US Navy Ships of the Twilight War

[Raellus]

OK, so the reality of the canon is actually that it accounts for what, maybe twenty to twenty five ships There's seven in the RDF Sourcebook, five in the Korean Sourcebook, the John Hancock is mentioned in Going Home, there's a reference to Tarawa in the V2 Nautical Guide, the destroyers mentioned in Challenge magazine, and the Corpus Christi plus however many you put in Kenya (I haven't read that so I don't know the exact figure).

The KPS isn't officially canon, but thanks for including it. Here's a freebie for those of you who don't have a copy.

Chinhae

This small coastal city, 16 miles (25 km) west of Busan, is the home of the ROK Naval Academy and a joint ROKN-USN base. A small flotilla of operational USN vessels (USS Missouri, USS Vincennes, USS Des Moines, USS Duncan, and USS Semmes) rests at anchor in the harbor, stranded due to lack of fuel. The 1st Brigade, 7th ID, assists the beached sailors in defending the city and its harbor. Marauders from the Busan area are becoming an increasing nuisance in the area. [Emphasis added]

So yeah, those five vessels aren't going anywhere until fuel can be found/transported to the port. This is given as a mission teaser elsewhere in the sourcebook.

And earlier I posted the ships that are part of the forces based in Kenya which were based on Frank's notes as well as my own imagining. They include a small patrol force, a naval task force centered on a missile cruiser and an amphib/support force that is there to provide support both for Kenya and for the forces in the Gulf.

The naval force you've created for East Africa is the exception that proves the rule. It's pretty much the only operational naval TF in the world by 2001 (you effectively tripled named USN vessels in canon with your source book).

Based on Rainbow 6's research in the balance of canon, there's less than a dozen additional operational (meaning at sea or ready to put to sea) USN vessels worldwide by that same year. So yeah, according to canon, the USN is shattered. What we're doing here is trying to determine how that end result came about. There are a few major naval battles described in canon. AFAIK, those that are occurred in the N. Atlantic and Mediterranean. I tried to fill in the gaps for the pacific by positing the following in the KPS (again, non-canonical):

U.S. 7th Fleet

From December of 1996, through 1998, U.S. 7th Fleet was actively engaged against Soviet and KPA naval forces in the waters around Korea. Just days after the North Korean invasion of the ROK, 7th Fleet CVGBs conducted air strikes against North Korean naval facilities, destroying most of the KPA fleet at anchor. Errant KPA submarines were duly hunted down and sunk before they could do much damage. Soviet subs proved more formidable prey, frequently inflicting losses on convoys and USN ASW task forces before being sent to the bottom in turn.

In the summer of 1997, a 7th Fleet Expeditionary Strike Group, supported by a CVBG and a Battleship Battle Group, conducted the amphibious assault landing of 4th Marine Division and 6th ROK Marine Brigade "Black Dragon" on the North Korean coast south of Nampo (using the Taedong River to shield the Marines' left flank). 16-inch naval gunfire delivered by the battleship USS Missouri proved invaluable in destroying KPA coastal artillery and anti-aircraft defenses. The operation was a resounding success and USN losses were negligible.

Successful CVBG raids against Soviet naval facilities at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, and Vladivostok, USSR nevertheless resulted in significant aircraft and surface vessel losses to 7th Fleet. Additional losses were accrued during fleet actions around the Kuriles and off the Kamchatka Peninsula (these were joint operations with U.S. 3rd Fleet). 1997 witnessed Soviet nuclear strikes on U.S. naval bases in the United States, Japan, the Philippines, destroying several more USN Pacific Fleet vessels at anchor. By July 2000, very few 7th Fleet vessels remain operational, and most of these are laid up in port due to lack of fuel (see the entry for Chinhae on p. 37).

So, add in a few smaller, limited engagements, submarine v. convoy escort duels, strikes against naval bases, accidents (a la Bonhomme Richard), mine strikes, and above all else lack of fuel and the missile/torpedo drought, and, for all intents and purposes, by 2001, the USN has more or less ceased to exist.

Except, of course, off the coast of E. Africa.

-

[rcaf_777]

Argument: Nothing could get through a carrier's Aegis AA screen.

Evidence For: Defense industry and DOD claims. Result of simulations & exercises.

Evidence Against: In 1987, an Aegis cruiser mistook an Iranian Airbus for an attack fighter and shot it down. Clearly, the system is not perfect. Arguments that Aegis will be able to detect, target, and hit every supersonic SSM swarming a CAG from multiple directions of attack is simply wishful thinking.

What about the Soviet Navy Failing to achieve a significant Navy break out into the Atlantic.

General Omar Bradley said "Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk logistics." So let look at the Soviet Navy.

The Soviet Navy's organizational structure was divided into four major fleets: the Northern, Pacific, Black Sea, and Baltic Fleets, which were under the separate command was the Leningrad Naval Base. In addition, Soviet Navy had a smaller fleet, Caspian Flotilla, operated in the Caspian Sea and followed by a larger fleet, 5th Squadron, in the Middle East.

So how many of these ports are where their ships can come and go with harassment or surveillance while they attempt to break out into the major ocean

The answer is only the Caspian Sea due to fact that its is an inland sea with access to to baltic via Lenin VolgaDon Shipping Canal. The rest are all within striking point major US/NATO allies, both the Northern and Baltic Fleets would have travel through the Greenland to Iceland or Iceland to UK Gaps.

NATO know this and good idea of ASW assets. Now how hard to do you think it's going to be or Naval assets to break out and continue to operate and return to port to resupply and repair and refuel (if needed) NATO has many more bases to operate and resupply in the Atlantic.

Also in the Atlantic where is the priority for submarines You going to sink a Carrier or Convoys

Also what the whats the state of Soviet Navy Given is earlier war with China

Given this would you not agree the US and NATO will have unrestricted movement in the Atlantic Dose mean an easy victor no it means force projection, which is the right assets where they are need. The Soviets can't do this do to their long line of communications and logistics.

While the Soviet due have a Cuba, you have get through major US/NATO surfaces groups and get pass the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) which in 1961 detected a Soviet nuclear submarine west of Norway coming into the Atlantic through the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap.

https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_25/sosus.htm

As a base Cuba is subject to major US attacks and is location in Caribbean does not make a great base due it being close to the us and its distance from Halifax NS (NATO's major Convoy departure point for Europe).

[Olefin]

Keep in mind that I followed Frank Frey's notes on what ships would be at Mombasa - I added the amphib and repair/support task force but the patrol and combat task force are per what he had in mind. So while you have operational ships the overall combat capable force is in line with what Frank Frey had for his unpublished Kenya module.

And given the fact that the Mombasa refinery and port is what is keeping the US forces in the Middle East a going concern there definitely would be operational US Naval ships there. And the USN is definitely a going concern in the Persian Gulf - that is an operational carrier task force with a heavy cruiser that still has ammo - ie they just supported the Marines landing at Char Bahar in late 2000.

As far as the other ships most likely you have an awful lot of ships laid up in various ports due to lack of fuel or that the USN isn't using due to only having a single 5 inch gun as armament. That's why the two DD's at Cape May are still operational - they have some fuel and they have multiple guns - making them actually worth using. I highly doubt the USN lost 500 plus ships sunk or so badly damaged they can never be used again

However having bunch of ships out of fuel or no weapons beyond shells for their single 5 inch gun and the 50 cals - and thus not really being able to perform any useful function - heck yes

[rcaf_777]

The difference between a Landing Helicopter Dock an Supper Aircraft Carrier

For those who want to see more about the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6)

USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) Firefighting Efforts, July 12th

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=aiJZQcmNl_E

USS Bonhomme Richard Tour

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=g63UWBnxbzg

LCAC Operations aboard USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) Exercise Cobra Gold

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=iQKhHj6E7oc

USS Bonhomme Richard Flight Deck OPS Forward Deployed

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=ChH1mhGYxcs

USS Nimitz - VIP Tour & Flight Deck Action

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=fkuLSG47Gv4

[rcaf_777]

Sound Surveillance System

https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_25/sosus.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

https://dosits.org/galleries/technology-gallery/locating-objects-by-listening-to-their-sounds/sound-surveillance-system-sosus/

https://dosits.org/people-and-sound/history-of-underwater-acoustics/the-cold-war-history-of-the-sound-surveillance-system-sosus/

https://www.youtube.com/watchv=R462zEQ6RQA

[Spartan-117]

Keep in mind that I followed Frank Frey's notes on what ships would be at Mombasa - I added the amphib and repair/support task force but the patrol and combat task force are per what he had in mind. So while you have operational ships the overall combat capable force is in line with what Frank Frey had for his unpublished Kenya module.

And given the fact that the Mombasa refinery and port is what is keeping the US forces in the Middle East a going concern there definitely would be operational US Naval ships there. And the USN is definitely a going concern in the Persian Gulf - that is an operational carrier task force with a heavy cruiser that still has ammo - ie they just supported the Marines landing at Char Bahar in late 2000.

As far as the other ships most likely you have an awful lot of ships laid up in various ports due to lack of fuel or that the USN isn't using due to only having a single 5 inch gun as armament. That's why the two DD's at Cape May are still operational - they have some fuel and they have multiple guns - making them actually worth using. I highly doubt the USN lost 500 plus ships sunk or so badly damaged they can never be used again

However having bunch of ships out of fuel or no weapons beyond shells for their single 5 inch gun and the 50 cals - and thus not really being able to perform any useful function - heck yes

What I don't get is why that entire Africa premise is needed at all. RDF makes it clear that there's surviving refinery capacity in the Middle East. "Most is consumed locally, but a trickle is exported by the various nations who control the oilfields." THEY EXPORT OIL. Diesel costs less than Eth. That's not just cannon.. that's old school SENIOR Cannon... No take backs Frank Frey.

If Mombasa or Kenya was so important to the RDF in the Middle East, I'd probably get more than one sentence, which doesn't' mention oil, when I search the RDF PDF for Mombasa or Kenya.

SOCCENT provides the majority of military advisors for the
region. Its Special Forces A Teams are in action from Iran to
Kenya and work with such ethnic/racial groups as the Kurdish
hill tribes of southwestern Iran and the Masai warriors of Kenya.

That's it. It's not Kenya supporting the RDF with its refinery. It's ODAs supporting Masai warriors.

Personally, I think sending the 173rd to Mombasa comes across as a malaria ridden fever dream with 'white savoir' overtones IMHO. It's a superfluous bolt-on to allow expansion of game into Big Safari territory. That's my take at least.

[Raellus]

@rcaf_777: It wasn't Soviet naval doctrine to push surface forces out into the Atlantic. Their surface forces were designed to operate close to Soviet territorial waters in a defensive posture. This would allow land based bombers to support them with standoff SSM swarms against attacking NATO naval forces. This is supported by canon's description of massive naval engagements off of Norway and in the N. Atlantic.

Given this would you not agree the US and NATO will have unrestricted movement in the Atlantic Dose mean an easy victor no it means force projection, which is the right assets where they are need. The Soviets can't do this do to their long line of communications and logistics.

I don't fully agree. I think NATO would have naval superiority in the mid-Atlantic, but not naval supremacy. I think they'd have more freedom of movement than Soviet naval assets (or merchant shipping), but not total freedom of movement. I think that Soviet submarines would cause trans-Atlantic convoys a lot of problems.

Soviet submarines, both SSBNs and attack boats, would be pre-positioned prior to an anticipated declaration of war. IIRC, in v1, there's a lapse of several weeks between W. Germany's invasion of E. Germany and US involvement in what would become WW3. That would have given the Soviets plenty of time to sortie submarine commerce raiders.

Thanks for the links on SOSUS. I think most of us are aware of its existence. I'm not sure what that post was supposed to prove, through. No one here has claimed it would be easy for Soviet submarines to operate in the Atlantic. It would, however, be possible, regardless of what SOSUS advocates claim (based solely on theory, simulations, and exercises). AFAIK, SOSUS was never battle tested in a major naval conflict. Would it have worked as advertised We just don't know. It is also vulnerable to sabotage, which I am sure has crossed Soviet planners' minds.

The RW PLN was pretty pathetic when T2K was first written. It wasn't much better, IRL, in the mid-1990s. I don't reckon that it would have done much damage to the Soviet naval forces in the Pacific. I'm sure Soviet naval forces in the Pacific would sustain some losses in defeating the PLN, but I think the bulk of the Pacific Red Fleet would survive to fight the Americans and Pacific Allies once they'd entered the war.

-

[Olefin]

What I don't get is why that entire Africa premise is needed at all. RDF makes it clear that there's surviving refinery capacity in the Middle East. "Most is consumed locally, but a trickle is exported by the various nations who control the oilfields." THEY EXPORT OIL. Diesel costs less than Eth. That's not just cannon.. that's old school SENIOR Cannon... No take backs Frank Frey.

If Mombasa or Kenya was so important to the RDF in the Middle East, I'd probably get more than one sentence, which doesn't' mention oil, when I search the RDF PDF for Mombasa or Kenya.

SOCCENT provides the majority of military advisors for the
region. Its Special Forces A Teams are in action from Iran to
Kenya and work with such ethnic/racial groups as the Kurdish
hill tribes of southwestern Iran and the Masai warriors of Kenya.

That's it. It's not Kenya supporting the RDF with its refinery. It's ODAs supporting Masai warriors.

Personally, I think sending the 173rd to Mombasa comes across as a malaria ridden fever dream with 'white savoir' overtones IMHO. It's a superfluous bolt-on to allow expansion of game into Big Safari territory. That's my take at least.

There was considerable discussion about Kenya and what Frank Frey was going to have in his unpublished Kenya module - the Mombasa refinery was important as there werent working refineries that could support the US forces in Iran after the war went nuclear in Iran - and that is why the 173rd was there - to protect the refinery and keep it operational for the RDF - and that there were forces that were trying to attack Kenya and that is also why the Americans were there - and it was also mentioned as well in Kings Ransom - one of the characters had been stationed in Kenya for two years and had only just returned to Iran from there. And to me those forces are a logical extension of the US effort in Iran - you arent going to be able to fight long without refined oil - and Mombasa has the refinery that can get you that - and the port you need to ship it

[Rainbow Six]

And given the fact that the Mombasa refinery and port is what is keeping the US forces in the Middle East a going concern

Are you saying that the overall premise of the American presence in Kenya is that Kenyan oil is what's sustaining the US in the Middle East

That's an...interesting...take. Let's park for the moment the fact that according to wikipedia oil doesn't appear to have been discovered in Kenya until 2012 (as I said, I haven't read the African sourcebook so presume there's some sort of butterflying away of that) and isn't scheduled to hit full production / exportation until 2024. Full production looks like it might be in the region of 46,000 barrels per day (i.e. three to four years from now).

https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenyas-crude-oil-production-to-hit-46000-bpd-in-2023/

In 1998 (the closest I could find to 1996) Saudia Arabia was producing just short of ten million barrels per day.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265190/oil-production-in-saudi-arabia-in-barrels-per-day/

So parking the fact that Kenya was really producing zero barrels per day in 1996 and using the best case (2023) figure of approx 50,000 (rounded off), Kenyan production was approx half of one per cent of Saudi Arabia's (and that's only Saudi Arabia - that doesn't include Kuwait, the UAE, etc which probably adds at least another four to five million barrels).

I realise that refineries in the Gulf have suffered damage, but as has already been mentioned, there's still sufficient production / refining facilities available in the Gulf to allow export (RDF Sourcebook pg12). Even a 99% reduction in production would still leave somewhere around three times Kenya's full 2023 production. So I find the idea that Kenyan oil 'is what is keeping US forces in the Middle East a going concern' to be quite implausible.

[Spartan-117]

as there weren't working refineries that could support the US forces in Iran after the war went nuclear in Iran

Page 12 RDF sourcebook -

"OIL
Although heavily damaged by nuclear and conventional at- tacks, a few of the oilfields and refineries in the Middle East still produce oil. "

it says 'and refineries'

Not 'and refinery'

it's 'and refineries...'

Even earlier on Page 3:
"The RDF Sourcebook is intended to familiarize referees (and players, to a lesser extent) with the region around the Persian Gulf which has become the primary "stomping grounds" of the U.S. Central Command. It is in this area (where a few remain- ing oil refineries produce a trickle of fuel) that the war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union is still being fought on something resembling the old terms."

again, we're using English plurals.

It is in this area.. where a few remaining oil refineries produce a trickle of fuel...

Let's break down 'this area...'

Page 20/21 we get an order of battle, by country, and hey, neither Kenya nor the 173rd are listed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Deployment_Joint_Task_Force

No 173rd there. Not in the CENTCOM successors organization either. 173rd is EUCOM's airborne unit.

Is MORE refining capacity useful, sure, probably. But this is not the lynchpin of RDF operations in the middle east. Asserting that there weren't working refineries in the region to support U.S. forces just doesn't carry much water, unless we are retconning out these passages in the RDF sourcebook.

=============================================

Really though, what's super disappointing about the whole 'one refinery left in Kenya' premise, is that it jeopardizes earlier work. In this case, the entire campaign premise for the RDF sourcebook -

"In most places in the world of Twilight: 2000 the military chain of command has completely broken down and soldiers have been left to their own resources. In the Persian Gulf things are different. There is still a functioning chain of command and a conventional war to be fought. This situation provides players and referees with the option of gaming regular military missions. Some gaming groups may prefer this more structured form of game to the anarchy of Europe and most of the United States. Others may enjoy it occasionally as a change of pace. In any event, the purpose of this campaign guide chapter is to provide more options to gaming groups, not limit those options."

Well, I know you players wanted something different, but some dude in Africa screwed up (or the Navy didn't get the tanker back) and now we have no refined petrochemicals, so I guess we fight disease and starvation here in the desert while schlepping everywhere on foot.

You pretty much have to retcon out the raison d'atre for the RDF Sourcebook to begin with: a reduction in tenuous food and fuel logistics, so you can have a more mission focused gaming experience where half your time isn't brewing and foraging.

And why and for what purpose do we need to retcon out ... and refineries... Just so you can get to a point where the whole U.S. presence in the region is dependent on Kenyan refining capacity. That's sad.

[Legbreaker]

And don't forget as I previously mentioned, WWII convoys often only had ONE warship as escort, usually an older WWI era destroyer (at least earlier on), and many times convoys sailed without any escorts at all. And that's when there were far more enemy vessels in the area than in T2K.

Without more modern munitions such as missiles and torpedoes, most warships are little more than floating targets. Yes, they still have .50 cal machineguns, GPMGs and (in some cases) they might be lucky enough to have a few rounds for a single 76mm gun. The launchers for the missiles etc may still be serviceable, but what good are they without the ammo We also know torpedoes were scarce as only a handful could be scrounged up from the entire east coast area controlled by Milgov to arm the Los Angeles.

Submarines are clearly in very short supply (only two known to still exist in 2000, plus one French sub mentioned in "What's Polish for G'Day"), and airpower is virtually non-existent, so the only likely threats will be surface vessels after 1997. It may well be that the troop ships and cargo vessels sent by Civgov acted as their own escorts - just slap a TOW, AA gun, etc on the deck and you should be able to scare off most of the probable opponents.

As for the situation in the middle east, yes, there are some ships there being held for sea lift duties, but how often do they actually sail How long does it take to produce enough fuel to supply them for not only the initial landing, but the continuing resupply operations for the troops on the ground

Also, where are the munitions coming from to resupply them Pretty sure there's no factories in the region churning out Harpoons, and there's certainly nothing coming from the US (or anywhere else for that matter, except MAYBE France - not that they'd be sharing).

[Spartan-117]

As for the situation in the middle east, yes, there are some ships there being held for sea lift duties, but how often do they actually sail How long does it take to produce enough fuel to supply them for not only the initial landing, but the continuing resupply operations for the troops on the ground

Also, where are the munitions coming from to resupply them Pretty sure there's no factories in the region churning out Harpoons, and there's certainly nothing coming from the US (or anywhere else for that matter, except MAYBE France - not that they'd be sharing).

1) They sail enough to send recruiters to Europe, then sail them and their recruits back to the Middle East.... lol

One of the alternatives at Bremerhaven will be a "recruiting booth" offering the option of service with CENT- COM rather than returning to the United States.

If they missed the boat, there is the distinct possibility that recruiters for CENTCOM will attempt to locate remaining stragglers in Europe and offer to lift them out and to the Persian Gulf.

2) Is there anything in cannon about Israel being nuked I couldn't find anything in RDF. They have been developing/producing their own ASMs since '62. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_(missile)

[Legbreaker]

1) They sail enough to send recruiters to Europe, then sail them and their recruits back to the Middle East....

Or did they simply send a radio signal asking for volunteers
It also wouldn't take much to get those volunteers around to the middle east - it's not like they've got anything more than their personal equipment and rifle, everything else had to be left to the Germans. The fuel used could have been part of the oil from the tanker found floating in the North Sea (or wherever it was) by the Germans.

2) Is there anything in cannon about Israel being nuked I couldn't find anything in RDF. They have been developing/producing their own ASMs since '62. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_(missile)

Not a thing as far as I can see, but would Israel be any more willing to share their missiles than the French Would they even be compatible How would they get them over to Iran through a region openly hostile to Israel
Sure, they could be flown across, but cargo aircraft are notoriously vulnerable and it's far from the most economical way to do it anyway.

[Spartan-117]

Or did they simply send a radio signal asking for volunteers

They didn't, because they entry literally says there will be a "recruiting booth". I mean, if you have a mission need to send recruiters and you have the fuel to do so, and you have to transport these people back anyway, why not send a ship. Which is the foundation of the campaign premise - CENTCOM has resources to conduct more normalized military operations than other almost any other command anywhere else in the world.

I mean, really, if you wanted to flaunt "The recruiting officer (the referee) should stress all the benefits of service in the Middle East (fuel in abundance, air support, regular supplies and pay, and so on). In fact, the recruiting of- ficer would probably greatly overstate the advantages, describ- ing the area of operations as virtually a modern U.S. oil shiekdom, and U.S. soldiers living in luxury between their mis- sions," a radio transmission is not a great sales method. Showing up, in a big boat, with fuel, is going to help sell that premise. It's why you see sales people roll in Cadillacs and not Yugos.

And let's revisit that quote - fuel in abundance, air support... That's not overstating the case because the next sentence is literally all about how to overstate all of that!

Not a thing as far as I can see, but would Israel be any more willing to share their missiles than the French Would they even be compatible How would they get them over to Iran through a region openly hostile to Israel
Sure, they could be flown across, but cargo aircraft are notoriously vulnerable and it's far from the most economical way to do it anyway.

So the reason you get to play Israelis in the sourcebook, is because

"The Jor- danians and the Israelis had done about as much as they could do in their area. Their respective governments decided that a presence in the Persian Gulf area would at least insure them a greater say in oil allocation. The Jordanians sent their crack 5th Armored Division. The Israelis sent the 35th Parachute Brigade, the 7th Armored Brigade, and supporting units."

So Israel is there to get a share of oil/fuel. And as the book establishes, that has a cost ($7 for diesel, etc.). Fiat currency, like the Shekel, is probably not going to pay the bill. So, it's the barter system... What do they have that the RDF might want How about munitions You asked where munitions for this fleet might be coming from, this is a possible answer.

So maybe it's not this particular missile, or maybe a U.S. frigate gets a mount refitted during a layover after escorting fuel over - the payment is the missile system (or whatever the munition is bartered between the parties).

Again, if I have a task force, and I have fuel for that task force (plus enough to trade), and I have an ally who wants fuel (enough to ante up the Blood part of Blood and Treasure), and they possibly have munitions production capabilities based on a long history of weapons development and surviving infrastructure (the transfer of which which would also serve to protect their forces in region as well), I'm pretty sure that can all work out.

And to recap - Kenya does not have to be involved.

[Legbreaker]

You know that people already there in Bremerhaven could have staffed that booth It's the same army after all and there's no need to send a person when a message will do.

Another point is recruiters lie. It's a well known fact within the military that they'll oversell the good things and totally whitewash the bad. They're worse than used car salesmen and real estate agents like that. The RDF sourcebook says pretty much the same thing.
"Fuel in abundance" probably just means you get almost enough to complete the mission (you need to scrounge the fuel needed to get home again), "air support" means there's a couple of banged up aircraft nearby that fly about once a month but god help you if you ask for it if you're in less danger than being currently overrun by an entire Soviet mechanised battalion.
Prewar that small stretching of the truth would still paint a bleak picture. After several years in Europe, it's pure utopia.

The "overstating" mentioned in the RDF Sourcebook looks to me to involve pure fabrication rather than simple stretching of the truth. Sure, SOME soldiers might experience SOME of the perks mentioned, but only the truly blessed, extremely high ranking, or very corrupt (ie Supply Sergeant "Crapgame" in Kelly's Heroes) would get more than a few of them.