German III Corps?

[Raellus]

I'm still having trouble reconciling 3rd Army's failed offensive with the Soviet/WTO forces present in northern Poland.

What Soviet and WTO units are involved in attempting to cut off the 3rd Army spearheads along the Baltic Coast? The map in the v2.2 rulebook and the unit location listings in the U.S., Soviet, and NATO vehicle guides don't place any powerful Soviet/WTO units in the north. For the most part, the only WTO listed near the Baltic coast are weak horse cavalry and BG units. The Polish 9th MRD is the only WTO unit in the region with any significant armor/heavy weapons.

5th ID's destruction makes plenty of sense considering the correlation of forces in the Lodz-Kalisz area. Based on the mauling the 5th ID gave most of the Soviet and WTO units involved in its destruction, it doesn't seem like those units could have turned north to stop significant NATO 3rd Army forces or even threaten its right flank enough to halt operations along the Baltic Coast.

As Leg pointed out, 3rd Army contains two tank divisions, five mechanized infantry/panzergrenadier divisions, one Marine division, and an ACR. It shouldn't have had any trouble clearing the coast and sending additional units south to support 5th ID.

If it's a case of halting units due to a larger Soviet counteroffensive to the south, why are the units of the 3rd Army still listed as being in northern Poland and Germany? One would assume that if they were stopped due to pressure on the UK forces in west-central Poland, at least a few of the units (probably the 3 German divisions) would be shifted south to shore up the British or attempt to retake ground lost to the Reds. From looking at the correlation of forces in the UK area of responsibility, it looks like the Soviet and WTO units could pretty easily take Berlin if they wanted too. Yet canon shies away from even mentioning a broader Soviet or NATO offensive. They make it sound like the 3rd Army's offensive is the only show in town.

I don't know what the game designers were thinking to make NATO so much more powerful in the north and the Soviets significantly more powerful in the south. The situation as of late July 2000 would make much more sense if the forces were more evenly matched along the front.

And then there's the status report for the 2nd Marine Div. in the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide. It says that the location and status of the division is unkown after its amphib assaults along the Baltic Coast. This suggests that it is in a state of distress. If the 8th Mech. ID's location in LATVIA (I still don't know what the designers were thinking there) is known, then something must be wrong with the Marines. Trouble is, I just don't see a bunch of relatively small Polish horse cavalry and BG units being able to crush a Marine division. Wouldn't the 8th ID and Marines have operated together for at least part of the duration of the 8th drive to Latvia? What about other follow-on 3rd Army units? Besides the 5th ID, what are the German armored and PZGr units doing? Or the Canadians, Danes, and U.S. TD and ACR? More than 75% of the 3rd Army is unaccounted for during its offensive. If the Germans aren't participating, why is an American Corps subordinated to them? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm really trying to explain the offensive's failure. 5th ID's part in it is clear cut but the rest is a muddled mess. Are there any Challenge articles about the rest of the summer offensive?

It just doesn't make any sense.

[Raellus]

After a little more research, it's clear that there are a couple more relatively powerful Polish divisions in the Baltic region that could have helped blunt 3rd Army's offensive. In particular, the 1st MRD (2500/7), the 9th MRD (2500/10), and the 5th TD (3500/16). There's also the 17th CD (2000), 12th CD (1500), 3rd CD (1000), and 7th MarDiv (only 600 men but presumably "elite" troops).

I also went looking for Soviet units in the Baltic states that could have been sent to deal with 3rd Army. Most of the units listed as being in the Ukraine are either in full revolt or engaged in attempting to suppress it so I figure they would be busy and unavailable. A couple of units in Belarus are also listed as being engaged fighting the Ukranian separatists so that eliminates them.

The following units are posted in Belarus and apparently unengaged during 3rd Army's offensive and could therefore have participated in a counterattack. Units marked with an asterix are the ones I see as being most likely to be involved.

22nd TD (2000)
3rd MRD (2000/10)*
138th MRD (4000/20)*
83rd AAB (600)*

The following units are posted in Latvia. One issue here is the 26th GMRD's (4000/28) mutiny (they are garrisoning the newly free city of Riga). I would assume, therefore, that the other, loyal Soviet units listed in Riga are probably going to be busy dealing with the 26th. On the other hand, maybe the Soviets have assessed the threat posed by 3rd Army's offensive as being much greater and have decided to deal with it first. That could free up the following units for a counterattack against the 3rd Army.

40th GMRD (500/4)
40th MRD (500/4) -an odd coincidence but that's what the v1.0 SVG says.
107th MRD (4000/36)*

If the above units- or just a few of them- were involved in a counterattack against 3rd Army's offensive, it would explain a lot.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

A really severe, unforseen storm would do the job nicely. Entirely plausible too.

[Legbreaker]

I think I had a couple of Soviet coastal patrol boats or similar torpedo the largest of the cargo ships right after the bulk of the combat vehicles had been offloaded. Left the 2nd with plenty of firepower for the intial landing, but once the fuel in the tanks ran out...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

This is a good solution for the 2nd Marines. I also like Targan's idea of a fierce summer storm on the Baltic. It happened shortly after D-Day during the Normandy campaign in '44 and I would argue that the weather is even more unpredictable with all of the particulates from nuclear explosions hanging around in the upper atmosphere.

I do think that you may be overstating the fuel situation somewhat- not insofar as the shortage thereof, but in the impact fuel shortages would have on division-sized units during offensive operations c. 2000. In Escape from Kalisz, it is written that the 3rd Army spent the spring brewing fuel. It also mentions the 5th ID, or significant elements thereof, stopping several times on its long right hook to brew up more. It looks like armies in 2000 are used to this sort of stop and go thing.

As you also mentioned, it may be more a matter of 2nd MarDiv losing its resupply of ammunition more than running out of fuel.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

This is a really good point that I hadn't fully considered. My question about final unit placements still stands, though. With the WTO forces in northern Poland no longer able to mount significant offensive operations (as of 7/00), why is the entire NATO 3rd Army still posted opposite them? Especially since, glancing at the situation map in the back of the v2.2 rulebook, there are numerous, relatively powerful Soviet forces (mostly MRDs and TDs) further south, facing just a handful of NATO units. As I mentioned before, the correlation of forces displayed on the map is remarkably uneven, with NATO more powerful in northern Poland, and the Soviets more powerful in the south. It seriously looks like 3rd Army could brush aside the various small CDs facing them and drive all the way to Moscow through northern Poland and the rebellious Baltic states. It also looks like the Red Army in west-central Poland could easily capture Berlin and drive on to the Rhine. One would think that if Soviet reinforcements were sent north to stop 3rd Army, they would remain opposite once the fighting died down. Shifting them all back south after the hypothetical counterattacks doesn't make a lot of operational or strategic sense.

I like your analysis/explanation of the failure of 3rd Army's offensive but not all of it squares with the final unit locations given in canon.

Also, on a more selfish note, I need a way to strand small German, Canadian, and Danish forces along the Baltic coast east of Gdansk, and not just SF. Stranding elements of U.S. units are no problem due to the situation with the 2nd MarDiv and the 8th ID's bizzare drive into Latvia.

[Legbreaker]

In Going Home, it's stated the 2nd Marines have equipment and personnel from seven different nationalites amongst it's ranks and it's implied these were picked up during or after the offensive.
I believe the 2nd was tasked with the area from Gdansk eastward almost to Elblag (their orders were to launch amphibious assault onthe Polish Baltic Coast and across the Vistula estuary). It is conceivable that small numbers of Germans, Canadians, and Danes were attached to the division as liason units (likely Intelligence, MP, that sort of thing), and absorbed into the division once it was realised the XI Corp was cut off and they couldn't return to the home units.

A lack of ammunition doesn't ring true to me as one of the factors of the 2nd Marine situation. It is stated in Going Home that this division actualy gained strength as a result of the offensive. Whatever it was that caused them to be so crippled as to withdraw back westward, had to have been relatively big, but temporary in nature - fuel seems to be the only thing that fits.

In addition to the loss of the actual fuel carried aboard the ship(s), perhaps the bulk of the divisions stills were also lost? This would allow them to regain some measure of mobility once replacements have been constructed, a process which is likely to have taken several weeks since they would need to acquire the necessary materials first.

As for the rest of your comments, I'll post something on them in the next day or two. They're good points and need some serious thought...

[Raellus]

True, losing its stills would be a serious blow to the 2nd MarDiv and would all but halt its offensive operations. It raises a problem, though. Without any fuel, how would it get back to northern Germany? It would presumably have to abandon almost all of its vehicles. This would certainly not make it "more powerful" as Going Home implies (I haven't looked at it myself, so I'm taking your word for it). If anything, it would make the division less powerful.

EDIT: Leg, I just reread your post and absorbed the bit about scavenging/building new stills. That might work. It would strand the 2nd MarDiv for a while (explaining the comment about "its location and status are unknown" in the U.S.A.V.G.) yet allow them to get back to N. Germany eventually, as the GH module says it does.

In my mind, I too have the 2nd MarDiv landing between Gdansk and Elblag, then pushing south, southeast to cover the 8th ID's right flank as it pushes west on its end-run along the Baltic Coast. I would also like to include the Danish Jutland division, the Canadian mechanized brigade (and/or para regiment) and at least one of the German units in the operations on or near the Baltic coast to account for stragglers of each nationality in the region after the failure of the offensive.

And that brings us back to the question of why the 3rd Army's offensive failed and/or was stopped and why all of its constituent units remain in northern Germany despite significant threats on other sectors of the "front".

I still have a problem with the 3rd Army just stopping its offensive and pulling back to its start lines in northern Poland. Why doesn't it detach units to follow the 5th ID south and hit its antagonists in their flank? Why are no additional units sent to support the 8th ID's mission? Why doesn't it at least shift units south, southwest to face the newly discovered Soviet units responsible for the 5th ID's destruction? What about the imbalance in the correlation of forces in west central Poland? Why aren't those addressed at all?

Canon doesn't seem to give any clues. The writers made a mess of it and, instead of addressing the inconsistencies, they just gloss over them. They put a lot of time and effort into explaining/describing the destruction of the 5th ID and apparenty none to how the rest of 3rd Army's missions played out and, ultimately failed. Unless someone finds a canonical explanation somewhere (Challenge, maybe?), that leaves it up to us.

What about a nuke? Even if it didn't hit any of the 3rd Army's units, it could conceivably stop them in their tracks.

What about a mutiny? Did one or more of the 3rd Army's constituent units refuse orders to advance?

It doesn't seem like any of the national governments involved would have the power in mid 2000 to stop a large scale offensive in its tracks. Why would they want to anyway?

What about Soviet reinforcements from Belarus and/or Latvia? AFAIK, canon makes no mention of this, but it could explain the blunting of 3rd Army's drive and also why the entirety of 3rd Army remained in N. Germany (as opposed to shifting south to face the much stronger Soviet forces shown as present in west central Poland and east Germany).

[Legbreaker]

I had the 2nd crawl very slowly west to link up with the following units of the XI Corp. One of the conrtibuting reasons why the 3rd army did not follow on was that the vehicle heavy 2nd, which at the time was in a stragegically advanced position, soaked up most of the available fuel stocks. This both made them semi-mobile once more while also impacting heavily on the unit which had to give up their reserves.
This drain was particularly heavy on the 50th AD - the nearest allied unit to the Marines.

You could explain the Canadians and Danish being in the area by assigning them the duty of escorting the gathered fuel. They then took up covering positions while the Marines refueled and reorganised (the crawl westward would have sevrely disorganised them as some component units were able to move quicker than others).
There is no real need for all of the Canadian and Danish strength to be shifted though, the bulk could well remain where they were facing the Poles and Soviets.

Why didn't the Germans leapfrog the XI Corp? I'm guessing fuel once again (as well as increasing pressure on the British). With the Marines requiring something like several million litres, every unit needed to give up subtantial percentages of their reserve or risk the Marines being attack while immobile and destroyed. Note this was before the 5th even got close to Lodz.
I feel there is a strong chance that at this relatively early stage, the 5th and 8th were probably still in physical contact with the XI Corp and therefore would also have lost fuel reserves to the Marines. This may help expain why a division which had spent a year or more in preperation had needed to stoip and brew more fuel along the way.