Keeping or Changing Rank in T2K

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

As you noted, even folks who were clerk-typists, truck drivers, cooks, etc. would have real, crunchy combat experience by 2000. In that sense, at least, divisions in 2000 would be leaner and meaner than they were when the war first kicked off.

Soviet doctrine called for massive attacks on rear areas -- including air assault and airborne insertions into rear areas. Those clerk-typists who survived those attacks would have been fighting the cream of the Soviet crop -- they'd be long in experience against highly-trained enemy troops.

[Mohoender]

You almost said it all or so it seems. Then, things are pretty much the same in France. If you are stuck with a bad officer, you are in a bad situation. I saw that during my service. The other company was commanded by a dummy (well educated but still a dummy). that Lieutenant was unable to get anything from his recruits. He was not even able to understand that they were keeping making fun of him. He was from Polytechnique (a school forming technicians and engineers: saddly these guys are all officers) and half of his company was composed of guys from the Reunion speaking Creole (fun, fun, fun).

The only exception might be with the Legion were things are slightly different: There are very little chance for a skill/trained Legionaire to obey a fresh/inexperienced officer from another branch. of course, he will serve that officer the usual "Yes Sirr!!" but he will not comply when in the middle of action (actually he might even tell him fuck off if needs rise). A few month ago, we were watching (my wife and I) some report on the french military: 1 on the legion immediately followed by 1 on St Cyr. Ok, St Cyr is training our officers but we definitely could see more in any of the Legionaires. Actually, the officers in training (and even their training officers) were looking like amateurs when compared to the Legionaires.

However, I'm not convinced that officers from the navy/air force forced to serve in the infantry would be the worse. They might be more willing to confess/admit their little experience. After all, they are not fully trained for that job.

Concerning basic infantry training, we also have it. This is fairly limited, however, and non-infantry will need to survive some times in order to get some much needed experience. Not to mention that older guys like me don't always know how to use modern weapons. I'm perfectly skilled with a MAT-49 and I learned how to use a grenade (rifle, I learned for myself) but I don't know anything about FAMAS.

[Legbreaker]

For myself, I found that once you understood the basic methods of operation of the various types of weapons, it was fairly easy to transfer knowledge from one weapon to another with just a few minutes to familiarise yourself.
For example, an F1 submachinegun (post WWII Australia SMG now out of service) is an open bolt, recoil operated weapon. Presented with another open bolt, recoil operated weapon I'd be up and firing within a minute or two even if I'd never laid eyes on it before in my life.

Same goes for say the M16 and Steyr AUG, the M60 and MAG 58 (M240 to you heathens), even say an SKS and G3.
As long as you can find the safety and how to load and cock the weapon, chances are you can use it....

[Cdnwolf]

Maybe a third Lt?

A few non-English-speaking militaries maintain a lower rank, frequently translated as "Third Lieutenant". The rank title may actually translate as "Second Lieutenant", "Junior Lieutenant", "Sub-Lieutenant" or "Ensign". The Soviet Union used three ranks of Lieutenant, and Warsaw Pact countries similarly standardised their ranking system. Some of the former Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations have now discarded the third rank.

Throughout the 19th century, the United States Army sometimes referred to Brevet Second Lieutenants as "Third Lieutenants." These were typically newly commissioned officers for which no authorized Second Lieutenant position existed. Additionally, the Confederate States Army also used "Third Lieutenant", typically as the lowest ranking commissioned officer in an infantry company.

In the US Air Force , the Third Lieutenant Program refers specifically to a training program at active duty bases for cadets the Air Force Academy, Air Force ROTC the summer before their fourth and final year before graduation and commissioning. A single silver or subdued pip is used to designate this rank.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Maybe a third Lt?

Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers had Third Lieutenant as the first rank one was given when when a soldier left OCS -- and it it was a temporary rank as well, from which you could be fired!

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

For myself, I found that once you understood the basic methods of operation of the various types of weapons, it was fairly easy to transfer knowledge from one weapon to another with just a few minutes to familiarise yourself.
For example, an F1 submachinegun (post WWII Australia SMG now out of service) is an open bolt, recoil operated weapon. Presented with another open bolt, recoil operated weapon I'd be up and firing within a minute or two even if I'd never laid eyes on it before in my life.

Same goes for say the M16 and Steyr AUG, the M60 and MAG 58 (M240 to you heathens), even say an SKS and G3.
As long as you can find the safety and how to load and cock the weapon, chances are you can use it....

Learning to shoot isn't the big problem -- learning to maintain the weapon, that's where the big hurdle is for most troops.

[copeab]

I agree with those who think that air force and navy personnel, as fewer aircraft and ships remained operational, would be formed into their own ground units. However, I think these units, rather than being integrated into army infantry units, would be used to replace army support personnel. Army support troops would be used to replace infantry losses, since, IMHO, an army supply clerk needs less training to turn him into an infantryman than an air force mechanic.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Learning to shoot isn't the big problem -- learning to maintain the weapon, that's where the big hurdle is for most troops.

And God said, "Let there be the AK."

[Legbreaker]

Besides security personal, the vast majority of air force and naval personal could be termed "support" if they were in the army.
As transfer into similar ground force (army) roles would require minimal additional training, I can't see why they'd be sent to combat roles. It's just not an economical use of their pre-existing skills.

[Webstral]

As a session at ROTC Advanced Camp will demonstrate, getting a prospective second lieutenant to understand how the rifleman using the rifle is to be deployed is far more difficult than teaching that prospective second lieutenant to use a rifle. Officers aren't supposed to be riflemen per se, although the best lieutenants have been satisfactory riflemen. If the platoon leader is actively engaged in the firefight, the situation has deteriorated badly. His job is to lead his platoon, not personally put rounds downrange. This is where officers from outside the Infantry Corps will run into trouble: they may be able to use their personal weapons adequately, but they may have no ability to lead or manage riflemen before, during, or after combat. Twilight: 2000 will take the Army's focus on everybody else and recenter it squarely on the infantry. (Where it belongs)

I also agree wholeheartedly with Raellus about the ratio of support troops to combat troops by mid-2000. Most of the jobs associated with supporting formations in 2000 can be done by anybody. Why take a rifleman (or potential rifleman) and have him run a still when an old man can do the job with the support of an able child? Yes, formations will still require support on the move, but in Europe 1999 and the first half of 2000 are marked by infiltration raids, not mechanized movement. By 2000, then, I think almost everybody who wears a uniform will be in the combat arms, on a staff, or operating in very close support of the troops. CSS jobs will belong to civilians, although leadership of the group of civilians might be a good job for some of the excess officers we've been talking about.

It's true that USAF and USN personnel have specialized skills that go to waste behind a machine gun. However, many of those specialized skills simply won't have an application in the Army of 2000. Radar will have gone by the wayside to a degree that radar operators, technicians, and intel folks will be redundant. Air defense types from the USMC or the US Army will only have jobs if they operate guns. Missiles won't have targets. With so many vehicles down for lack of spare parts, the number of mechanics required will shrink dramatically. We could come up with a host of skills used to maintain a large mechanized army, modern air force, or world power navy that won't be necessary in 2000. A few skilled and senior technicians will still be needed to operate what sophisticated machinery is still available. The junior people will be redundant in their technical MOS. However, those troops who are generally young and fit still have a use in an area that never has enough warm bodies: slinging a rifle.

In World War Two, the Germans experienced the phenomenon of too few riflemen and too many Army support troops and idled troops of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. The rear areas were regularly combed for support personnel who weren't fully occupied, who were turned into riflemen. Whole divisions of Luftwaffe troops were fielded. This was a horrible idea that worked out horribly, by the way. The (German) Army hated having separate Air Force divisions that were made up of people with little or no experience in ground warfare but who nevertheless held commands commensurate with their rank. They were useless in the field against Red Army formations. Hitler insisted on it because Goring insisted on it. Yet another example of politics and correctness hamstringing combat effectiveness. If we learn anything from the Germans, it should be that every uniformed service member is a rifleman. As a rifleman, his rank should be based entirely on his ability and experience in the infantry. Of course, the reality is that armies everywhere tend to treat officers like a member of an aristocracy. I acknowledge this by having Huachuca assign excess officers roles in leading civilians rather than stripping them of their commissions, putting a single chevron on their shoulders, and advising them to learn quickly. I do believe, though, that soldiers, airmen, and seamen whose jobs have been overtaken by the deterioration of the armies in Europe and elsewhere will be viewed by their commands as infantry replacements. It's a pattern with strong historical precedent.

Some time ago, I created a chart with unit strengths for the 111th Brigade and other formations associated with Fort Huachuca. I'm going to have to adjust those units strengths. Very few admin and CSS functions require soldiers when the unit is in its cantonment. I'll put lieutenants, captains, and warrants with no talent for command or staff work into those slots, along with soldiers whose disabilities keep them out of combat or training roles. This should have the effect of reducing my previously published head count.

A friend in Iraq who also played Twilight: 2000 at one point came up with the idea of the GS1. The GS1 is a civilian who does grunt work in return for government rations and a government bed. There will be lots of these people in post-TDM America. It will be easy to find civilians to haul things, dig holes, and do other manual labor for a meal and a place to sleep. There's no need to have soldiers do any of that, unless the need for labor is incredibly acute. (It will be, in certain locations) By the same token, teaching a civilian mechanic to repair Army vehicles and equipment within the confines of the cantonment may enable the Army to put someone fit to fight into a line unit. Teaching a civilian technician to service Army electronics--what few items of electronics remain--may serve the same function. If the mechanic and the technician are not fit for service, then the real economy has been in using the bodies available to generate the most combat power. The GS1 can take care of a lot of the menial tasks, so long as the GS1 can actually be fed and sheltered.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As long as you can find the safety and how to load and cock the weapon, chances are you can use it....

I agree. I have a strong academic interest in firearms despite having handled and/or fired only a dozen different types and I always take note when looking at weapon photos and specs about where the safety and other controls are and how the weapon operates. So often in films and on TV I see shows where characters that obviously have little or no experience with firearms find themselves picking up a weapon and pointing it at the bad guy and I often think to myself 'man I hope you at least have enough knowledge to check that there is a round in the chamber and the safety is off'. Otherwise you are basically holding a club.