4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Bacon
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2012 16:17
Location: In front of my computer
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby Bacon » Fri 17 Aug 2012 05:41

You know, I always found it funny that the Warsaw Pact is always portrayed as the aggressors recklessly invading neutral countries in WW3 scenarios... I really liked that the flashpoints of conflict in W:EE's campaigns were more grounded and neutral (in my opinion at least). I know that the independence of NATO nations made it much less likely for them to launch a coordinated surprise offensive into he Warsaw Pact, but it also meant that NATO had more potential flashpoints for conflict.

Take for instance if tensions suddenly rose between Finland and Norway when a military exercise goes wrong and NATO troops accidentally enter Finnish territory (hell, make it a Canadian unit, why not?). When the Finns attempt to force the NATO troops out, NATO troops, unaware that they are in Finland, retaliate against what they believe is a Soviet invasion (as Finnish and Soviet vehicles are very similar). Suddenly under what they perceive to be NATO aggression, the Finnish government has no choice but to seek help from the Warsaw Pact which is all too happy to oblige, and the conflict escalates out of control.

Or here's an alternative (and even more ridiculous) idea: Norway, Sweden, and Finland try to form an independent military alliance, but NATO is unwilling to give up the bases it holds in Norway. The Scandyland Defense Alliance (I had to call it something) then tries to force out the NATO troops, but several Canadian units desperately hold onto their positions. With one of it's constituent nation's (Canada's) armed forces under attack, NATO is forced to respond by invading Sweden through Denmark. The Warsaw Pact then merges with the SDA to repel the imperialistic goals of the west.

I know, it's not quite realistic (especially the second one) :D , but I think it would be an interesting take on the conflict by scrambling the sides a bit.

User avatar
Tac Error
Captain
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 20:55
Location: Berdansk
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby Tac Error » Fri 17 Aug 2012 05:47

On another forum I read the posts of an artillerist who was in the Soviet Army in the mid-'80s. One of the scenarios that was played out during an exercise was that a mixed force of American and Canadian paratroopers was attacking the Soviet Union from occupied Finland! Whether that was a possible what-if or pure fantasy is up to our wargaming imaginations.
SLONIK MARSHAL

"Large mechanized forces always defeat small mechanized forces." - M. N. Tukhachevsky

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Fri 17 Aug 2012 08:11

Bacon wrote:You know, I always found it funny that the Warsaw Pact is always portrayed as the aggressors recklessly invading neutral countries in WW3 scenarios... I really liked that the flashpoints of conflict in W:EE's campaigns were more grounded and neutral (in my opinion at least). I know that the independence of NATO nations made it much less likely for them to launch a coordinated surprise offensive into he Warsaw Pact, but it also meant that NATO had more potential flashpoints for conflict.

As you say, making NATO the attacker/invader is much less credible not because they were all nice, peace-loving and friendly folks, but because they were not driven by a single authority. USSR could start a fight and draw its satellites in it on his own will, while the same would hardly be true for NATO members. Not mentionning France or Greece (the latter after Cyprus' invasion) which were NATO members but not under NATO command, and therefore would only engage their troops at their own will, members would not be drawned into attacking WP that easily.

If Reagan had decided to push his "rollback" policy a bit more "physically" and been willing to go on the offensive, he would have had to convince his allies one by one. Lets say the British "Iron Lady" may have been convinced more easily than others, that wouldn't be so easy with the rest of them.
Besides, all those negociations and, in case of a military agreement for an offensive by all NATO members, military preparations, couldn't have been kept secret: there would always been a leak from Communist party members or pro-Soviet in one of those democracy to warn the WP way before the actual invasion ...

User avatar
Tac Error
Captain
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 20:55
Location: Berdansk
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby Tac Error » Fri 17 Aug 2012 08:38

MadMat is on the money. In NATO, it's not SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) who has the authority to mobilize the alliance's forces, but the governments which the forces belong to. So the Dutch Corps would only receive orders from the Dutch government to mobilize, for example--not the NATO high command in Belgium. (Being an alliance of Western democracies, everyone's got an equal say on military policies and such...no one member imposing policies on another!)
SLONIK MARSHAL

"Large mechanized forces always defeat small mechanized forces." - M. N. Tukhachevsky

KAD0109
Corporal
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri 9 Mar 2012 16:13
Location: Götaland / Sweden
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby KAD0109 » Fri 17 Aug 2012 14:42

obssesednuker wrote:Prior to 1993, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were the same nation: Czechoslovakia. And prior to 1989 that single nation was, indeed, part of the Warsaw Pact. The OP would be accurate if it removed "Slovakia" and changed the "Czech Republic" to "Czechoslovakia".

Two more corrections for the OP: Albania withdrew from the Pact in 1968 when it sided with China in the Sino-Soviet Split and you forgot Italy.

In any case, to keep things equal we are probably looking at 2 nations for each faction. My guess for the Pact would be Bulgaria and Hungary. Romania at this time wasn't in much of a condition to be attacking anything...

For NATO... well, the Norway is obvious. Whether they would bring in Sweden or not is a legit question, but if they did its hard to see them not aligning with NATO. So is whether Finland could be counted as either NATO or Pact, seeing as how their position in the Cold War was... awkward.

If they do count the Scandinavian countries as one, then my next bet would be Spain. Why? I don't know, I'm just guessing.


Hi!

Of course they don't counts the Scandinavian countries as one because they are all independent. Sweden is as independent from Scandinavia as United States is from Great Britain.
Nanoton in game

User avatar
Gronank
Colonel
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby Gronank » Fri 17 Aug 2012 14:52

KAD0109 wrote:Sweden is as independent from Scandinavia as United States is from Great Britain.

More like as United States is independant from North America.
Image

Bacon
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2012 16:17
Location: In front of my computer
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby Bacon » Fri 17 Aug 2012 15:25

[EUG]MadMat wrote:As you say, making NATO the attacker/invader is much less credible not because they were all nice, peace-loving and friendly folks, but because they were not driven by a single authority. USSR could start a fight and draw its satellites in it on his own will, while the same would hardly be true for NATO members. Not mentionning France or Greece (the latter after Cyprus' invasion) which were NATO members but not under NATO command, and therefore would only engage their troops at their own will, members would not be drawned into attacking WP that easily.


Yes, I can see that. But just for a change of pace I like to see when campaigns aren't started by soviet forces charging unprovoked through the Fulda gap at a bewildered American defense (I really liked the fiction of the Debrowski's Mazuraka missions in this regard. It reminded me a bit of Yugoslavia in General Sir John Hacket's "The Third World War."). And honestly, even though western governments always claim that they NEVER, ever had plans to attack the Warsaw Pact, I all but guarantee that the thought of ending the communist threat once and for all had crossed their minds at least once.

Well, anyways, I'm just trying to find a way to "mix up" the sides a bit and bring some much-needed unit variety to the Pact side. The nice hing about alternative history is that no none expects it to come true anyway :lol: .

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Fri 17 Aug 2012 15:31

Bacon wrote:It reminded me a bit of Yugoslavia in General Sir John Hacket's "The Third World War.").

Just gor it by mail this week: I'm starting reading it this WE, just after I 've finished Larry Bond's Red Phoenix. ;)

Bacon
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2012 16:17
Location: In front of my computer
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby Bacon » Fri 17 Aug 2012 16:05

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Bacon wrote:It reminded me a bit of Yugoslavia in General Sir John Hacket's "The Third World War.").

Just gor it by mail this week: I'm starting reading it this WE, just after I 've finished Larry Bond's Red Phoenix. ;)


I highly recommend it. It's a tough read (I swear there's more acronyms than words in that book), and it's not much of a narrative (Red Storm Rising this is not). But if you want a comprehensive look at how the third world war might have played out, and an analysis of the tactics and equipment applied by both sides, I wouldn't look much farther. There's also a lot of the author's political ideology that comes through though ("Gah, the UK isn't spending enough on defense! grumble grumble grumble..." There's even an EU-ish concept that he comes up with at the end.), and if you're looking for inspiration in the Scandinavian campaign, I think it was only glossed over in the book.

User avatar
loosebruce
Master Sergeant
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 17 Aug 2012 16:42
Contact:

Re: 4 new Nations in W:ALB. what are they?

Postby loosebruce » Fri 17 Aug 2012 16:56

[wrong thread I posted in ]
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests