Yes, some, maybe most, airbases would be held onto, at least by skeleton crews, but others would be sacrificed if the manpower could be used elsewhere (other, more important bases or the infantry). Think about the base closures of the last couple of decades. Just because a base currently exists doesn't necessarily mean that it will remain important enough to always exit. There's a term for that kind of logical fallacy but it's escaping me ATM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalos72
Also, no units in the US have absorbed entire units like that from other services even. Yes, giving up their armor/vehicles sure...
|
So it wouldn't happen then? Why not?
Look at the manpower strength of the USAF at the height of the Cold War. What percentage of that strength did non-flight crews make up? 75% at least? Then consider attrition due to combat operations losses and conventional/NBC strikes on airbases. Now consider the percentage of aircraft still flying or capable of flying in 2000 and beyond (T2K timeline). You'd be left with thousands of USAF personnel that would be surplus to requirements. It doesn't make much sense to station them all at bases where no significant flight ops are taking place, nor does it make sense to overstaff bases where flight ops are still taking place. What then to do with them? The army is starving for manpower. If surplus air force personnel were transferred to the the army by a major military during a modern total war, why wouldn't happen in the U.S. military in a T2K WWIII scenario?