lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,968 
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on May 5, 2020 18:47:57 GMT
So it is still in West Germany. United Germany; the 1st Armoured Division & I Corps are stationed there. 3rd Mechanised & 6th Light Divisions are in the UK and, along with most of the corps assets, would go to BAOR upon mobilisation. So the BOAR being still the BOAR and not the BOAG is not due to give the Soviets a easy of mind ore is it symbolic in nature. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 6, 2020 13:00:21 GMT
United Germany; the 1st Armoured Division & I Corps are stationed there. 3rd Mechanised & 6th Light Divisions are in the UK and, along with most of the corps assets, would go to BAOR upon mobilisation. So the BOAR being still the BOAR and not the BOAG is not due to give the Soviets a easy of mind ore is it symbolic in nature. It's more than just nobody bothered to change it; there was no need, with I Corps staying in Germany. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 6, 2020 13:03:00 GMT
In wartime, I Corps would be in Korea with the 2nd Infantry Division joining its command. III MEF & I Corps would be under the 8th Army.
7th Army would have V Corps joined by III Corps. II MEF would be in Norway or would land behind Russian lines in the Baltic, with some of its assets under 6th Fleet command in the Med.
3rd Army in the ME would have I MEF & XVIII Corps. If there was no need for either of those units in the ME, I MEF would go to Korea and XVIII Corps would to to Europe.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,968
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on May 6, 2020 18:04:22 GMT
So the BOAR being still the BOAR and not the BOAG is not due to give the Soviets a easy of mind ore is it symbolic in nature. It's more than just nobody bothered to change it; there was no need, with I Corps staying in Germany. Do the Dutch also stay in Germany. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 6, 2020 21:14:37 GMT
It's more than just nobody bothered to change it; there was no need, with I Corps staying in Germany. Do the Dutch also stay in Germany. No. I was imaging that Post Cold War, the Danish, Dutch and Belgian armies would scale back to a one-division each or two division each structure under the command of a multinational EuroCorps with a wartime NATO role in Eastern Europe. I gave that ORBAT a go but I couldn't find everything I needed with the corps assets. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,968
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on May 7, 2020 15:16:33 GMT
United States Second Fleet – Hampton Roads, Virginia
Task Force 20
Carrier Strike Group Eight – Norfolk, Virginia
• USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
• USS Philippine Sea (CG-58)
• USS Chosin (CG-65)
• USS Roosevelt (DDG-80)
• USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93)
• USS Gridley (DDG-101)
• USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117)
• USS South Dakota (SSN-790)
• USS Montana (SSN-794)
Carrier Air Wing Eight
• Strike Fighter Squadron 25 (F/A-18E)
• Strike Fighter Squadron 147 (F-35C)
• Strike Fighter Squadron 31 (F/A-18E)
• Strike Fighter Squadron 103 (F/A-18F)
• Electronic Attack Squadron 131 (EA-18G)
• Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 113 (E-2C)
• Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 50 (CMV-22B)
• Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 2 (MH-60S)
• Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 49 (MH-60R)
Carrier Strike Group Eleven – Norfolk, Virginia
• USS United States (CVN-75)
• USS Princeton (CG-59)
• USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109)
• USS Gonzalez (DDG-66)
• USS Howard (DDG-83)
• USS Preble (DDG-88)
• USS Texas (SSN-775)
• USS New Hampshire (SSN-778)
Carrier Air Wing Eleven
• Strike Fighter Squadron 2 (F/A-18F)
• Strike Fighter Squadron 101 (F-35C)
• Strike Fighter Squadron 97 (F/A-18E)
• Strike Fighter Squadron 192 (F/A-18F)
• Electronic Attack Squadron 131 (EA-18G)
• Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 113 (E-2C)
• Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 50 (CMV-22B)
• Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 2 (MH-60S)
• Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 49 (MH-60R)
Task Force 21
Submarine Squadron Four – Groton, Connecticut
• USS Albany (SSN-753)
• USS Pasadena (SSN-752)
• USS Delaware (SSN-791)
• USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN-795)
• USS Iowa (SSN-797)
Submarine Squadron Eight – Norfolk, Virginia
• USS Helena (SSN-725)
• USS Minnesota (SSN-783)
• USS Boise (SSN-764)
• USS Alexandria (SSN-757)
Submarine Squadron Sixteen – Kings Bay, Georgia
• USS West Virginia (SSBN-736)
• USS Wyoming (SSBN-742)
• USS Maryland (SSBN-738)
• USS Georgia (SSGN-729)
Submarine Squadron Twenty – Kings Bay, Georgia
• USS Tennessee (SSBN-734)
• USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740)
• USS Florida (SSGN-728)
Task Force 22
Amphibious Strike Group Two – Norfolk, Virginia
• USS Makin Island (LHD-8)
• USS Arlington (LPD-24)
• USS Germantown (LSD-42)
• USS Lassen (DDG-82)
• USS Mitscher (DDG-87)
Task Force 25
Minesweeper Group One
• USS Scout (MCM-8)
• USS Chief (MCM-14)
• USS Ardent (MCM-12)
• USS Avenger (MCM-1)
Task Force 26
22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit
Logistics Combat Element
• 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, 8th Logistics Battalion
• 3rd Platoon, Charlie Company, 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion
Ground Combat Element
• 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment
• 2nd Platoon, Alpha Company, 2nd Tank Battalion (M1A1-FEP)
• 1st Platoon, Bravo Company, 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
• 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, 2nd Assault Amphibian Battalion (AAVP-7)
• Delta Battery, 2nd Battalion, 10th Marine Regiment (M777A1)
Aviation Combat Element
• Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 261 (MV-22B) (-)
• Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 167 (AH-1Z & UH-1Y) (-)
• Fighter Attack Squadron 542 (F-35B) (-)
Is the US Navy bigger than OTL i presume. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 8, 2020 21:28:53 GMT
Yup, although not by a massive amount. The two carriers, United States & Raymond A. Spruance are the biggest changes.
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 8, 2020 21:35:53 GMT
United States Air Forces in Europe - Ramstein Air Base, Germany
United States Third Air Force - RAF Mildenhall, England RAF Lakenheath, England
48th Tactical Fighter Wing
• 492nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-15E)
• 493rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-15C)
• 494th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-15E)
RAF Mildenhall, England
100th Air Refuelling Wing
• 351st Air Refuelling Squadron (12x KC-135R)
352nd Special Operations Wing
• 7th Special Operations Squadron (18x CV-22A)
• 67th Special Operations Squadron (12x MC-130J)
RAF Alconbury, England
10th Tactical Fighter Wing
• 42nd Electronic Warfare Squadron (18x EF-15G)
• 92nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-35A)
United States Seventeenth Air Force - Ramstein Air Base, Germany Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
52nd Tactical Fighter Wing
• 81st Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
• 480th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
• 526th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
Ramstein Air base, Germany
1st Tactical Fighter Wing
• 27th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-22A)
• 94th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-22A)
86th Airlift Wing
• 37th Airlift Squadron (18x C-130J)
• 76th Airlift Squadron (18x C-130J)
• 309th Airlift Squadron (18x C-130J)
Lask Air Base, Poland
23rd Tactical Fighter Wing
• 73rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x A-10C)
• 74th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x A-10C)
• 75th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x A-10C)
Poznan Air Base, Poland
36th Tactical Fighter Wing
• 22nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
• 53rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
• 511th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
Aviano Air Base, Italy
31st Tactical Fighter Wing
• 510th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-35A)
• 555th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-35A) |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 9, 2020 5:42:03 GMT
A couple of points:
1.) You have Spruance as a DDG and Raymond Spruance as a CVN. What PoD are you operating on? That will impact what can be named what.
2.) The British Army stopped using Field Forces in the late 1970s. Why would they employ it here?
3.) What is the rationale for deploying combat aircraft to the Czech Republic and Poland? What type of response would this beget from the Russians?
4.) Why would the strength of the USARNG be cut by two divisions?
5.) Why term the 7th and 25th Infantry Divisions as Light when they are in fact quite substantially motorised? Couldn't they just be badged as plain Infantry?
6.) What is the mission? What is the threat and opposition?
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 9, 2020 13:16:05 GMT
A couple of points: 1.) You have Spruance as a DDG and Raymond Spruance as a CVN. What PoD are you operating on? That will impact what can be named what. 2.) The British Army stopped using Field Forces in the late 1970s. Why would they employ it here? 3.) What is the rationale for deploying combat aircraft to the Czech Republic and Poland? What type of response would this beget from the Russians? 4.) Why would the strength of the USARNG be cut by two divisions? 5.) Why term the 7th and 25th Infantry Divisions as Light when they are in fact quite substantially motorised? Couldn't they just be badged as plain Infantry? 6.) What is the mission? What is the threat and opposition? 1) was a mistake; I wanted the carrier as the Spruance. I'll change the name of the destroyer. I like the name Raymond A. Spruance for a carrier. Whether that would be an additional Nimitz class or an alternative name to the Enterprise of the Ford class is still up in the air. 2) The Field Force is an experimental concept here; the MOD wants to have a medium-sized force with a full range of capabilities from an armoured infantry battlegroup to motorised/mechanised forces to air assault forces with the full spectrum of organic supporting assets. It's more of an experiment than anything, but it would be able to deploy on a peacekeeping or counterinsurgency mission faster than a heavy division but with more firepower than the light division. It's sort of like an enlarged strike brigade with an armoured battlegroup added to its ORBAT. A contingency such as Sierra Leone in 2000 would see them used, possibly with Boko Haram in Nigeria or something. 3) The idea there is to keep a scaled down presence in Eastern Europe but with significant combat capabilities. My thinking is that the fighter wings require less of a footprint than a full armoured division or a corps. They would support the Poles and Slovaks against any Russian offensive while V Corps and I British Corps crossed in from Germany, and III Corps landed by air and began drawing its equipment from POMCUS sites. 4) Post Cold War reductions would probably see 50th Armored Division disbanded or scaled down; the 34th Infantry Division would probably activate as a light division. The ARNG & USAR units under 5th Army are not the only reserves available, but they are the units under the two ARNG/USAR reserve corps commands, VII & IX Corps. 5) That's just a name issue. I figure most of the units are leg infantry, with the cavalry squadrons being equipped with light tanks and LAVs. The combat manouver battalions would be moving on foot, in trucks, or by helicopter as per OTL leg units, so it didn't seem to make much difference to me with the naming. I'll reconsider it. 6) ITTL, the Post Cold War world sees a resurgent Russia with a foothold in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltics which is the main threat. Thus, V Corps stays in Germany with a wartime role in Poland, where NATO expects to fight the West Germany WW3 scenario, expect with a somewhat smaller force on both sides given no Warsaw Pact. The American and British footprint in Poland would likely be a rotational brigade from each nation, in the south and north respectively. Korea, the ME, and China are all potential hotspots, which is why the 2nd Infantry Division maintains a mostly heavy force ITTL. Without the need for counterinsurgency, the Army never develops the Stryker, with the light armour role being fulfilled with LAV-25s. The Marine Corps is also upgunned somewhat post Desert Storm, with the activation of a second armoured battalion for the 2nd Marine Division and additional heavy units for the 3rd Marine Division. In the World War Three scenario, V Corps would be in Poland, reinforced by III Corps. II MEF would go to Norway or the Southern Flank depending on the situation, while I Corps would be in Korea with III MEF. I MEF & XVIII Corps would go to the Middle East if needed there, or Korea and Europe respectively if not needed in the ME. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 9, 2020 13:16:53 GMT
United States Air Forces in Europe RAF Lakenheath, England
48th Tactical Fighter Wing
• 492nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-15E)
• 493rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-15C)
• 494th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-15E)
RAF Mildenhall, England
100th Air Refuelling Wing
• 351st Air Refuelling Squadron (12x KC-135R)
352nd Special Operations Wing
• 7th Special Operations Squadron (18x CV-22A)
• 67th Special Operations Squadron (12x MC-130J)
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
52nd Tactical Fighter Wing
• 81st Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
• 480th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
• 526th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-16C)
Ramstein Air base, Germany
1st Tactical Fighter Wing
• 27th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-22A)
• 94th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-22A)
86th Airlift Wing
• 37th Airlift Squadron (18x C-130J)
• 76th Airlift Squadron (18x C-130J)
• 309th Airlift Squadron (18x C-130J)
Lask Air Base, Poland
23rd Tactical Fighter Wing
• 73rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (A-10C)
• 74th Tactical Fighter Squadron (A-10C)
• 75th Tactical Fighter Squadron (A-10C)
Poznan Air Base, Poland
36th Tactical Fighter Wing
• 22nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (F-16C)
• 53rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (F-16C)
• 511th Tactical Fighter Squadron (F-16C)
Aviano Air Base, Italy
31st Tactical Fighter Wing
• 510th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-35A)
• 555th Tactical Fighter Squadron (24x F-35A) If i remember right, there was also the 32d Tactical Fighter Group at Soesterberg , NL which commanded the 32d Tactical Fighter Squadron along with eight support squadrons, a medical clinic, and an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) flight. I'd say the 32nd would have been returned to the US and disbanded as part of the post Cold War drawdowns; the US doesn't maintain the same force structure as it did in 1989. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 9, 2020 21:29:05 GMT
1.) It would be nominally better to make it a Ford class carrier, given the presence of the Spruance class destroyers. However, it would further mess around with USN ship naming conventions as to render them nonsensical. Nimitiz was the only admiral to get a carrier in @, by virtue of dying at the right time. Here, Spruance would be 45+ years dead, which detracts from any urgency/immediacy to pay tribute and any political support base.
2.) It is a slightly reinforced brigade at the moment, with all of the logistical issues inherent in that. If it had a strength of 2 brigades, then the nomenclature might make more sense. The Sierra Leone situation, should it occur, is far better suited to one of the light brigades of 6th Division or indeed another unit made up of the forces omitted thus far. Those would be 1 PARA and however many other Gurkha battalions are in service; that, plus unbrigaded Infantry, would be sufficient for the potential formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade.
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the US section that counterinsurgency does not develop as a post 1991 priority, yet here it is for the British Army. Broadly speaking, you are trying to maintain a 1990 sized British Army of 4 divisions on a post Options for Change force.
3.) It isn’t a matter of logistics that motivated my observation, but politics. The Two Plus Four and Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany involved some actual commitments not to move nuclear weapons and troops into East Germany and some other tacit agreements on NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The expansion seems to have occurred here, but permanent forward basing in Eastern Europe is a red flag to a bull. It is too small to deter Russia and large enough to rub its nose in it.
It is for this reason, as well as the others, that you might want to flesh out the background and circumstances of the scenario; otherwise, it is a nice orbat in a vacuum.
4.) The whole Regular Army is detailed, so it may be of utility to make a clear distinction of the National Guard by including the non-NATO contingency units. My gut feeling is that you are one Corps too many in the Guard and have an extra field army level command/HQ for no reason. A single heavy corps for NATO contingency missions of 35 ID, 38 ID, 42 ID and 49 AD would then free up 28 ID, 29 ID, 34 ID and 43 ID for appropriate missions and keep 40 ID and either 50 AD or 36 ID for Pacific reinforcement. It doesn’t put all of your eggs in one basket, where they are currently.
5.) When we start adding multiple light tank battalions to a division, it isn’t a light one anymore.
6.) Russia is the type of foe that this force structure is designed to counter, but the devil is in the detail. I would also factor in 4th Marine Division for ETO missions.
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 10, 2020 10:22:17 GMT
1.) It would be nominally better to make it a Ford class carrier, given the presence of the Spruance class destroyers. However, it would further mess around with USN ship naming conventions as to render them nonsensical. Nimitiz was the only admiral to get a carrier in @, by virtue of dying at the right time. Here, Spruance would be 45+ years dead, which detracts from any urgency/immediacy to pay tribute and any political support base. 2.) It is a slightly reinforced brigade at the moment, with all of the logistical issues inherent in that. If it had a strength of 2 brigades, then the nomenclature might make more sense. The Sierra Leone situation, should it occur, is far better suited to one of the light brigades of 6th Division or indeed another unit made up of the forces omitted thus far. Those would be 1 PARA and however many other Gurkha battalions are in service; that, plus unbrigaded Infantry, would be sufficient for the potential formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade. Furthermore, it is mentioned in the US section that counterinsurgency does not develop as a post 1991 priority, yet here it is for the British Army. Broadly speaking, you are trying to maintain a 1990 sized British Army of 4 divisions on a post Options for Change force. 3.) It isn’t a matter of logistics that motivated my observation, but politics. The Two Plus Four and Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany involved some actual commitments not to move nuclear weapons and troops into East Germany and some other tacit agreements on NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The expansion seems to have occurred here, but permanent forward basing in Eastern Europe is a red flag to a bull. It is too small to deter Russia and large enough to rub its nose in it. It is for this reason, as well as the others, that you might want to flesh out the background and circumstances of the scenario; otherwise, it is a nice orbat in a vacuum. 4.) The whole Regular Army is detailed, so it may be of utility to make a clear distinction of the National Guard by including the non-NATO contingency units. My gut feeling is that you are one Corps too many in the Guard and have an extra field army level command/HQ for no reason. A single heavy corps for NATO contingency missions of 35 ID, 38 ID, 42 ID and 49 AD would then free up 28 ID, 29 ID, 34 ID and 43 ID for appropriate missions and keep 40 ID and either 50 AD or 36 ID for Pacific reinforcement. It doesn’t put all of your eggs in one basket, where they are currently. 5.) When we start adding multiple light tank battalions to a division, it isn’t a light one anymore. 6.) Russia is the type of foe that this force structure is designed to counter, but the devil is in the detail. I would also factor in 4th Marine Division for ETO missions. 1) The carrier naming issue isn't one I've put a lot of thought into. I'd say the Spruance is a Ford-class ship because, as you say, the Spruance class destroyer. 2) I'll think about changing that up. I like the idea of activating 16th Air Assault Brigade being active outside of 6th Light Division; it could have a wartime role as part of a multinational NATO airmobile division. 1 Para, 2 or 3 Gurkhas, and a pair of leg infantry battalions plus the supporting assets assigned to the Field Force would be used to form it. Alternatively, I could remove 3 Commando brigade from the light division and replace it with an Army light brigade formed from the Field Force. The four division capability of the British Army post 1991 is doable. One armoured division, plus corps artillery and aviation in Germany, and the 3rd Mechanised Division, 6th Light Division, and the 2nd Infantry Division in the UK, along with the remaining corps logistics, engineer etc assets in the UK with a mixture of active and TA units. I think it's doable; 4th Armoured Division would be disbanded, 3rd Armoured Division converted to 3rd Mechanised Division, as per OTL, and the airmobile/airborne/marine units placed under the newly-formed 6th Division. I kept the battalions available in the 1990s and still went with the first wave of regimental amalgamations, but stopped there. 3) I'm still fleshing out the background, but I'll post that when I'm done with it. Those treaties would be in place ITTL, but NATO would have a commitment to defend Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe from Russian forces in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltics. I'm still working on how. But with V Corps and I British Corps still in Germany, NATO would have the firepower in place to move rapidly into Poland in the event of a crisis. I did think about having the whole V Corps in Poland, but the logistics and politics of it wouldn't really work, unless there is a split in NATO in the 90s with Germany not wanting to defend Eastern Europe. I went with keeping the Seventh Army in Germany in the end; Poland just wasn't doable. 4) 5th Army might be overdoing it, but it would be a peacetime headquarters with a wartime mission. If needed, IX Corps could be deployed elsewhere in the Middle East or Korea. It doesn't have to deploy as an Army, but keeping 5th Army as headquarters allows for it to happen if needed. It could always be there as a counterattack force for Europe in the unlikely event that Seventh Army was destroyed or was able to hold the Guards Tank Armies but is too beaten-up to launch a counteroffensive. I'll think about it, but you might be right. 5) Fair point. 6) I haven't got to the 4th Marine Division yet, but I will. It would be a pretty sizeable force, with the 24th Marine Regiment never disbanded and the two tank battalions - 4th & 8th - plus additional supporting assets. I've considered forming IV Marine Expeditionary Force from the reserve marine components, but I'm unsure about that. Thanks for the useful feedback; constructive criticism is really appreciated. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,968
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on May 10, 2020 10:32:38 GMT
I assume the Polish Air Force has mostly gone with Western fighters like the F-16 and maybe the F-15 replacing their Mig-29s.
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on May 10, 2020 10:46:43 GMT
I assume the Polish Air Force has mostly gone with Western fighters like the F-16 and maybe the F-15 replacing their Mig-29s. Yup, they'd have gone with the F-16 at first, with a view to replacing it with the F-35 eventually. I'd also give them some EA-18Gs for an EW capability, like Germany is doing now. |
|
