Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Legbreaker]

I think you're close to the truth there Web. At least it's as good a theory as any other and appears to fit the evidence quite well.

Something else to keep in mind is that Nato were not prepared for the offensive, having being essentially dragged into the war by Germany. Many of the Nato divisions, particularly US units, weren't even deployed to Europe until well after the commencement of hostilities.

This early phase of the war was fought essentially on peacetime stocks and with units who'd basically grown complacent. Nobody really expected to enter into WWIII (even though they'd been training for it for decades), so when reality struck them in the face, it took time to react appropriately.

It is my opinion that while on paper the participant units were strong, the reality was a bit different. This is not to say they didn't perform well, just that they could have performed much better given a few more months warning, preperation and training.

And then there's the lack of France in the alliance, not to mention Italy basically switching sides. Units tasked in the prewar plans to offensive actions suddenly had to be retasked to holding the flanks or attacking regions previously assigned to the French, possibly without adequate numbers of maps, etc.

[Raellus]

I don't know if this will be helpful to you, Web. You've probably already thought of it but here goes.

The two Gulf Wars and the Western Allies' march from the Atlantic to the Elbe (lasting about a month less than a year) were all accomplished with nearly constant air superiority and, sometimes, even air supremacy. Allied air power could isolate the battlefield and decapitate enemy command and control, making the job on the ground a lot easier than it otherwise would be.

One possible explanation for the relative long duration of NATO's sweep across Poland is a lack of air superiority. Perhaps the Soviets were able to maintain close to air parity or, at times or on certain fronts, limited air superiority. At the very least, the Red Army and air force and their respective WTO counterparts might have been able to deny NATO air superiority over the front lines or in the Soviet's rear areas.

[Raellus]

To get us back on topic (I don't mind parallel discussions here, BTW), what kinds of weapons do you think could or could not be produced after the TDM?

For example, I'm assuming that ATGMs could not (given the complexity of the optical and guidance systems) be produced after the TDM, while RPGs and LAWs probably could be (in much smaller quantities, though). An M1A1 could not be manufactured from scratch (assembly of pre-made parts, maybe) but a Ranger armored truck, possibly.

What do you think could be produced after the big/high-tech factories are shut down by EMP (or are blown up)?

Also, are unguided rockets easier or more difficult (or equally) to produce than ammunition and propellant charges for conventional tube artillery? I'm guessing easier since the VC and various other insurgent groups seem to be able to make their own rockets in garage workshops and such.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

To get us back on topic (I don't mind parallel discussions here, BTW), what kinds of weapons do you think could or could not be produced after the TDM?

Also, are unguided rockets easier or more difficult (or equally) to produce than ammunition and propellant charges for conventional tube artillery? I'm guessing easier since the VC and various other insurgent groups seem to be able to make their own rockets in garage workshops and such.

I've been working on a list of primary weapons in use in SAMAD by early 2001. Included among them is a locally-produced variant of the RPG-7. Ammunition types include HEAT, HE-F, and HESH. I've read that the Russians either have or have been working on a beehive-type round for the RPG, but this might be a bit much for small-scale operations to manufacture in a cost-effective fashion.

The locally-produced RPG comes into use in SAMAD because it is a simple weapon with high portability that gives light infantry a fairly effective platoon-level fire support capability. Specs are obtained with the hordes of other materials before the TDM.

The SAMAD version is manufactured with mesquite for the grips and other wooden parts. There aren't a lot of HEAT rounds carried because there aren't a lot of armored vehicles being used. Platoons operating on anti-marauder sweeps north of the Gila River carry HE-F and HESH rounds for tackling the bad guys in their (typically) fortified base camps. The HESH round can double as an anti-armor round against any armored vehicle that doesn't have a spall liner, which covers pretty much any improvised AFV and a fair number of light AFV.

Rockets are fairly easy to manufacture, although the real cost savings comes in the form of the launcher. Tube artillery is expensive to manufacture and requires specialized facilities. One reason the Soviets made such wide use of the Katyusha systems in 1942 was that tremendous quantities of their tube artillery had fallen into German hands. They could not replace the guns overnight. Rocket launchers on trucks or trailers were much simpler to fabricate.

For this reason, SAMAD also manufactures a respectable quantity of primitive MRL. Accuracy is low, so saturation fires figure prominently in doctrine. Fort Huachuca creates a number of fire bases in the Huachuca Mountains and improves the roads along the spurs and saddles to facilitate rapid movement (and to forestall the enemy from planning and executing VC sapper-style attacks on the fire bases). From their vantage points atop the Huachucas, the massed rocket launchers can bring high volumes of HE down on the enemy without fear of counterbattery fire. It's too bad for the enemy that he has no fighter-bombers operating in 2000...

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Perhaps the Soviets were able to maintain close to air parity or, at times or on certain fronts, limited air superiority. At the very least, the Red Army and air force and their respective WTO counterparts might have been able to deny NATO air superiority over the front lines or in the Soviet's rear areas.

This is an almost certainty and refered to in the T2K history. Before Nato were involved, the German Lufwaffe took a beating and were out flown and out fought by the Pact air forces. I can't recall details, but once the rest of Nato joined in I'd imagine it would have still been a close run thing, especially since German airpower had effectively been eliminated, thereby reducing the available Nato planes to just what the US and Britain brought with them (plus relatively minor contributions from the smaller nations).

[Abbott Shaull]

I would tend to agree that the reasons the offensive across Poland seemed to take a snail pace would be due to the fact that the Soviets and Pact Forces were in general in superior numbers. Then add in the forces that would of been counted on if the Soviet had attacked first instead of war due to a unification of Germany brought about the Soviet-China War.

Next thing one of the things missing in the first Persian Gulf War were the National Guard and Reserve units that were suppose to be round-out units that were supposedly be ready to deploy with min. training with their assigned Divisions. By all accounts they still would of needed up to 6 months after the cease fire before they would of been in condition to serve on the front lines in Iraq if the war had lasted that long. One of the reason why the US Army went from 18 Divisions down to 12 Divisions almost overnight afterwards.

Again it wasn't only the French, Italians, and Greeks who were missing in the action. Several of other allies refuse to commit troops and kept them in their original defensive posture at their starting points. Or if their units did go east they didn't send the units they were suppose to, they like the French and Italians felt betrayed by Unified Germany and felt their obligation was to defend the western portion of the new Germany.

Now back to the Challenger II if they were better defensively than the M1 it is a good thing. For they were in NorthAG and would have to stop plenty of Soviet Armor in their own right, on terrain that favor the attacker more than it did the defender. Both Army Groups faced overwhelming Soviet/Pact forces, but for opposing reason. The NorthAG faced the force who would raced towards Germany. SouthAG face units who were there to keep NATO from moving units North to help the NorthAG.