RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2016, 01:29 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Italian Army stocks of W33 and W79 nuclear artillery shells and W70 nuclear weapons were held by the 3rd Missile Brigade Aquileia based in the town of Portogruaro in northeastern Italy.

The nuclear artillery weapons were stored in four depots in Codognè, Oderzo, Longare and Udine and administered by the US Amy 559th Artillery Group, but they were guarded by the brigades four infantry companies. US airborne troops were located at nearby Vincenza, but I don't think the US would have had enough ground units in Italy to extract these nuclear weapons safely.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-05-2016, 04:01 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,340
Default

In the paradigm of realpolitik, leaving NATO to join the WTO does not necessarily indicate an Italian desire to immediately enter into a shooting war with the U.S.A. Neither does aligning with the WTO indicate a radical ideological shift. It serves a more practical purpose.

If canon's description of Italy's military operations is any indication, their interests were much more localized; Italy spends most of the war attempting to annex nearby territory (mostly from Austria). Joining the WTO doesn't necessarily indicate an ideological realignment, rather it can be seen as an Italian ploy to secure protection from potential NATO reprisals for local land grabs by putting Italy under the U.S.S.R. nuclear umbrella.

Therefore, I think that Italy would have allowed the evacuation of "joint" nukes instead of aggressively trying to nationalize them and defend them by force. They lose more than they gain by trying to seize/maintain control of American nukes. As a WTO, a nuclear deterrent already exists.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-05-2016, 08:58 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Raellus just try and follow my logic in regards to your logic over Italy without getting offended. I'm really not trying to be smart or offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
In the paradigm of realpolitik, leaving NATO to join the WTO does not necessarily indicate an Italian desire to immediately enter into a shooting war with the U.S.A.
Italy leaves NATO after NATO forces cross the Inter-German border and begin combat operations against Warsaw Pact forces in East Germany and other WP states. Italy then joins the WP which is at war with NATO. If Italy has no desire to enter a shooting war with the U.S.A why did it not just remain neutral? That's what France did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Neither does aligning with the WTO indicate a radical ideological shift. It serves a more practical purpose.
If changing its allegiance from an alliance of democratic states to that of a group of communist states dominated by the Soviet Union doesn't indicate a radical ideological shift then I don't know what does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
If canon's description of Italy's military operations is any indication, their interests were much more localized; Italy spends most of the war attempting to annex nearby territory (mostly from Austria).
I think Italy's military operations were localised due to the fact that this would be all that its forces could manage. Italy did not have the military capabilities of other major European powers such as Britain and France who had much stronger air and naval forces, or the sheer fire power of the German Army. And if Italy spends most of the war attempting to annex nearby territory what does that tell us about the motivations of the Italian government?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Joining the WTO doesn't necessarily indicate an ideological realignment, rather it can be seen as an Italian ploy to secure protection from potential NATO reprisals for local land grabs by putting Italy under the U.S.S.R. nuclear umbrella..
So Italy leaves NATO after nearly 50 years and severs relations with most of its closest allies and trade partners so that it can grab the Alpine passes from Austria. And when you head north through the Alpine Passes its leads to were? The German speaking regions of Europe who would be perfectly content to let Italy steal territory from other ethnic Germans, and particularly the German military who has just reunified Germany and kicked the Soviets out of Germany.

And Italy replaces the nuclear protection of NATO with that of the Soviet Union to make a land grab. Well I can see a little logic in that, but it doesn't make me think that Italy intends to remain neutral if it wants to annex other countries territories. Also what does Italy think NATO is really going to do? Italy has a very long and exposed coastline. The US Navy Sixth Fleet in the Med alone could probably wipe out the Italian Air Force and Navy by itself if it was ordered to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Therefore, I think that Italy would have allowed the evacuation of "joint" nukes instead of aggressively trying to nationalize them and defend them by force. They lose more than they gain by trying to seize/maintain control of American nukes. As a WTO, a nuclear deterrent already exists.
I don't think I would trust the Italian government to do that, at least not the type of Italian government that you have implied has taken over Italy.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-05-2016, 10:09 PM
Louied Louied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 244
Default Gladio ?

I was never been a fan of this part of canon, at the very least wouldn't Italy have descended into civil war upon an exit from NATO and belligerency against their former allies ? From what I have read wouldn't Gladio been triggered in Italy and possibly CIA/MI6 involvement with the Mafia as in World War 2 ?

Just some thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-05-2016, 10:56 PM
James Langham2 James Langham2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mansfield, UK
Posts: 157
Smile

The whole thing sounds as unlikely as Poland being in NATO would have in 1989... :-)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-06-2016, 04:04 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
According to GDW Italy left NATO in T2K, joined the Warsaw Pact and then went to war against NATO.
Where is it explicitly stated that Italy actually joins the Warsaw Pact? Having reread the various timelines all I can come up with is the following (I'm quoting from V1 but as far as I can tell the other versions are identical):

Late 1996

Quote:
While the political leadership of the European members of NATO debated the prudence of intervention, the U.S. Army crossed the frontier. Within a week, France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece first demanded that U.S. troops withdraw to their start line and then withdrew from NATO in protest.
February 1997

Quote:
In late February, the socialist governments of Italy and Greece concluded a mutual defense pact. While Italy was not obligated by the pact to enter the Greco-Turkish war, the Italian government declared the war to be a regional conflict unrelated to the more general war raging elsewhere, promising to intervene on Greece's side if NATO tried to tip the balance in Turkey's favor
So, Italy agrees a mutual defence pact with Greece - no mention of joining the Warsaw Pact. That then leads to the following in June 1997:

Quote:
On June 27th, a NATO convoy of fast transports and cargo ships, accompanied by a strong covering force, attempted the run to the Turkish port of Izmir with badly needed ammunition and equipment. Light fleet elements of the Greek navy intercepted the convoy and, in a confused night action off Izmir, inflicted substantial losses and escaped virtually unharmed. Two days later NATO retaliated with air strikes against Greek naval bases. On July 1st, Greece declared war against the NATO nations, and Italy, in compliance with her treaty obligations, followed suit on the 2nd.
So Italy appears to have become involved in the War (officially at least) as a result of honouring its treaty obligation with Greece, a treaty that is purely bilateral. Yes, that means it was fighting against NATO forces, so was on the same side as the Warsaw Pact but I can't see any reference to it formally joining the Warsaw Pact. You can argue the logic of Italian actions in getting involved in a War with their former allies back and forth but it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with membership of the Warsaw Pact. What you do have is a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If you apply that logic to say that Italy must have joined the Warsaw Pact then by definition China must have joined NATO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
Going Home SB states that the Italian Folgore Mechanised Division is acting as anti-Soviet partisans in Austria, and that its commander had long opposed socialist coalition which has ruled Italy in recent years, and has always despised the Warsaw Pact and regretted Italy's involvement with it.
Involvement with something doesn't automatically imply membership of it. Or am I missing something? I'm not trying to be smart either, it's a serious question. I've spent a fair bit of time looking and can't find any reference in canon that states that Italy actually becomes a member of the Warsaw Pact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
Mediterranean Cruise SB states that after the US entered the war in 1996, Italy's government demanded that American troops return to their start lines, then withdrew from NATO when this was not forthcoming. Military bases in Italy were closed to the belligerents, but Italy tried to remain neutral in the greater conflict. In 1997 NATO aid to Turkey brought Italy into the war, in accordance to its treaty obligations (Warsaw Pact) on July 1st 1997.
As Italy didn't enter the War until the start of July 1997 this suggests to me that there was a six month period during which Italy did indeed remain neutral and US bases could be peacefully evacuated. I'd suggest that both sides would want the nukes to be the first thing to go - the Americans because they want to get them somewhere secure in case anyone does make a grab for them and the Italians because they would think the nukes were a possible target for Soviet nukes.

Anything going out by sea would probably have to head for the United Kingdom given that French and Spanish ports would presumably be closed. Anything going out by air could go to Germany (presuming the Italians agree to overflight rights - frankly I don't see that being a problem for the reason stated above, i.e that the Italians would want anything that's a possible target out of their territory asap).

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
I don't know if the Soviets would have nuked Rome. Although it is the Italian capital its not as economically important as say Milan, and Naples would be a bigger military target. More importantly Rome is a major world cultural centre and is the spiritual home of the Roman Catholic Church. There are a lot of Catholics among the Soviet Union's allies in Latin America and Africa, and also within the Warsaw Pact in Europe; Poland and quite a few in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and even East Germany.
With regards to the nuking of Rome, we have this in 1998

Quote:
As the autumnal rains began, NATO and the Pact initiated a short and weak second nuclear exchange, directed primarily at surviving industrial centers in the United Kingdom and Italy.
The primary targets were the UK and Italy. I would have thought that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the Soviets nuked the UK and the US (or UK) nuked Italy. The only other possibility is an elaborate ploy by one side to try and blame the other.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:15 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

One of the issues I have always had with GDW's rendering of Twilight 2000 is the sometimes paucity of detail, or the omission of information which should have been included. Italy is a prime example of this. A major European power yet the details of its involvement in T2K are limited to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
Where is it explicitly stated that Italy actually joins the Warsaw Pact? Having reread the various timelines all I can come up with is the following (I'm quoting from V1 but as far as I can tell the other versions are identical):
It doesn't explicitly state that Italy joined the Warsaw Pact anywhere. I like you Rainbow Six have been looking through the books to find it and I can't.

From various books to be brief...

" After the US entered the war in 1996, Italy's government demanded that American troops return to their start lines, then withdrew from NATO when this was not forthcoming. Military bases in Italy were closed to the belligerents, but Italy tried to remain neutral in the greater conflict".

"In late February, the socialist governments of Italy and Greece concluded a mutual defense pact. While Italy was not obligated by the pact to enter the Greco-Turkish war, the Italian government declared the war to be a regional conflict unrelated to the more general war raging elsewhere, promising to intervene on Greece's side if NATO tried to tip the balance in Turkey's favor".

" On June 27th, a NATO convoy of fast transports and cargo ships, accompanied by a strong covering force, attempted the run to the Turkish port of Izmir with badly-needed ammunition and equipment. Light fleet elements of the Greek navy intercepted the convoy and, in a confused night action off Izmir, inflicted substantial losses and escaped virtually unharmed. Two days later NATO retaliated with air strikes against Greek naval bases. On July 1st, Greece declared war against the NATO nations, and Italy, in compliance with her treaty obligations, followed suit on the 2nd."



Straightforward you might think, but then by looking in more detail we have contradictions like these...

Mediterranean Cruise page 14 " When Great Britain entered the war, Gibraltar became important once again. With France opting out and Italy openly hostile, Gibraltar was the only friendly base in the Western Mediterranean that NATO had. When Spain closed the American base at Rota, Gibraltar became home of a sizeable portion of the American Atlantic fleet as well. Gibraltar was the base from which NATO launched the convoy in support of Turkey in June 1997, and was the base from which the carriers operated when retaliatory air strikes were launched against Greece after that convoy was attacked off Izmir. With the entry of Greece and Italy into the war against NATO, Gibraltar became the most important NATO base in the Mediterranean"

The Italians were openly hostile to NATO well before the Turkish Convoy incident.

Twilight 2000 Play Manual page 52 " In early July, Italian In early July, Italian airmobile and alpine units crossed the passes into Tyrolia. Scattered elements of the Austrian army resisted briefly but were overwhelmed. By mid-month, Italian mechanized forces were debouching from the Alpine passes into southern Germany, and their advanced elements were in combat against German territorial troops in the suburbs of Munich."

The Italians invade neutral Austria and then Germany. What has that got to do with its treaty obligations to Greece, and why would they do that if they were not part of the Warsaw Pact?

NATO CVHB page 92 " On 7 January 1997, the Dutch 4th Mechanised Division was ordered into Germany to help fight the Warsaw Pact. The division performed well against the V Italian Corps in southern Germany in the summer of 1997".

The Italian V Corps is fighting with the Warsaw Pact in Germany.

NATO CVHB page 90 " During the NATO spring offensive in 1997, the 5th Pazer Division was part of the reserve force. It was sent to southern Germany, where it engaged units of the V Italian Corps".

" In the summer of 1997, the division was withdrawn from Poland and sent southward. In the space of 11 days, the 10th Panzer Division withdrew from Poland and moved into southern Germany, where it engaged the Italian Ariete Armored Division in the vicinity of Augsburg".

The Italians are fighting the Germans in Germany

Going Home page 17 " the Folgore Division has been operating as anti-Soviet partisans since the disintegration of the Pact counteroffensive over the summer. A life-long Christian-Democrat, and long opposed to the socialist coalition which has ruled Italy in recent years, Falvi has always despised the Warsaw Pact, and regretted Italy's involvement with it".

An Italian commander who has declared his division for NATO despises and regrets Italy's involvement with the Warsaw Pact.

Going Home page 15-16 also lists the 5th Italian Corps and its three divisions (less the Folgore Mechanised Division) as part of Warsaw Pact forces in Czechoslovakia and Southern Germany, specifically placing it under the command of the Soviet 2nd Southwestern Front in 2000. This would imply that Italian forces were places under Warsaw Pact Command at some point in the war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
As the autumnal rains began, NATO and the Pact initiated a short and weak second nuclear exchange, directed primarily at surviving industrial centers in the United Kingdom and Italy.
Is Rome specifically mentioned?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-06-2016, 08:33 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Langham2 View Post
The whole thing sounds as unlikely as Poland being in NATO would have in 1989... :-)
Good point!

@RN7: I'm not offended. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater- I'm just trying to figure out a way to justify and work with canon instead of tossing out major pieces that don't seem to fit. It can be a bit of stretch, I admit, but, IRL, stranger things have happened.

A couple of things to keep in mind.

Italy has a long and illustrious history of switching sides during World Wars.

Italy had strong and sometimes successful leftist parties during the Cold War. It certainly casts things in a more complex light.

@Rainbow Six: Thanks for doing the research and posting those excerpts.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

Last edited by Raellus; 12-06-2016 at 08:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-06-2016, 11:09 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,104
Default

As far as I knew NATO has a nuclear sharing plan, while almost all details are classified I was able to find this open source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

The first paragraph deals with NATO, it says that in peacetime the weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases who work together with the host nation forces

Here is a list of the USAF Munitions Support Squadrons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_squadrons
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ag...safe-munss.htm

Although not found on the list RAF Welford is the largest ammunition compounds for the United States Air Force in Western Europe for heavy munitions. It home to the 420 Munitions Squadron, this base might serve as addition storage for weapons.

Now the paragraph dose mention that in war time the weapons would be moved and mounted on the applicable delivery systems. Now since the war did not go nuclear right away. These weapons would might be kept in storage as an add safety measure against possible Soviet Spetsnaz attack.

I wonder if any weapons would be left as they were all tactical weapons and the timeline mentions, tactical then ICBM were used.

It would fun adventure though for a group of PC's. A convoy of vehicles traveling to a site to recover weapons and return to Bremerhaven
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.