Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Of course it's exceptionally probable that these rear area units would have suffered greatly from nukes.
It's most probable not very many naval or aviation personnel survived.
Those few Air Force personnel remaining, particularly ground crews and pilots, would be far too valuable to reassign to army units. There might not be any fuel to actually fly the handful of planes left more than once every few months, but they'd still require maintaining "just in case".
Naval personnel are in my mind more likely to be reassigned to the army (and a few going to support what's of the Air Force).
|
As with the armies, there are grounds for a variety of outcomes for specific formations of the various air forces. In Europe, tactical nuclear weapons undoubtedly have caused major losses among NATO air force personnel. The tally from chemical weapons probably is not inconsiderable. Raids by Pact special forces will have caused some loss of life, too, along with effects of conventional air-delivered weapons of every description. The same probably can be said in the Far East and perhaps the Middle East.
All of this being said, I think we must allow for significant numbers of airmen to have survived into 1998. The operating premise of the game is that the conventional fighting, the nukes, the chemical weapons, starvation, and disease did not destroy the armies of the world completely. The divisions fight on, although at much-reduced strength. Although air force personnel are particularly vulnerable to WMD, given the concentration of air crews at air bases, not every air base will have been nuked. The USAF owns a number of bases in CONUS that were not attacked. Although many of the personnel will have been sent oversease by the beginning of the nuclear exchange, many will remain.
You've got a point about the value of retaining irreplaceable skills, Leg. Surely the USAF Chief of Staff (and his counterparts among the other air forces of the world) will make that case. The question is how many of these people need to be retained? It's one thing for us to believe that once food supplies can be stabilized the armies of the world can receive more recruits and rifles. It's another thing to believe that additional F-16s are going to be made operational anytime soon. The armies of NATO will be screaming for people to do real work needed today and tomorrow, not in three or six or fifteen years. There is a case to be made for keeping the senior NCOs and warrant officers as airmen. The mid-grade and junior enlisted people have a lot less to recommend them.
I bring this back to an earlier discussion about airships in Colorado because airships offer the USAF a better case for retaining its independence and its manpower than "some day" regarding pre-war systems. By the end of 2000, the pressure on the USAF Chief of Staff to surrender most or all of his remaining people would be nearly insuperable. The arrival of a working airship and some expertise would be a godsend to the USAF Chief of Staff. One of the reasons I believe Colorado will get behind the airship program with such enthusiasm is that the Air Force will throw themselves behind the idea with the abandon of an addict set loose in a police evidence room. A significant airship program offer the USAF something important to do besides wait for conditions to improve and otherwise do what the Army does in Air Force uniforms. As an added bonus, a large airship program probably will be very good for the country.
Webstral
Addendum: The USAF could opt to concentrate on maintaining its C-130 fleet. The requirements in spare parts certainly is going to be much less. Yet given the fuel situation, C-130 use will be quite limited.