What to do with the 43,000 troops and dependents from Going Home?

[Legbreaker]

That's what I'd thought - anything but modern and survivable warships. Little more than glorified armed fishing boats really...
Not to say they wouldn't be effective in their designated roles, just look at how much tonnage has gone to the bottom due to commerce raiders, but they've no place being in a decent battle.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Little more than glorified armed fishing boats really...they've no place being in a decent battle.

That's taking creative license with dragoon's observations. At the risk of repeating myself, the class to which USCGC Gallatin belongs has a 76mm autocannon, a CIWS system and radar, and smaller autocannon. A ship like this is perfectly capable of going head-to-head with a Soviet corvette--especially if that corvette is out of missile reloads. Whether corvette-on-corvette counts as a decent battle depends a good deal on whether one is present or not.

[Legbreaker]

But would that soviet corvette be found without missiles or nearby friends? I tend to doubt it unless the overall situation was VERY desperate.
In the first year or the war, the USCG ships would be outclassed, out gunned and likely on the bottom. Any which survive past 1997 are likely to see their survivability increase, but they're still at a substantial disadvantage against a purpose built military vessel.
Come 2000, any with fuel and three rounds for their main gun will be a very decent threat in most areas of the world, but should they face even damaged opposition...
Do coast guard vessels have any anti-air defences? If not then they're vulnerable to anyone in a hang glider who's mad enough to fire a LAW down at them... (crazy I know, but surely somebody in hollywood has thought of it?)

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Do coast guard vessels have any anti-air defences? If not then they're vulnerable to anyone in a hang glider who's mad enough to fire a LAW down at them... (crazy I know, but surely somebody in hollywood has thought of it?)

You do realize that if you point the LAW down to shoot you tip the back end up. Firing the Hang glider would catch the full back blast. Down would come the glider like Icarus with burning wings.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

You do realize that if you point the LAW down to shoot you tip the back end up. Firing the Hang glider would catch the full back blast. Down would come the glider like Icarus with burning wings.

Leg and I both served in the Army Reserve (and Leg in the regular Australian Army as well) and both fired LAWs. I'm sure he's well aware of the Back Blast Danger Area. I don't agree with Leg's characterisation of high endurance USCG cutters as being "little more than glorified armed fishing boats". I also suspect that (as has been intimated by previous posters) USCG vessels would be up-gunned once the USCG was brought into the fold of the USN during the Twilight War.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

You do realize that if you point the LAW down to shoot you tip the back end up. Firing the Hang glider would catch the full back blast. Down would come the glider like Icarus with burning wings.

Absolutely. I was using that as a ridiculous example (note the hollywood reference) of how vulnerable a vessel is without anti-air weapons.

No doubt that these vessels would be uparmed and the electronics updated, as long as weapon and electronics systems were available. Dedicated military vessels will always receive priority which means it's quite likely many USCG vessels wouldn't receive much more than a new paint job.

[Webstral]

Leg, take a deep breath. When you think your posts through carefully, you contribute as well as anyone here. When you snap off a half-baked hip shot, you leave your posts open to critique, which leads all too often to bruised pride and more half-baked hip shots. For my part, I prefer to interact with the Legbreaker who doesn't feel like he has to defend an observation that came out of the oven too soon.

The deployment strategy of the US Coast Guard in the event of a NATO-Soviet conflict was given lots of thought by people with lots of expertise and careers to devote to that sort of thing. I'm not claiming that said deployment strategy was perfect or anything like it. I am claiming that during the Cold War some thought was given to balancing the demands on the USCG with the means.

As for desperate situations, it's nuclear war. The Soviets have lost their Northern Fleet by 1998, with the exception of fast attack ships like the missile-armed corvettes. Fuel is short in any event. The Soviet fast attack ships are notorious for not having reloads available onboard. The Red Banner Fleet HQ got hit during the nuke exchange, so we should expect some shortages. Missiles, which aren't carried aboard the corvettes in great quantities, is a reasonable place to expect shortages.

Now, one has to draw distinctions between a high endurance cutter like Gallatin and much smaller cutters like Bainbridge Island. At 110' and with a single 25mm autocannon, Bainbridge Island is poorly equipped to mix it up with a genuine naval combatant. Gallatin, at 378' and armed with a 76mm gun, a CIWS (useful for knocking down SSM and rogue hang gliders), smaller autocannon, and possibly a helo, is a reasonable candidate for trans-Atlantic escort duty as part of a much larger force in 1997 or as a primary combatant after the nuclear exchange. Upgrades to the weapons package only make Gallatin more likely to draw escort duty. Bainbridge Island probably never would venture off the continental shelf.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Leg, take a deep breath. When you think your posts through carefully, you contribute as well as anyone here. When you snap off a half-baked hip shot, you leave your posts open to critique, which leads all too often to bruised pride and more half-baked hip shots.

Fair comment.
Often times I purposefully leave openings to promote discussion (such as the hang gliding LAW). Sometimes I'm tired and my brain isn't quite in gear. I'm NEVER looking to cause an arguement though.

Originally Posted by Webstral

As for desperate situations, it's nuclear war.

I'm actually in pretty close agreement with you on most of your points. The only significant difference is that I can't see upgrades occuring quickly enough to most of the CG vessels to make any impact - there's too many other more important priorities out there for the limited resources.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

You do realize that if you point the LAW down to shoot you tip the back end up. Firing the Hang glider would catch the full back blast. Down would come the glider like Icarus with burning wings.

Yeah, I always loved that shot near the end of Rambo 2, Electric Buggaloo (or whatever they called it) where he fires the LAW from the seat of of the helicopter he's flying. He just fried all those rescued POWs in the back, and probably damaged the helicopter enough that it went down. If they were portraying reality. Do you know how many young troops I had to disabuse of the notion to fire a LAW from enclosed spaces after that? Hollywood sucks sometimes...

[Legbreaker]

How about in Rambo III when he is able to drive, load and fire the tank all by himself all at the same time?
Of course if you want pure ridiculousness, there's always the A Team movie and their flying tank... I wonder if a certain Mr Sparks was involved with that? Oh, wait, it wasn't an M113 so that would be a no.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Yeah, I always loved that shot near the end of Rambo 2, Electric Buggaloo (or whatever they called it) where he fires the LAW from the seat of of the helicopter he's flying. He just fried all those rescued POWs in the back, and probably damaged the helicopter enough that it went down. If they were portraying reality. Do you know how many young troops I had to disabuse of the notion to fire a LAW from enclosed spaces after that? Hollywood sucks sometimes...

Heh, you should have just stuck up a few posters of this:



I'm reminded of Tyne Daley nearly getting her face baked off by one in that Dirty Harry movie.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Absolutely. I was using that as a ridiculous example (note the hollywood reference) of how vulnerable a vessel is without anti-air weapons.

No doubt that these vessels would be uparmed and the electronics updated, as long as weapon and electronics systems were available. Dedicated military vessels will always receive priority which means it's quite likely many USCG vessels wouldn't receive much more than a new paint job.

Ok, just checking. I'm the FNG here. So you guys will have years of inside jokes on me.

Onto AAA on boats. *shudders* Boats.

Guys the US DoD is myopic on weapons. We don't look to re-use or re-purpose anything. Totally foolish waste like using M60 MBTs and the Oriskanny for crying out loud to make artificial reefs.

What would the USCG get probably .50cals on flexible mounts and MANPADs. The RH202 20mm is seen on a Naval mount and the MK19.

The lack of triple A is less a concern in convoys across the Atlantic because other assets will see it at a distance and deal with it. Now in the Caribbean a ship could get jumped quick if warplanes can use the islands to screen.

Thats what separates an Admiral from a casualty.

Maybe the Coasties do go on Convoys or the Navy uses them in defense of the US Shore freeing up other vessels. Play to the hulls strengths.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Maybe the Coasties do go on Convoys or the Navy uses them in defense of the US Shore freeing up other vessels. Play to the hulls strengths.

I'm sorry, are we in the same universe here? Would the military actually do something logical?

With regard to backblast, we were taught in jungle warfare that the M72 is best used in reverse. The arming distance is usually greater than you can see and the backblast is MUCH more likely to injure an enemy unless you manage a direct hit with the unarmed rocket. This principle applies to all close terrain such as inside buildings.
The blast may not kill, but it's certain to give them a bad hair day and make them think twice about sticking around!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I'm sorry, are we in the same universe here? Would the military actually do something logical?

With regard to backblast, we were taught in jungle warfare that the M72 is best used in reverse. The arming distance is usually greater than you can see and the backblast is MUCH more likely to injure an enemy unless you manage a direct hit with the unarmed rocket. This principle applies to all close terrain such as inside buildings.
The blast may not kill, but it's certain to give them a bad hair day and make them think twice about sticking around!

My short stint in the National Guard before going back to active was grenades in the offense and Claymores in the defense.

Anybody behind you had to be pissssssssssssssssed.

Claymore back blast is mitigated for the firer by keeping something between you and the back of the mine or better get low in a foxhole.

No I can safely say that reversing a LAW in woodland combat never came up.