RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Archive

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-21-2010, 11:20 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,365
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default The running of the war.

graebarde 07-27-2004, 11:44 PM As I am running a CONUS based campaign of civilians in the build up to the war, and into the day and day after I have been trying to give 'news from the front' daily messages. I have deviated from the timeline some (using v1 as the core), but something strcuk me this evening as odd, at least from the way the war is being run in the timeline.

US involvement did not occur until December, yet NATO was attacked in Norway in November. That in itself I found odd, and moved the attack date in Norway to more coincide with the US and Commonwealth forces moving into eastern Germany.

What has also struck me odd, is when the action started the 101 and 82 sit in CONUS, as if waiting for the RDF scenarios to start.

I personally think the 101 would be deployed right after the REFORGER troops got on the ground, at least a brigade of them. I also think the 82 would send at least a brigade to react to the Norway invasion. Why, because they are light and readily deployable. There has not been any indication there is trouble in the Gulf yet. I know from experience the 101 was geared to go to Germany if the need arose. And the 82 IS the 'fire brigade' along with the Marines.

The next action is the North Koreans jumping the line about the middle-end of December, creating a second front for US forces.

The Gulf does not become volitile until the end of January or later. Those two 'crack' divisions would not be sitting on their thumbs with a full blown war going on in Europe IMO.

Ideas guys? Am I missing something here?


TiggerCCW UK 07-28-2004, 06:16 AM Souns fairly logical - afterall, the government of the day doesn't have the benefit of looking at the time line as a whole and saying 'lets keep them here just in case of a flare up in the gulf'


Webstral 07-28-2004, 05:48 PM I agree that there are some issues to be resolved with the chronology of v1. I've tried to make sense of them without changing too much.

RE: Norway, I simply pushed the Soviet intervention back to December. The idea of the USSR invading Norway and unnecessarily expanding the war in Germany to include all of NATO is so incredibly foolish that I have chalked it up to an error in judgment on the part of the game designers. They did such a good job with everything else that I'm willing to accept the thing in Norway as a mistake. Perhaps they didn't check the dates carefully enough when they were getting specific on the chronology in Europe, and the uncorrected mistake perpetuated itself much as legal precedent perpetuates itself.

The RDF forces are a little harder to explain away with what we know about developments in the Twilight: 2000 chronology. However, let us suppose that Allied intelligence keeps abreast of the Soviet build-up in the Transcaucasus. The growing activity of the Tudeh in Iran would be cause for concern. In my somewhat updated v1 chronology, Desert Storm goes down virtually the same as it does in real life. The Soviets re-arm Iraq throughout the first half of the 1990's. Iraq is able to get around the UN embargo by trading through the Soviet Union, so the Iraqi economy is far from the shambles it was in 2003 in the real world.

As a result of the renewed strength of the Iraqi military, the Pentagon is determined to keep XVIII Airborne Corps intact and ready to go to the Gulf. Losing control of the ROK would be bad. Losing control of the Lower Gulf oil would be much, much worse.

Also, by the time the US gets involved in Central Europe, the US military is training hard. Light units are ready to go at the drop of a hat. Since 25th ID and 7th ID are earmarked for Korea already, and since designating a brigade of either or both divisions for immediate deployment to the ROK is something that can be done in the October-November timeframe, there's not as much need to involve the 82nd. In short, the US would be motivated to keep the CENTCOM forces in reserve to answer a highly likely Soviet move into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia through their proxy in Iraq.

Okay, enough on that. Now it's time for a little nap.



shrike6 07-28-2004, 07:03 PM Have you guys actually read the RDF Sourcebook? It really sounds like you haven't.

Source: page 3 RDF Sourcebook

At the first of the year (1996), the Americans began reinforcing their units in the Gulf region. Air Force units were shifted to bases in Saudi Arabia. American military equipment was stockpiled in Saudi Arabia.

Source: page 4 RDF Sourcebook

The United States Cental Command reported itself ready for deployment on October 21st (1996). CENTCOM's forward HQ element was already deployed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The CO of CENTCOM General Vincent Barbaneri, urged the Joint Chiefs of Staff to deploy CENTCOM immediately before the Soviets moved into the region.

The Americans discovered that while they could mobilize an impressive military force, transporting it to where it was needed was another matter entirely. Troop movements were placed on a priority basis. Most available transport was used to move troops to Europe. General Barbaneri was told that CENTCOM would be deploying in December.

In December, when the first American units crossed the East German border, the situation dramatically changed. The United States and Soviet Union were at war, and CENTCOM's deployment would be delayed until after the first of the year (all available transport was needed for to support the war in Europe).


Webstral 07-28-2004, 11:50 PM I decided not to mention the RDF Sourcebook information because the quote you've put in doesn't tell us why the 82nd and 101st remain in CENTCOM. What you've posted tells us why CENTCOM's units don't deploy to the Middle East--lack of transportation. What it doesn't tell us is why the RDF units aren't sent to Europe as soon as the balloon goes up--why the most ready and deployable units in the Army don't go into the first fire to start burning, nor into the second fire (Korea). Given the number of units moving to Europe in late 1997, the US easily could have moved the 82nd there instead of 5th ID or 35th ID. Once we have established the Pentagon's motivation for keeping the 82nd and the 101st out of Europe and Korea, then the transportation situation as it affects CENTCOM comes into play.



graebarde 07-29-2004, 06:05 AM Interesting. I think the reason the 82/101 would not replace the 5th ID or even the 35th ID are corps commitments, esp with the 5th. 5 ID was a III Corps unit, and that corps was a VERY heavy corps with TWO armored divisions and the mech. 35th (still havent seen WHY they were OAD so early, probably because of the Sino-Soviet conflict) is also a heavy, and the ETO, except Norway, is a heavy weight bout. But the 101, while light infantry, is special in the fact they are airmobile with their own assets, making them extremely flexible. They are what is needed to make the penetrations. The 82nd could as well, but realitically the days of mass jumps from aircraft, especially in an Air Defense rich environment such as the front area of battle (going several miles back too) against the Pacts would be not the wisest thing to do. Look at Normandy, it would be considered light losses IMO compared to a jump over WP territory with SAMs.

My read though on the deployments is there is a time gap from about December 1st unitil February for the ETO. The called up NG units did not start moving to Europe unitil mid-late January or later, as they were still in workups, having been activated on November 1st or there abouts (except for the 35th). That would have been plenty of time to move the 101 by air or sea, though air is the probabile mode chosen.

Anyways, thanks for the insites. It's about what I figured, but.. ya know GDW said they didn't use WWIII (the game) in the creation of T2K, but I wonder.. there are alot of similarities in the game and the T2K timelines. And the developers were the same people IIRC.

Oh well.. I guess I can use who I want where in my world though. Eagles, get ready to deploy...


shrike6 07-29-2004, 08:04 AM Web,

I think the answer is obvious. What one thing is the driving force behind the western armies? OIL! Without it M1s and F-16s are hunks of useless metal. The Soviets know this. So do we. If we allow them to take Iran and Saudi Arabia like you imply the war is over.


You may be right but I'd still send more and more supplys (ammo, spares, et al. ) over the Light Divisions. Let's face it 101st would be shot apart if NATO did not achieve at least Air Superiority in Central Europe just because of the fighter and ADA density there.

BTW aren't you the same guy who said that NATO ports couldn't handle all the divisions coming in? I find it interesting that you now think they are short two divisions.

More later


graebarde 07-29-2004, 05:44 PM BTW aren't you the same guy who said that NATO ports couldn't handle all the divisions coming in? I find it interesting that you now think they are short two divisions.

Touche.. Yep, there will definately be a bottleneck of portage, esp if France and Belgium prohibit off loading. Rotterdam can handle a lot, as well as the northern German ports, depending on Soviet air traffic of course, but there would still be bottle necks IMO.

As for the TWO divisions I think they are short.. both (assuming your refering to the 82nd and 101st) IMO would be flown in. You do make a good point however of utilizing the aircraft for flying critical supplies rather than light divisions. As I said, the war in Germany is a heavy weight bout. You're probably right about air superiority, or at least parity, and a successful SAD program if the 101 is to be used successfully, but I think the NAP elements would or could play key roles in the success of operations on the continent even with AD not being neutralized. In fact that is a mission they could perform.. hit and run demolitions of SAM units. (So I have high expectations of the air assault elements, but they are good)


shrike6 07-30-2004, 03:47 PM Grae and Web,

I want to apologize if I'm coming off harsh. I have a tendency to do that sometimes. I guess I just don't see how the 101st AAD could survive in the Central European enviroment at the start of the war. I just haven't seen the air assault concept tested in highly mechanized enviroment where they have air defense coverage in depth. The funny thing is the that the one XVIII Airborne Corps division that I can see going over to Germany you guys haven't mentioned at all, 24th Mech. Any of the heavy National Guard divisions (35th Mech, 40th Mech, 49th Armor, and 50th Armor) could have replaced it. Also what about the 2 separate brigades (194th Armor and 197th Mech). Why the hell weren't these sent to Germany? I guess maybe that bugs me more than the RDF business.


shrike6 07-30-2004, 05:31 PM You know I wish there was a declassified copy of OPLAN 1002-88. I'm really curious of what the real plan was in Iran during a multi fromt war with the Soviets. Although I do have to admit the synapse of OPLAN 1002-90 looks interesting.



Webstral 07-30-2004, 11:58 PM Shrike6, not to worry--I've been addressed in a far less friendly manner. As for abandoning Iran and Saudi to the Soviets, this isn't what I meant. The point I was trying to make is that the 82nd and 101st get earmarked for the Middle East. The only reason to send them to Europe or Korea is if there's no one else to send to these hot spots, and there's no compelling reason to keep these divisions slated for the Middle East. Since we know the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific pipelines are pretty full from October 1997 onward, there isn't a whole lot of urgency to move RDF divisions there. Also, we should feel confident that the Pentagon is keeping an anxious eye on developments in the Transcaucasus and Iraq for exactly the reason you give--the threat to Western access to Gulf oil. Given these ideas, I think we can understand why CENTCOM deploys more-or-less as anticipated, despite the outbreak of hostilities in Europe and Korea.



shrike6 07-31-2004, 07:15 AM I must have misunderstood. Thanks for clarifing.

Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 06:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.