Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Part of the problem we face today is that the canon materials include unit information from both before and after the offensive without any real consistancy.
|
I agree with you on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
We also know the Tarawa was still floating in the initial stages of the offensive and a ship of it's status isn't likely to be sailing around unescorted. It could well be that the plan for the oil shale, processed or not, was to be carried by these ships. Unprocessed a simple cargo ship would suffice, processed and you'd need tanks (or lots and lots of barrels).
|
I still think that you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of extracting, shipping, and refining oil shale given the resources available in mid-2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Canon materials downplay the availablity of nukes. In fact I can recall only one warhead still in Soviet hands (Bears Den I think). Boomer also shows the great lengths the Soviets go to to recover he sub and especially it's handful of warheads.
|
I hadn't thought about it in these terms. If canon is asserting that the USSR only has access to a dozen or so nukes after the exchanges described in the source materials, then I think this is a serious error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
They had it. Just look at all the previous work I've done on the subject. It was the unexpected brutality of the Pact counteroffensive which smashed the plan into oblivion.
|
I too have done a correlation of forces in central Europe based entirely on canon and the Soviet/WTO forces outnumber NATO forces at something like 3 or 4 to 1 in manpower and 2 or 3 to 1 in MBTs.
If your interested, check out this map I've made. Unit strengths, per canon, are provided for each unit.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...f792073e&msa=0
Please note that I have not yet had a chance to map the Soviet/WTO units in Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Hungary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Suppies come in, oil shale goes out. Same ships, different directions.
|
It's just not that simple. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
As already established, oil shale is difficult to process. Given the Ploesti fields and greater potential output (once they fixed the refineries), closer location of Ploesti to where the fuel is needed, and relative isolation of Estonia, it begins to make sense why the Soviets were not actively exploiting the resource. Nato also probably targeted this area heavily early in the war with airstrikes to destroy much of the industry and transportation - rebuilding was probably not a priority for the Soviets given the situation they faced elsewhere.
|
This is a valid argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
And once again, the oil shale isn't likely to have been the main objective of the offensive - that was far more likely to have been putting pressure on the northern flank of the Pact units in Germany and Poland and giving the Pact commanders cause to withdraw or face encirclement.
|
Too many objectives can kill offensive operations. Once again, NATO would have to have the facilities to pump, transport, and refine the oil shale to make this sideshow worthwhile. They don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
It's the US 5th ID's action which is described as a raid. They were just one small (no more than 5% by manpower) part of the overall offensive.
|
You are correct. I shouldn't extend this to cover the entire offensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
One has to remember this wasn't a Divisional operation, or even just a Corps involved. You have to go bigger, much bigger. The offensive elements alone were an entire Army with the British Army and other formations tasked with support and to follow on after.
This action was HUGE and involved at least half of Nato's forces. Only in the south facing down towards the Italians, or up in Norway was the front quiet.
|
Where does it say this in canon? This appears to be your own interpretation of the Summer 200o offensive.