View Single Post
  #3  
Old 05-20-2016, 03:05 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,657
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

The unit would only stay on base if that is where it was decided they were most useful. But IMO that is unlikely.

Think about what MILGOVs task list looks like the first week of December 1997. If a unit cannot perform their current mission or if that mission would not yield immediate results, you can be damn sure that someone somewhere could use that manpower.

Air support units might not be redeployed immediately, but three years out is a different story. I can see the unit staying in place to guard somewhat significant fuel reserves initially. But that fuel would soon be tasked to nearby units with greater need. Any remaining aircraft, spares, maintenance equipment, etc would be valuable resources that MILGOV would want to protect, but other tasks in the area with higher priority would pull portions of the unit away.

Keeping the unit on an inactive base represents not only the loss of the manpower of that unit, but also any logistical support that needs to be sent to that unit.

The best of the unit would probably be redeployed with a couple of aircraft to wherever units are still flying as trainers can do low fuel use recon missions. Some might be kept to maintain the local MILGOV commanders personal helicopters and C-12.

If you look at unit conversion for the Iraq conflict, you had all sorts of units converted to quasi infantry simply because that is what the conflict required. You were not fighting masses of tanks so MLRS trained troops were doing street patrols. I think that would be the fate of a majority of the unit you are discussing. Being converted to some type of light infantry or light engineering tasked to riot control and disaster recovery, because those are the greatest needs.
Reply With Quote