Iraq

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

No the v1 US military was volunteer Army by the time T2K started, it was only after the conflict had start that a draft was put back into place.

That is what I meant. During the Twilight War the US Army becomes a draft army.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Legbreaker]

On behalf of all the non-Americans out there, I'd like to remind everyone that the US has not (as far as I can recall) fought any significant conflict alone.

WWI - the US entered late. Although inexperienced and using (on the whole) outdated tactics, their additional numbers helped tip the balance.

WWII - The US entered late. It was essentially left up to the British Commonwealth to hold off in Europe, Africa, the middle east AND Asia. In this time the only real help from the US was with equipment (Lend-Lease).

Korea - This was a UN operation with troops from all over the world

Vietnam - more of a US show than most, but still involved units from other countries

Gulf war - UN operation, or as good as. Units came from just about everywhere

Iraq 2003 - included troops from the US, UK and Australia

T2K - on the nato side includes Germany, Norway, Denmark, USA, UK, Holand, and Canada (just to name a few).

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

On behalf of all the non-Americans out there, I'd like to remind everyone that the US has not (as far as I can recall) fought any significant conflict alone.

WWI - the US entered late. Although inexperienced and using (on the whole) outdated tactics, their additional numbers helped tip the balance.

WWII - The US entered late. It was essentially left up to the British Commonwealth to hold off in Europe, Africa, the middle east AND Asia. In this time the only real help from the US was with equipment (Lend-Lease).

Yes entered late, but they US Army had plenty of time to trained in both wars before they entered combat.

Korea - This was a UN operation with troops from all over the world

Come as you are war. Units were rushed into battle due to need to support the South Korean military that was almost overran before the it started.

Vietnam - more of a US show than most, but still involved units from other countries

Troops received extra intense training before they deployed, but with the units that were there for the duration and with the individual replacement program, very little unit cohesiveness.

Gulf war - UN operation, or as good as. Units came from just about everywhere

Spent several months for build up and intensive training while they defensive line. Seen limited ground action during this time and repelled Iraqi push south and various probes during this time too. Exposed the flaw of thinking of Round-out Brigades could be deployed combat in rapid fashion, not one of the so called Round-out Brigade made it to the theater.

Iraq 2003 - included troops from the US, UK and Australia

Back to come as you are war again, undertaking of major war with limited resources that were already committed. Instead of individual replacement after every 12 month like there was in Vietnam, after the fall of the Iraqi government. Entire units at Divisional HQ with individual Brigade were rotated in and out after tours ranging from 12 month and upward to 15 months (many of the times these tours were extended on upwards of three months). Marine units usually rotated in and out at higher turn over rate. Troop drain for another theater of operations.

T2K - on the nato side includes Germany, Norway, Denmark, USA, UK, Holand, and Canada (just to name a few).

Again a come as you are war. There was limited time to train after the Germans started the war and when they ask for help, but still the units had to go to war as they were with limited stand up training.

Funny thing is I don't recall anyone saying the US went to all these wars on there own....Did I miss something...

[Legbreaker]

The point is that most posts appear to be written as if the US were the central, if not only participants.

Clearly this is not the case.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The point is that most posts appear to be written as if the US were the central, if not only participants.

Sorry sir, no such implication has been given. I think you are punching at phantoms.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The point is that most posts appear to be written as if the US were the central, if not only participants.

Clearly this is not the case.

Well you have to admit post WWII, US forces were the central participants (from a command perspective) in all of the conflicts you mentioned. Actually if you look at the command structure of Allied forces at they end of WWII they would probably be considered the central participant as well.

I am "guilty" of US-centriic thinking in the game, but the game kinda starts out that way so I can see how people get into that mindset.

If someone wants to chime in on how a V1 Desert Storm would have effected other nations I can't imagine there would be any objections. I would actually be very interested in hearing how the conflict effected British forces.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

If someone wants to chime in on how a V1 Desert Storm would have effected other nations I can't imagine there would be any objections. I would actually be very interested in hearing how the conflict effected British forces.

...or anyone's forces, for that matter. I'm sure we'd all derive good value from seeing some work on how a v1 Desert Storm would affect the preparedness of the Australian military for the Twilight War. Leg, is that a mission you'd be willing to take on?

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Going on near 20 year old memory, I think we only had two frigates and a supply ship involved - no ground forces beyond the odd individual on exchange.
It's hard to say how that would impact on land forces...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by kato13

If someone wants to chime in on how a V1 Desert Storm would have effected other nations I can't imagine there would be any objections. I would actually be very interested in hearing how the conflict effected British forces.

I'd be happy to take a look at that, although due to work / family commitments it'll probably take me a while.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Funny thing is I don't recall anyone saying the US went to all these wars on there own....Did I miss something...

I don't think there is an overt mention but there was a casual ignoring of it. Such as saying Desert Storm provides an additional option for combat experience for US troops, when it would provide it for many nations.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

On behalf of all the non-Americans out there, I'd like to remind everyone that the US has not (as far as I can recall) fought any significant conflict alone.

The last time the US fought a war without allies was the Spanish-American War...

... but for the life of me I cannot understand why you brought this fact up. Are any of us gringos saying that we did?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Abbott Shaull]

Well that not saying much since most Armies during a time of war are largely conscripted in nature after military action starts. How effective any of these Armies depends on the training the leadership. There have been times in history when Armies who for all practical purposes should of lost the war, but due to excellent leadership and some luck they pull off.

Granted taking a look at the conscripted Army of WWII and compare it to Korea is comparing Apple to Oranges. They were two complete different Armies. The WWII had several years of training before they were sent into battle to train together and the so called "dead wood" could be left at home before they deployed. The Korean War was come as you are war, where the troops had very little training over what they got in garrison to help in the fighting.