Battlefield Promotions

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

We cannot reduce the number of M2s much lower than that as it's also mentioned that the Apache helicopter (currently dragged around on a truck) shares ammo with the 25mm cannon of the M2s and there isn't (for 2000) a shortage of this.

The Bradley uses a 25mm M-242 Bushmaster ChainGun. The Apache uses a 30mm M-230 Bushmaster II ChainGun. They can't share ammo.

[Webstral]

Are the numbers for additional 8th ID equipment found in the Eastern European Sourcebook? I've never seen it, and from what I have heard about it I don't think I care to. From what people have written about it, the work is so shoddy that it detracts more than it adds. Perhaps it would be better to ignore the whole thing. (I know--easy for me to say, since I have no investment in the thing.)

I'm with Kato that the number of 8th ID tanks listed in the US Army Vehicle Guide can be sustained with a 1000-man organization. But helicopters? MLRS? I'd think that these assets would have been consolidated at the army level by 2000.

IFV/APC might be another matter. Several years ago, we discussed preparations for the Summer 2000 offensive into Poland. The thesis was advanced that XI Corps was selected for a concentration of available armor, etc. Without going into the details of how USAEUR would manage to gain cooperation from divisions who might be giving up some materiel, it's conceivable that 8th ID was beefed up with functional AFV at the expense of other formations. I say conceivable without making a statement about feasibility. 8th ID has 18 MBT and light tanks on the books as of July 1, 2000. It's not inconceivable that 22 M2 could be assinged to the division, giving the 1000-man force a single heavy battalion. Still, it seems like the numbers of AFV mentioned in this post are a bit sketchy for a 1000-man formation in 2000.

Webstral

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm with Kato that the number of 8th ID tanks listed in the US Army Vehicle Guide can be sustained with a 1000-man organization. But helicopters? MLRS? I'd think that these assets would have been consolidated at the army level by 2000.

Webstral

I would think that they would have consolidated aircraft on the Corps level, unless the division is primarily used for air assault. Or aircraft that would be dedicated to Close Air Support or aerial recon.

Richard

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The Bradley uses a 25mm M-242 Bushmaster ChainGun. The Apache uses a 30mm M-230 Bushmaster II ChainGun. They can't share ammo.

Yes, this is technically true, however the book states this aircraft is "luckily" an earlier model armed with the 25mm gun.

Originally Posted by Webstral

Are the numbers for additional 8th ID equipment found in the Eastern European Sourcebook? I've never seen it, and from what I have heard about it I don't think I care to. From what people have written about it, the work is so shoddy that it detracts more than it adds. Perhaps it would be better to ignore the whole thing. (I know--easy for me to say, since I have no investment in the thing.)

Personally I feel the book isn't half as bad as some say. Yes, it has it's problems, but no more than most of the GDW materials. On the whole the information presented (specifically unit strengths and locations) is quite useful even if the layout and some of the writing leaves something to be desired.
It also needs to be remembered that it is not 1.0 cannon, but 2.0/2.2. It was in fact one of the last books published for T2K.

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'd think that these assets would have been consolidated at the army level by 2000.

Perhaps these aircraft and other systems were assigned to the 8th before the offensive specifically because they, and pretty much them alone, were to secure the left, or northern flank of the spring offensive? If this is taken as true, then 42 M2s might be accurate (if we ignore the statement that most of the infantry rode in trucks), although I tend to doubt it.

[Legbreaker]

Although it may make some sense to consolidate all aircraft into one or two units, this may actually reduce their ability to function.

Fuel is really the key here. Aviation fuel is obviously only available in very small amounts, most of which is simply what's left over from the previous few years of operations (very little new stock coming into Europe after 1997-8).
Physically transfering the aircraft from one location/unit to another is going to take resources, namely fuel. This will either be aviation fuel burnt through flying the aircraft, or other fuels burnt by trucks.

Transporting any additional aviation fuel is also going to be costly, perhaps even more than shifting the aircraft themselves as it'd be a case of having to collect a few litres here, a dozen more there, etc.
Ammunition and spare parts (used or the increasingly rare new) are also going to take effort and resources to shift.

It might actually be more economical to simply leave the aircraft where they are and only consolidate when, or even if, missions allow.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, this is technically true, however the book states this aircraft is "luckily" an earlier model armed with the 25mm gun.

There was never such a model of the Apache. It's always had the 30mm autocannon.