What to do with the 43,000 troops and dependents from Going Home?

[dragoon500ly]

Most, if not all Coast Guard vessels are painted white, is that correct Would they have received a naval grey coat at some point

Straight fom the Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet...

"The US Coast Guard is a separate military service under the Department of Transportation. It is responsible for the enforcement of US laws in coastal waters and on the high seas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, since 1985, the Coast Guard has had coastal defense responsibilities for the US Atlantic coast and, since 1986, for the US Pacific coast."

"At the direction of the president, the Coast Guard can become part of the Navy (as during both world wars) or it can operate in a war zone while remaining an independent service (as happened in Korea and Vietnam)."

So the answer to your question really depends on what action the president took. But once the naval war started heating up, I'd expect the coasties would have gone "haze grey" rather quickly.

[rcaf_777]

Don't think most railroads would JUMP at the chance since they pushed to abolish passenger service in the first place when the started loosing money on it at the end of WW2. Took them twenty years to do it, but MOST of them wanted out of it. Now in the twilight era, I could see passenger service coming back, IF they have rail service at all.

Rail recovery would be one of the primary goals in rebuilding America. It is the most effecient means of moving tonnage of all modes. Two persons move 5000 tons hundreds of miles.. vs 250 plus semi trailers on the interstate

While I love the steam operations, I think the emphasis would be getting the d-e engines working again. Steam is dead from lack of sufficient infastructure to readily support it, as well as the limited number of operational engines. Yes on area basis, they will be used, IF they have the perosnnel to operate and maintain them.. a whole new skill set that is a hobby now..

Fuel is still the critical point with any of the modes.. and for steam WATER is needed more often than fuel.. it takes at least six pounds of water per pound of fuel for a steam engine.. somewhere I have data on the consumption factor of steam engines, but they guzzled the water and fuel. Yes the coal and wood, or heavy oil, can and has been used, but that is intensive use of resources for other things too.

Railroading is a whole game unto itself...

BTW I was in the transportation corps as a traffic manager for the last five years of service. I was an instructor at the trans school during the end of steam in the military. They had a Consolidated (2-8-0) they fired up monthly and moved around post. Ft Eusits had a massive amount of trackage for it's size since the at one time trained military railroaders. I took a course and was awarded a 'war-time' mos as rail movements coordinator (fancy name for dispatcher, station agent, car clerk.. not the man that run the train, but told the train when it could run.. and interacted between the railroad and customers.

About the time of T2K there were still two rail operations battalions in the reserves.. still are I think. During WW2 there were a score or more battalions, each sponsored by a civilian railroad actually. It's what I think would be the picture of American railroads in T2000.

Done ramblin
Grae

Canadian Army has something about a portable railway system what was underdelvopment

[agrikk]

Check out chico's page. two years of work went into what he came up with.

Here's his site:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeedox4/

and by the way, the illustrated guide to Krakow on that site freaking OWNS.

[Legbreaker]

It is responsible for the enforcement of US laws in coastal waters and on the high seas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, since 1985, the Coast Guard has had coastal defense responsibilities for the US Atlantic coast and, since 1986, for the US Pacific coast."

I'm only guessing here, but the coast guard vessels seem unlikely to carry missiles or much weaponry heavier than 76mm. Given the relatively light armament (compared to true warships), what roles might they be employed in during the war

[Webstral]

I'm only guessing here, but the coast guard vessels seem unlikely to carry missiles or much weaponry heavier than 76mm. Given the relatively light armament (compared to true warships), what roles might they be employed in during the war

Roles for a high endurance cutter will change from 1997 to 2000. With the destruction of so much of the world's tonnage and inability to put the remaining heavy ships to sea, lighter combatants that offer good fuel efficiency will have a place. For instance, while Gallatin does not carry her own missiles prior to the war, she is armed with a Phalanx CIWS and chaff launchers. Provided the electronics supporting the CIWS are working, Gallatin has a fair chance of surviving against a single inbound missile. During the fight I mentioned earlier, Gallatin is operating with other surface combatants against a squadron of light Soviet combatants. Missiles are in short supply. By sheer good fortune, the NATO group gets a targeting solution first and launch their available missiles. The Soviets reply, but the fast attack ships aren't carrying full complements of missiles. The exchange is unequal, and Gallatin is able to shoot down a single inbound SSM with her CIWS. Once the gunnery duel begins, the 76mm gun of Gallatin outranges the lighter autocannon of the Soviet corvettes. Gallatin takes some hits in the gunnery duel, but she is able to limp home with a kill-and-a-half to her credit.

Prior to the nuclear exchange, USCG vessels would be used for port security, search & rescue, and pretty much what they do today. They would be vulnerable to missile-armed Soviet warships and strike aircraft, so USCG vessels would have to be used for missions in which they either weren't exposed to these threats or operated as part of a larger group that could deal with these threats. After the nuclear exchange, all bets are off. This is why there are so few operational USCG vessels in 2001: they get used for everything and suffer high attrition as a result.

[Mohoender]

I'm only guessing here, but the coast guard vessels seem unlikely to carry missiles or much weaponry heavier than 76mm. Given the relatively light armament (compared to true warships), what roles might they be employed in during the war

WHEC-717 "Mellon" had been fitted with Harpoons and Mk-46 (including ASW suits) and successfully fired them. USCG cutters are obviously designed to receive additional weaponries. It is also almost certain that medium range cutters would also receive at least an ASW suits.

What roles: convoy and commerce escort, ASW patrol, manning of older ships and civilian vessels taken over to perform more traditional coast guard duties.

Of course, all of this depends on the US president decision but the Twilight War has nothing in common with either Korea or Vietnam. Unlike these two conflicts (or the current ongoing one), it directly threaten US sea lanes in a very substantial manner and from the beginning. Actually, USCG would probably perform escort and ASW missions as early as 1995 as they were in WW2 and by January 1996, they would probably be already collaborating with the Chinese in order to loosen the Soviet Navy grip over China Sea.

US ambassador at Moscow on February 6, 1996 "Of course, Yuri, we have been informed of the loss of your cruiser, the Sebastopol, and I want you to know that we present you with our condolences to the families of your sailors. Really was one of our High Sea Coast Guard Cutter invloved I'm sorry to hear that but this ship was performing regular high sea patrols in the area and it must have inadvertently informed the Chinese of that cruiser of yours position. All our appologies and I can already ensure you that we were not actively involved as we were for KMS Bismarck, 50 years ago. Your KGB officers are overwhelimingly paranoy as usual...".

[Matt W]

I have the "scout vehicle" for your Amtrak expedition

http://www.youtube.com/watchv=Ta4eTNw5wIg

[schnickelfritz]

Track/Right of Way/Facilities inspection and maintenance of US Railroads (ans I would assume Canadian as well--CN has a main a few miles away and I see a lot of the same equipment with "CN" on the side) is typically done by what is known as "Hi-Rail" or "Hy-Rail" equipment. These are civillian market vehicles from 3/4 ton on up that have rail equipment fore and aft that can be retracted to allow use on standard roads. These go all the way up to three axle 2 to 5 ton trucks.

I can only imagine that similar equipment would be used (after fuel conversion) to scout and inspect right of ways. The MilGov leadership would need to ID logical routes needed in the short, medium, and long term. From there armed manpower would be drawn from the Omega pool and used to protect individuals tasked with rebuilding the rail infrastructure and maintaining said along the routes identified. This includes salvage operations. While some unwanted salvage would have occurred, most mainline rail in the CONUS is 100 pounds or better per foot, and typically welded in large sections. Carting a measurable amount off would be most likely impossible. And to use for what

Irregardless, there will be so much rail material in yards and branch lines that there will be plenty to use for repairs/reconstruction until industry can produce more.

The biggest issue I see with rail use is repairs or reconstruction of storm damage, particularly washouts.

Prior to the widespread use of heavy machinery, this work was all done with hand tools and some smaller machines...the manpower pool can come from refugees. You want a job with a paycheck and food for your family Come joing the Civillian Recontruction Corps Battalion in your area. I just picked that name from thin air, but what I see is very similar to what was done here in the 1930's under The New Deal.

Most of the motive power used to get the US rail network will probably come from branch lines, small railroads, museums, and industrial sites that have smaller, older engines that are big enough to do what movement is needed, are largely emp-immune, are easier on track/roadbed than the huge modern mainline engines, and much easier on fuel and far more tolerant of fuel purity. A lot of these 1950's diesels will burn whatever will burn.

I cannot and will not accept that thousands of US service personnel will be tossed out into the cold after their return...that makes no sense to me at all. The logical thing to do would be to use them as a cadre and as skilled specialists (where applicable) to help restore order, power, and utilities. What has been done before about a US reconstruction timeline was fantastic.

Thanks-
Dave

[ArmySGT.]

I cannot and will not accept that thousands of US service personnel will be tossed out into the cold after their return...that makes no sense to me at all. The logical thing to do would be to use them as a cadre and as skilled specialists (where applicable) to help restore order, power, and utilities. What has been done before about a US reconstruction timeline was fantastic.

Exactly. Manpower and Training especially when replacements is all but impossible. I cannot believe that de-mobilization would be on either MilGov or CivGovs agendas.

There is a front in Alaska and the U.S. Southwest begging for combat experienced Troops.

Reconstruction takes people. Even if the Navy can't use them because the Fleets are sunk, there are Ports to repair, civilian shipping to refloat, and offshore oil rigs that need support crews. The Air Force with all of their technicians and support people would be critical getting civilian craft in the air, re-establishing a National level communication infrastructure, rebuilding power grids while the Navy fixes the reactors, etc.

The Army would be taking back the lower 48, training replacements, and lending in big construction projects with the Corps of Engineers. Dam Locks, High bridges, New rail depots, relocating factories, securing depots and ammunition plants.

Those 43,000 people are critical to the reconstruction effort. Doesn't matter if they are no longer combat effectives, as they are reliable, dependable, they can follow orders (very difficult learned trait), and will have a myriad of skills... Idiotic to through them out, a near guarantee they would become hostile and anti Government.

[Targan]

Track/Right of Way/Facilities inspection and maintenance of US Railroads (ans I would assume Canadian as well--CN has a main a few miles away and I see a lot of the same equipment with "CN" on the side) is typically done by what is known as "Hi-Rail" or "Hy-Rail" equipment. These are civilian market vehicles from 3/4 ton on up that have rail equipment fore and aft that can be retracted to allow use on standard roads. These go all the way up to three axle 2 to 5 ton trucks.

That sort of hydraulically activated rail equipment has been extensively discussed in a previous thread (it was quite a while back though). We have vast stretches of rail line here in Australia, especially where the inland iron ore mines need to get their ores to the export ports along the coast. I've seen dozens of those sorts of hi-rail hybrid vehicles in the north-west of Western Australia. The Pilbara rail lines need very regular inspections because the extreme heat can warp the tracks and also some of the ore trains are literally several kilometers long so a derailment can be extremely expensive (it take a couple of kilometers to stop those big ore trains so when they derail it can be a nightmare to clean up).

[Legbreaker]

Nobody is saying they're ALL getting demobilised. Those who want to go are likely to be recognised as probable deserters after a relatively short period (possibly after the first thousand disappear over the nearest hill) and demobilisation on a voluntary basis instituted in an effort to prevent those people taking valuable military resources (ie weapons) with them.
Also, as has been pointed out, we're not actually talking about 43,000 military personnel here. 6,000 went to the middle east. Another substantial portion are civilians (lets call it 10% or 4,300), and then there's the permanently disabled from wounds, illness or radiation poisoning, say another 10% (which I judge very low given the length of the war and lack of evacuations and reinforcements).
This leaves us with just 28,400 military personnel.
Now lets take out those shipped to ports other than Norfolk. Shall we say another 10%
Now we've got 24,100.
How about naval and air force personnel with little use on land, such as cooks, clerks, missile techs (like they're going to be needed post war on more than a reserve basis), navigators, helmsmen, airframe fitters and so forth. At most they'd be assigned a reserve status, subject to recall in the unlikely event they're needed again. I know, lets call that group a conservative 10%
So we're down to 19,800 useful troops.
Of that number, there's going to be some who head for the hills at the first opportunity, taking anything and everything that's not nailed down. Might only be a handful immediately, but as fears of a food shortage kick in around day 3, that trickle will likely turn to a flood.
Voluntary demobilisation, as previously stated, at least puts some sort of a control on what is walking out the door. Perhaps the sweetener is NOT facing a potential firing squad for desertion, AND Milgov provides a parting gift of a couple of weeks food and basic supplies.

Yes, troops could be retrained to cover needed skillsets, but that takes time. Time, which we all know, Milgov doesn't have. Reducing the military's food and support requirements are critical concerns and must be attended to if they have any hope of retaining control of even a cadre of useful personnel.

[Fusilier]

I can't see a significant number of them being let go as they step off the boat simply because of the food issue. Who is going to feed these people They're basically a small city. Virginia is in effect a third world country now and I doubt they have a food surplus that can be just handed over in that kind of scale.

The brigade in North Carolina had to evacuate from a forest fire and drought and they're less than 2000 strong. 43,000 is a lot of mouths.

Dispersing them seems the most likely outcome to me. If the ships can cross the Atlantic, then they reach other places along the coast as well I'd imagine.

[Adm.Lee]

I went and peeked at Howling Wilderness again. When I suggested that steaming around Florida to get to the mouth of the Mississippi would be easier than walking over the Alleghenies to get to the headwaters of the Ohio, I had forgotten that 'Ole Man River' had broken the levees and was now routing south through the Atchafalaya. Meaning New Orleans is cut off and there is a new delta.

Unless someone (Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard's Eighth District, Navy's Caribbean elements) has mapped and charted those new channels, it's going to be a mite tougher to get upriver. Since we know that the Fifth Army is holding on to the upper and middle Mississippi, that suggests there is at least traffic up there. I'd be hopeful that someone has already done that.

[Legbreaker]

My guess is only the locals really know where the new channels are. Could be fun for a group of PCs to convince the "good ole boys" down south to act as pilots, guides, what-have-you, especially if the PC group includes "furiners".

[dragoon500ly]

I'm only guessing here, but the coast guard vessels seem unlikely to carry missiles or much weaponry heavier than 76mm. Given the relatively light armament (compared to true warships), what roles might they be employed in during the war

The Coasties use 5-inch/38s, 76mm/62 Compacts and 3-inch/50s for heavy armament, they also use Mark 19 40mm, Mark 67 20mm, .50-caliber and 7.62mm as well as a 81mm mortar/.50-caliber combo.

The high- and medium-endurance cutters are fitted with hull-mounted sonars and have space to have Mk32 324mm ASW torpedo tubes with Mark46 torpedoes. While their helos are normally unarmed, they have operated
SH-2F ASW helos.

Their defensive role is mostly as patrol craft with limited ASW capability (pretty much "Periscope to Starboard!" sort of thing; their sonars are Korean War vintage). Some of the Congressional Records mention the coasties having a convoy escort role, but flipping through some of the various books, I'm afraid that their role would be either as rescue ships or as targets for incoming missiles.

The vast majority of the USCG Fleet is harbor patrol/inland waterway patrol craft, better suited to chasing off enemy divers and explosive-laden speed boats.