Friends,

 

I've been playing around with some concepts for H3 scenarios. As I want to keep them at least quasi-believable, I would be grateful if fellow board members would give me some feedback on them. This can be a simple "rating" (e.g., "Definitely possible," "Possible but unlikely," or "No, that's a silly idea") although any other comments would also be very welcome.

 

The first one is for a set of Cold War scenarios, working title is "Battle Ocean 1985." The basic premise is that the Soviet Union declares war, but restricts its activity to submarine warfare against Western shipping. Its goal is not territory but to weaken the U.S. and its allies, force various nations to make various economic or political concessions, etc. The US and its allies do not want to risk a full scale war by attacking Soviet territory, and so they restrict themselves to a war on the water...convoy escorts, attacks on Soviet vessels (submarine tenders, spy ships, etc.) in international waters, etc.

 

Second idea...the same, but the Soviets are also using long range air assets to attack enemy shipping and submarines. Again, NO attacks against foreign territory are being made.

 

Third idea...the same, but the Soviet Union is a little more aggressive and uses some of its surface assets, too, mostly against third world nations that it thinks it can hurt this way, like Norway, South Korea, etc. Again, the Soviets do NOT attack actual Western territory. They're going after shipping.

 

Fourth idea...the same, but the Soviets ARE making limited attacks against actual countries...however, these are ONLY against ports, airfields, bridges, etc., using bombers, and NO troops are actually landing in, say, Germany or Norway or Japan.

 

Are these ideas plausible? Is one more plausible than the others?

 

Anyway, please let me know what you think. Thanks.

 

Mark

The first one is for a set of Cold War scenarios, working title is "Battle Ocean 1985." The basic premise is that the Soviet Union declares war, but restricts its activity to submarine warfare against Western shipping. Its goal is not territory but to weaken the U.S. and its allies, force various nations to make various economic or political concessions, etc. The US and its allies do not want to risk a full scale war by attacking Soviet territory, and so they restrict themselves to a war on the water...convoy escorts, attacks on Soviet vessels (submarine tenders, spy ships, etc.) in international waters, etc.

 

Does this premise mean that there is no Soviet offensive into Western Europe or elsewhere? So a submarine war only?

 

Second idea...the same, but the Soviets are also using long range air assets to attack enemy shipping and submarines. Again, NO attacks against foreign territory are being made.

 

Submarines plus long aircraft. Got it.

 

Third idea...the same, but the Soviet Union is a little more aggressive and uses some of its surface assets, too, mostly against third world nations that it thinks it can hurt this way, like Norway, South Korea, etc. Again, the Soviets do NOT attack actual Western territory. They're going after shipping.

 

Ships, submarines and aircraft.

 

Fourth idea...the same, but the Soviets ARE making limited attacks against actual countries...however, these are ONLY against ports, airfields, bridges, etc., using bombers, and NO troops are actually landing in, say, Germany or Norway or Japan.

 

Ships, submarines, and aircraft against shipping plus limited air attacks.

 

Are these ideas plausible? Is one more plausible than the others?

 

Firstly, let me say that since the whole premise of a Harpoon scenario is hypothetical, I am typically loath to say any scenario concept is so outlandish as to be unworthy of investigation. So, I can hardly think of any scenario that wouldn't be playable.

 

The Soviets were very big on combined arms. I think it would be unlikely that they would omit the participation of whole branches of their armed forces in the effort to accomplish a certain goal. So, a limited war by only submarines is probably unlikely. Any limited war that focused on maritime targets, then, would more likely see the involvement of every useful tool available: submarine, surface ship, aircraft, etc. In this way, I think your fourth idea is most plausible.

 

Where I think you can make the most hay is with the overall politico-military objectives in your limited war scenario, i.e. what targets make it onto the permissible list.

 

I can envision, for example, a scenario where the Soviets exert political pressure (bolstered by military threat) against 'weaker' NATO partners in order to effectively cut them out of the alliance in a conflict. Say, for argument's sake, that the Soviets wanted to force reunification of Germany on their own terms (i.e. have West Germany subsumed into East Germany), they might tell the rest of NATO to mind their own business and you won't get hurt. West German ports are deemed closed, and any NATO ports that receive REFORGER (US reinforcements arriving from CONUS) would be subject to attack as well as the convoys themselves.

Where I think you can make the most hay is with the overall politico-military objectives in your limited war scenario, i.e. what targets make it onto the permissible list.

 

I can envision, for example, a scenario where the Soviets exert political pressure (bolstered by military threat) against 'weaker' NATO partners in order to effectively cut them out of the alliance in a conflict. Say, for argument's sake, that the Soviets wanted to force reunification of Germany on their own terms (i.e. have West Germany subsumed into East Germany), they might tell the rest of NATO to mind their own business and you won't get hurt. West German ports are deemed closed, and any NATO ports that receive REFORGER (US reinforcements arriving from CONUS) would be subject to attack as well as the convoys themselves.

 

Okay, how about these as justifications (again, how plausible are these)...

 

Soviet Union vs. Turkey: they want better access to the Black Sea (i.e., free passage, no questions asked, etc.)

 

Soviet Union vs. China: You will give us/give up claims to certain disputed border territories

 

Soviet Union vs. Taiwan: see above

 

Soviet Union vs. Italy: Give Libya the reparations you owe them from World War II (Libya has offered Russia something it wants in return for this support like a warm water port)

 

Soviet Union vs. Denmark: Baltic Sea boundaries (dispute is actually with Poland, but the Soviets are stepping in to help)

 

Soviet Union vs. Japan: Soviets want Japan to formally give up all claim to the Kurils

 

Soviet Union vs. South Korea: Soviets want concessions for North Korea

 

Soviet Union vs. Israel: Soviets want Israel to give the Golan Heights back to Syria

 

Soviet Union vs. Oman: Soviets want concessions regarding the Oman-Yemen border in favor of Yemen

 

Soviet Union vs. U.S. and other allies and/or anti-communist South American states like : Soviets want concessions regarding Angola and/or Nicaragua

 

Any others anyone can think of? Any good reasons why, c. 1985, the Soviets would wage submarine war, etc. against (or perhaps in behalf of) against France, India, the U.K., Sweden, Australia, Canada, Spain, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.?

 

Mark

Actually, I had another idea. This might work for almost ANY region...

 

 

VERSION 1

 

Communist country X has a revolution; communist government is likely to fall; the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, etc. sends aid to the rebels (not all would be involved in each conflict; the specific Western forces involved would probably depend a lot on history, location, etc...Japan might help the U.S. with a revolution in the Vietnam, Italy or Turkey might help the U.S. with a revolution in Bulgaria, etc.)

 

Soviet Union says "Don't do that" and sets up a blockade; in this case, they would have access to airfields

 

Western forces try to run the blockade

 

 

 

VERSION 2

 

Non-communist country Y has a revolution; communist forces are likely to win; the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, etc. sends aid to the anti-communist government

 

Soviet Union says "Don't do that" and sets up a blockade; in this case, they MIGHT have access to airfields in neighboring countries

 

Western forces try to run the blockade

 

 

 

How do these two sound? Plausible? Possible but really unlikely? Makes you wonder if I've been smoking something?

Okay, how about these as justifications (again, how plausible are these)...

 

Soviet Union vs. Turkey: they want better access to the Black Sea (i.e., free passage, no questions asked, etc.)

 

Definitely possible. Black Sea/Med access is a valuable commodity, with Turkey being the 'poor man of Europe' and a sometimes shaky NATO ally. Sovs might exploit Greek-Turkish animosities to their advantage.

 

Soviet Union vs. China: You will give us/give up claims to certain disputed border territories

 

Definitely possible, though high stakes. The Chinese can't be expected to play nice.

 

Soviet Union vs. Taiwan: see above

 

Unlikely.

 

Soviet Union vs. Italy: Give Libya the reparations you owe them from World War II (Libya has offered Russia something it wants in return for this support like a warm water port)

 

Unlikely. Soft underbelly of Europe. Would raise hackles in NATO.

 

Soviet Union vs. Denmark: Baltic Sea boundaries (dispute is actually with Poland, but the Soviets are stepping in to help)

 

Possible, considering Denmark guards the door to the Baltic. NATO ally but small, vulnerable, and potentially sacrificed.

 

Soviet Union vs. Japan: Soviets want Japan to formally give up all claim to the Kurils

 

Definitely possible. A continuing possibility since WWII. See the Current Events forum for plenty of material.

 

Soviet Union vs. South Korea: Soviets want concessions for North Korea

 

Possible, though perhaps unlikely.

 

Soviet Union vs. Israel: Soviets want Israel to give the Golan Heights back to Syria

 

Possible, though the Soviets showed a preference for acting through the third party here, probably because of the regional volatility and potential US intervention in Israel's favor.

 

Soviet Union vs. Oman: Soviets want concessions regarding the Oman-Yemen border in favor of Yemen

 

Possible. The Soviets used Aden and (some believe) Socotra as well. Backwater area, so the potential for US/NATO intervention might be reduced, as long as SLOCs aren't directly threatened.

 

Soviet Union vs. U.S. and other allies and/or anti-communist South American states like : Soviets want concessions regarding Angola and/or Nicaragua

 

Possible. Lots of Soviet era client state activity here.

Actually, I had another idea. This might work for almost ANY region...

 

 

VERSION 1

 

Communist country X has a revolution; communist government is likely to fall; the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, etc. sends aid to the rebels (not all would be involved in each conflict; the specific Western forces involved would probably depend a lot on history, location, etc...Japan might help the U.S. with a revolution in the Vietnam, Italy or Turkey might help the U.S. with a revolution in Bulgaria, etc.)

 

Soviet Union says "Don't do that" and sets up a blockade; in this case, they would have access to airfields

 

Western forces try to run the blockade

 

 

 

VERSION 2

 

Non-communist country Y has a revolution; communist forces are likely to win; the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, etc. sends aid to the anti-communist government

 

Soviet Union says "Don't do that" and sets up a blockade; in this case, they MIGHT have access to airfields in neighboring countries

 

Western forces try to run the blockade

 

 

 

How do these two sound? Plausible? Possible but really unlikely? Makes you wonder if I've been smoking something?

 

 

Some more thoughts on this...

 

I know these are a big vague. I guess I'm asking if the Soviets would be likely to do something like this.

 

On a related note...who else might be the "bad guys" in this kind of scenario? Assuming the scenario is no longer set in 1985 but 2015 or 2020, would China be likely to use a blockade, for example, to keep the "good guys" (U.S., Canada, U.K., etc.) from providing aid to rebels in an Asian or African nation where it supports the government? What about India? What about France?

 

Any other ideas on this?

 

Mark