Well...if you don't wanna put the story up here, there are certainly other forums on this site that such a story would be most fitting...
PS: If you're still near OF, I'd be happy to buy you a cold beverage of your choosing.
Protect and Survive: A Timeline
- Thread starter Macragge1
- Start date
Well...if you don't wanna put the story up here, there are certainly other forums on this site that such a story would be most fitting...
PS: If you're still near OF, I'd be happy to buy you a cold beverage of your choosing.
Well...if you don't wanna put the story up here, there are certainly other forums on this site that such a story would be most fitting...
PS: If you're still near OF, I'd be happy to buy you a cold beverage of your choosing.
TheKinkster: what he said. Pity I'm not residing in the US.
TheKinkster
Banned
What forum would be appropriate for it? If you can tell me what's best for it I'd be glad to put it up.
Thanks for the offers of beverage, but I'm on Long Island now. But I will hoist one tonight in you guys' honor.
Thanks for the offers of beverage, but I'm on Long Island now
. But I will hoist one tonight in you guys' honor. We have a SAC man onboard? Oh capital! What is it like to drive a BUFF?
What forum would be appropriate for it? If you can tell me what's best for it I'd be glad to put it up.
Thanks for the offers of beverage, but I'm on Long Island now
Well, Non-Political Chat is always safe.
P&S is officially recognised as the best ever in this forum, please as the founder, keep the imputus behind it. This story needs to be told, the fact that it never happened to us does not make this study any less important, the 21st February 1984 could have altered everything, the
fact that it did not is something we all can be eternally thankful for. So please continue this story, because we are all thankful that this is a story and not real.
fact that it did not is something we all can be eternally thankful for. So please continue this story, because we are all thankful that this is a story and not real.
Last edited:
A Colonel, HFBC. So maybe stick a "Sir" on the end of that?
Falkenburg
Ah ha! My father outranks you sir - he is a retired (retarded?) Navy CWO4 (Joking)
What forum would be appropriate for it? If you can tell me what's best for it I'd be glad to put it up.
Thanks for the offers of beverage, but I'm on Long Island now
"Non-political chat" maybe? Or the writer's forum.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=20
TheKinkster
Banned
Problem with Non-Political Chat for this is it touches on things political, shall we say. I'm going to just put it up in this forum, with a note to the powers that be about why. Look for it later tonight or tomorrow evening.
I think that it'll probably be okay. Worst case, you could always put it in "When The Wind Blew". Don't think it'd be out of place there.
Jason
Three Military Specific Questions About This TL
I have three Military specific questions surrounding the 'Protect and Survive' TL and it's spin offs.
I know we have a lot of military experience 'in the house' so to say so I was hoping to get some insight/answers to help me determine whats what.
The first two questions (question clusters) are infantry/SF specific. The last is a general military question.
1 - Average NATO soldier vs. average WARPAC soldier, who has the advantage? Take away the tanks, the WMDs. Just what they can carry. Who will do better? Will the nation the soldier comes from (on either side) make a difference?
I wonder about this specifically because of fights during and just after the exchange when the fighting would be more small unit actions.
2 - Given how the war began ITTL how would NATO Special Forces have been deployed? Would deployment have been delayed until the first shots were fired from the WARPAC forces? Have all the TLs created so far taken into account the impact NATO Special Forces would have on the WARPAC rear areas?
3 - This is the big one. In the lead up to first the conventional war and as the conventional war progressed how might the military equipment of various armed forces (Navy/Air Force/Army) change and/or grow? Would delayed replacements of aging equipment be rushed? Would emergency purchases of any tanks/aircraft/ships be made wherever possible? What could/would be purchased? Would planes be pulled from the Boneyards and be reactivated as spares or provided to allies? This specific question came about due to references in a few spin off TLs about Canada having emergency purchased some Northrop F-20 Tigersharks to supplement it's CF-116 Freedom Fighters.
Thanks to anyone who answers. I'm really curious about these points.
I have three Military specific questions surrounding the 'Protect and Survive' TL and it's spin offs.
I know we have a lot of military experience 'in the house' so to say so I was hoping to get some insight/answers to help me determine whats what.
The first two questions (question clusters) are infantry/SF specific. The last is a general military question.
1 - Average NATO soldier vs. average WARPAC soldier, who has the advantage? Take away the tanks, the WMDs. Just what they can carry. Who will do better? Will the nation the soldier comes from (on either side) make a difference?
I wonder about this specifically because of fights during and just after the exchange when the fighting would be more small unit actions.
2 - Given how the war began ITTL how would NATO Special Forces have been deployed? Would deployment have been delayed until the first shots were fired from the WARPAC forces? Have all the TLs created so far taken into account the impact NATO Special Forces would have on the WARPAC rear areas?
3 - This is the big one. In the lead up to first the conventional war and as the conventional war progressed how might the military equipment of various armed forces (Navy/Air Force/Army) change and/or grow? Would delayed replacements of aging equipment be rushed? Would emergency purchases of any tanks/aircraft/ships be made wherever possible? What could/would be purchased? Would planes be pulled from the Boneyards and be reactivated as spares or provided to allies? This specific question came about due to references in a few spin off TLs about Canada having emergency purchased some Northrop F-20 Tigersharks to supplement it's CF-116 Freedom Fighters.
Thanks to anyone who answers. I'm really curious about these points.
1. In general the average NATO soldier would probably have the advantage due to better training and leadership. The professional militaries such as the US, UK and Canada would have an even greater advantage.
However as Jack writes WP numbers slowly overwhelm NATO's professional and technical advantages.
2. Depends on the individual member states. Some special forces were already deployed in @; some members of the military missions to the Soviets in East Germany (BRIXMIS, USMLM, FMLM) were members of SF units. They were ready to go to ground if a war started.
The effects of NATO SF on WARPACT rear areas would probably be significant, however once nuclear weapons begin to be used they are irrelevant.
3. The'd shrink, not grow. Any aditional purchases would have to be made during the crisis period before the war. The conventional phase was much too short for anything of significance, other than ammunition, to be manufactured, or delivered. It is also probably too short for much impact to be made on reserve stocks of obsolecent, or obsolete equipment.
Ideally, yes, aircraft would be taken out of AMARC etc, but I don't think all that many would make it to squadrons before the exchange happens.
The Canadian F-20 purchase would have had to be made in 1983 at the latest for them to be around for the war.
However as Jack writes WP numbers slowly overwhelm NATO's professional and technical advantages.
2. Depends on the individual member states. Some special forces were already deployed in @; some members of the military missions to the Soviets in East Germany (BRIXMIS, USMLM, FMLM) were members of SF units. They were ready to go to ground if a war started.
The effects of NATO SF on WARPACT rear areas would probably be significant, however once nuclear weapons begin to be used they are irrelevant.
3. The'd shrink, not grow. Any aditional purchases would have to be made during the crisis period before the war. The conventional phase was much too short for anything of significance, other than ammunition, to be manufactured, or delivered. It is also probably too short for much impact to be made on reserve stocks of obsolecent, or obsolete equipment.
Ideally, yes, aircraft would be taken out of AMARC etc, but I don't think all that many would make it to squadrons before the exchange happens.
The Canadian F-20 purchase would have had to be made in 1983 at the latest for them to be around for the war.
Last edited:
Wow, that took a while to read all the Timeline posts (haven't read all the comment posts, and I doubt I shall read all of them, but I have read a fair few of the more detailed).
Very interesting Mac.
------------------------------------------------------
From everything read, I can say with confidence that there is a group of developed nations that will have escaped relatively unscathed, and have been completely ignored so far.
The Channel Islands themselves would not have been a target of NATO strikes, and it is rather implausible that the Soviets would specifically target these minor island nations. With a weapon of their own.
Similarly non of the towns on the French coast in this region are any form of strategic target. So it is unlikely that in this timeline any weapon would have detonated near enough the islands for the islands to have felt the 'direct effect' of the nuclear exchange.
The Channel Islands being island nations are separate from France, and so wouldn't expect to be flooded with refugees in the immediate aftermath. The islands also have/had fairly developed agricultural sectors. Guernsey produces tomato cash crop surpluses for instance, and Jersey exports large numbers of potato to both the UK and France.
In terms of fresh water, there is a grand aquifer under the islands (and that region of France), and there is a desalination plant. While reservoirs might be contaminated from rainfall in the first few months following the nuclear exchange and that water undrinkable, the reservoirs may be emptied and allowed to refill come autumn and winter. They also provide a great location for post-exchange fish rearing.
The only thing lacking for the Channel Islanders would be electrical power and fuel oil. This is not that important for agriculture as some of the islands have hillside 'cotes', and local fertiliser is natural 'vrack' (seaweed from the beaches).
Therefore is in many ways incredibly lucky in this timeline. It could be said that currently they are experiencing a 'cosy catastrophe' which is not much worse than a power outage in terms of disruption...
...I jest to a degree. Jersey for instance at the time would have had a population of about 76,000 people. This is a bit beyond the carrying capacity of the land, even if all food wasn't being exported. However, we must realise that not all of agricultural land is in intensive cultivation as the island during the latter half of the 20thC moved away from subsistence industries to tourism. Agriculture in Jersey at least never changed to an industrialised intensive farming model, instead going down the route of a modern extensive model of efficient production of the land, rather than quantity of farming given that there is far less space for farming, and food production diversification is a much better way to supply the markets.
Still with all infrastructure left intact. No need for the UK government since the islands have their own. Order could be maintained, and you would be sure that the islands population isn't just going to sit around and slowly starve. People would be moving to France. Most likely the Cotentin Peninsular looking for the manufactured goods that the islands can't produce. Since they don't have any light, medium or heavy industry.
Indeed, the Bailiwicks leaders are going to quickly realise that if the UK and France are up sh*t creek, but they have been 'spared', the only smart thing to do is for them to take on the responsibility for 'rebuilding' the western coastal part of Basse-Normandie since it's been spared destruction compared to Brest in Britanity, but you can be sure St. Malo and the other parts of the Breton coast are going to receive 'vists' in the very practical concern of the islands trading food and a sense of order, in exchange for manufactured goods and supplies that the locals can spare.
Afteral with such large resident populations, simply more land would be needed to feed everybody. The islands don't have that land, so would need to put France back on its feet as the closest partners.
What the Channel Islands would bring compared to the French, is order and centralised planning. If the French government has left, France decimated and is experiencing simmilar issues as are described in the UK, then 'guidence' from these island 'utopias' in comparison might be very much appricated. Particularly in the fact that the islands may have the private vessels (or just take them from the French coast) to re-establish fishing as a major source of food production in the region, which declined due to modern techniques in deep sea trawling making it economically unviable for the islands and coastal region.
With the area relitively full of local Chataeu in france, you can very quickly see the entire area quickly resorting into a kind of 'kingdom of cooperating fiefdoms' as if the coastal areas are fairly quickly put back up on their feet with the knowledge that the Islanders can help them, and provide a level of governance (and more importantly infomation on the world state of affairs), thus indebting the french survivors who otherwise would be with little hope.
What I mean to say by this, is that as far as this timeline has gone you've left out these little self contained communities who have nearly everything in their favour for reconstruction right in the middle of disaster, and might even be one of the few areas like Switzerland and Australia-New Zealand that come to become a real center for rebuilding efforts.
Just because these (and other) small islands are small and might look insignifiant on a map, if they are left with all their pre-war structure and institutions left intact what can they do but help others rebuild?
EDIT: John Windham understood this in 'The Day of the Triffids', ok not exactly the same kind of situation. But from a position of stability and order, one can more easeily start the process of reconstruction. That what was in the mind of the team that went out there in that piece of fiction. Here it is not too dissimilar other than that the islands have hardly been affected in the first place.
Another point, the islands are already mildy radioactive due to the rock, and so strains of crops grown on the islands will in general perform better under fallout conditions than most other places in the world.
EDITED: I might also add, exsiting Radar, civil aviation and radio equipment, a medium-small port, along with industrial waste managment would make up some of the 'high infrastructure of the islands. Notwithstanding all the actual fortifications build during WW2 definatly detering any 'raids' by armed refugees (that is if they can actually sail in the first place) and that the islands have a fair amount of firearms (mainly for farmers, than recreation; althoug there are/were shooting ranges) anyway.
Very interesting Mac.
------------------------------------------------------
From everything read, I can say with confidence that there is a group of developed nations that will have escaped relatively unscathed, and have been completely ignored so far.
The Channel Islands themselves would not have been a target of NATO strikes, and it is rather implausible that the Soviets would specifically target these minor island nations. With a weapon of their own.
Similarly non of the towns on the French coast in this region are any form of strategic target. So it is unlikely that in this timeline any weapon would have detonated near enough the islands for the islands to have felt the 'direct effect' of the nuclear exchange.
The Channel Islands being island nations are separate from France, and so wouldn't expect to be flooded with refugees in the immediate aftermath. The islands also have/had fairly developed agricultural sectors. Guernsey produces tomato cash crop surpluses for instance, and Jersey exports large numbers of potato to both the UK and France.
In terms of fresh water, there is a grand aquifer under the islands (and that region of France), and there is a desalination plant. While reservoirs might be contaminated from rainfall in the first few months following the nuclear exchange and that water undrinkable, the reservoirs may be emptied and allowed to refill come autumn and winter. They also provide a great location for post-exchange fish rearing.
The only thing lacking for the Channel Islanders would be electrical power and fuel oil. This is not that important for agriculture as some of the islands have hillside 'cotes', and local fertiliser is natural 'vrack' (seaweed from the beaches).
Therefore is in many ways incredibly lucky in this timeline. It could be said that currently they are experiencing a 'cosy catastrophe' which is not much worse than a power outage in terms of disruption...
...I jest to a degree. Jersey for instance at the time would have had a population of about 76,000 people. This is a bit beyond the carrying capacity of the land, even if all food wasn't being exported. However, we must realise that not all of agricultural land is in intensive cultivation as the island during the latter half of the 20thC moved away from subsistence industries to tourism. Agriculture in Jersey at least never changed to an industrialised intensive farming model, instead going down the route of a modern extensive model of efficient production of the land, rather than quantity of farming given that there is far less space for farming, and food production diversification is a much better way to supply the markets.
Still with all infrastructure left intact. No need for the UK government since the islands have their own. Order could be maintained, and you would be sure that the islands population isn't just going to sit around and slowly starve. People would be moving to France. Most likely the Cotentin Peninsular looking for the manufactured goods that the islands can't produce. Since they don't have any light, medium or heavy industry.
Indeed, the Bailiwicks leaders are going to quickly realise that if the UK and France are up sh*t creek, but they have been 'spared', the only smart thing to do is for them to take on the responsibility for 'rebuilding' the western coastal part of Basse-Normandie since it's been spared destruction compared to Brest in Britanity, but you can be sure St. Malo and the other parts of the Breton coast are going to receive 'vists' in the very practical concern of the islands trading food and a sense of order, in exchange for manufactured goods and supplies that the locals can spare.
Afteral with such large resident populations, simply more land would be needed to feed everybody. The islands don't have that land, so would need to put France back on its feet as the closest partners.
What the Channel Islands would bring compared to the French, is order and centralised planning. If the French government has left, France decimated and is experiencing simmilar issues as are described in the UK, then 'guidence' from these island 'utopias' in comparison might be very much appricated. Particularly in the fact that the islands may have the private vessels (or just take them from the French coast) to re-establish fishing as a major source of food production in the region, which declined due to modern techniques in deep sea trawling making it economically unviable for the islands and coastal region.
With the area relitively full of local Chataeu in france, you can very quickly see the entire area quickly resorting into a kind of 'kingdom of cooperating fiefdoms' as if the coastal areas are fairly quickly put back up on their feet with the knowledge that the Islanders can help them, and provide a level of governance (and more importantly infomation on the world state of affairs), thus indebting the french survivors who otherwise would be with little hope.
What I mean to say by this, is that as far as this timeline has gone you've left out these little self contained communities who have nearly everything in their favour for reconstruction right in the middle of disaster, and might even be one of the few areas like Switzerland and Australia-New Zealand that come to become a real center for rebuilding efforts.
Just because these (and other) small islands are small and might look insignifiant on a map, if they are left with all their pre-war structure and institutions left intact what can they do but help others rebuild?
EDIT: John Windham understood this in 'The Day of the Triffids', ok not exactly the same kind of situation. But from a position of stability and order, one can more easeily start the process of reconstruction. That what was in the mind of the team that went out there in that piece of fiction. Here it is not too dissimilar other than that the islands have hardly been affected in the first place.
Another point, the islands are already mildy radioactive due to the rock, and so strains of crops grown on the islands will in general perform better under fallout conditions than most other places in the world.
EDITED: I might also add, exsiting Radar, civil aviation and radio equipment, a medium-small port, along with industrial waste managment would make up some of the 'high infrastructure of the islands. Notwithstanding all the actual fortifications build during WW2 definatly detering any 'raids' by armed refugees (that is if they can actually sail in the first place) and that the islands have a fair amount of firearms (mainly for farmers, than recreation; althoug there are/were shooting ranges) anyway.
Last edited:
Err...Cherbourg and Brest seem rather close for comfort. The CI are likely to cop quite a bit of fall-out from those two ports since the Soviets would use ground bursts to take out the port facilities. Depending on wind direction fall-out from Plymouth and Southampton could also be a problem.
Firstly, so far Cherborg hasn't been mentioned as being hit, and if Portsmouth is preaty much 'intact' as it has been described as, they are going to know about the North coast of France. It ain't that difficult to get a few private yatchsmen to take some boats out to sail along the french coast and report via radio/when they return.
Secondy, the guy who did the winds for fallout maps;
They aren't really facing over towards the islands. And, fallout is much less an issue from what I have seen/read/know on the issue than people make out. Not saying its not important, but in the long term is a rather minor issue...exponential decay and all that lot.
Brest isn't particularly close (more than 100mi), at least no closer than any other mid target locale anywhere else in Europe via the various maps provided.
I did make a comment specifically towards as far as it has been written so far they have emerged relatively unscathed.
EDIT: If we look at US nuclear tests as an example out of the 1,000 or so conducted, the net release of radiation over a time period of years* over a wide area gives a very minor dose. A fraction of arad grey (did the calculation from a map source recently). Let's assume that the way this war gets conducted we drop 4,000 weapons in total...about 2 rads grey over a wide area over many years.
Given that about 98% of that entire dose is going to be within the 1st year, all the people that are going to die from direct exposure are going to do so in the first 2 years. After that, its unlucky if they somehow come to ingest or otherwise come into contact with some 'hot material'. What were 'radioactive deadzones' will be almost back to normal in a few years. Radiation is hardly the 'big fear' it is always made out to be. Afterall, your bombarded with it all the time.
The greatest danger from fallout is not it being 'passively there' but if you ingest it from the dust/smoke/ash/rain (particularly that rain).
The greatest levels of radiation will also only be there for the first 48hrs to a couple weeks. After that many so called 'hot zones' would be 'safe' for a short lenght of time. sure living in them...your gonna pick up a creeping dose, but a 'hot zone' like this is going to be close to the blast zone. If I can find the source I want to on the internet I'll link to it. It examines the relative dangers of proximity and time to a blast zone in terms of radioactivity. Overrall coming to the conclusion that you really have to 'be within sight of the glow crater' to pick up a lethal dose in passing.
*decades
Sources:
Not really the one I wanted, but this one explains the same things in general if you want a read: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82cab/index.html
Secondy, the guy who did the winds for fallout maps;
They aren't really facing over towards the islands. And, fallout is much less an issue from what I have seen/read/know on the issue than people make out. Not saying its not important, but in the long term is a rather minor issue...exponential decay and all that lot.
Brest isn't particularly close (more than 100mi), at least no closer than any other mid target locale anywhere else in Europe via the various maps provided.
I did make a comment specifically towards as far as it has been written so far they have emerged relatively unscathed.
EDIT: If we look at US nuclear tests as an example out of the 1,000 or so conducted, the net release of radiation over a time period of years* over a wide area gives a very minor dose. A fraction of a
Given that about 98% of that entire dose is going to be within the 1st year, all the people that are going to die from direct exposure are going to do so in the first 2 years. After that, its unlucky if they somehow come to ingest or otherwise come into contact with some 'hot material'. What were 'radioactive deadzones' will be almost back to normal in a few years. Radiation is hardly the 'big fear' it is always made out to be. Afterall, your bombarded with it all the time.
The greatest danger from fallout is not it being 'passively there' but if you ingest it from the dust/smoke/ash/rain (particularly that rain).
The greatest levels of radiation will also only be there for the first 48hrs to a couple weeks. After that many so called 'hot zones' would be 'safe' for a short lenght of time. sure living in them...your gonna pick up a creeping dose, but a 'hot zone' like this is going to be close to the blast zone. If I can find the source I want to on the internet I'll link to it. It examines the relative dangers of proximity and time to a blast zone in terms of radioactivity. Overrall coming to the conclusion that you really have to 'be within sight of the glow crater' to pick up a lethal dose in passing.
*decades
Sources:
Not really the one I wanted, but this one explains the same things in general if you want a read: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82cab/index.html
Last edited: