More divisions = more fun?

[kato13]

Antenna 11-08-2005, 03:53 PM Lets travel back in time from our beloved T2k world to 1996, when USA enters the T2k war wouldn't she gear up on everything creating more divisions for her wars ? (Now I don't know if USA is a she or a he but that doesn't matter right now)


Lets see what USSR or what we learned to know as russia would do they called up their only Mobilization only divisions in the twilight war.... Wouldn't USA create some more divisions like 10 to 20 more of them like in WW2 as fast as she can with introducing drafting ?


I don't know what US citizens has to say about drafting but in sweden until recently almost 95% of the male population did the military service somehow during their lifetime...


So lets speculate on how many more divisions would there been if you would be ruling USA during T2k wars and before .... Of course I allways regraded USA in my games have mustered more divisions in size of 6000 to 9000 men in start of war of 4-6 light infantry battalions and 1 light/heavy armored battalion and maybe 2-3 Artillery battalions per drafted division. So what is your view...


Antenna

********************

shrike6 11-08-2005, 05:38 PM I've given some thought to this as I've worked on my revised US orbat, Antenna. My thoughts are while the US may have had plans to activate additional divisions, that losses of both mapower and equipment at the various fronts prevented them from fully activating. Just to add alittle bit more detail, the plan was to activate 6 additional divisions (4th Armored Division, 2nd Cavalry Division [config as mech inf], 11th Air Assault Division, 12th Infantry Division, 17th Airborne Division, and 23rd Infantry Division) but as losses mounted the plan was changed and only 3 [or if Japan is in the war: 4] Brigades were activated. (173rd Airborne Brigade, 196th Motorized Brigade, 199th Motorized Brigade) or [with Japan: 173rd Airborne Brigade, 196th Air Assault Brigade, 198th Armored Brigade (Motorized), 199th Motorized Brigade]. As far as your stuff goes Antenna if you think additional divisions are justified in your version of T2K go for it.

********************

Antenna 11-08-2005, 06:17 PM Well, these aditional divisions I talk about would have the strength I talk about "before battle".


You all have to remeber when the usual USSR Motorized or Tank division mustered around 11.000 to 12.000 men the mobilization divisions was just a skeleton in those numbers, I've seen numbers that these mobilization divisions hada manpower around 5.000 to 7.000, even these forces counts when the final meatgrinder goes for the last time in a war.


Shrike6 you mentioned 4 brigades, remeber that a full US brigade musters around 5.000 to 6.000 men, and my smaller divisions are in the neighbourhood of that number but just leg infantry with a Antiarmor battalion. Really a smaller version of the light infantry. Well, the question is how many of these smaller divisions would you belive would apear during war ? This is of course one of my What if questions... I know my friends usually goes somewhat crazy when I say those words in swedish =)


Gonna think some to tomorrow and then maybe post some more formulated thoughts, hopefully with divisions


Antenna

********************

graebardeII 11-08-2005, 06:49 PM In my world the US has 18 regular army and three Marine divisions at the start, all are manned by regular army, as the roundout brigade was found lacking. In addition there are 20 National Guard divisions and one Marine reserve division. The ten Army Reserve Training Divisions are called to train the increased influx of persons with the reinstatement of the draft. However, the first draft is not held until late February 1997, which means the first draftee to hit the line does not happen until about the end of June.


There is also five armored cav regiments, three air cav regiments, four seperate brigades, five special forces groups, and the Ranger Regiment on active duty. The National Guard has three armored cavalry regiments, one air cavalry brigade, and two special forces groups. All army reserve combat brigades were activated to fill out the regular divisions as well as IIR personnel by Christmas.


The readiness of the heavy guard divisions was enhanced by activation for six months and running them through the NTC. This started right after the start of the Sino-Soviet war, when NATO went on alert for a couple of months. The US put two divisions on REFORGER when that happened, and the 1st ID from Ft Riley remained in Germany. There was talk of bringing them home, however other events aborted that idea.

********************

firewalker 11-08-2005, 10:39 PM speaking to the draft. the mechanics are still there i mean everybody (well male everybody's) still have to sign up. but to actually reinstate it that would be rather tricky.


two broad way's i could see it.


one it is blindingly clear that it is time. it's put up or shut up time and we need to mobilize. in sort total war footing like in ww2. and even if 90% of the country agrees with it there would still be a vocal minority apposing. half would be hard core right wing (i.e new America) talking about UN concentration camps and black helicopters and the other half left wing babbling about war mongers the industrial military complex and so forth.


two somebody is willing to expand a hole lot of political capital on the understanding that the war is coming and were going to need those men.

********************

pmulcahy 11-09-2005, 12:10 AM There are a number of US states that have something roughly equivalent to Mobilization-Only units: the State Guard units (as they are known in Texas). They are comprised primarily of retired old salts, people who have the desire to be in the National Guard or regular military but cannot pass the physical, and other people who simply want to serve in some capacity but don't have the time to put into a National Guard commitment, or are simply wannabes. They have absolute crap for equipment, virtually no armored vehicles (mostly old M-113s; not M-113A1, not A2s, but M-113s), few other vehicles of other sorts, and little in the way of heavy weapons. They often supply their own small arms and ammunition. They range in skill from old and crusty but very crafty to no skill whatsoever. When in I was in the Guard, we provided a rotating training cadre for them, but you'd be surprised at what they are capable of. My First Sergeant likened them to inexperienced lovers: not much in the way of ability, but that is equalled out by the amount of genuine desire they have to do well.

********************

DeaconR 11-09-2005, 07:49 AM I would suggest too that if you want to revise some of the history and therefore the OOB then go for it.


At the start of WWII you know Canada had only 10 Bren guns for the whole army. By 1945 there were I believe over 730,000 men and women in the Canadian Army. By 1943 the overseas force, the 1st Canadian Army, had 3 infantry divisions, 2 armored divisions, 2 armored brigades and support troops.


I guess it is more of a question of do you believe the resources would exist with which to equip, transport and train the additional divisions?

********************

graebardeII 11-09-2005, 08:29 AM Note in my world, the draft is iniatied AFTER three events have occured with teh military:


1. The war in the gulf starts. I start the US on the road to WWIII with Sadam invading Kuwait, but not stopping there like in DS! (which never occured in my timeline, so this is the FIRST test of the units.) Also they can't afford to pull a corps out of Germany to stem any tides in the Gulf, as the wall has not come down, and NATO is still facing a substantial threat from the east. The invasion by Iraq, if truth be known, is sanctioned/supported by Russia, partially to draw the US attention away from them, but they also think/though the Iraqi have a decent chance of disrupting the oil flow to the west without implicating the Russians. OF course when the Straits of Hormuz are mined early on, about the time the surface releif forces are arriving, well fingers start to be pointed.


2. The Germans cross the border shortly after the war in the Gulf is started, while the worlds attention is on the gulf. This brings the US into the war in Europe. It is stretching our transport to the limit. The question lies where to send the reinforcements, of course NATO gets the largest chunk. The Invasion of Norway is piece-meal to say the least, but serves two purposes for the Soviets. First it draws needed reinforcements from the Central Front, secondly, IF they succeed, helps interdict the flow of supplies into Central Front, with the seizure of the long range airbases in northen Norway.


3. Shortly after the European fronts open up, North Korea enters the fray, driving south. This again was sponsored by the Russians to disrupt the American's. Now they are on THREE fronts, widly seperated, and stretched thin.


It is TIME for the draft. Yes the draft is there in ground work, but takes time to get up and running. AND it is election year, plus it is the Christmas Holiday season, and well do we REALLY need this? So by the time the first lottery is made, it's early 1997.


Yes there will be opposition, but the CO's will still have to serve. Not in the military, but in the newly refurbished FEMA. They will be trained and work as auxillaries for fire, police, medical, rescue, and a 100 other tasks that need bodies. NO volunteering for such will NOT get you out of the draft. The ONLY thing/s that will get you out are death, major handicap (and even those can help in FEMA), long term incarceration, or the fact your already IN the military service.

********************

Webstral 11-10-2005, 04:57 AM Along the lines of the State Guards/State Military Reserves, I have been doing some thinking about how these forces should be organized. They would have a place in the T2k world given that SMRs already exist in several states by late 1996. Soon thereafter, with the National Guard getting deployed like crazy, most states would create them. In the real world, states still have a need. As the recent hurricane season demonstrated, the need for uniformed service members doesn't go away just because the National Guard has been deployed to Iraq.


The BCT concept (Brigade Combat Team) is intended to enable each brigade to be a self-sufficient entity having control over every unit required to sustain itself independently of higher headquarters. This is an idea years behind its time, but at least the Army has finally caught on. SMRs would be obliged to take this concept to a lower echelon, I believe. I've been to the State Guard website, and the desired numbers listed by most states are well under the level of a full-strength brigade. Battalion task forces are the main movers in the SMR world.


I have a rough concept for an SMR Civil Defense Task Force (battalion): 2 Military Police companies, 1 Engineer company (heavy), 1 HHC, and one Forward Support Company.


The MPs provide the combat power. There just isn't a big need for infantry in the SMR mission, which is civil defense after all. There shouldn't be any high-intensity combat. The worst-case scenario is either wide-spread rioting or the occasional outlaw group too heavy for the police to tackle. So there's really no need for infantry, per se. Combat MPs should be able to handle the job. The MPs will be fairly heavy, mind. They need at least a platoon of APCs with heavy MGs and 40mm grenade launchers so they CAN tackle tough targets. But their real job is real area security so all the other specialists (military and civilian) can do their jobs. MP companies tend to be big. We had one on our FOB with 150 men. Three hundred MPs augmenting local law enforcement should be able to cover a fairly large area.


Aside from security missions, a Civil Defense Task Force (CDTF) should expect to respond in the event of natural disasters. California is just waiting for the next Big One. When it hits, there will be a massive need for heavy equipment. Therefore, a major component of the CDTF must be heavy engineers. When not operating their equipment, the engineers can help out with security missions.


The Forward Support Company (FSC) should include maintenance, transportation, quartermaster, and ordnance elements. The first three might be platoon strength, while ordnance probably could get by with a squad or thereabouts.


HHC will be the most diverse company, having the headquarters section, scouts and snipers, mortars (in the event of a serious problem), a medical platoon, a chemical platoon (for hazmat incidents that are an inevitable consequence of natural disasters), a signal platoon, and the other non-FSC support elements.


What won't be present are the heavy hitters of the Regular Army or even the current incarnation of the National Guard. No infantry, no armor (heavier than armored cars/wheeled APCs for the MPs), no field artillery, no air defense, no combat engineers. Each task force is designed to provide what amounts to rear area security inside its home state.


Getting the manpower is another issue entirely. Here's where I see the Second Amendment helping out. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Right now, there is no "well regulated militia" in the US. The National Guard doesn't count because militias don't deploy to fight overseas. The National Guard is organized, trained, and equipped to fight as a conventional force against a conventional enemy. The various SMRs are the closest thing to a real militia.


"Well regulated" should include licensing. I hear the howls of protests from gun owners who love being relatively unregulated. Well, unregulated isn't in the Constitution. Suck it up. The licensing process should neither be onerous nor permissive. A certain number of class hours should be required, covering topics such as gun safety, laws, and issues of the day.


Once an owner has his/her license, he can buy whatever guns he wants. License goes down on the counter, the merchant checks the current validity of the license, and then sells said firearms. Licensing becomes the means of ensuring good behavior as opposed to a database of guns and restrictions on guns.


The other part of the "well regulated militia" scheme is membership in the State Military Reserve. The SMR should have two parts: the active and inactive SMR. The active SMR would include the units I mentioned above. When drilling, these people would receive pay at their pay grade. Drills would be conducted rather like the National Guard. Military schools might be made available, etc. This would be a great way to keep prior service members in uniform when they get sick of being sent overseas, as is happening in the US right now. Additionally, years spent in the active SMR might accrue towards whatever retirement plans the various states have. There is plenty to be worked out here.


The inactive reserve would include everybody else who is licensed for gun ownership, whether they currently own a gun or not. These people would be organized into groups that would be responsible for attending a one-day drill once a quarter and for completing a certain number of hours of community service or some other duty. The idea would be to keep people recognizant to society and to remind them that gun ownership comes with some responsibilities. Failure to meet those responsibilities would result in suspension or revoking of the firearms license. The administrative work could be handled by members of the inactive militia performing their community service hours. These people would not get paid. They also would be available for call-up in the event of a disaster of some sort, for which there might be some sort of minimal compensation. Again, this group is fulfilling its obligation to society as gun owners under the "well regulated militia" concept.


This is just a start. Feedback is most welcome.


Webstral

********************

DeaconR 11-11-2005, 07:50 AM I generally like your concept mostly for the idea that there are responsibilities that go along with certain rights.


Furthermore, it is very hard for federal governments to meet all needs at all levels these days, and as you said for a number of different military roles having huge formations of troops isn't really efficient. It is a concept we might do well to adopt here in Canada I think. Gun registry caused a huge amount of resentment, particularly in our more conservative areas such as here in Alberta. I remember a picture of a man in protest giving the Prime Minister a notarized letter stating that he refused to have his firearms registered.


However, if the state becomes more of a partner with the citizen who determines to own firearms, these kinds of conflicts would at least theoretically become reduced.


Also as a student of military history I would point out that the situation you describe is a common basis for citizenship and social rank: are you prepared to lay out resources to help defend your nation? In the ancient republics there was a difference in social rank between those private citizens who armed themselves and put themselves at the disposal of their society in time of crisis and those mercenaries or conscripts who fought regardless.

********************

thefusilier 11-11-2005, 09:56 AM Going back to the original question about creating a whole bunch of new divisions. We all know that these units (mechanized/armored) need a massive amount of vehicles and heavy equipment. The manpower might be there but I think even the US industry already pumping out war material and replacements for the already existing units will be tough. Modern units take alot more building effort than world war 2 divisions with sherman tanks and garands. To equip them with Abrams and Bradleys, maybe a very small number of units yes. And as I said the manpower is there but to create leg mobile units for Europe and Asia would be costly against Pact units. And besides we got those (training divisions) later, and by then, with armies not so mechanized and armoured, not so bad. Just my opinion.

********************

graebardeII 11-11-2005, 05:53 PM Hey Web,


I like your idea, and in my utopian world that seems to be the solution that has seemed to evade me. In addition to these battalion task forces, which are primarily used for security, there should be another based on medical support, quartermaster functions, engineer support, transportation and such, which would work with organizations such as the Red Cross. These are the folks needed to establish the needed base camps for the field workers. The same criteria could be implemented for these units, but a lot would be those that are anti-gun in nature.


grae

********************

shrike6 11-11-2005, 06:42 PM Canonwise, didn't Civgov use the Iowa State Guard to attempt to secure nuclear warheads in North Dakota?

********************

graebardeII 11-11-2005, 07:53 PM IIRC you're right, though they were repulsed by USAF security personnel as I recall.

********************

Webstral 11-12-2005, 01:38 AM Whether there would be more US Army divisions is to some degree a matter of faith and/or preference. I don't believe new Army divisions are going to be raised between Oct 1996 and Nov 1997 because the Army will be scrambling to replace losses.


Losses are going to be huge in the East Germany campaign. NATO scores a big victory, but there is a price tag. The Pact defenders may be worn out, but the survivors are veterans. The US Army entering the fight will be enthusiastic and well-trained, but they won't be veterans. Vets do things differently than the best-trained of the uninitiated. I'm seeing that here. Desert Storm proved that the right kind of training can go a long way, and I believe the US Army would have entered the war in Germany with basically the right kind of training. But I am expecting upwards of 10,000 casualties for the US Army alone.


As NATO forces close up on the Polish border in Europe, the Soviet Union's client states kick off action elsewhere. Hussein's Iraq invades Kuwait again. The real fight is in Korea, though, as the North Koreans cross the border. This fight very quickly becomes a meat grinder for the ROK/US forces. NK Special Forces kill distressingly large numbers of rear echelon pogues and destroy a lot of equipment. These people have to be replaced.


The good news is that the US is geared up for production of a whole range of materiel. A lot of it stuff the Chinese have been ordering. With the Sino-Soviet War in full swing, the world (not just the Chinese) has a huge appetite for rifles, mortars, machine guns, light field artillery, and the whole panoply of infantry support weapons and equipment. The Soviet Union is running at top speed trying to equip (and re-equip) its own forces. China is in the same boat. Thus there is a big demand everywhere to be filled by Western manufacturers.


The bad news is that bringing new people into the Army is not easy. There's always a trade-off between timeliness and quality. There's a ramping-up period where the new crop of trainers get trained. The Army Reserve divisions make all the difference in the world. Still, there's a maximum pace for replacing even the most unskilled private, if you expect him to do his job once he gets in-theater. Specialists of the sort the NK Special Forces are eager to kill and without whom even a light infantry division cannot function, take even longer. You can cut corners, but you can only cut so many before the force becomes a horde of semi-trained rabble.


The ongoing fight in Korea places a huge demand on the ready manpower of the Army. In my revamped history, the 24th ID has troops in place in Kuwait when the refurbished Iraqi Republican Guard arrives. The Americans are forced to withdraw after heavy fighting. Though losses here are hardly on he scale of the losses in Korea, the Middle East represents another stream of casualties in need of replacing.


By May 1997, just as we can expect the first privates to be reaching their units, the war is on for the US. NATO has launched its offensive across Poland. Allied forces in Korea are driving for the Yalu. Coalition forces are on the go in the Gulf. Casualties will be measured in thousands per week. Not deaths, mind. A fraction of the casualties will be deaths. But a substantial portion of the wounded either will never see combat again or will require a lengthy rehab period. Either way, they need to be replaced. Thousands per week. This will consume the output of the US Army's regular schools and the reserve divisions.


One would imagine that the Army's ability to inject fresh manpower into the field units would outstrip the need. New units could then be created in the flesh, not just on paper. However, in July 1997 the nuke exchange begins. No matter how bad the loss rate was up to that point, the tac nukes make what went before look like a game. At this point, any plans for fielding new divisions would be laughable, were the situation not so grim. From there on, there's just no catching up with the needs of the units in the field.


So I don't see any new divisions being fielded. The divisions on the books at the end of 1996 will consume the available trained manpower through the Thanksgiving 1997 surgical strategic nuclear exchange.


This is a point I intend to bring up if I ever get back to writing my revised history. The US stands at a crossroads in April 1997. The country hasn't mobilized its full resources for war. The factories aren't really ready, and the human resources aren't ready to be tapped to the max. Should the US try to knock the USSR out of the war with the forces currently in the field, or should the US wait a year to really gear up? The Clinton Administration opts to try to win the war in 1997. Who knows what would have happened had Sauronski not deposed Danilov in July 1997 and gone nuclear?



Webstral

********************

Abbott Shaull 11-12-2005, 08:58 AM Yes, well the US Army and the US military establishment found out the same thing during WWII. Even with the headstart of helping England. Once the US was in combat the losses often outstripped the resources of replacements. Both human and gear wise.


Now I do see draft and other fuctions working into 1998, but limited as things grind to halt. So some new units would be more than on paper, but largely due to the fact they haven't been stripped in while. Then add in the fact that many of these unit would be on relief missions before the Southwest and Northwest incurisions. Then these units would be sent to the front....


Just some thoughts.


Abbott

********************

Blackrider 11-16-2005, 09:40 PM the problem with assuming there isnt a higher government directive to increase the numbers of units is the cannon hisory of the 5th and 6th marine division, formed from elements of the 4th marine division and new recruits


i have a counter idea.. the marines were the first to orgainze divisions during the war. the US Army had just begun doing so when the nukes were first used, but that still leaves possible units of battalion to regiment level possibly existing before the nuke exchange


(created a few units this way for my game. the 511th, 555th, and the 551th (airborne) infantry regiments... were intended to form the 11th Airborne but were broken up for disaster relief in different areas...

********************

Abbott Shaull 11-17-2005, 12:18 AM No I would think that on paper that the US Army would be planning for new Divisions. I think that the Marine would be able to field new Divisions so fast is that they will have several units that could be used to help form new Division along with some Individual Ready Reserve troops or whatever they are called in the Corps. This along with one Division already formed in Reserve on the Marine side. They have much smaller foot print and could just move faster than the US Army.


Where as the US Army would have plans to build multiple Divisions at once, along with intaking several National Guard and Reserve units and get them trained, staffed, equip, and sent out to war. Many of these units would be raided for personnel and equipment during the various emergency the US Amry would face. Remember there were several Division in both Germany and Korea that were virtually for all practical purposes destroyed once or twice over during the war. Then add into the fact that even the Training Divisions weren't activated until 1997 and it would take time until they were up to snuf and producing replacements. Even then their output would be very shortly outstripped them, so where else do you find them.


There is a story about the 28th Infantry Division during WWII when General Omar Bradley was the Commanding Officer of the Division. The unit had been requested to send out Cadre for the formation of new Divisions that after one particular request, Bradley shot back when the 28th Infantry Division was going to recieve it own Cadre to train the new recruits it kept on recieving. This would probably be the life would be like in many of the paper Divisions. Yes, by 1998 most of the units would be piecemealed out to the fronts or to help in relieve efforts.


Abbott.

********************