I think that as long as you don't refer to units which have been previously established as elsewhere (the US 5th ID at Czestchowa for example), or having sat out that phase of the war (probably due to rebuilding from prior engagements), you probably can't go wrong.
It could be simply said that as units on the front line further east became tired, they were rotated back to what may have been basically garrison duty.
The high number of armoured units mentioned in the withdrawal makes a fair bit of sense to me. We know Warsaw was nuked to slow down the enemy and most modern IFVs possess some form of NBC protection.
Armoured units may also be a bit faster than infantry too, more able to set up ambushes and then run before the enemy built up too much strength. Yes, mechanised infantry can do the same, but they really need to dismount most of their manpower to be fully effective.
We also know from looking through the Soviet Vehicle Guide (and 2nd ed handbook) that it was a tank army spearheading the relief of Warsaw. NATO armour units seem like the better option than infantry to face them. This might also explain why the US 8th ID suffered so badly....
Quite likely a few straws being grasped at above, but can anyone come up with a better scenario?
|