Soviet 124th MRD

[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.