Howling Wilderness

[Legbreaker]

The troops brought back had nothing but their personal weapons and little else. There were virtually no vehicles and even the heavy weapons such as rockets, automatic grenade launchers, machineguns and the like were handed over to the Germans as payment for the crude oil which gets the ships across the Atlantic.
Upon arrival in the US they land at New Norfolk, a port which had been nuked. Virtually all war stores had already been sent to Europe, the Middle East, Korea and Africa (not to mention desperately needed in Texas and Alaska). There's just nothing left to equip them with - any transport of note is very likely to be civilian in nature and "requisitioned" upon landing.
What Milgov have come December 2000 is upwards of 50,000 hungry mouths, no practical way of moving them, almost no capacity to feed them, and even if they could be moved somehow, nothing to re-equip them with. Demobilisation, in the short term at least, is their only feasible option.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Something that definitely needs to be factored into the whole issue of combat fatigue is that these are troops who have been deployed for several years. This is like WW1 and WW2, not like the 3-month or 6-month deployments that are typical of today.
I don't believe you can adequately calculate the effects of combat fatigue on people who have been deployed continuously (also with the knowledge that their homeland wasn't spared from the war), in a global war that's lasted nearly half a decade when the only comparison you have is deployments that don't even last a year.

[Raellus]

But the human element is not a constant factor, it does not affect everyone the same.

That's true. Sociopaths don't seem to suffer from PTSD. And I wasn't claiming that all returning vets would be suffering from psychological trauma. Most long-serving combat vets (see StainlessSteelCynic's reiteration of an earlier point), however, very likely would. See my next point for scholarly support.

From my prospective combat fatigue is vastly over blown, I think mostly due to Hollywood and the media. Based on my personal experience I have served closely with about 1000 or so, and can count on one hand the number that have moderate to severe combat fatigue, and maybe another handful that have minor. So like I said I think it is very over blown, as my personal experience puts it at about 1% (am I am willing to say that it could be higher, but nothing like what you see from media).

First off, serious military historians have documented the prevalence of Shell Shock/Combat Fatigue/PTSD. Read Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers (WWII) and Grossman's On Killing (Vietnam) for just a couple of well-respected authors' reserach on its prevalence.

Second, statistically speaking, 1000 is a very small sample size. Did you know each one of those 1000 vets personally Did you conduct a longitudinal study (over time) on all 1000 of those vets Are you a trained counselor or psychologist If you can honestly answer yes to all three questions, then your observations may have scientific merit. With all due respect, your personal experience is not conclusive evidence of an media-orchestrated exaggeration in the impact of Combat Fatigue/PTSD in long-serving combat vets.

I am not sure that the cultural barriers were that big in the ETO during WWII, German has been one of the major places that immigrants to the US came from, so for a lot of troops it was not that major of a cultural barrier but the culture of their parents (or grandparents).

Um, most GI's didn't speak French, or Dutch, or German, so yeah, there was a big cultural barrier. Again, I would encourage you to read The Deserters, by Glass, if you're interested in learning about this topic.

[Raellus]

The troops brought back had nothing but their personal weapons and little else. There were virtually no vehicles and even the heavy weapons such as rockets, automatic grenade launchers, machineguns and the like were handed over to the Germans as payment for the crude oil which gets the ships across the Atlantic.
Upon arrival in the US they land at New Norfolk, a port which had been nuked. Virtually all war stores had already been sent to Europe, the Middle East, Korea and Africa (not to mention desperately needed in Texas and Alaska). There's just nothing left to equip them with - any transport of note is very likely to be civilian in nature and "requisitioned" upon landing.
What Milgov have come December 2000 is upwards of 50,000 hungry mouths, no practical way of moving them, almost no capacity to feed them, and even if they could be moved somehow, nothing to re-equip them with. Demobilisation, in the short term at least, is their only feasible option.

This is a good point- one that's been raised before, but bears repeating. And to return to my points about combat fatigue and homesickness, if most of those 50k troops have to march from Norfolk to active fronts in the south and southwest (due to a lack of motor transportation/fuel), I imagine that MilGov would lose many- to desertion- along the way.

[CDAT]

The troops brought back had nothing but their personal weapons and little else. There were virtually no vehicles and even the heavy weapons such as rockets, automatic grenade launchers, machineguns and the like were handed over to the Germans as payment for the crude oil which gets the ships across the Atlantic.
Upon arrival in the US they land at New Norfolk, a port which had been nuked. Virtually all war stores had already been sent to Europe, the Middle East, Korea and Africa (not to mention desperately needed in Texas and Alaska). There's just nothing left to equip them with - any transport of note is very likely to be civilian in nature and "requisitioned" upon landing.
What Milgov have come December 2000 is upwards of 50,000 hungry mouths, no practical way of moving them, almost no capacity to feed them, and even if they could be moved somehow, nothing to re-equip them with. Demobilisation, in the short term at least, is their only feasible option.

This I did not know, but would still think that the best use of them would be to get them moving on their LPC's and if they are not a viable combat element, send them home to be a home guard and keep the marauders down. This gives them the rest they need, at the same time kind of keeps them in uniform available for call up when/if they can get the heavy gear needed. Now how many would answer that call up I can not say, depends on how long it takes to happen, where you are asking them to go, and all that.

[CDAT]

Something that definitely needs to be factored into the whole issue of combat fatigue is that these are troops who have been deployed for several years. This is like WW1 and WW2, not like the 3-month or 6-month deployments that are typical of today.
I don't believe you can adequately calculate the effects of combat fatigue on people who have been deployed continuously (also with the knowledge that their homeland wasn't spared from the war), in a global war that's lasted nearly half a decade when the only comparison you have is deployments that don't even last a year.

I wish I had 3/6 month deployments my short ones were almost a year and a half. Now yes that is not multi-year even if my second and third were almost back to back I did get a short break in between. But between 2003 and 2010 I was deployed for about five years. And yes (I think the bigger issue) my home was not also under attack. But I still do not buy the levels of combat fatigue that I am seeing people saying on here would happen.

[CDAT]

That's true. Sociopaths don't seem to suffer from PTSD. And I wasn't claiming that all returning vets would be suffering from psychological trauma. Most long-serving combat vets (see StainlessSteelCynic's reiteration of an earlier point), however, very likely would. See my next point for scholarly support.

I am saying that I think it would be a small amount, but I am see (maybe I am missing something) most saying it is going to be the majority, and that is what I am saying I do not think would be the case. Some yes, large percentage no.

First off, serious military historians have documented the prevalence of Shell Shock/Combat Fatigue/PTSD. Read Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers (WWII) and Grossman's On Killing (Vietnam) for just a couple of well-respected authors' reserach on its prevalence.

I have read those and other of Grossman's books as well as attended his lectures and talked with him in person some about this issue, and I am coming up with very different results in what I am reading. Now maybe it is because Shell Shock/Combat Fatigue/PTSD are used today interchangeably when not all think that they are the same thing. Some see it like heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Related but not the exact same thing and there is not a defined term for each level, someone who has been in combat for any length of time will be exhausted, but that is not the same as combat fatigue. Some one who has been in battle every day for some time, and/or has been under fire will likely have some combat fatigue/shell shock, but if they are taken out of that situation for a bit of time they go back to normal, if keep there it may (but not always) become permanent, to have full blown PTSD they have to experience something traumatic and here is the problem what is traumatic to one, is not to the next. There are people who get it from seeing an auto accident, and others watching a close friend/family member do not, and then there again is the level of impact it has on the person varies.

Second, statistically speaking, 1000 is a very small sample size. Did you know each one of those 1000 vets personally Did you conduct a longitudinal study (over time) on all 1000 of those vets Are you a trained counselor or psychologist If you can honestly answer yes to all three questions, then your observations may have scientific merit. With all due respect, your personal experience is not conclusive evidence of an media-orchestrated exaggeration in the impact of Combat Fatigue/PTSD in long-serving combat vets.

And I did not say that it was conclusive evidence, I did say that to me it suggests. Yes I did know all of them personally, most were from a guard unit I was in for several years before/after we deployed and I have some training in counseling, but no I did not do a case study of them, that is one of the reasons I was willing to admit it could be higher. I have seen some media reports saying that every vet has PTSD and so can not be trusted, so once again I am just saying I do believe some will have it, but I believe it is a small percentage I would guess (and it is just that a guess) it would be 10% or less, but would not say maybe a high as 25%, not the 50% to 100% that I have seen in different things from the media.

Um, most GI's didn't speak French, or Dutch, or German, so yeah, there was a big cultural barrier. Again, I would encourage you to read The Deserters, by Glass, if you're interested in learning about this topic.

Two things here and then I am done with the topic, first maybe I am the outlier but almost every person of that age and almost every WWII Vet that I have had the opportunity to spend much time around did speak at least some of their ancestral language. Second when I was in Germany (and I do not speak German) I was able to get around OK, as it was amazing to me how much I understood because English is descended from German.

And with that I am out, it is your game play how you want, I may be the outlier, or I may not. It is a game lets all just have fun and enjoy it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

EDIT: Rereading what CDAT had added to the thread, I do actually agree with some points he made. I do believe the media has grossly exaggerated the accounts of combat fatigue and I also know from some personal contact that some people claiming to suffer PTSD have been attention seekers at best or at worst, some of them have been scammers seeking to get the sympathy (and sometimes the medication) that comes with acknowledgement of suffering.

ORIGINAL POST: I don't think anyone said the majority of troops would be suffering combat fatigue. It seemed to me that people were saying that it was a serious consideration to take into account and should not be readily dismissed as a minor concern.

People who have constantly been at war (and this is world-wide, total war with the use of nuclear weapons), for several years are going to be under a lot more stress than those people who are fighting in the current conflicts we see in the real world at the moment. I really don't believe a comparison can be made between the two.

Plus in the real world, modern Western militaries have access to psychological and other counseling services that helps mitigate the problem, this obviously would not exist in the Twilight War.

[Legbreaker]

It's worth bearing in mind also that a very large proportion of the 50,000 are reinforcements and conscripts. How many are career military and had been there from the beginning Combat losses surely took a heavy toll on the professional soldiers. How many of those would even want to stay in the military if given the chance to get out

Pretty sure though the conscripts would jump at the chance to be demobilised, even many of the National Guard would be happy to get out of uniform - how many would have joined a few years earlier expecting to only ever be called up for civil defence / disaster relief operations

Of the few who were kept in uniform and sent on to other units or stayed as local security, it would seem very likely the majority (if not all) were career soldiers. It is almost certain any technical specialists, SF operators and so on would have been kept on though regardless of their status as conscripts or volunteers - those skills are hard to come by and wouldn't be easily given up by Milgov.

By 2001 the war is basically over. Nobody anywhere is in a position to conduct more than local patrolling with perhaps a small scale and limited offensive to secure their currently occupied area or obtain badly needed resources. Many may be wondering what's the point in fighting any more

[RN7]

Two things here and then I am done with the topic, first maybe I am the outlier but almost every person of that age and almost every WWII Vet that I have had the opportunity to spend much time around did speak at least some of their ancestral language. Second when I was in Germany (and I do not speak German) I was able to get around OK, as it was amazing to me how much I understood because English is descended from German.

I visited Germany in the late 1980's (West Germany) and in the 1990's and I had very little problem communicating or understanding signs due to the fact that (1) most West Germans under the age of 50 had either some knowledge of or could speak English very well, and (2) reading and understanding most written German worlds is not that difficult for an English speaker because as CDAT pointed out English is descended from German.

[Cdnwolf]

Lets talk about the elephant in the room. Did Munson kill the President and have advance knowledge of the attack

President Tanner was killed, not by the strike on Washington,
but by an accident during takeoff of the NEACP aircraft. The
mystery of precisely what went wrong with one of the most
rigorously inspected, carefully maintained aircraft in the nation
has never been solved- the FAA never properly investigated the
accident. Because an inbound missile had been detected, Vice
President Pemberton elected to try to make it to the Special
Facility at Mount Weather. Upon being informed of the President's
death and told that no retaliatory action had been taken,
Vice President Pemberton was forced to delay her departure and
remain at a secure communications facility (the radios on the
evacuation helicopter have never been considered reliable for
this purpose). From the bomb shelter under the east wing of
the White House (built during President Truman's tenure, and
never intended to withstand a direct hit), Vice President Pemberton,
after identifying herself, issued a proclamation of the existence
of a state of war (only Congress has the power to declare
war, and that body was not in session), and ordered retaliatory
strikes on the USSR. She was killed a few minutes later when
the missile detonated.
For a time, the United States had no official "National Command
Authority." Speaker of the House Munson, next in line,
was skiing in northern California. He had slipped out of his vacation
home and not left word of his destination

[Legbreaker]

... as CDAT pointed out English is descended from German.

Amongst other languages.

[shrike6]

Lets talk about the elephant in the room. Did Munson kill the President and have advance knowledge of the attack

President Tanner was killed, not by the strike on Washington,
but by an accident during takeoff of the NEACP aircraft. The
mystery of precisely what went wrong with one of the most
rigorously inspected, carefully maintained aircraft in the nation
has never been solved- the FAA never properly investigated the
accident. Because an inbound missile had been detected, Vice
President Pemberton elected to try to make it to the Special
Facility at Mount Weather. Upon being informed of the President's
death and told that no retaliatory action had been taken,
Vice President Pemberton was forced to delay her departure and
remain at a secure communications facility (the radios on the
evacuation helicopter have never been considered reliable for
this purpose). From the bomb shelter under the east wing of
the White House (built during President Truman's tenure, and
never intended to withstand a direct hit), Vice President Pemberton,
after identifying herself, issued a proclamation of the existence
of a state of war (only Congress has the power to declare
war, and that body was not in session), and ordered retaliatory
strikes on the USSR. She was killed a few minutes later when
the missile detonated.
For a time, the United States had no official "National Command
Authority." Speaker of the House Munson, next in line,
was skiing in northern California. He had slipped out of his vacation
home and not left word of his destination

I don't think so, not based off that anyways. If he had been involved I would have thought he would have been waiting by the proverbial phone. Although, that does not preclude other rogue elements within the government from doing shenanigans. Keep in mind the tragedy would never be fully investigated.