View Single Post
  #58  
Old 11-27-2009, 10:39 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Yes, the 3rd does appear to be very strong on the face of it, but they also have a terrible weakness - fuel.
In my assessment of the offensive written a while back, I came to the conclusion that the 2nd Marines had to have suffered some sort of catasrophy and the units following along behind the 5th and 8th had to have been held up.

The most appropriate event I could think of for the marines was the sinking of their supply ship and almost total loss of fuel reserves. This meant their mobility and firepower suddenly became a lead weight around their necks as they were reduced to rationing what little was left in vehicle tanks and operating on foot.

The poor state of units in northern Poland as shown in Canon are after the offensive - they'd been battered and torn apart by the 5th, 8th, 2nd marines and then 50th AD and assorted smaller units. While not particularly strong or capable of significant offensive action on their own, they were still a thorn in the side of XI Corp and needed to be hedged in. Therefore, until the following German units could be brought up, the 50th AD, 116 ACR and the Canadians had to pause their forward movement and secure the flanks.

Unfortunately, the Pact forces in the south took offensive action of their own shortly after Nato began it's eastward move. I've had them apply pressure to the southern areas as well as drive northward towards the Baltic Sea to cut off the XI Corps. With the pressure placed upon the British, the Germans had little option but to reinforce Southern Germany instead of following the US XI Corp, or risk the Soviets breaking through into some of their most important lands.

The Pact forces did not act in response to the Nato offensive - they had planned the attack months, if not a year or more ahead. I envisiage they intended to place the bulk of their effort into the south, however Nato moved first. To prevent the Pact offensive being cut off they had two options - withdraw as was hoped by Nato command, or modify their plans. They chose the latter and took a chance - this of course was to redirect their reinforcement units nortward to cut of the XI Corp, much like Nato was trying to do to the Soviets.

Neither side suceeded, or at least not as well as they'd hoped. The Pact forces battered themselves to exhaustion against the British, Germans and US units in Western Poland but did manage to fix the XI Corp in position in north west Poland where they still were in November. The units around Kalisz were rushed in from Russia and the Ukraine using fuel from Romania. I'm certain this move had not been intended as part of their offensive, but was prompted by a very strong US infantry division wandering about in central Poland causing no end of trouble. If these units had been intended to take part in the offensive, they would have been brought up much slower in the months beforehand, thereby saving the hundreds of thousands of litres of petroleum based fuels.

Nato managed to halt the Pact offensive, however lost the two US divisions who had made it to their objective areas (5th and 8th). They also ended up with the rest of XI Corp effectively cut off from Nato lines (although otherwise in reasonable shape). Nato probably gained more ground than the Pact overall, but only because they moved first (the area XI Corp is squatting on). Nato's offensive also spoiled what would have been a devastating Pact offensive in that it caused Pact reinforcements to be redeployed, easing pressure in the south and allowing those Nato units to survive.

I hope that rambling makes sense.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote