Where are the US airforce and Navy ground Units

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Olefin

"Some medium flatbed trucks carried the Soviet-made ZPU and ZU-23-2 towed anti-aircraft twin or quad barreled guns, as well as recoilless rifles and S-5 rocket helicopter rocket launcher pods. Some rebels have improvised with captured heavy weaponry, like BMP-1 turrets and helicopter rocket pods, as well as lower-tech methods such as using doorbells to ignite rocket-launched ammunition."

Good point. I've seen some great photos on this forum and dedicated Technicals threads on other forums showing some of the wild and crazy technicals the Libyan resistance were fielding during the recent "regime change". In particular I was pleased to see helicopter rocket pods being succesfully used in improvised vehicle mounts as in my last T2K campaign the PCs got their hands on an up-armoured dirt track speedway sedan with a rocket pod mounted on a roof ring mount.

[dragoon500ly]

This link to the US Navy Naval Infantry...the USN actually trained naval infantry as late as the mid-1960s.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/...l_infantry.htm

[Tegyrius]

Bringing this thread back from the grave, and back to some of its original discussions... the LSOZI blog recently ran an article on French WWII ground combat units composed of naval volunteers. In a sign of the times, or perhaps a sign of the tech base of the day:

In the case of both regiments, the conversion from manning battleships and cruisers to operating armored vehicles was surprisingly simple, as the men involved included high proportions of engineering, gunnery, and radio ratings.

While the skill sets might not map as well in the Twilight War, it's an interesting point to consider.

A US Navy ground unit formed post-'97 would be pretty unlikely to receive front-line US Army equipment. However, I can see a collection of machinist's mates, electrician's mates, and gunner's mates being handed the keys to a compound full of salvaged Warsaw Pact equipment and being told, "good luck, you're on your own." Depending on timing, an enterprising CO or SNCO of a newly-formed scratch unit might also have a way to arrange delivery of a batch of equipment off one of the last resupply convoys. I'm having visions of a naval mechanized task force mounted on Cadillac Gage products - Stingrays for light armor, V-series armored cars in lieu of APCs. All hastily repainted haze grey, naturally.

- C.

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Bringing this thread back from the grave, and back to some of its original discussions... the LSOZI blog recently ran an article on French WWII ground combat units composed of naval volunteers. In a sign of the times, or perhaps a sign of the tech base of the day:



While the skill sets might not map as well in the Twilight War, it's an interesting point to consider.

A US Navy ground unit formed post-'97 would be pretty unlikely to receive front-line US Army equipment. However, I can see a collection of machinist's mates, electrician's mates, and gunner's mates being handed the keys to a compound full of salvaged Warsaw Pact equipment and being told, "good luck, you're on your own." Depending on timing, an enterprising CO or SNCO of a newly-formed scratch unit might also have a way to arrange delivery of a batch of equipment off one of the last resupply convoys. I'm having visions of a naval mechanized task force mounted on Cadillac Gage products - Stingrays for light armor, V-series armored cars in lieu of APCs. All hastily repainted haze grey, naturally.

- C.

By the closing year of World War 2 Great Britain was running surplus RN personnel through training and sending them as replacements; "marginal" U.S. Army units like AAA were being disbanded and sent as replacements to combat formations.
For the Twilight War, sailors for whom there were no more ships and excess USAF personnel could be run through a 4 - 8 week course with the "parent" unit they were being assigned to; a quick infantry basic course, some familiarization with heavy weapons and the like.
Forming them into combat units directly would probably work poorly like the Luftwaffe Field Divisions during World War 2.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

Forming them into combat units directly would probably work poorly like the Luftwaffe Field Divisions during World War 2.

(Posting before caffeine takes hold, may not be fully coherent.)

And those are the hard questions for what's left of EUCOM, aren't they? Do you dilute your remaining veteran units' competence and cohesion with onesie-twosie replacements drawn from Navy and Air Force survivors? Do you build mostly-USN and mostly-USAF units with Marine and Army veteran cadre? Or do you stand up "dedicated" USN and USAF ground units knowing that they'll be little more than speed bumps? The latter may preserve a bit more capability in your Army and Marine Corps formations, but it'll be damned hard on the speed bumps... though they might find some use as rear-area security or cantonment defense (to the everlasting resentment of the guys who keep getting sent forward).

It also may come down to whether the surviving admirals and USAF generals have any remaining political power to keep personnel under their respective commands.

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Do you dilute your remaining veteran units' competence and cohesion with onesie-twosie replacements drawn from Navy and Air Force survivors? Do you build mostly-USN and mostly-USAF units with Marine and Army veteran cadre? Or do you stand up "dedicated" USN and USAF ground units knowing that they'll be little more than speed bumps? The latter may preserve a bit more capability in your Army and Marine Corps formations, but it'll be damned hard on the speed bumps... though they might find some use as rear-area security or cantonment defense (to the everlasting resentment of the guys who keep getting sent forward).

It also may come down to whether the surviving admirals and USAF generals have any remaining political power to keep personnel under their respective commands.

Those are really good questions. I think that the most likely destination for "homeless" USAF and USN personnel is established Army and Marine units as replacements.

The Army and Marines have established organizational and doctrinal systems in place to incorporate combat replacements. During a total war, it's very likely that basic training for the average draftee would be somewhat truncated, so, by the time that surviving USAF and USN personnel are surplus to requirements, Army and Marine units would already have hands-on experience with integrating lightly-trained replacements in veteran formations.

A few clues from canon support this hypothesis. The 1-2.2e US Vehicle Guide doesn't include any USAF or USN infantry units of regimental or greater strength. The USVG does, however, include a plate (E2) portraying an ex-USAF Peacekeeper armored car seconded to a US Army ACR in Germany. The plate description also mentions other Peacemakers reassigned to an ANG unit in Oklahoma. If there were standalone USAF infantry units, these vehicles would be a natural fit; instead, they're described as being assigned to existing Army formations. It's a small sample size, granted, but AFAIK, canon makes no mention of USAF or USN ground line units. That's not to say that an Army division couldn't include a company or battalion of USAF or USN personnel but, given what little evidence exists, I think full integration into existing Army/USMC formations is the more likely option.

For anyone interested, additional musings on this topic can be found here:

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2126

-

[Desert Mariner]

I might be overthinking this, but I don’t believe there’s a one-size-fits-all answer. Given their specialized skill sets, some USN and USAF personnel could prove too valuable to be used solely as rifle-carrying infantry replacements—at least, not right away.

Possible examples:

• A grounded F-16 pilot now serving as convoy commander for a mixed-service logistics detachment.
• A Navy machinist’s mate acting as lead mechanic in an USMC armored recovery team.
• A former USAF weather technician repurposed as the unofficial S2 (Intel) officer for a provisional infantry company, thanks to her expertise in map reading and terrain analysis.
• An Air Force Security Police detachment reassigned as the quick reaction force (QRF) for an Army-run supply depot.
• A Navy corpsman now fully integrated as a line medic within an Army infantry company.
• A Navy aviation ordnanceman, his carrier long scuttled, now serving as the armorer for a Marine-led fire support team.

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

(Posting before caffeine takes hold, may not be fully coherent.)

And those are the hard questions for what's left of EUCOM, aren't they? Do you dilute your remaining veteran units' competence and cohesion with onesie-twosie replacements drawn from Navy and Air Force survivors? Do you build mostly-USN and mostly-USAF units with Marine and Army veteran cadre? Or do you stand up "dedicated" USN and USAF ground units knowing that they'll be little more than speed bumps? The latter may preserve a bit more capability in your Army and Marine Corps formations, but it'll be damned hard on the speed bumps... though they might find some use as rear-area security or cantonment defense (to the everlasting resentment of the guys who keep getting sent forward).

It also may come down to whether the surviving admirals and USAF generals have any remaining political power to keep personnel under their respective commands.

- C.

I believe you are quite correct-which officers will or at least want to hold on to as many personnel as possible without "losing" them to the Army? How many Blue to Green would an Admiral or Air Force Commander tolerate or allow? That's the $64,000 question.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

I believe you are quite correct-which officers will or at least want to hold on to as many personnel as possible without "losing" them to the Army? How many Blue to Green would an Admiral or Air Force Commander tolerate or allow? That's the $64,000 question.

Therin lies the rub. If a USAF commander has 2,000 on-base personnel and only three operable aircraft, how do they justify holding on to the bulk of that force when a nearby Army division is losing combat troops at an unsustainable rate?

This kind of internecine politicking could make for really interesting campaign dynamics.

I suppose a USAF or USN CO could flat out refuse orders from higher HQ* to relinquish control over his/her personnel...

And thus, many a warlord is born.


*Does the JCS survive the TDM? I'm wondering what entity would have ultimate command authority over inter-service personnel transfers.

-