Persia in the Twilight War

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I played in an Iran campaign twenty or so years ago right after our group got a copy of the RDF sourcebook; PC's were a group of Special Forces types who linked up with a pro US group of Iranian fighters. (And yes, I openly admit we were were munchkins - it was a long time ago! The idea was to give the European GM (me) a chance to be a player, whilst one of the players GM'd an Iran campaign)

It went OK, but it was more structured than the Polish campaign we were used to...there was an chain of command that the group were supposed to observe, things were much more organised...we gave it a shot for a little while, but consenus was that everyone in the group preferred the more fluid style of campaign that we had going in Poland so we drifted back to that after a while. You said that a centralisec hain of command wasn't neccessarily a good thing and I'd abolutely agree with that....I'd say that we found working within the confines of an organised chain of command a little too stifling.

Iraq if I recall correctly was split into three factions, one backed by the US, one by the USSR, and one by France. From memory I don't think the RDF Sourcebook mentioned specific nuke targets.

Besides the US there was a brigade sized group of British forces present in theatre - one Battalion from the Parachute Regiment, two Ghurka Battalions, plus an Infantry Battalion (the King's Own Scottish Borderers). The French also had a large presence in the area, which included elements of the Foreign Legion. If you can get a hold of a copy of the RDF sourcebook it has a full order of battle for most of the forces in the area (I don't think it covers all of the Gulf Cooperative Council States' armies).

One thing I did have a hard time accepting at the time though was the presence of an Israeli Brigade in theatre. I always thought it was stretching credibility to have the Iranians accepting the US as allies, but having Israeli troops in the region allied with the Arab armies was pushing it too far for me.

As an aside, if you're thinking about running anything in that region, I'd recommend reading Sword Point, Harold Coyle's second novel; it's set against a Soviet invasion of Iran and the US response, and as well as being a good read has a couple of good ideas for scenarios in it.

Ah, Sword Point is a great read for anyone who want to run campaigned in the middle east region. Much like Team Yankee would be nice to read too, for nothing else for back ground.

Yes the Isreali Brigades were stretch for me too, especially since many of the countries they were serving in, had supported many of the military campaigns against them, if not active in them.

As for UK and French troops. The French troops were moved there from units they had sent to former Colonies in Africa to help them out. For the UK, the Brigade was an accident, not planned. They sent one or two of the Battalions into the region due to their legacy of sending seconds to the region. The rest of them were deployed after the US deployed there, and were the extent they could send in.

[Abbott Shaull]

One of the great things about the lack of material, is that it does give a GM a lot of room to play with. One of the things, is in this region, the recruitment of locals would be very limited. Many of the excess of the personnel from the US Navy and US Air Force would have been directly absorbed into the Marine Corps and 3rd Army, or their service security forces.

On the other hand you had a very active chain of command. Yet, creative thinking would be required to loosen the strings. Think Kelley's Heroes where the Officer only military connection is his Uncle is a General, and he rather leave the senior NCO in charge. Or think of Lt Dyke of Band of Brothers, who is there, but would spend his time at Higher HQs. With the size of the military it would be likely to find a Platoon/Company in such a state. Also many Platoons would be commanded by NCOs.

Just some thoughts.

[Raellus]

Good points, Abbot.

Since I don't have the RDF SOurcebook, I'm trying to reconstruct the campaign history and theater OOBs using the sources I do have access too. First off, I'm shocked that the v1.0 timeline (as presented in the v1.0 Core Rulebook, at least) makes no mention of the campaign in Iran. The v1.0 U.S. and Soviet Vehicle guides, however, present skeleton OOBs for the theater and feature several color plates of U.S. and Soviet vehicles operating in Iran.

Balance of Forces

One thing that struck me is the disparity of forces. A quick and dirty tally gives the Soviets 30,750 troops, 171 tanks, and 33 attack helicopters in Iran, as of 2000. This does not include 4000 men and 8 tanks fighting mutineers in "Turkestan" as of 2000 (nor does it include any of the 2-3 mutineer/marauder divisions in the breakaway republic).

The U.S. on the other hand, fields 18,100 troops, 39 tanks, and 16 attack helicopters. This does not include the Ranger regiment, for which no strength is listed, nor does it include the British or French units in Iran (I can't find the unit designations or strengths for said anywhere).

Aside from the indifferent 24th ID and the 9th Motorized division, the U.S. units in Iran of a historically high quality (Airborne, Airmobile, and Marine divisions, plus the Rangers, Paras, and FFL[?]). Almost all of the Soviet divisions in Iran are listed as Category III or Mobilization Only, though several of these are noted to have performed "surprisingly well".

Regardless, in Iran, the Soviets have a near two-to-one advantage in men and attack helicopters and a near four-to-one advantage in tanks. Based on the respective unit types, I think its also safe to assume that the Soviets have at least a four-to-one advantage in artillery as well.

Both sides apparently have a handful of operational combat aircraft as well.

Considering that the Iranian forces are split at least three ways in loyalty (pro-Soviet, pro-NATO, and anti-foreigner/infidel), their strength wouldn't really make up for the difference. Also, King's Ranson mentions that anti-Soviet Iranian conventional forces suffered massive casualties, especially from Soviet chem-warfare.

So, in 2000, the Soviets have a clear operational advantage in Iran. It looks like Iran could be the site of the Twilight War's last major conventional battles (and quite possibly nuclear ones...).

[Targan]

Are you interested in getting the RDF Sourcebook (in dead tree or electronic format) Raellus? Surely having a copy would make your job much easier.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

Are you interested in getting the RDF Sourcebook (in dead tree or electronic format) Raellus? Surely having a copy would make your job much easier.

Yes. Unfortunately, the cheapest dead tree version I can find is $22. I can get a watermarked PDF for $6 but I'm an ol' fashioned kind of guy and reading PDFs makes my eyes burn.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The U.S. on the other hand, fields 18,100 troops, 39 tanks, and 16 attack helicopters. This does not include the Ranger regiment, for which no strength is listed, nor does it include the British or French units in Iran (I can't find the unit designations or strengths for said anywhere).

There's a French orbat online.

http://www.reocities.com/littlegreen...T2K_France.htm

(Note f you read the section on industry and economy you may find it a little optimistic and non canon)

For the British, you might want to check here:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dh...#Middle%20East

Hope this helps.

Cheers

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Hope this helps.

Thanks R6, it does. Unfortunately, neither site gives numerical strengths for the units listed.

Interestingly, it looks like all of the French forces in the Gulf region are based outside of Iran, in places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.

Maybe this explains the Russian's reluctance to make use of their superior numbers in Iran- they don't want to get the French involved there and, by extension, in Europe as well.

If T2K were a game of strategic diplomacy, it would be interesting to play a scenario where NATO characters tried to convince the French to support them in Iran, especially in light of an impending Soviet offensive there. Soviet players could try to convince the French not to get involved. Could make for some interesting Realpolitik wheeling and dealing.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Balance of Forces

One thing that struck me is the disparity of forces.

...

So, in 2000, the Soviets have a clear operational advantage in Iran. It looks like Iran could be the site of the Twilight War's last major conventional battles (and quite possibly nuclear ones...).

Geography may be the key you are missing, then. Iran is BIG-- there is a large no-man's-land between the forces, and trying to expand would leave one's flanks hanging in air.

One of my *other* favorite GDW games from the '80s was the "Third World War" series, which covered conventional combat in Germany, Norway, the Balkans and Iraq-Iran ca.1985. They could be played all together, most of the maps actually linked. I bring this up because the Iran game almost always featured lots of empty space, and both US Soviet sides had a lot of empty flanks to watch. Unfortunately, one could not break down divisions in that game*, so quite often it became a sideshow really quickly as both sides would turtle in some mountains or cities. The main show, of course, was a Soviet drive across north Germany.

[*In the Norway game, the Soviets had some breakdowns, to enable air and sea lift. ]

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Geography may be the key you are missing, then. Iran is BIG-- there is a large no-man's-land between the forces, and trying to expand would leave one's flanks hanging in air.

That's a very valid point, Admiral, and perhaps that has something to do that with the lack of movement in 2000.

On the other hand, the Soviets have an edge in both numbers and mobility and I would imagine that both sides would have some at least some operational experience in, and greater comfort level with, fighting with exposed flanks, especially with veterans of Europe in the ranks.

Also, it seems that a de facto cantonment system has developed in Iran, with both sides centered around Iran's major cities. The Soviets would have merely to threaten the ports to force a NATO withdrawal (or tac-nuke strike).

Perhaps the major factor precluding a Soviet offensive in 2000 is the chaos in their rear (i.e. several divisions in the Caucuses and "-stans" having mutinied). The Soviets' supply lines are thus threatened before an offensive is even launched.

It would be fun to play out a Soviet offensive/NATO defense c. late 2000 on an operational level. I'll have to look into that "Third World War" game.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Geography may be the key you are missing, then. Iran is BIG-- there is a large no-man's-land between the forces, and trying to expand would leave one's flanks hanging in air.

One of my *other* favorite GDW games from the '80s was the "Third World War" series, which covered conventional combat in Germany, Norway, the Balkans and Iraq-Iran ca.1985. They could be played all together, most of the maps actually linked. I bring this up because the Iran game almost always featured lots of empty space, and both US Soviet sides had a lot of empty flanks to watch. Unfortunately, one could not break down divisions in that game*, so quite often it became a sideshow really quickly as both sides would turtle in some mountains or cities. The main show, of course, was a Soviet drive across north Germany.

[*In the Norway game, the Soviets had some breakdowns, to enable air and sea lift. ]

When I was in they told us that our plans were made to repel amongst other things an airborne operation of Soviets ,they would take the main roads and strand our units in invaluable areas .they told us that in the event of a full blown war the soviets could drop 5 or 6 brigades simultanously .Apparently the airborne invasion gave only 2 1/2 - 4 hours warning before it all went Red Dawn .An amphibious assault was also envisioned as a part of the operation .The assault would have 15 -30 hours warning time and could comprise as many as 11 brigades.

Seeing as we only had 2 brigades in active duty and the rest mothballed as a mobilization defense it was very much a theoretical game of speed and lucky circumstances up here on Natos north flank .The North has limited road systems and a lot of fjords cutting into it - for a tactical game of conventional warfare I guess it would be an interesting match .(Did the game take into account our own little maginot line that we had built in Troms ? It didnt go all the way across but still,a concrete bunker fortress is a novelty in our days of warfighting.)

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict .On the ground I guess the plan was to hold enclaves /provinces that could be used as staging areas until the designated allied forces arrived -with their airpower- and mobilize our army as best we could in these areas .And then break out I guess. ( The threat of nuclear war ,other political events not taken into account and just focusing on the war on the ground I mean .)

[Targan]

Originally Posted by headquarters

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict.

Right up to today we here in Australia rely on our close friendship with the US to be a deterrant against outside military hostility. A full blown war between the US and China would suck for Australia - we have very strong trade ties to China.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Targan

Right up to today we here in Australia rely on our close friendship with the US to be a deterrant against outside military hostility. A full blown war between the US and China would suck for Australia - we have very strong trade ties to China.

It's only money friend. China only wants your money and resources.

[Turboswede]

Originally Posted by headquarters

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict .On the ground I guess the plan was to hold enclaves /provinces that could be used as staging areas until the designated allied forces arrived -with their airpower- and mobilize our army as best we could in these areas .And then break out I guess. ( The threat of nuclear war ,other political events not taken into account and just focusing on the war on the ground I mean .)

I think the Swedes would have helped and I always thought that their omission from the original T2K timeline was a glaring problem. I come from a Swedish military family and in my conversations with former officers there is a lot of guilt around the actions (or lack of action) taken by Sweden in the Second World War My Grandfather’s generation in particular felt a great deal of shame for allowing German forces into Norway.

What is even a worse scar on the Swedish psyche is not backing the Fins against the Russians in the Winter War. About 40,000 Swedish military personnel wanted to volunteer to help the Fins but the Swedish government was terrified of antagonizing the Soviets so it made serving in Finland as difficult as possible. I have relatives who did take leaves of absence to hike up to Kiruna to volunteer, but there were a lot more army personnel who were not allowed to volunteer.

My father’s generation was also no fan of the Soviets, during the Sub incursions of the 60’s and 70’s there was a lot of debate around sinking Soviet submarines detected in Swedish waters. From what I have heard, there were frequent incidents when Captains of Swedish vessels reluctantly gave the order to use dummy depth charges and torpedoes against Soviet subs.

I do not think the Swedes would have sat back and let the Soviets violate their airspace to attack Norway, Iceland, the U.K. and the rest of Western Europe. After speaking with a number of Swedish Air Force and Naval officers, I get the feeling a lot of them were in fact, itching for a fight.

[Adm.Lee]

No, I don't remember any fortified line, but the game did have reduced stacking for mountains and passes, and there were quite a few choke points along the coast.

I remember the NATO player could roll for mobilization, getting more Norwegians into action sooner. If the Soviets tried for a flat-footed attack, it helped them a lot.

Soviet air and amphibious lift in the game was maybe 5 regimental-equivalents, but I'm not sure about that anymore. If you played the combined games, the Pact got something more than 12 Regiments' worth of airlift, which could be directed to any theater. {Seeing a whole corps' worth of desant was pretty impressive. My favorite plan was to drop them all over the US ReForGer sites along the Rhine, and negate 3+ divisions of Americans.} I think the game designated 1 Soviet MRD as amphibious-capable, and allocated 1 desant division to the northern theater. There was also an airmobile brigade, which was really, really useful.

The Soviets had an option to allocate a "strategic reserve force," which I think was 1 or 2 armies of Cat 2 divisions, which cost the Pact player VPs to send to the theater. I don't remember it as being worth sending, except there might have been a second airmobile brigade.

I remember the games usually wound up in a stalemate around Narvik or Tromso, with the Pact running out of assault-worthy forces, and NATO building up light troops. Victory keyed on the Pact capture of airfields to allow the Northern Fleet to sortie, and I don't remember too many victories for the Pact.

FWIW, I remember the Norwegian forces as being pretty important, since they were there, obviously, and rated at proficiency equal to the US and West Germans.

Dag, now you've got me wanting to dig it out again!

Originally Posted by headquarters

When I was in they told us that our plans were made to repel amongst other things an airborne operation of Soviets ,they would take the main roads and strand our units in invaluable areas .they told us that in the event of a full blown war the soviets could drop 5 or 6 brigades simultanously .Apparently the airborne invasion gave only 2 1/2 - 4 hours warning before it all went Red Dawn .An amphibious assault was also envisioned as a part of the operation .The assault would have 15 -30 hours warning time and could comprise as many as 11 brigades.

Seeing as we only had 2 brigades in active duty and the rest mothballed as a mobilization defense it was very much a theoretical game of speed and lucky circumstances up here on Natos north flank .The North has limited road systems and a lot of fjords cutting into it - for a tactical game of conventional warfare I guess it would be an interesting match .(Did the game take into account our own little maginot line that we had built in Troms ? It didnt go all the way across but still,a concrete bunker fortress is a novelty in our days of warfighting.)

As for real life I dont think we could have done much against the Soviets.Our real defense was our close alignment with the US that made any move against us a possible trigger for a big conflict .On the ground I guess the plan was to hold enclaves /provinces that could be used as staging areas until the designated allied forces arrived -with their airpower- and mobilize our army as best we could in these areas .And then break out I guess. ( The threat of nuclear war ,other political events not taken into account and just focusing on the war on the ground I mean .)

Edit: I crossed Turboswede's post. In TWW, the Swedes and Finns were presumed neutral, but the Pact could request/demand passage rights to get to Norway. The NATO player secretly drew chits to see if or how strongly the two would resist. My recollection is that if either nation resisted, it really wrecked the Pact's chances.