Greece v. Turkey

[Raellus]

I know that some fans have a problem with Greece & Italy turning their coats from NATO to the Warsaw Pact during the Twilight War (at least, as it's described in the v1 timeline; I don't know about how it's addressed in v2.2 and, frankly, I don't care). I used to take issue with this as well, but in the last few years, my thoughts on the matter have changed quite a bit. This article gives some historical context regarding very recent tensions between the two nominal NATO allies.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...orces-stack-up

I wonder if/how v4 is going to handle Greece & Turkey and their respective alliances (NATO and/or the WTO).

Has Greece and/or Turkey ever factored into your T2k campaigns? If so, how were they handled?

-

[Ewan]

Also Turkish involvement in Libya might lead to even more French support for Greece.
https://www.ft.com/content/3b85dd0e-...b-947b7f75a03e

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I wonder if/how v4 is going to handle Greece & Turkey and their respective alliances (NATO and/or the WTO).
-

Given that the kickstarter page infers that only Poland and Sweden are covered in any depth, I would hazard a guess that Greece & Turket are given cursory treatment only.
However, with the announcement of the Homeland Hack stretch goal, I would hazard a guess that aside from Poland and Sweden, the entire world only gets cursory treatment.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Given that the kickstarter page infers that only Poland and Sweden are covered in any depth, I would hazard a guess that Greece & Turket are given cursory treatment only.
However, with the announcement of the Homeland Hack stretch goal, I would hazard a guess that aside from Poland and Sweden, the entire world only gets cursory treatment.

Ha ha. Yes, Greece & Turkey really only got cursory treatment in v1- AFAIK, just a few mentions in the history of the Twilight War and a vehicle or two in the NATO Vehicle Guide. I don't really expect more from v4, but I'm wondering if the new version will have NATO stick together, or introduce some internecine conflict (like the original did).

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

For those who pledged to the kickstarter, they will get access to the alpha release of the rules sometime in the near future.
While the intent is for some play testing and feedback so that they can tweak the system before printing of physical copies begins, perhaps there will be some background information included and hopefully that will answer a few questions such as this one?

[Olefin]

Actually Greece got almost totally ignored in V1 except for the short description of events in Med Cruise - they weren’t even included in the NATO vehicle sourcebook even though they were a NATO country - and frankly the defection of Italy is the one I really couldn’t figure out - especially the thrust into Austria and southern Germany. All they did in the end was get themselves nuked by the US and Great Britain. Just staying out of it like Spain and Portugal did would have been much more realistic

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

For those who pledged to the kickstarter, they will get access to the alpha release of the rules sometime in the near future.
While the intent is for some play testing and feedback so that they can tweak the system before printing of physical copies begins, perhaps there will be some background information included and hopefully that will answer a few questions such as this one?

There should be a lot of things answered - including the situation in the US which from what I have read is to put it simply not believable - and doesn’t take into consideration what the country actual was back in the 90’s - keep in mind for instance that CA was still a state in the 90’s that had Republican governors and Senators - a situation that is impossible today - so you have to be able to really know history to make the world situation realistic - that was a big part of the research I had to do for Kenya and East Africa and it paid off with comments from those who were actually in that area during the timeline period

[Raellus]

Tension on the water as well as in the air.

https://warisboring.com/turkeys-navy...-provocations/

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Tension on the water as well as in the air.

https://warisboring.com/turkeys-navy...-provocations/-

"Greek" provocations...
Right....
Is that the same sort of "Greek" actions as the Turkish platoon which encamped themselves on the Greek side of the border just because the river marking it had moved?
Seems that barely a day goes past that Turkey isn't sabre rattling lately.

[Olefin]

Not often you see a discussion here that has someone in the regular media discussing it as well - thought I would link to it if anyone wants to read it

https://townhall.com/columnists/vict...point-n2575877

Not pushing any particular political point or view - just adding to the discussion

[ChalkLine]

I think it's far more likely Turkey sat out the NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict because they had a lot of local fighting to do in their own region, just look who they have on their non-Warsaw Pact borders and who their regional allies are and were.

Turkey's involvement in Cold War NATO was always extremely transactional and by the mid 1980s they were focusing on things away from the northern borders. I don't know if you guys know any Greeks or Turks, there's a big diaspora for both here, but the hatred they have for each other I've only seen equaled by the India-Pakistan thing. I mean, the Serb-Croat loathing doesn't get like this and that's jaw dropping.

Come the Twilight War you could expect those two to be like the problem the Nazis had with the Romanians and the Hungarians, they had to place German or Italian troops between them or they'd start killing each other in preference to fighting the Soviets. I'd say it'd take about twenty minutes into the war before the whole shitshow blew up again and they were clawing at each other.

[Olefin]

Greece withdrawing from NATO never made any sense to me in the context of either version of the game. Getting pissed off and going after Turkey ok - that I can see - the Turks started it after all. But basically signing the country's death warrant by going after the US Navy - that was dumb. Especially considering how exposed they were to attacks from Israel or the NATO nukes that were based in Turkey.

Having Turkey and Greece have their own little private war (especially after the Soviets nuked the hell out of Turkey and evened the odds) is a lot more logical

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I suppose the designers were trying to fill in all the gaps, that is to say, they needed to have the entire world devastated so that national governments were no longer the power they used to be (if they even still exist after the war) and so they tried all sorts of things to reduce each nation to a post-apoc level.

Not trying to make excuses or defend their decisions, I agree that the treatment of some Mediterranean nations should have been better.
Like others here I find it hard to figure out why Italy would attack it's allies and go hell for leather into Austria and why the Greeks thought they stood a snowball's chance in hell of taking on the USN in the Med. It doesn't make any sense that I can figure out.

[Legbreaker]

I suggest that Greece attacking the NATO convoy was more symbolic than anything, an effort to show the world they were SERIOUS about their declaration. It's quite likely they were expecting their prior allies to back down and try something else rather than risk casualties in a conflict they didn't really have a lot of skin in.
It was a gamble which if successful would have paid huge dividends. Unfortunately the result was somewhat different to the expectations/hopes.

[Raellus]

Greece is going on a bit of a defense spending spree. I reckon Turkey will respond in kind.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ns-with-turkey

-

[micromachine]

The sad thing about the spending spree(s) is that it is being done by administrations that are hovering on the brink of being insolvent. Both have purchased on both sides of the iron curtain, and will continue to do so as long as credit and production offsets are offered.
Would be very interesting to see what equipment is in the arsenal or each country by 2030, and how much of it they actually produce themselves "in house".

[Legbreaker]

How? The country's been basically bankrupt for decades, only surviving because they scammed the EU into letting them join and then receiving massive bail outs. It's one of the reasons (amongst many) for Brexit.

[pansarskott]

Greece has modern tanks as well. Leopard 2A6 HEL

1.7 billion Euros worth of brand new tanks in 2006-2009, and an additional 183 Leopard 2A4s and 150 Leopard 1A5 (for some sum I haven't checked)

National debt in Greece in 2006 was about 215 billion Euros - 103% of GDP. But Germany wanted to sell, and we won't hear any complaints from them about Greece's military spending.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pansarskott

But Germany wanted to sell, and we won't hear any complaints from them about Greece's military spending.

Given much of the cash to pay for it came from Germany in the first place.....

[swaghauler]

Isn't Greece "playing catch up" with Turkey? Didn't Turkey recently launch an Assault Carrier (which they planned on flying F35Bs off of) and a bunch of new Frigates? She also bought the S400 and a bunch of new tanks too, IF I remember correctly.

I think Greece is just trying to match Turkey's recent spending spree.

...as for Turkey's behavior...

She's been very aggressive in supporting factions that OPPOSE French interests in Libya. She even intercepted a French Frigate that was conducting a UN-mandated inspection of a Turkish freighter for weapons and other contraband that was headed to Libya. She has also "bullied" Greek and Italian vessels conducting inspections.

Turkey has actually ATTACKED [when attacking Kurds] US service personnel who were assisting the Kurds in fighting in Syria.

She has been extremely aggressive in the area around Crete with not only Greece but also Israel and Egypt.

I can see a conflict slowly brewing here.

[Olefin]

one thing the V1 and V2 game missed was the opportunity to play with old armor if you campaigned in Greece or Turkey - both countries still had a lot of old tanks and other armored vehicles hanging around in the late 90's - and if you add in Yugoslavia you get things to play with like old Hellcats and the like

the Greeks and Turks for instance still had M24 Chaffee and M47 Pattons going for V1, the Yugoslavs would have Hellcats and the Turks have M59 APC's

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

one thing the V1 and V2 game missed was the opportunity to play with old armor if you campaigned in Greece or Turkey - both countries still had a lot of old tanks and other armored vehicles hanging around in the late 90's - and if you add in Yugoslavia you get things to play with like old Hellcats and the like

the Greeks and Turks for instance still had M24 Chaffee and M47 Pattons going for V1, the Yugoslavs would have Hellcats and the Turks have M59 APC's

Those vehicles (plus a few more) are in the vehicle guides for the most part.

[Olefin]

It mentions them but you don’t see mention of them very much in any of the unit descriptions given for Turkey for instance. And if there is one thing missing from the original releases it’s a better description of the armies in the Balkans and also Italy’s

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Those vehicles (plus a few more) are in the vehicle guides for the most part.

Which vehicle guide are you talking about - not the V1 or V2

No Chaffee, No M47, no M59 APC, no Hellcat tank destroyer

The Chaffee is in Merc 2000 but not the others

Paul has them on his site but they arent in any official released guides

And the East Europe Sourcebook is frankly a joke - it has the Greek Army armed with Soviet tanks and vehicles - and the Turks have Russian equipment too

Now Paul has them - but nothing official at all- so not sure where you got that they are in official releases

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by Olefin

And the East Europe Sourcebook is frankly a joke - it has the Greek Army armed with Soviet tanks and vehicles - and the Turks have Russian equipment too

Hmm... Then I will put less credence to the book and what it claims is happening in Estonia.

[Legbreaker]

The Greeks (and Italians) are essentially Pact by 2000 - the offensive by Italy northwards did occur in conjunction with the Pact offensive at the same time into the same region.
Therefore, why is it so unbelievable the Greeks wouldn't have received some tanks from the Soviets?

Also, why shouldn't Turkey have some soviet vehicles? Couldn't they have captured them sometime in the proceeding several years? After all, we've got evidence of US units using captured equipment for most of the war (the M81 for example in the Soviet Vehicle Guide captured and used since 1997).

[Olefin]

Leg - they have units exclusively armed with Soviet tanks - and the chances of that are zero - neither army had any Soviet tanks at all - zero - and the lack of any of the tanks that were in their actual armies makes that book basically worthless - its like a City of Angels on steroids (i.e where the heck did the Mexicans get all that Soviet equipment)

I basically ignore the whole Sourcebook as to what tanks the Greeks and Turks have - and remember the Turks are mentioned in the NATO sourcebook and it does tell what tanks their army actually has - all it would have taken is the author literally cracking open a GDW published official canon book that was available at the GDW office to get it right for Turkey

And I highly doubt the Turks - who got their asses kicked and their army destroyed in Thrace - have much in the way of any captured Soviet equipment

[Olefin]

example from the NATO sourcebook

Remember that these are prewar levels and do not represent the current (1
July 2000) condition of any unit. MBTs are either Leopard Is or M60s refitted to
M60A4 standards.

Also if you look at the two sourcebooks the Turks have a completely different order of battle in the official NATO sourcebook versus what is in the East European Sourcebook

The East European Sourcebook lists four divisions and one Corps with 62 total tanks

The NATO book lists one armored division, five armored brigades, nineteen various infantry divisions, four infantry brigades and three specialist brigades and a grand total of nine tanks - which is probably way way too low

The one book refers to the Turkish entry in the NATO book - but the two descriptions are two very different armies

[Legbreaker]

Why wouldn't they have units exclusively equipped with captured equipment? It makes absolutely perfect sense logicistally to lump all of one type into one location.
If only recently captured, well, that's one thing, but given they've had quite a long time of relative stability to reorganise, I'm just not seeing any reason those tanks, etc wouldn't have been reassigned if only to ease the logistical and training issues.