NATO Forces in Africa during the Twilight War (v1.0)

[Raellus]

Can't nuke all the refineries.

Why not I'm not trying to be snarky or anything; I just want to hear your reasoning.

And why not deploy to Nigeria instead of Kenya One explanation is that the Nigerian oilfields/refineries have already been nuked into oblivion (probably by the Soviets). Another is that it would be harder to ship Persian Gulf oil around the Cape of Good Hope to Nigerian refineries than just around the Horn of Africa to Kenya. I still feel like I'm missing this piece of the puzzle as well.

[Fusilier]

Mmm... Because it wasn't a total nuclear exchange. I stick with the notion that it was a limited exchange. It is limited since we can clearly see in canon that there are still lots of valuable targets untouched.

For each shot one side fired they could expect to lose the same in return. Each side seemed only willing to go just far enough as to help knock the other one out of the game - not send it back to the stone age and suffer the same consequence as well. Also...

Maybe the refinery there isn't large.

Maybe it was deemed being geographically isolated from any consumer worth keeping the product from.

Maybe it was felt Kenya would descend into chaos and render the fuel unobtainable without having to risk a nuke.

Maybe it was already damaged by bombers operating out of Mozambique or one of the many other African places the Soviets and Cubans have forces based in.

Maybe in the chaos and confusion of losing Soviet command and control, it was spared like so many other places when there was nobody left to coordinate/order any more launches. Or they figured there was enough mutual damaged suffered and the exchange needed to be stopped.

For me - Nigeria went the way of the other side (as per Hackett's book again).

[Rainbow Six]

This isn't mentioned in canon anywhere, but just for info the British Army has maintained a permanent presence in Kenya since 1963 - the British Army Training and Liaison Staff Kenya (BATLSK) based at Kahawa Barracks outside Nairobi.

http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/overseas-deployments/932.aspx

Its numbers are small, and I would suppose it's debatable whether or not it would have remained in place at all in the event of a full blown War, but in the event that it did I'd imagine it's highly possible that its troops might find themselves attached to the 173rd Airborne (if you have the 173rd deploying to Kenya that is; otherwise they'd probably end up operating alongside the Kenyan Army).

Cheers

[Raellus]

@Fusilier: All valid points. Taken together, it is a compelling case. My thinking was that as soon as the U.S. put a brigade on the ground to defend the refineries, no matter how modest they happen to be, they just became that more tempting of a target for a nuke. Two birds with one stone and all that.

Perhaps the Soviets had some hope of someday capturing the facilities. That might make them hold off.

That's why I think a communist revolution/coup in Kenya is the way to go. The Soviets and Cubans could have advisors there to assist the revolutionaries. That would both give NATO a reason to send in a brigade combat team AND force the Soviets to think twice about nuking the facilities.

@Rainbow6: Excellent! Thanks. That would be a great way to include commonwealth troops in the campaign. Another way I just thought of would be to include European PMCs tasked with guarding the refineries prior to the arival of the 173rd. And then there's embassy personel.

[Frank Frey]

Lions of Twilight

Greetings,

The 173rd Airborne Brigade was deployed to Kenya for several reasons.
1.) To provide security for the port of Mombasa and for the oil refineries there.
2.) To help secure Kenya from the depradations of any number of warlord armies so that the country could continue to serve as a staging area for operations in the Gulf.
3.) MilGov cut a deal with the French. The French supply the vehicles and the equipment and the US supplies the manpower for a cut of the oil. This arrangement, BTW, has led to a number of American paras wearing the famous French "lizard" pattern camo fatigues.
In effect, the 173rd are mercenaries fighting for France. Sort of an American Foreign Legion if you will.

Out Here,
Frank Frey

[Raellus]

Wow! That really casts Franco-American relations in a whole new light. We discuss France's role in the Twilight War a lot here and, to the best of my knowledge, this has never come up. It's almost worth its own thread!

Couple more questions for you Frank. What kind of vehicles* and equipment do the French send and how do they get it there

Second, when and how is the 173rd et al transported to Kenya

Much thanks!

*I've always wanted an excuse to have American paratroops rolling in Panhard VBL scout cars!

EDIT: Apparently, the U.S. already uses a small number of VBL variants as NBC scouts- ULTRAV M11 (I just found this on Wikipedia). They also use German Fox 6x6 APCs for the same thing. What's with buying foreign-made wheeled APCs for NBC stuff

[TiggerCCW UK]

Raellus, as far as the Fox goes I think its used because its one the best NBC vehicles around. I've no experience of the Fox, I'm basing that on the fact that the US, the UK and (iirc) some Middle Eastern countries all use the NBC version but not any other version. Also iirc it is listed as a US used vehicle in either the US vehicle guide or the East Euro source book.

[HorseSoldier]

EDIT: Apparently, the U.S. already uses a small number of VBL variants as NBC scouts- ULTRAV M11 (I just found this on Wikipedia). They also use German Fox 6x6 APCs for the same thing. What's with buying foreign-made wheeled APCs for NBC stuff

I've never heard about us using VBLs, but the Fox NBC recon vehicle are nice, as far as creature comforts go (padded bucket seats, A/C). Not a job I'd want, though -- had a couple friends nearly get killed several times between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad during the invasion, being in an essentially unarmed vehicle that headquarters' they were attached to often stuck in randomly dangerous locations as an after thought to getting their tanks and Bradleys situated.

[Abbott Shaull]

Not a job I'd want, though -- had a couple friends nearly get killed several times between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad during the invasion, being in an essentially unarmed vehicle that headquarters' they were attached to often stuck in randomly dangerous locations as an after thought to getting their tanks and Bradleys situated.

Gee how come this doesn't surprise me.

[Raellus]

Greetings,
2.) To help secure Kenya from the depradations of any number of warlord armies so that the country could continue to serve as a staging area for operations in the Gulf.

As far as African militaries go, Kenya really seems to have its stuff squared away. They appear to be better organized, trained, and equipped than most sub-Saharan militaries. I think a larger threat to Kenya and the port/refineries than warlords and insurgencies is needed to justify bringing in an entire U.S. Airborne BCT. From a purely gaming standpoint, the more bad guys arounds the better, and it would be good to offer the PCs more challenging opponents. I'm worried that lightly equipped warlord "armies" wouldn't pose too much of a problem for well trained, well equipped paratroopers.

There are a couple of options to correct this. First is to have the Kenyan military, or a portion thereof, join the bad guys. This would definitely up the threat level as well as justifying the move by Milgov to "secure" (i.e. seize) the refineries in the first place. You could set this up with a coup or succession crisis. I'm kind of reluctant to do this, though, because it would make pretty much the vast majority of Africans in the game into a villain and that smacks of imperialist attitudes.

The second option would be to have Tanzania, having lost their Chinese patrons to WWIII, pushed to invade Kenya and seize the refineries by the Soviets. This would be another threat (in addition to those already identified by Frank) that the already overstretched Kenyan military could not face alone. I'm kind of leaning this way because it keeps the Kenyan military as one of the good guys while still giving the PCs a more well equipped (relatively speaking) adversary to contend with.

3.) MilGov cut a deal with the French. The French supply the vehicles and the equipment and the US supplies the manpower for a cut of the oil. This arrangement, BTW, has led to a number of American paras wearing the famous French "lizard" pattern camo fatigues.
In effect, the 173rd are mercenaries fighting for France. Sort of an American Foreign Legion if you will.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what equipment the French would be providing- how much, what type, and how do they get it to Kenya

I also really need to know when and how the 173rd arrives in Kenya.

Thanks!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While not specifically addressing the things you're asking about, I thought this may be of interest.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/africa97/africa97.htm

It's about the US military mission to Kenya in 1996 or thereabouts.

From a brief read of that document, I think you could argue that Kenya would be one of the few nations in the region receptive to Western forces so perhaps sending a brigade to Kenya does a few things - shows the Kenyans that the US is committed to their well-being & security, maintains a Western presence in the region and also provides a safe harbour for Western and pro-Western forces in the region. That's not including whatever benefits could be got from the oil refineries and so on.

[Frank Frey]

Raellus,

According to my notes, the 173rd was shipped to Kenya in early 1997. There is nothing in my notes about how they were deployed. That's all I've got.

Frank Frey

[Raellus]

According to my notes, the 173rd was shipped to Kenya in early 1997. There is nothing in my notes about how they were deployed. That's all I've got.

Thanks, Frank. That really helps. I do have a couple more questions, though. Sorry to be such a pest.

If the 173rd deploys in early '97, air transport shouldn't be any trouble at all.

About the French...

'97 seems early to be cutting a deal with MilGov (IIRC, it hadn't formed yet) so this must have happened in '98. Any idea what kind of gear the French sent to Kenya

I figure it could have been a shipment of wheeled AFVs (Panhard VLBs, VABs, and either AMLs or ERC 90 F4s*), originally intended for an African ally. With many African nations in complete chaos, the French decide to cut a deal with the more trustworthy Americans for a cut of the oil. Does that sound OK

*All of which already have sub-Saharan African customers. I'd love to include Giat AMX-10 6x6s but they have not been as extensively exported.

[Frank Frey]

Raellus,

No problem...Airlift would make the most sense at that time. As far as cutting deals with the French, yea, 1998 sounds right. It wasn't an overnight thing either.When the final deal was cut, it basically just formalized on paper what had been going for a while.
As for the equipment, let your imagination run with it. Hell, IIRC I had an American armored cav unit that had been re-equipped with AMX-13's. The aviation unit (228th Aviation Bn.) was using a lot of Gazelles and Pumas.
Hope this helps.

Frank Frey

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I have another possible reason for why NATO forces may be based in Kenya.
Water.
Part of the river system that provides life for Egypt runs through Kenya. A 1929 agreement between Britain and Egypt gave Egypt nearly exclusive use of the water from the Nile to the detriment of those British possessions that also accessed the river system. To quote part of the agreement "No irrigation or power works are to be constructed on the River Nile or its tributaries, or on the lakes from which it flows... which would entail prejudice to the interests of Egypt."

It's the aftermath of a world war, Kenya needs resources especially water for agriculture. Perhaps they start to construct irrigation systems and the Egyptians object to the point of threatening war. It might be a long drive through Sudan to attack Kenya but there are highways literally leading from Egypt right up to Kenya and the Egyptians might choose naval or air attacks instead.
The Egyptians might not even attack directly, they may pay Sudanese or Ethiopian rebels to attack (or even Somalians).

Here's an article that prompted this train of thought

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypt-warns-that-new-nile-agreement-could-prove-a-death-sentence-1987519.html