True, 150 years ago give or take they were well organised, but they also had an intact rail system to start with plus the necessary supporting infrastructure.
When the troops arrive from Europe, they'll be faced with a rail system which has been nuked, torn up and otherwise damaged. They will not have the necessary engines, carriages, and supplies to organise trains on even the civil war level. They will also be seriously lacking heavier weapons than rifles and machineguns with the odd M203 given the restrictions placed on troop "luggage".

In my mind it will take some time to arrange the first "scout" train, and much longer before anything resembling a regular service canbe established. 10 years does not seem like an unreasonable time frame given the problems the US will face with reestablishing the necessary infrastructure and security.

Trains are not the answer to shift the Omegamen from Norfolk in 2000 or 2001. Maybe in 2002, but by then the drought will have really kicked in and movement by foot and whatever other transport can be scrounged is sure to have been used to relocate the bulk of the people (canon supports this movement, but does not specify how).

However, someone else arranged for the Troops from Europe to come to Norfolk. Someone with an organization planned for the arrival of these Troops. If the could not feed, move, and support them, then why bring them back at all?

There is an organization there. MilGov. MilGov has the legal authority to commandeer (US Statutes) as does FEMA (FEMA is CivGov yes?).

However they have the organizational skills, the training, and likely the manpower.

Adaption, use the assets you have to support the Commanders intent, Act on your own initiative to support the Mission. These are tenets in US Military Doctrine.

MilGov troops will strip rail from sidings, yards, and spurs to build a route around nuked areas. Rail does go through Major cities, however there are miles and miles of track just to support all the small communities and farms. At this point it is not about speed, it is about economy. Rail and who controls it will be in a position to move resources, equipment, and personnel to viable places while cannibalizing anything else.

MilGov will be preparing for those Troops to comeback because there will be a plan to use them somewhere.

I can think of nothing that would engender good will and gratitude to MilGov than by hiring contractors to get buses (bluebird school buses, mind you), trucks, vans, horsedrawn carts and whatever else up and working on behalf of troop resettlement. Pay with food and medical supplies, possibly gold and C16 ammo? Hell yeah. Net result: MilGov pays pretty good and getting on this reconstruction job is a good deal.

Also as to what to do with them (the troops) I can see a lot being employed to help start digging out DC.

Politics, as I have already indicated. Also, the military only needs to feed them until they are demobilised or otherwise moved on. Once they're cut loose, they're responsible for their own upkeep, just like many of the troops already were before leaving Poland.

Absolutely and I totally agree they will be doing those things, what I am saying is that it won't happen overnight. It's a long and slow process made longer and slower due to a crippling lack of heavy machinery and the trains will not be available for use for a substantial amount of time, time they will not have due to the drought.

What units will be already onsite preparing for the arrival? How much work can they really get done in the relatively short time available and while they themselves are scrounging around for enough to eat? The US is beyond being on it's knees, it's laying face down on the canvas, barely hanging onto consciousness. There's almost nothing available to carry out any significant works to prepare for the coming influx of troops.

My guess is the organisers saw the operation as having more in common with an amphibious landing - very little useful infrastructure or immediately useful supplies available to hand and everything needed for at least the first month had to be shipped in. This may explain why everyone aboard was limited to just 100kgs of gear - the rest of the cargo space was taken up with tents, a few light vehicles, food, field kitchens, medical supplies, and the other necessities of life.

Woah! When I posted this and received a "Amtrak" response, I though okay, cool. Amtrak. But then I came back to check and found 42 replies I was stoked! Thanks for the input, guys. It'll help a ton!


I've been tempted to buy the CDs for a while, but never had a real reason since I own most of the modules in hardcopy. But now that I see there's a wealth of information in the Challenge articles, I bought them last night.

I'm kinda partial to the Amtrak idea, simply because my players didn't take the Last Train to Clarksville and I always felt they missed out. My players will probably stick around Norfolk for a while before being organized into some kinds of special operations unit and running a mission to NYC to recover some gold.

I think I am going to organize the returning troops into the reacivated and called up 77th Regional Support Command which has a mandate to support FEMA during "natural or manmade disasters", but in this case replace FEMA with MilGov under the soon to be lost 12th Corps. (Support insted of Readiness because it didn't get renamed to Readiness until 2003...). Of the 43,000, I'm going to say that around 15,000 make it to the shores of the US as combat effectives. The rest peel off to the Middle East or wherever and the rest are civilian staff, contrators and dependents.

My plan is to use the 77th as a marker of the dissolution of the United States: the characters will leave for NYC as the unit is being formed as a full division but every time they return to Norfolk after weeks away, they see the 77th reformed as a brigade, then a handful of battalions under 12th Corps, then finally dissolving altogether upon being ordered to reinforce the 78th at Fort Dix.

I am going to use this as a factor that ultimately dooms the 77th. It will never make it off the Norfolk enclave as a fighting unit as it is pulled apart to reinforce other units, convoys to Muskogee and desertions take their toll.

Straight fom the Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet...

"The US Coast Guard is a separate military service under the Department of Transportation. It is responsible for the enforcement of US laws in coastal waters and on the high seas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, since 1985, the Coast Guard has had coastal defense responsibilities for the US Atlantic coast and, since 1986, for the US Pacific coast."

"At the direction of the president, the Coast Guard can become part of the Navy (as during both world wars) or it can operate in a war zone while remaining an independent service (as happened in Korea and Vietnam)."

So the answer to your question really depends on what action the president took. But once the naval war started heating up, I'd expect the coasties would have gone "haze grey" rather quickly.

Canadian Army has something about a portable railway system what was underdelvopment?

Here's his site:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeedox4/


and by the way, the illustrated guide to Krakow on that site freaking OWNS.

I'm only guessing here, but the coast guard vessels seem unlikely to carry missiles or much weaponry heavier than 76mm. Given the relatively light armament (compared to true warships), what roles might they be employed in during the war?

Roles for a high endurance cutter will change from 1997 to 2000. With the destruction of so much of the world's tonnage and inability to put the remaining heavy ships to sea, lighter combatants that offer good fuel efficiency will have a place. For instance, while Gallatin does not carry her own missiles prior to the war, she is armed with a Phalanx CIWS and chaff launchers. Provided the electronics supporting the CIWS are working, Gallatin has a fair chance of surviving against a single inbound missile. During the fight I mentioned earlier, Gallatin is operating with other surface combatants against a squadron of light Soviet combatants. Missiles are in short supply. By sheer good fortune, the NATO group gets a targeting solution first and launch their available missiles. The Soviets reply, but the fast attack ships aren't carrying full complements of missiles. The exchange is unequal, and Gallatin is able to shoot down a single inbound SSM with her CIWS. Once the gunnery duel begins, the 76mm gun of Gallatin outranges the lighter autocannon of the Soviet corvettes. Gallatin takes some hits in the gunnery duel, but she is able to limp home with a kill-and-a-half to her credit.

Prior to the nuclear exchange, USCG vessels would be used for port security, search & rescue, and pretty much what they do today. They would be vulnerable to missile-armed Soviet warships and strike aircraft, so USCG vessels would have to be used for missions in which they either weren't exposed to these threats or operated as part of a larger group that could deal with these threats. After the nuclear exchange, all bets are off. This is why there are so few operational USCG vessels in 2001: they get used for everything and suffer high attrition as a result.

WHEC-717 "Mellon" had been fitted with Harpoons and Mk-46 (including ASW suits) and successfully fired them. USCG cutters are obviously designed to receive additional weaponries. It is also almost certain that medium range cutters would also receive at least an ASW suits.

What roles: convoy and commerce escort, ASW patrol, manning of older ships and civilian vessels taken over to perform more traditional coast guard duties.

Of course, all of this depends on the US president decision but the Twilight War has nothing in common with either Korea or Vietnam. Unlike these two conflicts (or the current ongoing one), it directly threaten US sea lanes in a very substantial manner and from the beginning. Actually, USCG would probably perform escort and ASW missions as early as 1995 as they were in WW2 and by January 1996, they would probably be already collaborating with the Chinese in order to loosen the Soviet Navy grip over China Sea.

US ambassador at Moscow on February 6, 1996 "Of course, Yuri, we have been informed of the loss of your cruiser, the Sebastopol, and I want you to know that we present you with our condolences to the families of your sailors. Really was one of our High Sea Coast Guard Cutter invloved? I'm sorry to hear that but this ship was performing regular high sea patrols in the area and it must have inadvertently informed the Chinese of that cruiser of yours position. All our appologies and I can already ensure you that we were not actively involved as we were for KMS Bismarck, 50 years ago. Your KGB officers are overwhelimingly paranoy as usual...".

I have the "scout vehicle" for your Amtrak expedition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta4eTNw5wIg

Track/Right of Way/Facilities inspection and maintenance of US Railroads (ans I would assume Canadian as well--CN has a main a few miles away and I see a lot of the same equipment with "CN" on the side) is typically done by what is known as "Hi-Rail" or "Hy-Rail" equipment. These are civillian market vehicles from 3/4 ton on up that have rail equipment fore and aft that can be retracted to allow use on standard roads. These go all the way up to three axle 2 to 5 ton trucks.

I can only imagine that similar equipment would be used (after fuel conversion) to scout and inspect right of ways. The MilGov leadership would need to ID logical routes needed in the short, medium, and long term. From there armed manpower would be drawn from the Omega pool and used to protect individuals tasked with rebuilding the rail infrastructure and maintaining said along the routes identified. This includes salvage operations. While some unwanted salvage would have occurred, most mainline rail in the CONUS is 100 pounds or better per foot, and typically welded in large sections. Carting a measurable amount off would be most likely impossible. And to use for what?

Irregardless, there will be so much rail material in yards and branch lines that there will be plenty to use for repairs/reconstruction until industry can produce more.

The biggest issue I see with rail use is repairs or reconstruction of storm damage, particularly washouts.

Prior to the widespread use of heavy machinery, this work was all done with hand tools and some smaller machines...the manpower pool can come from refugees. You want a job with a paycheck and food for your family? Come joing the Civillian Recontruction Corps Battalion in your area. I just picked that name from thin air, but what I see is very similar to what was done here in the 1930's under The New Deal.

Most of the motive power used to get the US rail network will probably come from branch lines, small railroads, museums, and industrial sites that have smaller, older engines that are big enough to do what movement is needed, are largely emp-immune, are easier on track/roadbed than the huge modern mainline engines, and much easier on fuel and far more tolerant of fuel purity. A lot of these 1950's diesels will burn whatever will burn.

I cannot and will not accept that thousands of US service personnel will be tossed out into the cold after their return...that makes no sense to me at all. The logical thing to do would be to use them as a cadre and as skilled specialists (where applicable) to help restore order, power, and utilities. What has been done before about a US reconstruction timeline was fantastic.

Thanks-
Dave

Exactly. Manpower and Training especially when replacements is all but impossible. I cannot believe that de-mobilization would be on either MilGov or CivGovs agendas.

There is a front in Alaska and the U.S. Southwest begging for combat experienced Troops.

Reconstruction takes people. Even if the Navy can't use them because the Fleets are sunk, there are Ports to repair, civilian shipping to refloat, and offshore oil rigs that need support crews. The Air Force with all of their technicians and support people would be critical getting civilian craft in the air, re-establishing a National level communication infrastructure, rebuilding power grids while the Navy fixes the reactors, etc.

The Army would be taking back the lower 48, training replacements, and lending in big construction projects with the Corps of Engineers. Dam Locks, High bridges, New rail depots, relocating factories, securing depots and ammunition plants.

Those 43,000 people are critical to the reconstruction effort. Doesn't matter if they are no longer combat effectives, as they are reliable, dependable, they can follow orders (very difficult learned trait), and will have a myriad of skills... Idiotic to through them out, a near guarantee they would become hostile and anti Government.

That sort of hydraulically activated rail equipment has been extensively discussed in a previous thread (it was quite a while back though). We have vast stretches of rail line here in Australia, especially where the inland iron ore mines need to get their ores to the export ports along the coast. I've seen dozens of those sorts of hi-rail hybrid vehicles in the north-west of Western Australia. The Pilbara rail lines need very regular inspections because the extreme heat can warp the tracks and also some of the ore trains are literally several kilometers long so a derailment can be extremely expensive (it take a couple of kilometers to stop those big ore trains so when they derail it can be a nightmare to clean up).

Nobody is saying they're ALL getting demobilised. Those who want to go are likely to be recognised as probable deserters after a relatively short period (possibly after the first thousand disappear over the nearest hill) and demobilisation on a voluntary basis instituted in an effort to prevent those people taking valuable military resources (ie weapons) with them.
Also, as has been pointed out, we're not actually talking about 43,000 military personnel here. 6,000 went to the middle east. Another substantial portion are civilians (lets call it 10% or 4,300), and then there's the permanently disabled from wounds, illness or radiation poisoning, say another 10% (which I judge very low given the length of the war and lack of evacuations and reinforcements).
This leaves us with just 28,400 military personnel.
Now lets take out those shipped to ports other than Norfolk. Shall we say another 10%?
Now we've got 24,100.
How about naval and air force personnel with little use on land, such as cooks, clerks, missile techs (like they're going to be needed post war on more than a reserve basis), navigators, helmsmen, airframe fitters and so forth. At most they'd be assigned a reserve status, subject to recall in the unlikely event they're needed again. I know, lets call that group a conservative 10%
So we're down to 19,800 useful troops.
Of that number, there's going to be some who head for the hills at the first opportunity, taking anything and everything that's not nailed down. Might only be a handful immediately, but as fears of a food shortage kick in around day 3, that trickle will likely turn to a flood.
Voluntary demobilisation, as previously stated, at least puts some sort of a control on what is walking out the door. Perhaps the sweetener is NOT facing a potential firing squad for desertion, AND Milgov provides a parting gift of a couple of weeks food and basic supplies.

Yes, troops could be retrained to cover needed skillsets, but that takes time. Time, which we all know, Milgov doesn't have. Reducing the military's food and support requirements are critical concerns and must be attended to if they have any hope of retaining control of even a cadre of useful personnel.

I can't see a significant number of them being let go as they step off the boat simply because of the food issue. Who is going to feed these people? They're basically a small city. Virginia is in effect a third world country now and I doubt they have a food surplus that can be just handed over in that kind of scale.

The brigade in North Carolina had to evacuate from a forest fire and drought and they're less than 2000 strong. 43,000 is a lot of mouths.

Dispersing them seems the most likely outcome to me. If the ships can cross the Atlantic, then they reach other places along the coast as well I'd imagine.

I went and peeked at Howling Wilderness again. When I suggested that steaming around Florida to get to the mouth of the Mississippi would be easier than walking over the Alleghenies to get to the headwaters of the Ohio, I had forgotten that 'Ole Man River' had broken the levees and was now routing south through the Atchafalaya. Meaning New Orleans is cut off and there is a new delta.

Unless someone (Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard's Eighth District, Navy's Caribbean elements) has mapped and charted those new channels, it's going to be a mite tougher to get upriver. Since we know that the Fifth Army is holding on to the upper and middle Mississippi, that suggests there is at least traffic up there. I'd be hopeful that someone has already done that.

My guess is only the locals really know where the new channels are. Could be fun for a group of PCs to convince the "good ole boys" down south to act as pilots, guides, what-have-you, especially if the PC group includes "furiners". :p

The Coasties use 5-inch/38s, 76mm/62 Compacts and 3-inch/50s for heavy armament, they also use Mark 19 40mm, Mark 67 20mm, .50-caliber and 7.62mm as well as a 81mm mortar/.50-caliber combo.

The high- and medium-endurance cutters are fitted with hull-mounted sonars and have space to have Mk32 324mm ASW torpedo tubes with Mark46 torpedoes. While their helos are normally unarmed, they have operated
SH-2F ASW helos.

Their defensive role is mostly as patrol craft with limited ASW capability (pretty much "Periscope to Starboard!" sort of thing; their sonars are Korean War vintage). Some of the Congressional Records mention the coasties having a convoy escort role, but flipping through some of the various books, I'm afraid that their role would be either as rescue ships or as targets for incoming missiles.

The vast majority of the USCG Fleet is harbor patrol/inland waterway patrol craft, better suited to chasing off enemy divers and explosive-laden speed boats.

That's what I'd thought - anything but modern and survivable warships. Little more than glorified armed fishing boats really...
Not to say they wouldn't be effective in their designated roles, just look at how much tonnage has gone to the bottom due to commerce raiders, but they've no place being in a decent battle.

That's taking creative license with dragoon's observations. At the risk of repeating myself, the class to which USCGC Gallatin belongs has a 76mm autocannon, a CIWS system and radar, and smaller autocannon. A ship like this is perfectly capable of going head-to-head with a Soviet corvette--especially if that corvette is out of missile reloads. Whether corvette-on-corvette counts as a decent battle depends a good deal on whether one is present or not.

But would that soviet corvette be found without missiles or nearby friends? I tend to doubt it unless the overall situation was VERY desperate.
In the first year or the war, the USCG ships would be outclassed, out gunned and likely on the bottom. Any which survive past 1997 are likely to see their survivability increase, but they're still at a substantial disadvantage against a purpose built military vessel.
Come 2000, any with fuel and three rounds for their main gun will be a very decent threat in most areas of the world, but should they face even damaged opposition...
Do coast guard vessels have any anti-air defences? If not then they're vulnerable to anyone in a hang glider who's mad enough to fire a LAW down at them... (crazy I know, but surely somebody in hollywood has thought of it?)

You do realize that if you point the LAW down to shoot you tip the back end up. Firing the Hang glider would catch the full back blast. Down would come the glider like Icarus with burning wings.

Leg and I both served in the Army Reserve (and Leg in the regular Australian Army as well) and both fired LAWs. I'm sure he's well aware of the Back Blast Danger Area. I don't agree with Leg's characterisation of high endurance USCG cutters as being "little more than glorified armed fishing boats". I also suspect that (as has been intimated by previous posters) USCG vessels would be up-gunned once the USCG was brought into the fold of the USN during the Twilight War.

Absolutely. I was using that as a ridiculous example (note the hollywood reference) of how vulnerable a vessel is without anti-air weapons.

No doubt that these vessels would be uparmed and the electronics updated, as long as weapon and electronics systems were available. Dedicated military vessels will always receive priority which means it's quite likely many USCG vessels wouldn't receive much more than a new paint job.

Leg, take a deep breath. When you think your posts through carefully, you contribute as well as anyone here. When you snap off a half-baked hip shot, you leave your posts open to critique, which leads all too often to bruised pride and more half-baked hip shots. For my part, I prefer to interact with the Legbreaker who doesn't feel like he has to defend an observation that came out of the oven too soon.

The deployment strategy of the US Coast Guard in the event of a NATO-Soviet conflict was given lots of thought by people with lots of expertise and careers to devote to that sort of thing. I'm not claiming that said deployment strategy was perfect or anything like it. I am claiming that during the Cold War some thought was given to balancing the demands on the USCG with the means.

As for desperate situations, it's nuclear war. The Soviets have lost their Northern Fleet by 1998, with the exception of fast attack ships like the missile-armed corvettes. Fuel is short in any event. The Soviet fast attack ships are notorious for not having reloads available onboard. The Red Banner Fleet HQ got hit during the nuke exchange, so we should expect some shortages. Missiles, which aren't carried aboard the corvettes in great quantities, is a reasonable place to expect shortages.

Now, one has to draw distinctions between a high endurance cutter like Gallatin and much smaller cutters like Bainbridge Island. At 110' and with a single 25mm autocannon, Bainbridge Island is poorly equipped to mix it up with a genuine naval combatant. Gallatin, at 378' and armed with a 76mm gun, a CIWS (useful for knocking down SSM and rogue hang gliders), smaller autocannon, and possibly a helo, is a reasonable candidate for trans-Atlantic escort duty as part of a much larger force in 1997 or as a primary combatant after the nuclear exchange. Upgrades to the weapons package only make Gallatin more likely to draw escort duty. Bainbridge Island probably never would venture off the continental shelf.

Fair comment.
Often times I purposefully leave openings to promote discussion (such as the hang gliding LAW). Sometimes I'm tired and my brain isn't quite in gear. I'm NEVER looking to cause an arguement though.
I'm actually in pretty close agreement with you on most of your points. The only significant difference is that I can't see upgrades occuring quickly enough to most of the CG vessels to make any impact - there's too many other more important priorities out there for the limited resources.

Yeah, I always loved that shot near the end of Rambo 2, Electric Buggaloo (or whatever they called it) where he fires the LAW from the seat of of the helicopter he's flying. He just fried all those rescued POWs in the back, and probably damaged the helicopter enough that it went down. If they were portraying reality. Do you know how many young troops I had to disabuse of the notion to fire a LAW from enclosed spaces after that? Hollywood sucks sometimes...

How about in Rambo III when he is able to drive, load and fire the tank all by himself all at the same time? :confused:
Of course if you want pure ridiculousness, there's always the A Team movie and their flying tank... I wonder if a certain Mr Sparks was involved with that? Oh, wait, it wasn't an M113 so that would be a no. :cool:

Heh, you should have just stuck up a few posters of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2_LAW_1969.jpg

I'm reminded of Tyne Daley nearly getting her face baked off by one in that Dirty Harry movie.

Ok, just checking. I'm the FNG here. So you guys will have years of inside jokes on me.

Onto AAA on boats. *shudders* Boats.

Guys the US DoD is myopic on weapons. We don't look to re-use or re-purpose anything. Totally foolish waste like using M60 MBTs and the Oriskanny for crying out loud to make artificial reefs.

What would the USCG get probably .50cals on flexible mounts and MANPADs. The RH202 20mm is seen on a Naval mount and the MK19.

The lack of triple A is less a concern in convoys across the Atlantic because other assets will see it at a distance and deal with it. Now in the Caribbean a ship could get jumped quick if warplanes can use the islands to screen.

Thats what separates an Admiral from a casualty.

Maybe the Coasties do go on Convoys or the Navy uses them in defense of the US Shore freeing up other vessels. Play to the hulls strengths.

I'm sorry, are we in the same universe here? Would the military actually do something logical? ;)

With regard to backblast, we were taught in jungle warfare that the M72 is best used in reverse. The arming distance is usually greater than you can see and the backblast is MUCH more likely to injure an enemy unless you manage a direct hit with the unarmed rocket. This principle applies to all close terrain such as inside buildings.
The blast may not kill, but it's certain to give them a bad hair day and make them think twice about sticking around!

:saeek:

My short stint in the National Guard before going back to active was grenades in the offense and Claymores in the defense.

Anybody behind you had to be pissssssssssssssssed.

Claymore back blast is mitigated for the firer by keeping something between you and the back of the mine or better get low in a foxhole.

No I can safely say that reversing a LAW in woodland combat never came up.