Forum

Agree with Pansarkott.

There is also the case that 'old' equipment was old more in term of expenses and possibly maintenance. For example the Chieftain Mk11 with Stillbrew was still a capable tank, equal or slightly superior to the Challenger I. It made sense to keep them on the line, and possibly replacing the Challenger I with the II. There is also the idea of reforming the 2nd Armored Division. Not that in this specific case I think that much... it is UK... they would find way to blunder and waste money for no gain anyway. Or finding and excuse for cuts...

Other things.... Phantoms still flying in force, as F-111, and A-4 and A-7.

But I am not that convinced that every program will see the light of the day. For example the Stryker. Cool vehicles, and could find their way... but in large part the driving effort behind them was Shinseki and his idea of a post cold war medium weight force plus some vague idea of 'airmobile armor'.

Sgt York... definitely yes. IT was killed not because it was a bad system but because it was slow (M48 hull) compared to an M1/M2 force. On top of that it air superiority was perceived as a given, and thus a SPAAG was seen as a waste. On the other hand, with the 1988 full force structure you can expect several formation still operation on a combination of M113/M60. And the Soviet Frotnal Aviation is not going to the junkyard.

But I will be cautious on a kitchen sink approach. NATO and WP expenditures in 1988 were quite high and I do not see a massive increase of military expenditures. Said that probably big ticket programs (of little relevance for T2k, at least immediately) will grab money due to political dynamics and industry pressure. MX missiles for examples, more B1B bombers, and certainly more moeny sunk on B-2 and V-22, with probably very few airframes available in time..

To try to summarise my view of the issue at hand:

When politicians in the 90's determined that human civilisation now had reached the end of history and clambered to cash in on the "peace dividend" (yeah, idiotic, but ... they really did. That did happen.) four major things happened in terms of military hardware development and procurement — that, by contrast, not only should not happen in the T2k timeline, but in fact should see the reverse happening, to some degree:

• Cancellations. In T2k, we should instead see not only many known programmes carried through, but probably a few new ones added — meaning that several of the systems we've mentioned here should actually exist in the setting, plus a few that never came in from the sidelines IRL might be realised.
• Delays/postponements. In T2k, we should instead see open programmes accelerated — meaning that certain hardware should become available a lot sooner than it did IRL.
• Scope reductions (both in capabilities and quantities). In T2k, we should instead see programmes at least retaining their original scopes — meaning that many of the systems should not only exist and exist sooner, but also exist as more capable versions of themselves than IRL, and/or in greater numbers.
• Replacement with less ambitious and (ostensibly) less costly systems, force concepts, etc. In T2k, nations should be much less inclined to try to "do it on the cheap" e.g. by buying COTS, or specifying against a priori "light" mission scopes and doctrines, or procuring foreign systems, if and when mission specific, domestic, etc., systems are likely to fill actual (as opposed to wishful thinking) requirements better.

In my view, Stryker is likely to go with that last point — along with several other systems; both concepts that didn't become reality, and some that actually did. I certainly agree that a "kitchen sink" approach, with everything anyone's ever heard of becoming reality, won't provide for a solidly built, plausible setting!

The programmes that we should postulate will be carried through, accelerated, and/or expanded, need to specifically be those that support the existing Cold War operational requirements and doctrines, or logical extensions of them.
Programmes that specifically support the IRL post-Cold War operational environments or doctrines ... probably won't even find their way to the drawing board, never mind off it. (Why would they?)

And yes, retaining older systems that still are functional in the modern environment must certainly be a part of it! Perfectly good systems going prematurely EOL just to cut costs was a recurring theme in the "end of history" defence policies of the IRL 90's, and hence something we should not be seeing in T2k.


It is true that military expenditure around the closing of the Cold War was quite high on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Albeit, e.g. in the alternate setting's Sweden, defence budgets had already been cut several times since the 60's, so in Sweden's specific case there certainly would be plenty of room to go the other way (there's a separate thread about that).

However, apart from that the "peace dividend" cuts won't happen — even though expenditure was high, I do not believe it was yet at anything like a maximum, as Superpower tensions in the mid-late 80's weren't all that high. When, as we approach the middle of the game’s 90’s, tensions escalate, and economies come closer and closer to what might be called a war footing, that's when funding really should be flowing free...

I tend to largely agree,

but, for the interest of discussion while waiting some alpha... there are some program that are difficult to pin for various reasons, including gaming ones. The Stryker is possibly one of them. There was definitely the idea to fill a gap between the main heavy divisions, and the light infantry ones. Remember the 9th LMI (Light Motorized Infantry Division, not armati Light-Medium-Infantry... pun for wargamers) Division (also referred as 9th Light Infantry Division (Motorized) in some sources)... the original idea proved... well... very Chuck Norris! And neither the original dune buggies with M2 hmg or the later FAV proved really worthwhile, but the idea of something to beef up LIDs and still being air-transportable was there. Beefing the Division with a conventional armored brigade did not work as intended. So the army had eyed the LAV-25 even before Desert Storm. Let's face it... decent vehicle, suitable for the role and so on... it is even working well with the marines.

If the 'end of history' did not come probably the 9th would have at least warranted another attempt to 'fix' it. The LAV was a good candidate. But with more money available you can bet that some 'improvements' would have been done, and some in the Army (but many more in the DoD and GLD) would have tried to silver and gold plate the project, and we will have had the Stryker anyway... but instead of being something of an ideal replacement for the whole heavy force (Shinseki's pipe dream), it would have been an expensive fill the specific gap item (possibly not that bad). Said that... even in that timeline Shinseki would be around! Now what is intriguing. Both the Stryker and the M113 shares the same air-portability. the 113 is actually a bit better because you do not have to remove parts before putting it into a C-130. M113 would have been available due to the bulk conversion of USAEUR and III Corps. Why do not retain M113 battalions for the 9th LID? Anyway both solution makes sense in military terms. But one good thing of the Stryker is that the vehicle itself is cool, and it is available in all major scales so it is something that could be included in the game.

Hey, even thinking to write a supplement on the division with some combat scenarios and possible adventures!

Staying on the medium gap. M8 AGS. T2k LAV-75 tank is quite famous, and at the time of V1 seemed a certainty (it was supposed to replace the Sheridan in the 82nd, and go to the 9th...) in 15mm Battlefront does a model. I think it is perfectly possible and plausible to have it in game, if not for nostalgia. But in the real world it was not that great success, basically for the same weight you can get a 105mm gun, so you had the XM8 AGS. Now that program was good and well with first platoon worth of tanks ready by 1994. It was killed basically in a political infight between Clinton and a republican congress with no real reasons. And when there was pressure to revive it (there is a small number of prototypes around capable of operations) after 9/11 the Stryker lobby surged against it. It was seen as a threat against the MGS. Incidentally Italian Centauro B1 was trialled and deemed excellent and probably superior to the MGS... but no way to stand the Stryker lobby.

Said that I think the M8 is a cool vehicle and probably BPM could be persuaded to produce one of their multi-scale print on demand models.

But by the cool token... also the M551 is nice!

And yet to keep a naval blockade you need to be the naval top dog. The Soviets were not at any point in their history. Professor Andrew Lambert from KCL in UK even argued that NATO armies were useless in WW3, and navies would have decided the whole matter. I have my doubt and certainly Andrew's views have also been colored by his own political stance and his anti RAF/British Army and pro-RN advocacy, a tad to extreme if you ask me... and even if you ask professor Eric Grove.

There is a whole swathe of general officers, historians and military analysts who cannot foresee a non-nuclear WW III, and cannot accept that either side might actually avoid going full strat-nuke-war.

I think you missed the point here. It is not nuclear-non nuclear.

Andrew's view were about land/naval. He argued (with some flair but little substance) that strategic naval blockade would have strangled the Soviet Union as it strangled Imperial Germany.

Thus NATO defense of West Germany was irrelevant notwithstanding the outcome. Ergo land forces were irrelevant at all (read BAOR). I was never persuaded by that, neither as his student or GTA. But he made a sound case that economic blockades require massive naval forces, then even under Gorshkov the Soviet did not have. So on paper it wat the combined western navies who had the capability. Of course... how much overseas shipment the USSR needed?

A naval blockade only would starved Russia if Byelorussia & Ukraine were taken or released from the USSR. It might turn into Holodomor Dvastoi, but Russia wouldn't starve.
The USSR didn't need sea trade to survive, and there is plenty of land routing from the breadbaskets of Byelorussia, Ukraine, and potentially also China. Rail won't last, but that won't be cut by the navies...
That will be air forces and/or special warfare operators.

The boomers are the trump card of naval power. Even conventional FAEs on MRBMs from boomers have a lot of potentiall.

Further, such a blockade, while not cripplingnfor the USSR, is adequate causus beli for a tac nuclear strike. The choke points in a war with nukes are a double-edged sword: if you're strongly enough concentrated to blocade, you're concentrated enough to become a small strsat-nuke target.

Arrigo74,

I think Sgt York was abandoned in part because it couldn't actually hit the target (as well as because it was slow, on account of using old M48 hulls to save money).

However that said, I think that the Sgt York system is a more realistic 'what-if' than a lot of what GDW proposed in 1st/2nd ed. - the one aspect of technology (well, at least one of the aspects) that changed drastically from the mid-/late-80's to the mid 90's was in computing capability. It seems credible that worsening tensions in the 1990's could result in the Sgt York programme being restarted, and with the advancements in computing capability, that the targeting system could be made to actually work.

Plus, a turret is just a turret. What goes into a turret system (like the M247) tends to be pretty much self-contained. And the ring — the interface to the chassis — is not an extremely tricky component to alter.
Therefore, I can see no reason why a re-boot of the Sgt York wouldn't be carried on the M1 chassis.

...or then the US just does what a bunch of others did: buys the FlakPz Gepard...

Dr Smith,

the info came from the late Allen Curtis, LtC, US Army, Ret who was involved in the program termination (beside being a very prolific wargamer) . He told in a forum that the system was working, but with budget cuts on the horizon and the whole mobility issue he was tasked to design tests the M-247 would have failed to justify termination on the ground the system was not working, rather than the requirement had passed. I remember there was also an element of blaming the contractors and avoiding paying penalties...

...or then the US just does what a bunch of others did: buys the FlakPz Gepard...

good idea... but why the Brits did spent money on the Marksman? Said that the Gepard turret was fit on a M48 and M60 hull.

GDW did their funky laser AASPL because basically that was the trend. The idea was the concept was realistic and could be made operational soon. Actually they trialled something like that on an M1 chassis... basic issue... power. You need another tank to house the under armor power generator. And it burned plenty of fuel... and the M1 is already a gas guzzler. They also spent huge sums in airborne fighter lasers. And a USN Admiral few months ago concluded it could not work. He said optimistically they could try again in 20 years... after that Genius Boris announced that his UK Tempest would have direct energy weapons!

But look, the US spent money on the concept of a nuclear powered tank back in time. Mother tank with nuclear reactor, and satellite tanks cable connected...

...or then the US just does what a bunch of others did: buys the FlakPz Gepard...

good idea... but why the Brits did spent money on the Marksman?

I'll just say this: if the Finns bought it, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt...

This is a real good talk!

Drawdowns of military budgets or not, I think there's a lot to be learned from what wunderweapons of the 1980s actually still haven't materialized. Laser weapons are an enormous one. Those, along with SDI, were "just around the corner" if you believe Popular Mechanics and so on, from about 1982 on. And yet here we are after 40 years of development and many of those techs still barely work at all, and not in a cost-effective manner.

Yeah, more money and more engineers and scientists can equate to more projects working as desired, but it's also pretty worthwhile to look at the underlying history of most major weapons development programs -- they more often than not don't quite work as advertised in the first several iterations. So I think there's plenty of case that out of desperation you could get Sgt Yorks and remote-turret MBTs and all manner of thing into your T2K world. There's far more case that even if so, they'd be widely considered dangerous junk by the guys actually having to use them. Lots of games use pretty fun "trait" systems to modify behavior of weapon systems, and it would be nice to get that here to describe weapons that on paper are fantastic... as long as they don't end up in a situation where they simply fail to perform. Or end up in a setting that turns out to be wildly out of scope for their design (see: Soviet armor experience in Chechnya).

The trend regardless is going to be more and more towards low-intensity warfare and that usually brings adoption of high-concept, low-tech weapons and tactics.

As far as reducing industry, I still insist it doesn't require any magic like EMPs. This stuff is already fragile. You can look at the massive power grid failure in the Northeast in 2003, or the various similar failures with SoCal Edison. In all cases, failures which cascaded into mass failures. Without a war of any kind! Imagine how frail that same system starts to look when hit with a few warheads.

Furthermore, industry relies on several factors to function: facilities, materials, and people. Disrupt any of the three and it is broken. Facilities can be hit; they can also be rebuilt. But the psychological effect of nuclear war has really not been mentioned enough here. After 9/11 you could get office space in skyrises for dirt cheap, because no one would go to work in them! For months/years! Vaporize some dockyards, rebuild them... now how easy is it to find workers who will go to work there, train them up, retain them. Probably lots of fun stories to be told here about martial law situations and forced labor. How effective would it be? Probably much more effective in the East than in the West...

If you haven't read it, Eric Harry's Arc Light is a pretty quality techno-thriller that, unlike most of the genre, actually paints a pretty good picture of the human element of conflicts on these scales. It also paints a pretty good picture of world after an accidental, limited nuclear war and the conflict that follows that. Part of the Russian approach is absolutely invested in psychological warfare directed at Americans in cities and in industry. If they are unable and unwilling to work, then the US infrastructure does not function. Hmm, if I could think of any modern parallel for that concept...