Soviet 124th MRD

[schnickelfritz]

I am trying to flesh out the Soviet 124th MRD, part of the 4th Guards Tank Army, and a critical part of the V1 Escape From Kalisz Scenario.

In the V1 information, they have placed (3) T-80 tanks in Siearadz after the battle, of which only one can move.

Given that the 124th is listed in the Soviet Vehicle Guides as a Mobilization Only formation, does this seem realistic?

I have a hard time buying that the 124th would have been issued T-80's and probably the best they could have hoped for were T-72's. T-55's or T-62's seem a lot more realistic.

It would seem to me that the 124th probably consisted of obsolete tanks, BMP-1's (BMP-A) and BTR-60's at the time of the Battle of Kalisz. That certainly would/could explain the lopsided slaughter they suffered. At the same time, I might be tempted to issue the BRDM-1 or maybe BRDM-2 armored cars for their recce formations.

Given their low priority, I would probably assign them a few D-30 and/or D-20 towed howitzers, D-10 100mm AT guns, and 120mm mortars for their support weapons, with the mortars (due to their low cost and widespread numbers) probably outnumbering the tube artillery 2-3:1.

Any thoughts?

Having T-55's and BMP-1's (most likely without AT-3 missiles) attempting to assault a position equipped with M1A2's and dig in infantry (most likely supported by a handful of M-2 IFV) would certainly explain the failure of the counterattack and the total shattering of the 124th as a cohesive force.

Thanks-
Dave

[Raellus]

Although it does seem strange that a "mobilization only" formation would be equipped with T-80s, it's possible that the division was issued with some newly-produced MBTs prior to the TDM or that it has since been issued with rebuilds. A division doesn't necessarily end the war with the same gear it started it with. Perhaps 124th MRD "scrounged" a few broken down T-80s from another division and, after repairing them, returned them to service in its own tank unit. It's also possible that the writers couldn't tell the difference between a T-80 and an upgraded T-72 (or even T-62), both of which seem more likely fits for a third-string MRD. It's probably a matter of the writers overlooking a previously established fact (i.e. a continuity error). That being the case, I still think one can create a rationale to adequately explain the gaffe.

Also, the 124th MRD lost most of it's armor on July 17th while on road march to a flank attack by 3-70, not in frontal attacks on dug-in M1s. I think you may be confusing 124th MRD's demise with 21st MRD's attacks on the blocking postions north of Kalisz in the wee hours of July 18th.

[Abbott Shaull]

One of the things that many people don't have an easy time wrapping their heads around in the West. If a tank or vehicle falls out of road march in the Soviet Army, when it back up and running it doesn't go out and catch up with it parent unit. Like what would happen with the NATO troops. They may find themselves assigned to whatever Regiment/Battalion/Company that was near by.

So no it is doubtful they would of had these vehicles when the Division was activated, I am sure sometime during it movements with the 4th Guards Tank Army had a Regiment of T80s and during the movement they broke down. When they got them back and up and running they were attached to whatever Tank unit was nearby...lol

[Legbreaker]

Agreed. By 2000 almost anything could be found in almost any unit, even once enemy equipment.
I suppose applying a percentage likelihood to each piece of equipment could be a way to go. A T-55 for example would have say a 10% chance of being in a Cat A Soviet unit, but 85% with Mob only. A V1.0 T-90 might be the reverse.

[Abbott Shaull]

Uhm part of the reason why the 10th Soviet Guards Tank Division switch sides was due to as part of their refit was few dozen burned out T-55, among other things...

[Adm.Lee]

They were "Mobilization Only" back in 1996, this is 2000. Assuming the Sovs had tank production really rolling through 1997, I can't see why this division, or any other, didn't get the newer-tech items at some point.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, but you using western ideas on how equipment is replaced with the military in which they rebuild an unit by one of two ways.

1. Units and Equipment are replaced by taking the remains of two or more units and combining units as needed based within Army and Front needs. Which means a tank regiment in this fashion may have one Battalion equipped with one type of tanks and another different type of tanks depending what could be salvage and repaired and what was brought up from the rear areas, including equipment that had previous broken down and left behind by other commands that has been collected and consolidated into new form units...

2. When units are consolidated, the flags of units that have been absorbed could be taken to training area and new units raised.

Both of these methods have been used in the past by the Soviet Army. So it not to far fetch that they would use them again.

With the rapid movement of the 4th GTA, the T-80s in question could of been left behind by some other units of the 4th GTA that may have them and once the maintenance personnel had got the tanks running they were just attached to the unit passing through since the Army would really want to keep things moving and not wait until they had a company or battalions of T80s ready to attach to the nearest Tank Regiment or Motorized Rifle Regiment.

[Webstral]

Given the extraordinary turmoil of the nuclear exchange and the fighting in 1998, I think it’s safe to say that all bets are off regarding equipment. Any number of circumstances can be imagined in which a battalion or regiment is switched between divisions, to say nothing of the fate of stragglers. War creates chaos, while human nature attempts to rebuild order. The interaction between these two dynamics shatters structures and rationalizes the irrational simultaneously and in alternating sequence.


Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In addition to what's already been said, I'd like to add another point. The real world can only go so far to explain why the game designers created the world in the manner that they did, then we have to move on to consider how much of their decision was based on making the game world an interesting and challenging world to game in.

I think in terms of the 'spirit of the game' you can have almost anything within reason simply because you're trying to make an interesting, challenging and fun place for your players to game in.
There's probably too much reliance on what would happen in the real world in some cases.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The real world can only go so far to explain why the game designers created the world in the manner that they did, then we have to move on to consider how much of their decision was based on making the game world an interesting and challenging world to game in.

I think in terms of the 'spirit of the game' you can have almost anything within reason simply because you're trying to make an interesting, challenging and fun place for your players to game in.
There's probably too much reliance on what would happen in the real world in some cases.

Exactly! It's a game and doesn't HAVE to relate to the real world in any way. In my mind, anything is possible, as long as it can be reconciled to the published materials, OR it's clearly stated to be an alternate universe sort of thing.

The main thing is that a particular scenario can be logically, rationally and adequately explained.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Given the extraordinary turmoil of the nuclear exchange and the fighting in 1998, I think it’s safe to say that all bets are off regarding equipment. Any number of circumstances can be imagined in which a battalion or regiment is switched between divisions, to say nothing of the fate of stragglers. War creates chaos, while human nature attempts to rebuild order. The interaction between these two dynamics shatters structures and rationalizes the irrational simultaneously and in alternating sequence.


Webstral

Yeah I know what you mean. It one of many things. I don't think many Divisions would survive intact with the units they went overseas with. With the exceptions of the 3rd US Army and IV US Corps for the US Army at least. The 3rd US Army had decent rotation rate in which troops were withdrawn and then sent back to wherever they were needed. The IV Corps wasn't sent over until late 1998 so it would have very few Companies, Battalions and Brigades changed from their original Division.

Like I have said before on these boards all one has to do is look at how the US Army has conducted it major Deployments since the Vietnam War. Rarely when Divisions or larger units were deployed were they fully deployed without a lot of cross-attachments from other units within the same Division or Corps to have a fully operational Division.

I have that with the Twilight 2000 war for the first year or so, units would traded, with them generally getting back to their parent units. After early 1998 it would become more difficult to send them back to their parent units, NATO units would be like Armor/Mechanized units of the Soviet Army in 1944 and 1945 where if there was an active offensive and some had to fall out, you more or less wrote them off as part of your organization. They would be end up with what ever the next units had came along when they were brought back to life to continue.

[Legbreaker]

My understanding is that Vietnam was a bit of a CF because of the rotation system. It destroyed unit cohesion, and the high turnover of officers severely undermined their authority while simultaneously removing them from the field just as they started to become competent.

Of course that's just a general impression.

If that's the case, it seems very unlikely the US would continue the practise in WWIII - but then we are talking about the military....

[Abbott Shaull]

No the rotation I was talking about was taking units out of front-line service and giving them time to re-organize, rest, and take in any replacement that were for the taking at the time. The XVIII Airborne Corps and Marine Amphibious Corps that made up the 3rd US Army was the only ones in their divisional notes in the vehicle guide that noted they had frequently been pulled from the front for this.

While many of the units in Korea and Europe may have time to rest and refit, but seemed to be they were far and fewer to come by.

[pmulcahy11b]

That fits with my view of the Middle East as more of a fluid and dynamic front, with time to rest and refit while other units go into the fray. The impression I have of Europe is a meat grinder.

[Legbreaker]

Same. Europe, once the Soviets brought in the far eastern units would have been one constant grind with no time to rest. We can see just how desperate the 1997 withdrawal was for Nato from some of the unit histories and the timeline info.
My guess is that this six month period was the most costly in men and material for the whole war on all fronts......and it never got significantly better.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah both Europe and Korea would be meat grinders. It part of the reason like the 40th Mechanized Division were destroyed in Europe the excess personnel after reforming one Brigade were sent back to California to rebuild the rest of the Division.

[Legbreaker]

I don't think of Korea as a meat grinder as much as China was for the Soviets and Chinese, and Europe for those there. Plenty of casualties, sure, but not to the same degree as elsewhere, or even what was seen in the 50's.

There doesnt' seem to be enough units on either side to create the masses of casualties seen elsewhere and I can't recall any of the unit histories indicating it either.

Of course we don't exactly have a lot of coverage of this area in the books....

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I don't think of Korea as a meat grinder as much as China was for the Soviets and Chinese, and Europe for those there. Plenty of casualties, sure, but not to the same degree as elsewhere, or even what was seen in the 50's.

There doesnt' seem to be enough units on either side to create the masses of casualties seen elsewhere and I can't recall any of the unit histories indicating it either.

Of course we don't exactly have a lot of coverage of this area in the books....

Two of the Marine Divisions and 2nd Infantry and 7th Light Infantry Divisions had all taken a beaten.

[Legbreaker]

That's what you get for me posting without books handy to refer to....

Still, it's only a handful of units compared to elsewhere. What other US units are in Korea and what shape are they in?

[Abbott Shaull]

For the US Army off the top of my head there was two Corps HQs. The 163rd Idaho National Guard Armor Cavalry Regiment which had been re-equipped with M115 (IIRC which were m113 with LAV-25 turrets on them).

Here is where the information

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=519

8th US Army

II US Amphibious Corps

23rd Regiment, 4th Marine Division
Subordination: II US Amphibious Corps
Current Location: Inchon, South Korea
Manpower: 700
Tanks: 7 M60A3

5th Marine Division
Subordination: II US Amphibious Corps
Current Location: Kaesong, North Korea
Manpower: 2000
Tanks: 9 M60A3

16th Regiment, 6th Marine Division
Subordination: II US Amphibious Corps
Current Location: Weijei, North Korea
Manpower: 600
Tanks: 4 M60A3

II US Corps
1st Brigade, 7th Light Infantry Division
Subordination: II US Corps
Current Location: ?
Manpower: 500
Tanks: None.
Notes: The 1st Brigade was trapped in North Korea after the run for the Yalu River was pushed back by victorious Soviet forces breaking out of China. The 1st has been out of contact for 13 months now. It is known they are actively making their way south.

26th Light Infantry Division
Subordination: II US Corps
Current Location: Yujiaitu, South Korea
Manpower: 500
Tanks: 13 LAV-75

45th Infantry Division
Subordination: II US Corps
Current Location: Pusan, South Korea
Manpower: 2000
Tanks: None

VI US Corps

2nd Infantry Division
Subordination: VI US Corps
Current Location: Seoul, South Korea
Manpower: 2000
Tanks: 4 M1

25th Light Infantry Division
Subordination: VI US Corps
Current Location: Firebase Alpha, North Korea
Manpower: 600
Tanks: None

41st Infantry Division
Subordination: VI US Corps
Current Location: Firebase Juliet, North Korea
Manpower: 2000
Tanks: None

163rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
Subordination: VI US Corps
Current Location: Firebase Neccessity, South Korea
Manpower: 300
Tanks: 4 LAV-75

These units are still contact with the remains of the North Korean Army supported by Soviet units after their victory over China.

[Legbreaker]

Hmm, not exactly a huge amount of strength is there...?

Of course there's the South Koreans and possibly a few other nations involved also since it is essentially supposed to be a UN force. Still, I can't see any real justification for nukes in the area - the North Koreans may have a handful, but would the UN authorise nuke use by "their" forces? (On the other hand, is the UN even running the show anymore after November 97?)

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Hmm, not exactly a huge amount of strength is there...?

Of course there's the South Koreans and possibly a few other nations involved also since it is essentially supposed to be a UN force. Still, I can't see any real justification for nukes in the area - the North Koreans may have a handful, but would the UN authorise nuke use by "their" forces? (On the other hand, is the UN even running the show anymore after November 97?)

When did the UN ever run the show. Since 1951 when US Forces landed the US has called many of the military calls. The way the unified military command is set up, it would be pretty much the same. The only thing is in Korea their is UN Mandate that and they have been more than happy leaving the US in charge of it.

Much like in NATO the US takes the lead roles in many of the major commands with a few exception like the NorthAG and other allowed by other allies to command. One of the Sticky things now is with NATO is that many of the members are part of the European Union which include some other nations that are suppose to be Neutral. Yet, under European Union they have more less take the what was the BOAR and turned it into rapid reaction force of the EU. *shrug*

Or the fact that NATO sat by and allow the Russia Army ransack Georgia a couple years ago...

[Abbott Shaull]

You have to remember that for the most part, none of the major oversea command had received much in reinforcements. Up until the total collapse of the China-Soviet Front, and with the invasion of the Pacific Northwest. Reinforcement would of been scarce even before TDM in 1997. With the majority heading to Europe and Middle East and trickle going to the Korea.

[HorseSoldier]

Most of the heavy lifting in Twilight War Korea would be done by the ROK military, which fields a large conventional force that is pretty solid by developed world standards. It's a sideshow for the US and anyone else who shows up but it's the South Koreans central concern. US forces in theater look the way they do probably because they're not getting support from CONUS and can't locally recruit like units in Europe. Being almost entirely reserve formations probably doesn't help either.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that most of the problem. Outside of the 2nd Infantry with the Armor and Mechanized Brigades and the 163rd Armor Cavalry Brigade and another heavy Brigades brought in by the 41st and 45th Infantry Division (one each), the rest of the force Light and Medium Brigades. Considering that 41st and 45th were bringing M113s and probably M60s too and the 163rd had M115s these units could be considered Medium compared to the other Heavy units already in country.

With the 7th, 25th and 26th all being Light Infantry Divisions Depending on if you go with three Light Brigade as they were organized with or go with 2 Light and one Medium Brigade. Not bad combination considering the terrain that the troops would have to operate in.

One thing I have always question was the 4th Marine Division (Reserve) and the two new raised division in the 5th and 6th Marine Division being Korea. These would of been the last of the troops sent into Korea. Honestly I see the 4th being sent to Middle East, to reinforce the MEF from California, while the MEF from Japan would be rushed to Korea.

Yeah like I state before I think Korea would of been at the end of line for getting replacements let alone reinforcements after the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions were sent over.

[HorseSoldier]

So far as I know, there were no plans on the books to stand back up 5th and 6th MarDivs in the event of a general shooting war, so suspect those guys were hurting in a big way for kit from day one. Possibly Korea was their destination because they weren't equipped to survive on the battlefield in Europe or the Middle East at the time they were deployed. While they seem to have held their own once in contact, I'd think those were some very shaky units when they went into the line, with the USMC also trying to cover battle casualty replacements for Europe and the Middle East.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

When did the UN ever run the show. Since 1951 when US Forces landed the US has called many of the military calls. The way the unified military command is set up, it would be pretty much the same. The only thing is in Korea their is UN Mandate that and they have been more than happy leaving the US in charge of it.

Yes, the 1950's Korean war was essentially led by the US, but it was, and remains a UN issue.
Also, the US is definitely not involved in a great deal of UN actions - take the following current actions:
MINURSO - Western Sahara
UNMIL - Liberia
UNMIS - Sudan
UNAMID - Darfur
MONUC - Congo

And that's just in Africa.... Of those, the US are only involved in Sudan and only have a handful of civilian police. That are certainly NOT running the show.

The same can be said for the majority of UN operations throughout the world. At best the US has a presence, but are NOT in command.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that is the problem with the US. They don't like to play well with other unless they have the troops are general under US Command.

Besides in general many places in Africa and the Middle East don't take well to US troops being deployed, even as peace keeping and observers.