Quote:
Originally Posted by Southernap
The answer to this would be MOUT, Military Operations in Urban Terran, all the tactics manuals says to keep heavy armor out of major cities. The threats from above to armor is just too dangerous as well as hostile forces making easy tank traps of all manner that keeps armor moving to specific kill zones. See some of the photos from the Russian experiences in Chechnya with their armor being massacred. That is why in the real world, the Russians started to develop armor that basically vaporized whole buildings with a metric butt ton of guns and rockets. If not having heavy bombers come over and raining theater ballistic missiles into an area and level whole city block. Which would allow for their armored forces to move thru a city.
Similar, examining the Allied Forces experience going through the German forces in Europe and the German forces experiences in Russia showed that armor even then would be dangerous. Which lead to the Soviets to develop the assault guns with a 122m to 152mm gun installed and the Germans to do things like the Strumpanzer and Strumtiger. While the Allied forces never developed specific urban assault vehicles.
|
There are some other considerations?
1. The fact is, heavy equipment on the streets of NYC when it's in the grips of chaos isn't going to improve anyone's calm either. Light and calm might have been a thought of someone in charge, but here's a question? The 78th was loyal to MilGov, but the 42nd sided with CivGov. Was CivGov's deployment of the 42nd one of those "dirty tricks" alluded to in the v1 Referee's Guide? "Hey, let's force MilGov to worry about policing NYC, we've got the troops and the means to send them, let's show everyone we're just as capable as they are to still reinforce Europe!" (No comment about how dubious a decision this is). And, here's an open question? Who in the heck did the NY State Government side with? They never did establish that. (Nor did they for most of the other state governments, not that many of them are intact by 2000?)
2. Consider the other divisions sent, IIRC, were light divisions formed from Training divisions, which means a cadre of DSs and other training and support staff formed around a mass of half-trained basic trainees? This cannot portend well for these ersatz divisions. It's one thing to use them against marauders, or lawless elements in the US, but send them to Europe and sic them on the Soviets et. al without some means of "stiffening?" Probably not a good idea (Probably the only good idea in the entire enterprise). I can so see a staff officer at IV Corps saying as they embarked "Is this trip really necessary?" I just cannot see the military necessity for this at all. Even before the Mexicans invade, let alone after. But, there's plenty of real-life examples of military stupidity abounding.
3. As for the French, well it's not just the nukes. If I am France, I don't mind if the American governments fritter away their remaining strength in useless gestures to impress governments who could care less. It helps me in the long run. And if the Americans are forced to ask France for help getting out? Sure, of course we'll help...no charge at all. But the world will see a broken "superpower" being helped out of a jam of it's own creation by a resurgent France. And that is something France wants the neighborhood to see.