Canon Germany to RDF tank transfer

[Olefin]

Just posted this on another thread but figured this deserves its own thread

If you look at the US vehicle guide versus the RDF guide you can see that tanks and helos must have been transferred from Germany to the RDF during the Omega evac - and since Omega said no tanks or heavy vehicles were loaded it proves a seperate evac

Here are the numbers

24th Mech
July 1, 2000 - 2000 men, 9 M1A2
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 18 AFV

101st

July 1, 2000 - 4000 men 4 AH-64
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 4 AH-64, 12 UH-60

9th ID

July 1, 2000 - 1500 men, 12 LAV-75
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men, 16 AFV

82nd
July 1, 2000 -3000 men, 7 AFV
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men 12 AFV

6th ACCB
July 1, 2000 - 600 men 12 AH-64
Jan 1, 2001 - 1100 men, 6 OH-58, 12 AH-64

1st Marine
July 1, 2000 - 3000 men, 6 M1
Jan 1, 2001 - 3000 men 16 AFV
3rd Marine
July 1, 2000 - 4000 men 5 M1
Jan 1, 2001 - 4000 men, 12 AFV

Add up the difference and what do you get

4000 men
35 AFV's
12 UH-60 helos
6 OH-58 helos

meaning 2000 men havent been accounted for yet in the formations or they took losses in men and AFV's between June and Jan and they were made up

So that makes a possible 3rd Armored Division transfer even more likely along with possibly the other 1000 men being assigned with the 18 helos

they had 5000 men and 54 AFV after all and that definitely would give the RDF the reinforcements seen above

and the remaining 2000 men and AFV's may not have arrived yet - its says the first of 6000 reinforcements arrived in Dec of 2000 - it doesnt say that they had all arrived

And dont say it was repaired tanks - they only had 39 in the whole theater in June and suddenly another 35 show up from repairs with no spare parts and no shipments from the US?

The only convoy that arrived in the time period per canon was from Europe per canon

So that proves that there was a canon evac of tanks and helos from Europe (and most likely artillery and other heavy weapons) that had nothing to do with the Omega evac

[Webstral]

Interesting! I haven't done anything with CENTCOM, so I never crunched any of the relevant numbers. Which source gives the Jan 1, 2001 numbers? (Sorry, I don't have any of my materials in front of me.)

[Webstral]

The fact is that some of the accounting has gaps. I’ve never really sweated it. The GDW guys had a big job, and this was before the Internet. I have always seen my job in regards to the Twilight: 2000 universe as deputy to the guys who created it. When the sheriff misses something, I do my best to catch it, smooth it over, or act in keeping with his philosophy to put things right.

Okay, so I said elsewhere that I was going to try to demonstrate how we used to do things here. Here goes:

The most important point I want to make is that I appreciate that you’re looking into the numbers, Olefin. I like the idea of some allowances being made for shipment of materiel from Europe to the Middle East in the wake of the failure of the Summer 2000 offensive. I’m not sure the argument in favor of an alternative Operation Omega is ironclad, though. There are some items that deserve consideration.

I’ve always wondered about the AFV v Tanks notation. I don’t agree that AFV numbers automatically means tanks. Not all AFV are tanks. I have wondered if GDW switched to giving AFV numbers because players weren’t assigning APC and IFV to the divisions listed in US Army Vehicle Guide because the notation didn’t strongly enough suggest their presence. I know that in at least one location in the v1 rules the authors state that numbers of tanks are given so that the referee will have some idea of how many lighter fighting vehicles should be assigned. Nonetheless, the creative team made the switch from listing strength in tanks to listing strength in AFV. I have operated under the assumption that giving a unit’s strength in AFV gives the referee more latitude to decide what kind of AFV are still in operation. The apparent increase in numbers of fighting vehicles in CENTCOM could simply be the inclusion of M2, M3, and M113 in the totals for the division.

Originally Posted by Olefin

… repaired tanks - they only had 39 in the whole theater in June and suddenly another 35 show up from repairs with no spare parts and no shipments from the US?

I have always believed that the US Army and the USMC would make every effort to recover damaged tanks. 24th ID likely has a depot with disabled vehicles that are cannibalized for parts. Every division probably has their own arrangement for storing nonoperational vehicles for salvage and for putting back into operation if parts become available. We should remember that most tank losses are the results of breakdowns. Under ideal conditions, almost all of these tanks are repaired and put back into action, though not always in the battle towards which they were moving when they broke down. After the Exchange, however, some types of breakdowns will permanently sideline the track. I’m no tanker, so I don’t know which types of breakdowns are the most common among the M1. I do know that even (or especially) a well-maintained tank unit experiences certain types of breakdowns more commonly than others. Some parts wear out more quickly than others. Lack of those parts can deadline otherwise mission capable tracks.

We know that Operation Omega didn’t allow room for much in the way of heavy equipment. I do remember from either RDF Sourcebook or King’s Ransom that 6,000 troops find their way from Europe to the Gulf. It’s possible that operational tracks in Germany were cannibalized for parts most needed in the Gulf. Even if we assume that AFV translates into MBT or LAV-75, we’re only talking about a battalion of tanks. The power plants for 35 tanks would be much easier to transport than the tanks themselves. If the problem parts were even smaller, they’d be even easier to transport.

Of course, what I’m suggesting might be interpreted to really annoy the Germans. We know they aren’t keen on having all those AFV moving off the front lines. If the Americans pull vital parts out and leave the tanks in a park at Bremerhaven, the Germans might take that pretty poorly. On the other hand, their ability to keep M1s in good repair isn’t promising. If the parts the Americans want to take are all mobility related, the M1s can be redistributed and dug in, just as the defense force of Krakow does with its immobile tanks. Whether they are running or not, the M1s almost certainly are going to go back to the front on tank carriers, not under their own power. So the Germans might not have an issue (to whatever degree the opinion of the Germans matters) with the Americans yanking the power plants, tracks, or other mobility assemblies for shipment to the Gulf.

An even simpler explanation is that the Americans set up in Germany an assembly line for making some of the parts most commonly needed by M1. The Germans have the right labor force and the right equipment base for this sort of thing. Production probably would not be at all impressive. However, the Americans might insist on having all of the stocks go with them before turning the facility over to the Germans. In this case, the Germans might be able to provide some maintenance for the M1s they inherit.

The helicopter discrepancies are harder to explain, although again the arrival of parts from Europe for grounded birds offers an option.

None of the foregoing is meant to imply that there can’t be a major shipment of machines to the Gulf. I am, however, saying that there are ways to explain the apparent discrepancies in the numbers between mid-2000 and the beginning of 2001 that don’t involve shipping large numbers of MBT from Germany to the Gulf.

[Panther Al]

Web, I would lean to the V2 vs. V1 as far as tanks/AFV's go to still mean tanks. I looked at the V2 USVG, and they break out only MBT's in the listings, so saying that its still a yard stick to measure how well equipped a unit is (1 tank usually means, say, 3 IFV's for example).

At least thats how I read it.

[Legbreaker]

Thanks for the initial numbers Olefin, however there's some MASSIVE holes in your argument.

Firstly, both editions of the US Vehicle Guide only state number of tanks. The RDF Sourcebook lists numbers of AFVs.
The definition of an AFV, or as they are properly known, Armoured Fighting Vehicle is basically any vehicle with a weapon and armour of some kind. Technically, an armoured Humvee is considered an AFV - a far cry from being a tank...
Note also that OPORD OMEGA specifically states in the "mission" section that "Vehicles and heavy equipment will be transferred to FRG prior to departure."
Therefore, there is absolutely no inconsistency between the two books to justify transfer of tanks from Europe to the Middle East, and canon clearly states this was not to happen.

Secondly, the US Vehicle Guide only shows combat aircraft - those specifically tasked with direct combat roles such as the AH-64 Apache.
The RDF Sourcebook includes transport aircraft such as the UH-60 Blackhawk and also shows the OH-58 Kiowa, which is nothing more than a scout and observation helicopter. Both of these latter two can be armed, but they cannot possibly be described as an attack helicopter.
We can therefore apply the same tank/AFV logic.

The next point is even more obvious.
According to page 17 of the RDF Sourcebook, General MacLean "made it known to all the troops of CENTCOM that if they wished to return to America, arrangements would be made to get them there". Now admittedly only "a few hundred wanted to go home," but that is just the start of accounting for the allocation of the 6,000 bodies from Europe.

The US Vehicle Guide lists manpower as of the 01JUL00, six months before the RDF Sourcebook. According to the RDF Sourcebook, US units (specifically the 24th ID) were engaged in offensive operations after this date and could be expected to suffer losses from the 2,000 of 01JUL00. These losses could be just a handful, but since the smaller Iranian 44th Infantry Brigade replaced them after only a few months, and the 44th isn't included in the OOB of 01JAN01 (potentially destroyed with survivors reallocated), it's very possible the 24th ID suffered badly. The 24th is therefore a probable recipient for a large portion of Army replacements (more than the 2,000 difference between July and January).

Furthermore, there has been no attention given to anything besides the US Army.
What about reinforcements for the Navy, or the Air Force? Ignoring shore based personnel and looking only at the the ships in TF76, they require crews totalling 3,828 officers and men. Are we to believe that years of combat have left those crew numbers unchanged? Shouldn't we also apply a similar ratio of losses as faced by ground forces which is roughly 70-80%? Doesn't the Last Sub trilogy bear out the belief that replacements have been few and far between, even though Omega arrived approximately five weeks earlier? (only a skeleton crew could be found from all the Milgov controlled areas to crew the Corpus Christi).
Applying a modest 66% loss to the Naval forces (which is much lower than I'd honestly believe) that means they need 2,500 warm bodies (which may explain why there were few suitable naval specialists to be found in the US in January 2001).

And what about the Air Force? According to the RDF Sourcebook, Aviation units have a manpower on 01JAN01 of 3,050 - note some of the listed units in the books did not have a manpower number attached. How many of them are replacements from Europe?

Given the last major fleet in being was destroyed off the coast of Norway way back in 1997, it's very possible that a significant proportion of the 6,000 are survivors of those actions. With the lack of aviation fuel, parts and ammo in Europe, it's also likely a sizeable number of pilots and ground crew volunteered to go to the Middle East just for the chance to fly or work on aircraft again.

It is my belief that roughly one third of the 6,000 probably came from navy or air force origins.

Where the RDF Sourcebook shows an increase in AFVs which cannot be explained by any of the above, there is another solutions - captured vehicles. We already know enemy vehicles were used by both sides, and we know the US 2nd Marines actually increased their numbers in both manpower and tanks - what's to say a small (company sized) Pact mechanised unit wasn't wiped out/routed and their vehicles captured? We are after all only talking about a handful of AFVs (which as mentioned earlier could be nothing more than scout cars).

[95th Rifleman]

I have to agree with legbreaker

All tanks are AFVs, however not all AFVs are tanks.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.

You poor deluded fool. Do you really think I and others don't THOROUGHLY research ALL the materials before posting? Of course the Soviet numbers haven't changed - the game focus is squarely on the US troops and GDW simply didn't have the time available to update every little insignificant detail the PCs were unlikely to encounter before their deadline! They were publishing something like 3 titles a week at the time which isn't bad for a small company like they were! Of course they had to focus on what the players were most likely to encounter!

Originally Posted by Olefin

The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001

if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF

We know from the RDF Sourcebook that the US I Amphibious Corps, supported by elements of the Iranian Army (specifically their 44th IB) carried out an offensive operation from June 2000. There is no date when this was concluded besides the US 24th ID being relieved in October 2000. Are you trying to tell us the Soviets facing them didn't loose a single man or machine!?
Have you even once considered that if the US can get reinforced, the Soviets will too? That they've had six months to repair vehicles, for men to heal, or new recruits drafted, trained and sent to the front?
Also, looking at a map shows that many of the Soviet units are quite a distance from the front - are they supposed to suffer battle damage?

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.[/B]

As you seem so keen to point out when it suits you, the designers make the occasional mistake. The world wide accepted definition of AFV is anything with armour and a weapon and is not ONLY tanks.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.

Only in your mind. As I have proven in my last post, there is NO evidence of such an occurence and OPORD OMEGA clearly states this was NOT to happen. Or is this a piece of evidence you'd like to ignore also?
I have also shown that OH-58's and UH-60's were not included in the earlier OOB. Exclude them and the numbers work perfectly. Now tell me there's irrefutable evidence helicopters were taken...

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.

There is NO evidence of a second convoy. There was no fuel for them AND the US had to borrow German ships for Omega in the first place. Is it reasonable to assume the Germans are going to allow the US to go back on their word and send tanks and aircraft they'd paid for using yet more ships and fuel which belonged to the Germans?

Originally Posted by Olefin

Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.

Yes, that is possible, but it's easier to sail the whole way, and since your proposal that anything beyond personal equipment has been blown out of the water, it's also a LOT quicker and more likely everyone will survive. Walking across deserts isn't my idea of fun.
Catching more ships from the Red Sea is also very unlikely. Remember that even the Tarawa class can only carry about 1,900 men - where are the ships coming from? Does Israel really want 6,000 foreign troops marching through, eating their food and using up their limited supplies (even if they are allies)? I think not. Imagine the massive logistical challenges an overland route would face. Imagine the challenges of organising a second fleet of transports and the fuel for them!
Simple logic dictates that as extremely improbable - possible sure, but very, very improbable and certainly very impractical.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry - but its canon guys.

So you say, yet, once again, you've got holes in your argument large enough to drive a truck through. Every point you've made has been disproved, or at least been proved as unlikely.

Originally Posted by Olefin

So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)

WHAT SECOND CONVOY!? Where are you getting that idea from? It simply does not exist in the books!

Originally Posted by Olefin

You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.

Better answer - they were held in reserve for the Spring Offensive. You should read the various threads on it, it's been exhaustively written about and discussed.
Also, if the US had to borrow ships from the Germans, AND didn't have the fuel in the first place, why, how could they plan to send an entire Division to what throughout the war was considered a third grade backwater of a front (see how little importance was given to deploying units there in the first place - unit histories). Additionally, why would they send a strong Division out of the area when the Spring offensive was aimed at taking control of virtually all of northern Poland (at least the coastal area anyway)? Wouldn't they be needed as a follow on force to shore up the line for the expected Pact counter attacks?

Now nobody is saying you can't do what you like in your own game with your own group, but to come here and try to convince this global community that you are "RIGHT" with such obvious drivel and combative attitude...

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.

The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001

if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF

Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.

The Soviet numbers in the July 2000 guide match man for man, AFV for tank to the Jan 1, 2001 numbers in the RDF

That is conclusive proof that what Frank Frey is saying is an AFV is what the author of the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the US Vehicle Guide is saying is a tank.

And there is no reduction of Soviet tank numbers to match the 35 tanks as to captured tanks.


Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.

You can spin it all you want but its right there, clear as crystal, black and white in the three guides

If you put them together you have 35 tanks and 18 helos show up with the 6000 men from Germany.

Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.

Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.

Sorry - but its canon guys.

So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)

You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -

Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.

Now you can argue if you want - but the fact is that such a shipment or men and equipment occurred and its canon

So Leg - are you saying that we should ignore or change canon because it doesnt fit your view of the timeline?

This is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about, Olefin. "Thanks for playing..." I understand that Internet land encourages us to develop bad habits in terms of our communication with fellow posters. We don't do that here, with the exception of one or two in whom we're still trying to encourage development.

Everyone appreciates a newcomer with new information, a new outlook, and new work to share. Very few appreciate a newcomer with attitude, which is why you may have read others remarking about breaking into a tight-knit group. Try soft-shoeing a bit more, Olefin. Presentation really does matter. Your ideas will be just as good and just as salable presented under the banner of "I have a counterargument" as "Thanks for playing."

If you want another example, look at Kato's reply: brief, factual, and neutral.

You did good work by identifying some room for playing with the numbers in the RDF and cross-referencing other sources. That is commendable, and that is why I accepted your friend request. The flipness and the representation of raised voices, etc. are offputting.

You have a good point about the way some posters cling to canon. Again, your use of the reference materials is praiseworthy. I strongly recommend that you not use few posters who rigidly cling to canon or who prefer a rougher and more confrontational style of interaction act as your role models. Kato and Raellus are good models for how the majority of us prefer to do business. People listen to them. People don't listen so much to those posters who prefer a style of interaction resembling barstool philosophy. That latter group may post frequently, but their arguments are given short shrift compared to the arguments put forth by guys like Kato and Raellus, or Targan.

Give it some thought. I'm not discussing the merit of your argument here. I'm discussing how ideas are presented--particularly rebuttals to the rebuttals of others. There's a reason why folks wear suits when they appear in court or give a dissertation.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I’ve always wondered about the AFV v Tanks notation. I don’t agree that AFV numbers automatically means tanks.

A quick comparison between The V1 Sov Vehicle Guide and the V1 Rdf SourceBook shows the same counts for AFVs and Tanks. I would think the terms are interchangeable from that observation (as the manpower counts remain exactly the same for the 10 units I checked).

This is odd given they are 6 months apart, but is does show that US units grew while Soviet Units were static in terms of Heavy Vehicles.