Canon module omissions - RDF module

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Be assured, I have given the idea of a potential Soviet nuclear strike on France a good degree of thought, and am quite certain French targets would have been hit, however in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we may have to agree to disagree on the potential target list.

Thanks for keeping the emotion low, dude.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree on the target list, given the lack of data. I also don't believe for a moment that the Soviets would have hit every naval base. There's plenty of room for gray between the extremes of an untouched France and a France that has had every naval base nuked.

The fact that UK naval bases weren't hit raises some interesting questions. Did the Soviets want to put a fairly low ceiling on the exchange? This is certainly plausible. Did the Soviets think hitting the baases might not be necessary because losses to the Royal Navy were so great without hitting the bases that there was little to gained by putting another (quid pro quo) nuke on the table? This is also possible. The latter is a question to be answered by someone with a lot more naval savvy than I have, though.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by manunancy

I'm not familiar with the timeline to tell for sure, but would it be possible to have a shortage of ships nearby to either use or haul out the hardware ? In such a case it may well have laid there until something able to use it was sent there.

Doubtful. I'm not a navy person, but my understanding is warships don't carry a huge amount of ammunition on board, but rely on fairly regular resupply from support ships (the John Hancock for example only carried about 475-500 rounds for it's 5" gun, and as far as I can see anywhere only the 8 Harpoon missiles loaded in the launchers - can't find much on the other systems).

With the lack of a resupply ship in the area (likely sunk by the Russians I'd think), the limited amount in the various warships is all they can count on for the duration. If there was one, you'd think it important enough to have been included in the OOB.

[Ironside]

Of course, all we know about the UK naval bases is that they weren't hit by weapons of 1MT and above. It certainly doesn't preclude them being hit by smaller weapons.

[Rainbow Six]

It's not impossible that the UK bases were hit with sub 1mt weapons, but certainly in the case of Portsmouth I think it's unlikely given the fact that it is the new UK Capital and is referred to on multiple occasions in the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom.

I’m no naval expert either, but I'm inclined to accept Webstral's theory that the RN had already suffered such heavy losses that the Soviets no longer viewed it as a threat to be be the most plausible explanation - there’s the quote about the last major naval fleet in the World being shattered by June 1997. Either that or they had already suffered heavy enough conventional damage to make nuking them unneccessary.

(Probably noteworthy that that quote specifically says “in the World”. One could use that as an argument in favour of the French Navy also having suffered significant losses, but it would then have to be extended to include all Navies. But we know that even after that point the French retain the capability to move a large force to the Middle East (and also combat troops to Canada, per Challenge #30), and patrol the English Channel and elsewhere - there are other references to the French Navy here and there, chiefly (I think) in the Last Submarine trilogy, e.g. page 48 of Med Cruise, which states “The French have come to view the Western Mediterranean as their own private Sea”.)

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

(Probably noteworthy that that quote specifically says “in the World”. One could use that as an argument in favour of the French Navy also having suffered significant losses, but it would then have to be extended to include all Navies. But we know that even after that point the French retain the capability to move a large force to the Middle East (and also combat troops to Canada, per Challenge #30), and patrol the English Channel and elsewhere - there are other references to the French Navy here and there, chiefly (I think) in the Last Submarine trilogy, e.g. page 48 of Med Cruise, which states “The French have come to view the Western Mediterranean as their own private Sea”.)

The French only have about 9,600 in the middle east (plus ship crews) arriving from the 24th August 1998, and I can only find notes regarding "military advisors" being in Quebec ("Both U.S. governments agreed that France was interfering in a Canadian regional issue and said that France should remove its advisors from Quebec") as of late June 1999 (rumours confirmed by agents sent by Canadian West Military Government of "French combat troops and supplies entering Quebec).

With regard to the middle east troops, there's indications this occurred in stages. In Quebec, the few surviving agents may have only spotted the advisors who'd been there a while and consolidated into one place/unit.

It is therefore plausible the French only had a handful of suitable ships available, and whatever is going on in Quebec could be very low key and consist of just a company or so of troops and their supporting equipment.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It is therefore plausible the French only had a handful of suitable ships available, and whatever is going on in Quebec could be very low key and consist of just a company or so of troops and their supporting equipment.

Fair point re: Quebec...I don't think there's anything that conclusively proves one way or the other how strong the French presence is - it's even suggested that the French ultimatum to the Canadian government could be a bluff

"The Canadian Federal Government, uncertain of whether or not the French could carry out their threat..."

It would probably also behoove the French to have the Canadians thinking that they (the French) were there in greater numbers than they actually were, something that could be achieved by supplying the Quebec forces with French uniforms and weapons - from a distance Canadian agents wouldn't know whether they were watching French combat troops or Quebec Separatists in French uniform.

[Olefin]

This is in relation to the comments made by Leg on ammuntion levels for the US ships in the Persian Gulf - if anyone has torpedoes and Harpoons and other ammo to spare its probably those ships.

The major fighting against the Soviets occurred in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not the IO or the Persian Gulf. Thus if there is anywhere where the USN would have Harpoons and torpedoes and other ammo still in relative abundance it would be the ships in the Persian Gulf and also off of Kenya (as per Frank Frey's notes on his unpublished Kenya module there is another task force there as well)

Obviously those ships werent sent there without some kind of ammo and repair ships - and you dont use Harpoons against land targets. Plus there had to be a CV or CVN in the area for the F-14D's to find their way there - and a CV or CVN means an SSN once was there. So the chance of finding reload torps for her in an ammo ship docked in Mombasa or Saudi Arabia is pretty high.

Now I am not saying she gets a full load out - but a few Harpoons and a half dozen more torpedoes - easily. And I highly doubt canon will be thrown completely out of whack if the Corpus Christi gets re-armed - she is still only one sub.

[James1978]

Do I think that the ships in the PG/IO have Harpoons and torpedoes? Yes, but . . . not necessarily the ones a submarine needs. Surface ships will have a mixture of Mk.46 and Mk.50 torpedoes, not the Mk.48 ADCAP the submarines shoot. The Harpoons and Tomahawks on the surface ships aren't the same model as the ones that can be launched from submarines.

Now if there happens to be a Submarine Tender in the region or if a damaged boat limped into port, then I could see it.

The major fighting against the Soviets occurred in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not the IO or the Persian Gulf. Thus if there is anywhere where the USN would have Harpoons and torpedoes and other ammo still in relative abundance it would be the ships in the Persian Gulf

To play Devil's Advocate, that also makes CENTCOM a great place to raid for naval munitions badly needed in theaters where major fighting is occurring.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The major fighting against the Soviets occurred in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not the IO or the Persian Gulf.

There's no indication the specific ships in the RDF Sourcebook were always in the gulf. It's entirely possible they are the remnants of shattered fleets from elsewhere, perhaps even the North Sea, gathered there due to the availability of fuel and to help secure that resource.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Plus there had to be a CV or CVN in the area for the F-14D's to find their way there - and a CV or CVN means an SSN once was there.

Yes, it's possible such a ship existed, however the F-14s and other naval aircraft could just as easily have been flown in from other theatres using the last of the available avgas there. Better to send all your planes and pilots to where the fuel is than have them sit unused in Germany or Korea on the off chance of capturing a small supply to allow them an hour or two in the air.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, it's possible such a ship existed, however the F-14s and other naval aircraft could just as easily have been flown in from other theatres using the last of the available avgas there. Better to send all your planes and pilots to where the fuel is than have them sit unused in Germany or Korea on the off chance of capturing a small supply to allow them an hour or two in the air.

It's possible that if any USN aircraft carriers were lost in the Eastern med their aircraft could have found their way to RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus. From Cyprus it's a reasonably short hop to the Gulf.

[Olefin]

there would have been at least one carrier in the IO during the war - and those ships most likely are what escorted the Marines and the rest of the RDF to the Gulf - i.e. they didnt get there by accident, they are what brought them there

Especially as the carrier is a Marine assault carrier and the Salem would be used as a gunfire support ship for a Marine landing.

There is no way the US wouldnt have had a CV or CVN there - not with a mid 90's start to the war.

And the mix of planes in the provisional squadron screams "flown off either a crippled or lost carrier". The F-14D is the best clue - there were only three carriers that flew them at that time - Stennis, TR and if I remember correctly one CV.

If you read the RDF they arrived before the nuking and before the big fleet battles in the Atlantic - so they arent remnants sent after those battles but instead escorts and assigned ships sent before they occurred. I.e. the 24th ID arrived in March of 1997 before the last remaining fleet was shattered in the timeline and the Marines arrived in June of 97 just about the time that the last big fleet battle was occuring.

so that leaves out those ships (or at least most of them) being shattered fleet units from the Atlantic -they would have been dedicated escorts and fire support ships.

Obviously they have taken losses - I doubt that two Marine Divisions arrived on the only the USS Nashville LPD-13 and the USS Belleau Wood LHA-3.

[Legbreaker]

Why can't any of the RDF ships be from the Atlantic battles? Is it not possible that some, even all of the ships that escorted the troops in 1997 were sunk, redeployed, or otherwise removed from the area. Is it not possible that one or more of the RDF ships were shifted into the area between June 1997 and July 2000?
I'm not saying that any of them are, just that's it's possible since we're not specifically told otherwise. Also, like the aircraft, it makes sense to send your conventionally powered ships to operate in the same area where fuel is available.

It is indeed likely some sort of carrier was initially included to support the landings and following actions, but, as has been noted previously, carriers are big juicy targets for the enemy. There's no reason to believe whatever was there isn't on the bottom due to sabotage, enemy naval action, aerial bombing or any number of a multitude of possibilities.

As I proposed a while back, it's possible the Tarawa was stationed in the gulf until 2000 when it was shifted to Europe to support the Spring Offensive there. It's possible it was one of the ships which carried the initial force of Marines to the area, but it's just as possible it was always in Europe and had elements of the 2nd MARDIV attached.

[James1978]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And the mix of planes in the provisional squadron screams "flown off either a crippled or lost carrier". The F-14D is the best clue - there were only three carriers that flew them at that time - Stennis, TR and if I remember correctly one CV.

Yea, but that was in real life where a total of only 55 F-14Ds were built and the last one was delivered in 1994. In a world where the Cold War never ended, there would be more than that.

Not that real life deployments are binding here, but for those who are curious:
* VF-2 "Bounty Hunters", CVW-2. Deployed on USS Constellation CV-64 May 1994 to June 2003.

* VF-11 "Red Rippers", VW-14. Deployed on USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 February 1994 to November 1996 before converting to F-14Bs.

* VF-31 "Tomcatters", CVW-14. Deployed on USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 February 1994 to November 1996, on USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 June 1998 to May 2003, on USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 May to November 2004. Moved to CVW-8 and was on USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 December 2005 to March 2006.

* VF-124 "", PACFLT Readiness Squadron. Small number served briefly.

[Olefin]

Leg in this case canon says differently about those ships being any part of the Kola debacle

the US would never, and I mean never, have sent two divisions of Marines into the Persian Gulf without an escort of some type, let alone all the other forces - for one they would get massacred on the way in without at least anti-air equipped ships - heck one sub could massacre them - and they showed up intact as compared to what happened to what they tried to send to Korea

Also keep in mind that the force that escorted the 24th ID, 6th ACCB, etc.. in March could have been part of the Kola debacle and I have no problems with that

But the Marines showed up and did a forced landing with gunfire support in June at the same time of the Kola disaster - that means those ships had to be there already - no way, even at full speed they make it from the Gulf to Kola in time - and Salem needs escorts with anti-air missiles or she is dead meat too

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

the US would never, and I mean never, have sent two divisions of Marines into the Persian Gulf without an escort of some type, let alone all the other forces - for one they would get massacred on the way in without at least anti-air equipped ships

Obviously. Nobody is saying otherwise, however there's no evidence that the ships listed in the RDF Sourcebook are the same ships that where there in 1997.

Originally Posted by Olefin

...and they showed up intact as compared to what happened to what they tried to send to Korea.

Please provide your references. All I can find is that the 16th Regiment of the 6th Marines, came under attack during transit in February 1998. No other Korean theatre units (about 7 Divisions worth) show any evidence of this.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Also keep in mind that the force that escorted the 24th ID, 6th ACCB, etc.. in March could have been part of the Kola debacle and I have no problems with that.

Umm, that's what I've been saying, however further investigation shows this as unlikely as US Marines conducted landing operations from the 4th of June while "naval guns pounded the Soviet positions". Marines were still landing in the latter half of June which reduces the chance of their naval escorts being involved off Kola to virtually nil.

However, none of that means those ships remained in the gulf for the remainder of the war. It's very possible given the destruction of the Nato fleets elsewhere, numerous ships in the middle east had to be redeployed to secure resupply convoys. It's possible only a skeleton force was left in the Gulf in latter 1997 and those ships in the RDF Sourcebook represent ships which have migrated to where the fuel is over a period of several years.

[Olefin]

Possibly the frigates - but Salem and the two landing ships are definitely ones that came with the Marines when they came in 1997.

And the 6th Marine division is what I was referring to - i.e. what happens to a unit that insnt properly escorted into a war zone.

We know that the Salem had to be there June 4, 1997 for instance

On June 4th, the American forces arrived off the coast of Iran.
While US Navy SEALs and Marine Force Recon units executed
sabotage missions, naval guns pounded the Soviet positions.
At dawn, on June 5th, the US Marines began landing operations.

I highly doubt those naval guns were just a bunch of frigates with their one or two guns

We also know the Salem was there for sure in 1997 by this line

By early September (1997), the Soviets had chased the Americans back to their original starting positions. The 24th ID held Bandar-e Khomeyni.
The 101st AAD and the 9th ID held the Bushehr-Ganaveh area
while the 3rd Marine Division held onto Bandar Abbas with
assistance from the USS Salem and her battle group. The only
bright spot came on the 17th of September when the lead
elements of the US 1st Marine Division made contact with the
3rd Marine Division's perimeter around Bandar Abbas.

thus the Salem and her battle group were there in 1997 for the invasion and the gun support in 1997

so those ships in the RDF have probably been there the entire time since I doubt they had the fuel to go all the way back to the US and then come back - especially with the US putting sailing ships into commission in the USN as early as May of 1998 according to A Rock In Troubled Waters to be used as patrol ships

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Possibly the frigates - but Salem and the two landing ships are definitely ones that came with the Marines when they came in 1997.

There's no definitive evidence of those three ships at that time. They could have arrived later.
In fact I'll go further and say the Salem was very unlikely to have been there due to it having been decommissioned in 1959 (and IRL removed from the reserve list in 1991), and the disastrous Kola battles didn't occur until after the June landings. There would be no pressing need to rush an ancient cruiser armed only with guns back into service prior to then.

Originally Posted by Olefin

And the 6th Marine division is what I was referring to - i.e. what happens to a unit that insnt properly escorted into a war zone.

There's more and larger units which were attacked in the Atlantic in early 1997. This was before the Kola battles and the destruction of Nato fleets.

Originally Posted by Olefin

We know that the Salem had to be there June 4, 1997 for instance

No, we don't. We only know naval gunfire was provided, and have been given no indication of it's source.

Originally Posted by Olefin

We also know the Salem was there for sure in 1997 by this line

We only know it was there by September. However, how likely is it that any ship would remain on station for 3 years without returning to home. Even in WWII ships didn't stay away that long.
All we really know is the Salem was there in 1997 and there again in 2000. We have little knowledge of what happened to it in the meantime and no knowledge of it's escorts and how they changed.

Originally Posted by Olefin

I highly doubt those naval guns were just a bunch of frigates with their one or two guns

Agreed, but it is possible. Sustained and accurate 76mm gunfire can be quite effective.

Originally Posted by Olefin

so those ships in the RDF have probably been there the entire time since I doubt they had the fuel to go all the way back to the US and then come back - especially with the US putting sailing ships into commission in the USN as early as May of 1998 according to A Rock In Troubled Waters to be used as patrol ships

It's possible, however it's also highly probable a resupply ship was included in the task force at the time. Additionally, fuel could have been obtained from other ports along the way.
As I've indicated before, any resupply ship would have been a prime target for the enemy and could have been attacked and sunk at any time up until 2000 (although it's likely it would have been hit much earlier due to it's strategic value), which explains why it's not listed in the RDF Sourcebook.

[Matt Wiser]

If you want to send Salem off somewhere between '97 and 2000, that's your campaign. If I was CG, I MEF at Bandar Abbas and trying to hold onto the enclave, I'd want that cruiser and those nine 8-inch guns. Longer reach than a puny 76-mm on a Perry, and lots more punch. Lots more. A 76-mm can't flip a tank. An 8-inch HC round can. You're a Marine requesting NGFS, and what would you rather have?

In any event, Salem's not going anywhere distant after TDM because she needs to stay close to her fuel supply. Maybe escorting a convoy or two down to Mombasa and back, but that's about it. Again, if you want to use the info I developed for the Navy in 2000-it's on Antenna's board and make things a lot more grim for the Navy than they likely would've been-Leg, that's your perogrative. Personally, there would have been a LOT more ships and subs surviving than what GDW's writers said. Like I said: only one SSN left and no boomers for the USN? Hardly.

[Legbreaker]

It's a game.
It's supposed to be grim.
What's likely to have occurred if WWIII had actually happened isn't important.

Why? Because it's a game.

[Olefin]

I agree with Matt about Salem and her being there earlier - and right now in the Kenya sourcebook I am working on I am using Frank's notes that show at least two supply ships there and adding a couple more - I am having them based there to keep them out of range of Soviet attack aircraft in the Gulf with them going up there as needed.

As for her being in the navy in 1997 - with the war start in 1996 the Marines would need fire support ships - most likely all four Iowa's came back in and they grabbed both of the CA's they still had in storage as well.

Have a feeling (since Korea wasnt detailed) that at least one BB is still in Korea, maybe more, basically stranded from the fuel situation from coming home (BB's use a LOT of fuel after all) and that others may have been lost in various fights

By the way that is one area that is about as flexible as it gets - outside of the US Vehicle Guide and the few timeline mentions in the original release there isnt much (except maybe on Challenger article) in the original version of game to detail Korea at all

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's a game.
It's supposed to be grim.
What's likely to have occurred if WWIII had actually happened isn't important.

Why? Because it's a game.

Leg, you’ve raised an important issue. Each of us needs to choose for himself where our narrative of the real world intersects with our narrative of the game world. Each of us needs to decide how much credence to give each part of the body of written material. There are plenty of gaps left to be filled. There are ambiguities to be interpreted. There are contradictions. There are omissions. There are errors. And there are ideas that are poorly-considered, though there are fewer of these than in many other games. As with all fictional narratives, the Twilight: 2000 narrative diverges from the (hardly agreed-upon) narrative we use to describe the real world. We all have decisions to make.

[Olefin]

I agree Webstral - thats why I like to fill in the pieces if it adds to the game -one reason I asked about their French fleet is trying to fill in a hole not only for the RDF but also for what they may have off East Africa which is where I am looking at now.

Also with luck thinking about those gaps and omissions will stir up good conversation, possibly submittals of ideas and who knows - maybe new sourcebooks, modules, mini-adventures and maybe even get people to start up campaigns again.

Hey we can hope

[Matt Wiser]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I agree with Matt about Salem and her being there earlier - and right now in the Kenya sourcebook I am working on I am using Frank's notes that show at least two supply ships there and adding a couple more - I am having them based there to keep them out of range of Soviet attack aircraft in the Gulf with them going up there as needed.

As for her being in the navy in 1997 - with the war start in 1996 the Marines would need fire support ships - most likely all four Iowa's came back in and they grabbed both of the CA's they still had in storage as well.

Have a feeling (since Korea wasnt detailed) that at least one BB is still in Korea, maybe more, basically stranded from the fuel situation from coming home (BB's use a LOT of fuel after all) and that others may have been lost in various fights

By the way that is one area that is about as flexible as it gets - outside of the US Vehicle Guide and the few timeline mentions in the original release there isnt much (except maybe on Challenger article) in the original version of game to detail Korea at all

Check the Navy stuff I did a while back: I have the battleship Missouri and the Salem's sister ship Des Moines in Korea. They're stranded at Chinhae, ROK due to lack of fuel.

[Olefin]

Matt - can you send me a link to those posts?

very very interested!

Thanks

[Matt Wiser]

I'll do better: here's some of the Navy stuff, including surviving carrier groups and some other ships and subs. The battleships are included.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...ght=battleship

[Olefin]

Thanks Matt!!

[Olefin]

By the way been doing some research on the French Army and some changes need to be done to the RDF module as well for them

For one the French have had a permanent presence in Dijibouti long before 1995. So they didnt just show up - they have been there all along.

Also from the composition of the French forces in the RDF its obvioius the French have seen some pretty hard fighting

The 1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in the game is described as having 600 men and 24 AFV's. The TOE for that regiment is 930 men plus 48 AMX-10 RC, which would be the AFV in this case. That means they have lost half their armored cars since the war began.

That force is part of the French 6th Light Armored Brigade normally, but that brigade was not part of the forces that saw combat in Germany and the Netherlands during the invasion.

Given that level of losses you can see that the French have had a much harder time of it in Africa and WWIII in general that was thought if that is indicative of the losses they have taken (i.e. a third of the personnel and half their armored vehicles in this one regiment alone)

[Legbreaker]

It's worth noting the definition of TOE.

An organizational design document based on current doctrine and available equipment. It shows the basics of a unit's structure and their wartime requirements (both for personnel and equipment).

A TOE prescribes the normal mission, organizational structure, and personnel and equipment requirements for a military unit and is the basis for an authorization document. Units are constituted and activated in accordance with an approved TOE.

It's also worth noting "TOE" is an American term. It could have radically different meanings in other countries.

Regardless, a "TOE" represents the authorised level of manpower and equipment and may not represent the true facts. I personally have never served in a unit which had 100% of it's authorised manpower and equipment - some of the units I was with had as little as 25%.

That fact can go a long way to explain the 1st FLCR differences.

Additionally, it is fairly common for units to be tapped for reinforcements. A unit which has been depleted of experienced NCOs and officers for example could expect to receive qualified replacements from another unit which did not see such heavy engagements. This is another possible explanation for the apparent drop in manpower from it's authorised levels.

Furthermore, with manufacturing destroyed, damaged or lacking necessary resources, it's quite possible the 1st FLCR could have been tapped for it's heavy equipment also to replace combat losses.

Therefore, the 1st FLCR is likely to have suffered some losses, but they don't have to be all, or even significantly, from actual engagement with an enemy.

[James Langham]

Nice bit of research, is this trend the same across the rest of the French units there?

Originally Posted by Olefin

By the way been doing some research on the French Army and some changes need to be done to the RDF module as well for them

For one the French have had a permanent presence in Dijibouti long before 1995. So they didnt just show up - they have been there all along.

Also from the composition of the French forces in the RDF its obvioius the French have seen some pretty hard fighting

The 1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in the game is described as having 600 men and 24 AFV's. The TOE for that regiment is 930 men plus 48 AMX-10 RC, which would be the AFV in this case. That means they have lost half their armored cars since the war began.

That force is part of the French 6th Light Armored Brigade normally, but that brigade was not part of the forces that saw combat in Germany and the Netherlands during the invasion.

Given that level of losses you can see that the French have had a much harder time of it in Africa and WWIII in general that was thought if that is indicative of the losses they have taken (i.e. a third of the personnel and half their armored vehicles in this one regiment alone)

[Olefin]

Leg, I got my data from the French Defense Dept site - which is in French by the way and you need to google translate it - the English version of the site has no info on it that is useable.


Here for instance is the address for the 6th Light Armored Brigade

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/pre...legere-blindee

To be clear Leg and James - what is on that site is the actual serving manpower and equipment, not a TOE or projected strength, but the actual number of men and women who are physically part of those units, including where they have been posted in the past. So your argument Leg doesnt hold up in this case, the site is very specific about how many men and in most cases tanks or armored fighting vehicles are physically in reality in the units themselves (i.e. living breathing servicemen and women, not what could be there but what is there), not a projection or TOE statement that is not the real strength.

thus you can see clearly the errror in the RDF module about when the French arrived in Djibouti - they didnt show up in 1995, they were there all along and have been since 1962!

James if you look at the information it clearly is a trend - I looked at several different formations and you can clearly see a trend that shows the French have taken a lot of losses

To summarize so far

1st Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiment in reality is 930 men and 48 AMX-10 RC, in the game its 600 men and 24 AFV's. (which would be the AMX-10 RC vehicles)

13th Foreign Legion Demi-brigade (posted in Djibouti since 1962) in reality is 800 men, in the game its 500 men and they would only have been in that country - they havent been posted anywhere else to take casualties

2nd Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - in reality its at 1230 men organized into ten companies, making it the largest regiment in the French Army (that is a direct quote from the site referenced above). In the game it has 600 men. That is over 50 percent casualty rate!

2nd Foreign Legion Parachute Regiment- which has seen no fighting since it arrived in the Middle East - in reality it has 1140 men organized into 9 compainies, in the game it has 600 men. Again almost a 50% casualty rate.

3rd Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - in reality it has 675 men organized into 5 companies, in the game it doesnt appear but its very obvious that it should be the deployed unit and not the 1st Regiment

1st Marine Regiment - 933 men and 18 AMX 10 RC in reality - in the game they have 500 men and no vehicles, meaning they have lost all their armor and almost half their men.

2nd Marine Regiment - 933 men (broken down as 58 officers, 269 NCO, 606 other ranks) in reality, in the game they are at 500 men - again a huge loss rate

3rd Marine Parachute Regiment - in reality 1120 men in 8 companies, in the game they are down to 750 men

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/pre...erie-de-marine

Plust two big errors that anyone could have found if they had done minimum research

1st Foreign Legion Infantry Regiment - this formation is an administrative regiment and is not a field formation and hasn't been for decades - they are not deployable.

5th Mixed Marine Regiment - should be in Djibouti and equipped with AMX 10 RC tanks - its been there since 1965 and is still there today - never been redeployed. -definitely should have been mentioned in the RDF setup


Sorry Leg - this is a clear pattern of the French taking a lot of casualties with some units being reduced by 50 percent or more, in several cases units that would only have been in Africa. Thus the French, in many ways, have taken almost as bad a beating as the Americans have in the RDF in fighting the Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans, etc.. at Djibouti. These are not fresh units showing up - these are units that have seen a heck of a lot of combat, with deep holes in their TOE's and a lot of equipment and vehicles gone.

They havent taken those casualties in the Middle East itself - the canon is very clear that they are not doing any fighting there. Some of these units are going to show up in what I am doing for Kenya, which will mention events in surrounding countries as well including Djibouti.

I am continuing to do research but so far the trend is definitely a large reduction in manpower and vehicles for every unit I have seen so far in the French FAR, including among units that have done nothing but be garrison troops since they showed up.

There is fighting mentioned in Senegal and Mauritania against pro-Soviet guerrillas in the bio of the French commander of the FAR - but that wouldnt explain the losses in the units that were in Djibouti the whole time.