Do we need to convene a conclave of cardinals to explain how the apparent problem with the source material is really a problem with the inability of the lay person to understand the complexities involved?

Rofl... that would be funny Webstral

The important part for me in this material is that Elblag was probably destroyed in 1997 during the fighting in Northern Poland either when the German Army first swept through the area, or most likely (at least this is what I believe) when the German Army was pushed back into Germany. This would at least give some background for those of us who are examining and beginning to play games in that region with the characters coming from the 2nd Marine Division.

The big unanswered question from here is, was the city laid to waste by conventional fighting or by a tactical nuclear strike. Here again, I lean to the second option.

So it is my opinion only, that the Soviets nuked the city as the German 1st Army and it's allied components were being pushed out of Poland in during the second half of 1997. Although a very colorful story could be made for the Germans nuking the town as the Soviets entered it.

From reading on the history of Elblag, I tend to think the Germans would want it to stay intact since it is a city that had once been a German city and some deep history tied to Germany's past.

Now this brings me to a question. Has anyone outlined the German Army and their movements through the war? I'm going back and looking at my stuff but I've only just begun this process and if someone has already done a lot of ground work I'd love to read over it.

I'm not seeing any big problem here.
The BOAR was ordered from Poland to southern Germany to meet the Italian advance.
The Italian advance faltered due to their industry not having yet spun up to war time production and the military exhausting their pre-war supplies. This occurred around the same time as the Soviets reached Warsaw so the British were withdrawn from the Italian front where the situation appeared to have stabilised and rushed back into Poland where the situation was somewhat dire.

Yes, there's a bit of running about for the British, but don't forget this was in the days before nukes and when petroleum fuels were still in relatively plentiful supply. Running on petroleum fuels, even the slowest tank can cross from one side of Poland to the other in about a day or so. Therefore, it's not particularly difficult to see the BOAR being redeployed that quickly especially if they were given priority over the rear area roads and rails - it's not like they had to move off road through enemy held terrain.

This is the same book that says on page 8...

"As August arrived, BAOR was forced to switch to the defensive. Soviet forces were attempting to relieve Warsaw, and NATO forces to the north and south of BAOR's theater were conducting mobile defensive withdrawals. On 15 September, the Soviet 7th Guards Tank Army broke through to Warsaw. First Corps began a fierce withdrawal action in a desperate attempt to stop the Soviets, but it was too heavily outnumbered and was pushed back. By the end of September, NATO began to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets. The Soviets replied by using their own nuclear weapons."

Emphasis added by me.

Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom (1990) by Peter Phillipps.

Given that NATO first use goes against every other source of canon and that the date for nuclear release is incorrect as well; we can only assume that Mr. Phillipps was in fact a French agent who deliberately attempted to discredit NATO.

Arguing canon is largely a fools errand.

Benjamin

My guess is both. It didn't take nukes in WWII to level cities, a week or so of artillery, infantry and armoured attacks was often enough to do some serious damage. A good example of what can be done in just a few days (and without air attacks!) can be seen in the movie "A Bridge Too Far" where they show Arnhem. Another example is the town at the end of "Saving Private Ryan".
I started but the material is very vague. It's hard enough getting a handle on US units, and being a game focused on US soldiers, there's a lot more info for them! Most of the information details just the date (but not necessarily location) they entered combat and where they are four years later. What they did in the meantime is mainly ignored. AND a number of Divisions changed Corps and even Armies during the war with confuses the situation even more.

The Soviets first used nukes on the 9th of July 1997.
A possible explanation for the differing date of Nato first use, is how they were used.
In July, August and most of September, they were used by Nato on a one for one basis against targets of great value but behind the front lines (Divisional or Army HQs, supply depots, etc). This policy changed after Warsaw was relieved to use against the Soviet front lines in order to break up not just their logistical support, but the combat units (battalions and brigades/regiments) themselves. This change is a significant escalation in the use of nukes and could well be a major contributor towards the use of strategic weapons just two months later.

I don't think Elblag is on any nuclear strike lists (at least none that are canonically confirmed) so I choose to imagine that it was not nuked. I think the Germans would be very reluctant to agree to any nuclear strikes on areas of Poland that they've made historical claims to in the past (to the extant they have any sort of veto power), and Elblag has been a part of the various iterations of German Prussia from medieval times up to the Third Reich. IF the city was nuked- and, once again, I tend to think that it was not- the Soviets are likely to blame.

That said, the map in the BYB does show Elblag as being rubbled. I therefore tend to think that damage to the city was caused by conventional fighting (artillery, naval gunfire, airstrikes, etc.). For an idea of what modern Russian conventional firepower can do to relatively small city, do a Google image search for Grozny. Ouch.

For my campaign to work, I need an Elblag that doesn't look like Hiroshima. I've chosen to stray a bit from the canon and have the city be only moderately damaged by years of conventional fighting, but not rubbled per se (some repairs have been conducted by the city's inhabitants since the last round of heavy fighting) . If asked to rate the extent of the damage to the city on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being pristine and 10 being ashes and dust, I choose to envision Elblag somewhere around a 5.

I agree with Raellus that heavy conventional fighting can do the same sort of urban damage as a nuke, those aren't needed. For my Baltic Marines game, if it comes up, I'll say it there was heavy fighting in the summer of '97, between the Germans and the Soviets who were trying to prevent the restoration of East Prussia, and the protection of Kaliningrad, actual Soviet territory. I see a last stand, maybe even a siege of cut-off Soviet forces there, same as in Warsaw.

If we've seen that the few NATO units that crossed the Polish-USSR border were in the central area, that does not mean that all of NATO forces were on the border, and the German left wing could have been held back to the west. Thus, Elblag and the lower Vistula becomes a near-static battleground for a few weeks, and that's plenty to waste a city.

Hmm, the Soviet forces most likely to be fighting up here would be the armies of the Baltic Front, that would include the same 9th Guards Army we are seeing in 'A beach too far.' Those guys might be a little more motivated?

All that said, tactical nukes could easily have been dropped by air or short-range missiles on obvious chokepoints like the Vistula delta bridges and railyards, when they were just behind the lines. So, GMs can pick their poison.

The following is from the Looter's Guide to the Baltic Coast (Challenge issue 25 - apologies if it's already been referenced in this thread, I had a quick skim through and didn't see it if it was)

Elblag itself isn't specifically mentioned, but the article describes some communities as heavily damaged, but others (e.g. Puck and Ustka) as having been relatively unscathed, so looks like anything from almost total destruction to virtually no damage is possible.

Great find Rainbow. Unfortunately I don't own any of the Challenger Magazines in any form.

Looking at the maps, and from what all has been discussed I'd go as far as saying Elblag has been pretty heavily damaged, but like Raellus states as well, it believe that various parts of the city may be fairly intact. The more I pour over modern maps of the city, it really doesn't look as big as I originally imagined. Today it has 127,000 inhabitants. So post destruction we'd expect to see 1200 to 1500 people living there?

I'd forgotten all about that article- ironically, one of the few I've actually read all the way through. Thanks for this, Rainbow. I appreciate any canonical material that supports my vision. :cool:

Looters Guide only covers from Gdansk and to the west. The Vistula estuary and parts east (including Elblag) aren't included.

With regards to nukes, Elblag has some industry worth nuking, but given the relatively shallow canal (vessels of a draft greater than 1.5 metres aren't allowed) it would seem unlikely to be a high priority. However, the Pact may have been desperate to rebuild some vague notion of naval power in the Baltic and Elblag is capable of building torpedo boats and the like....

Honestly, I'm torn on whether or not to nuke the city. There's arguments both for and against spending a warhead, but given tactical nukes were used to attack military units in the field, and Czestochowa attracted a warhead even after it had been subjected to at least one nuclear demo charge...

Back to Rae's original TF Inchon scenario, Im really impressed with what you came up with. I remember developing some kind of set of quick games for 2MARDIV when I was much younger, but my stuff was far less detailed at the time.
Im going to go on a quest through the old T2K stuff to try and find what I had, but I seem to remember putting most of 2MARDIV ashore at Gdynia, and then moving to a meeting engagement in and around Elbag. Later on we sent a TF similar to TF Inchon on a "raid in force" in an attempt to rescue the 5th ID (a task that obviously was going to fail).

Thanks!

Rae, I've been working on the 2nd Marines landing and likely objectives for the past week or so and have come to the conclusion that with the available manpower, Elblag would have had to be left until quite late. With the number of bridges and other strategically important locations they'd need to secure, and Elblag's location on the eastern fringe of their assigned area, it may even have fallen to the relatively fresh (besides travel time) 8th ID to take the city, supported by engineering and recon elements of the Marines.

I should have a more detailed idea of what's going on within the week (which I expect to be picked apart by everyone. :p)

I'm interested to see what you come up with.

I based my version of events on a simple correlation of forces in the XI Corps AO and, aside from the Polish TD, there's not a lot of WTO combat strength there to stop mechanized NATO forces near the Baltic. Factor in the Tarawa and other attached amphibs and their accompanying naval gunfire support and the Marines have significant freedom of movement/action.

Emphasis mine:

You must be talking about some contingent of NPCs that your PCs haven't seen... :cool:

- C.

I meant when the op was launched. Hey, it wouldn't be T2K if the PCs weren't thrust into desperate straights against overwhelming odds! ;)

I'm working on the assumption the bulk of the marine force would land in the vicinity of Stegna, with primary objectives being the village & bridges at Rybina (where the HQ would set themselves up), Vistula river crossing at Dworek, Nowy Dwor (both town & bridges), and the bridge at Jazowa.
Secondary objectives would be the bridge at western end of the island of Sobieszewo, the lock at the south east corner of Sobieszewo island, and the ferry across the mouth of the main channel at Mikoszewo.
These objectives give the 8th ID and any follow on units two prepared routes with crossing points to choose between.
Once secured, moves could be made on Elblag, probably with assistance from the newly arrived (hopefully) 8th ID.

Although the east and west flanks of the marines would be protected by rivers, there's still a LOT of open flood plains on their south flank through which the enemy could attack. Much of the 4,000 strong force would need to be allocated to defending the three river crossings (Dworek, Nowy Dwor and Jazowa) and patrolling between those locations and further south. As these three crossings are the most likely axis of advance for follow on units, they'd absolutely HAVE to be held.

With approximately 1,300 troops assigned to supporting roles (HQ, logistics, transport, artillery, engineering, etc), and one regiment (say 600 men) defending the secondary objectives around Sobieszewo Island, that leaves only about 2,100 including the recon and armoured elements to defend a front with few helpful terrain features of about 22 kilometres. Also, units would need to be positioned/patrol along the flanks to ensure the rivers weren't crossed by enemy forces and the combat units attacked from the rear (or the supporting units attacked at all).

All up, the Marines would have a front to defend of approximately 40 kilometres which blows out to nearly 60 kilometres if Elblag is taken (no natural barriers to the east, south or north, although there does appear to be some old ancient earthworks to the north).

With Pact Cavalry units in the area, and the HQ of the Baltic Front known to be at Malbork (Intel Estimate 142, June 2000), just 15 kilometres or so away from Nowy Dwor, the Marines can't afford to overstretch themselves.

You make a good point, Leg, about the Marines not wanting to stretch themselves too thin. However, your version seems to account only for 2 MarDiv and the 8th MID. What about the rest of XI Corps and III German Corps? When the [German Third Army] offensive kicks off, NATO has a lot of combat power in NW Poland; aside from the relatively powerful Polish 9th MRD division, the WTO forces in the AO consist mosty of small cavalry units that, while mobile, probably don't have a lot of firepower, compared to the U.S. mech and armored divisions that make up XI Corps.

Here's a map I made of unit dispositions in Poland during the summer 2000 (before the disaster at Kalisz). You'll have to zoom in on the AO.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid...f792073e&msa=0

Even leaving German III Corps out of the picture entirely, U.S. XI Corps, with the U.S. 50th TD, 116th ACR, 8th MID, and Canadian 4th MB (4600 men & 67 tanks), attacking east, could deal with the Polish units East of Gydnia (5900 men and 10 tanks). The Marines (4000;8), given the proper sealift capacity, would be able to launch amphibious assaults deep in the Pact rear. In my scenario, some of 2 MarDiv (all the tanks and at least a regiment) also attacks overland with the rest of XI Corps- that's 5600 men and 75 tanks against 5900 men and only 10 tanks. And this doesn't even include 5th MID!

Also, given the dubious loyalty of some of the Polish units in the AO (the Polish 1st Tank Army declares for the PFC by winter), I think III Corps intel was counting on some of the Polish units not putting up much of a fight.

The goal of the XI Corps offensive, in my mind, is to cut off the Polish units in the Penninsula (that's my vision) and launch raids deep into Pact territory (that's canon). It's essentially a single envelopment attack, with XI Corps slashing across the base of the Penninsula, while German III Corps attacks east, protecting its flank. The raids (5th MID & 8th MID) are intended to sow confusion and create panic. In my T2KU, about 3/4 of the Marines are also a part of this raiding force.

One last question for you, Leg. How/where did you come up with the figure of 1,300 Marines acting as support personnel? Is this a personal inference or is it based on canon? Personally, I interpret the unit strength figures given by canon as combat power- logistics and support personnel are not included in the numbers given. By 2000 most logisitical and support duties would be handled by local personnel supervised by troops no longer capable of front-line duty (amputees & such). Units by 2000 would be a lot leaner than they are today and, since they're already quite small (a division of 1000 men?), if you make some of them into support troops, you're left with even less combat power.

But hey, that's the beauty of T2K. We're all allowed to interpret and modify our game worlds as we see fit.

The Marines had to have landed in advance of the main force, otherwise what's the point of them landing at all? The objectives I've listed are really only their first stage - perhaps just the first week or so. Once reinforcements arrived, the situation would have been reassessed and the Corps commander, guided by the wishes of the German III Army commander, would have re-tasked them, perhaps even taken them back on board the ships and redeployed them further along the coast.

As we know, it's extremely unlikely any units other than the 8th ID would have made it that far east, at least not in any significant numbers. My assessment of the overall offensive, first posted back in 2008 details the reasons behind that.

We also know from the 8th ID entry in the US Army Vehicle Guide (V1) that the 8th ID was detached from the XI Corp.
Note it was detached before it moved through northern Poland which says to me it left the rest of the corps behind it in western Poland.
I've got grave doubts about those locations. The more I dig, the more I research, the more I believe the offensive started before June 2000. The 5th ID "jumping off point" of the area of Chojnice and Czluchow seems to have been simply where they were as of that date. There's a good chance in my mind at least that they had actually started the year further westwards and their June location was simply where they where at the beginning of their next phase of the offensive.
I could well be wrong, but why would they be so far out from friendly lines and surrounded by hostile forces otherwise?

And, as I've mentioned before on numerous occasions, the positions shown on the map in the 2.x BYB simply don't add up. Some locations are pre-offensive, some post, some don't even match up with information from other references. Basically, the whole map seems to be drawn up for the players benefit and includes a number of wild guesses as borne out by close examination of Intel Estimate 142 in conjunction with the vehicle guides.

So, to summarise, the US 2nd Marines would have had to plan on taking only what they could hold on to until XI Corps linked up with them, and they'd have to do it without the help of air power or any sort (beyond maybe an occasional flight), satellite and aerial recon, decent electronic surveillance, etc. They'd be back to using the intelligence assets of pre-WWI and remnants of modern tech, as well as being restricted in their ability to quickly redeploy military assets in response to enemy activity.

Note my comments about pre-offensive dispositions.
The same can be said for enemy strengths.

Looking at the available information, it's clear the NATO commanders saw the Baltic coast and it's Polish defenders as a weak point in the PACT defences, however the PACT commanders had to have known something NATO didn't, otherwise why would they have left such an obvious hole in the line? It's very possible the Poles were equipped with numerous anti-armour weapons, numbered more than is shown in the books, had a few more tanks than shown, or a number of other factors all which caused the bulk of the XI Corps to become bogged down. As has been discussed in the past years, the NATO reliance on fuel may have played into the Poles hands. Heavy, armoured units have to stop every few days or so to brew fuel - cavalry, while slower in the short term and unable to carry as much heavy weaponry, can run rings around tanks and APCs with only fumes in their tanks, avoiding the heavy guns and slicing into the infantry and rear areas.

Doubtful.
No commander in their right mind would include the hope of the enemy switching sides or melting away in their plans. It's an invitation to disaster.
That could work, and I'm of a similar opinion, however we can't be 100% positive of the pre-offensive positions of any unit. Most we have a fairly good idea about, but for some it's a crap shoot.
As mentioned a few days back, I've been working on the 2nd Marines for a while now. I've carried out intensive research into the organisation and requirements of a marine unit and it's become fairly clear to me that 1300 give or take 200 is a fair figure for T2K.
We know from canon materials, specifically The Ruins of Warsaw that the listed number of troops of a unit is indeed the full number of ALL members of that unit. The SOV 10th GTD has a listed strength of 300 and we have the breakdown in that book to show exactly what's going on, right down to individual members.
We also have The Black Madonna detailing the Czech 14th MRD, 1st AAB, 3rd BGB, and SOV 129th MRD which clearly indicates the inclusion of support personnel in the total troop numbers.

Getting back to the Marines, given the poor state of naval forces in T2K, it's a fair assumption that amphibious assets simply aren't available to transport more than the 4,000 troops and their vehicles in 2000 for an amphibious landing. If there were port facilities available, perhaps, but across the beaches and up the rivers? I think not.
This may well be part of the reason the German Marine units were not included in the landing(s) - they were held back to act as a reserve marine force and would use the same ships which had earlier landed the US Marines.

Suit yourself, Leg. I've done quite a bit of research too and I'm comfortable with what I've done with it. I wish you liked my scenario, but I'm not going to change it based on your disapproval. This is my T2KU and you don't have to live in it. By the same token, I don't need to accept your vision either. Once we get into debating who's stuff is more "accurate" (based on what criteria? Canon, I suppose?), we move on to a very slippery slope. I'm not trying to dictate anything with my material- I'm simply offering up a vision of T2K for the rest of the community to do with, or dispense with, as each member sees fit.

I considered responding point-by-point to your rebuttle, but I think that would be a waste of time (a lot of my thinking regarding 3rd German Army's Summer 2000 Offensive has already been laid out elsewhere on the forum). We clearly don't see eye to eye on this and I'm fine with that.

I would like to point out, however, that I created the map based solely on canonical sources. There's no speculation there on my part, unless it's explicitly noted in the key. If you want to pick and choose which canon supports your vision and ignore what doesn't, that's totally your prerogative.

Remember, kids: only you can prevent canon-on-canon arguments!

- C.

:confused: So once more you are arguing over a game that has been out of print for 20 years? Its YOUR game run it how you like. Now go get a couple of beers and don't make me sick my mother-in-law on you two!!

I think we all need to go outside, fire up the BBQ and light off some fireworks to celebrate 4th of July. whoohooooo!!!

Man, I must have come across as really bitchy in my last post. Sorry, fellas. That was not my intent. You'll get no trouble out of me. One mother-in-law is quite enough already! ; )

I've no problem with your vision Rae and like I've said a few times in the past agree with you on almost every aspect. I'm just trying to help make what you're doing as good and logical as it can possibly be.

I would like to know where you disagree with me though, point by point. I'm just one person, just like everyone else, and could well have overlooked something you (or others) haven't.

Leg.

For once, man, please back away from the keyboard and stop trying to get the last word.

- C.

Umm, what? I WANT to hear Rae's (and others) comments, not because of any desire for an argument, but because I WANT THE FEEDBACK!

It's just that simple...

It's not about who's right and who's wrong, or anyone getting the last word. It's about discussing ideas and making improvements.

Leg, I see what you're saying, but you may want to consider that your fervent pursuit of "discussion" often looks more like "aggression" on some of our monitors. In this specific case, Rae indicated he was disengaging, to which you immediately responded by trying to press the very point-by-point exchange he'd just said he was leaving.

- C.