Overseas Units and Family

[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.