Overseas Units and Family

[kalos72]

So after posting my article, or whatever you call it, and discussing it some with a few people, the question came up about family ties.

If I unit is stationed in an area for a long time, how much would that affect its loyalty to its government or command?

After reading the Kenya Orbit, what would that unit do if a freighter pulled into port and said "we are here to bring back to the US now, hop on"? Assuming of course it was legitimate, could be trusted or proven as direct orders and they fit.

[kalos72]

Anything thoughts on this?

[headquarters]

In our campaign we had a faction called MilGov ASIA - in lack of a better name for it - it was the remnants of all the overseas personell and their families/campfollowers from the multitude of postings overseas that had some of them - come together in sort of an umbrellla unit that coordinated a push to evacuate to the west coast -and the invasion of said coast .

In this campaign , interamarriage with the local population and the sheer power of the US military presence had made strange constallations politically , with some US troops as second generation exiles now fighting for a land they had never put foot on .

Also local govs were to some extent reliant on the power of the Yanks to uphold the balance of power in the specific region.

Specifically the Koreans and parts of Japan were aligned with the MilGov faction and supplied them with commodities in exchange for continued military support .

Some units were hodgepodges of nationalities that had sworn allegiance and signed the articles to join.

The relatively sudden mass exodus was not appreciated by all , and in some cases units chose to stay in cantonment and carry on as more or less a colony or a Diadochtian fief you might say ,like Ptolomayan Egypt .
( a powerful faction or elite of foreigners that impose their rule on the native population with a distinct cultural difference -and then over time slowly melding to something inbetween the two ).

[pmulcahy11b]

I think people would find it disturbing how little attention is given to getting the families of servicemen/women, or noncombatants in general, out of the way. I've been out of the loop at that level for a while, so I don't know how they handle it now, but it used to be a sort of "jam them on whatever plane or ship is available," approach, and every family has a bug-out bag ready.

You might also have a situation like Saigon in 1975 -- you have to fight off civilians who you don't intend to evacuate (or even allied personnel). Families might have a really hard time trying to get to evac points. And remember, airfields are major targets in the opening hours of just about every World War 3 scenario. In Sir John Hackett's The Third World War, there is a very ugly scene about a plane full of evacuating families going down at an airfield in Germany (IIRC, after a nearby MRL rocket hit while the plane was taking off -- been a while since I read it). That's bound to have a major effect on morale.

One player I in a game I GMed once played a 20-year-old girl (by 2000) who was a US dependent at the beginning of the Twilight War. The player had the PC driven by a determination to find her father -- she already seen the rest of her family in Germany die. Interesting character workup process there...

[Abbott Shaull]

In the book "Team Yankee" here was a part about getting dependents out of Germany and how some almost didn't make it.

[Legbreaker]

Seems to me that there's more info on how little effort is given on getting dependants out than on anything else. It's therefore logical (although maybe not correct) to assume most would stay where they are, at least in the early stages of the war when the front is a long way off (the Nato drive in 96-97 for example where western forces made it all the way to Russia).

Once the tide turned, it may still have been some time before anyone thought they could be in danger. Tac nuke use may have caused a few to flee, but again, in the early stages this was restricted to pretty much just the front lines.

In my view, wholesale fleeing probably wouldn't have been a priority until the first long range strikes on non-military targets. Panic may have set in a lot earlier, but as the time from first nuke to long range strikes was in the order of months rather than days or weeks, many who previously fled probably had returned home, just to flee again at the next scare....

By the time the front in Europe had been pushed back across most of Poland and Germany was under threat, chances are it was too late to go much further than the nearest hills. Fleeing back to the US at that stage was probably about as possible as going to the moon.

Until Omega and TF 34 came along...

How many civilians, not directly associated with the military or either US government would be trying to get on board? I'm thinking of the evacuation of Saigon in the last days of Us involvement and the seens of complete chaos we've all seen.

It is my view the perimeter troops would be holding back hordes of refugees all looking for a space on board a rusty old ship. Probably not too much of an issue while there were thousands of troops still there, but I wouldn't want to be amongst the final handful!

[Adm.Lee]

I'd kind of assumed that the American (Canadian, British) dependents in Europe would have been evacuated during the first few months of shooting in Germany. There wouldn't be the urgency of the Pact forces blasting west, and plenty of airliners flying between the US and Europe.
After the first (and largest) wave, there should be a trickle of families leaving as servicemembers are killed or wounded and rotated home. There's probably a second wave once the nukes start flying.

Having said that, there would certainly be some families that would stay behind voluntarily, and many more that would have married/moved in with foreign soldiers, especially in cantonments.

[kalos72]

Using Germany as an example...

Do you think a GI stationed in Fulda for example, would prefer to stay there or would they try to get the family back to the US since there was 'room' for them in TF34?

[Legbreaker]

Many of the long serving soldiers stationed in Europe may have integrated into the society, marrying locals, buying homes, etc. This is obviously less likely for lower ranks and reinforcements though, but we're talking civilian dependants here, not the soldiers themselves.

I can't see people who've made a life for themselves fleeing their homes and going halfway around the world, just because there's a war on waaaaay over to the east (which their side appears to be winning very handily). Once the tide turned and Nato was being pushed back, then the nerves might come into play however they've still got their homes and the world around them appears to be operating normally on the whole.

Reinforcement Divisions are still flooding into Europe and you can bet the news reports are being sensored to spare the civilians the true situation on the front - all possible efforts would likely be made to spin the situation and keep everyone happy.

Even once tac nukes were being used, I doubt there'd be much worry - the nearest in the early stages was waaaay over near the Russian (Not USSR) border and aimed at military targets.

Civilian travel is likely to become restricted too, if only because more and more of the available fuel is being used by the military. Civilian cars might still be allowed, however the cost of running one has by this time likely tripled or more.

Another factor is the perception, based on reality or not, that the EMP from tac nukes could effect planes thousands of miles away causing them to drop out of the sky. Even if regulatory bodies allowed Airlines to fly, and they could afford the fuel, I can't imagine the huddled masses being too keen on risking their lives in that way.

Which leaves travel by ship. As we know, a great deal of shipping is on the bottom by mid 1997 and I would imagine that many, if not most of the passenger vessels had been pressed into service as troop transports making them into prize targets for subs and raiders. This belief is borne out by several unit histories stating they'd suffered heavy casualties in the crossing from the US to Europe.

Even with these losses, there may be a number of passenger capable ships available, however fuel (again) would be in relatively short supply. Many of these ships would also probably be carrying wounded soldiers back to the US so space would still be fairly limited. Also, by this time, most people would be well aware of the high level of destruction on the seas so only a few might be willing to risk gambling against being sunk during the crossing.

Once in the US, these people are likely to have nowhere to go if they're originally from Europe. Those who are US citizens and had travelled TO Europe with their partners, may well have family and friends, but again fuel to get them there may be an issue.

Once the nuke war really opens up in November 1997, it seems highly unlikely there'd be anyone heading to the US. As bad as things must be in Europe, everyone knows the US was bound to be targeted by ICBMs and the cities wiped off the face of the planet. Why would anyone want to give up the little they have and travel to a place which is widely rumoured to have been flattened?

By Christmas 97-98, rumour is probably all anyone outside the military (and inside too most probably) would have to go on. One rumour might say the US is totally un-nuked and a wonderful paradise, while another says it's nothing more than one great big smoking hole glowing with radioactivity...
Which one are you going to believe?

[jester]

I've studied and trained for such operations.

In a hostile zone, they will have plans for selected units, go to the civilians who will have been told to assemble at a rally point, either the embassy or a predetermined location that is secure. From there they will be escorted to a extraction point that can be secured. Air assets if possible will provide security as idealy they are extracted via helos or cargo planes <C-130s, or if its a larger airport C-141s or other aircraft> The helos will remove the civilians from the immediate area to either ships waiting off short <war ships! Usualy LPD or LPDs or Aircraft Cariers> or to a more secure area where they can catch a traditional plane or even to a 3rd country where they can be transfered to other means to return them home.

the methods that will be utilized will be Helocopters, now maybe even the Osprey, trucks and hummers or boats heck even zodiaks. If it gets shitty enough...well, think of that movie Tears of the Sun, they get to walk.

Other options, for service members overseas, they will be evacuated to either a 3rd country where it is safe, or to CONUS but they will go out of theater! Since this is a military intilation they are a target, plus having alot of civilians around well, they can get in the way, they can cause problems as they fear, worry, control them and your troops will focus on them and worry distracting them from their duties. As well as they will require food, water, shelter, power and medical supplies if wounded. And they will need to be protected and escorted out should it come to that. So, they will be evacuated.

Evacuation methods, nuetral 3rd party ship. Bus or train to nuetral 3rd party nation, flight home, flight to 3rd party nation with a flight/train/ship home. Military or contracted ship home. And yes, they will make room for them on ships returning home, hospital ships and Red Cross ships. A good portion of the vessels will be left for such cases.

And yes those who have retired and opted to live in the local economy can get home, or they can stay, they will have to ASK to go home though.

I hope this helps.

Further, a U.S. citizen who is stranded overseas just needs to come to the U.S. embassy or consulate and request assistance going home and arraingments will be made to send them home. Costs can be recoved from those persons upon return home however, so it isn't a free ride to be abused. This of course is decided on a case by case basis.

[Targan]

I think much of the decision on whether to seek to head back to the States or not would come down to the personality and mindset of individuals, and also the amount of solid information available on conditions at home.

Conditions in Europe in 2000 are going to be pretty bloody awful almost everywhere (with the possible exception of the Franco-Belgian Union). It is natural for people to develop a "grass is greener" mentality when they are away from home in awful conditions. If a person knew that things in the US were no better however they might take the view that they are better off staying where they are. Also, some people are a lot more practically minded than others, and/or have the ability not to kid themselves. They would be better equipped to take emotion out of the equation and really make a logical, measured judgement call.

In my campaign as soon as the PCs' group heard about Operation Omega they were all very keen to get back to the CONUS. None of them had any family in Europe so I don't suppose they had much reason to want to stay, but it was more complicated than that. Even though the players knew that conditions in the CONUS would for the most part be just as bad for their characters as they were in Poland, they still played their characters as desperately wanting to get home. Many of the PCs and NPCs were hoping to be able to find their loved ones back home. Major Po only had his granny to return to but he also had family assets stashed away in the States that he thought he might be able to recover. Some of the characters were just sick and tired of western Europe.

I thought the players played it really well when their characters got back to the States. The sense of bitter disappointment at finding the USA utterly shattered was palpable. There really was some strong emotion in that part of the campaign and I was quite proud of how it turned out. I guess we'd all been playing the game for so long in real time that there was a fair bit of emotional investment in both the characters and the campaign itsself. Until the PCs and NPCs in the party found a new sense of direction a pall of depression hung over the party, well into January of 2001.

In summary I think the great majority of US personnel in Europe in 2000 are going to want to try to get back to the States, although if non-military loved ones in Europe with them won't be able to go back too, the military personnel might well stay and work towards being repatriated later.

[Legbreaker]

If there are no dependants, property, etc in Europe, then there's a definate chance the individual soldier will want to leave and go "home" no matter how bad it actually is there.

If on the other hand they've built some sort of a life in Europe, well, that's probably something of a case by case situation.

For those units which have been stationed in Germany for a long period of time, such as the 11th ACR which was stationed there since the early to mid 1970's, the likelyhood of the bulk of it's personnel staying should be much higher than in say a unit which was only shipped over during the war.

Some of the personnel of the 11th ACR could well be US citizens but never laid eyes on the country - parent(s) were soliders in German in the 70's and 80's and they've grown up in and around the military bases. It's theoretically possible that two or three generations of the one family could be serving in such a unit at the same time.

[kalos72]

Thats some great insight there Jester thanks. I might be able to use that as a whole new plot line.

Family gets shipped back to the US...lands in Mayport Naval base...a nuke just misses Mayport. Road trip to Mayport it is.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

If there are no dependants, property, etc in Europe, then there's a definate chance the individual soldier will want to leave and go "home" no matter how bad it actually is there.

If on the other hand they've built some sort of a life in Europe, well, that's probably something of a case by case situation.

For those units which have been stationed in Germany for a long period of time, such as the 11th ACR which was stationed there since the early to mid 1970's, the likelyhood of the bulk of it's personnel staying should be much higher than in say a unit which was only shipped over during the war.

Some of the personnel of the 11th ACR could well be US citizens but never laid eyes on the country - parent(s) were soliders in German in the 70's and 80's and they've grown up in and around the military bases. It's theoretically possible that two or three generations of the one family could be serving in such a unit at the same time.

That would be the case if the US Army in Germany was run differently, but it wasn't. Let me explain...

Most US troops in Germany were assigned more or less randomly to units on two-year rotations. Every soldier assigned to Europe in peacetime received orders to an adjutant general battalion at the Frankfurt airport. Once there they would look to see what unit needed a soldier of the appropriate rank and specialty as the reporting soldier and then send the soldier on to that unit, whether it was located in Germany, Italy, the UK or Greece. (Since we don't use a regimental system like the UK, any soldier can go to any unit that needs his particular skills)

When a soldier arrived at his unit he was assigned government housing. If he was single, he would live in the barracks. If he /she was married, they would be assigned housing in one of the "kassernes", US Army posts that resembled (in a slightly twisted way) American small towns, with American fast food (Burger King for many years held the sole contract for name-brand fast food on US Army bases worldwide), a PX, schools run by the US Army with American civilian teachers (most of which were spouses of soldiers), libraries and American cable TV in every home. In many ways the families were quite separate from Germany - they had a little bit of America in Germany that they mostly lived in, albiet one where every weekend they could go on a fabulous, low-cost European vacation. In fact, the Army operated a number of recreational facilities in Europe, including a resort in the Alps, that provided American meals, English-speaking staff and accommodations and activities familiar to Americans. When a soldier's two-three year tour was over, he would be reassigned to another unit, almost always back in the U.S. - there were clear standards for required periods of service overseas. Very few soldiers "lived on the economy" - rented housing, and even fewer bought any property. The most permanent property most soldiers had in Europe was their car and household goods.

In addition, the promotion system prevented soldiers from staying overseas for very long periods of time. When a soldier transitioned from lower enlisted (privates and specialists) to being a NCO it was quite common that he would be assigned to a new unit, in order to prevent problems of authority/respect with his former peers who were now lower ranking. In addition, the requirement to attend long-term schools for promotion to more senior rank in both the officer and NCO corps (schools like BNCOC (for promotion to Staff Sergeant), ANCOC (promotion to Sergeant 1st Class), Command & Staff College (Lt Col., I believe) and the Officer Advanced Course (Major)) meant that a soldier was frequently assigned back to the US if he had any hope of being promoted - and under the "up or out" policies failure to get promoted (for example, to sergeant in 8 years or staff sergeant in 16 years) meant that the soldier would be put out of the army.

Additionally, each soldier was required to maintain a "family care plan" that detailed how his dependents were to be cared for when he was deployed or the balloon went up. It had things like having important papers and traveling supplies ready at all times, locations for evacuation transport (buses would evacuate dependents from the kassernes to the airbases that reinforcing troops were arriving on; the 747s that were carrying troops to POMCUS sites would carry families back), contact information for family and friends in the states, and arrangements for where families would go when they returned to the U.S.

Sure, some soldiers tried to stay overseas for longer times, but they were relatively rare. I worked for a sergeant that loved Korea, he ended up being stationed there for 9 of his 22 years in the Army, but they were split into 6 stints, and he was never at the same post (and that was in a single division). Soldiers did interact with the locals, and there were a good number of German and Korean wives around, but by no means near 10%. As far as soldiers who had dependents who had never been to the U.S., VERY unlikely. There were some soldiers who, upon retirement, chose to live in Germany with their German spouses (and often start a second career working on one of the US Army bases), but overall I think the likelihood of significant numbers of pre-war troops deciding to remain in a post-war Germany due to ties to the community derived before the war is pretty low.

[Jason Weiser]

Chico's got it right. I lived for three years at NAS Rota, Spain, and things were very similar. To be sure, such an evac would have problems if it were conducted in the midst of hostilities. Team Yankee did a fine job of illustrating that. My guess is that for our purposes, USAEUR and BAOR activate their dependent evacuation plans once the Bundeswehr crosses the IGB, as many commands suspect that things are going to get real bad and that it may be the last chance to get folks out. There might have also been unofficial evacuations of dependents when REFORGER kicks off, as many soldiers are going to decide that things are about to get very ugly.

[kalos72]

I was thinking that perhaps the families of most German soldiers might go to the UK or is that considered safe enough in this scenario? Would they come all the way back to the states?

[fightingflamingo]

the families of German soldiers are going to stay in Germany. US, Canadian, and British Dependents will be evacuated rapidly following the FRG entry into the DDR, as Chico described, on aircraft returning to North America(US & Canadian) as part of REFORGER, or on ferries returning to the UK (which brought in additional wartime units to BOAR). There were some other nationals (mostly French) based on German territory, they would likely have evacuated overland to the low countries, or France, as soon as there was a real risk of hostilities.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by chico20854

That would be the case if the US Army in Germany was run differently, but it wasn't. Let me explain...

Thanks for destroying a perfectly good arguement!
I think I'll go sulk in the corner now....



Granted that land ownership, etc wasn't very likely prewar, what about after the war started? Would the base personnel and civilians come to see the places they were occupying as their own peice of the world, even though no contracts had been signed, etc?

Even prewar, how many families would have been happy to be uprooted after spending a couple of years making a home for themselves?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Thanks for destroying a perfectly good arguement!
I think I'll go sulk in the corner now....



Granted that land ownership, etc wasn't very likely prewar, what about after the war started? Would the base personnel and civilians come to see the places they were occupying as their own peice of the world, even though no contracts had been signed, etc?

Even prewar, how many families would have been happy to be uprooted after spending a couple of years making a home for themselves?

If you want to change it you can say the the 11th ACR (or any other unit) did an experiment in voluntary postings extensions. If you make it a voluntary thing, you might get more soldiers who either really love Germany or are running away from something in the US.

From a lot of my reading I always felt the 11th ACR seemed to in some ways particularly connected to area of Germany they were tasked to protect. This doesn't make their roots as strong as you (and to be honest I) felt they might have been prewar, but it certainly could deepen them.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kato13

If you want to change it you can say the the 11th ACR (or any other unit) did an experiment in voluntary postings extensions. If you make it a voluntary thing, you might get more soldiers who either really love Germany or are running away from something in the US.

From a lot of my reading I always felt the 11th ACR seemed to in some ways particularly connected to area of Germany they were tasked to protect. This doesn't make their roots as strong as you (and to be honest I) felt they might have been prewar, but it certainly could deepen them.

Some of this might also depend upon how suddenly hostilities began in Europe. A small amount might also be accounted for by personnel re-enlisting PDA (Present Duty Assignment).

[Legbreaker]

Once the war started in ernest, I'm not too sure much of the peacetime rotation and training system would remain. We could say that as of around August -September 1997, all training carried out by soldiers in Europe took place in Europe, much of it "on the job".

Sure there'd be "exceptions to the rule", but would promotion courses for example justify taking an otherwise trained soldier from the line for the weeks, if not months (in later times) it would take just for transporting them to and from the US training facilities? Specialist skills might require US transportation, but those that could be done in theatre, probably would.

I agree that on promotion for some ranks, transfer between units may be a good idea, however transfer within a battalion might be sufficient - can't see any advantage in transfering between brigades or larger organisations. However, again being wartime, promotion within the unit may well be the norm.

Being wartime, I doubt many would be allowed to retire either. Manpower needs would be just to great to allow a soldier to leave once their 4 year (or whatever) enlistment term ended. Same goes for officers, perhaps even moreso.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I agree that on promotion for some ranks, transfer between units may be a good idea, however transfer within a battalion might be sufficient - can't see any advantage in transfering between brigades or larger organisations. However, again being wartime, promotion within the unit may well be the norm.

In the US Army, when I was in, promotion to NCO often led to one being moved to a different part of the unit -- sometimes as little a move as being put into a different platoon within a company. Even without promotions, officers (especially junior officers) tended to be put into different slots within a battalion or brigade during their assignment at a unit.

[chico20854]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't think there would be soldiers that would voluntarily "miss the boat" to stay with family in Europe. In fact, I could quite easily see it happening.

While the dependents in Germany would be sent home at the outbreak of the war, by 2000 there would be a new group of dependents. Keep in mind that the soldiers in the US Army in Europe have been effectively cut off from communications (physical and telecom) from CONUS for three years by the time of Omega. (High command might have some operable long-range communications capability, but it certainly isn't available to Joe to call his sweetie back home, if she's still alive, at her pre-TDM home and has a functioning phone, and the odd resupply flight or ship isn't going to carry much mail as the postal service on both ends is in pretty bad shape.) In those three years a cantonment system arose and the Army went pretty static, setting up farms and semi-permanent abode (the note in Death of A Division about the offensive having to wait until the crops were in). So all those single soldiers, and a scandalously large number of married ones, might end up with local mates. After 2-3 years with the locals and no communications back home (plus word of specific or general nuclear strikes on the US), its quite likely that some soldiers would decide that they didn't want to leave the places/people they'd worked so hard to survive with and decide to stay there. (ISTR Going Home mentioning that foreigners accompanying US troops would also be offered a ride, and if necessary, US citizenship.)

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Once the war started in ernest, I'm not too sure much of the peacetime rotation and training system would remain. We could say that as of around August -September 1997, all training carried out by soldiers in Europe took place in Europe, much of it "on the job".

Sure there'd be "exceptions to the rule", but would promotion courses for example justify taking an otherwise trained soldier from the line for the weeks, if not months (in later times) it would take just for transporting them to and from the US training facilities? Specialist skills might require US transportation, but those that could be done in theatre, probably would.

I agree that on promotion for some ranks, transfer between units may be a good idea, however transfer within a battalion might be sufficient - can't see any advantage in transfering between brigades or larger organisations. However, again being wartime, promotion within the unit may well be the norm.

Being wartime, I doubt many would be allowed to retire either. Manpower needs would be just to great to allow a soldier to leave once their 4 year (or whatever) enlistment term ended. Same goes for officers, perhaps even moreso.

I agree!

As FightingFlamingo wrote in our document on the US Army

"Mobilization
Immediately following the invasion of China by the Soviet Union, the US Secretary of Defense enacted a stop-loss of all active component personnel and received presidential authorization to recall recently discharged personnel (those released from active duty in the preceding 180 days) back into the force. This served to make up personnel shortfalls in active component units, with priority to those assigned to PACOM, which went to a heightened state of alert following the outbreak of the Sino-Soviet War."

Stop-loss means nobody gets out! In addition, as the war continued retirees under age 60 were recalled (every retiree knows that they are not discharged, just transferred to the "retired reserves", eligible for recall although generally not deployed outside the US) and used to free up deployable soldiers for the war. (And every soldier's enlistment contract reads something along the lines of "I enlist for 4 years; however in the event of war or national emergency my enlistment is for the duration plus six months" - and "the duration" means a legal declaration that the war has ended, not the end of hostilities, hence WWII for enlistment purposes wasn't declared over until September 1946!).

Every training course in the US Army has two "programs of instruction" - curriculum, course material, class schedule, etc - a peacetime one and a mobilization one. Sometimes the mobilization POI reads along the lines of "this class is not offered. Immediately deploy the students (with or without a promotion) and assign the staff to teach something more vital or deploy them too!" Other times it eliminates less vital material and free time and cuts the duration, often by 25% or more.

For re-assigning soldiers on promotion, it depends. When I became a NCO I was not reassigned, but my MOS (supply clerk) and way my unit was structured (National Guard) was such that I had gradually acquired NCO responsibilities and the stripes were more a formal recognition of such than a radical change. Oftentimes the NCO schools are done as part of a permanent change of station, where a soldier would leave a unit stateside, spend a month or two at a school, and report to a new unit in Europe as a NCO. Junior officers get reassigned quite frequently so they are exposed to a variety of things in their field... spend a few months running a line platoon, then some time in the battalion HQ, then become the motor officer for a little while, then become the company XO, etc.

[Abbott Shaull]

I would think all dependents of the US in Europe would of been in the process of leaving Europe after the German Army crossed the IGB. Of course, it wouldn't be near the mad rush described in Team Yankee, they would still be removed since their safety was no longer something that could be taken for granted. As for those Korea, when I was in, I remember for junior enlisted ranks and being only a year tour and hardship one at that, family stayed in the United States.

I think all Allies would be removing their dependents from Germany. Of course, there is some leeway on when a GM could start them.

I would say after the Germany Army crossed the IGB because the Soviet and Pact Air Forces would be flying all over Germany and the begin engaging German Air Force units and hit German assets. Much like the air raids over the former Yugoslavia Capital of Belgrade, collateral damage will be impossible to avoid. I will go so far as stray bomb or two hitting British and American 'Motorpools'. As well as damage from aircraft who have had their ability to maintain air lift reduce to zero, crashing all over the place.

As a side not as the Soviet and Pact Air Force overfly West Germany, I am sure some allied ADA units may be tempted to take pot shot or two like in the good old days before the war. Or for that fact US and UK Air Force commanders scrambling their jets and letting them play 'Chicken' just to let Soviets know they were still there.

[fightingflamingo]

I'd always assumed that until the US, UK, and Canada entered the DDR to support the Bundeswehr, that the remainder of NATO continued to actively patrol and defend FRG airspace, allowing for an orderly execution of REFORGER, and evacuation of dependants in a threatless air environment. The reasoning for this is twofold.
First, since the US hasn't entered the DDR, the WP has a reasonable chance of destroying the Bundeswehr, and NVA defectors, without engaging USAREUR. Attacking airbases in the FRG, even if the intent is to only attack Luftwaffe bases, could lead to escalation and drawing the US into the conflict due to the close proximity of bases in the FRG, and the inability to accurately discern targets until the bombs hit runway (thinking in terms of AWACS indentifying penetrating aircraft while they fly racetracks over the Rhine).

Second, prior to intervention NATO views the FRG intervention in the DDR as an internal German affair. Canon states that withdrawls from NATO don't occur until after intervention on the part of the US/UK/Canada, so until that point even the French were still full members of the alliance and had a treaty obligation to defend FRG airspace. Primarily this would fall on the hands of those nations which would choose to intervene, however until they did so, and the withdrawl of a large portion of the alliance as a result, air strikes into the FRG could have served to bring the full weight of NATO (will all of it's prewar members) to aid the Germans, something I sure the Soviet leadership would have been keen to avoid if possible, considering to the point of intervention the European War was a sideshow when compared to the meatgrinder which existed in China and the Soviet Far East.

[Legbreaker]

NATO was not at war until late November 1996.

Until then, Poland and the rest of the Pact were only (in Europe at least) at war with one (1) country - Germany.

If ANY unit of ANY other nationality had fired upon Pact aircraft during that period, it would have been a clear act of war, unless they were defending their own soveriegn airspace ie Not just in Germany. Meanwhile, why would Pact aircraft ignore the landing fields and other military facilities the Germans were using? They'd had 50 years to find out where each and every one of those targets were so firing on British, US, French, Danish, etc positions would be near impossible to do by mistake.

Until November 1996, the war was surely seen as a local matter between Poland and it's allies and ONE member of Nato - Germany. While ever Pact forces made efforts not to attack anything not German, Nato would not be drawn in to the conflict - why would they be? Germany hadn't asked for help and nobody in their right mind likes to go to war without a reasonable cause.

It is even possible that the Pact could have seen Nato air patrols and ground units deploying from bases as an act of war in themselves. Yes, it's common sense to deploy troops just in case, but politics play a very big part in this sort of situation....

The thing to remember here is that Germany was at war, NOT Nato. Nato had no cause to interfere in any way until they too entered the war 4-5 months after it had started.

Once Germany asked for help however, the situation changed. Nato commanders and their soldier would probably have revelled at finally being able to act after months forced to do nothing but watch.

Even though technically not at war, it's probably a safe bet that many dependants of the British and US would leave at the first sign of trouble. However, as these two countries were not at war, would they spend the money on evacuations when looking at Pauls earlier post, they are so apparently uninterested when they're actually at war?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Even though technically not at war, it's probably a safe bet that many dependants of the British and US would leave at the first sign of trouble. However, as these two countries were not at war, would they spend the money on evacuations when looking at Pauls earlier post, they are so apparently uninterested when they're actually at war?

When Reforger goes up, I am assuming that the Civil Reserve Air Fleet is activated. This means that there are probably at least an additional ~100,000 empty civilian airline seats heading away from the combat zone (and back to the US) after they drop off the forces needed for POMCUS sites.

[fightingflamingo]

Once REFORGER starts and it is not started as an exercise, all US dependents would be evacuated CONUS. If REFORGER is in progress, and units are pulling out the POMCUS equipment, then the US Theatre Commander, JCS, and NCA all are in agreement that there is a very REAL threat of imminent hostilies in Europe. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet would definately be activated, and the US State Dept would be trying to fill those seats not occupied by returning dependents on REFORGER aircraft returning to North America, with US Nationals & tourists. IMO it would be very likely that a State Dept. travel advisory would go out for most Europe advising US Nationals not to travel, or to return to the US, at a minimum registration at consolates and embassaies.
I believe the UK has/had a similiar provision for bringing civil airliners into government service had the balloon ever gone up.

as far as defending FRG airspace. During the Coldwar this was the primary responsibility for USAFE. the Luftwaffe, was mainly equipt with strike aircraft, although it did have a number of F-4's, the several hundred USAFE F-16's, and F-15's were there under NATO command in AAFCENT and AAFNORTH, and were primarily responsible in peacetime to prevent WP aircraft intrusion across the IGB, in short they were responsible for the air defense of the FRG. Additionally, there was significant comingling of assets on the runways, which is why I don't think it would be practical for the WP to attack Luftwaffe bases in the FRG without serious risk of drawing other NATO powers into the conflict.

I for one didn't mean to suggest that the USAFE aircraft would come into combat with the WP airforces over western Germany, quite the contray, I meant to argue that the WP would stay out of West Germany. They have substantial numerical advantage, and if they stay out of the DDR, the FRG effort is doomed, if they enter the DDR, they fly into a hornets nest.
Since GDW's original material, has the Bundeswehr fighting the WP on it's own from October 6th, through December 6th, given the correlation of forces, the only way I can reasonably explain the continued existance of FRG troops on DDR soil, and although decimated the continued existance of the Luftwaffe. IMHO the Luftwaffe must be operating from sheltered bases behind a "Neutral" NATO airsuperiority umbrella. This allows for a relatively, uncomplicated evacuation of US, UK, and Canadian dependants, out of the FRG.

Additionally, the FRG had to have help from at least the US. They couldn't have repositioned 3 Corps to there jump off points to enter the DDR, without all of NATO being aware of their movements. Additionally, RDF Sourcebook states that the CIA chick (Alley Kurtz???) was sent to the Middle East after she became aware of talks between the West & East German militaries. Seems to me someone in the US didn't want it to get out, or already knew. Also, Sat imagery, and other intel was probably shared with the Bundeswehr through the period leading up to intervention.

NATO is at war sometime in November though, but not in Germany, in Norway. The Soviets seemed to have invaded Norway sometime in Mid-November, prior to the US forces crossing the IGB. US, UK, Canadian troops have deployed there since November in line with prewar plans, along with the ACE Mobile force which opens up other issues, because the ACE had assigned Italian Alpini, and French troops.

[jester]

I don't have my materials handy but, the whole thing behind NATO was mutual defense, so, if the forces are engaged with any member well, then it is now engage with all. Of course if the member nations honor their comitments which history has shown many do not.

As for civilians out, yep. Although, how many guys who got out in Europe contacted their old units and strings were pulled to put them back in? That could prove interesting. Units at 120% levels, actualy growing in Europe durring the time leading up to combat.

Think of the guys who stayed there because they had family who were locals, had a job with the DOD, or got out and were going to bumb around Europe for a bit before going home. Or dependants and regular DOD employees a good number of them are former military after all.