Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Twilight 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Raellus View Post
    But how does said coalition get there Or does that matter

    The Chinese navy isn't quite up to par with the USN, but it also doesn't need to operate in both oceans, so the USN's dwindling numerical advantage is even smaller, in practice. By 2020, the naval parity gap will be even narrower, as the Chinese navy is currently growing faster than the USN is. Even if you add in naval forces from U.S. allies in the region, landing a large ground force on China's eastern seaboard is a monumental task.

    You'd need an armada comparable to the ones employed by the Allies on D-Day or by the USN at Okinawa in WW2. You'd need to contend with Chinese surface and submarine forces, and land-based air. The "Allies" would need to cross oceans/seas to resupply their ground forces in China; the Chinese have internal lines of supply.

    And then there's these...



    Then, IF you somehow manage to get a large ground force ashore, you've got to to stop the massive weight of the steadily-modernizing PLA from pushing your bridgehead into the sea.

    IMHO, all of this makes a significant Coalition ground force in China c.2050 a pretty unrealistic scenario.
    Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for

    Comment


    • #77
      Actually I think what is more likely is that a diplomacy failure creates a crisis that pushes Russia and China together into a bastard alliance of grievance. They then try and thwart US goals in various places by supplying weapons, advisers and paying for mercenaries. NATO falls apart as Turkey splits the alliance and Europe deploys piecemeal troops to various hotspots.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by swaghauler View Post
        Is this the scenario you'd be looking for
        Then throw in a barrage of well-coordinated cyber attacks on utilities infrastructure, financial systems, and maybe the "internet of things", which achieves unexpected levels of success, and on the civilian side the US and some allies really feel the sting. Not that that would immediately stop anything on the military side, but it would divert much-needed resources in a protracted conflict.
        sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
          Australian defence policy is that the tanks will not be deployed outside Australia (hence the change to the Australian camouflage pattern). The attitude is that if we ever send amoured support to fight alongside the US, we'll send crews to man US vehicles.
          Could you please point me towards where I can find that Very interesting info with possible consequences for the ANZAC book.
          If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

          Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

          Mors ante pudorem

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
            Could you please point me towards where I can find that Very interesting info with possible consequences for the ANZAC book.
            Was in a defence mag i think, basic attitude was that with so few of them, we would not have any attrition spares. Plus we didn't have enough capable logistics platforms to transport them in enough numbers (still don't really, we'd need to get sealift or airlift from civvy or another military such as RN or USN/USAF). I'm looking through my piles of stuff to find it but it might take a while

            But all of that is up for change if the expansion plan is approved, Army would like to increase the fleet from 59 to 90.


            Related links




            Well... this is probably a case of me misremembering or misunderstanding what was said because while I can't find the magazine that I think the article was in, I have found some web articles that suggest what I was thinking

            and this paste of a newspaper article - copied from https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...-abrams.62839/

            The Age
            Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
            By Mark Forbes
            Defence Correspondent
            Canberra
            March 10, 2004


            American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.

            Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.

            Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.

            Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its rivals.

            The Government's about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".

            In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.

            The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.

            It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.

            The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.

            Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.

            Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.

            "Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."
            Finally found the original article from The Age https://www.theage.com.au/national/a...10-gdxgsu.html
            Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 01-13-2019, 02:27 AM. Reason: Adding & clarifying

            Comment


            • #81
              I don't think they know what they're talking about re Australia's ability to move M1's about. HMAS Tobruk could carry 18 by itself, and at the time of the article, both Kanimbla class (ex Newport) could have managed up to 39 each (although both ships were rust buckets and should never have been accepted from the US in that condition - wasn't found until after the sale that they were barely floating and virtually unseaworthy!).
              If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

              Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

              Mors ante pudorem

              Comment


              • #82
                Found this series on YouTube last week and been watching it sporadically. It's about the Russian military in the 2010s so has some bearing on this particular thread.
                The first few episodes are about the newest Russian military unit the Arctic Brigade. The second group of episodes deals with the Plesetsk cosmodrome. It seems so far, that there's no particular number of episodes per military unit they examine - the Artic Brigade had 4 while the cosmodrome had only 2.

                Despite the typical "reality TV" drama and the typical TV show use of appealing hosts, the show is still interesting simply for the behind-the-scenes views of these various units.
                Episodes here https://www.youtube.com/resultssearc...+Army+Now+Ep.1

                Comment


                • #83
                  And then there's this for consideration as well. The Listva demining vehicle.
                  Never mind detonating IEDs, that microwave radar it's carrying will fry a person apparently.
                  Something else you'd haver to cover in the rules, electromagnetic systems for demining (and their effect on other electronic devices as well as their potential use against people/animals).

                  Plus the video gives some minor information on operating procedures for Russian strategic missile force travelling in convoy and deploying.
                  It's from RT so it's for general public consumption and is not going to reveal any great secrets and it indulges in a bit of flag waving (like all these shows do regardless of what country they're from) but it's interesting none-the-less.

                  Listva YouTube video

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    There's also a lot of ECM vehicles for pre-detonating electronic fuzes on the various flavours of artillery. I don't think this has ever had a task associated with it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
                      And then there's this for consideration as well. The Listva demining vehicle.
                      Never mind detonating IEDs, that microwave radar it's carrying will fry a person apparently.
                      Something else you'd haver to cover in the rules, electromagnetic systems for demining (and their effect on other electronic devices as well as their potential use against people/animals).
                      Along those lines, some AAA radars are reportedly capable of frying (and by that, I mean literally flash-cooking) good-sized birds, some GSR units can kill small animals, and in that book (I can't remember the name offhand) about Viktor Belenko's defection to the West in the then-mysterious MiG-25, Belenko said that they would sometimes amuse themselves by turning on the radar on the ground while waiting for takeoff and killing the rabbits that tended to be hopping around on the runway.
                      I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

                      Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by swaghauler View Post
                        Consider a global recession that impacts America and Europe followed by a major natural disaster such as a tsunami/large earthquake that devastates the Pacific Rim including the US West Coast. During this "disaster," North Korea gets the idea that now is the time to fire up that War of Reunification before the US can recover from said natural disaster and pose a threat again. NK attacks and the US and A FEW MEMBERS OF NATO respond. Germany, France, and some other members decide to "sit this one out" and this leaves a weakened US, UK, Japan, SK, and some ANZAC forces taking on NK without significant Naval assets. They still manage to stall NK and a disaster-damaged China gets drawn into the conflict (with Iranian support). You now have a conventional armored conflict on SK soil involving several different nations. Due to the low numbers of troops in the various units (because the disaster is preventing a "troop surge" in SK) you will have small unit engagements with one or perhaps two AFVs in support in difficult terrain (which will allow the GM to control the scope of an adventure using impassable terrain). Is this the scenario you'd be looking for
                        Another variant is that the leader of North Korea leans towards the U.S. for aid, assistance and snubs China, like Vietnam did going USSR in 1973-75.If the response is fast, all you have to mention was a promise of social reforms that NK never gets to implement, so it's only a mild stretch of belief.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules If we treat it as an attack and assign a CON/HP stat to electronics, there are still a lot of things to figure out. The "AV of a ground wire to the removal of batteries, static bags, Farraday cages, etc.
                          Last edited by .45cultist; 01-24-2019, 10:59 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by .45cultist View Post
                            BTW, has any one checked Traveller, The New Era for any EMP rules If we treat it as an attack and assign a CON/HP stat to electronics, there are still a lot of things to figure out. The "AV of a ground wire to the removal of batteries, static bags, Farraday cages, etc.
                            That's a great point. The T2k 'electronics=dead' rule doesn't really reflect the science does it

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by .45cultist View Post
                              Another variant is that the leader of North Korea leans towards the U.S. for aid, assistance and snubs China, like Vietnam did going USSR in 1973-75.If the response is fast, all you have to mention was a promise of social reforms that NK never gets to implement, so it's only a mild stretch of belief.
                              That's an interesting idea, and not outside the realm of possibility.

                              Let's say KJU orders one too many generals or high officials killed and there's a coup. Or he dies suddenly and there's a succession crisis. Imagine a situation like we saw in Berlin in 1989 (IRL), but at the DMZ. It could happen. The PRC could very see a reunified Korea as a threat to its regional dominance and use military force to eliminate it.

                              What if, as the DPRK regime totters and falls, South Korean launches a military expedition to "stabilize" the North and China responds shortly thereafter with its own. In that case, there's a good chance that the region is one minor clash away from a war, a war in which the PRC would have material superiority. Would the U.S. stand by if South Korea's independence was at stake You could have a Second Korean War pitting the PRC against a reunited Korea and the U.S.A. as the opening round of an expanding WWIII.

                              Chalk, there's your land war in China.
                              Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

                              https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
                              https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
                              https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
                              https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
                              https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ChalkLine View Post
                                That's a great point. The T2k 'electronics=dead' rule doesn't really reflect the science does it
                                Neither does radiation half life of months instead of years and centuries.
                                It's a game. There were specific, deliberate changes to real world physics such as these to make it more playable and a much more interesting world to play in.
                                If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

                                Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

                                Mors ante pudorem

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X