Airbase Personnel 2000/2001

[kalos72]

So to carry of the other thread, I have some questions about airbases and the units that would stay behind if the operations units were moved overseas or something.

Let's look at Vance AFB, its a training base. Canon has never said that they pulled trainers into Europe so I assume the T-6's or the T-38's are still there, no unit would have been moved out to Europe if the airplanes stayed right?

So it logical to say then that these units were all on the base for most of the war at least? This isnt about whats left or how effective or how many people still live there, just would the unit stay on base?

Units today


14th Operations Group (14 OG)

37th Flying Training Squadron (37 FTS) T-6 Texan II "Bengal Tigers"
41st Flying Training Squadron (41 FTS) T-6 Texan II "Flying Buzzsaws"
43d Flying Training Squadron (43 FTS) T-6 Texan II, T-1 Jayhawk, and T-38 Talon
48th Flying Training Squadron (48 FTS) T-1 Jayhawk "Alley Cats"
49th Fighter Training Squadron (49 FTS)T-38 Talon "Black Knights"
50th Flying Training Squadron (50 FTS) T-38 Talon "Strikn' Snakes
14th Operations Support Squadron (14 OSS)
14th Student Squadron (14 STUS) "Eagles"
14th Mission Support Group (14 MSG)

14th Civil Engineering Squadron (14 CES)
14th Communications Squadron (14 CS)
14th Contracting Squadron (14 CONS)
14th Logistics Readiness Squadron (14 LRS)
14th Security Forces Squadron (14 SFS)
14th Mission Support Squadron (14 MSS)
14th Medical Group (14 MDG)

[Legbreaker]

As replacement aircraft became scarce, and replacement crew even scarcer (you can patch up a machine easier than a person), the instructors, who are often amongst the best the military has, would probably be pulled back to combat service.
Some of the trainers may have been armed and sent to provide ground support against the Mexicans and Soviets, a handful closer to the front in Europe, Korea and the Middle East to provide training there, and the rest maybe mothballed or used as donor aircraft for parts.
With a lack of fuel and little chance of sending reinforcements from the US to the various theatres, it seems somewhat wasteful to keep the units together, especially when you consider inexperienced cadets were pushed into combat.

[kato13]

The unit would only stay on base if that is where it was decided they were most useful. But IMO that is unlikely.

Think about what MILGOVs task list looks like the first week of December 1997. If a unit cannot perform their current mission or if that mission would not yield immediate results, you can be damn sure that someone somewhere could use that manpower.

Air support units might not be redeployed immediately, but three years out is a different story. I can see the unit staying in place to guard somewhat significant fuel reserves initially. But that fuel would soon be tasked to nearby units with greater need. Any remaining aircraft, spares, maintenance equipment, etc would be valuable resources that MILGOV would want to protect, but other tasks in the area with higher priority would pull portions of the unit away.

Keeping the unit on an inactive base represents not only the loss of the manpower of that unit, but also any logistical support that needs to be sent to that unit.

The best of the unit would probably be redeployed with a couple of aircraft to wherever units are still flying as trainers can do low fuel use recon missions. Some might be kept to maintain the local MILGOV commanders personal helicopters and C-12.

If you look at unit conversion for the Iraq conflict, you had all sorts of units converted to quasi infantry simply because that is what the conflict required. You were not fighting masses of tanks so MLRS trained troops were doing street patrols. I think that would be the fate of a majority of the unit you are discussing. Being converted to some type of light infantry or light engineering tasked to riot control and disaster recovery, because those are the greatest needs.

[kalos72]

OK, I get the logical point, but there is no canonical reference to Air Force units being pulled from bases or trainer aircraft being used in combat.

This unit represent 250 aircraft and 1000's of people. If this happened on every base, the ever present lack of military power would be solved in the US and so would alot of the "US is in chaos" type issues since ever location with a AFB would have a significant military force to at very least police the area.

Not to mention the forces left at other military installations...

I can see some pilots, and even a squadron or two perhaps being moved overseas or to Colorado perhaps along with thier support group maybe.

But what units would typical stay behind when its planes get deployed. Think of Iraq...what units would stay behind?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by kalos72

OK, I get the logical point, but there is no canonical reference to Air Force units being pulled from bases or trainer aircraft being used in combat.

It's sort of implied I'd think. If there were significant forces remaining, they'd probably have been detailed in at least one of the books.

Iraq is a totally different situation. It was essentially a one sided operation and there was not even a real sniff of danger to the homeland. Society rolled on as normal, with most people barely even aware the military had been deployed. Units in Iraq were able to be rotated and troops given leave.

Better to compare T2K US with real world areas such as Somalia today - not perfect by any means, but a far closer comparison than the deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan.

[kato13]

I could see base population drop by as much as 85%. I am looking at units deployed to Iraq and I find cases where an Air Group is deployed and then later expanded to a wing by absorbing additional forces. Iraq for example was the first time a base security unit exceeded 900 personnel since Vietnam. In the twilight war that would need to happen around the world.

The natural place to draw these forces from is safe/secure homeland bases. At least before TDM (wait scratch that the US was still deploying divisions after TDM so maybe logic goes out the window.)

Even with substantial forces remaining in the US that are not mentioned in any of the canon, it would not be enough to keep the US from some very dark times.

The efforts of the US military is a significant reason 48% of the pre war population are alive, but a lot of our infrastructure is lost along with the 52% of the population.

A standard rule of thumb is one enforcement officer can control 10 angry members of the populace (25-50 if on horseback). Until local stability is achieved there are going to be a lot of times the military simply can't muster enough to meet the threshold of control.

Some units will be over run. Canon supports this in the last submarine and armies of the night module.

Some units will disband or even turn marauder when MILGOVs logistical network can no longer support them.

A few units will take serious causalities in the MILGOV/CIVGOV split.

As in every war prior disease will ravage some units.

In my very personal opinion the US was on the canvas for a long 6 count (maybe even saved by the bell). The question is what happens after. If you follow HW a Haymaker simply floors them. I however chose to have the US, battered an bloody, raise their fists and get ready for round 2. A personal choice that I know some don't agree with, but it is a game and the point is to have fun. So that is what I choose.

Originally Posted by Steve Rodgers

I can do this all day.

[kalos72]

I think Iraq is a fair example, there was no threat to the homeland envisioned in this war either, at first. Then the bombs dropped...but at that point would the US still have the means of getting these untrained personnel, for the roles they might server over seas anyway, across a nuke ravaged country and then across the ocean, with no navy left, to become cannon fodder?

And its not like MILGOV has been great at getting things organized back home, how would they organize the round up of 100 bases full of men and equipment and then transport them in 1999+...at some point they are going to say "stay put and secure your location, try to assist local populations as able."

I think the questions here are two fold:
1. What units would TYPICALLY be left to secure a base once its operational units and perhaps their immediate support units were deployed?

2. At what point would the US consider themselves in so much trouble they would even try to collect and command/control these types of units?

[Legbreaker]

The moment the nukes fell on the US every man, woman and animal in uniform, or that had ever worn a uniform would have been mobilised for civil defence/disaster relief duties. With the vast bulk of the military overseas already, every warm body would be needed - there's just no way a unit would be left sitting idle anywhere.
Meanwhile, the war rages on, and as of early 1998 it's raging on five separate fronts, two of which are on home soil. All of these need to be supported while the remaining authorities struggle to keep the country from simply imploding.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by kalos72

I think the questions here are two fold:
1. What units would TYPICALLY be left to secure a base once its operational units and perhaps their immediate support units were deployed?

All personal opinions of course.

If 15 percent of the original base population stays behind it would be a mix of Admin/support/maintainance-facilities/security.

I don't think the US military's standard 10:1 tail to tooth ratio would apply as the cupboard would be pretty bare and lots of people with obsolete training would be moved to security.

Originally Posted by kalos72

2. At what point would the US consider themselves in so much trouble they would even try to collect and command/control these types of units?

Abandonment of bases would start happening in Jan-Mar 1998 when stocks start running out. The Mexican invasion in May would be the event that really gets it rolling.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by kato13

Abandoning of bases would start happening in Jan-Mar 1998 when stocks start running out. The Mexican invasion in May would be the event that really gets it rolling.

Any base seen as a potential nuclear target may even be abandoned before then with anything not nailed down taken with them and the unit and it's resources disbursed to reduce it's likelihood of being a target.

The only bases I can see continuing to be occupied are those vital to the war effort and/or sufficiently hardened against nuclear attack.

[Raellus]

Base personnel would be kept on base as long as the base was strategically useful.

Without operational aircraft, an airbases strategic importance wanes significantly.

Once the aircraft are gone (destroyed, deployed, inoperable due to a lack of fuel and/or spare parts), the ground crews, base admin, security, etc, would be transferred elsewhere- either to a base with operable aircraft or, as the war drags on, to the infantry.

There's precedent in a modern total war. In the last few months of WWII, as the Red Army closed in on Germany from the east and the Western Allies from the West, the Luftwaffe, which had been eviscerated by the destruction of German oil and synthetic fuel production facilities, and the loss of experienced pilots, transferred a significant percentage of their support personnel to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe ground forces to fight as infantry.

In the v1.0 U.S. Army vehicle guide, there are a couple of ex-USAF AFVs shown to be in Army service. It is either implied or stated outright that they'd lost original raison d'etre in the wake of aircraft atttrition and fuel/spare shortages.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Any base seen as a potential nuclear target may even be abandoned before then with anything not nailed down taken with them and the unit and it's resources disbursed to reduce it's likelihood of being a target.

The only bases I can see continuing to be occupied are those vital to the war effort and/or sufficiently hardened against nuclear attack.

A very good point. There must be some sort of plan for this. I wonder if anything has been declassified.

Canon wise the only bases hit were Missile and Space wings IIRC, but when a single boomer can wipe out 200 bases in the time it takes to boil water for tea I can certainly see there being quite a bit of dispersion.

I don't recall any US based units mentioning this in their history. Heck the 49th Armored stays in Chicago making it a doubly ripe target. We as the reader "know" the bases won't be hit so I honestly never though of it, but it should have been on someone's mind.

[kalos72]

Come 1998 isn't the fact that the military has 1000 men at an airbase to control the local population or keep the local machine shops/tools/equipment secure all strategically useful? An 5000 acre military facility isnt exactly something you can replace at this point...

I cant see giving up the entire facility if there was a reason to keep them there. It seems to be rather logical that the cost of moving them across country versus their usefulness in Texas, for example, would need to considered. Especially if you think it wouldn't happen unto 1998, the timeline states the US used the last of the fuel reserves for the harvest.

Also, no units in the US have absorbed entire units like that from other services even. Yes, giving up their armor/vehicles sure...

[Raellus]

Yes, some, maybe most, airbases would be held onto, at least by skeleton crews, but others would be sacrificed if the manpower could be used elsewhere (other, more important bases or the infantry). Think about the base closures of the last couple of decades. Just because a base currently exists doesn't necessarily mean that it will remain important enough to always exit. There's a term for that kind of logical fallacy but it's escaping me ATM.

Originally Posted by kalos72

Also, no units in the US have absorbed entire units like that from other services even. Yes, giving up their armor/vehicles sure...

So it wouldn't happen then? Why not?

Look at the manpower strength of the USAF at the height of the Cold War. What percentage of that strength did non-flight crews make up? 75% at least? Then consider attrition due to combat operations losses and conventional/NBC strikes on airbases. Now consider the percentage of aircraft still flying or capable of flying in 2000 and beyond (T2K timeline). You'd be left with thousands of USAF personnel that would be surplus to requirements. It doesn't make much sense to station them all at bases where no significant flight ops are taking place, nor does it make sense to overstaff bases where flight ops are still taking place. What then to do with them? The army is starving for manpower. If surplus air force personnel were transferred to the the army by a major military during a modern total war, why wouldn't happen in the U.S. military in a T2K WWIII scenario?

[kato13]

The answer as it is to most military questions is "Logistics"

Every military leader in history has not wanted to abandon land, but there are always limits to what you can control. What MILGOV can do in an area is limited by how many resources and how relatively little chaos there is in that area.

Maybe one can look at the Causalities by state that Chico drew up. (Ill add a link when i find it) http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=906 post 4

Perhaps if a state has 38% remaining prewar population you could say there was a 19% chance a particular base in that state was never abandoned. ( I divided by half but you could adjust accordingly)


edit chico not web

[kalos72]

The fact that MILGOV has units spread out all over the country implies they are trying to control as much land/population as possible to me.

If I can control part of the state, I dont have army units to do it with, why would I go through the expense of moving them to another area to do the same thing? Plus, the more units I have in my direct control, the more I have to feed. At least if they stay in place, they can work with the locals like the 78th does to feed themselves.

All the while, keeping some governmental control over an area where right now, I have none and cant afford to try and secure myself.

As for the Germany reference, thats logical because with the Russians approaching there will be no Germany left if they dont stop them. For the US though, there is no real outside threat of that scale to worry about.

The Mexicans aren't going to take over the country and to date the Soviets are stuck in the pacific Northwest and Alaska. The only concern is the control of the states and their resources, like an air base full of buildings/supplies and equipment.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by kalos72

The fact that MILGOV has units spread out all over the country implies they are trying to control as much land/population as possible to me.

This reminds me of two quotes

One from Napoleon.
When presented with a plan to protect the borders of France by using a very thin line of troops evenly spread across the entire border, his response was.

"What are you protecting me from, Smugglers???"

And one from Sun Tzu
'If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.'

Forces need mass to be effective. Isolated units are more prone take losses from insurgencies and desertion and without providing logistical support they loyalty would be difficult to guarantee.

Webs Fort Huachuca shows a perfect example of MILGOV losing control of a unit because it is out of its logistical support network.

In addition to desertion, the Soviets and the Mexicans MILGOV still has a lot to worry about. You also have CIVGOV, New America, marauders, warlords, separatists, etc. If you don't consolidate gains and fully stabilize parts of the nation you risk losing it all.

[Raellus]

OK, Kalos, I see your point and I think it's a valid one. I'm not arguing that all surplus USAF personnel would be ceded to the Army. In fact, I think my vision of USAF personnel in Army service better applies to overseas operations where combat is more intense and manpower needs are more dire.

If USAF personnel can be effectively used to secure valuable territory in the U.S.A., there's no need to transfer them to a different service/task. On the other hand, not every airbase, or its surrounding territory, is going to be considered valuable to MilGov. You're still going to have surplus USAF personnel. Where do they go?

Looking at unit distributions in the U.S., there are large swaths of territory without any significant MilGov or CivGov presence. Putting aside Web's Thunder Empire materials for a moment (Not that there's anything wrong with them at all), there's not a single MilGov or CivGov army unit listed as present in Arizona c. 2000, that despite the existence of Luke AFB, Davis-Monthan AFB, and Ft. Huachuca (not to mention the USMC base facilities in Yuma). What does that mean? Does it mean that the USAF is solely responsible for securing/defending that area? If there are significant USAF cantonments, I wonder why the designers didn't list them. I'm not intimately acquainted with all of the CONUS modules so perhaps such lists exist.

Originally Posted by kato13

In addition to desertion, the Soviets and the Mexicans MILGOV still has a lot to worry about. You also have CIVGOV, New America, marauders, warlords, separatists, etc. If you don't consolidate gains and fully stabilize parts of the nation you risk losing it all.

Kato nailed it here.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Looking at unit distributions in the U.S., there are large swaths of territory without any significant MilGov or CivGov presence. There's not a single MilGov or CivGov army unit listed as present in Arizona c. 2000, that despite the existence of Luke AFB, Davis-Monthan AFB, and Ft. Huachuca (not to mention the USMC base facilities in Yuma). What does that mean? Does it mean that the USAF is solely responsible for securing/defending that area? If there are significant USAF cantonments, I wonder why the designers didn't list them. I'm not intimately acquainted with all of the CONUS modules so perhaps such lists exist.

This is I think a major bone of contention in T2K, and particularly in regards to American forces in CONUS and elsewhere. To many units have been omitted, left out and overlooked for no apparent reason. There are gaps everywhere in canon sources and its led to a lively debate on this site. If ever there was a need to update the order of battle of US forces in T2K this is it.

[kalos72]

Sure consolidation is smart, assuming you can support 17 divisions in Colorado Or that you are willing to give up on the rest of the country while you secure Colorado Springs.

But since MILGOC had not consolidated his forces, can we really assume that was their intent? The intent seemed to be, for better or worse, spread out the forces to keep some control over larger amounts of the country versus consolidating all in one place.

I think they assumed th 5th Army would be enough to handle to the Mexican advance and were sadly mistaken but at that point it was too late to move additional forces to reinforce them because they used all the fuel for that last drive.

The only option was to have them stay in place and work with the locals to secure their immediate area of operations. Just like many of the details in the canon books describe.

Why this same thought would not apply to Air Force personnel or Navy personnel? Or State Guards? Coast Guard?

Losing the ability to move and support troops easily through out the country means they have to do what they cane were they can.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

This is I think a major bone of contention in T2K, and particularly in regards to American forces in CONUS and elsewhere. To many units have been omitted, left out and overlooked for no apparent reason. There are gaps everywhere in canon sources and its led to a lively debate on this site. If ever there was a need to update the order of battle of US forces in T2K this is it.

Classic example is the 173rd Airborne - which according to Frank Frey and others (waves to Raellus) is in Kenya - yet there is no mention of it at all in the US order of battle

And if you look at the King's Ransom module you see improvised units both on the US and Iranian side (the Air Force security unit and the Iranian formations that Frank created)

and if you look at Challenge you can see that there were units overlooked for sure in the order of battle - for example the Ohio National Guard units in the M1 tank factory article - and definitely the Coast Guard units that are in Rifle River

I suspect there are lots of improvised units created from Air Force personnel, National Guard units, State Guard, etc. you name it - probably mostly foot infantry, maybe with some gun trucks or the equivalent of Somalil technical and other improvised equipment - like the bank car armored cars used by New America down in Florida

[kato13]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Sure consolidation is smart, assuming you can support 17 divisions in Colorado Or that you are willing to give up on the rest of the country while you secure Colorado Springs.

I think you and I might be closer to agreement than you think but you are taking my concept of consolidation to the largest extreme.

I have a data file (I will attach the excel version and look for the original document) which lists 498 military facilities active during the cold war with a "replacement cost" of 100 million dollars or more. (if you include under 100 million it reached well over 1000 IIRC)

If I were to go with a simple thought I would expect that all of those facilities would be consolidated to the command nearest of the 17 homeland Divisions.

If I am MILGOV I simply cannot maintain 498 bases. I can however see them supporting 12-15 regions each based on a division or Corps command. The regions might include multiple bases from the list, but certainly not all of them.


edit. This is not the document I used for my base information but it was similar
http://www.comw.org/qdr/basestructure1999.pdf

[kalos72]

Both documents are awesome! Thanks!

I guess maybe I can clarify, I am NOT saying that some bases might not be cannibalized and personnel/equipment wont be consolidated. Or that some bases will be closed and locked up the best ways possible, although civilian workers might just stick around and run it themselves.

Nor am I saying that the base/units and equipment would be approved or supported by the government. But thats not to say that some just aren't "answering the phone" any more.

But I am saying that the conclusion that all military bases are closed and consolidated within one of the documented Army units, isn't logical. Is it possible some are? Sure.

But to my OP, assuming you weren't trying to consolidate everything, what units would be left over?

[Olefin]

FYI - good link here on Air Force Security units and training

http://www.usafpolice.org/units.html

example

1st Special Operations Security Forces Squadron
Hurlburt Field, FL


"Protect Who?...Protect You!" The battle cry of the 1st Special Operations Security Forces Squadron reflects their worldwide mission--providing unequalled force protection for special operations. Approximately 270 security forces members provide physical security, entry control, armed response and police services to Hurlburt Field. They also deploy around the globe to defend AFSOC resources and troops in support of 1st Special Operations Wing and United States Special Operations Command missions. This unique unit also operates one of the busiest small arms ranges in the Air Force, providing combat arms training and maintenance to Hurlburt Field, Eglin AFB, and Duke Field.

[dragoon500ly]

Perhaps a better way to look at the problem is this...I'd suggest that the major training bases would serve as "nodes" for MILGOV, they tend to have more barracks and support facilities, extra equipment, as well as training cadre so they can support replacement drafts as well as local needs.

Next up would be bases that are in position to control key points (Fort Riley to control the central plains, Camp Shelby to control the New Orleans-Mobile Gulf Coast, just to name two).

Then there would be the need to control key ports, not just Newport News, but perhaps smaller ports, large enough to handle a couple of cargo ships and an escort.

Once MILGOV had an area under control, then they could branch out to control another strategic point, Memphis-Cario perhaps, and then linking down river to Vicksburg.

Just a few thoughts while stuck in traffic.....I HATE THIS DC Commute!!!

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by kato13

All personal opinions of course.

If 15 percent of the original base population stays behind it would be a mix of Admin/support/maintainance-facilities/security.

I don't think the US military's standard 10:1 tail to tooth ratio would apply as the cupboard would be pretty bare and lots of people with obsolete training would be moved to security.





Abandonment of bases would start happening in Jan-Mar 1998 when stocks start running out. The Mexican invasion in May would be the event that really gets it rolling.

Stormlion could answer this from an SP perspective, but an element of security police with prewar auxillaries drawn from the excess admin types. Postwar could be from another branch, perhaps once wounded released from the hospitals. A flight is equal to a platoon in personnel. Also as aircraft are stored or stripped, ordinance flights have people with small arms(mostly pistols) to secure ready loads for combat ops. In 2000, OSI had a couple of Uzis stashed there as well.

[ArmySGT.]

90's era Security Police would be divided into two distinct types.......

Flight line and base Security that attended 11B school at Ft. Dix or Law Enforcement patrolmen that attended 95B school at Ft McClellan or Lackland AFB.

It is my understanding that one did not crossover to the other without a reclassification.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

90's era Security Police would be divided into two distinct types.......

Flight line and base Security that attended 11B school at Ft. Dix or Law Enforcement patrolmen that attended 95B school at Ft McClellan or Lackland AFB.

It is my understanding that one did not crossover to the other without a reclassification.

One Law Enforcement flight(LE Specialist), one Security Flight(SP Specialist), I think the Small arms instructor element was placed with them. Emergency Services Team is in the LES flight. I think even the LES goe to FT Dix for some base defense. Also the instructors at Lackland draw a mortar and the student hunt them while they act like insurgents shelling the facility. Each base is responsible for drawing and training auxillary personnel for extra manpower, like those who are searchers for plane crash victims(never pick up a flight helmet.....).

[kalos72]

So from what I am seeing, in this and another thread I found, was that even if all the air bases original personal were sent with the aircraft to another base/unit, maybe DoD forces would be used to patrol the base?

Or alternate reservists to fill in the gaps?

Or would it be like this:
14th Operations Group (14 OG)

ALL DEPLOYED TOGETHER:
37th Flying Training Squadron (37 FTS) T-6 Texan II "Bengal Tigers"
41st Flying Training Squadron (41 FTS) T-6 Texan II "Flying Buzzsaws"
43d Flying Training Squadron (43 FTS) T-6 Texan II, T-1 Jayhawk, and T-38 Talon
48th Flying Training Squadron (48 FTS) T-1 Jayhawk "Alley Cats"
49th Fighter Training Squadron (49 FTS)T-38 Talon "Black Knights"
50th Flying Training Squadron (50 FTS) T-38 Talon "Strikn' Snakes
14th Operations Support Squadron (14 OSS)
14th Student Squadron (14 STUS) "Eagles"
14th Mission Support Group (14 MSG)

NOT NECESSARILY DEPLOYED WITH THE ABOVE GROUP?
14th Civil Engineering Squadron (14 CES)
14th Communications Squadron (14 CS)
14th Contracting Squadron (14 CONS)
14th Logistics Readiness Squadron (14 LRS)
14th Security Forces Squadron (14 SFS)
14th Mission Support Squadron (14 MSS)
14th Medical Group (14 MDG)

[alexei]

I was an SP in the USAF from 1989 – 1998. The career field was divided into Security Specialists and Law Enforcement. They were combined into one Security Forces career field in early ’98, just when I was getting out.

Security guarded USAF resources (planes, nukes, etc.) on the installation. LE functioned as gate guards and cops on the base. Some bases had one or the other – most bases had both. At some bases they were used interchangeably, at other bases they were separate. The Security specialty was much larger overall. A small number of LE personnel were also trained as K9 handlers.

During the 1990’s the small arms instructors were brought under the umbrella, because those instructors and the SP’s were the only personnel on most bases to handle small arms on a regular basis. Occasionally for major exercises we got a few auxiliaries from other units, but they were generally worthless.

Both Security and LE went through basic training and tech school at Lackland. Those selected as K9 handlers went through an additional course after LE tech school. Then both Security and LE went through a month of Air Base Ground Defense (ABGD) training at Ft. Dix. In the mid 90’s they moved ABGD training to Camp Bullis near San Antonio. ABGD was very basic infantry skills similar to what is taught in Army basic and AIT.

Some bases had mobility commitments, so the cops would deploy if the aircraft did. On other bases a few would deploy and be replaced by reservists or auxiliaries. For example, when I was in Japan we were slated to deploy to Korea and activate a dormant base if something kicked off over there. A squadron of reservists would replace us at our base in Japan.

Supposedly there were 81mm mortar crews at a couple bases in Korea, but as I avoided Korea like the plague I never saw those.