Overseas Units and Family [Archive]

headquarters

02-03-2010, 08:21 AM

In our campaign we had a faction called MilGov ASIA - in lack of a better name for it - it was the remnants of all the overseas personell and their families/campfollowers from the multitude of postings overseas that had some of them - come together in sort of an umbrellla unit that coordinated a push to evacuate to the west coast -and the invasion of said coast .

In this campaign , interamarriage with the local population and the sheer power of the US military presence had made strange constallations politically , with some US troops as second generation exiles now fighting for a land they had never put foot on .

Also local govs were to some extent reliant on the power of the Yanks to uphold the balance of power in the specific region.

Specifically the Koreans and parts of Japan were aligned with the MilGov faction and supplied them with commodities in exchange for continued military support .

Some units were hodgepodges of nationalities that had sworn allegiance and signed the articles to join.

The relatively sudden mass exodus was not appreciated by all , and in some cases units chose to stay in cantonment and carry on as more or less a colony or a Diadochtian fief you might say ,like Ptolomayan Egypt .
( a powerful faction or elite of foreigners that impose their rule on the native population with a distinct cultural difference -and then over time slowly melding to something inbetween the two ).

pmulcahy11b

02-03-2010, 03:24 PM

I think people would find it disturbing how little attention is given to getting the families of servicemen/women, or noncombatants in general, out of the way. I've been out of the loop at that level for a while, so I don't know how they handle it now, but it used to be a sort of "jam them on whatever plane or ship is available," approach, and every family has a bug-out bag ready.

You might also have a situation like Saigon in 1975 -- you have to fight off civilians who you don't intend to evacuate (or even allied personnel). Families might have a really hard time trying to get to evac points. And remember, airfields are major targets in the opening hours of just about every World War 3 scenario. In Sir John Hackett's The Third World War, there is a very ugly scene about a plane full of evacuating families going down at an airfield in Germany (IIRC, after a nearby MRL rocket hit while the plane was taking off -- been a while since I read it). That's bound to have a major effect on morale.

One player I in a game I GMed once played a 20-year-old girl (by 2000) who was a US dependent at the beginning of the Twilight War. The player had the PC driven by a determination to find her father -- she already seen the rest of her family in Germany die. Interesting character workup process there...

Abbott Shaull

02-03-2010, 04:55 PM

In the book "Team Yankee" here was a part about getting dependents out of Germany and how some almost didn't make it.

Legbreaker

02-03-2010, 05:48 PM

Seems to me that there's more info on how little effort is given on getting dependants out than on anything else. It's therefore logical (although maybe not correct) to assume most would stay where they are, at least in the early stages of the war when the front is a long way off (the Nato drive in 96-97 for example where western forces made it all the way to Russia).

Once the tide turned, it may still have been some time before anyone thought they could be in danger. Tac nuke use may have caused a few to flee, but again, in the early stages this was restricted to pretty much just the front lines.

In my view, wholesale fleeing probably wouldn't have been a priority until the first long range strikes on non-military targets. Panic may have set in a lot earlier, but as the time from first nuke to long range strikes was in the order of months rather than days or weeks, many who previously fled probably had returned home, just to flee again at the next scare....

By the time the front in Europe had been pushed back across most of Poland and Germany was under threat, chances are it was too late to go much further than the nearest hills. Fleeing back to the US at that stage was probably about as possible as going to the moon.

Until Omega and TF 34 came along...

How many civilians, not directly associated with the military or either US government would be trying to get on board? I'm thinking of the evacuation of Saigon in the last days of Us involvement and the seens of complete chaos we've all seen.

It is my view the perimeter troops would be holding back hordes of refugees all looking for a space on board a rusty old ship. Probably not too much of an issue while there were thousands of troops still there, but I wouldn't want to be amongst the final handful!

Adm.Lee

02-03-2010, 07:27 PM

I'd kind of assumed that the American (Canadian, British) dependents in Europe would have been evacuated during the first few months of shooting in Germany. There wouldn't be the urgency of the Pact forces blasting west, and plenty of airliners flying between the US and Europe.
After the first (and largest) wave, there should be a trickle of families leaving as servicemembers are killed or wounded and rotated home. There's probably a second wave once the nukes start flying.

Having said that, there would certainly be some families that would stay behind voluntarily, and many more that would have married/moved in with foreign soldiers, especially in cantonments.

kalos72

02-03-2010, 07:38 PM

Using Germany as an example...

Do you think a GI stationed in Fulda for example, would prefer to stay there or would they try to get the family back to the US since there was 'room' for them in TF34?

Legbreaker

02-03-2010, 09:06 PM

Many of the long serving soldiers stationed in Europe may have integrated into the society, marrying locals, buying homes, etc. This is obviously less likely for lower ranks and reinforcements though, but we're talking civilian dependants here, not the soldiers themselves.

I can't see people who've made a life for themselves fleeing their homes and going halfway around the world, just because there's a war on waaaaay over to the east (which their side appears to be winning very handily). Once the tide turned and Nato was being pushed back, then the nerves might come into play however they've still got their homes and the world around them appears to be operating normally on the whole.

Reinforcement Divisions are still flooding into Europe and you can bet the news reports are being sensored to spare the civilians the true situation on the front - all possible efforts would likely be made to spin the situation and keep everyone happy.

Even once tac nukes were being used, I doubt there'd be much worry - the nearest in the early stages was waaaay over near the Russian (Not USSR) border and aimed at military targets.

Civilian travel is likely to become restricted too, if only because more and more of the available fuel is being used by the military. Civilian cars might still be allowed, however the cost of running one has by this time likely tripled or more.

Another factor is the perception, based on reality or not, that the EMP from tac nukes could effect planes thousands of miles away causing them to drop out of the sky. Even if regulatory bodies allowed Airlines to fly, and they could afford the fuel, I can't imagine the huddled masses being too keen on risking their lives in that way.

Which leaves travel by ship. As we know, a great deal of shipping is on the bottom by mid 1997 and I would imagine that many, if not most of the passenger vessels had been pressed into service as troop transports making them into prize targets for subs and raiders. This belief is borne out by several unit histories stating they'd suffered heavy casualties in the crossing from the US to Europe.

Even with these losses, there may be a number of passenger capable ships available, however fuel (again) would be in relatively short supply. Many of these ships would also probably be carrying wounded soldiers back to the US so space would still be fairly limited. Also, by this time, most people would be well aware of the high level of destruction on the seas so only a few might be willing to risk gambling against being sunk during the crossing.

Once in the US, these people are likely to have nowhere to go if they're originally from Europe. Those who are US citizens and had travelled TO Europe with their partners, may well have family and friends, but again fuel to get them there may be an issue.

Once the nuke war really opens up in November 1997, it seems highly unlikely there'd be anyone heading to the US. As bad as things must be in Europe, everyone knows the US was bound to be targeted by ICBMs and the cities wiped off the face of the planet. Why would anyone want to give up the little they have and travel to a place which is widely rumoured to have been flattened?

By Christmas 97-98, rumour is probably all anyone outside the military (and inside too most probably) would have to go on. One rumour might say the US is totally un-nuked and a wonderful paradise, while another says it's nothing more than one great big smoking hole glowing with radioactivity...
Which one are you going to believe?

jester

02-03-2010, 10:00 PM

I've studied and trained for such operations.

In a hostile zone, they will have plans for selected units, go to the civilians who will have been told to assemble at a rally point, either the embassy or a predetermined location that is secure. From there they will be escorted to a extraction point that can be secured. Air assets if possible will provide security as idealy they are extracted via helos or cargo planes <C-130s, or if its a larger airport C-141s or other aircraft> The helos will remove the civilians from the immediate area to either ships waiting off short <war ships! Usualy LPD or LPDs or Aircraft Cariers> or to a more secure area where they can catch a traditional plane or even to a 3rd country where they can be transfered to other means to return them home.

the methods that will be utilized will be Helocopters, now maybe even the Osprey, trucks and hummers or boats heck even zodiaks. If it gets shitty enough...well, think of that movie Tears of the Sun, they get to walk.

Other options, for service members overseas, they will be evacuated to either a 3rd country where it is safe, or to CONUS but they will go out of theater! Since this is a military intilation they are a target, plus having alot of civilians around well, they can get in the way, they can cause problems as they fear, worry, control them and your troops will focus on them and worry distracting them from their duties. As well as they will require food, water, shelter, power and medical supplies if wounded. And they will need to be protected and escorted out should it come to that. So, they will be evacuated.

Evacuation methods, nuetral 3rd party ship. Bus or train to nuetral 3rd party nation, flight home, flight to 3rd party nation with a flight/train/ship home. Military or contracted ship home. And yes, they will make room for them on ships returning home, hospital ships and Red Cross ships. A good portion of the vessels will be left for such cases.

And yes those who have retired and opted to live in the local economy can get home, or they can stay, they will have to ASK to go home though.

I hope this helps.

Further, a U.S. citizen who is stranded overseas just needs to come to the U.S. embassy or consulate and request assistance going home and arraingments will be made to send them home. Costs can be recoved from those persons upon return home however, so it isn't a free ride to be abused. This of course is decided on a case by case basis.

Targan

02-03-2010, 10:03 PM

I think much of the decision on whether to seek to head back to the States or not would come down to the personality and mindset of individuals, and also the amount of solid information available on conditions at home.

Conditions in Europe in 2000 are going to be pretty bloody awful almost everywhere (with the possible exception of the Franco-Belgian Union). It is natural for people to develop a "grass is greener" mentality when they are away from home in awful conditions. If a person knew that things in the US were no better however they might take the view that they are better off staying where they are. Also, some people are a lot more practically minded than others, and/or have the ability not to kid themselves. They would be better equipped to take emotion out of the equation and really make a logical, measured judgement call.

In my campaign as soon as the PCs' group heard about Operation Omega they were all very keen to get back to the CONUS. None of them had any family in Europe so I don't suppose they had much reason to want to stay, but it was more complicated than that. Even though the players knew that conditions in the CONUS would for the most part be just as bad for their characters as they were in Poland, they still played their characters as desperately wanting to get home. Many of the PCs and NPCs were hoping to be able to find their loved ones back home. Major Po only had his granny to return to but he also had family assets stashed away in the States that he thought he might be able to recover. Some of the characters were just sick and tired of western Europe.

I thought the players played it really well when their characters got back to the States. The sense of bitter disappointment at finding the USA utterly shattered was palpable. There really was some strong emotion in that part of the campaign and I was quite proud of how it turned out. I guess we'd all been playing the game for so long in real time that there was a fair bit of emotional investment in both the characters and the campaign itsself. Until the PCs and NPCs in the party found a new sense of direction a pall of depression hung over the party, well into January of 2001.

In summary I think the great majority of US personnel in Europe in 2000 are going to want to try to get back to the States, although if non-military loved ones in Europe with them won't be able to go back too, the military personnel might well stay and work towards being repatriated later.

Legbreaker

02-03-2010, 10:41 PM

kalos72

02-04-2010, 09:09 AM

Thats some great insight there Jester thanks. I might be able to use that as a whole new plot line.

Family gets shipped back to the US...lands in Mayport Naval base...a nuke just misses Mayport. Road trip to Mayport it is. :)

chico20854

02-04-2010, 09:36 AM

If there are no dependants, property, etc in Europe, then there's a definate chance the individual soldier will want to leave and go "home" no matter how bad it actually is there.

If on the other hand they've built some sort of a life in Europe, well, that's probably something of a case by case situation.

For those units which have been stationed in Germany for a long period of time, such as the 11th ACR which was stationed there since the early to mid 1970's, the likelyhood of the bulk of it's personnel staying should be much higher than in say a unit which was only shipped over during the war.

Some of the personnel of the 11th ACR could well be US citizens but never laid eyes on the country - parent(s) were soliders in German in the 70's and 80's and they've grown up in and around the military bases. It's theoretically possible that two or three generations of the one family could be serving in such a unit at the same time.

That would be the case if the US Army in Germany was run differently, but it wasn't. Let me explain...

Most US troops in Germany were assigned more or less randomly to units on two-year rotations. Every soldier assigned to Europe in peacetime received orders to an adjutant general battalion at the Frankfurt airport. Once there they would look to see what unit needed a soldier of the appropriate rank and specialty as the reporting soldier and then send the soldier on to that unit, whether it was located in Germany, Italy, the UK or Greece. (Since we don't use a regimental system like the UK, any soldier can go to any unit that needs his particular skills)

When a soldier arrived at his unit he was assigned government housing. If he was single, he would live in the barracks. If he /she was married, they would be assigned housing in one of the "kassernes", US Army posts that resembled (in a slightly twisted way) American small towns, with American fast food (Burger King for many years held the sole contract for name-brand fast food on US Army bases worldwide), a PX, schools run by the US Army with American civilian teachers (most of which were spouses of soldiers), libraries and American cable TV in every home. In many ways the families were quite separate from Germany - they had a little bit of America in Germany that they mostly lived in, albiet one where every weekend they could go on a fabulous, low-cost European vacation. In fact, the Army operated a number of recreational facilities in Europe, including a resort in the Alps, that provided American meals, English-speaking staff and accommodations and activities familiar to Americans. When a soldier's two-three year tour was over, he would be reassigned to another unit, almost always back in the U.S. - there were clear standards for required periods of service overseas. Very few soldiers "lived on the economy" - rented housing, and even fewer bought any property. The most permanent property most soldiers had in Europe was their car and household goods.

In addition, the promotion system prevented soldiers from staying overseas for very long periods of time. When a soldier transitioned from lower enlisted (privates and specialists) to being a NCO it was quite common that he would be assigned to a new unit, in order to prevent problems of authority/respect with his former peers who were now lower ranking. In addition, the requirement to attend long-term schools for promotion to more senior rank in both the officer and NCO corps (schools like BNCOC (for promotion to Staff Sergeant), ANCOC (promotion to Sergeant 1st Class), Command & Staff College (Lt Col., I believe) and the Officer Advanced Course (Major)) meant that a soldier was frequently assigned back to the US if he had any hope of being promoted - and under the "up or out" policies failure to get promoted (for example, to sergeant in 8 years or staff sergeant in 16 years) meant that the soldier would be put out of the army.

Additionally, each soldier was required to maintain a "family care plan" that detailed how his dependents were to be cared for when he was deployed or the balloon went up. It had things like having important papers and traveling supplies ready at all times, locations for evacuation transport (buses would evacuate dependents from the kassernes to the airbases that reinforcing troops were arriving on; the 747s that were carrying troops to POMCUS sites would carry families back), contact information for family and friends in the states, and arrangements for where families would go when they returned to the U.S.

Sure, some soldiers tried to stay overseas for longer times, but they were relatively rare. I worked for a sergeant that loved Korea, he ended up being stationed there for 9 of his 22 years in the Army, but they were split into 6 stints, and he was never at the same post (and that was in a single division). Soldiers did interact with the locals, and there were a good number of German and Korean wives around, but by no means near 10%. As far as soldiers who had dependents who had never been to the U.S., VERY unlikely. There were some soldiers who, upon retirement, chose to live in Germany with their German spouses (and often start a second career working on one of the US Army bases), but overall I think the likelihood of significant numbers of pre-war troops deciding to remain in a post-war Germany due to ties to the community derived before the war is pretty low.

Jason Weiser

02-04-2010, 10:34 AM

Chico's got it right. I lived for three years at NAS Rota, Spain, and things were very similar. To be sure, such an evac would have problems if it were conducted in the midst of hostilities. Team Yankee did a fine job of illustrating that. My guess is that for our purposes, USAEUR and BAOR activate their dependent evacuation plans once the Bundeswehr crosses the IGB, as many commands suspect that things are going to get real bad and that it may be the last chance to get folks out. There might have also been unofficial evacuations of dependents when REFORGER kicks off, as many soldiers are going to decide that things are about to get very ugly.

kalos72

02-04-2010, 10:48 AM

I was thinking that perhaps the families of most German soldiers might go to the UK or is that considered safe enough in this scenario? Would they come all the way back to the states?

fightingflamingo

02-04-2010, 12:30 PM

the families of German soldiers are going to stay in Germany. US, Canadian, and British Dependents will be evacuated rapidly following the FRG entry into the DDR, as Chico described, on aircraft returning to North America(US & Canadian) as part of REFORGER, or on ferries returning to the UK (which brought in additional wartime units to BOAR). There were some other nationals (mostly French) based on German territory, they would likely have evacuated overland to the low countries, or France, as soon as there was a real risk of hostilities.

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 04:50 PM

That would be the case if the US Army in Germany was run differently, but it wasn't. Let me explain...

Thanks for destroying a perfectly good arguement!
I think I'll go sulk in the corner now....

;)

Granted that land ownership, etc wasn't very likely prewar, what about after the war started? Would the base personnel and civilians come to see the places they were occupying as their own peice of the world, even though no contracts had been signed, etc?

Even prewar, how many families would have been happy to be uprooted after spending a couple of years making a home for themselves?

kato13

02-04-2010, 06:01 PM

Thanks for destroying a perfectly good arguement!
I think I'll go sulk in the corner now....

;)

Granted that land ownership, etc wasn't very likely prewar, what about after the war started? Would the base personnel and civilians come to see the places they were occupying as their own peice of the world, even though no contracts had been signed, etc?

Even prewar, how many families would have been happy to be uprooted after spending a couple of years making a home for themselves?

If you want to change it you can say the the 11th ACR (or any other unit) did an experiment in voluntary postings extensions. If you make it a voluntary thing, you might get more soldiers who either really love Germany or are running away from something in the US.

From a lot of my reading I always felt the 11th ACR seemed to in some ways particularly connected to area of Germany they were tasked to protect. This doesn't make their roots as strong as you (and to be honest I) felt they might have been prewar, but it certainly could deepen them.

pmulcahy11b

02-04-2010, 06:30 PM

If you want to change it you can say the the 11th ACR (or any other unit) did an experiment in voluntary postings extensions. If you make it a voluntary thing, you might get more soldiers who either really love Germany or are running away from something in the US.

From a lot of my reading I always felt the 11th ACR seemed to in some ways particularly connected to area of Germany they were tasked to protect. This doesn't make their roots as strong as you (and to be honest I) felt they might have been prewar, but it certainly could deepen them.

Some of this might also depend upon how suddenly hostilities began in Europe. A small amount might also be accounted for by personnel re-enlisting PDA (Present Duty Assignment).

Legbreaker

02-04-2010, 08:02 PM

pmulcahy11b

02-04-2010, 09:01 PM

I agree that on promotion for some ranks, transfer between units may be a good idea, however transfer within a battalion might be sufficient - can't see any advantage in transfering between brigades or larger organisations. However, again being wartime, promotion within the unit may well be the norm.

In the US Army, when I was in, promotion to NCO often led to one being moved to a different part of the unit -- sometimes as little a move as being put into a different platoon within a company. Even without promotions, officers (especially junior officers) tended to be put into different slots within a battalion or brigade during their assignment at a unit.

chico20854

02-05-2010, 09:35 AM

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't think there would be soldiers that would voluntarily "miss the boat" to stay with family in Europe. In fact, I could quite easily see it happening.

While the dependents in Germany would be sent home at the outbreak of the war, by 2000 there would be a new group of dependents. Keep in mind that the soldiers in the US Army in Europe have been effectively cut off from communications (physical and telecom) from CONUS for three years by the time of Omega. (High command might have some operable long-range communications capability, but it certainly isn't available to Joe to call his sweetie back home, if she's still alive, at her pre-TDM home and has a functioning phone, and the odd resupply flight or ship isn't going to carry much mail as the postal service on both ends is in pretty bad shape.) In those three years a cantonment system arose and the Army went pretty static, setting up farms and semi-permanent abode (the note in Death of A Division about the offensive having to wait until the crops were in). So all those single soldiers, and a scandalously large number of married ones, might end up with local mates. After 2-3 years with the locals and no communications back home (plus word of specific or general nuclear strikes on the US), its quite likely that some soldiers would decide that they didn't want to leave the places/people they'd worked so hard to survive with and decide to stay there. (ISTR Going Home mentioning that foreigners accompanying US troops would also be offered a ride, and if necessary, US citizenship.)

chico20854

02-05-2010, 09:55 AM

Once the war started in ernest, I'm not too sure much of the peacetime rotation and training system would remain. We could say that as of around August -September 1997, all training carried out by soldiers in Europe took place in Europe, much of it "on the job".

Sure there'd be "exceptions to the rule", but would promotion courses for example justify taking an otherwise trained soldier from the line for the weeks, if not months (in later times) it would take just for transporting them to and from the US training facilities? Specialist skills might require US transportation, but those that could be done in theatre, probably would.

I agree that on promotion for some ranks, transfer between units may be a good idea, however transfer within a battalion might be sufficient - can't see any advantage in transfering between brigades or larger organisations. However, again being wartime, promotion within the unit may well be the norm.

Being wartime, I doubt many would be allowed to retire either. Manpower needs would be just to great to allow a soldier to leave once their 4 year (or whatever) enlistment term ended. Same goes for officers, perhaps even moreso.

I agree!

As FightingFlamingo wrote in our document on the US Army (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeedox4/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/us_army_build-up_and_mobilization.doc)

"Mobilization
Immediately following the invasion of China by the Soviet Union, the US Secretary of Defense enacted a stop-loss of all active component personnel and received presidential authorization to recall recently discharged personnel (those released from active duty in the preceding 180 days) back into the force. This served to make up personnel shortfalls in active component units, with priority to those assigned to PACOM, which went to a heightened state of alert following the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet War."

Stop-loss means nobody gets out! In addition, as the war continued retirees under age 60 were recalled (every retiree knows that they are not discharged, just transferred to the "retired reserves", eligible for recall although generally not deployed outside the US) and used to free up deployable soldiers for the war. (And every soldier's enlistment contract reads something along the lines of "I enlist for 4 years; however in the event of war or national emergency my enlistment is for the duration plus six months" - and "the duration" means a legal declaration that the war has ended, not the end of hostilities, hence WWII for enlistment purposes wasn't declared over until September 1946!).

Every training course in the US Army has two "programs of instruction" - curriculum, course material, class schedule, etc - a peacetime one and a mobilization one. Sometimes the mobilization POI reads along the lines of "this class is not offered. Immediately deploy the students (with or without a promotion) and assign the staff to teach something more vital or deploy them too!" Other times it eliminates less vital material and free time and cuts the duration, often by 25% or more.

For re-assigning soldiers on promotion, it depends. When I became a NCO I was not reassigned, but my MOS (supply clerk) and way my unit was structured (National Guard) was such that I had gradually acquired NCO responsibilities and the stripes were more a formal recognition of such than a radical change. Oftentimes the NCO schools are done as part of a permanent change of station, where a soldier would leave a unit stateside, spend a month or two at a school, and report to a new unit in Europe as a NCO. Junior officers get reassigned quite frequently so they are exposed to a variety of things in their field... spend a few months running a line platoon, then some time in the battalion HQ, then become the motor officer for a little while, then become the company XO, etc.

Abbott Shaull

02-05-2010, 04:04 PM

I would think all dependents of the US in Europe would of been in the process of leaving Europe after the German Army crossed the IGB. Of course, it wouldn't be near the mad rush described in Team Yankee, they would still be removed since their safety was no longer something that could be taken for granted. As for those Korea, when I was in, I remember for junior enlisted ranks and being only a year tour and hardship one at that, family stayed in the United States.

I think all Allies would be removing their dependents from Germany. Of course, there is some leeway on when a GM could start them.

I would say after the Germany Army crossed the IGB because the Soviet and Pact Air Forces would be flying all over Germany and the begin engaging German Air Force units and hit German assets. Much like the air raids over the former Yugoslavia Capital of Belgrade, collateral damage will be impossible to avoid. I will go so far as stray bomb or two hitting British and American 'Motorpools'. As well as damage from aircraft who have had their ability to maintain air lift reduce to zero, crashing all over the place.

As a side not as the Soviet and Pact Air Force overfly West Germany, I am sure some allied ADA units may be tempted to take pot shot or two like in the good old days before the war. Or for that fact US and UK Air Force commanders scrambling their jets and letting them play 'Chicken' just to let Soviets know they were still there.

fightingflamingo

02-05-2010, 09:48 PM

I'd always assumed that until the US, UK, and Canada entered the DDR to support the Bundeswehr, that the remainder of NATO continued to actively patrol and defend FRG airspace, allowing for an orderly execution of REFORGER, and evacuation of dependants in a threatless air environment. The reasoning for this is twofold.
First, since the US hasn't entered the DDR, the WP has a reasonable chance of destroying the Bundeswehr, and NVA defectors, without engaging USAREUR. Attacking airbases in the FRG, even if the intent is to only attack Luftwaffe bases, could lead to escalation and drawing the US into the conflict due to the close proximity of bases in the FRG, and the inability to accurately discern targets until the bombs hit runway (thinking in terms of AWACS indentifying penetrating aircraft while they fly racetracks over the Rhine).

Second, prior to intervention NATO views the FRG intervention in the DDR as an internal German affair. Canon states that withdrawls from NATO don't occur until after intervention on the part of the US/UK/Canada, so until that point even the French were still full members of the alliance and had a treaty obligation to defend FRG airspace. Primarily this would fall on the hands of those nations which would choose to intervene, however until they did so, and the withdrawl of a large portion of the alliance as a result, air strikes into the FRG could have served to bring the full weight of NATO (will all of it's prewar members) to aid the Germans, something I sure the Soviet leadership would have been keen to avoid if possible, considering to the point of intervention the European War was a sideshow when compared to the meatgrinder which existed in China and the Soviet Far East.

Legbreaker

02-05-2010, 10:59 PM

NATO was not at war until late November 1996.

Until then, Poland and the rest of the Pact were only (in Europe at least) at war with one (1) country - Germany.

If ANY unit of ANY other nationality had fired upon Pact aircraft during that period, it would have been a clear act of war, unless they were defending their own soveriegn airspace ie Not just in Germany. Meanwhile, why would Pact aircraft ignore the landing fields and other military facilities the Germans were using? They'd had 50 years to find out where each and every one of those targets were so firing on British, US, French, Danish, etc positions would be near impossible to do by mistake.

Until November 1996, the war was surely seen as a local matter between Poland and it's allies and ONE member of Nato - Germany. While ever Pact forces made efforts not to attack anything not German, Nato would not be drawn in to the conflict - why would they be? Germany hadn't asked for help and nobody in their right mind likes to go to war without a reasonable cause.

It is even possible that the Pact could have seen Nato air patrols and ground units deploying from bases as an act of war in themselves. Yes, it's common sense to deploy troops just in case, but politics play a very big part in this sort of situation....

The thing to remember here is that Germany was at war, NOT Nato. Nato had no cause to interfere in any way until they too entered the war 4-5 months after it had started.

Once Germany asked for help however, the situation changed. Nato commanders and their soldier would probably have revelled at finally being able to act after months forced to do nothing but watch.

Even though technically not at war, it's probably a safe bet that many dependants of the British and US would leave at the first sign of trouble. However, as these two countries were not at war, would they spend the money on evacuations when looking at Pauls earlier post, they are so apparently uninterested when they're actually at war?

kato13

02-05-2010, 11:16 PM

Even though technically not at war, it's probably a safe bet that many dependants of the British and US would leave at the first sign of trouble. However, as these two countries were not at war, would they spend the money on evacuations when looking at Pauls earlier post, they are so apparently uninterested when they're actually at war?

When Reforger goes up, I am assuming that the Civil Reserve Air Fleet is activated. This means that there are probably at least an additional ~100,000 empty civilian airline seats heading away from the combat zone (and back to the US) after they drop off the forces needed for POMCUS sites.

fightingflamingo

02-05-2010, 11:55 PM

Once REFORGER starts and it is not started as an exercise, all US dependents would be evacuated CONUS. If REFORGER is in progress, and units are pulling out the POMCUS equipment, then the US Theatre Commander, JCS, and NCA all are in agreement that there is a very REAL threat of imminent hostilies in Europe. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet would definately be activated, and the US State Dept would be trying to fill those seats not occupied by returning dependents on REFORGER aircraft returning to North America, with US Nationals & tourists. IMO it would be very likely that a State Dept. travel advisory would go out for most Europe advising US Nationals not to travel, or to return to the US, at a minimum registration at consolates and embassaies.
I believe the UK has/had a similiar provision for bringing civil airliners into government service had the balloon ever gone up.

as far as defending FRG airspace. During the Coldwar this was the primary responsibility for USAFE. the Luftwaffe, was mainly equipt with strike aircraft, although it did have a number of F-4's, the several hundred USAFE F-16's, and F-15's were there under NATO command in AAFCENT and AAFNORTH, and were primarily responsible in peacetime to prevent WP aircraft intrusion across the IGB, in short they were responsible for the air defense of the FRG. Additionally, there was significant comingling of assets on the runways, which is why I don't think it would be practical for the WP to attack Luftwaffe bases in the FRG without serious risk of drawing other NATO powers into the conflict.

I for one didn't mean to suggest that the USAFE aircraft would come into combat with the WP airforces over western Germany, quite the contray, I meant to argue that the WP would stay out of West Germany. They have substantial numerical advantage, and if they stay out of the DDR, the FRG effort is doomed, if they enter the DDR, they fly into a hornets nest.
Since GDW's original material, has the Bundeswehr fighting the WP on it's own from October 6th, through December 6th, given the correlation of forces, the only way I can reasonably explain the continued existance of FRG troops on DDR soil, and although decimated the continued existance of the Luftwaffe. IMHO the Luftwaffe must be operating from sheltered bases behind a "Neutral" NATO airsuperiority umbrella. This allows for a relatively, uncomplicated evacuation of US, UK, and Canadian dependants, out of the FRG.

Additionally, the FRG had to have help from at least the US. They couldn't have repositioned 3 Corps to there jump off points to enter the DDR, without all of NATO being aware of their movements. Additionally, RDF Sourcebook states that the CIA chick (Alley Kurtz???) was sent to the Middle East after she became aware of talks between the West & East German militaries. Seems to me someone in the US didn't want it to get out, or already knew. Also, Sat imagery, and other intel was probably shared with the Bundeswehr through the period leading up to intervention.

NATO is at war sometime in November though, but not in Germany, in Norway. The Soviets seemed to have invaded Norway sometime in Mid-November, prior to the US forces crossing the IGB. US, UK, Canadian troops have deployed there since November in line with prewar plans, along with the ACE Mobile force which opens up other issues, because the ACE had assigned Italian Alpini, and French troops.

jester

02-06-2010, 12:56 AM

I don't have my materials handy but, the whole thing behind NATO was mutual defense, so, if the forces are engaged with any member well, then it is now engage with all. Of course if the member nations honor their comitments which history has shown many do not.

As for civilians out, yep. Although, how many guys who got out in Europe contacted their old units and strings were pulled to put them back in? That could prove interesting. Units at 120% levels, actualy growing in Europe durring the time leading up to combat.

Think of the guys who stayed there because they had family who were locals, had a job with the DOD, or got out and were going to bumb around Europe for a bit before going home. Or dependants and regular DOD employees a good number of them are former military after all.

Legbreaker

02-06-2010, 01:48 AM

I feel it needs to be stressed once again it appears Germany went it alone in both V1.0 and 2.0 timelines. There's even references of other member states debating if they should be involved or not.

The main difference between the timelines (regarding the commencement of the European hostilities) is in V1.0 Germany moved on the 7th of October, while in 2.0 they moved much earlier on the 27th of July.

In both timelines, the very first elements from mainland US did not even board aircraft until the 21st of October 1996.

The British moved earlier, with the first units arriving (probably by ship, making use of the channel ro-ro ferries) on the 14th of October. The channel tunnel could also have been used, but once France decided not to join in, this becomes very unlikely.

No non-German unit breached Pact borders until the 2nd of December, nearly 2 months after the Germans in V1.0 and 4 1/2 months in 2.0.

During this flurry of activity with everyone concentrating on getting combat units into the country, equiped from pre-positioned stores and organised ready for combat, who was left to co-ordinate civilian evacuation?

I believe this situation is exactly what Paul was refering to - the priority was, and should be, getting troops into battle, not clearing out civilians.

This is not to say people wouldn't try to get out on their own, but aren't there travel restrictions placed on civilians in this event so they don't clog up the roadways and hamper military deployment?

kato13

02-06-2010, 03:19 AM

During this flurry of activity with everyone concentrating on getting combat units into the country, equiped from pre-positioned stores and organised ready for combat, who was left to co-ordinate civilian evacuation?

Well they were certainly thinking about it.
http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA217529

Shame there is no PDF available however the Abstract does discuss evacuations "prior to and after the start of a conventional war with the Soviet Union" (emphases added)

I was thinking of a parallel situation. Say tomorrow South Korea attacked the North without US approval. Even if US forces were not involved in any way do you think the Department of State (a purely civilian organization) would order an evacuation of Non Combatants. I think the order would be signed before any ROK forces made it 10km deep.

From my perspective any commander who has any sort of long term view would want to get civilians out of the way as soon as the authorization came down. From a CYA (cover your ass) and Logistical perspective, if a commander had a choice, why wouldn't he want to remove a resource drag which does not enhance his combat strength at all. If empty trucks are going back towards an airfield with planes that have empty seats, I would make sure those seats were filled.

Legbreaker

02-06-2010, 05:32 AM

That's definately an interesting document. Would love to read it.

I think we all agree that removing civilians is high on the list of preferences - I'm just worried about who's going to be running that show as 99% of everyones attention is likely to be focused firmly on the enemy.
I'm not saying it isn't doable, just difficult (which is probably why that document even exists).

Rainbow Six

02-06-2010, 05:42 AM

I don't have my materials handy but, the whole thing behind NATO was mutual defense, so, if the forces are engaged with any member well, then it is now engage with all. Of course if the member nations honor their comitments which history has shown many do not.

I think the Get Out of Jail Free card for any NATO Government that did not want to fulfill its treaty obligations would be the fact that the West Germans hadn't actually been attacked - they were the aggressors (at least in V1 - I'm less familiar with the 1996 V2 timeline).

Legbreaker

02-06-2010, 05:51 AM

... the West Germans hadn't actually been attacked - they were the aggressors (at least in V1 - I'm less familiar with the 1996 V2 timeline).
It's the same in V2.

Rainbow Six

02-06-2010, 05:58 AM

I believe the UK has/had a similiar provision for bringing civil airliners into government service had the balloon ever gone up.

It's called the Queen's Order in the UK and can appy to civil aircraft and ships. I think it was last used during the Falklands when a large number of civilian ships formed part of the Task Force (including the luxury liner QE2).

Personally, I think that once British and US reinforcements start arriving in West Germany in October 1996 that would trigger the evacuation of military dependents as a matter of high priority. Quite apart from anything else I'd expect that it would be a major morale boost for the troops based in Germany to know that their families were (relatively speaking) out of danger.

Targan

02-06-2010, 06:02 AM

Personally, I think that once British and US reinforcements start arriving in West Germany in October 1996 that would trigger the evacuation of military dependents as a matter of high priority. Quite apart from anything else I'd expect that it would be a major morale boost for the troops based in Germany to know that their families were (relatively speaking) out of danger.

Agreed. Interesting you bring up the morale effects of evacuating civilian dependants as I was going to mention that too, both for this thread and for the East Germany thread.

jester

02-06-2010, 12:21 PM

I know the U.S. tends to do everything possible to remove dependants from areas when threats rise.

Usualy it is a warning from the state department, then it is restricted period.

Then they send in ships and aircraft to remove them.

We did it with Kuwait and Iraq in 90/91 and we did it in Beruit/Lebanon in what, 08? Where the folks were at the airport but couldn't get out, so they sent in the navy and Marines to helo them to ships where they were taken to another destination where they could get out.

As for personel, yes the military does have personel assigned for such a task. Some are key civilians who would not be evacuated or be one of the last to go. I recently applied for such a position oversees where that was part of the duties, to coordinate with the dependants and the comand.

Lets not forget that bases have the base personel and what we call "tenants" The base personel are assigned to the base, these are your cooks for the main mess hall, the MPs assigened to the base, the electricians and construction personel who conduct daily maintenance, the com. and weather and MWR personel, initialy all of these folks would remain at their base since they would not belong to the units going into action.

And it would be these personel and the <civilian position> dependant readiness coordinator and his military oposite number an adjudant on the base comanders staff most likely who would coordinate this with the logistics side of the house at whatever port of entry/exit they would be using. At which time they would contact the base motorpool or contract with a civilian entity for transportation, a special train, a convoy of buses either military or a civilian bus line and they would be shuttled to the airport or seaport or train station where they would be embarked.

Civilians not in the DOD would be dealing with the state Department and embassy/consul, they would be given warnings, have to register, have communication assets to the point of a daily check in. And if the call comes they go or they may have part of the Marine Det come and get them, or they will be left on their own.

At which point they would be evacuated with other personel, either civilians, or even with the embassy staff via some of the methods already discussed. Usualy this will occur before things get to nasty, we have been kinda sensitive since Iran. And alot of our embassys now are what we call "turn key" meaning they are open and closed like a regular buisness and no staff remain on the grounds other than local guards.

Other citizens who are not part of DOD, would most likely be left in the hands of the State Dept and the Red Cross and a few attempts would be made to extricate them, either meet at Airfeild X and a C-130 or Helos will pick you and everyone else up, or to the city Y and a ship will pick you up and again take you to a safe place. Others will be instructed to go to the train station and go to the nearest nuetral country where they will then make their way home. And some will be told "YOU WERE WARNED! YOU DID NOT LISTEN! !!! GOOD LUCK! YOUR ON YOUR OWN!" :D

Abbott Shaull

02-06-2010, 04:07 PM

Okay in the v2 the war was between Germany and Poland. v1 was more of unification of Germany at which the 'Unified/West' German Command attacked the Soviet units in East Germany, with the East German military units either attacking under the West German Command or they simply stayed in barracks waiting....

Besides that yes NATO troop didn't help Germany until they asked for help due to the fact that all NATO allies agreed that Germans had initiated the conflict in both versions. Thus why many of the allies refused and left NATO when the US, UK and Canadian troop came to the Germany aid.

Yes, once troop were brought in from the US, at the very least military dependents who were in Germany and elsewhere would be evacuated.

As for airspace over Germany in v1. Regardless who started the shooting and what not. Once Pact Air Force units cross the IGB allied ADA and Air Force units would have the right to protect themselves. They also at the time once a Pact aircraft crossed into West Germany would have to do to the best of their ability for nothing else to ensure their assets don't take damage due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One has to remember during the cold war there were several cases, "classified" in which aircraft would crash with in varied regularity on both side of the IGB of Germany and the DMZ of Korea. All of them had equipment malfunctions, which was induced after pilots were play chicken with their opposing number and someone told a pilot to blink.... Or result of one or the other side pilot wonder over the border by accident...

The Soviet Air Force would be hitting West German Air Bases hard core. At the time Soviet and Pact units wouldn't care who brought down their aircraft over West Germany. They could live with the fact that some were lost to allied units, as long as the allies didn't actively take part in military operation in East Germany. Much like during Korea War and Vietnam war in which the Soviets had lost pilots. In many cases, the West knew that many of the aircrafts that they down were piloted by Soviets, but over looked the issue so as not invoke things.

The Germans at war with the Soviet and Pact forces, I don't see what would stop them from intentionally targeting some allied units. We all know there is always some avoidable collateral damage that will take place. The Soviets and Pact would make the claim it happens in hopes that allies stay out of the fighting, and with US and UK sending reinforcement to Europe, they would to send a message not to get too involved. Simply by sending troops to Europe during this time could be considered an act of war or at least showing intention that you will be a bystander for too much longer...

Like I state the NATO allies in West Germany would be mix response. Some would be willing spectators who after they had units who been unintentional hit by the Pact Forces who would become more proactive. While other wouldn't wait, their commanders would be willing to ensure they weren't harmed.

Bladerunner

12-21-2010, 03:05 PM

One point concerning the NATO obligations would be the Soviet invasion of Norway -- if it did occur in November (I think I read that in this thread), prior to the US, UK, etc ... entry into East Germany, wouldn't NATO as a whole be obligated to attack the USSR (Norway being a member of NATO). France was still in NATO at the time, correct?

Legbreaker

12-21-2010, 04:52 PM

I'm not 100% sure on V1.0 but 2.x has Germany moving eastwards months before the Soviets entered Norway, months before they even entered the war in a signicant way actually (only three Soviet Divisions plus air units were in Poland this early on). The Pact forces as a whole were outnumbered and outmatched up until the Czechs entered the fray in support of Poland.

Essentially, the European war commenced with Germany as the agressors. NATO entry into the hostilities was therefore by no means certain and it is my belief that this one fact explains most of the reasons France (and others) withdrew from the organisation.

Edit: See post #31 this thread for more detail on timings.

natehale1971

12-21-2010, 08:08 PM

In our campaign, US and British dependents were sent home as soon as they where put on alert when the Sino-Soviet War started. And once the alert was lowered, they were returned back to their homes in West Germany. Thus when the West Germans went into the DDR to support their cousins declaration that they were leaving the Warsaw Pact from any attempts by the Soviets to pull another Black Winter, or the other half-dozen other anti-soviet uprisings over the past 60 years they was not as big of a move to evacutation of the the dependents... namely because it was felt that the Soviets would take the hint and not try for a two front war...

But as we all know that was a HUGE mistake. The Soviets were not about to allow the DDR (or any of the other Warsaw Pact states for that matter) to go willingly. That they NEEDED the E.Germans as part of their little party. Not only because of the strategic position of being right in the centre of Europe... but they FEARED a unified German state being strong enough to fight them (and they still are for that matter).

In our campaign the dependents were shifted around and gotten out of the theater on any available plane or boat that was heading back to the US, and when they couldn't be evacuated back to the States they were evacuated to the UK and to a neutral states such as Ireland. From there they would be placed on transports flying the flags of the various neutral powers to get back to the USA.

Of course this didnt really work out the way they had it planned... and the reason why in my version of 2300ad the British Army has the Royal American Rifles and Royal German Legion as to semi-independent corps fighting for them... but that is a story for another time.

Rainbow Six

12-22-2010, 03:32 AM

Essentially, the European war commenced with Germany as the agressors. NATO entry into the hostilities was therefore by no means certain and it is my belief that this one fact explains most of the reasons France (and others) withdrew from the organisation.

Totally agree. I think the fact that the West Germans started the European War (regardless of whether one follows v1 or v2.x) would be used as an excuse to stay out of the fighting by any NATO government that wished to do so, regardless of whether that fighting was in Norway or Germany.

Legbreaker

12-22-2010, 07:23 AM

I think that as long as the fighting was restricted to Germany and Poland, there's certainly good excuses for the other NATO nations to sit it out. The moment another NATO member's border was crossed by PACT forces, then the alliances all kick in.
While France certainly had reason to stay out of the German part of the battlefield, they possibly should have done something about the invasion of Norway. Mind you, I think they'd already pulled out of NATO by the time the Soviets launched their northern offensive...

Rainbow Six

12-22-2010, 09:30 AM

Leg, I agree that under the NATO philosophy that an attack on one is an attack on all, the French (and the Belgians, Italians, Spanish, Portugese, etc etc) should all have responded to the attack on Norway .

However, my thinking is that in the world of realpolitik the West German invasion of the East gave those Governments that wanted to shirk their responsibilities an excuse to do so (a weak excuse in my opinion, but an excuse nonetheless).

I'm not sure when the French pulled out...I think I remember a quote somewhere (most likely the v1 ref's manual) that says some countries remain in NATO around the end of 96 / start of 97 but have not taken part in the War, but it's been a while since I read that book, so I might be wrong and in any event I don't think it specifically referred to the French.

Abbott Shaull

12-22-2010, 11:00 AM

Yes I don't believe that they all left after West Germany entered East Germany. Many of these if they were still in NATO when Sweden was invaded, I would like to point out that in many cases, it fell on the UK and the US to provide the major reinforcements into Sweden. Many of the countries mentioned were only to give token reinforcement to Sweden while the bulk of their units were designated to go elsewhere during a war with the Soviet Union.

In fact, with Spanish and Portugal, I never really knew where they were suppose to reinforce. Italy it seems would be tossed up with troops going to Germany, Greece, and Italy. While France and Belgium would send most troops to Germany since that is where the threat to them would come from.

Yet as state once West Germany crossed into East Germany, many of the allies could this as reason why they weren't responding to the Soviet attack on Sweden until they had officially withdrew from the NATO. Belgium would be caught in tricky situation in that NATO HQs are based there and some of the US POMUS sites are in their country.

While Denmark and other who remained in the Alliance, but not partaking of the war as active members. These members were more worried about the Soviets attacking them directly, or through Germany than they were worried about the helping out Sweden even though they they had token units that would head there. Denmark had been known to be a target of Soviet Front that included Polish Marine Division that would make run through Northern West Germany as well as making amphibious landings into Denmark.

Legbreaker

12-22-2010, 04:56 PM

Denmark was actively involved in the war with units both in Germany/Poland and the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Abbott Shaull

12-22-2010, 05:34 PM

Denmark was actively involved in the war with units both in Germany/Poland and the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Denmark according to the V1 as well as other who didn't leave NATO directly gave limited help. To largely partake in the defense of German soil and to support the Offensives. The only part that I do remember any mention of Danish units was going home in which they had withdrew for the most part into Denmark.

Adm.Lee

12-22-2010, 07:39 PM

Denmark according to the V1 as well as other who didn't leave NATO directly gave limited help. To largely partake in the defense of German soil and to support the Offensives. The only part that I do remember any mention of Danish units was going home in which they had withdrew for the most part into Denmark.

Wasn't the Jutland Division in XI US Corps, in northern Poland in 2000? That's roughly a quarter of the Danish Army.

natehale1971

12-22-2010, 07:53 PM

We had always played Belgium as being forced into the French Union when the French Army Invaded the, then Neutral Belgium, after alot of French propaganda got the French Walloons supporting the occupation of the West Bank of the Rhine.

It wasn't until the French turned the East Bank into a no-mans land (including Netherlands) that the Flemish and some of the Walloons started to go "oh Shit"...

Hell, our campaign had the creation of Flanders post-Twilight War because the French Union launched a major attack on Bremerhaven to keep the Germans from getting all the hardware that the US was giving them and the British in exchange for the ships to get the US Forces out of Europe.

The combined forces turned and fought off the French-led force and didn't stop until they were in to pre-war French Soil so that the remaining dependents could get out of the way.

Flanders, Netherlands and the West Bank of the Rhine were no longer part of the French union. Hell, when our campaign ended the governments were negotiations on the formerly occupied Grand Duchy of Luxembourg getting Alsace-Lorraine as reparations for their treatment during French Occupation so they could become a neutral buffer state between France and Germany.

But back on topic...

The Evac of the Dependents would have been in stages, especially after the 'false start' of the Sino-Soviet War that had them do the major evacuation of dependents and only to see them returned a few weeks later when the expected offense in Europe didn't happen.

Some officers and senior NCOs might have sent their families back to the States when the West Germans went into East Germany to 'evict' the Soviets from the DDR. Espeically if they had the brains to know, 'This is not going to end well'... Hell, this would have put a lot of people into wanting to send their families home on what ever transport they could get on board.

Thus the statement that the planes and ships that had brought men & materials over would have been loaded up with who ever wanted to get out of the possible combat zone. And with the fighting going on, i can see far-sighted general & flag officers agreeing to that.

When those transports were starting to get attacked, the commanders would have turned them to neutral areas that would hopefully not come under attack.

It's why we had in our campaign alot of dependents evaced to Ireland. but we also had alot of people who got stuck in the rear areas...

Abbott Shaull

12-22-2010, 08:07 PM

Wasn't the Jutland Division in XI US Corps, in northern Poland in 2000? That's roughly a quarter of the Danish Army.

Not sure I recall where they were before the start of the offensive. I do know they were heading back home over the fact that French troops had entered German territory...

pmulcahy11b

12-22-2010, 09:55 PM

It seems to me that the run up to the war would be slow enough for US, British, and Canadian (and I guess French, in some cases), as well as embassy personnel dependents, to get them out of their posted countries in time. The sole exception may be Poland and Berlin.

That's assuming that the DIA, ISA, CIA, and State Department are properly on their toes (or whatever agencies are the equivalents in other countries).

As for European dependents, they'll probably draw back to whatever countries they are from, unless they have no choice (such as Germany and Poland).

I did once play an NPC as a GM who had been in Poland at the time of invasion and had been there ever since. Kind of interesting drawing up a 15-year old girl who had to learn on the fly, and who clearly didn't look like a local (her parents were of Asian ancestry, though she was American).

Rainbow Six

12-23-2010, 03:42 AM

Wasn't the Jutland Division in XI US Corps, in northern Poland in 2000? That's roughly a quarter of the Danish Army.

Rostock in Eastern Germany is ringing a bell with me. I think that might have been mentioned in Going Home, although there might be a discrepancy between where the player handout intel assesment said they were and where they actually are. It does definitely say somewhere that they end up repatriating themselves back to Danish territory at some point - it can only be Going Home or the NATO vehicle guide.

On the topic of evacuations, I'm fairly sure that from a British and US (and presumably Canadian?) perspective this would have kicked in when the reinforcements started heading across the English Channel / Atlantic respectively. I'm going from memory but I think the reinforcements start arriving after the West Germans cross the IGB but before UK, US, and Canadian units get involved, so there's nearly two months for all military and embassy dependents to be evacuated. IMO that's more than enough time to get everyone out of the War zone and safely home.

With regard to non military dependents, e.g. tourists, business people, ex pats. etc, I'm not so sure. Would Governments evacuate them on the same transports that are taking military families home, or would they need to to make their own way, which could prove problematic? One would imagine most scheduled flights in and out of West Germany would most likely be cancelled (I can't see British Airways or United flying sked services in and out of Frankfurt in between air raids), so I could see lots of people ending up in France, Holland, and Belgium trying to get flights or ferries home...(for anyone who saw the news coverage of the ash cloud in Europe earlier this year, I think we could see similar scenes). Therefore I think it's possible some of these people might potentially still be in the War zone at the start of December.

Whilst non essential Embassy staff would probably be included in the dependent evacuation, essential staff would, presumably, have to stay until the fighting actually started and then take their chances (they may get some protection under the Vienna Convention?).

helbent4

12-23-2010, 04:14 AM

Rainbow Six

12-23-2010, 05:32 AM

The typical pattern for Canadians as of late is to put off doing anything, then using civilian transport (leased, rented, etc.). As this is a deliberate act of war, and not a sudden crisis, I think the USA and Canada (and the UK) would have elaborate (too elaborate?) plans to evac dependents.

Tony

I always presumed that there was a fair likliehood that the transport that brought the troops in would take the dependents out, particularly for the North Americans, who would be flying.

For the UK there was more of an emphasis on using cross channel ferries as the UK had no equivalent of POMCUS, so the BAOR's UK based reinforcements had to take all of their vehicles with them.

Again for the UK, I'd think there would also be the possibility of chartered Eurostar trains taking dependents home through the Channel Tunnel (they'd have to transit France, but I can't see where the French could object to civilians passing through their territory).

Abbott Shaull

12-23-2010, 10:41 AM

What always got to me was the POMCUS seemed to be geared for Armored Divisions, while none of the Divisions that were suppose to come from the mainland immediately had all of their components actives or had Brigade posted forwards already...

So it seems regardless if it was by designed or because how a military conflict would developed in Germany, it seems to me that very few US Divisions would have made the transition from the US to Germany intact. The exception of these would be the 82nd and 101st Division if they were transferred to Europe and not elsewhere.

Even when National Guard and Reserve units had started to transfer over with their 'equipment' these would be the first units that would stand a chance of being sent to the front as a complete unit. Depending on how much equipment and manpower was sank and/or shot down. Many of these units may have been consolidated and the Divisions pieced together to come up with complete operational Divisions or if they could complete the Division the unit would be used to bring other Divisions that were in battle up to strength...

Just some thoughts on that subject..

Fusilier

12-24-2010, 03:04 PM

The typical pattern for Canadians as of late is to put off doing anything, then using civilian transport (leased, rented, etc.).

LOL. Isn't that the truth. Maxo Relaxo.

dragoon500ly

12-25-2010, 07:42 AM

I always presumed that there was a fair likliehood that the transport that brought the troops in would take the dependents out, particularly for the North Americans, who would be flying.

For the UK there was more of an emphasis on using cross channel ferries as the UK had no equivalent of POMCUS, so the BAOR's UK based reinforcements had to take all of their vehicles with them.

Again for the UK, I'd think there would also be the possibility of chartered Eurostar trains taking dependents home through the Channel Tunnel (they'd have to transit France, but I can't see where the French could object to civilians passing through their territory).

Went looking through some old records and found the dependent evacuation plan for the 2ACR. Now the regiment was forward deployed within 80km of the inter-german border:

Upon the squadron moving out for its forward battle positions, dependents were to remain in their quarters until the MPs brought buses around to evac the families with one suitcase each. Said suitcase was to be loaded with at least 3 days of clothing, bottled water and 3 days of MREs. The buses would take the dependents back to regimental headquarters in Nuremburg where they would board a train routed to Frankfurt for another bus trip to Rhien-Main air base. The intention was to load the dependents onto any commerical or military flight going back to the States.

As can be seen, there were several holes in this, bus-train-bus-airplane. We were always assured that the Polizei-MPs would escort the dependents throughout the movement, but with Warsaw Pact aircraft going after communications hubs and bridges...Spetsnaz and Desants in the rear areas and their divisions launching a full scale attack?

pmulcahy11b

12-25-2010, 04:19 PM

Upon the squadron moving out for its forward battle positions, dependents were to remain in their quarters until the MPs brought buses around to evac the families with one suitcase each. Said suitcase was to be loaded with at least 3 days of clothing, bottled water and 3 days of MREs. The buses would take the dependents back to regimental headquarters in Nuremburg where they would board a train routed to Frankfurt for another bus trip to Rhien-Main air base. The intention was to load the dependents onto any commerical or military flight going back to the States.

That actually doesn't sound much different from the plans my mother said they had in place in Germany back in 1962. My father was with a military intelligence detachment at a fairly non-clearance level (he lost his high-in-the-sky clearance when he married my mother, who is from Croatia, part of a communist country at the time), so where he would have been I don't know.

dragoon500ly

12-25-2010, 06:17 PM

That actually doesn't sound much different from the plans my mother said they had in place in Germany back in 1962. My father was with a military intelligence detachment at a fairly non-clearance level (he lost his high-in-the-sky clearance when he married my mother, who is from Croatia, part of a communist country at the time), so where he would have been I don't know.

Looking over the evac plans, I think it would have been an utter nightmare, a lot of dependents would have been killed or left behind regardless of the best intentions.

It would also argue that sendin the dependents home early would have been a decision that our political leadership wouldn't make out of fear of provoking the Soviets.

Just pity the poor soldier who survives WWIII, only to find out his wife and kids died in an ambush on the bus on Day One....

pmulcahy11b

12-25-2010, 06:56 PM

Just pity the poor soldier who survives WWIII, only to find out his wife and kids died in an ambush on the bus on Day One....

In Sir John Hackett's The Third World War, there's an ugly scene about an airfield where several dependent flights are taking off, which comes under artillery rocket attack.

Abbott Shaull

12-25-2010, 07:58 PM

In Sir John Hackett's The Third World War, there's an ugly scene about an airfield where several dependent flights are taking off, which comes under artillery rocket attack.

Team Yankee touch on this without going into detail, but when units dependents were rushed after air raid, the author left things to the imagination.

Yeah pulling dependent out early regardless if you plan on staging attack or expecting one could lead the other side to conclude that you were preparing to attack. The next worse than ordering Reforger Exercise out of the blue, without months of very public planning that usually went into them yearly. Either would send the Soviet and allies to high readiness. Interesting thing while either side was on high readiness, it seem the Air Forces on both side would aircraft that would suddenly suffer some type of failure, typically induce by pilots playing the deadliest form of chicken...

Panther Al

12-25-2010, 08:40 PM

Another thing to think about is how it would effect the situation in "Going Home". Way I see out of all the dependants that want to go home about a quarter won't be able to for one reason or another. Then you have the dependants that are German nationals: will they prefer to stay at home? By this time you have to wonder how many US troops (especially the long service prewar german based ones) will actually prefer to stay in germany with their families.

Abbott Shaull

12-25-2010, 08:53 PM

Panther Al

12-25-2010, 09:34 PM

Not having any of the v1 stuff I wasn't sure if any stayed behind or not. Whilst I was waiting to see if I got a response to this I ran the numbers according to v2 on equipment and manpower. If you say 10% elects to stay, and the deal was that out of the equipment we was leaving we could equip the unit that was staying, you could bring up an ACR to 100% strength less aviation and still leave roughly 200 tanks for the germans to re-equip one of their units, probably the 1st Panzer since they are already there.

My assumptions included the following;

That for each tank listed there would be 4 afv's of various makes, half of which would probably be brads of one flavour or another.
That for each tank lost due to "accidental fires" from troops not wanting to give up their stuff would be made up by tanks kept off the books (and their is always official under reporting of strength) and deadlined tanks floating around various rear area depots that could be cobbled together into enough tanks to make up said losses.

Abbott Shaull

12-25-2010, 11:27 PM

Of course how else would one explain that all stuff is nice, clean, and shining when the inspection time roll around...lol

dragoon500ly

12-26-2010, 07:06 AM

Of course how else would one explain that all stuff is nice, clean, and shining when the inspection time roll around...lol

Like the old saying goes, no combat unit ever passes inspections. No parade unit ever survives combat!

Legbreaker

12-26-2010, 07:25 AM

dragoon500ly

12-26-2010, 07:36 AM

I think it's fairly obvious that getting the dependants out was well down the list of priorities.
Winning the war, or at least getting the soldiers on the ground and into their defensive positions is definitely the priority.

Oh no doubt at all; but from a morale standpoint only, they would have tried to evac the dependents...its just flying them out of one of the major air bases in Germany always struck me as putting non-combatants right in the center of the bullseye.

Legbreaker

12-26-2010, 08:18 AM

Not having any of the v1 stuff I wasn't sure if any stayed behind or not.
Going Home states on Page 3 that approximately 43,000 Americans remained in Europe prior to the evacuation.

The following units remained in Europe:
XI Corp (staying) consisting of:
50th US AD (2,000 men, 33 AFVs)
4th Canadian (not quite US, but...) (1,000 men, 6 AFVs)
116th ACR (600 men, 8 AFVs)
2nd US Marines (3,400 men, 14 AFVs)
8th US MD (1,000 men, 14 AFVs)

III Corps HQ (staying):
1st US CD (2,400 men, 43 AFVs )(+ 600 men and 5 AFVs which have left to join the evac)
30 Bde, 44th US AD (300 men, 9 AFVs)
3rd US ACR (100 men, 1 AFV)

V Corps (mostly evacuating except for)
11th ACR (500 men, 4 AFVs)

Fourth US Army HQ (staying)
XIII Corp HQ (staying)
1-40th US MD (400 men, 7 AFVs)
107th US ACR (600 men)

XV Corps (HQ leaving)
70 US ID (2,000 men, 6 AFVs)

And then there's the 5th MD scattered across Europe (some will evac, but most probably not).

So, adding them up there are approximately 12,200 men (not including the Canadians) and 139 AFVs (again not including the Canadians).
Note that this does not include the Corps and Army HQ units manpower.

So we're looking at roughly one quarter of the US manpower staying behind and about 35% of all US AFVs remaining in US hands.