RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-01-2018, 09:15 AM
Adm.Lee Adm.Lee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,212
Default Interesting idea

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...is-task-force/

Not that this would be policy before/during the Twilight War, but we do have a game that we could use to experiment. Using v2.x chargen, it's easy to mandate that PCs work a term in a non-combat arm before hitting infantry or another combat arm.

Thoughts?
__________________
My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-01-2018, 09:38 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,257
Default

That's similar in concept to the Australian Army Reserves.
Every infantryman (usually) has a civilian job, often a trade or technical one. Those skills learnt in civilian life transfer readily into missions such as peace keeping, rebuilding, etc.
Even on a conventional battlefield a mechanic, electrician, truck driver or whatever can come in quite useful. Much better to have a number of support skills within the rifle platoon ready to go than have to wait for the engineers to come and fix the problem.
In my own original reserve section we had a carpenter, cabinet maker, two farmers, two train drivers, a paramedic, heavy machinery operator, and an ex navy signalman. When I went full time, those additional skills and the flexibility they brought essentially disappeared.

So, in concept I like the idea, but who in their right mind CHOOSES infantry if they've already established themselves in a much cushier role?
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2018, 12:28 PM
WallShadow's Avatar
WallShadow WallShadow is offline
Ephemera of the Big Ka-Boom
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: near TMI
Posts: 555
Default

Such a plan would fit so nicely into T2K--most of your available troops would have practical cross-training in skills that will be needed and vital to a shattered civilization. Electricians, plumbers, contractors, cooks, animal handlers, \mechanics, machinists,bookkeepers (somebody has to figure out if this year's crop is going to get us through next winter)--all with value to a needy world.
__________________
"Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-01-2018, 02:03 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 853
Default

Reading that article shows me that the DOD is trying to reinvent the wheel. When I joined the Army Reserves in 1988, I became a 13 Bravo (artillery crewman). Over the course of the next 4 years, I took SEVERAL classes offered to my unit due to our affiliation with both the 10th Mountain and 1st Army. Those classes included:

Machinegun School; This was a two-week summer course for the Reserves to improve the gunnery of our units and introduce soldiers to a more in-depth training on belt-fed weapons than the "familiarization training" we received in Basic. It was a volunteer class (24 students) run 4 times a year in our ARCOM.

Demolitions Training; This was another 2-week training class open to any Reservist who applied for it during the year.

Cold Weather Mountain School, Airborne/Jump School, Air Assault School, Sniper School and Ranger Training; The option to go to the 8-week (in the 90's) schools was given by the Regan Administration to Reserve troops in the 1980s in order to improve training standards. An ARCOM-wide lottery was held for all qualified candidates who wanted to go. Ten Reservists were selected to go each school every year. Please note that Ranger Training DID NOT make you a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment. It simply gave you that training, which you were expected to pass on to your fellow soldiers (improving THEIR combat efficiency in turn).

Added MOS Training; You could train in ANY MOS within your ARCOM by going to a 5-WEEKEND training program and then completing a special 2-week "finals program" (including PT and Skills Qualification Testing) at the appropriate Fort/Post where that MOS was taught. Completion resulted in the issuance of a diploma in that MOS. This was known as cross-training or cross-specialization and was common in the NG and Reserves.

I personally went to Ft. "Lost in the Woods" [Leonard Wood] for 88 Mike (wheeled vehicle driver/CDL A), Ft "Disneyland" [Dix] (Special Weapons), Ft. Lean-on-it [Lee]... with their Military-In-The-Field (MIF) site... and yes it was ACTUALLY CALLED the "MIF site" (77 Fox, Petroleum Specialist), and of course Ft "Silly" [Sill] (13 Foxtrot, Forward Observer) and hold all of those as an actual MOS with a diploma to prove completion. And I assure you, I am FAR from alone in this.

In 1994, "President Clinton" ended ALL of these (pretty expensive) training programs as part of the "Peace Dividend."

While I don't really agree with the idea that you should do 4 years BEFORE being allowed to become Infantry/Combat Arms, I do think there should be a higher standard for Combat Arms. ALL US Soldiers (and Marines) should go through the FULL OSUT training for INFANTRY AS A BASIC TRAINING. They should then be "scored" based on their "performance" on various criteria (ASVAB, PT, SQT, attitude, road marches, etc...). Only the highest scores should be allowed into the Combat Arms with lower scores having to take alternate MOS training. You then send the troops to ANOTHER MOS school where they will learn more advanced skills (in addition to their initial Infantry training). This would cost a lot more but would produce a better grade of soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-01-2018, 02:06 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WallShadow View Post
Such a plan would fit so nicely into T2K--most of your available troops would have practical cross-training in skills that will be needed and vital to a shattered civilization. Electricians, plumbers, contractors, cooks, animal handlers, \mechanics, machinists,bookkeepers (somebody has to figure out if this year's crop is going to get us through next winter)--all with value to a needy world.
The Reserves had pioneered a program where you could take a test that would allow you to receive an MOS for a civilian skill but this was also "killed" by the "Clinton Peace Cuts" before it was fully implemented (like the Division 86 protocols).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-01-2018, 02:39 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
...

... ALL US Soldiers (and Marines) should go through the FULL OSUT training for INFANTRY AS A BASIC TRAINING. They should then be "scored" based on their "performance" on various criteria (ASVAB, PT, SQT, attitude, road marches, etc...). Only the highest scores should be allowed into the Combat Arms with lower scores having to take alternate MOS training. You then send the troops to ANOTHER MOS school where they will learn more advanced skills (in addition to their initial Infantry training). This would cost a lot more but would produce a better grade of soldier.
Most of what you said I think was a good thing, but I have to disagree with sending all troops through the infantry OSUT. I think that it would not be a bad thing for most, but some I think it is not beneficial. I started my career as a 19K (M1 Tank Crewman) and my duty location also had a Marine Reserve tank (I do not know what number a marine tanker is) unit stationed there so we trained with and around them quite a bit. They were a good unit, but we were better in almost every tank task as that is what we trained on almost exclusively, where they had to split there time between tank and infantry training. So maybe the average Army tanker at the time could not hit a 300 meter target with a M16, what did it matter we did not even have M16 our crew had two M3's and four M1911's. What would it matter if we could do Infantry squad/platoon based tactics, they are different than the Armor based one (even though some are called the same thing they are different) in some ways because they call them the same thing, it can cause confusion in newer troops, and that can be very bad on the battlefield.

The other thing I see and this might just be semantics but I am not sure that it would be the best use of time/money for some of the others. But with just a little modification I think it could be very workable. These are like the Combat Engineer who right now learns most (or a large % at least) of the infantry tactics so making them go through the entire infantry school and then the engineer school just seams a waist to me. But either extend engineer school and add in what they are not getting and have them only do this, or reduce it and cut out all the infantry stuff so it is engineer only and have them go through the infantry school first would work I think (I would personally say the add to engineer school).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-03-2018, 09:33 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adm.Lee View Post
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...is-task-force/

Not that this would be policy before/during the Twilight War, but we do have a game that we could use to experiment. Using v2.x chargen, it's easy to mandate that PCs work a term in a non-combat arm before hitting infantry or another combat arm.

Thoughts?

Well speaking as a former infantry soldier and current non-combat soldier I think this a terrible idea.

Most of your non-combat soldiers are skilled tradesmen. Making people take training for a job they don't want is bad, it will give units unmotivated troops who are just cooling their jets till they get a slot in combat arms. Or you end up with troops that don't want to leave. I mean the pull of coffee and doughnuts in the rear is a powerful weapon. That why I began a Human Resource Administrator (yes that what we call our trade now)

And let me tell you infantry is a young man's job best to get them in when they are full of Piss and Vinger.
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-04-2018, 05:25 AM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
Well speaking as a former infantry soldier and current non-combat soldier I think this a terrible idea.

Most of your non-combat soldiers are skilled tradesmen. Making people take training for a job they don't want is bad, it will give units unmotivated troops who are just cooling their jets till they get a slot in combat arms. Or you end up with troops that don't want to leave. I mean the pull of coffee and doughnuts in the rear is a powerful weapon. That why I began a Human Resource Administrator (yes that what we call our trade now)

And let me tell you infantry is a young man's job best to get them in when they are full of Piss and Vinger.
I second this, performance and morale will degrade. Units will struggle to keep their combat certification, "The Ticket".
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.