Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
IIRC we have a thread dedicated to that question, but I could be wrong. I'll take a look in a bit. I think that T2kU armies, by 2000, would more closely resemble field armies from the Civil War in that there would be far fewer dedicated logistics and support personnel than in the modern world. Most troops would be forced to pull double-duty. Armies in 2000 would be expected to feed themselves by farming while in cantonment and by foraging (read: plundering) while on campaign. With fewer operational vehicles, armies wouldn't need as many drivers and mechanics. With the breakdown of modern military logistics chains, I think that camp followers, civilians employed to feed and "entertain" the troops, would once again be a common element of field. This would free up more military personnel for the combat arms.
Therefore, I think the unit strengths included in sources like the US Vehicle guide denote combat troops.
EDIT: This thread has some information relevant to this particular subtopic.
https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....=unit+strength
- |
This is largely where my thoughts were. Unit strength is largely combat strength. Non-combat roles (in a non-apocalypse military) currently executed by military members, would in 2000 and 2001 be performed by camp followers, cantonment residents / subjects / slaves, and "auxiliaries" - "Congrats, you are in the army now private sub-class, and if you don't do what order you to do, we shoot you, and no, you don't get a spiffy uniform or gun, now go dig this ditch."