Re:How do others see FCT/NAC/NSL relating (was Re: Locations of

Los spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> 
> 
> Glover, Owen wrote:
> 
> > -OK, here John has presumed an almost total UK oriented NAC. Yet I
get the
> > impression that the majority of people on the list seem to give the
NAC a US
> > operational flavour. Population wise the NAC is probably largely US
in
> > influence. Ascribing the FCT with an anti-NAC behaviour or
philosophy then
> > would seem even more unreasonable.
> >

To address Owen's point: 

Someone wrote some units up (or at least suggested) things like "The 
King's Own Memphis Rifles". I liked the sound of units like that - 
they probably have both an operational designation and a Regimental 
Name. I suspect, based on the fact the UK and Canada came to the aid 
of a shattered USA, that the formations would tend to reflect 
British/Canadian configuration (they'd have had more influence in the 
early days of the amalgamated country). But experience and time (and 
political necessity to co-opt former US leadership and military) will 
have necessitated taking the best from both worlds. 

It seems to me that the British naval model (with tradition 
involving Nelson, Hornblower, Churchill and many others) will be as 
likely to predominate the NAC combined fleet as any. Like Los, I 
think the Spec Ops community will (as they do today) steal good ideas 
from each other in a profligate manner. The Army will probably be 
organized into Corps, Divisions, Battalions, Companies, and 
Platoons, with the presence Regiments  (as someone pointed out, these 
are more administrative and philosophical than combat-formations 
these days) and Combat Teams or Task Forces (representing forces 
smaller than a Division deployed to a trouble spot). 

As for the air force/navy thing.... I think the Navy will be better 
represented in FT because the FT style of combat has more to do with 
ship warfare than modern day air warfare. The air force may well be 
limited to planetary defence forces and air support for the ground 
pounders - and it may well follow a more RAF/RCAF model. 

Perhaps one last heretical thought: 

Why does everyone have so much trouble envisioning a state which has 
contributions from the UK and the USA but isn't quite like either but 
shows the influence of both? Guys.... we already have one!..... Some 
of us live there..... we call it CANADA. And since we were involved 
in the bail-out of the USA, it may well be that people might have 
used Canada as a model for how to integrate some of the diverse 
aspects of the two situations. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/