In-Theatre Training for Combat Replacements

[Raellus]

So, I'm working on my Task Force Inchon/Siege of Elblag stuff and I'm trying to figure out how much training U.S. Marine infantry replacements, most of whom are coming in from the USN, would have received in-theatre prior to being committed to combat operations in the summer of 2000.

This same question could also apply to other NATO militaries operating on foreign soil after the nuclear exchanges, when properly trained replacements from home countries became much rarer.

What kind of facilities/schools/methods would already be in place in Germany (or elsewhere in Europe) and/or what could be set up with the resources available after the exchanges?

Would it be too optimistic to assume that post-exchange replacements would have at least the same basic training in combat ops than pre-exchange replacement troops? If this is too optimistic, how much training would be reasonable?

[Legbreaker]

Given the fairly substantial lead in time for the operation and the fact that the navy was virtually obliterated in the first half of 1997, there's a good chance that all naval personnel assigned to the mission would have received substantial opportunities for training and could well be up to the same standard as the actual marines.
Even those assigned during the previous winter should be fairly well up to speed with their new roles (which may not be actual combat, but support - engineering, mechanical, supply, etc).

[ArmySGT.]

I would question the utility of using U.S Navy personnel as replacements for U.S. Marine Infantry.

Better to call up, draft, or shanghai green troops give them 11 weeks of Marine Basic and ship them over. All those Naval Ratings are not going to be easily replaceable with all the U.S. Naval bases nuked.

Better that they are being used to refurbish anything that will float and converting civilian dockyards or building new dock yards.

Wouldn't even be unusual to find the Naval Personnel as the largest support element is a Joint (and landlocked) Command.

Even if they don't have a ship today, another may come up from somewhere else. Maybe the Phillipines trades the U.S a Land Craft Tank for munitions or replacement parts. Maybe one of the Banana republics sells the US a former US destroyer or cruiser? Maybe the US Navy makes a deal with Brazil, Panama, Peru, or anywhere else that was spared a nuke to use a drydock to repair or build from the keel up a warship?

All those skills can be put to use somewhere even if it is just public infrastructure and those skills are going to be hard to replace when the schoolhouse is just ash.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I would question the utility of using U.S Navy personnel as replacements for U.S. Marine Infantry.

Better to call up, draft, or shanghai green troops give them 11 weeks of Marine Basic and ship them over. All those Naval Ratings are not going to be easily replaceable with all the U.S. Naval bases nuked.

I agree that your alternative is preferable, but would such trans-oceanic shipments of replacement troops continue past '98 or so in quantities that would keep up with combat attrition? v1.0 indicates that a few such shipments occured as late as early '99 and I suppose some of those replacements could have been Marines.

With the Army and Marine Corps baying for combat replacements, could the Navy, now sans most of its surface fleet and aerial assets, make a strong enough case to hold on to its beached personnel to convice the JCS (or CivGov alternative) to keep their hands off its people?

[Legbreaker]

It's doubtful any significant numbers of reinforcements would be available. The best way to utilise the otherwise useless naval personnel is to retrain them for supporting roles that keep them (relatively) out of harms way and free up others for the front lines.
However, how many reactor techs, communications experts and the like are there really going to be given the destruction of their ships around them while at sea? Those sailors who do survive being sunk aren't likely to be very great in number, and many of them are quite likely to be low ranking general hands rather than high value skilled specialists.
And there's likely to be even fewer submarine crew surviving - just look at the Last Sub modules to see just how few could be found to crew the Los Angeles, and they had almost an entire continent to draw from.

The handful of specialists would certainly be horded and transferred immediately to ships such as the John Hancock or Tarawa to make up losses there. The ratings are just more mouths to feed which can be used anywhere unskilled labour or combat replacements are needed.

Now if you work with my premise of the Tarawa being sunk during the 2000 offensive, you've suddenly got a reasonable number of naval crew clogging the beaches (numbers depending on how the Tarawa was lost and how many got ashore). The Marine commanders will see these men in two ways - more mouths to feed and protect, or useful replacements, probably both. With little to no chance of returning the sailors to a ship, thee would be quickly scooped up and put to work, some receiving a crash course in infantry tactics, others continuing in similar roles to those they had afloat (logisitics, mechanics, heavy weapons, communications).

All of them should know at least the basics of weapons handling and many should also know a bit about small unit tactics (one of the roles of the Australian navy is border protection which includes boarding ships, searching small islands, etc. They might even be better suited to urban environments than regular infantry due to their extensive experience of tight confines).

[ArmySGT.]

In reality if anyone is being shipped over, these are replacements to unit losses.

That means these are going to units that already exist and are in Theater. New formed and complete MTOE units in the V1.0 timeline would be unlikely. Units that receive replacements are going to be promoting from within their own experienced ranks. That means most are going to be desperately taking any Privates and Lieutenants they can get.

A legitimate use for U.S.N. personnel if it was decided they were necessary for Land Forces is to relieve Army and Marine Corps units of Rear (CommZ) supporting functions like port security, POW camps, Hospitals, repair depots, supply depots, Potable water, ................

This frees up Army and Marine Corps support battalions to move up with the fighting forces. U.S.N. personnel will be just as satisfactory with the rear area ADA, Radar, SatComs, as their Brethren.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

With the Army and Marine Corps baying for combat replacements, could the Navy, now sans most of its surface fleet and aerial assets, make a strong enough case to hold on to its beached personnel to convice the JCS (or CivGov alternative) to keep their hands off its people?

I would think that's doubtful. Most of the differentiation between the services today is political in nature. Take out the politicians, and reduce the power and influence of the navy and air force and the army will likely get anything and everything they want, at least in Europe. The Navy and Air Force personnel will be dependant on the army to keep them safe and supplied and it could be expected that the army wouldn't be adverse to using a little "blackmail" from time to time to get their own way - you give us 100 men and we'll feed you....

The main issue here is that come 1998 and the collapse of the US government, the military holds the reins. The Politicians are either dead, out of contact, or simply irrelevant to what's going on in the war zones. Come 1999 when the supplies from CONUS have stopped even the most loyal soldier will have to be thinking twice about paying more than lip service to whatever "power" is attempting to guide what's going on.

Even without those factors, the complete lack of replacement shipping any time in the forseeable future makes holding back manpower for active duty completely absurd. That is true whether they're used on the front lines as combat replacements, or behind the lines as MPs, logisitics, etc.

[pmulcahy11b]

There may be actual training programs in some or even many places, but I'm thinking that in a lot of places it would be like the words from an old 10000 Maniacs song:

"Stock and barrel, safety, trigger, here's your gun..."

[Legbreaker]

It's worth remembering that military units by 2000 are made up of people from all walks of life and nationality. Take the US 2nd MARDIV for example - after the 2000 actions they had troops from seven different countries and you can bet many more military arms.

The character generation rules for all versions support multiple origins and minimal retraining also. I'm sure that for an operation such as the 2000 offensive as much preparation would have been done as possible, but with the chaos that ensued after the kickoff and subsequent Pact counteroffensive, whatever the situation was after a month of action would have little relationship to what was beforehand.

Getting back to the TF Inchon idea, my guess is that roughly half of those in Elblag would not be actual marines, but stragglers form the US 8th ID, a handful of locals, a few Pact deserters/collaborators and the rest beached sailors (either intentionally as seabees, etc or shipwrecked).

[Raellus]

@Leg & ArmySGT.- You both make good points about Marine logistics units being freed up for use as combat infantry replacements by USN personnel taking over their support roles. I guess a good number of my TF Inchon infantry Marines will be ex-pencil pushers, cooks, drivers, etc.

My guess is that these folks would receive some kind of in-theatre refresher training. I'm trying to figure out what this would look like.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Getting back to the TF Inchon idea, my guess is that roughly half of those in Elblag would not be actual marines, but stragglers form the US 8th ID, a handful of locals, a few Pact deserters/collaborators and the rest beached sailors (either intentionally as seabees, etc or shipwrecked).

Maybe after the PACT counteroffensive (if the siege lasts for more than a few days), but the "fresh" TF Inchon as I've envisioned is a reinforced Marine infantry battalion (rather understrength by pre-war standards) tasked with both seizing the Elblag canal bridges for the 8th ID and holding the left flank of 2 MarDiv.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...ation+limerick

[Legbreaker]

I agree, the initial plan would certainly have called for properly trained and (hopefully) equipped marines probably supported by naval engineers and logisitics. Once it all started to come apart at the seams however all bets were off.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Raellus

@Leg & ArmySGT.- You both make good points about Marine logistics units being freed up for use as combat infantry replacements by USN personnel taking over their support roles. I guess a good number of my TF Inchon infantry Marines will be ex-pencil pushers, cooks, drivers, etc.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...ation+limerick

Rae.. remember the first thing a Marine 'crut is told.. EVERY MARINE IS A RIFLEMAN FIRST... unlike the Army and other services, the Marines would have much less problem transitioning their REMFs into combat Marines.