Raellus, I agree with you canon has its own idea of what is going on in USAEUR in 2000. Escape from Kalisz offers us some useful clues as to where the cuts might be made.
"...the remaining 10 M1E2s of 3-70 armor turned south off the road... and advanced overland to take the Soviet column in flank. 2-21 Field Artillery pulled it six howitzers off the road behind them and set up to deliver supporting fires." (Escape from Kalisz, "Death of a Division")
Both of these formations are operating at company strength. Throughout the handout, battalions are referred to by name. I submit that this is evidence that the battalion remains a functional but reduced level of command but that its strength has been reduced to company level. Ergo, either the platoon or the company has been eliminated. If I had to say which one the US Army would get rid of, I'd say the Army has done away with the platoon. New lieutenants probably take over a company formation that has been effectively reduced to a collection of squads or sections led by NCOs.
Legbreaker also has an excellent point about attrition among the officers. If we think about the nature of the tactical nuclear exchanges in 1997, the most senior officers and their staffs are going to be hard-hit. Command posts are among the most attractive targets. At every echelon, the enemy will make a concerted effort to hit the unit headquarters. I think an awful lot of field grade officers have met their respective makers. Light colonels might be commanding the brigade-sized formation calling itself a division in Twilight: 2000. Battalions might be commanded by first lieutenants. The latter happened often enough to the Germans in the Eastern Front in WW2.
Paul has a good point about nostalgia. The Army does love its tradition. I know I've given my opinion on kampfgruppen before, so I won't go into it at any length here. Suffice to say that Targan is right on the money: the Army is thinking that when things get better, formations will be brought up to their authorized strength.
Webstral
|