OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Rainbow Six]

Yeah, by Southern I was referring specifically to the "old" NATO members - Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. I should have clarified that. Personally, I could be persuaded either way about what the Italians might do. With regard to Belgium I favour a schism between the French speaking Walloons and the Dutch speaking Flemish, with the Walloons siding with France and the Flemish siding with NATO. I didn't have Bulgaria opting out as much as changing sides completely.

The figures I gave are intended to give a top level overview of what each nation might be able to contribute...I can break it down into more detail for each country but that will take me time (days, not hours). Also, reserves are not included. My numbers for Hungary differ from yours in some areas....this is what I have (source as per previous post)

Army Strength: 10,900 (plus 30,000 reserves)
Tanks: 120 x T 72 (approx 30 in active units)
Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles: 150 x BTR80A; 487 x BMP1 in storage
APC's: 150 x BTR80
SP Arty: 150 x 122mm; 251 in store

It's unclear whether the 150 BTR's in the AIFV entry are the same 150 BTR's that are in the APC entry or not, so they may have 150 or they may have 300. However it is fair to say that with a full mobilisation of reserves the Hungarian Army could possibly quadruple its current size, so I will revisit that listing in more detail when I can...

[Olefin]

and I am using what they have in reserve for their mobilization for Hungary - just to use them as an example - for instance Hungary could be used as a source of equipment for other ex-Warsaw Pact nations that might have men but dont have APC's to be able to have them survive on the modern battlefield

it definitely would change the strategic situation for the war - instead of the Balkans being almost a side show (as the authors mainly treated it in Twilight 2000) here it would be a major front - obviously Romania would be anxious to go into Moldava and take back their old territory - and having Bulgaria be at the worst neutral really makes the Turks a much bigger threat to potential Soviet Allies like Armenia or Syria especially if the Greeks cant get new equipment due to money issues and by 2030 have a very small army with limited armor

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm learning a bunch here too. But, I do still have one lingering question. If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so. Help me understand the reasoning behind this seeming foreign policy/military intervention paradox.

And to go further with the information Kato posted, the USA is Australia's primary ally, if they ask for contributions/assistance, the government views it in our best long-term interest to do so and the ANZUS treaty gives impetus to that plus it allows the government to do so without having to justify itself to the opposition or public.

NOTE: I have the "misfortune" of having several family members involved in state and federal politics and I've found that many Australian politicians simply see politics as a lucrative career with an excellent retirement package. I despise modern politicians because of this "in it for themselves and not for the public" mentality - they're snakeoil salesmen who happen to be holding the reins of power - and my thinking is directly coloured by this.

The government has been reluctant to engage in military actions in the last several decades for a number of reasons, some already mentioned here but also include public sentiment and financial cost - we don't have a large population so the revenue base is limited (and like many governments they prefer to spend it on things that will aggrandize them).
But very important to government thinking, we rely almost exclusively on shipping for foreign trade (both import and export). I can't stress this enough, the government believes we cannot afford to alienate neighbouring nations through which that shipping must pass (e.g. Indonesia and Malaysia).

In regards to public sentiment, vocal special interest groups get a disproportionate voice on many occasions despite their definite minority in numbers. Examples include the anti-gun lobby's pressure on the government to restrict private ownership of firearms in response to the Port Arthur killings - they didn't have a majority voice then and they still don't but it was seen as a potential vote winner by the government.
Also the opposition to the Franklin River dam - a dam that would have removed some of Tasmania's dependency on coal-fired power stations in favour of the much cleaner hydro-electric (the dams original purpose). Although the dam was already in the process of being built, environmentalist groups protested it would destroy a portion of the forest around the river and they succeeded in permanently halting the building. The greenies were right but it was a proportionally small area and would have less long-term environmental impact than the continuing use of coal-fired stations does. The federal government went as far as having the air force fly reconnaissance missions over the dam area and in the end, told the Tasmanian state government to halt the dam.


EDIT: Something I meant to mention and forgot at the time. Australia's military during Vietnam.
The Army had large numbers of conscript forces but despite popular portrayal they were not actually under any obligation to serve in Vietnam. At the time, conscripts had an option presented to them:-
1. serve one year full-time service with the possibility their unit could be deployed to Vietnam
2. serve three-years part time service with no deployments outside Australian territory
Many of the conscripts wanted to serve in Vietnam because of the expected mix of "adventurism", patriotism and anti-communist beliefs but also because the combat pay for a year would be enough to buy a house or expensive car.
There were so many conscripts putting pressure on the government to let them serve in Vietnam that some regular Army combat units were held back to allow those units with large conscript numbers to be deployed. My father was subject to this, his regiment was tasked as a training unit and was kept from deploying to Vietnam for a few years so that the regiment would instead train the large volumes of conscripts coming from New South Wales.

[Raellus]

So, if the USA asks for Australia's help in Korea, Australia would presumably help to some extant, correct

@Olefin: Our idea is that economic difficulties result in a split within the EU and possibly NATO. As the economic/diplomatic outcasts, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, therefore, don't necessarily feel obligated to assist the Baltic states when the Russians invade, while the rest of NATO does. Perhaps, one or two of the afore mentioned countries could be brought back into the fold, though. Even in a decade or so, a full strength NATO could probably handle the Russians pretty well, but a short-handed NATO would likely have its hands full. Although it's an updated take on the Twilight war based on projections from where the world stand current (IRL), it also kind of keeps with the spirit of v1.0 which, sort of inexplicably for the time, did something similar with Greece and Italy.

Now, what about France. You know they're kind of headstrong and like to believe that they're calling the shots. Do they help NATO defend the Baltic states or do they sit on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regards to a war in Korea I would say Australia would contribute military forces,

As far as I can find, Australia doesn't have any direct defence treaties with South Korea, we are not bound by any agreement to assist them except through UN committments - if the UN declared it, then Australia would oblige.

but maybe not the same type of forces it contributed in the 1st Korean War or in Vietnam. I don't think they would send infantry as they would only be a small fraction of what the US would send, and they would be under US command. But they would probably send some fighters, warships and support forces and maybe the Australian SAS.

In fact, that's probably the only type of force we'd be able to send as our ground forces are nowhere near the size they were in the 1950s-70s period
However, they would not be under US command. If memory serves me correctly, after the Gallipoli campaign and some other battles in WW1, the Australian government declared that no Australia force would be under foreign command again and instead would always be under Australian command. There are plenty of examples of Australian forces working with foreign forces and being under the command umbrella of those forces but the Australian forces still retain their own command structure and will refer back to Australian HQ/government if they have any issues with tasks given by the allied command.

The Aussie Army is small; equivalent to a US infantry division with the reserve adding another light infantry division. But they use good equipment and they have a sizeable airmobile capability, and their special forces is large for the size of the army. The RAAF is also a good force, new Super Hornets, AEW's, tankers and 28 C-17/C-130H/J transport mix, with the F-35A and the P-8 in the pipeline. The RAN has two helicopter carriers and three Aegis destroyers building, and 12 new submarines and other ships are planned. The carriers are big and can carry 18 helicopters and an infantry battalion, and are fitted with ski-jump ramps which means they can carry US Marine or British F-35B's.

The Australian military (particularly the Army) operates under a philosophy of retaining "core" forces in peacetime to maintain skills and equipment but committing to rapid expansion during wartime - e.g. WW2 and Vietnam.
Many of the current expansion projects support this purpose even though they were purchased under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism e.g the NH90 helicopters, the Canberra class LHDs, enlargement of the SASR. We haven't expanded actual regular force manpower by much particularly in regards to Infantry, Artillery or Armoured units.
In the last decade, the government has held numerous recruiting drives to increase regular forces but so far has not invoked the expansion to the extent seen during Vietnam (and there won't be any conscription unless it's life or death - conscription is a career killer for any political party these days).

At the present time, although the government would like to deploy 12 submarines, there aren't enough volunteers who want to serve in them. It's possible we might have seven or eight fully manned but so far there just aren't enough people willing to be submariners to man all 12.
Unfortunately with the per unit cost of new combat aircraft and the lack of long-term career potential in the RAAF, we don't have many options to increase the size of the air force. We have been progressively buying fewer and fewer fighter aircraft with each replacement e.g. we went from three full squadrons (of Mirage III) to two squadrons when we bought the F/A-18. Same thing has happened with 1st Amroured Regiment with the purchase of the Abrams to replace the Leopard AS1 - 59 Abrams (including variants) to replace 101 Leopards (including variants).

If a commonwealth force was sent to Korea I could see Australia sending some land forces as part of a joint British, Anzac, Canadian and maybe Indian force.

I don't think this is particularly likely. If the UN declared support of South Korea in a war against the North and Australia committed forces to the conflict they would certainly work alongside and with any friendly forces and a joint Commonwealth force under that situation is not outside the realms of possibility but again, Australian forces would retain their own command structure and not be beholden to any other.
Irrespective of whether Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations decided to assist South Korea, there is no current obligation for Australia to commit military forces.
If the US asked for it and it could be justified under some treaty/defence pact, then Australia would likely send forces but the government would not necessarily join a South Korean operation because other Commonwealth nations had.

[Rainbow Six]

Now, what about France. You know they're kind of headstrong and like to believe that they're calling the shots. Do they help NATO defend the Baltic states or do they sit on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge

I'd say they sit it out. I think it's plausible and it is in keeping with the original T2K timeline. It also deprives NATO of quite a large military contribution, so goes towards the alliance having its hands full dealing with the Russians (obviously the Russians couldn't have known in advance that would happen but dependent on how far in advance they start planning for the invasion of the Baltics they may have been sowing seeds of discontent throughout western Europe for some time).

[RN7]

As far as I can find, Australia doesn't have any direct defence treaties with South Korea, we are not bound by any agreement to assist them except through UN committments - if the UN declared it, then Australia would oblige.

None with NATO either but they still sent a large force to Afghanistan.

In fact, that's probably the only type of force we'd be able to send as our ground forces are nowhere near the size they were in the 1950s-70s period However, they would not be under US command. If memory serves me correctly, after the Gallipoli campaign and some other battles in WW1, the Australian government declared that no Australia force would be under foreign command again and instead would always be under Australian command. There are plenty of examples of Australian forces working with foreign forces and being under the command umbrella of those forces but the Australian forces still retain their own command structure and will refer back to Australian HQ/government if they have any issues with tasks given by the allied command.

I was sort of implying this.

The Australian military (particularly the Army) operates under a philosophy of retaining "core" forces in peacetime to maintain skills and equipment but committing to rapid expansion during wartime - e.g. WW2 and Vietnam. Many of the current expansion projects support this purpose even though they were purchased under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism e.g the NH90 helicopters, the Canberra class LHDs, enlargement of the SASR. We haven't expanded actual regular force manpower by much particularly in regards to Infantry, Artillery or Armoured units. In the last decade, the government has held numerous recruiting drives to increase regular forces but so far has not invoked the expansion to the extent seen during Vietnam (and there won't be any conscription unless it's life or death - conscription is a career killer for any political party these days).

At the present time, although the government would like to deploy 12 submarines, there aren't enough volunteers who want to serve in them. It's possible we might have seven or eight fully manned but so far there just aren't enough people willing to be submariners to man all 12.
Unfortunately with the per unit cost of new combat aircraft and the lack of long-term career potential in the RAAF, we don't have many options to increase the size of the air force. We have been progressively buying fewer and fewer fighter aircraft with each replacement e.g. we went from three full squadrons (of Mirage III) to two squadrons when we bought the F/A-18. Same thing has happened with 1st Amroured Regiment with the purchase of the Abrams to replace the Leopard AS1 - 59 Abrams (including variants) to replace 101 Leopards (including variants).

Still its a major jump over the capabilities they have had over the past 40 years and the willingness of what the Australian government was prepared to give them. There is even talk of Australia buying Virginia Class SSN's at the mo, couldn't see it happening but it is a major turn around in Australia's defence outlook.

I don't think this is particularly likely. If the UN declared support of South Korea in a war against the North and Australia committed forces to the conflict they would certainly work alongside and with any friendly forces and a joint Commonwealth force under that situation is not outside the realms of possibility but again, Australian forces would retain their own command structure and not be beholden to any other.
Irrespective of whether Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations decided to assist South Korea, there is no current obligation for Australia to commit military forces.
If the US asked for it and it could be justified under some treaty/defence pact, then Australia would likely send forces but the government would not necessarily join a South Korean operation because other Commonwealth nations had.

Unless Australia was directly threatened or attacked by the North Koreans its the only way I could see the Aussies sending infantry to Korea. A brigade sized force would probably remain under Australian command.

[kato13]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

None with NATO either but they still sent a large force to Afghanistan.

For Australia, Afghanistan was Global War on Terrorism part 2. We committed forces because the US asked us to and under the actions against Al Quaeda previously established via ANZUS, we agreed.

There is even talk of Australia buying Virginia Class SSN's at the mo, couldn't see it happening but it is a major turn around in Australia's defence outlook.

There was serious discussion in government about nuclear power for the next generation of subs due to China's continuing upgrade of its military capacity. However a government decision in 2012 ruled out this option. Unless a radical change comes about, Australia's next class of submarine will have conventional power. To quote the report oeAll options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion which the government has ruled out.

However, in a Twilight: 2030 timeline with a Chinese government in a more threatening posture (the initial reason the government considered nuclear powered subs) or with an antagonistic Indonesia, SSNs could be part of a mixed sub fleet. Part of the Australian desire to maintain conventional subs is because of the stealth factor - conventional subs can shutdown noisy systems but SSNs cannot, their powerplants must be kept on.

There's also the possibility of Australia acting against Indonesia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. If Indonesia were to threaten Malaysia (again) or Singapore, the FPDA could be invoked to bring UK, NZ and Australia military action against Indonesia.

Unless Australia was directly threatened or attacked by the North Koreans its the only way I could see the Aussies sending infantry to Korea. A brigade sized force would probably remain under Australian command.

Aside from the UN calling for military action, there's also the likelihood that if North Korea attacked the US, the US government could invoke ANZUS to get Australian involvement (or we might invoke it ourselves).
As mentioned before though, although Australian forces might be placed under another nations command structure for joint operations, any Australian force deployed anywhere in the world for whatever reason will always retain Australian command authority. Any Australian unit operating under the command structure of an ally can refuse orders from that ally if the Australian unit commander believes it is against Australian interests.
Gallipoli left a very bad taste and the insult to Australian troops in WW2 by MacArthur with his directive that any victory by Australian forces under his command be written up as an "Allied victory" rather than Australian sure as hell didn't help.

[Olefin]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

Well I think they were there for more than just that reason - and given that reasoning if you dont go up to Canada then you dont need the NATO book either - i.e. you wont see any NATO vehicles

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way

[kato13]

Well I think they were there for more than just that reason - and given that reasoning if you dont go up to Canada then you dont need the NATO book either - i.e. you wont see any NATO vehicles

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way

I agree it was not the only reason, but it makes sense from a business standpoint. Adding the Soviets as an enemy within the US was a lot of fun.

I don't remember if canon Mexican forces have any French vehicles, but I'm pretty sure they did IRL, so that gets you some NATO vehicles on the southern border as well.

[Rainbow Six]

Aside from the UN calling for military action, there's also the likelihood that if North Korea attacked the US, the US government could invoke ANZUS to get Australian involvement (or we might invoke it ourselves).

So if I'm reading this correctly is the most likely route for Australian involvement in an Asian War as a result of a North Korean attack on US forces in South Korea leading to an invocation of the ANZUS treaty

There's also the possibility of Australia acting against Indonesia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. If Indonesia were to threaten Malaysia (again) or Singapore, the FPDA could be invoked to bring UK, NZ and Australia military action against Indonesia.

The UK Parliament is on record as saying the FPDA has no "specific commitment to intervene militarily" and merely requires the signatories to "consult immediately" in the event of an attack (or threat of attack) on Peninsular Malaysia or Singapore so UK interpretation at least would seem to be that such an attack would not automatically lead to a military intervention.

[Rainbow Six]

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way

Not specifically. The only guides were the US, Soviet, and NATO ones. I'm fairly sure the only publication that went into any sort of detail was Going Home, which listed the strengths and locations of several Italian Divisions (three if I recall correctly, but I'm going from meory so could be wrong). There was a Challenge magazine that had an article about Italy written for T:2300 which added some detail (for example that the Pope had gone to Perugia).

[Olefin]

Actually surprised they never put out details on their vehicles as you would have figured that either NATO units or US units that fought against them would have captured some of them - or that the Folgore Division, having declared for NATO would thus give them a reason to add them. And Italy has some very interesting vehicles that are unique to them.

Kato - you are right about the Mexican forces having some French vehicles - they had some armored cars and APC's that were part of the Texas module - and an official Mexican Army vehicle guide would have been very interesting indeed - especially for a North American campaign - face it they are in the whole Southwest and probably had some of their advanced patrols get as far as Oklahoma and Arkansas before they got stopped.

And even if you dont use the Texas module, the Satellite Down module is definitely one that getting home may require a long walk thru both Mexico and occupied America to get home.

Anyone ever ask Frank Frey if they were planning more vehicle supplements for Mexico or Italy or China and never got around to them

[Raellus]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

That's exactly what I'm going for. I want to keep elements of the original game but produce an updated setting so that I can incorporate more modern gear. I think that we can keep a lot similar in Europe but in Asia, with China on the other side this time, the changes will be significant.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

Agreed. I haven't thought of a plausible way to do this, though. I can see how the designers could have thought it possible in the early 1980s but now, or in 10-15 years, I don't think anyone believes that the Russians could pull something like that off.

Could the Chinese, though Probably not. Not with their current or even projected amphibious/sealift capabilities. And not with Japan in the way, either.

So, I'm thinking a gradual collapse of the U.S. federal system after the war goes nuclear, and I'm thinking about an opportunistic land grab by Mexico as well. That should create the degree of chaos in the CONUS that will facilitate gameplay in the States as well.

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years