Thread: SOF in T2K
View Single Post
  #18  
Old 12-29-2009, 10:08 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
I'm not sure that SF troops would have survival rates that much lower than other troops. Sure they get sent on very dangerous missions but they are also damn good at what they do and they are some of the toughest and most resourceful troops. I think their survival rates would be on par or even slightly higher than line infantry.
Perhaps. My assertion was based on the fact that in some of the SOF groups I've studied extensively (Vietnam era LRRPs/Rangers & SOG recon teams, WWII Allied airborne- not SOF, but certainly "elite"), unit casualty rates often exceeded 100%. Vietnam era SEALS did not, but they tended to be operating against the more isolated and poorly equiped VC in the Mekong delta (which became even more rag-tag after the '68 Tet offensive) rather than the better equipped and organized NVA. Only the WWII era-airborne troops were regularly involved in direct action missions. Green Berets leading irregular indigenous direct action units (Mike Forces & CIDGs) in the field, as well as manning SF camps, also had very high casualty rates. I'm not necessarity talking KIA here- a lot of the casualties were WIA and many returned to their SOF units where they were WIA again (or KIA). But, if you're WIA badly or often enough, you're not likely to be put back into the field. To support my idea for divisional/corps level provisional "Ranger" (LRRP) units, these folks could make up the training cadre for the army level Recondo school that would train these provisional Rangers.

On the other hand, in WWII at least, some conventional units also approached or even met the 100% casualty ceiling. In general though, per capita, in WWII and Vietnam, SOF (and Airborne) units had significantly higher casualty rates than conventional combat units. So, it's by no means a hard and fast rule that SOF casualties would exceed those of conventional forces, but there is some convincing recent evidence to support this.

One boon/bane (depending on how you look at it) is that it is so easy to explain the presence of SOF in T2K campaigns (at least in Europe). Since SOF often operated behind enemy lines, it makes sense to be meeting up with onesies and twosies. In some cases, it's more difficult to explain the presence of conventional forces deep behind enemy lines. For example, my PbP is currently set near Warsaw in mid October 2000. As far as I know, no NATO conventional forces were operating in that area in the summer of 2000. SOF, on the other hand, could have any number of reasons to be operating there, even that late in the war.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote