq the money to buy that stuff, and probably heads off the collapse of Gorbachev's reforms.

[pmulcahy11b]

The trick in all this, from CENTCOM's view, is getting the oil back to the States. Nigh impossible. Therefore, CENTCOM is, for all intents and purposes, an independent entity; though they are nominally MILGOV, they are pretty much free to do what they please and is necessary to maintain their position, hoping that later it will matter.

[Slappy]

I don't really know that it is that impossible. I believe the canon states that at least a trickle makes it back. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that they could be operating at least a couple of tankers making shipments to Milgov in the US. They only need to recover / repair a tiny percentage of the stock. And I believe there are also some naval assets listed in the OOB for Centcom in the area. They could provide convoy escort, not that there's much out there to threaten them.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I suspect you could support this background with just saying that oil prices were higher than historical. That weakens the West while getting Iran & Iraq the money to buy that stuff, and probably heads off the collapse of Gorbachev's reforms.

I was trying to explain how a "2nd rate power" (which Russia DEFINITELY was in the 90's) could take on NATO and actually have a chance of success; especially when they are already involved in a war with China. In my timeline, a major conflict in the Gulf (which threatens the oil supply) would require the US to split its strength between the European and Gulf theaters. I also follow real world history in so much as the US (mainly the 10th Mountain) is also involved in Kosovo against Russian-backed Serbs (creating yet a third theater).

The sale of weapons in Africa, South America, Serbia and the Middle East allows Russia to either upgrade equipment or sell old equipment to replace it with new equipment.

This sale of equipment also allows countries that would stand NO CHANCE against The US (like Mexico) to upgrade their equipment to the point where they can challenge The US. Additionally, the need for replacement equipment in multiple theaters means that only second line equipment and conscript troops are available for the somewhat "unexpected" Mexican invasion. This helps explain the Mexican's success in driving into CONUS.

In fact, The US is inadvertently responsible for the war in Europe too. The Russians are angered at clandestine US involvement in the Russo-Chinese war, and in retaliation, begin backing Socialist dissidents in democratic (and pro-NATO) Poland. The Russians back these insurgents in an attempt to overthrow the legitimate Polish government. The Polish government seeks the assistance of Germany in defeating the Socialists (because East Germany and Poland were strong economic partners before and after the fall of the Warsaw Pact). Things get out of control (like in The Ukraine today) and The US is drawn into the conflict in early 1997 (after the US Presidential election).
This is the reason that some Polish towns are friendly to NATO and some are not. Allegiance depends not only on the behavior of various units towards a given town during the war; But also on the town's "political allegiances" during the initial revolution of the Socialists.

All of these events "conspire" to allow a Russian-led coalition to cause havoc across the world.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I was trying to explain how a "2nd rate power" (which Russia DEFINITELY was in the 90's) could take on NATO and actually have a chance of success;

Who isn't a second rate power compared with the US?

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The Russians back these insurgents in an attempt to overthrow the legitimate Polish government. The Polish government seeks the assistance of Germany in defeating the Socialists (because East Germany and Poland were strong economic partners before and after the fall of the Warsaw Pact)

The Poles have despised the Russians for centuries, and never more so than after the Second World War and when they were part of the Warsaw Pact. The Poles also hate the Germans. However they seem to have tolerated the East Germans, I suppose because they knew they were also being oppressed by the Russians. During the Cold War the non-brainwashed by communism part of the Polish establishment, especially the Polish military and intelligence services were notoriously uncooperative with the Russians to the point that the KGB had to use the East German Stasi has a proxy to keep tabs on the Poles.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by RN7

Who isn't a second rate power compared with the US?



The Poles have despised the Russians for centuries, and never more so than after the Second World War and when they were part of the Warsaw Pact. The Poles also hate the Germans. However they seem to have tolerated the East Germans, I suppose because they knew they were also being oppressed by the Russians. During the Cold War the non-brainwashed by communism part of the Polish establishment, especially the Polish military and intelligence services were notoriously uncooperative with the Russians to the point that the KGB had to use the East German Stasi has a proxy to keep tabs on the Poles.

The important question isn't "Who isn't a second rate power compared to the US?", but...Why would a second rate power go to war against a half a dozen of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world all at the same time? More importantly, how would they do even as well as the cannon claims they do? This is why Russia "makes friends" with Iran, Iraq, and supports the South American drug Cartels in my timeline. Russia needs allies and "The Enemy of My Enemy IS My Friend." These regimes are also afraid of US "domination" and (in their minds) need weapons to protect themselves. Russia just happens to have a large number of weapons to sell. Hense, the relationship is born. This also helps answer the question of why the US didn't have M1s sitting outside the Kremlin or why everyone in the World isn't dying in a Nuclear Holocaust. The US was spread too thin by conflicts in The Balkans (Kosovo), Eastern Europe (Poland), The Middle East (Iran/Iraq) and Asia (support for China) to make the kind of gains one would expect them to make.

"The Poles hate Russia..." This is all true. I guess one could argue that Russia couldn't influence Poland. They said the same thing about The Ukraine too. My alternate timeline addresses the very unrealistic idea that a newly reformed Germany would form a pretext to "invade" Poland and that The UK and The US would even go along with this pretext.

Poland had joined the Visegrad Group with The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia as early as 1991 (the coup in the GDW alternate timeline could not have stopped this). This group was formed for mutual defense and economic growth with the aim of eventually joining NATO and The EU. Germany attacking Poland would have brought the other three countries to her aid immediately and created a huge rift in NATO that the US would NEVER consent to. An "internal conflict" in Poland wouldn't initially "ignite a firestorm" in Europe (as much as Russia would have liked this). Instead, it would appear that members of NATO were helping the legitimate government of Poland with what would become "externally backed" extremists. This is a more logical reason for both The UK and The US to become involved. Russia never really "intended" to get drawn into a deeper conflict in Europe, it just sort of "developed" into WW3. As for the "Insurgency," this starts out as a very small group of Poles supported by "freedom fighters" who "show up" to "help." This is much like modern day Ukraine where 9 out of 10 people polled support the new government but the "resistance" to the government continues to grow and get better equipped daily. It is kind of funny how many of those "random freedom fighters" speak Russian.

[RN7]

I generally stick with V1 with the Soviet Union still about, makes things a lot simpler.

[kalos72]

Great information Swag, I see you have thought this through.

I get stuck on the details enough without creating an alternate timeline that rich in detail.

But given the v1 timeline, with a smidge of Chico's American Reset and I can see the US pulling out from Iran and letting the French contend with the Soviets, perhaps escalating the conflict in other regions as well.

[Draq]

I like what I'm heading

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Great information Swag, I see you have thought this through.

I get stuck on the details enough without creating an alternate timeline that rich in detail.

But given the v1 timeline, with a smidge of Chico's American Reset and I can see the US pulling out from Iran and letting the French contend with the Soviets, perhaps escalating the conflict in other regions as well.

The goal is to NOT get too detailed in the history. You need to leave "wiggle room" for adventure backrounds.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by RN7

I generally stick with V1 with the Soviet Union still about, makes things a lot simpler.

I have to agree. What the old Soviet Union lacked in technology, they more than made up for in manpower. I wonder how it would have turned out for Russia if a war had occurred when you consider how quickly their "client states" fled when the chance arrived, though. The Cold War was, in fact, a simpler time than what we live in today.