forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,737
|
Post by forcon on Jun 19, 2020 11:44:52 GMT
What if the Gulf War took place in a TL where the Warsaw Pact kept rumbling on through the early 1990s?
The how and why of the Warsaw pact surviving isn't really relevant. But picture these hypothetical differences:
1) the Warsaw Pact is still around: what forces would the Allies deploy? How would this affect the ORBATS? Would we get ARNG combat manoeuvre formations involved?
2) Canada and Australia send significant ground forces: my thinking here is that the Canadian brigade would come under the command of a composite British heavy division, and the Australians would come under the command of a Marine Expeditionary Force to upgun them with more armour and mechanised infantry.
3) Iraqi-backed terrorist groups stage successful attacks in Allied nations. This could mean strikes against off-post targets like nightclubs frequented by troops or more significant targets like embassies.
4) The Iraqi Air Force actually fights instead of running to Iran. It won't change the outcome, but it could make it bloodier.
5) The USSR provides covert or overt backing to Saddam. This could mean weapons transfers, and a refusal to support any UNSC resolution.
6) Saddam keeps the hostages; what if Iraq retains hundreds or thousands or westerners from Allied nations. Could a rescue be effected, and if not, would Allied planners resort to striking key military targets if their were hostages known to be inside?
7) Potential Allies for Saddam; Libya, Sudan, Yemen...Any others? I thought of a skirmish breaking out between Libya and Egypt while Egypt has troops fighting in Kuwait, resulting in Libya effectively joining the fight on Iraq's side.
Thoughts?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710 
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 19, 2020 14:26:19 GMT
What if the Gulf War took place in a TL where the Warsaw Pact kept rumbling on through the early 1990s? The how and why of the Warsaw pact surviving isn't really relevant. But picture these hypothetical differences: 1) the Warsaw Pact is still around: what forces would the Allies deploy? How would this affect the ORBATS? Would we get ARNG combat manoeuvre formations involved? 2) Canada and Australia send significant ground forces: my thinking here is that the Canadian brigade would come under the command of a composite British heavy division, and the Australians would come under the command of a Marine Expeditionary Force to upgun them with more armour and mechanised infantry. 3) Iraqi-backed terrorist groups stage successful attacks in Allied nations. This could mean strikes against off-post targets like nightclubs frequented by troops or more significant targets like embassies. 4) The Iraqi Air Force actually fights instead of running to Iran. It won't change the outcome, but it could make it bloodier. 5) The USSR provides covert or overt backing to Saddam. This could mean weapons transfers, and a refusal to support any UNSC resolution. 6) Saddam keeps the hostages; what if Iraq retains hundreds or thousands or westerners from Allied nations. Could a rescue be effected, and if not, would Allied planners resort to striking key military targets if their were hostages known to be inside? 7) Potential Allies for Saddam; Libya, Sudan, Yemen...Any others? I thought of a skirmish breaking out between Libya and Egypt while Egypt has troops fighting in Kuwait, resulting in Libya effectively joining the fight on Iraq's side. Thoughts? The Soviet Union was still around in some form when OTL Desert Storm took place, so i doubt the Soviet Union is going to stop it, it is good for oil prices, also the Soviet Union can see how the west handles a war with a country that is equipped with Warsaw pact weapons. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,799
|
Post by James G on Jun 19, 2020 18:14:40 GMT
I think what Forcon meant was that the Soviet Union was willing to play a more confrontation role in the world, a la early 80s, as opposed to the inaction seen in 1991.
A different geo-political environment means a very different Desert Storm. I'd guess that West Germany based forces, the VII Corps which formed the bulk of the attackers, would have stayed there. The III Corps had a dual NATO / South-West Asia mission so they would likely go instead; maybe part of the CENTAG forces go with the III Corps and National Guard units are mobilised-&-federalised to go to West Germany in their place?
Some other ideas. Maybe the Americans don't go into Iraq, cutting Saddam's army off, and just re-take Kuwait? A Soviet Union willing to confront the Americans might make other things very different. They could have warships in the Persian Gulf being a real pain and run military alerts elsewhere in the world to force the Americans to divert forces?
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,737
|
Post by forcon on Jun 19, 2020 20:43:34 GMT
I think what Forcon meant was that the Soviet Union was willing to play a more confrontation role in the world, a la early 80s, as opposed to the inaction seen in 1991. A different geo-political environment means a very different Desert Storm. I'd guess that West Germany based forces, the VII Corps which formed the bulk of the attackers, would have stayed there. The III Corps had a dual NATO / South-West Asia mission so they would likely go instead; maybe part of the CENTAG forces go with the III Corps and National Guard units are mobilised-&-federalised to go to West Germany in their place? Some other ideas. Maybe the Americans don't go into Iraq, cutting Saddam's army off, and just re-take Kuwait? A Soviet Union willing to confront the Americans might make other things very different. They could have warships in the Persian Gulf being a real pain and run military alerts elsewhere in the world to force the Americans to divert forces? My thinking would be either CENTCOM gets told to do the job with XVIII Corps & I MEF (plus British, French and Egyptian divisions and a brigade each from Australia and Canada) or that III Corps goes in place of VII Corps. ITTL, the Army would have to 'get over it' and use the Guard for roundouts. I's expect the 9th Infantry Division to be deployed ITTL. III Corps, if deployed, would get the 1st Cav, either the 4th or 5th Mech, and two other divisions; possibly the 1st or 3rd Armored or the 8th Mech from CENTAG, and/or the 2nd Armored or 1st Mech, with their forward brigades in Germany playing a part. As for the Guard, the 48th Mech would have to go with the 24th Infantry, and the 1st Cav would need a roundout: either the 155th Armored or the active-duty forward brigade of the 2nd Armored in Germany. |
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,144
Likes: 10,786
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 1, 2020 12:13:14 GMT
The Soviet Union stood with the U.S. in OTL against Saddam even if they didn't send troops.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Jul 1, 2020 12:38:20 GMT
The Soviet Union stood with the U.S. in OTL against Saddam even if they didn't send troops.
That was the OTL SU, under Gorbachev, which was already falling apart and seeking better relations with the west. I think forcon is assuming a continuation of the pre Gorbachev hard line SU which saw the west as a primary rival and opponent. While probably unlikely to directly support Saddam, Moscow is quite likely to seek to make things more difficult for the west. Say by some under the counter sales to Iraq, which was one of its bigger customers anyway and also possibly some WP maneuvers - since if the SU is still in aggressor mode its likely the WP is still about - which would make it more difficult for forces to be detached from western Europe.
|
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,144
Likes: 10,786
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 1, 2020 12:43:23 GMT
The Soviet Union stood with the U.S. in OTL against Saddam even if they didn't send troops.
That was the OTL SU, under Gorbachev, which was already falling apart and seeking better relations with the west. I think forcon is assuming a continuation of the pre Gorbachev hard line SU which saw the west as a primary rival and opponent. While probably unlikely to directly support Saddam, Moscow is quite likely to seek to make things more difficult for the west. Say by some under the counter sales to Iraq, which was one of its bigger customers anyway and also possibly some WP maneuvers - since if the SU is still in aggressor mode its likely the WP is still about - which would make it more difficult for forces to be detached from western Europe.
What was the state of the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1990s? OTL or not, I'd see the same problems plaguing them. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,799
|
Post by James G on Jul 1, 2020 12:51:46 GMT
That was the OTL SU, under Gorbachev, which was already falling apart and seeking better relations with the west. I think forcon is assuming a continuation of the pre Gorbachev hard line SU which saw the west as a primary rival and opponent. While probably unlikely to directly support Saddam, Moscow is quite likely to seek to make things more difficult for the west. Say by some under the counter sales to Iraq, which was one of its bigger customers anyway and also possibly some WP maneuvers - since if the SU is still in aggressor mode its likely the WP is still about - which would make it more difficult for forces to be detached from western Europe.
What was the state of the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1990s? OTL or not, I'd see the same problems plaguing them. The best way of describing their condition at the time would be to look at how the First Chechnya War went. |
|
gillan1220
Consul General
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,144
Likes: 10,786
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 1, 2020 12:53:46 GMT
What was the state of the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1990s? OTL or not, I'd see the same problems plaguing them. The best way of describing their condition at the time would be to look at how the First Chechnya War went. Well then, definitely not in the position to defend their allies. Maybe I'd got for covert aid but hope none of these are intercepted by the U.S. Navy. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,710
Likes: 45,793
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 1, 2020 13:11:13 GMT
What was the state of the Soviet Armed Forces in the 1990s? OTL or not, I'd see the same problems plaguing them. The best way of describing their condition at the time would be to look at how the First Chechnya War went. Also by staying neutral they can play both sides of the game. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on Jul 2, 2020 10:46:28 GMT
The best way of describing their condition at the time would be to look at how the First Chechnya War went. Well then, definitely not in the position to defend their allies. Maybe I'd got for covert aid but hope none of these are intercepted by the U.S. Navy.
I wasn't thinking of direct intervention but simply being as awkward as possible to make things difficult for the west. After all this was the basis for how WWIII came about in one of Jame's TL, where assorted clashes between western and Soviet forces in the ME during a war with Iraq made the Soviets decide to attack the west. [The Soviet Sea Lion thread, forget what it was called.] Not saying it will go that route but the sort of problems the western powers faced in avoiding hitting Soviet forces who kept getting in the way could be an example.
Depending on the circumstances the Red Army is likely to have problems by this time but probably not as bad as during the First Chechnya War if the Soviet 'culture' hasn't yet totally collapsed. But again I'm not assuming their in a shooting war or that the rest of the world would be aware of how bad they are.
|
|
