The British will hold, a British-Soviet war in the 1980s.

[stevep]

Mar 1, 2018 10:24:00 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

Mar 1, 2018 4:48:09 GMT lordroel said:

Regarding the pre-war alliance being British dominated i do not think so, but the French did not have troops in West Germany, that is not until the Soviets had almost reached the Rhine but by that time even the French could not help step the Soviet tidal wave crashing across West Europe.

I presume not one Red Army boot touched French soil, otherwise the thermonuclear balloon would have gone up.

  That would be my thought as well, although it would also raise the same question as to why the Soviets are trying to conquer Britain and risking a nuclear response?  Possibly if it was dated at a different point, i.e. before France got a substantial nuclear force.  Unless you assume that for some reason, say the communist movement in France being more powerful and dominating the socialists rather than vice versa possibly coupled with Soviet espionage operations France folds.  [Don't really want to go that way as it kind of reinforced the old "cheese eating surrender monkey's" stereotype which given real history is insulting as well as inaccurate.]  Also there is a big advantage for Britain if for some reason France is neutral and unoccupied.

  How about if whatever causes US isolationism also causes pretty much a complete collapse of NATO and W Germany comes pretty much under Soviet control?  [Either by the communists gaining influence there directly or, using another old stereotype, a extreme right wing group gains power in W Germany prompting the collapse of NATO and then the Red Army moving in to "suppress the new fascist threat" as they would put it.  France also retreats into isolationism but Britain tries to maintain a protective alliance over the Low Countries and say Norway and possibly Denmark.  Because those countries wish to keep a low profile they don't want more than token, trip-wire forces present and when the Soviets march west their quickly overrun.

  That would allow a scenario in the 1980s, which I think is the time period you want and give two big advantages to a British defence.  France being neutral means that the Soviets can't use French bases, which was the real killer both for the BoB given the short range of a/c of the time and even more importantly in the B of the Atlantic they can't used bases in western France to threat the SLOC.  Also in such a circumstance the former BAOR would already be back in Britain with no time to deploy so the core of Britain's army is available for defence, along with those air units OTL based on the continent, probably using some of the now abandon former US bases in Britain.  Also any half-way competent British government [so avoid Thatcher ] would presume that in a future war Britain would be likely to be in this position and prepare accordingly.  As such the navy wouldn't be run down as much and plans made for defence of both the home islands and trade supply routes.  This gives a Britain that is essentially alone, other than probably Canada and Iceland and volunteers from some other locations, some hope of actually withstanding, at least for a while, the behemoth that was the Soviet war machine in the 1970-80s.  It still leaves open the question of why their trying to totally defeat a power with a significant nuclear deterrent.  [Definitely don't want to go along the route where some idiots have scrapped the nuclear deterrent, although for a while in the late 80's I think its actual status was rather dubious.]

  You would probably also need to avoid the Soviets using chemical weapons as their likely to be too destructive to any attempt to keep Britain functioning.  Even without them Britain is so dependent on imports by this time that unless you assume a substantial industrial/technological revival I can't see us lasting more than 6-12 months.  Especially as while their naval losses are likely to be much higher the Soviets will be able to replace them a lot more rapidly with their much larger military complex, at least unless they have one or more distractions elsewhere.  However I could see them losing a lot of air and naval units, although missile attacks will be a real problem.  Plus you could see a bloody nose for an amphibious/airbourne assault. 

  Possibly you could have the US again introducing a Neutrality Zone in the western and central Atlantic, which the Soviets respect to avoid bringing them in, which would considerably reduce the sea lanes that would have to be protected by the RN and possible assorted exiled naval forces as naval units would be the sort of ones that would most easily escape the Soviet invasion of their homelands.  [Plus the Dutch for instance might have units in the Caribbean that could be used by a government in exile.]  Possibly also some alliance task force might be operating when the war begins and a number of its units escape.

  Anyway, some initial thoughts on a possible scenario.  Still fear that ultimately we will go down or go nuclear but could give the Soviets a hell of a fight.

[stevep]

Mar 1, 2018 10:57:25 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 1, 2018 10:51:18 GMT James G said:

That is up to lordroel who created this war universe.
I'm going with the Soviets did, France was ready to launch (not something I agree with), a change of government occurred, no nukes flew and the legitimate French government left for the UK.
But I'll wait on the admiral as it is his story.

That sounds good.

Also was thinking with the United States going back to being isolated from the outside word and before the outbreak of the Euro-Soviet War the British replaced the Americans in South Korea with the British Army of Korea.

  I doubt this as that would be too much over-stretched.  Possibly the US is isolationist in regards to Europe, say because of some serious disagreement with the European powers but I think it would still be interested in the Far East and also the Middle East, if only for the oil and Israel in the latter region.  You would need to have a vastly different world, at least from WWII I would say, with Britain doing almost ASB levels better to have it still being a serious power in places like Korea, especially since to support such an operation it would need at least influence and bases in the Indian Ocean and connecting waters.  By this time, assuming Britain is still democratic, the empire is gone, other than possibly a few key or unimportant locations and there would be no reason for a relatively small island base, despite its strategic position and high industrial/technological potential to have world spanning influence.  Even if Britain was being this world's Japan in terms of industrial/technological success - which is unlikely - I can't see it still seeking a world-wide military role or being capable of one.  [Pus such a role would probably cause a fair bit of hostility from the US].

  As I said in my previous post I could see ways Britain could be doing better industrially, technologically and hence militarily but not a major military commitment as far afield as Korea.  I can't see that being practical at all.

[James G]

Mar 1, 2018 11:26:01 GMT stevep said:

Mar 1, 2018 10:57:25 GMT lordroel said:

That sounds good.

Also was thinking with the United States going back to being isolated from the outside word and before the outbreak of the Euro-Soviet War the British replaced the Americans in South Korea with the British Army of Korea.

  I doubt this as that would be too much over-stretched.  Possibly the US is isolationist in regards to Europe, say because of some serious disagreement with the European powers but I think it would still be interested in the Far East and also the Middle East, if only for the oil and Israel in the latter region.  You would need to have a vastly different world, at least from WWII I would say, with Britain doing almost ASB levels better to have it still being a serious power in places like Korea, especially since to support such an operation it would need at least influence and bases in the Indian Ocean and connecting waters.  By this time, assuming Britain is still democratic, the empire is gone, other than possibly a few key or unimportant locations and there would be no reason for a relatively small island base, despite its strategic position and high industrial/technological potential to have world spanning influence.  Even if Britain was being this world's Japan in terms of industrial/technological success - which is unlikely - I can't see it still seeking a world-wide military role or being capable of one.  [Pus such a role would probably cause a fair bit of hostility from the US].

  As I said in my previous post I could see ways Britain could be doing better industrially, technologically and hence militarily but not a major military commitment as far afield as Korea.  I can't see that being practical at all.

I agree. Korea is a peninsula too far for Britain.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2018 13:15:14 GMT James G said:

Mar 1, 2018 11:26:01 GMT stevep said:

  I doubt this as that would be too much over-stretched.  Possibly the US is isolationist in regards to Europe, say because of some serious disagreement with the European powers but I think it would still be interested in the Far East and also the Middle East, if only for the oil and Israel in the latter region.  You would need to have a vastly different world, at least from WWII I would say, with Britain doing almost ASB levels better to have it still being a serious power in places like Korea, especially since to support such an operation it would need at least influence and bases in the Indian Ocean and connecting waters.  By this time, assuming Britain is still democratic, the empire is gone, other than possibly a few key or unimportant locations and there would be no reason for a relatively small island base, despite its strategic position and high industrial/technological potential to have world spanning influence.  Even if Britain was being this world's Japan in terms of industrial/technological success - which is unlikely - I can't see it still seeking a world-wide military role or being capable of one.  [Pus such a role would probably cause a fair bit of hostility from the US].

  As I said in my previous post I could see ways Britain could be doing better industrially, technologically and hence militarily but not a major military commitment as far afield as Korea.  I can't see that being practical at all.

I agree. Korea is a peninsula too far for Britain.

Then let’s make it that the United States has abandoned West Europe due to serious relation problems and as mentioned having a ultra-isolistic president.

[James G]

Mar 1, 2018 13:55:55 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 1, 2018 13:15:14 GMT James G said:

I agree. Korea is a peninsula too far for Britain.

Then let’s make it that the United States has abandoned West Europe due to serious relation problems and as mentioned having a ultra-isolistic president.

That would fit better. I assume they took their nukes too leaving none for former allies in NATO nuclear sharing. So the UK and France have independent warheads (though Britain was assigned many more US ones too), but West Germany and everyone else doesn't have theirs.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2018 17:40:28 GMT James G said:

Mar 1, 2018 13:55:55 GMT lordroel said:

Then let’s make it that the United States has abandoned West Europe due to serious relation problems and as mentioned having a ultra-isolistic president.

That would fit better. I assume they took their nukes too leaving none for former allies in NATO nuclear sharing. So the UK and France have independent warheads (though Britain was assigned many more US ones too), but West Germany and everyone else doesn't have theirs.

Yes,that is right, the United states made it clear that West Europe was on their own, and that any attack on it would result in a sunshine policy.

Was thinking of having France suffer a people revolt resulting in two French governments being formed the British allied Free French government and the french people government backed by the soviet Union, this might help explain why the French did not nuke the Soviet Union during their advance true West Germany and the Low Countries.

[James G]

Mar 1, 2018 17:46:14 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 1, 2018 17:40:28 GMT James G said:

That would fit better. I assume they took their nukes too leaving none for former allies in NATO nuclear sharing. So the UK and France have independent warheads (though Britain was assigned many more US ones too), but West Germany and everyone else doesn't have theirs.

Yes,that is right, the United states made it clear that West Europe was on their own, and that any attack on it would result in a sunshine policy.

Was thinking of having France suffer a people revolt resulting in two French governments being formed the British allied Free French government and the french people government backed by the soviet Union, this might help explain why the French did not nuke the Soviet Union during their advance true West Germany and the Low Countries.

I like this idea a lot. It makes sense and bypasses the chorus of 'France will nuke everyone and see every French citizen killed for a line on a map'.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2018 18:24:17 GMT James G said:

Mar 1, 2018 17:46:14 GMT lordroel said:

Yes,that is right, the United states made it clear that West Europe was on their own, and that any attack on it would result in a sunshine policy.

Was thinking of having France suffer a people revolt resulting in two French governments being formed the British allied Free French government and the french people government backed by the soviet Union, this might help explain why the French did not nuke the Soviet Union during their advance true West Germany and the Low Countries.

I like this idea a lot. It makes sense and bypasses the chorus of 'France will nuke everyone and see every French citizen killed for a line on a map'.

And sees two French on two sides, the French mainland controlled by the pro-Soviet french People Government and the British allied Free French Government operating out of London who is in control of the French overseas territories. 

[James G]

Yeah, I like that idea.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark? What is your thinking there?
Norway would be the hardest to conqueror but doable in the end.
What happens with their governments during the advance and once the sea is reached?

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2018 19:29:41 GMT James G said:

Yeah, I like that idea.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark? What is your thinking there?
Norway would be the hardest to conqueror but doable in the end.
What happens with their governments during the advance and once the sea is reached?

Norway could be hold, if the Canadian Air-Sea Transportable Brigade Group (Operational Plan BORAL) consisting of the 5 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group had arrived before the outbreak of the Soviet-Euro War. However with the Americans not going to take part it means that the US's 4th Marine Amphibious Brigade also slated for Norway has to be filled, maybe the French might be willing to send a brigade to join both the Canadians and the other force that would be deployed to Norway, that being the United Kingdom/Netherlands Landing Force.

[James G]

Honestly, if war ever came, those Canadians will never get there.
I've read loads on this. They practised it and it was a disaster... in peacetime, when in wartime enemy interference would be all over the operation. In addition, during the exercise, Soviet interference happened as well foreshadowing what would have happened in a crisis before the shooting started. In the end that was why the CAST mission was abandoned in favour of a focus on West Germany for the Canadians.

British and Dutch marines, yes for certain in Norway. The French had their whole Rapid Action Force with divisions (brigades in all honesty) like the 4th, 6th, 9th and 11th or even an ad hoc force including Foreign Legion troops. They could all go to Norway.
Maybe you are correct on Norway holding but it would be hard.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2018 19:47:30 GMT James G said:

Honestly, if war ever came, those Canadians will never get there.
I've read loads on this. They practised it and it was a disaster... in peacetime when in wartime enemy interference would be all over the operation. In addition, during the exercise, Soviet interference happened as well foreshadowing what would have happened in a crisis before the shooting started. In the end that was why the CAST mission was abandoned in favour of a focus on West Germany for the Canadians.

British and Dutch marines, yes for certain in Norway. The French had their whole Rapid Action Force with divisions (brigades in all honesty) like the 4th, 6th, 9th and 11thor even an ad hoc force including Foreign Legion troops. They could all go to Norway.
Maybe you are correct on Norway holding but it would be hard.

Well holding Norway and Iceland will mean that the Norwegian Sea will be a much deadly place for Soviet submarines and surface ships to use to attack ore invade the United Kingdom.

[James G]

That would be the idea. Aircraft too would be based in them and given France to the south and the Low Countries to the east, that would be a troubling arc around Britain.

[lordroel]

Mar 1, 2018 19:51:29 GMT James G said:

That would be the idea. Aircraft too would be based in them and given France to the south and the Low Countries to the east, that would be a troubling arc around Britain.

Well i think the French People Government would allow the Soviets to deploy air units in its country, also including some missile units who would rain steel and destruction on the United Kingdom.

The low countries would be occupied by the soviet while West Germany would be united with East Germany.

Greece and Turkey would declare themselves neutral a well as Spain and Portugal.

Italy would suffer a civil war between Communist and Republicans while in the Mediterranean Sea the Royal Navy together with the Free French Navy would face of against the Soviet 5th Operational Squadron.

[James G]

I agree with most of that. East and West Germany uniting might be in public for propaganda though the Soviets, but the East Germans too, would have an interest in a de facto separation for a while. Won't want silly ideas from the former West Germany coming east, would they?