RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-20-2016, 09:46 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,761
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalos72 View Post

I think the questions here are two fold:
1. What units would TYPICALLY be left to secure a base once its operational units and perhaps their immediate support units were deployed?
All personal opinions of course.

If 15 percent of the original base population stays behind it would be a mix of Admin/support/maintainance-facilities/security.

I don't think the US military's standard 10:1 tail to tooth ratio would apply as the cupboard would be pretty bare and lots of people with obsolete training would be moved to security.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kalos72 View Post
2. At what point would the US consider themselves in so much trouble they would even try to collect and command/control these types of units?
Abandonment of bases would start happening in Jan-Mar 1998 when stocks start running out. The Mexican invasion in May would be the event that really gets it rolling.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-20-2016, 09:52 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
Abandoning of bases would start happening in Jan-Mar 1998 when stocks start running out. The Mexican invasion in May would be the event that really gets it rolling.
Any base seen as a potential nuclear target may even be abandoned before then with anything not nailed down taken with them and the unit and it's resources disbursed to reduce it's likelihood of being a target.

The only bases I can see continuing to be occupied are those vital to the war effort and/or sufficiently hardened against nuclear attack.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-20-2016, 10:04 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,339
Default

Base personnel would be kept on base as long as the base was strategically useful.

Without operational aircraft, an airbases strategic importance wanes significantly.

Once the aircraft are gone (destroyed, deployed, inoperable due to a lack of fuel and/or spare parts), the ground crews, base admin, security, etc, would be transferred elsewhere- either to a base with operable aircraft or, as the war drags on, to the infantry.

There's precedent in a modern total war. In the last few months of WWII, as the Red Army closed in on Germany from the east and the Western Allies from the West, the Luftwaffe, which had been eviscerated by the destruction of German oil and synthetic fuel production facilities, and the loss of experienced pilots, transferred a significant percentage of their support personnel to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe ground forces to fight as infantry.

In the v1.0 U.S. Army vehicle guide, there are a couple of ex-USAF AFVs shown to be in Army service. It is either implied or stated outright that they'd lost original raison d'etre in the wake of aircraft atttrition and fuel/spare shortages.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-20-2016, 10:06 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,761
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Any base seen as a potential nuclear target may even be abandoned before then with anything not nailed down taken with them and the unit and it's resources disbursed to reduce it's likelihood of being a target.

The only bases I can see continuing to be occupied are those vital to the war effort and/or sufficiently hardened against nuclear attack.
A very good point. There must be some sort of plan for this. I wonder if anything has been declassified.

Canon wise the only bases hit were Missile and Space wings IIRC, but when a single boomer can wipe out 200 bases in the time it takes to boil water for tea I can certainly see there being quite a bit of dispersion.

I don't recall any US based units mentioning this in their history. Heck the 49th Armored stays in Chicago making it a doubly ripe target. We as the reader "know" the bases won't be hit so I honestly never though of it, but it should have been on someone's mind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-20-2016, 10:22 AM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Come 1998 isn't the fact that the military has 1000 men at an airbase to control the local population or keep the local machine shops/tools/equipment secure all strategically useful? An 5000 acre military facility isnt exactly something you can replace at this point...

I cant see giving up the entire facility if there was a reason to keep them there. It seems to be rather logical that the cost of moving them across country versus their usefulness in Texas, for example, would need to considered. Especially if you think it wouldn't happen unto 1998, the timeline states the US used the last of the fuel reserves for the harvest.

Also, no units in the US have absorbed entire units like that from other services even. Yes, giving up their armor/vehicles sure...
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-20-2016, 10:33 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 4,339
Default

Yes, some, maybe most, airbases would be held onto, at least by skeleton crews, but others would be sacrificed if the manpower could be used elsewhere (other, more important bases or the infantry). Think about the base closures of the last couple of decades. Just because a base currently exists doesn't necessarily mean that it will remain important enough to always exit. There's a term for that kind of logical fallacy but it's escaping me ATM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalos72 View Post
Also, no units in the US have absorbed entire units like that from other services even. Yes, giving up their armor/vehicles sure...
So it wouldn't happen then? Why not?

Look at the manpower strength of the USAF at the height of the Cold War. What percentage of that strength did non-flight crews make up? 75% at least? Then consider attrition due to combat operations losses and conventional/NBC strikes on airbases. Now consider the percentage of aircraft still flying or capable of flying in 2000 and beyond (T2K timeline). You'd be left with thousands of USAF personnel that would be surplus to requirements. It doesn't make much sense to station them all at bases where no significant flight ops are taking place, nor does it make sense to overstaff bases where flight ops are still taking place. What then to do with them? The army is starving for manpower. If surplus air force personnel were transferred to the the army by a major military during a modern total war, why wouldn't happen in the U.S. military in a T2K WWIII scenario?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-20-2016, 10:34 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,761
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

The answer as it is to most military questions is "Logistics"

Every military leader in history has not wanted to abandon land, but there are always limits to what you can control. What MILGOV can do in an area is limited by how many resources and how relatively little chaos there is in that area.

Maybe one can look at the Causalities by state that Chico drew up. (Ill add a link when i find it) http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=906 post 4

Perhaps if a state has 38% remaining prewar population you could say there was a 19% chance a particular base in that state was never abandoned. ( I divided by half but you could adjust accordingly)


edit chico not web

Last edited by kato13; 05-20-2016 at 10:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-20-2016, 10:50 AM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

The fact that MILGOV has units spread out all over the country implies they are trying to control as much land/population as possible to me.

If I can control part of the state, I dont have army units to do it with, why would I go through the expense of moving them to another area to do the same thing? Plus, the more units I have in my direct control, the more I have to feed. At least if they stay in place, they can work with the locals like the 78th does to feed themselves.

All the while, keeping some governmental control over an area where right now, I have none and cant afford to try and secure myself.

As for the Germany reference, thats logical because with the Russians approaching there will be no Germany left if they dont stop them. For the US though, there is no real outside threat of that scale to worry about.

The Mexicans aren't going to take over the country and to date the Soviets are stuck in the pacific Northwest and Alaska. The only concern is the control of the states and their resources, like an air base full of buildings/supplies and equipment.
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-20-2016, 11:17 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,761
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalos72 View Post
The fact that MILGOV has units spread out all over the country implies they are trying to control as much land/population as possible to me.
This reminds me of two quotes

One from Napoleon.
When presented with a plan to protect the borders of France by using a very thin line of troops evenly spread across the entire border, his response was.

"What are you protecting me from, Smugglers???"

And one from Sun Tzu
'If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.'

Forces need mass to be effective. Isolated units are more prone take losses from insurgencies and desertion and without providing logistical support they loyalty would be difficult to guarantee.

Webs Fort Huachuca shows a perfect example of MILGOV losing control of a unit because it is out of its logistical support network.

In addition to desertion, the Soviets and the Mexicans MILGOV still has a lot to worry about. You also have CIVGOV, New America, marauders, warlords, separatists, etc. If you don't consolidate gains and fully stabilize parts of the nation you risk losing it all.

Last edited by kato13; 05-20-2016 at 11:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-23-2016, 06:53 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
All personal opinions of course.

If 15 percent of the original base population stays behind it would be a mix of Admin/support/maintainance-facilities/security.

I don't think the US military's standard 10:1 tail to tooth ratio would apply as the cupboard would be pretty bare and lots of people with obsolete training would be moved to security.





Abandonment of bases would start happening in Jan-Mar 1998 when stocks start running out. The Mexican invasion in May would be the event that really gets it rolling.
Stormlion could answer this from an SP perspective, but an element of security police with prewar auxillaries drawn from the excess admin types. Postwar could be from another branch, perhaps once wounded released from the hospitals. A flight is equal to a platoon in personnel. Also as aircraft are stored or stripped, ordinance flights have people with small arms(mostly pistols) to secure ready loads for combat ops. In 2000, OSI had a couple of Uzis stashed there as well.

Last edited by .45cultist; 05-23-2016 at 07:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-23-2016, 07:07 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

90's era Security Police would be divided into two distinct types.......

Flight line and base Security that attended 11B school at Ft. Dix or Law Enforcement patrolmen that attended 95B school at Ft McClellan or Lackland AFB.

It is my understanding that one did not crossover to the other without a reclassification.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:29 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
90's era Security Police would be divided into two distinct types.......

Flight line and base Security that attended 11B school at Ft. Dix or Law Enforcement patrolmen that attended 95B school at Ft McClellan or Lackland AFB.

It is my understanding that one did not crossover to the other without a reclassification.
One Law Enforcement flight(LE Specialist), one Security Flight(SP Specialist), I think the Small arms instructor element was placed with them. Emergency Services Team is in the LES flight. I think even the LES goe to FT Dix for some base defense. Also the instructors at Lackland draw a mortar and the student hunt them while they act like insurgents shelling the facility. Each base is responsible for drawing and training auxillary personnel for extra manpower, like those who are searchers for plane crash victims(never pick up a flight helmet.....).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-24-2016, 10:46 AM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

So from what I am seeing, in this and another thread I found, was that even if all the air bases original personal were sent with the aircraft to another base/unit, maybe DoD forces would be used to patrol the base?

Or alternate reservists to fill in the gaps?

Or would it be like this:
14th Operations Group (14 OG)

ALL DEPLOYED TOGETHER:
37th Flying Training Squadron (37 FTS) T-6 Texan II "Bengal Tigers"
41st Flying Training Squadron (41 FTS) T-6 Texan II "Flying Buzzsaws"
43d Flying Training Squadron (43 FTS) T-6 Texan II, T-1 Jayhawk, and T-38 Talon
48th Flying Training Squadron (48 FTS) T-1 Jayhawk "Alley Cats"
49th Fighter Training Squadron (49 FTS)T-38 Talon "Black Knights"
50th Flying Training Squadron (50 FTS) T-38 Talon "Strikn' Snakes
14th Operations Support Squadron (14 OSS)
14th Student Squadron (14 STUS) "Eagles"
14th Mission Support Group (14 MSG)

NOT NECESSARILY DEPLOYED WITH THE ABOVE GROUP?
14th Civil Engineering Squadron (14 CES)
14th Communications Squadron (14 CS)
14th Contracting Squadron (14 CONS)
14th Logistics Readiness Squadron (14 LRS)
14th Security Forces Squadron (14 SFS)
14th Mission Support Squadron (14 MSS)
14th Medical Group (14 MDG)
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-24-2016, 03:58 PM
alexei alexei is offline
History Geek
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 17
Default

I was an SP in the USAF from 1989 – 1998. The career field was divided into Security Specialists and Law Enforcement. They were combined into one Security Forces career field in early ’98, just when I was getting out.

Security guarded USAF resources (planes, nukes, etc.) on the installation. LE functioned as gate guards and cops on the base. Some bases had one or the other – most bases had both. At some bases they were used interchangeably, at other bases they were separate. The Security specialty was much larger overall. A small number of LE personnel were also trained as K9 handlers.

During the 1990’s the small arms instructors were brought under the umbrella, because those instructors and the SP’s were the only personnel on most bases to handle small arms on a regular basis. Occasionally for major exercises we got a few auxiliaries from other units, but they were generally worthless.

Both Security and LE went through basic training and tech school at Lackland. Those selected as K9 handlers went through an additional course after LE tech school. Then both Security and LE went through a month of Air Base Ground Defense (ABGD) training at Ft. Dix. In the mid 90’s they moved ABGD training to Camp Bullis near San Antonio. ABGD was very basic infantry skills similar to what is taught in Army basic and AIT.

Some bases had mobility commitments, so the cops would deploy if the aircraft did. On other bases a few would deploy and be replaced by reservists or auxiliaries. For example, when I was in Japan we were slated to deploy to Korea and activate a dormant base if something kicked off over there. A squadron of reservists would replace us at our base in Japan.

Supposedly there were 81mm mortar crews at a couple bases in Korea, but as I avoided Korea like the plague I never saw those.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-24-2016, 05:51 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexei View Post
I was an SP in the USAF from 1989 – 1998. The career field was divided into Security Specialists and Law Enforcement. They were combined into one Security Forces career field in early ’98, just when I was getting out.

Security guarded USAF resources (planes, nukes, etc.) on the installation. LE functioned as gate guards and cops on the base. Some bases had one or the other – most bases had both. At some bases they were used interchangeably, at other bases they were separate. The Security specialty was much larger overall. A small number of LE personnel were also trained as K9 handlers.

During the 1990’s the small arms instructors were brought under the umbrella, because those instructors and the SP’s were the only personnel on most bases to handle small arms on a regular basis. Occasionally for major exercises we got a few auxiliaries from other units, but they were generally worthless.

Both Security and LE went through basic training and tech school at Lackland. Those selected as K9 handlers went through an additional course after LE tech school. Then both Security and LE went through a month of Air Base Ground Defense (ABGD) training at Ft. Dix. In the mid 90’s they moved ABGD training to Camp Bullis near San Antonio. ABGD was very basic infantry skills similar to what is taught in Army basic and AIT.

Some bases had mobility commitments, so the cops would deploy if the aircraft did. On other bases a few would deploy and be replaced by reservists or auxiliaries. For example, when I was in Japan we were slated to deploy to Korea and activate a dormant base if something kicked off over there. A squadron of reservists would replace us at our base in Japan.

Supposedly there were 81mm mortar crews at a couple bases in Korea, but as I avoided Korea like the plague I never saw those.
OT, Misawa or Yokota? You did answer and knew what occurred after this old driver left. You also answered the attitude SP's had about the auxllaries at Yokota. Thanks for the info!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-25-2016, 06:06 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,104
Default

[QUOTE=Olefin;70998][url]http://www.usafpolice.org/units.html[url][QUOTE]

This website also has links to SP/LE equipment and weapons and training

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexei View Post
Supposedly there were 81mm mortar crews at a couple bases in Korea, but as I avoided Korea like the plague I never saw those.
According to the above there were also FIM-92 Stinger Teams up till the mid 90’s in Korea also
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.

Last edited by rcaf_777; 05-31-2016 at 08:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.