Reforger

[Graebarde]

In the time of Twilight, the US had a plan to reinforce Germany in a timely manner called REFORGER. Each autumn, at least one of the designated divisions participated in wargames in Germany traditionally called Autumn Forge (IIRC, we just called it REFORGER at the base-unit level). When REFORGER is called, and I'm refering to the REAL one when the ballon is going or has gone up, the division designated as REFORGER units deploy via aircraft, a mixture of military and civilian, from their home station to a POMCUS location in Europe. The ONLY equipment they take is tool sets, weapons not a part of a vehicle, and the troops with a dufflebag. They have all the vehicles awaiting them at the POMCUS.

There were two armored and three mechanized divisions dedicated to REFORGER along with an armored cavalry regiment, seperate armored brigade, and a seperate mechanized brigade. There were also several field artillery and combat engineer corps level troops involved, but I'm concerned primarily for the moment with the armored/infantry division/brigade formations.

So when they deploy, flying away from home base, they leave behind theri vehicles. The break down by stations in brigade slice sets is as follows.

Ft Hood 4 armored
Ft Polk 2 mechanized
Ft Carson 3 mechanized
Ft Riley 2 mechanized
Ft Bliss 1 armored cavalry
Ft Knox 1 armored
Ft Benning 1 mechanized

THAT folks is a LOT of idle armored vehicles. I realize they might use some for war stocks, but conversion of National Guard divisions to more modern equipment would be what I envision happening, given enough time. A unit with M60 tanks might get the M1 tanks left at Hood, and another unit that is NOT armored will get the M60/M113 left by the first units. Training up these units would take up to six months, a long time for the thin green line to hold.

But I would bet a savy general would make sure there were troops on those vehicles they wouldn't send to cover battle losses. Even the training divisions that in canon are light infantry MIGHT settle on a base where a mechanized division departed. They would fill and train up to operation readiness using the divisional equipment. This overall training cycle would take a minimum of eight months (six would really push it to emergency levels and I would not try it with mechanized formations, but doable with light infanty) to have a green division. Cadre is the cruical points, and it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul there. Eventually you get battle casulites back in the system to help with this, but again time is the enemy.

Just my thoughts and ramblings.
Grae

[chico20854]

We ran the numbers out when we worked up the US Army orbat...

Our methodology:

1) Determine inventories at the beginning of the war, based on historical documents as to numbers of systems procured plus projected production at late 1980s actual or projected 1990s rates (since IRL most production slowed down in the 1990s), going to full wartime production in September 1995 (a theoretical response to Chinese export orders).

2) Determine number of systems available for issue to troop units. We used the same methodology as the Congressional Budget Office did when determining how many systems to order: a 5% allocation to the training base (MOS schools, test & evaluation units, draw equipment at NTC, etc.), a 17% allocation to the maintenance float (in transit to units, undergoing depot-level overhaul or refit), the rest to troop units, with a war reserve of 51%(!) of the number assigned to troop units. For units in CONUS, we expanded the POMCUS effort so that there was a full unit set of identical equipment overseas for EVERY unit in CONUS - for those units without a REFORGER mission we are assuming that there was a similar equipment set overseas in Korea or CENTCOM. We figured this was implemented in the 1990s as a reaction to the continued Cold War. Unit equipment was identical, based on the concept of train with what you fight with.

3) Divide the equipment up into units, using the appropriate TOEs from the late 80s. First priority for modern equipment is units in Europe, those with POMCUS missions, then the rest of the active units in CONUS, then the National Guard and Reserve. Guard roundout units are equipped the same or one level below their active-duty counterparts. Extra equipment goes to form new units or export.

Given the large scale (to any reasonable review) of the war reserve, at 51% of what is assigned to troop units, it is hard to equip a heck of a lot of units with modern gear. To make it more reasonable, we double counted the POMCUS sets, essentially assigning all that equipment left behind when units deploy to war reserve.

As a check on the reasonableness of these assumptions, Fighting Flamingo ran a loss and recovery simulation. With weekly loss rates of between 4% and 15% during non-nuclear offensive ops (and 25%-30% weekly during a tactical nuclear exchange), recovery/repair rates based on Yom Kippur War numbers and production gradually increasing beyond 1980s full-scale mobilization rates, US forces become doctrinally ineffective with regard to M1s in Novermber 1997 (after over 9700 lost beyond repair), Bradleys in August 1997 and M113s in September 1997. It makes a chilling point as to the military effectiveness of the NATO armies prior to the TDM.

For the units that are forming during the war, they enter the field after the TDM with vehicles from the training base and maintenance float, basically assigned at random (except for the units that were at NTC, JRTC and other large unit training sites - they go to the field with the equipment maintained there for rotating units).

Pirating the war reserves left behind in CONUS by REFORGER units would, however, be a disaster for units in contact. (War reserves increase until the beginning of Advent Crown and are depleted by mid-September 1997). As units need replacement equipment to stave off the oncoming rush of Russians backed by tactical nukes, they get M-60s and the knowledge that there is a green unit sitting in the rear somewhere training with the M-1s they trained with in CONUS. Not acceptable to most generals IMHO.

If you want, I can email you the spreadsheets that lay out all the production, inventory, assignment and loss figures. It's a lot of number crunching...

[Raellus]

Wouldn't those vehicles "left behind" by departing REFORGER units be packed up and shipped after them, as replacements for combat losses? I would imagine that this would begin ASAP.

There's no way new production alone would be able to keep up with losses. A lot has changed since the "Arsenal of Democracy". An M1 is a whole lot harder to build than an M4 (i.e. costlier and slower production). Perhaps this justifies the introduction of the easier/cheaper-to-build Stingray and LAV-75* early in the war.

*I know that this design really never left the drawing board and has been poo-pooed by the T2K community. But it is plausible that such a platform could have been designed and put into production fairly quickly, especially since it is based on an already established AFV chasis.

[Graebarde]

Thanks again Chico. Yes I would be interested in the data. I'm a numbers crucher at heart

send it to me at yahoo
Thanks
Graebarde

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Wouldn't those vehicles "left behind" by departing REFORGER units be packed up and shipped after them, as replacements for combat losses? I would imagine that this would begin ASAP.

That's the assumption we operated under.

Originally Posted by Raellus

There's no way new production alone would be able to keep up with losses. A lot has changed since the "Arsenal of Democracy". An M1 is a whole lot harder to build than an M4 (i.e. costlier and slower production). Perhaps this justifies the introduction of the easier/cheaper-to-build Stingray and LAV-75* early in the war.

*I know that this design really never left the drawing board and has been poo-pooed by the T2K community. But it is plausible that such a platform could have been designed and put into production fairly quickly, especially since it is based on an already established AFV chasis.

M-1 production is by no means able to keep up with losses - its a steady decline from the beginning of Advent Crown (the invasion of Poland) until things fall apart completely in December 1997. There are M-60s and M-48s (those that were not exported to China or other allies) available, but training & integration of those systems (or Lav-75s or similar) would be difficult in a combat zone. We have some units held back in CONUS for want of vehicles, they field Lav-75s/M-8s/Stingrays and wheeled APCs.

We field light armored vehicles in light ingfantry units according to the v1 US Army Vehicle Guide - an assault gun battalion in each light division plus some in the divisional cav squadron, plus the 9th ID and a 3-73 Armor in the 82nd. We also add the 14th ACR for XVIII Abn Corps. There are still an excess of those vehicles, which can be used to replace losses of other vehicles.

As to which vehicle would be fielded, there has been a lot of debate here (or, more properly, on RPGHost). We never seemed to reach a consensus, so the DC guys decided to let the GM decide. One factor to consider is that the M-8 Buford came off the Bradley assembly line, so that every Buford fielded means one less Bradley. Without getting into the industrial mobilization details, that makes the Lav-75 or the Stingray more attractive options. (Yes, the C-G and AAI production lines could be retooled for M-8s, but that takes time, and time is short when you have 11 months from the start of the war to a strategic nuclear exchange).

There are also over 1300 Sheridans in the inventory, used in combat as late as 1991, that sit out the war!

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by chico20854

There are also over 1300 Sheridans in the inventory, used in combat as late as 1991, that sit out the war!

That's NOT going to make Chalkie happy at ALL. He's in love with that arm-breaker.

Grae

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by chico20854

One factor to consider is that the M-8 Buford came off the Bradley assembly line, so that every Buford fielded means one less Bradley. Without getting into the industrial mobilization details, that makes the Lav-75 or the Stingray more attractive options.

I'm re-doing my Stingray entry now, but several things struck me -- the Stingray may be physically a little bit larger than the Buford, but it's actually quite a bit lighter, and better protected due to the design and the quality of steel used in its construction. Another interesting wrinkle is that several applique armor packages are available, including a very interesting form of applique composite armor based on a ceramic/steel/foam plastic sandwich. It just seems like a better airborne combat vehicle than the M-8, LAV-75, or M-551 (more blasphemy for Chalkline!).

[Matt Wiser]

Give some of the newly mobilized units the Stingray once DOD puts the embargo on weapons sales to all but "Critical" allies (other NATO members, Iran, Israel, ROK, Japan, Aussies, etc.). The M-8 is still needed in those divisions (and 14th ACR) that go to CENTCOM as it's air-transportable more easily. Not to mention 10th Mountain, 6th, 7th, 25th LIDs as well as the ARNG's 29th LID.

As for the Sheridan, if you're one of those that include the Mexican invasion (and I'm not one of them-I had the JCS giving the Mexicans "instant sunshine" 48 hours after they cross the border), the Sheridan can handle the Mexican armor that it encounters. Though tackling Division Cuba with T-72s in the Sheridan is something I'd rather not try unless my will was probated and sins confessed in advance. Though the Sheridan might go with the 173rd Airborne Brigade when they go to East Africa. (little in the way of armored opposition, and given the threat level, HE and beehive rounds would be more common)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by chico20854

We field light armored vehicles in light ingfantry units according to the v1 US Army Vehicle Guide - an assault gun battalion in each light division plus some in the divisional cav squadron, plus the 9th ID and a 3-73 Armor in the 82nd. We also add the 14th ACR for XVIII Abn Corps. There are still an excess of those vehicles, which can be used to replace losses of other vehicles.

So which U.S. vehicle/s would assume the "assault gun" role?

Speaking of which, it's not really an assault gun- more of a conventianal TD, really- but Chalkline came up with a cool idea. The German army would likely up-gun it's old 90mm gun-armed TDs with 105 or 120mm guns. Actually, I think he also suggested true assault gun conversions employing Soviet 122mm guns instead. Either way, it's an intriguing idea, especially for a fan of the old Jadgpanzers and Stugs of WWII.