Where are the US airforce and Navy ground Units

[Spec6]

I'm sorry to say it But Can you see an airforce General officer in Europe leting his comand be take over as infantry in the Army .
So were our the Airforce Battions or Sqs listed in the Game .
I can see the Airforce fielding some strange ground units that have aircraft weapons convereted to ground Use .

Same with the Naval Units were are they located or have they been intergraded into the USMC .

Rember towards the End of WWII the German Navy and Airforce had Ground units .So why wouldn't the Airforce and Navy have them in WWIII .

[sic1701]

I can see Air Force and Navy officers at any rank in the command structure transitioning (upon proper orders and verification, that is) their troops from their existing billets and specialties to leg infantry if the need were extreme and they were trying to win a war, or just stay alive.

Without fuel to fly aircraft and replacement parts and weapons to maintain and arm them and no real prospects for that situation to change, many Air Force units would not be good for much else at the moment other than to become infantry units or, better yet, assume support positions in the rear so that Army non-combat units can then become leg infantry.

An Air Force general officer or Navy flag officer might have serious reservations about that, as well as tons of operating questions on how to make it all happen, but if the orders were clear and had the proper authority I would think they'd get on board in short order, especially if there was a way to help shorten a nuclear war in the process or ameliorate its effects on civilians they have sworn to protect and defend.

It also stands to reason that at some point in the command structure, AF and Navy officers are given a "What If?" briefing that gives them, in general terms, what's likely to happen in case of nuclear war devastate their bases or (more likely) actions such as electromagnetic pulse that cripple aircraft and ships or shortages of aviation and diesel fuel to propel them. Certainly they don't expect to just be allowed to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and drink coffee while the Army's infantry and mechanized units get overrun in a central European ground war.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Spec6

Rember towards the End of WWII the German Navy and Airforce had Ground units .So why wouldn't the Airforce and Navy have them in WWIII .

Actually, it was the other way around. Late in the war, German air force and navy personel were funneled into Volksgrenadier divisions (basically another attempt at reorganizing the standard infantry division TOE due to shortages of manpower and equipment).

At the beginning of the war and in it's first few years, the Germans fielded Luftwaffe field divisions, mostly due to the political influence of Goering. They didn't really distinguish themselves in battle, though. Apart from the Herman Goering division, Luftwaffe field divisions were generally more poorly equipped than regular Wermacht units and they suffered greatly as a result. Most of them were decimated on the Eastern Front. By early 44, there were only a few left and they were soon to be destroyed during the Bagration offensive and the Normandy campaign. Survivors or remnants of the Luftwaffe field divisions were absorbed into the army.

Most historians and analysts agree that the manpower should have been used as replacements for regular army units in the first place. Luftwaffe ground combat divisions were a waste.

I can't see NATO commanders making this same mistake twice. Air Force personel would be assigned to existing army units as replacements and Navy personel would go either to army or Marine units.

[waiting4something]

I think the Navy and Air Force units would be kept within there own branches and used as a rear guard. Mixing them in with soldiers and Marines would be a nightmare. This way they could operate and develop at their own pace. Both sides would not like mixing it up, because they are of completely different mind sets. I mean the only way I could see mixing them with the Army or Marines is if units were reduced so badly from what they once had been. Also, if a total break down of command happened and people were deserting I could see that happening. But as long as there is enough personel in the combat units I think they would not add them into them. There are non combat personel the the Army and Marine Corps that will be doing that.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

I mean the only way I could see mixing them with the Army or Marines is if units were reduced so badly from what they once had been. Also, if a total break down of command happened and people were deserting I could see that happening.

This is pretty much Twilight: 2000 in a nutshell.

Webstral

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is pretty much Twilight: 2000 in a nutshell.

Webstral

Yes, you mean like a bunch of stranglers joining up like how the playing characters are. Yes, that is Twilight 2000. I was thinking of just before you get the "good luck your own your own message".

[Adm.Lee]

IMO, and in any campaign I run, a lot of Air Force and Navy personnel have been funneled (voluntarily, at least at first) into Army replacements. I envision a mass retraining program set up in the winter of 98-99 or 99-00 to retrain them as infantry replacements. Likely each field army and division would have its own training detachment, and then shuffle units out of the line to integrate them over time. To me, the best time to do this would be in the winter, while the formations are in cantonments-- lots of time for small-unit training and patrolling.

Any others, who don't or can't volunteer for combat-arms replacements, would get moved to support & service functions. Possibly the Army could disband its own service functions, and transfer most of the soldiers there to the combat arms, while Air Force & Navy personnel take over the base functions.

OTOH: I remember reading in the '90s that the US Air Force had nearly as many Air police & security squadrons as the Army had infantry battalions. YMMV.

[Raellus]

Precedent is there. Why make this more complicated? Germany's experience in the later years of WWII supports using surplus to requirements airforce and naval personel as infantry replacements. German AF and N personel were given an abbreviated basic training and then attached to a parent Volkgrenadier unit where they would participate in field excercises. Some of these men couldn't handle the relative hardships of army life and did in fact desert but the vast majority fought on, even when it was fairly obvious to all but the most fanatical Nazi that the war was lost. During the time when the Volksgrenadier units were being formed (late '44 and early '45), Germany was under constant pressure on all fronts but they were still able to reorganize many shattered infantry divisions and bulk them up with AF and N people. During the cantonment phase of the Twilight War (WWIII), there would have been plenty of "down time" to integrate AF and N people into Army units.

If you formed them into homogenous "rear security units" you would only create resentment among line army units and actually heighten intraservice rivalry.

I also think the idea that a former sailor, pilot, or aircrewman wouldn't accept or couldn't handle a transition to infantry is kind of insulting to those folks. The vast majority of soldiers, sailors, and airmen do what they are told by their superiors. Do you really think the navy and airforce would be lobbying to have their people formed into independent, homogenous rear area security (or like) units? Why? How are they going to supply them? Aside from airfield and port security, AF and N brass have little to no experience running those types of units/ops. Who's going to supply them with supplies that the army traditionally receives? Army generals are going to be bawling for replacements and someone's going to tell them that they can't have the thousands of beached sailors and grounded airmen because those groups are going to start taking traditional army missions but be placed under navy and army command. They'd be making the same deadly mistake the Germans made in WWII.

[Kemper Boyd]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

I think the Navy and Air Force units would be kept within there own branches and used as a rear guard. Mixing them in with soldiers and Marines would be a nightmare.

Considering that according to the source material, many combat units even have former enemy nationalities serving with them, some old service rivalries might get old real fast.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Actually, it was the other way around. Late in the war, German air force and navy personel were funneled into Volksgrenadier divisions (basically another attempt at reorganizing the standard infantry division TOE due to shortages of manpower and equipment).

At the beginning of the war and in it's first few years, the Germans fielded Luftwaffe field divisions, mostly due to the political influence of Goering. They didn't really distinguish themselves in battle, though. Apart from the Herman Goering division, Luftwaffe field divisions were generally more poorly equipped than regular Wermacht units and they suffered greatly as a result. Most of them were decimated on the Eastern Front. By early 44, there were only a few left and they were soon to be destroyed during the Bagration offensive and the Normandy campaign. Survivors or remnants of the Luftwaffe field divisions were absorbed into the army.

Most historians and analysts agree that the manpower should have been used as replacements for regular army units in the first place. Luftwaffe ground combat divisions were a waste.

I can't see NATO commanders making this same mistake twice. Air Force personel would be assigned to existing army units as replacements and Navy personel would go either to army or Marine units.

The German Airborne units of WWII were part of the German Air Force too...

[Abbott Shaull]

Once you run out of fuel to fly flight with your fighters and not much need to port facilities. The excess enlisted and officers will be re-trained in Infantry tactics. Air Force and Naval commanders wouldn't like it. They don't have too like it.

Even in WWI the 4th US Infantry Division had a Marine Brigade assigned to it as one of it combat two combat Brigades.

So their is precedents, and these new acquired infantry would be used as replacement for the large part. With that said, the bulk of the Air Force newly trained infantry would go to Army units, with some going back to reinforce the remains of Airbase security details where they still have operational aircraft and can conduct operations.

While the Naval commanders would attempt to funnel their personnel into Marine and Naval Infantry units that were formed with Marne Officers/NCOs in leadership roles and excess naval personnel in all other slots, would be the in their eyes the ideal. The main catch here is having a MEF or MEU around for the Naval commander to justify funneling their personnel into a Marine unit as oppose to sending them to an Army units. Again limited number of these new infantry officers and enlisted personnel would also go back to help base security to bases deemed worthy to defend.

The next thing no matter the Officer rank/Enlisted rank on the food chain back in their native branch, they would be treat as newly minted O-1 for officers and privates for enlisted and would have work their way up the chain by proving themselves so it may be quite a while until O-3, O-4, O-5 would be in a position that would be worthy of their rank. This probably would happen at an very rapid pace than would normally due to them already having rank, but then again they Officers after all. Same with E-5 and higher in the squads, until they show they can lead a fire team, they would be treated as privates and specialist. Once they done that and lead a fire team and they show they are capable of leading a Squad if one is in need of a NCO, then maybe they will be given the spot, and so on back up the chain until they are holding position that in equal to their rank...

[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 left of the Air Force).

[pmulcahy11b]

Soviet military doctrine also targeted rear area and supply units for special operations raids. Survivors of these raids would be very lucky or skilled.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Spec6

I'm sorry to say it But Can you see an airforce General officer in Europe leting his comand be take over as infantry in the Army .

I can see an Air Force officer of any rank following orders. The question is what orders SACEUR issues and for what reasons.

There is a logic to using squadrons of Air Force personnel as rear area security. There is an equal logic to using the warm bodies is whatever fashion circumstances dictate. Goering's approach gives us a fine example of how not to use excess airmen. As a practical matter, it's going to be more efficient to turn airmen into infantry (or whatever is required by the Army in 1998 and afterwards) than to turn civilians into infantry. By the same token, how does one answer the question asked by Joe when he perceives that the Air Force is doing rear area missions:

"What the [expletive deleted] are those Air Force [expletive deleted] doing in the [expletive deleted] rear with the [expletive deleted] gear? There aren't even any more [expletive deleted] planes flying! Why the [expletive deleted] do they get the easy jobs while we live in [expletive deleted] holes in the ground? They're in the [expletive deleted] military, aren't they?"

How does one answer that question with anything better than "Shut your cake hole, Smith!" After 1997, this answer will carry less and less authority (there being no cake left, and all).

All of this said, one of the Joint Chiefs is an airman. How he manages the irresistible pressure to yield some of his personnel to meet the needs of the Army with the very understandable desire to maintain an independent USAF would make for a very interesting thread.

Webstral

[Matt Wiser]

One example to keep in mind, gents, is the Air Corps Regiment on Bataan (Jan-Apr 42). After the Air Corps was virtually destroyed in the first days of the Philippine Campaign, only the best pilots and maintenance folks were kept to keep the few remaining P-40s and other aircraft flying, and the rest were formed by their squadrons into a provisional infantry regiment, with the proviso that if sufficient aircraft arrived, they would be released back to Air Force control. (it never happened) They were used for rear-area security, and did help in eliminating two Japanese amphibious landings in Bataan's rear in Feb 1942-at a cost-some had over 50% casualties. (other than basic, virtually none had any kind of infantry training and learned on the job-under fire) In T2K, trained air and ground crew would now become theater, if not national level, assets and handled accordingly. Mechanics would find work keeping vehicles and other equipment in running order, and aircrew would be assigned jobs that one with their bachelor's degree might find useful. AF Combat Security Police would help MPs with general security tasks, and AF engineer units would supplement Army (or Marine) engineers in their jobs. The same for medical units.