Cheeseburger Gothic

Pepsi Challenge: World War 3.1

Posted August 30, 2016 into Books by John Birmingham

Thanks to everyone who’s been noodling around the beta of Paris. It’s shaping up nicely. I’ll leave it in there for another week or so and then flick it to Deonie for the blow torch treatment.

I had an email from Dirk de Jager when he’d finished his first read thru; a suggestion that a map would nice. Which it would. I’ll see what I can do about that. If anyone knows of any copyright free map generating magic sites on the interwebs, please let me know.

I’ll have to go read Final Impact again to remind myself of how all the chips fell in the end.

Two other suggestions from Dirk:

Build an order of battle for WW 3.1: what are the forces and what are they composed of, where are they and who's commanding them.

Compose a battleplan for the invasion: something like this would be a starter I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

These are two excellent suggestions I’m willing to throw to open discussion here.

I’ll have some more as I closer to starting work on the manuscript proper.

122 Responses to ‘Pepsi Challenge: World War 3.1 ’

Dirk mutters...

Posted August 30, 2016
As godfather and main culpret of this let me kick off then:
Lets start with the West German Army of as they call it Das Heer der Bundeswehr

"... By March 1954 the Blank Office had finished plans for a new German army. Plans foresaw the formation of six infantry, four armoured, and two mechanised infantry divisions, as the German contribution to the defense of Western Europe in the framework of a European Defence Community." quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army

As every good book needs colorful characters, let me propose this guy as one of the corps commanders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyacinth_Graf_Strachwitz . Okay JB: It's a guy with kinda lot of letters in his name but his nickname was "Der Panzergraf - the tank count"

Respond to this comment

jl mutters...

Posted August 30, 2016
Here's an interesting guy who could be written in as a German character: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Boosfeld. I'll give this some more thought later, gotta go to work.

Respond to this comment

McKinneyTexas mumbles...

Posted August 30, 2016
Need to know:

1. What year is the invasion?
2. What are the available forces, conventional and nuclear, to both sides?
3. What are the available tactical nuke forces, if any, to either or both sides.
4. How great is the West's edge in armor and air tech?

It's a fun challenge but there are a lot of moving parts.

Also, we need to know how the Ruskies were able to penetrate the alps with such apparent ease. Anyone familiar with norther Italy and the southwestern French border will know that it is not armor friendly country by any stretch. Any stretch at all.

Dirk asserts...

Posted August 31, 2016
@McKinney
1. 1955
2. that's what we are helping JB to find out. We could take the Original NATO order of battle and tweak it to fit in the adapted situation. Ie less Italy (north occupied) and France (ditto South East), integration if they are members of Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and Israel etc. On a worldwide scale (if JB would be thinking that big, which is presume) we could start by using the current American commands (European/Pacific/Southern/Africa and Central) as starting blocks for treaty organisations and work our way down.

For exam. Pacific command is the US contribution to PATO, the PAcific Treaty Organisation where the forces of at least Aus, NZ, undivided Korea and South Japan are co-operating. You could add Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaya/Brunei and Singapore and Micronesia also to the mix.
3. I would keep it mostly conventional, nukes tend to make a mess ...
4. see comment on havoc's point.

Respond to this thread

Murphy_of_Missouri mutters...

Posted August 31, 2016
God, U.S. Army Doctrine was such a tangled mess during the 1950s and 1960s. Ike's thinking was to cut back on conventional forces, relying instead on the nuclear deterrent to dissuade the Soviets. This change led to the end of Regimental Combat Teams, replacing them with these weird battalion sized Battle Groups. Colonel David Hackworth wrote about those in his memoirs.

I think someone would have to stop all of that before it happened, since we reinvented RCTs with the Brigade Combat Teams of the last decade.

Thus, first and foremost, you'd need tanks. The Abrams is a battle proven design that would be limited only by the availability of turbine engines. Tanks like the Leopard II and the South Korean K-2 get around that with fairly powerful diesel tanks generating equivalent power.

So, toss the Abrams into the tool kit. It should be easy enough to build a rudimentary M-1A1 model given what the uptimers bring with them.

Go Bradley or not? The Bradley is a good IFV but it has proven to be too heavy for a lot of situations. It'd probably be better to go with something like a Stryker/ASLAV unit. I'd start building those in their infinite variations, that'll give Ike some of the savings he is looking for by creating a common family of vehicles.

We had AH-1 Cobras, UH-1 Hueys, and a rudimentary CH-47 for Final Impact. Upgrade those as well.

Thus a typical building block would probably consist of a Regimental or Brigade Combat Team. Since we're in Europe that needs to be Armor Heavy, two armor battalions for every one infantry battalion. Three brigades per armored or infantry division, slap in at least two artillery battalions (tube 155, towed or not, tracked or wheeled). A cavalry squadron on the ground, plus an aviation brigade. Throw in a Main Support Battalion, a Chemical Company, an MI battalion, an MP company, and a Signal Battalion.

How many divisions? Depends on what you want American Foreign and Military policy to reflect. Want to save money for domestic needs and rely on nukes? Let us say maybe two U.S. Army Divisions. There are plenty to pick from. Want to be more robust and not repeat the mistakes of the previous timeline? Maybe ten divisions in two Corps sized elements forming Third U.S. Army.

You'd need special assets. I'd ramp up the creation of a U.S. Army Ranger Regiment much sooner, plus moving forward with the creation of SOCOM. Then you could start pipelining those from the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne into those schools for more commandos/special operators.

I'd dump vertical envelopment doctrine and instead focus on heliborne troop movement doctrine instead.

As for the individual soldier himself? I have a feeling a lot of folks are going to study up on the M-16/M-4 and decide they don't want to go down that road. They may instead go for an updated M-14 with composite components replacing the wood stock. A rail system to mount all of the usual goodies on it would be a good way to go as well.

Body armor, helmet, smart googles of some type, radio comms pushed down to the individual level, and multicam style fatigues.

Those are a few suggestions for the U.S. Army.

DarrenBloomfield would have you know...

Posted August 31, 2016
This post is the sexiest thing I've read on the Internet this year...

More seriously, yes, its a great opportunity to unwind a lot of doctrinal/strategic/organisational decisions in light of bitter experience.

Fascinating for me will be to see how willing to learn theu are - think back to "Rome" and Olivier still screwing up with Hamlet despite knowing better. Trivial compared to what is at stake here, but a pointer to a very human condition?

I'm no military expert, but wouldn;t the biggest (non atomic) payoff come from smart ordnance?

In terms of force configuration, I think we've mused here at the Burger in other contexts that the single biggest thing modern forces (esp but not limited to US forces) have over historical ones is empowering leadership decision making in situ and trusting jonny on the spot, If that culture can be inculcated in Allied forces of the 50s, surely that will have a massive competitive advantage against a force still largely conscripts, and less than a generation removed from a battle plan relying on NKVD troops behind them with machine guns to 'encourage' moving forward.

Murphy_of_Missouri would have you know...

Posted August 31, 2016
That culture already exists in contemporary forces circa the 1940s. If anything the Uptimers are probably more prone to be German in their behavior on the battlefield than their 1940s counterparts.

Dirk puts forth...

Posted August 31, 2016
for an assault rifle a G3/FAL or AR10 would be better then a M14 I think. And it would balance the trade between the US and it allies. And would you go lower in calibre and go .223 wouldn't a hk416 clone work?

As would implementing the FN MAG as the standard machinegun. You will know it better in its M240 guise I think.

On tanks I must concur with Havoc: a gasturbine is hot as hell and has a drinking problem. So go for a 1200-1500hp diesel if you want a 60 ton tank. Upgrading the M-60 like the Israelis have done as Magach/Sabra could work also.

BCT is I think the way to go: Armoured, Mechanised, Light/Motorised/Mountain and Marine versions of those. Special Forces would be a no-brainer also I think.

Lav/Stryker in its original form Mowag Piranha would be also a good one. One chassis/powerpack with 16-20 versions of it I think ranging from simpel battlefield taxi;s to specialized versions. Building huge numbers keeps cost down and lowers training costs.

I would add some pieces of kit: a portable anti tank weapon, a small battlefield surveillance drone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade and the humble pickup truck in techincal mode for patrol and ambush operations.

jl asserts...

Posted August 31, 2016
The 240B is an excellent weapon, my only complaint with it is the weight (A PKM is better if you have to hump that bastard up the side of a mountain). It would work well in JB's universe. An upgraded M60 tank is a good pick as well. Strykers/LAVs make sense, too. For utility vehicles, why not go for the JLTV straight off? It's an excellent, battle tested design (the JLTV is a mini MAT-V, like the ones we used in Afghanistan) that should be well within the manufacturing capabilities of the 1950's. And SF, etc. uses pickup trucks, four-wheelers and dirt bikes all the time, so no reason to think they wouldn't use them in JB's world.

Respond to this thread

Murphy_of_Missouri has opinions thus...

Posted August 31, 2016
I put paragraphs into my above post but I guess they got whisked out.

Respond to this comment

WarDog puts forth...

Posted August 31, 2016
Drool .. teasers like this are going to kill some of us John.

Respond to this comment

jl is gonna tell you...

Posted August 31, 2016
A good place to start would be seeing a map of JB's vision for the division of post-war Germany. Remember in Final Impact how the Reds were mostly held out of Germany by a concerted chemical warfare effort by the SS? How much of Germany does the Red Army hold? How big is the "dead zone" that was impacted by the weaponized anthrax, radiation, etc.?

jl would have you know...

Posted August 31, 2016
Yeah, re-read JB's comment and he is on top of the map issue. That's what happens when you work on someone's air conditioner in the hot sun all day, you miss stuff.

Respond to this thread

FormerlyKnownAsSimon mutters...

Posted August 31, 2016
i can't remember if anything like this is included anywhere in the canon:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrJtw0kXgAAhVy6.jpg
the Canadian representative signing on the wrong line making everyone subsequently sign below. Resulting in crossing out etc. Man, what a mess for such an important document. . .

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 would have you know...

Posted August 31, 2016
Better clarify a few things. 3.1 are you talking EUROPE, and Centcom, Northcom and southcom ( ItalY) etc?

I need to check but where is NATO at this point ion time.

Also guys remember we are talking AoT WW3.1 NOT the normal time line.

As for the M1A1 its a piece of shit! thats a fkn log nightmare does not do SMOKE and has a poxy wading depth too. Drive a fkn gas turbine into water a see what happens. Its got a fkn IR heat bloom the size of fkn KNNSAS from the rear BTW. JET EXHAUSTS DO THAT!

Id be thinking maybe tech has allowed the M60 to be present, perhaps with a 120mm or 105mm, Rhinementanl unit??. ( me typing is shit but I am also trying to work) or perhaps they have integrated the Chiefton into current tech... MORE LATER!


MLRS....would they have adopted Strike Deep, second echelon attacks etc. I think ATGMs will be FKN RIFE! for the Allies! massive defensive capabilities and mobile. remember that supression tech will not be as advanced as Offensive tech for their type I think!...fkn could be wrong too!

Murphy_of_Missouri ducks in to say...

Posted September 1, 2016
Oh, Havock is the one person who thinks the Abrams is crap even though it has a fairly solid combat record, sells to allies on a regular basis, and the crews here stateside love it.

One forgets that Americans are very unlikely to purchase anything made by a foreign manufacturer, no matter how great it is. Thus, no Leopard IIs for the U.S. Army.

The other thing to keep in mind is that even in John's modified time line, Europe still gets the shit kicked out of it. The U.S. has manufacturing capacity to beat the socks off of anyone outside of the Sovs. So whatever it is they produce will be what pretty much everyone else uses.

Finally, per the Abrams, easy enough to slap a diesel engine in. Heat signature not an issue.

Dirk would have you know...

Posted September 1, 2016
Fair enough, but may I point out that Leo2, was once on the US shoppinglist en sold to more countries then the M1? Economics and especially armstrading is more give and take: I buy your tank if you buy my machinegun, missile system, radar, disposible socks etc. And the US buys from abroad a lot and or builds it under licence. the 240b is the belgian MAG, made in the us, UH-72 Lakota is made by airbus, mortars and towed 155's are British etc ...

In jets a high-low mix would work I think, so airforce F-15 & 16 the Navy/marines F-14 and A-4 (and a shitload of subkillers?).

Murphy_of_Missouri ducks in to say...

Posted September 1, 2016
Relatively recent change, Dirk.

Respond to this thread

John Birmingham ducks in to say...

Posted August 31, 2016
I'm perched in the back row of a school play. Not the best place to ponder these important questions.

Respond to this comment

AKM. asserts...

Posted August 31, 2016
Could always write in David Hackworth as a young up n coming officer...... he started his career stationed in Italy just after ww2

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 mumbles...

Posted August 31, 2016
TLAMS with Cluster munitions and SKEET type Anti tank forged penetrator bomblets. Maybe from Arsenal type battery ships off the coast line. Nato or what ever its going to be called will not have its space to trade for time and REFORGER will not be fast enough. I see the UK as being the primary stocking base. t SOSUS and the GIUK GAP..SOv subs. Europe and Britan will need to be resup.

Orbat for Russia will be in the order of the following:

Western theatre: 70+ Divisions
20K Tanks or more
A/Craft 5K
Mortars / Arty 20K plus pieces

Strategic reserves: well thats gunna be BIG 20 plus Divisions

Think at least 20 Divisions
Nth west ( Sweden etc. 15 Div or more
Ship and surface fleet numbers...not so sure. I think the Sovs will go for Naval Aviation BIG TIME. Backfires and Blinders and look for early versions of the MIG 25 Foxbat and Fox Hound too. Maybe a low level job like the Fencer Su 24.

Expect that Scotland will be turned into a Fortress, same for Iceland too....is that still in the Allies hands. I have a feeling it was lost?

Respond to this comment

Sparty asserts...

Posted September 1, 2016
the thing is i suspect that a lot of aviation assets will look really "soviet" on both sides - ie big engines, clunky and lots of rough bolts (spent afternoon once walking round a Latvian aviation museum - hard to believe a MIG 25 Foxbat could actually go mach 3 with its rough edges) any how I degress. I'd be interested to see how the pacific war goes - Stalin could use it as a spoiler op to stretch the US. So much so that maybe they have to sortie the Clinton in whatever state she's in...
it will prob have a very early seventies feel to the war (which tends not to be very much "wargamed" )with what i'd call semi precision munitions.

Murphy_of_Missouri is gonna tell you...

Posted September 1, 2016
I don't see American Aviation following the Soviet route. I also don't think they'll repeat the mistake of the F-4 Phantom. If they take any lessons at all it will be to stick with agility over sheer power and speed.

Josh mumbles...

Posted September 1, 2016
The F-4s issues were mostly caused by a lack of emphasis in pilot training on dogfighting. If you give the Phantom it's Vulcan cannon, train pilots to use the excellent amount of power the jet has to fight vertically & therefore avoid turning fights were MiGs excelled (which is what happened towards the end of Vietnam) then the Soviet jets won't be able to handle it.

HAVOCK21 is gonna tell you...

Posted September 1, 2016
This is interesting because you are running over several area and I think also missing some key points.

Google Randy Cunningham, hes an ACE from the Vietnam war and flew the F4. Like you state, they didnt train for ACM and gun fights. They did in the end learn to fight the F4 where it was best suited and without checking I think thats medium to low level. Sure the migs had great power to weight but a small delt wing, I think more suited to higher up..COULD BE WRONG.

Like the two person config as well, especially when you want something that got a low level capability.

Murphs onto it I think to a point ( thats my perspective really). I would have say the F4 for medium and all round work ( if thats what fits the development time line) maybe a F5 for top cover high altitude? and would gab the Varks F111's for low level. Remember also if you are talking about cross decking of sorts the F4 is Carrier capable, Nuke Capable, Bomber, F4G Wild Weasel, and CAP. Pretty good all round bird especially when they will already know what the design issues were etc and its analogue.

Respond to this thread

Rhino has opinions thus...

Posted September 1, 2016
Everyone is overlooking the obvious. I'm naturally assuming there will be a Sgt Rhino and his Banshee Commandos wreaking havoc.

John Birmingham swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 2, 2016
Have you been hacking my Scrivener files again?

Respond to this thread

Murphy_of_Missouri ducks in to say...

Posted September 1, 2016
Stalin might be well served by sitting down with his Admirals and coming up with a better Navy. It doesn't have to be as good as the U.S. Navy, just better than it was originally, with an aim toward cutting off the sea bridge between CONUS and Europe. If he times things right, before Europe fully recovers their economy, then he could move ahead with an invasion, depriving Europe of reinforcements from the US and resupply as well.

For that I'd invest in some good, quiet, reliable diesel submarines.

DarrenBloomfield mutters...

Posted September 1, 2016
Man, that just might work. Or at any rate, if nothing is likely to (and in the end I think our timeline 'proves' that democracy/capitalist-driven resource allocation ultimately decides the matter.) this might be it.

HAVOCK21 is gonna tell you...

Posted September 1, 2016
Just on that Murph, I thought that JO S might go the aviation route for a couple of reasons.

1

HAVOCK21 mumbles...

Posted September 1, 2016
Just on that Murph, I thought that JO S might go the aviation route for a couple of reasons.

1

Respond to this thread

Rhino has opinions thus...

Posted September 1, 2016
Think Inglorious Basterds ... but sexier.

Respond to this comment

Josh swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 1, 2016
I feel as though there is a bit of dilemma here - do nations go for tried & tested designs that did well in the original Cold War or push for hybrid systems that mix 1950s & 2020s tech.

It looks like other posters have covered plenty of areas well but (conveniently for me) haven't said much about possible NATO airpower. I personally think the following would feature in the AoT version of the Cold War:

F-4 Phantom - I feel as though the American "teen" series of fighters & comparable aircraft like the Tornado, Viggen, Mirage 2000 etc are too far in the future to really feature.
The next best thing to those has to be the F-4; it can be used as a fighter, interceptor, strike bomber & even to be used for suppression of hostile air defences. Although the Phantom initially struggled in Vietnam, this was mostly down to the lack of a cannon & very little pilot training that focused on dogfighting. If you fix those two issues then you've got an aircraft that will more than match most Soviet aircraft until they create a MiG-29, Su-27 or something else of that calibre (the F-15 was actually created to counter the perception of what the Americans thought the MiG-25 to be but it turned out that the Foxbat was an interceptor than a fighter).
If the US focused fully on developing an F-4 after the end of the Second World War then I certainly think they'd have them ready for the mid-50s. This would give NATO an aircraft that can be used both from land bases & carriers.

A-10 Thunderbolt - To stop Soviet armour, the "Warthog" is definitely my number one choice. Although it's a 1970s aircraft, it isn't what you'd call all that technically advanced. I reckon that the US could field some A-10s in the 50s although there may have to be some compromises; maybe the Avenger cannon isn't quite a powerful as its uptime counterpart.

F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger - I'm sure I remember reading something about the F-5 in the second AoT novel but nothing seemed to come of it. I feel like the F-5 would be a perfect fit for nations that can't afford aircraft like the F-4. It can be used in multiple roles, including as a trainer & may help to prevent more expensive NATO fighters from being overwhelmed by cheaper & more numerous Soviet jets.

Harrier Jump Jet - Due to the fact that the AoT version of the Warsaw Pact has a far greater reach into Western Europe, I believe that NATO airbases are certainly a prime target for the Soviets. The Harrier gives NATO the option to use roads as runways so that, even if NATO's airfields are taken out, NATO can still field jet aircraft. As the Falklands war showed, the Harrier is capable of dogfighting against aircraft that are supposedly superior to it. An earlier model of Harrier, such as the GR.1 or GR.3 should be obtainable, especially if the UK aerospace industry focuses on it. It would also provide the Royal Navy with a VTOL carrier aircraft.

Vulcan bomber - The Vulcan would definitely be obtainable during the 1950s & it could also have some other advanced tech installed that only later variants have. It could be used for both conventional & nuclear armed missions at either high or low level.
In applying a 21st Century to a 1950s problem, an experimental Vulcan that can carry air to air missiles could be used to intercept Soviet bombers over the North Sea (in the same way the American Next Generation Bomber could be used to take down Chinese aircraft over Taiwan in the not too distant future).

TSR.2/Avro Arrow hybrid - Perhaps the UK & Canada do a joint aircraft program to succeed where both nations failed in the original timeline. The outcome could be similar to that of the Tornado; two variants are created - a strike version which is developed for the RAF while the RCAF get the interceptor version. This would probably be at the cutting edge of 50s tech so there probably wouldn't be much time to outfit many squadrons before WW3 breaks out.

Mirage fighter - This could be a joint French, Italian and/or Spanish project. As both the French & Italians have had their nations divided, it's possible that neither of them have the ability to build an aircraft that can match the Soviet jets & those of other NATO nations, without cooperating with each other.


What private companies do in the 50s could have a big impact too: it's possible that enterprises like Slim Jim's try to combine 21st Century aerodynamics with 1950/60s technology only to find it usually ends up crashing. So, for example, you could have aircraft that may look similar to an F-22 or F-35 but just don't have the fly by wire controls & other modern systems to ensure they fly.

Many aircraft you've already entered into the AoT series would be important too: B-52s, A-4 Skyhawks & perhaps even some upgraded F-86s in the hands of poorer nations or in the American National Guard squadrons.

As well as aircraft, NATO should ensure they have a game changing air to air missile. They need AIM-7 Sparrows that are more reliable than their counterparts were over Vietnam in order to counter the superior Soviet numbers. An all aspect model of the AIM-9 Sidewinder (so something like the AIM-9L) would massively help the NATO air forces in WW3.

These are some of my ideas; feel free to critique them & hopefully they're somewhat useful (and hopefully the paragraphs don't disappear).

Murphy_of_Missouri ducks in to say...

Posted September 2, 2016
Harriers are pretty damned fickle, even today. I'm not sure I'd risk that route until I was sure of the technology.

Respond to this thread

DarrenBloomfield swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 1, 2016
In today's "Next Draft" I saw this - this story needs these! (sorry buzzfeed link didn't come over, copied below):

"A very, very small quadcopter, one inch in diameter can carry a one- or two-gram shaped charge. You can order them from a drone manufacturer in China. You can program the code to say: "Here are thousands of photographs of the kinds of things I want to target." A one-gram shaped charge can punch a hole in nine millimeters of steel, so presumably you can also punch a hole in someone's head." It turns out we don't need many new technological advances to make small, weaponized, autonomous drones a widespread reality. From Buzzfeed: Can a small group of optimists stop the proliferation of killer robots and, just maybe, save humanity from itself?


https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarahatopol/how-to-save-mankind-from-the-new-breed-of-killer-robots?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email&utm_term=.aiz1WNroQm#.purjJnPz5X

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 mutters...

Posted September 1, 2016
Murph, I though that Stalin might go the poath of Naval Air power for a couple of reasons, more so than building vast fleets.

1 The USN at the end of WW2- WAS A FKN BEAST. the number of units and carries especially was vast. I think that the Soviets trying to take on the US Fleets! and all else is a bit of a non starter, they might form some battle groups I guess and try, but I would focus on the backfire. Its more deploy able, greater reach and cheaper. If you tripled the number of Backfire regiments and remember they have greater access to shipping routes this time aroudn, the number of locations that you could strike at a surface fleet has more than trippled and that goes for convpoys too.

Put air to air missiles on back fires and REFORGER is gunna get one in the Keeeester.

The other item which the backfires will do, is deplete the flet of AMs, this being a result of Multi regiment atttack of the whol transition across the water. The ships can RAS for sure, but even RAS ships run out. If you could sustain the attacks...then you might catch the convoys with their pants down.

jl mutters...

Posted September 1, 2016
Defend Iceland. Clancy made that point with "Red Storm Rising". I suggest a regiment of the US 6th Infantry Division with an MEU on standby, an entire fighter wing and suitable naval assets.

DarrenBloomfield would have you know...

Posted September 1, 2016
Speaking of Clancy (and it's hard not to, in this context) remember that other great line from, I think, Red Storm Rising - the allusion to two Soviet officers strolling through recently occupied Paris, one says to the other "oh, by the way, who won the air war?"

Respond to this thread

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien ducks in to say...

Posted September 2, 2016
The US counted on "stay-behind" agents in Alaska in case the Soviets decided to re-create the Great Bering Strait Walkathon of 12,000 BC.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/early-cold-war-years-us-prepped-possible-invasion-alaska/

Obviously Operation Gladio also comes to mind - it wasn't just based in Italy but in a bunch of NATO countries.

And this time, will the invasion of Europe go through the soft underbelly of the Balkans or will it be through Rome?

Respond to this comment

Rhino ducks in to say...

Posted September 2, 2016

Didn't anyone hear me say, "Like Inglorious Basterds. But sexier?"



What the hell has happened to you people?

insomniac is gonna tell you...

Posted September 2, 2016
It's just that that combination is impossible for us mere mortals to imagine. It would blow our tiny minds.

Murphy_of_Missouri reckons...

Posted September 2, 2016
Rhino, I apologize.

I was reading up on the Enlightenment.

Rhino puts forth...

Posted September 8, 2016
Same thing in my mind.

Respond to this thread

spiral mumbles...

Posted September 3, 2016
hey guys, just thought i'd jump in the conversation:
i have a feeling that NATO should a MASSIVE advantage over the Sovs in the air, given the fact that the US kept a few missiles and aircrafts in Area 51 during the war for reverse engeneering purposes:
Harms are there; Mavericks and hellfires, next generation Fox 3's and Fox 2's (Amraam and Sidewinders); LGBs, scramjet hypersonic missiles, INS driven bombs... the list goes on and on, at least one weapon from every kind that is loaded on an aircraft carrier HAS to have been saved for this; so they will/should definetly have an advantage in the air compared to the Russians.

the F4 was a good fighter bomber, but had major problems in the way it was used, as said above: no cannons, faulty AIM 7 SPARROWS that reaaaally took a long time for ignition (2 seconds press on the trigger and 1.5 second to ignite after drop off: long time when in combat) the way it was used was Boom and Zoom, it's turn radius sucked and i do mean sucked hard. AIM 9's were already introduced by the end of the war (in the book), so that could be something they greatly improve upon (they would have AIM 9 X's remaining from the war brought back from 2021, so they would dodge the entire failure that were the AIM9's in they're early versions.)

it's ability to carry massive amount of payload though... that was a massive plus for it, even it lost agility; as the saying goes: The Phantom is a living proof that with enough power, even a brick can fly. (18 Mk 82/GBU 12s or CBUs to the face is nothing to laugh at)

though for the same result and better speed i might go for the F 111 in it's stead, packs a wallup and allows for deep strike capabilities.

to be honest though, given the fact that by the end of the war they have F5's in dev already, i'd go for the F16 as soon as i could if i were them multi role and agile af, the thing is just that amazing. A10 is a no brainer in Europe, it was litterally thought for THAT scenario (just didn't expect it to survive long though i think estimates were around 15 minutes survivability over the battlefield ).

apaches could pop their heads, as they already had Cobras and it was a natural successor to it IRL, i'd imagine by the end of the war that it would/should definetly show it's head in this AOB

though the amount of sexy sexy things that could pop up (oh TOMMY KITTY how i love thee xD) on both sides (Dat FLANKER though... love the SU 27!!! lets not forget the bomb chariot that is SU25....) i'm going to be in heaveeeen when i'm going to read this book!!! (not even looking at a preview, i want my surprise to be total reading this ;) ) where the F22/F35 could come in i'm not sure that's realistic at least not in they're "true" form; between the composite materials necessary; the special paint and other things... i don't know... might be going too far there.

the list here is the things i can see being there and the ones i don't think could be:

AWACS E3s, and E2s: yes
JSTAR (airborne ground traking plane): maybe

Harriers: yes
F14s: very likely
F15s: yes
F16s: yes if the US went straight for that plane from the end of the war.
F18s: maybe but very early version
F22: no (requires fly by wire and computer to be able be handled and not be a death trap for the pilots)
F35s: same as above

F117s "cheap" version: maybe
B1s: possible to very likely as it was thought IRL as the successor to the B52 and you already have those.
F111s (as an australian yourself, i don't think i need to introduce that one to you: remember those awesome dump&burns during national day? that's the one): yes
Intruder: yes
Prowler (EW/refueling plane for the Navy): yes
B2: probable, not likely (too modern i think)

it actually depends what type of OOB you want: highly specialized or multi role. in the Cold War Era Nato for highly specialized aircrafts:

for instance, the Navy had:
F14s for long range fleet defense with F18s covering the dog-fighting range/escort duties, Intruders for deep strike missions and SAM suppression (SEAD/DEAD missions), prowlers were Intruders repurposed primarily for Electronic warfare operations and secondarily to perform SEAD strikes. now the US only has the Superhornet for Fleet defense, deep strikes, SEAD/DEAD strikes, refueling and even a replacement for the Prowler which is called the Growler (still experimental though). it also has a variant in testing to replace the E2 (don't know if it's operational though) etc etc... the new navy CAN perform all missions, just not in the same way as it used to (jack of all trades, master of none?)

Respond to this comment

Murphy_of_Missouri mumbles...

Posted September 4, 2016
I really wouldn't go with the F-4. If you have the tech at hand, I'd move up to an F-15. I suspect F-16 type fighters are going to have to wait for advanced computer tech to come along.

Respond to this comment

sharky reckons...

Posted September 4, 2016
I posted a reply to Darren above 3 times said "You Have Posted" but nothing there?

Respond to this comment

Dirk swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 4, 2016
Ok let's make the mix:

Airforce:
Heavy Bomber:
B-52 - evolution of the wartime model, with wet wing, cruise missile tech and crude smart weapons. Let's call it the B-52D.
operators: USAF, RAF

Strike aircraft:
TSR2
Operators: USAF (as B-54 Cyclone), RAF (as Cyclone GSR1), France (B-54 Cyclone), Australia (Cyclone mark 1), Canada (CB-54 Cyclone)
* The B-54 was a still born 3rd generation update of the B-29.

Fighter
F-15A/B Eagle (USAF, RAF - Eagle F1, France, Luftwaffe, RNLAF, RBAF, Spanish Airforce, Turkish Airforce, Swiss Airforce, Swedish Airforce, Free Italian Airforce, Israeli Airforce).

Fighter Bomber:
F-5C/D Tiger: either the 2nd generation F-5 or something akin to the F-20 Tigershark (single engined etc.) (USAF, RAF - Tiger F1, France, Luftwaffe, RNLAF, RBAF, Spanish Airforce, Turkish Airforce, Swiss Airforce, Swedish Airforce, Free Italian Airforce, Israeli Airforce, RDAF, RNoAF, Austrian Airforce).

CAS:
A-10 Warthog: (USAF, RAF - Warthog G1, France, Luftwaffe, RNLAF, RBAF, Spanish Airforce, Turkish Airforce, Swedish Airforce, Free Italian Airforce, Israeli Airforce, RNoAF).

Dirk asserts...

Posted September 4, 2016
I forgot to give Oz fighters: so give them the Eagle/Tiger mix too, and add a wing of Warthogs :)

jl is gonna tell you...

Posted September 4, 2016
Early generation 15's actually had very rudimentary electronics, and they were certainly not fly-by-wire. Given a hand by the uptimers, there is no reason they could not be in JB's universe in limited numbers. You can skip the F-4 and the "Century Series" altogether.

Dirk ducks in to say...

Posted September 4, 2016
Well the F-104 was a source of a scandal in the 60's. Lockheed bribed Prince Berhard and a couple of german politicians to buy them, So JB, I think you can do something with that :). But I agree skip the Century-series and the low numbered navy jets.

Am putting up an order of battle at the moment for navel strength and land strength: I'l email a Google Drive link to you as soon if I got it ready.

spiral puts forth...

Posted September 5, 2016
@Dirk:

the B54 looks redendent with the B52, which we already have at the end of the war, so i would replace it with a B1 Lancer and the TSR2 with the Tornado

Dirk reckons...

Posted September 5, 2016
@spiral: Why B-52 and B-54/TSR2? First the B-52 is already in production and is more easily modified then a B-1. Boeing is tooled up for building them so it's cheaper to keep producing them. Secondly B-1 and Tornado have swing wings, which will be a challenge to get right. Thirdly the TSR-2 has a bombbay (stealth :) ) and has greater unrefueled range than Tornado. On Dassault: If I remember correctly he was Jewish and spend time in a camp in the war, so he could be picked up by NKVD for example. And yes France wants it own planes: that's why they ordered about a 1.000 or so from the US in 1938 :)

Murphy_of_Missouri has opinions thus...

Posted September 5, 2016
The B-52 is a proven design, and a great bomb truck with excellent loiter time. I'd stick with it.

spiral would have you know...

Posted September 5, 2016
@Dirk: nonono; the B52 is already there at the end of the war, so yes of course keep it, but the B54 was an replacement for the B29 which was more or less the let's call it "younger" version of the B52, which we don't need here since we have better thus the redundancy, the B1 Lancer would be a challenge if they didn't have tech heads from the 21st century, but they do, and if the Sovs can make "cheap" Tu 22 Backfires (i believe that it's what the Sovs use to nuke germany and Japan... right?) which has swept wings by the end of the war, there is no reason the US couldn't have swept wings after the war.

the TSR 2 has bomb bay doors, but it was originally passed for and the Tornado and it's variants were born from the competition that UK launched. the design and shape of the Tornado is almost a plane that Dassault was supposed to make with the Brits: the AFVG , so not that hard to make. might be better to gor F111 instead of the B1 or the tornado, but the Tornado has the advantage of being maneuverable, fast and can go in a lot more variety of missions.

damm that's another plane we just might not see in the book: the Tornado.

and... COCO Channel???!!! REALLY???!!! i lost it right there!!! xD
well i'll top your cheap cars, with Wine, Croissants, Jean Paul Sartre, and THE FUCKING CROCK EN BOUCHE!!! xD ( if you got that reference, kuddos, if you didn't just look up John Oliver after Paris 11/13... god that was awesome to watch).

Dirk puts forth...

Posted September 6, 2016
Yes the original B-54 was a enhanced B-29. But I would be calling TSR2 in USAF colours the B-54 ie the Cyclone.
TSR2 and Avro Arrow were killed in our timeline by US pressure, not because they were shit planes.

on Sartre: reread the original JB books: if I remember he was killed in those, and spurred a terrorist movement.

Hereby the John Oliver piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glxh9ZgP7kc

Respond to this thread

spiral mumbles...

Posted September 5, 2016

though during the cold war before the Etendards IVM (Marine version) in 61, we had the US Crusaders in the Navy, for our Air Force, France did have its own planes. *French Pride :D*

you could also try some fun things, for instance, Dassault could be on the wrong side of the border at the end of the war and gets forced to work for the Sovs on a few planes that he would have made for France: Mirage F1, 2000 N and C;the Jaguar, Etendars and Super Etendards, the Rafale could be in the works too. there is no reason France would not have it's own air force other than him being either dead or on the wrong side.


to be honest if Dassault is on the other side of the border or dead, France would turn to US or Britain, but damm that just hurt my pride :D

all those beautiful planes not ever existing... that's just sad...very sad.

for NATO side, let's not forget the TORNADO GR1 (at least) too.

i'm going to eat a baguette and drink some wine pondering weather they will ever be in this book...

Dirk is gonna tell you...

Posted September 5, 2016
@Spiral But you raise a good point though: What would life be in Europe in these 50's: maybee it's something for a new thread where we can park essays seen in the point of view of people that are there.

French Aviation will be impacted if Toulouse is in the occupied zone. And if De Gaulle imposes mart ial law to quench the national diseases of strikes in France. So I fear for Mirage trois, but maybee Slim Jim has scouped up Marcel Dassault and have him designing business jets. Only JB knows :D

But not all is lost for France: Coco Chanel could be designing multi cam NATO uniforms, now the Italian fashion industry makes Mao suits. Renault and Citroen can make cheap cars, not mollested by Fiat. And the Dutch will still be coming in summer, happily towing our Caravans along over the Route Nationale :D

jl mumbles...

Posted September 5, 2016
My mother-in-law spent the mid-fifties trying to get through nursing school in Den Haag, she would vacation in Switzerland with a family she lived with after the war (not a lot of food in Holland in 1945). My father-in-law's family laid up huge stocks of supplies in the fifties "want er komt vast weer oorlog (another war will come for sure)." They were from Arnhem, had spent time as refugees, so they knew what they were talking about. In JB's world, those supplies would have been used. In our world, my mother-in-law is still trying to get rid of the stuff. Ha ha, our house is full of 60 year old Dutch sheets, pillowcases, etc all neatly embroidered "Ten Broeke".

jl reckons...

Posted September 5, 2016
Dirk, fascinating angle to look at life through the eyes of some civilians there. Lord knows I've heard enough stories of what life was like during WW2, always liked to listen to the older people talk, and I'm glad I did, because now most of them are gone.

Dirk swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 6, 2016
@jl well I'm dutch. So I know the stories. My grandma also was a prepper avant la lettre. She died in 2000, my mum had washingpowder for the next 5 years :)
For the upcoming tv market of slim jim, there is i think a prepper show in the discovery archives I think he could pre boot :D

jl reckons...

Posted September 6, 2016
Yeah, I figured you were Dutch. I must be one of the only Yanks who have read the whole De Jong series (Het Koninkrijk Der Nederlanden...) about WW2, good books. A prepper show would be a huge hit in the fifties- here in the States a lot of people built fallout shelters back then. Somewhere here in the house I have an old Civil Defense pamphlet describing how to DIY a fallout bunker.

Respond to this thread

Aaron mumbles...

Posted September 5, 2016
We shouldn't assume allies have an unlimited budget to try every possible upgrade on the menu. I Think there would be planes and tanks that would be inspired by future versions but import other features or perhaps a scaled down version of.

jl reckons...

Posted September 5, 2016
Massive resources were squandered in the 50's and 60's chasing down concepts that didn't pan out- ex. B-58, B-36, Century Series fighters, etc. The 'temps have the advantage of perfect foresight in this respect. They can choose proven, achievable platforms and start rolling them out like sausages. Also, they can see the mistakes that were made strategically in the original timeframe and avoid them- ex. allowing the Army to atrophy post WW2, neglecting the Guard and Reserves, etc. One change I would make re: the Army is an enhancement of the system of conscription. In the original timeline, soldiers were generally drafted for two years and were subject to recall for another six in the "Selected Reserves"- which meant that the skills they had learned on active duty were soon forgotten. Here's the change I would make- soldiers spend two years on active duty, and then serve the remainder of their enlistments in a Guard or Reserve unit where their skill sets can be maintained. This change helps the Army as a whole- the active duty formations keep their edge, and the Guard and Reserve units are staffed by a constant influx of experienced soldiers.

jl reckons...

Posted September 5, 2016
Aaron raises a great point with cost-effectiveness, which segues into my point about maintaining the Guard and Reserves. I envision a 1/3 to 2/3 balance between Active Duty and part-timers (much cheaper to maintain). A lesson the 'temps can learn from future history is that the Reserves are not a place to go dumping unwanted men and materials, because the Army will need its Reserve forces in a national emergency. I propose that it makes sense that the Guard and Reserves are armed to the same standard as Regular forces- just as it is done today. This eases logistics and training and acts as a potent force multiplier. With a mobilization order, the trained and well-equipped part-timers become a plug-and-play asset at a small fraction of the cost of Regular formations.

Respond to this thread

HAVOCK21 swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 5, 2016
I agree with Murph ref the B52, its really how you would employ it. Its simply not going to survive in a high threat environment without MASSIVE support. But in a lower threat region or as I love them for, launching FKN LOADS of HARPOONS or ALCMS then hell yes. I think given the tech, you would see the US use the F111 in perhaps its final ardvark config, although if they are smart it would be the final Aus config. Much better unit. Plus they have the EW versions for radar suppression. I think that Jamming will be in advance of freq hopping gear, that take processing power, jamming not so much. I can see Europe and the rest opting for the Tornado. Its Gr, ADV ( F) series for interceptor and does all.

You could really start to narrow it down.

EUROPE:
F15's (some) but mainly Tornados in F3 air interceptor role. GR for ground attack.
AH series choppers or Lynx either or. The Cobra ( super) versiuon might well be a better option all round and cheaper too.

Forward basing..hmm, not so sure. I would think that SOME interceptors would be forward in EU / France. But given transit times I'd be looking to UK.

Get the feeling SAM's will be like fkn fleis on a dead carcas, so low level its gunna be for strike. You know the KRAUTs will opt for the Tornado too. Plus it can double up for Maritime strike as well


Really not sure anbout the F15 for ground attack unless the timeline allows for the E Model, but hey, you would make do.

US:
F15 as the doominate Fighter for Air intercept and some ground attack dsuties perhaps.

Close Air: A10 for sure
Strike and nuke strike its the FB 111 ( SAC) and F11 Ardvark, plus the EW Raven unit. Talk with the skips about the best version, we operated them longer and modded them more.

LAND:
Well tats a fkn complete shit fight I guess. You know they will want the M1, not sure if the tech will be there. if it is then thats what will be built, remeber also the Aussies had a modified versiuon of it too in AoT so they can reverse engineer it. IF..IF they can convince the EU to go for it, then mass the one unit type only. MAKES fkn Sense. If not then its gunna be a slug fest between a modded leo 2 and Challenger 2. I like the latter a bit more.

Murph mentioned the Bradley, but noted its heavy. again its a preference thing. I like the new gear out thats 30MM, not 25mm but thats just up gunning. The bonus of the Brad is the TOW launcher which i like. But not sold on the rest.

The B52 will excel at Maritime strike and stand off launches, thats a kicker.

Naval. And here is the big question, can you set up an F15, say an e version of sorts to take a cat shot and carrier landing, if so, the BAM, its a bonus. If not we have to have another airframe and not a carrier.

jl reckons...

Posted September 5, 2016
Look up F-15N. It's doable, but inter service rivalries are inevitable. Also, F-15E's are nuclear capable.

Respond to this thread

Aaron mumbles...

Posted September 6, 2016
I think there is an opportunity for plot in that the allies face a dilemma of too many options, budget and political pressures et al. The soviets although not as advanced have always been ruthlessly practical so might drive for more doable and less upper edge. It worked in ww2 re armour forces and I remember himmler in woc2 ruminating on why the allies were arguing over producing weapons when certain choices seemed seemed obvious .

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 is gonna tell you...

Posted September 6, 2016
jesus JB. Lota data out there.

spring of 1944 Russia had in excess of 460 Divisions at a nominal strength of 5K per division.

Given the LARGER establishment in the AoT series, larger ground gained, it ould be well north of 500 Divisions but at more like 700K per Div within 3 years of WW2 end I would think.

Disposition...who knos at this point. Need to work that some. Composition, they would have moved to the Cold war combination as a minimum. But think about this. Given they had Gaurds, Rifle and Tank ( shock armies). What would they be like as a combined arms Army. But down to battalion level- Batle Groups, more like the German model. That ould prove interesting to Defend against.

it wouldgive the SOv defense in depth, multi layered. Not sure if they could pul it off, but I think so.

I go up against NATO, Ive got organic arty, ATGM's RPGS, Inf, APC, IFV's MBT's tied in together. I guess Frontal aviation is sep to this, but with more CAS available for the Unit commander, say down to Battalion level.

Thinking about Italy some, I see Airborne units and massive air support for that op from the Sov perspective. Fighting UP the peninsula wasa bitch for the Allies oroginally and it lends itself to Defense. Same I guess for a downward thrutst. Thus Airborne drops, massive though, and a mech focus?. not sold on that, certainly they would have looked at the amphib ops and how they went.

Stage one might be massive strikes by A/C against Med assets to enable amphib operations, follow up Airborne drops. I would use Airborn drops even as a throw away assset to tie down Allies troops/ block them, to allow consolidation.

jl ducks in to say...

Posted September 7, 2016
In Italy I would use the 10th Mountain (US) and the 86th Mountain IBCT to tie the Russians into knots. Of course, the Sovs know that Italy is a maneuver nightmare, so it will probably be a secondary theater.

HAVOCK21 swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 7, 2016
Agree. Though I am thinking they might try and cross the med, hit CAIRO, not make the same mistake as Adolf with Logistics. I really to to get up a map of what the Soviets gained at the end.

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien puts forth...

Posted September 8, 2016
Totally, close off the Med. They have Greece. They gotta cut off Crete and Cyprus, maybe with some help from the Arab countries. Then roll across North Africa in the reverse.

Respond to this thread

DarrenBloomfield puts forth...

Posted September 6, 2016
For all his weird personal political beliefs, Andrew Roberts' The Storm of War: a new history of the second world war is a pretty well researched critique of the the political failings of the dictatorships versus the democracies, If his thesis can extend to JBs world, 'our way' is better set out to win over Uncle Joe's

Respond to this comment

Dirk reckons...

Posted September 6, 2016
Workhorces: the C-130 Hercules, the S-2 Tracker/CS-2 Trader/ES-2 Tracer/KS-2 Tanker would be no brainers too I think. Fitting them with the same T55 powerpacks (4 in C-130, 2 in S-2) could also power newer versions of the CH-47, and be used als ACU's for for ex. electricity and to power electronics aboard ships and aircraft.

combining the M-4 Sherman chassis with the M-2 or M-114 155mm howitzer would make a good self propelled gun, without hurting the bottom line. The surplus hulls and turrets could be used in fixed defenses on choke point in for example the Swiss and Austrian alps, on the Danish, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian coasts and at choke points. You could do the same with surplus Panthers and Tigers.

Trucks: the M-35 and the Deuce and a half with a diesel engine would fit. You can build them up as DUKW (Duck) also.
Jeeps would be around plenty too, as would "nato green" versions of for ex the 2CV, the Renault 4 and the Beetle.

Pick a moment too for the humble mine. You want to have some modern types for killing tanks. You can do dirty tricks with them. for starters a mine (for ex the Barmine) that send a single when it's been traversed, and blows up after the second or third vehicle. Claymores and trip wire or other wise activated anti tank grenades (and rpg/m-72 or alike with a trip wire for ex.) And this baby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M86_Pursuit_Deterrent_Munition



jl mutters...

Posted September 6, 2016
The allies need strategic airlift, too. The C-5 would be handy. Also, it would be good if there were lots of pre-positioned supplies in depots throughout Belgium, France and Holland. Early in my career, I visited such a place in Germany- Row upon row of M-60 tanks, humvees, etc. as far as the eye could see. Agree on mines, C-130's, jeeps, they have all kinds of uses. Disagree on re-use of WW2 armor, except as raw material for a steel mill. Too many logistics problems. Start with a basic design (M-60 chassis) and re-equip from there. You've seen pictures of US arms assembly lines in WW2 or the fifties? They were capable of astonishing production. I read once that a shipyard in California built an entire Liberty ship in a day- I think that reference was in a book called "A Call to Arms" by Maury Klein. And speaking of Liberty ships- they should be put to use as floating forward LOGPAC (logistics package) vessels, filled to the brim with combat equipment and placed forward world-wide (which also happens to be modern practice). For further options, look up the Besson class logistics support vessels.

Dirk is gonna tell you...

Posted September 6, 2016
I'll do you one better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_ship and make them container ready, you wanna get the empty fast, en ship the good fast to the line (so add also semi trailers, trains and tracks etc to the mix). A ship in port is a sitting duck.

Well the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Frank_S._Besson-class_logistics_support_vessel reminds me of the russian Ropucha class, but will come in handy.

Yep those tankparks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POMCUS I know them, they are huge indeed.
You will need a fleet of airliners to ship personnel over so Civil Reserve Air Fleet has to be established also. Maybe even Nato wide. Ship in troops, ship out refugees.

C-5 would be good, but why not use early 747's from the CRAF also?

jl puts forth...

Posted September 7, 2016
Forgot to mention the CRAF- they are an essential piece of the puzzle, but can only be effective if some level of air superiority is maintained/achieved.

Respond to this thread

Dirk mutters...

Posted September 6, 2016
@havoc: Arsenals ships are fine and good, but why not go flexibel: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 You can use this baby also is a long range hauler.

Respond to this comment

Dirk is gonna tell you...

Posted September 6, 2016
and a nice mix between Tomahawk and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-160_MALD would make for nasty surprise too ...

Respond to this comment

Murphy_of_Missouri mutters...

Posted September 7, 2016
Might not be a bad idea to ponder what toys the Sovs are bringing.

Numbers do provide strength however there is the weakness inherent in the need to upgrade the equipment for those numbers. That costs money and even the Sovs still have to spend something for what they get. The present day Russian Army has learned that the very hard way.

jl swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 7, 2016
I would think an absolute boatload of T-55s or T-72s, BMPs, BTRs, 2S1's, masses of arty, MiG 21's, Hinds, etc in a combined arms assault on steroids. They have a breakthrough (5th Army, approx. nine divisions of the Army's best troops, are gone), now they will be looking to bypass and flank what's left on their assault towards Rotterdam, Brussels and Paris. They won't get bogged down in fights for cities, and they will sprinkle airborne assaults around like raisins in my aunt's cookies to fix defenders. Plus, additional strikes with their space borne weapons are a possibility, so massing troops to hit their flanks is going to be problematic. In short, the defenders are in hell. If air superiority is lost and REFORGER fails, the US better start thinking hard about the Statue of Liberty being replaced by Smilin' Joe in New Worker's City.

jl puts forth...

Posted September 7, 2016
And don't forget Asia. If I were the Russians, I would pour troops across the DMZ in S. Japan to further complicate the Allies war efforts, maybe send some troops to Alaska, too. Weeks before the outbreak of hostilities I'd have the Pacific and Atlantic crawling with subs, to include a few boomers, and I would do something about the Panama Canal as well. Joe Stalin has the advantage here, he is inside of the allies decision loop (at least at first), and God knows the NKVD will have almost all of the Allies war plans on his desk. I really don't know how you keep this from going nuclear in a big way, short of getting lucky and killing Joe Stalin and his cabal. Of course, if Joe is smart, he's hanging out somewhere in Siberia when this shit-storm kicks off, and he has a body double hanging out at the Kremlin.

Murphy_of_Missouri ducks in to say...

Posted September 7, 2016
I honestly do not see the Soviets achieving air superiority. Would it be a nasty, contested fight? Sure. But clearing the skies of the U.S. Air Force, filled with their own combat veterans plus advanced equipment?

Unlikely.

Besides, even with advances in air transport I suspect the 1950s doctrine will still lean heavily on sea transport to reinforce Europe. There are just too many ships available, even if they stopped production earlier in their war than we did in ours. Plus, if NATO finds themselves with their backs to the wall, they can always uncork the nukes.

Which has always been the problem with this scenario. Once someone starts losing they start to look at the nukes the way a drunk who has been on the wagon too long looks at the liquor cabinet.

Dirk reckons...

Posted September 7, 2016
River crossing equipment: To conquer Europe with heavy armor je need to cross some big rivers: rivers from east-west: Vistuala (Pol) – Oder/Neisse (GER) – Elbe (GER) – Rhein/Meuse/Rhone (GER/BEN/FR/SW). And to counter attack also.
So this would be nice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Amphibious_Rig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3SCycWcE2E
With NATO relying on air power, the sov’s will need to have mobile aa defence: The Zsu-23-4 on a t-55 chassis and something like SA-6, SA-7, SA-8 and SA-9 will be in the mix. But that will be for about a third I think. The rest will be your average truck borne infantry or even boot borne infantry. With the different gauging of WP and Western trains, the Sov’s will have to truck everything in from clean socks (if they at last dumped the puttees), to fuel, food – if they don’t plunder every German supermarket and ammo. So there is an Achilles heel also.
If one in STAVKA has read Clancy, they will know that NATO is trained in spotting and subsequent killing of antenna/command vehicles. The first 2 ruble upgrade would be to add fake aireals to all vehicles then.

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien asserts...

Posted September 8, 2016
The Sovs have to do what the Israelis did in 1967. They gotta take out the Allied airplanes before they take off. Israel did this through a mixture of Egyptian incompetence, disinformation and sheer bravery with some luck. The Sovs have to radar jam, sabotage, etc. - and the Allies have to make sure it doesn't happen.

Murphy_of_Missouri mumbles...

Posted September 8, 2016
With the Sovs that is probably going to require some Spetnaz action behind the lines before the war proper starts.

Respond to this thread

Don Bagert puts forth...

Posted September 7, 2016
JB: Concerning Final Impact, I don't remember any chips falling at the end of it, but there was lots of nuclear fallout from the seven atomic bombs :P

Respond to this comment

jl mutters...

Posted September 7, 2016
Given the parameters JB has outlined, it's hard not to think that the US Army as a field force in Europe will be seriously degraded. I made an OOB for the Army that I shot to JB, and looking at it, it's obvious that it will be a matter of weeks before significant US forces can be brought to bear in the European Theater. (Some forces, like the XVIII Corps, could be there in days. However, if you commit forces piecemeal then you are begging for defeat in detail, especially against the numbers the Red Army will be bringing.) Not being really familiar with the Allied forces available in theater in the Fifties, what is left? The British and French Armies will surely have robust forces available, and a reformed Bundeswehr with good equipment will be a must. What forces do the Dutch and Belgians have? How many of these forces are going to be "fixed" or tied down responding to airborne operations? The local European forces are going to have to soak up the first waves of attacks, so we have to get a good grasp on the numbers.

Murphy_of_Missouri reckons...

Posted September 7, 2016
Why would they repeat the same mistake as they did during the Cold War? Especially if the contemporary US knows or suspects what Stalin's intentions are? He gave a pretty clear indication that he is not going to sit behind the Iron Curtain and wait for history to destroy him. The US would probably provide far more in the way of conventional forces than it did previously.

Dirk ducks in to say...

Posted September 7, 2016
@jl NL (1989) 3 mech inf divisions (1/3 regular in Germany rest on about 96 hours mobilisation time (operatie Donderslag - Op Thunderclap), one Independent brigade (reserve), 1 marine brigade (for service with the Brits in Norway), 1 brigade (natres) rear echelon, 200 fighters, 50 choppers, 12 frigates, 2 resupply. In the 50's we had a carrier and 2 cruisers also.

BEL (89): 2 mech divisions, 1 Lux bataljon, 150 fighters, 30 choppers, 3 frigates, 12 minesweepers and a support ship.

jl mutters...

Posted September 7, 2016
Murph, yeah, I figured a lot of the same mistakes wouldn't be made all over again, so in my OOB I kept the Army fairly strong, conventionally. Dirk, Thx for the data. Something told me you would know this stuff.

Respond to this thread

HAVOCK21 reckons...

Posted September 7, 2016
Jl,
I think the Allies might look very closely at the German models used on the Eastern Front, in terms of defensive equipment. If you can keep air-cover or at least keep it neutral, your ground forces have a shot.Now having said that, they must be defensively strong and able to withstand saruration rocket attacks, Chem weapons as well.
Which gives me a hankering for the Merkva style tank, Inf and armour buttoned up initially. Strong SAM presence too. Maybe a lot of SAM coverage from the channel. What about specialty ships in Port in UK , have your pre positioned equipment there, then if you can maintain air coverage over the channel the ability for a strike against them is a lot lower.
2 -You could far more easily block both ends of the channel with a High Density field of underwater mines ( captor type), Subs and mobile ASW Forces. That ASW screen also adds to the SAM screen as well.
Stop Gaps.
Add reactive armour onto tanks and UP GUN tanks. Increase top armour as well. Your initial defensive Forces in Europe do not need to be Rapidly Mobile.

MINE FIELDS…lots, bleed the first waves! Assuming holes are not punched in lines with Nukes.
Airbases will be in England and on the west coast!, make attackers transit across England through SAM fields and defensive fighters to get them.
Again, cruise Missiles with cluster munitions and anti tank bomblets…….. LOT OF THEM.
ICELAND. Big base, BIG B52 base for saturation attacks.
Refit a lot of US W2 Carriers out with defensive weapons and perhaps if its opted for Jump Jets or Choppers. AMPHIB Groups and large.
Med, islands. Fortify!!!

jl is gonna tell you...

Posted September 7, 2016
Excellent suggestions, Havock. And the Merkava is an impressive beast, I had the chance to examine one once on a staff trip to Israel. And you are absolutely right about mine fields and cruise missiles- the NATO planning staffs are no fools, and they know that they will always be heavily outgunned. Now we get to be JB's staff and think all this stuff through. Still though, what are the numbers (in divisions), that can be counted on for the defense?

HAVOCK21 has opinions thus...

Posted September 7, 2016
Gotta give that some more thought.
But what about this.

If I was the US Prez, I would have had my Subs laying Captor / Moray mines that are freq activated throughout Sov territory. I would also look at perhaps a cruise Missile with a payload that is a sonar system. The unit drops its cargo over the previously laid mine filed and on hitting the water activates, arming the hidden sea bed mines. This saves on the issues of sending in a sub in hostile times to activate the sea mines.

I would for the same reason look at aerial deliverable mines form long range cruise missiles, they don’t need to be ultra smart, just fly to the co ordinates and dispense cargo.

Respond to this thread

Dirk has opinions thus...

Posted September 7, 2016
@murphy @ jl @havoc I ve send JB a draft OrBat for NATO 3 days ago. I think we should compare notes. If you contact me with an email adress via the facebook, twitters or http://www.dirkdejager73.nl/contact/ , i'll send you a copy.


Been reading up in Final Impact: there are already a few nice toys in play. The ASM-1, the Hercules and the Hawaii class flattops for example.


On the Red Army: In FI they are fielding the T-55 in large numbers. Russians tend to stick to their toys and if they are smart upgrade them too. A first strike weapon in their arsenal would be GRU assassination squads for taking out the political and military leaders of NATO. Decapitation by terror. At least that was the theory in the cold war. Operation RYAN it was called.


Further look up Operational Maneuver Groups: after a break through had been achieved, these formations were intended to exploit it. A modern day cavalry so to say.

For mining apart from captor style mines (which nowadays are single shot: how many mk 46 or 48's can you fit in a 20/40ft shipping container?? ) you could employ quickstrike. It's a mk80 bomb with a magnetic, or accoustic triggerd fuse. A b-52 could drop 80 in one run.


HAVOCK21 is gonna tell you...

Posted September 7, 2016
fkn done.

jl reckons...

Posted September 7, 2016
Dirk, done deal. Be glad to shoot you my stuff.

Dirk has opinions thus...

Posted September 7, 2016
Yeah found it, stuff is in the mail for ya.

Respond to this thread

DarrenBloomfield reckons...

Posted September 7, 2016
Man. This is going to be EPIC.

Respond to this comment

Dirk mutters...

Posted September 7, 2016
@Darren: to use the words of Mike Judge: Yo momma! :)

Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 mutters...

Posted September 7, 2016
Gotta say I am in a quandary. Are the German people sick of WAR and the Military or Are they ready to fight more Russian hordes. I think the Latter.
At the end of WW2 there were approx. 450K troops of Germany deployed across NORWAY I believe. All vets, plus whats left at home. Add ten years and a new age group or two, ranks leavened with Vets that were young. You could field 10 Divisions for Germany of Mechanised Infantry, add to that 5 Divisions of Armour and I mean heavy Armour. Arty plus attachments will take up another 6 Divisions.

Found some archived docs on NATO and or more relevance, the integration and building of the German army in latter 1950’s, The Bundeswehr near the end of that period were fielding approx. 10 divisions. It was noted by British and American observers of an exercise, that not only were the German Ranks a mix of young conscripts, but veterans, their combined arms efficiency was through the roof and motivation was as well. Given the Aot Differences, you could push that 10 up to 15 divisions for the Germans. I would suggest a 6/4 ration of Inf and Armour, plus Arty, log, ADef units and ancillary ones to.

Should check, but OTH a German Div is heavier in numbers than the Soviets. And the Defensive bent would be too, then in terms of outright fire power it could be as much as a third if you do not factor in Soviet TUBE systems….thats a fkn whole new level of hurt, but not controllable at the Brigade/ Battalion level for the soviets..

jl reckons...

Posted September 7, 2016
The Germans will certainly defend the Heimat. They will be a potent force for sure. In other news, reading SM Stirlings new book "Prince of Outcasts." Stirling casts JB as King of Capricornia! Sweet!

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien would have you know...

Posted September 8, 2016
No doubt the Germans will fight hard. Read Gerhard Kramer's "We Shall March Again" to remove all doubt. Plus in the West, it's historically been easier to sell Russophobia than Prussophobia, so to speak.

Respond to this thread

HAVOCK21 ducks in to say...

Posted September 7, 2016
As some know I write me own scribble and Ill list below one of the new weapons systems, the other Ill post to you JB, cos I think its a fkn cracker and might be very interesting in the next series. Here one of trhe systems.

FROM the HAVOC R & D DESIGN LABS:

Long Range anti ship Strike torpedo. LRASST
Ramjet propelled carry platform. Holds 4-6 liquid nitrogen propelled underwater semi acoustic torpedos with armour piercing heads.
Ramjet range is 300 kilometres, terminal phase ejection of torpedos can be pre-set or based on threat detection levels.
Max range of torpedos is 30 kilometres. Max speed is 80 knots or 148 kilometres per hour. Covering 30 kilometres in a little over 12 minutes.

Weight- 500 kilos
Length 2M
Diameter is 500mm
Range 30 kilometres at 90 knots ( 12 minute intercept time)

Warhead. Armour piercing 50kgs. Incendiary

Same size as a Tomahawk TASM/ TLAM and able to be fired from the VLS systems of Burke DDGS and similar ships such as the AWD.
Brief:
The LORASST VLS launched Anti-ship surface attack missile is designed to penetrate high threat sea warfare environment. The LRAT as the weapon system is known consists of a primary launch vehicle for transit to the area of attack. The Vehicle is a highly modified tomahawk surface attack missile system with significant modifications to allow it to carry its new payload. Additionally THE MISSILE HOUSES AN ENHANCED EW AND SURFACE SEARCH / ATTACK SYSTEM. The advent of advanced surface to air defensive missile systems, CIWs systems and Cap aircraft have made the chances of missiles penetrating the AAW screen that much slimmer, only with large scale saturation attacks can ASM’s hope to penetrate and sink enemy surface vessels. It was with this in mind that the DSTO looked at conducting attacks against the surface fleets in an environment where defensive counter measures are minimal and the advantage lies with the attacker. It was this drive that prompted the creation of a multiple missile carrying platform that could then deliver high speed ASuW missiles against the surface fleet from a standoff distance that would deliver greater survival rates of the delivery platform.


Carriage.
4 independent configurable surface vessel attack torpedoes are carried per launcher. The launcher can be carried by all aircraft certified to carry the tomahawk cruise missile delivery system, all surface and sub-surface vessels inclusive.
The LRAT ASuW missile system carrying within its nose cone and additional sensors throughout the missiles main transport body, Electronic warfare sensors. The sensors are slaved to the on-board microprocessors which computes when either the final IP has been reached and to deploy the units 4 independent high speed anti-ship torpedoes, or the threat detection threshold reach a sufficient intensity requiring deployment of the torpedoes before the main body unit is engaged and destroyed.
Post launch of the 4 independent attack torpedo, the main body unit goes into terminal attack profile with a rapid series of jinks and if programmed a final pop up manoeuvre before attacking the target set.
Current LRAT units are equipped with enhanced Link17 communications for two way data and coms, enabling the camera feed from the nose to be observed and additional targets selected if required.
The high speed torpedoes of the LRAT whilst having a armoured nose cone, have behind the seeker head a millimetre wave radar and passive sonar sensors on the front canards,


Respond to this comment

HAVOCK21 has opinions thus...

Posted September 7, 2016
How far into southern France did the ruskies make it, did they get to the bay of Biscay or not?

Dirk puts forth...

Posted September 7, 2016
Hmm JB wasn't clear about that in FI. Let's say for starters the southeastern corner (swiss to spanish border)?

Respond to this thread

Rhino puts forth...

Posted September 8, 2016
All of this extraneous detail, blah, blah, blah is taking the focus away from what is really important, in re: "LIKE INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, ONLY SEXIER."

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien asserts...

Posted September 8, 2016
"My name is Maj. Pavel Ivanov and I'm putting together a special team, and I need me eight soldiers. Eight Russian-American soldiers. Now, y'all might've heard rumors about the armada happening soon. Well, we'll be leaving a little earlier. We're gonna be dropped into Greece, dressed as civilians. And once we're in enemy territory, as a bushwhackin' guerrilla army, we're gonna be doin' one thing and one thing only... killin' Commies. Now, I don't know about y'all, but I sure as hell didn't come down from the goddamn Ural Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half of Italy and jump out of a fuckin' air-o-plane to teach the Commies lessons in humanity..."

HAVOCK21 ducks in to say...

Posted September 8, 2016
Rhino I am still seing you here in this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2177771/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6

Guess who?

insomniac has opinions thus...

Posted September 8, 2016
What could possibly make it sexier?

Therbs is gonna tell you...

Posted September 10, 2016
The order of battle is:
1 Rhino plus sidekicks (if he needs them).
Resupply needs are:
ammo, whiskey and cigars.
Problem solved.

HAVOCK21 ducks in to say...

Posted September 10, 2016
You FKN FORGOT ONE HAVOCK as well!

Therbs swirls their brandy and claims...

Posted September 11, 2016
Order of battle for Asia-Pacific:
1 Fkn Havock with Fkn Muppet Capping stuff.

Respond to this thread

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien puts forth...

Posted September 8, 2016
Will the notorious KGB Directorate S covert agents play a role in WW3.1??? I can't imagine they won't.

Respond to this comment

Aaron ducks in to say...

Posted September 13, 2016
For some reason my comments won't stick. Would live to see what modding of existing weapons could happen for lower tier or civilian units (or even civilians who don't trust peace treaty). Building all these fancy toys costs money, especially the hammer. I always liked that example of the modded Ak 47 in Elysium

Dirk asserts...

Posted September 13, 2016
Yep, we are think about that too ..

By the way: Telefon?

Turlogh Dubh O'Brien ducks in to say...

Posted September 20, 2016
"Miles to go before I sleep..." :)

Respond to this thread

Rhino has opinions thus...

Posted September 16, 2016
Besides hardware, what impact would uptime war fighting doctrine have?

Murphy_of_Missouri ducks in to say...

Posted September 17, 2016
I think the hardware gear geek thing is why I've not been participating in these threads of late. Doctrine, on other hand, seems to be underexamined.

I mentioned somewhere around here that current doctrine in the U.S. Army revolves around the Brigade Combat Team as the building block of any deployable force. These BCTs seem to me to be a return to the much older Regimental Combat Teams of the original timeline circa World War II/Korean War.

I suspect the contemporaries would take the best elements from the uptime BCT doctrine and incorporate that into their RCT formations, saving themselves a lot of hassle and fuck knuckling around.

Another mistake they would probably try to avoid is an overreliance upon a nuclear deterrent as a cost saving measure with regards to a conventional ground force. And as we've seen in the early installments of Stalin's Hammer, Stalin himself is busily at work neutralizing that deterrent anyway.

My two cents.

jl is gonna tell you...

Posted September 17, 2016
Agreed, Murph.

Respond to this thread

HAVOCK21 mutters...

Posted September 17, 2016
Concur Murph.

The Air land Battle and the strike deep whilst attacking the first echelon will be something they will blend. The Sov's will probable know this and try to Counter too

Dirk, JB , shot you an e/mail. I have completed the Soviet ORBAT for 1955 ( actual) for Central EU and am fleshing that out now. Trying to include Southern France and Italy as well. Maps to follow, I have them for mark up , but determining finish lines for soviets advance is a BITCH!

Respond to this comment

NBlob asserts...

Posted September 19, 2016
Nice one JB.

Respond to this comment

BM is gonna tell you...

Posted October 8, 2016
The counter strike should take place like the US planned in the 80's.

Air-Land battle to stop the invasion, REFORGER to reclaim Germany. And an amphibious invasion of central Russia using LCACs and the Rivers. That was to penetrate into the heartland behind Moscow and destroy all the factories and industrial heartland.

Respond to this comment

Respond to 'Pepsi Challenge: World War 3.1 '

Follow along with RSS