German III Corps?

[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.

[Legbreaker]

Here's a thought, perhaps the naval assets which landed the Marines were also carrying the III German Armies fuel supply for the second phase of the offensive? With that on the bottom of the sea, it would have been suicide to continue an eastward movement.
The 5th and 8th were already well underway with specific objectives which we felt could still be reached, or communications were so bad (or disrupted by the enemy) they didn't get confirmation of the general halt of the advance?

A couple of wild ideas that need more work, but conceivable I think....

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Here's a thought, perhaps the naval assets which landed the Marines were also carrying the III German Armies fuel supply for the second phase of the offensive? With that on the bottom of the sea, it would have been suicide to continue an eastward movement.
The 5th and 8th were already well underway with specific objectives which we felt could still be reached, or communications were so bad (or disrupted by the enemy) they didn't get confirmation of the general halt of the advance?

An interesting idea but I just don't see 3rd Army putting all of its eggs (or fuel) in one basket like that. One unswept mine, one errant diesel boat, one airstrike, one shore-launched SSM, and all of that fuel goes up in flames. I definitely can see the 2nd MarDiv losing nearly all of its own fuel in this way, but the entire army's? The rest of the 3rd Army would need that fuel, at the very least, just to break through to the 2nd MarDiv. Otherwise, it could become stranded all alone (with way too much fuel) and reduced at the enemy forces' leisure. The 8th ID clearly has plenty of fuel as they somehow managed to drive all the way to Latvia, apparently before figuring out how far they'd just gone (this notion really bothers me).

I'm still thinking on your first post in this latest couplet. I think this is a really interesting discussion.

[Legbreaker]

You're probably right about not putting it all in the one basket, however by mid 2000, maybe they didn't have a choice? Perhaps they had only one large fuel carrier left plus a few smaller vessels converted from other uses. The main ship went down even though it was protected by every available asset the combine Nato navies had and "poof", the whole operation was in serious jeopardy.

Pre, or even early war, such a risky gamble might not have been considered, but by the time of 2000, there's not a lot of choice left...

[Targan]

I'm not as switched on as you guys when it comes to having all of the unit names and locations in my head but hear me out. What if the reasons behind the German 3rd Army's failure to push forward were psychological? Specifically, panic induced by the apparance of Soviet units at their front which their intel said just should not have been there. Actually, COULD NOT have been there (until it was realised that the Soviet units were running on diesel and had vastly increased mobility compared to NATO's units facing them).

Keep in mind that NATO's forces had not seen more than a trickle of diesel for a couple of years. It would have been a major blow to morale for the German brass to discover that not only are their troops suddenly facing many, many more Soviet tanks and other AFVs than they had expected (with unit designations that should be 1000km away) but also they could smell their diesel exhaust and see with their own eyes that their enemies' vehicles are zooming around at full power.

I think that NATO's commanders would have had certain expectations of their enemy (reinforced by the way things had been for the last couple of years) and a whole bunch of Soviet armour running on diesel just turning up out of no where would have shocked them (not to mention throwing a year of planning into disarray). Maybe the German 3rd Army's commanders were shocked and panicked into a defensive frame of mind (and ignored the Americans' commanders who were no doubt screaming for their German counterparts to continue with the offensive).

And now my second point. I believe it has been said previously in this thread that NATO forces in the north of Poland were facing a lot of cavalry (some Soviet, some Polish) and the strongest armour/MRD forces they were facing were Polish. In the south the Germans and the US 5th ID were facing a greater proportion of Soviet units. I suspect that the Soviets would have kept most or all of their diesel for their own units. The Poles would still have been running on alcohol (in just as limited supply as NATO forces). This means that while the US 8th ID and 2nd MarDiv might have been facing numerically strong opposition, both sides would have similar mobility constraints. Also the WarPac units in the north of the country would have tended to be roughly where NATO's intelligence suggested they would be. The NATO operations in the north would therefore be expected to go roughly as planned (or as it turned out better than planned in some ways).

In the south of Poland the situation would have been completely different. There were a higher proportion of Soviet units in the south and while initially only the Soviet units being rushed from the east would have been running on diesel, as the offensive wore on more and more of the local Soviet units would start to receive diesel supplies as well. That would have created a confused situation for NATO and WarPac units in the south. You've got unexpected Soviet units from the east suddenly appearing in southern Poland. You've got Soviet units already in southern Poland suddenly having many more options than before because they have reinforcements and diesel, thus allowing them to leave their cantonments for the first time in a couple of years. Local Polish units would be expected in many cases to take over those cantonments (they didn't have diesel or reinforcements and in many cases would have been very happy to see their Soviet counterparts move out).

Canon shows that following all that confusion and the destruction of the US 5th ID there was a great deal of Soviet movement. Some Soviet units stayed in western Poland, facing the German 3rd Army. Some were so badly mauled by NATO that they couldn't even return to their cantonments (which were probably now being garrisoned by Poles anyway) and went marauder. Some went into wholesale mutiny and decided to use their last remaining diesel reserves to strike out east towards home.

I am hoping that some of the above points will prove useful to the ongoing discussion (which I am finding to be very interesting thank you).

[Raellus]

Thanks, Targan. You raise a very important consideration that I think the rest of us (or I, at least) have missed. I think your psychological impact explanation works pretty well. It would explain the relatively bloodless failure of the offensive and the mostly intact conditions of most of the NATO units of 3rd Army when they end up back in their cantonments.

I think we still need to explain why none of them were shifted south, though, since that's where the Soviets had done most of their damage. Perhaps the numerous small, but mobile Polish and Soviet cavalry units gave NATO military intel the impression that the WTO forces were way more powerful than they actually were, kind of like the finale in the film Three Amigos. (Yes, I've just connected a broad '80s comedy set in 1920s Mexico with Twilight 2000 ) It was all the 3rd could do to turn around under pressure and return to its cantonments in northern Germany.

In fact, I will go one up on you and theorize that the cavalry units would actually have been even more mobile, in the long run, at least, than motorized units since cavalry wouldn't have to stop as often to brew more fuel (and they're not as reliant on roads).

Just to reassure you that I'm not super anal-retentive, the reason I'm being so detail oriented when it comes to the units involved in 3rd Army's offensive (and where they are when) is I'm working on a campaign setting revolving around the Baltic city of Elblag. I want to be able to convincingly explain why cut-off elements of American units (easy), German (not too hard), Canadian (getting tougher), and Danish units (the real challenge) are congregating there.

I think you may have gotten me most of the way there, Targan.

@Legbreaker: I still don't think 3rd army would detach most of its hard-earned fuel (almost 6 division's worth, not counting the U.S. 5th or 8th Mech IDs) and send it in a wide, amphibious flanking manouver with the hope of meeting up with it later. That's not just daring, it's plain rash. Plus, I think that most units would be used to hauling around most of its own fuel and the equipment to brew more. It would be routine by 2000. Canon implies this time and again. I will use your idea for the 2nd MarDiv's fuel quandry, though. One division losing almost all of its fuel in one fell swoop works for me. Thanks for that.

[Legbreaker]

I was thinking that the first few weeks work of fuel wold be carried within the divisions but fuel for after then would be supplied by sea. With transportation of bulk good so difficult in 2000, there wouldn't be too many other options available for them.
Perhaps all the fuel was not lost, but instead it was the capacity to move it to where it would be needed? Every last available truck was required in the effort to get the marines mobile again, thereby effectively halting the rest of Nato until the job was done. This allows for millions of tonnes of fuel to be stockpiled in Germany, probably located around port facilities, but unable to be moved to the units that needed it until mid July.

Targan, your idea is good, however petroleum based fuels were only in evidence with Soviet units around Kalisz - only the 3rd shock army (?) was supplied with it while everyone else, Soviet and Pole, had to rely on alternate fuels. Even the Polish units involved in the destruction of the 5th were not trusted with deisel, etc.

With regard to the Danes in Elblag, I find that a bit hard to believe. The Nato Vehicle Guide (both editions) place all Danish units in their home country although some did take part in the offensive. It also appears according to the available canon info that only the XI Corp (which the Danes were not part of) took a truely offensive role. The Canadians however were part of the XI Corp.

[jester]

2nd Mar Div;

As much as I am one to agree they suck! And they do!

Naval vessel would be a means of providing so much fuel. The engines of the ship need to be moving, so now, turn the heat from the steam condenser to a heating tank for the mash which could hold tens of thousands of gallons which would result in eh, a thousand or two gallons a day. The issue would be to getting the mash to the tanks. So that wouldn't be an issue.

As for gaining the strength, eh, yeah growing in number as small units from whatever join us. But are they truly Marines? And the enemy, eh, would they be that comitted to it? Comittment verses the cost of taking on a Marine Divsion? Would they hold? Sure, would they stand until ordered off, or until the men they could gather could be withdrawn, yep! As for losing a section of their force, yep, they could, some could be cut off as well which would account for several elements of Marines roaming around, or even some making contact with the 5th Divsion or wandering up the Vistula in their AAMTRAKS!

As for withdrawing with a larger force, as I said, they could have picked up alot of troops who had managed to make it to their beachhead before pulling out, as well as a few PACT units who changed loyaltys when they did withdrawl. <Think of the Marines as they finished the fighting withdrawl from the Chosin, and Hungham> when they did up anchor and sail away.

So, those are things to consider.

[simonmark6]

As Leg has said, most Danish units are in Denmark, so it'd be hard to have coherent units with vehicles/artillery in Elbag. It might be possible to have Danish troops there if you hand wave a little.

The Danish Navy is probably little more than a distant memory at this point, but it is possible that Danish Merchant ships, if any survive might be part of the 2nd Marine's supply train. Such ships might have Danish troops on board as security.

Now, if any of those ships were lost, grounded, wore out, the security and crew might form an infantry unit that ended up stranded in Elbag. There is a precedent in the Naval Divisions that the British sometimes fielded in the colonial wars. Hey Presto, Danes in Poland.

[Legbreaker]

No matter what anyone may say, US marines are just ordinary men like any other, soldiers who have similar training as many other military arms of many other nations.

Why are US marines , especially only 2000 of them effectively cut off behind enemy lines and immobile, such a scary concept?

Although the sourcebooks place the Danes at home, the unit description shows that they took part in the III German Army spring offensive but not as part of XI Corp. Therefore, it is probable they spent their time in north eastern Germany/north west Poland before finding their way back home in the aftermath.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I was thinking that the first few weeks work of fuel wold be carried within the divisions but fuel for after then would be supplied by sea. With transportation of bulk good so difficult in 2000, there wouldn't be too many other options available for them.
Perhaps all the fuel was not lost, but instead it was the capacity to move it to where it would be needed? Every last available truck was required in the effort to get the marines mobile again, thereby effectively halting the rest of Nato until the job was done. This allows for millions of tonnes of fuel to be stockpiled in Germany, probably located around port facilities, but unable to be moved to the units that needed it until mid July.

That makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Targan, your idea is good, however petroleum based fuels were only in evidence with Soviet units around Kalisz - only the 3rd shock army (?) was supplied with it while everyone else, Soviet and Pole, had to rely on alternate fuels. Even the Polish units involved in the destruction of the 5th were not trusted with deisel, etc.

But NATO would not necessarily know this for certain, even when they captured vehicles and troops that indicated otherwise. They would probably feel like all of their intel was suspect after several petrol burning Soviet divisions that were supposed to be back in Russia/Ukraine suddenly smashed the 5ht ID. And then, like I mentioned before, the numerous, highly mobile cavalry units in northern Poland could have led 3rd Army to believe that they were facing far more powerful forces than they were expecting. Combine this with the news that Soviet forces to the south were running on diesel and a sense of panic could very well set in.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

With regard to the Danes in Elblag, I find that a bit hard to believe. The Nato Vehicle Guide (both editions) place all Danish units in their home country although some did take part in the offensive. It also appears according to the available canon info that only the XI Corp (which the Danes were not part of) took a truely offensive role. The Canadians however were part of the XI Corp.

In the NATO vehi guide, they are listed as being part of 3rd Army and described as having participating in the the summer offensive into northern Poland. As for which corps of 3rd Army did what, what is your source? I haven't come across this and I'd love to have a look at it.

The unit location in the NVG is POST offensive, as are all the other U.S./NATO and Soviet/WTO unit locations given in the rules and the various vehi-guides.

[jester]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

No matter what anyone may say, US Marines are just ordinary men like any other, soldiers who have similar training as many other military arms of many other nations.

Why are US Marines , especially only 2000 of them effectively cut off behind enemy lines and immobile, such a scary concept?

Although the sourcebooks place the Danes at home, the unit description shows that they took part in the III German Army spring offensive but not as part of XI Corp. Therefore, it is probable they spent their time in north eastern Germany/north west Poland before finding their way back home in the aftermath.

Because of their tenacity for starters. It is about the same as having a unit of paratroopers in your rear. They tend to be agressive and will continue to go on the offensive rather than hole up where they can be contained and made impotent. Think about it. Would you want 1000 or 2000 troops in your rear who will be conducting platoon sized raids, or even company and BN sized assaults?

And, the fear of their reputation will also pose a factor as well when dealing with locals, 2nd and 3rd line troops. Weather it is real or imagined the psychological factor is there and it will be exploited to its best effect.

The tradition of their offense and defense are well known as well which would give any foe reason to pause. Again if it is real or imagined the idea is in the enemy which is a factor.

Another factor is that an enemy commander would not want to leave such a force in their rear. So, they would most likely do what they could to eliminate these dangerous forces. As well as the propoganda value of defeating a large organization of US Marines which hasn't been done. I can see a strugle akin to a mini Stalingrade, where it is really a test of wills between the two forces as to who can defeat whom rather than a major statiegic objective.

Leg, seriously name three defeats of US Marines. <and M is capitalized as it is a proper name>

[Legbreaker]

I feel the issues you're overlooking is that the 2nd Marine were in a unique situation - almost cut off from support and virtually immobile.

There were no airlifts of fuel, no supply ships (they were all on the bottom of the ocean, along with their hopes of continued operations) etc for them, and they were stuck in the lowland deltas and esturies of Poland with next to no fuel to use in their VERY heavy tanks, APCs, SP artillery, trucks, motorcycles, etc.

At best they were able to conduct foot patrols as light infantry against an enemy which, while numerically and argueably technically weaker, could run rings around them in their old T-55s, T-62s, horseborne cavalry, etc. Basically, what makes the marines strong was little more than a lodestone around their necks, and virtually eliminated any offensive capabilty they possessed until several weeks later when replacement fuel stocks reached them (and the overall situation in Europe was turning nasty). In my opinion, they would have been lucky to survive if they faced decent opposition.

In my assessment, I also had them strung out along the coastline between Gdansk and Elblag in units of approximately 4-500 men. With no way of regrouping, each unit could have been easily picked off by Pact forces. This deployment was because they were intended to take and hold the area and act as a sor tof carpet for the 8th as they advanced quickly through the region. The 2nd Marines were also to have supplied engineering support for the crossing of the numerous watercourses in the area.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by jester

...Leg, seriously name three defeats of US Marines

Hmm, this is dangerously close to territorial pissings.
The USMC have had just as many setbacks and failures as any other military force but the US generally tends to gloss over their failures, for example you can find textbooks that mention the failure of USMC to achieve their objectives at Belleau Woods but very few mention the fact that some of them broke and ran (I have read that the USMC are taught that they have never fled from a battle, something even the drill instructors teaching that myth know is a lie). Whether you want to call them failures to meet objectives, defeats, withdrawals or not is largely a matter of semantics but this article is worth reading http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-Defeat.html

[Legbreaker]

I did a little digging last night and found that there had indeed been a general Pact offensive into Germany in the summer of 2000. There's next to no info on it though, just a single line in Going Home (I think, I'm at work) in the unit description for the HQ of the 22nd Soviet Army (I think that's the unit). Initially I had thought this to be relating only to the destruction of the 5th, but it's just not worded that way.

There are also references to a number of Nato units not connected to the III German army being involved in action around that time.

It also appears to be implied when looking at all the tidbits of info, that the Pact forces made some impressive gains in the south, which would explain the poor state of defences in that area on the western side of the lines.

I also found that in January and February 2000, UK forces were shifted to the north of the country to consolidate. This may have contributed to the losses in the south.

This offensive, along with the shift of UK forces northward may explain why there is such strength in the north and barely a thin screen of units in the south.

Hmmm, looks like I've made myself more work...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I did a little digging last night and found that there had indeed been a general Pact offensive into Germany in the summer of 2000. There's next to no info on it though, just a single line in Going Home (I think, I'm at work) in the unit description for the HQ of the 22nd Soviet Army (I think that's the unit). Initially I had thought this to be relating only to the destruction of the 5th, but it's just not worded that way.

There are also references to a number of Nato units not connected to the III German army being involved in action around that time.

It also appears to be implied when looking at all the tidbits of info, that the Pact forces made some impressive gains in the south, which would explain the poor state of defences in that area on the western side of the lines.

I was under this impression too but I can't remember where I read this.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I also found that in January and February 2000, UK forces were shifted to the north of the country to consolidate. This may have contributed to the losses in the south.

That would have created an even more lopsided correlation of forces in both northern and southern Poland.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This offensive, along with the shift of UK forces northward may explain why there is such strength in the north and barely a thin screen of units in the south.

No UK forces are shown in the north on the map in the v2.2 rulebook. They're all down around Berlin. Now you've got me really confused.

Regarding Marines, lets make sure to keep any debate civil (or maybe start another thread).

Legbreaker, it's your fault I want Danes in my Baltic campaign setting! Way back in the day, you had a couple of Danish PCs in your RPoL PbP and I've always thought that was really cool.

[Legbreaker]

My guess is that Nato wasn't expecting a Soviet offensive, or that they felt their own offensive would blunt any drive in the south. It's fairly obvious from the unit descriptions in the books, especially the Pact units, that they'd been well and truely put through the wringer in the last few months after sitting in cantonments for the prior year or two. Up until mid 2000, it looks like the war could still have been "won" by either side but the summer 2000 campaigns drained every last resource either side had left.

The way I see it, the vast majority of units were still in good order up until late summer (a few rogue units behind the lines the rare exception). PCs therefore would still be very used to operating within a structured military environment with an active and relatively capable higher command.

By 2000, almost any nationality can be found almost anywhere with just a little thought and creativity. However, I can't see units larger than individual Plattoons being "out of area" for their nations main units. Take B Coy of the 116th ACR for example. Numbering just a handful of members with maybe a dozen vehicles all told, they are specifically mentioned in several books as a unique situation.

[Adm.Lee]

I've been thinking more about this, since we opened the question of post-OMEGA Poland. So, a little thread-necromancy here....

In Going Home, the Third German Army has practically abandoned the eastern frontier. What's up with that? There's only 1 division in contact (as I would consider it), the rest, including III Corps HQ, have pulled back to the west and north. The British pulled out from around Berlin, too.

For that matter, why is XI Corps pinned where it is? There are no Pact or even German units between them and Kiel.

I just re-read most of the above posts. I think Legbreaker is onto something with the "more mobile Polish cavalry." We've mostly all agreed that the appearance of the Fourth Guards Tank Army with diesel in its tanks was a shock. What if the wholesale mounting of those Polish & Soviet troops on horses was another shock? Or more specifically, the mobility those troopers obtained against the mechanized NATO forces? We have read that both Third German Army and 5th US Mechanized Division had a stop-and-go movement pattern for brewing, something they had probably become accustomed to since 1998 or '99. But formations that could ride circles around them on the days they were halted? Bands of riders that could appear to shoot up unarmored vehicle columns? That's scary.

So, what if we are looking at a command failure, or a series of the same? The commanding generals of III German and XI US Corps are blindsided by this new Pact mobility in their area, and Third German Army is surprised by both the Soviet offensive south of Berlin and the reports of the Guards with real fuel coming up through the Soviet rear.
Let's jack up the tension. Say there are just a few, a very few, sorties by Pact jets at this time. Another "impossible" feat. If the Soviets could put together diesel to get a tank army from Romania to Poland, why not a flight of MiGs, dropping down on an undefended HQ? Or a missile strike-- nuclear, biological or chemical? Then maybe one or more of the commanders that started the offensive isn't the one around at the end. Some work by Spetsnaz or even an unlucky brush with marauders could do the same.


For that matter, some here have questioned the plan that sent the 5th and 8th Mech divisions helter-skelter across Poland. Or even an offensive in Poland at all, given the conditions in the spring of 2000? Was CG Third Army in his right mind? Really? (If he isn't what does that say about his staff?) How might the command that issues the orders for the, let's say grandiose, offensive of 2000 react when it is evident that the enemy has more mobile forces than he does? If Army command gets confused and the Corps commanders are beleaguered by the Pact, I can see things melting away to what I outlined above. If the Army commander isn't nuts, maybe the XI Corps staff might stage a coup when they find out that two of their divisions just drove away (probably with most of the reserve fuel) on nebulous one-way missions. That would certainly set up some command paralysis.
The German III Corps pulls back in the absence of coherent orders from Army. By November, its divisions are mostly up in the far north of Germany. The US XI Corps is feeling very abandoned, both by its neighbor corps and by the Army HQ that stuck it out on a limb, with two of its divisions even further out. Maybe the command is feeling abandoned even by USAREUR, who attached them to the Germans in the first place, and then ordered everyone else home. Were there bad personal feelings among the commanders before the attack? I bet there are now.

So, like Webstral's profile of General Thomason, here's my attempt to get into the head of three other commanding generals (or more, if one or more of them were replaced in the campaign). I hope it's clear.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Let's jack up the tension. Say there are just a few, a very few, sorties by Pact jets at this time. Another "impossible" feat. If the Soviets could put together diesel to get a tank army from Romania to Poland, why not a flight of MiGs, dropping down on an undefended HQ? Or a missile strike-- nuclear, biological or chemical? Then maybe one or more of the commanders that started the offensive isn't the one around at the end. Some work by Spetsnaz or even an unlucky brush with marauders could do the same.

In my campaign working out the Soviets situation in Poland in 2001 was made easy for me by DIA Colonel Richard Stark's go-ahead for Major Po and his group's mission which resulted in Soviet Reserve Front HQ in Lublin being backpack nuked. Obviously that wasn't in canon but it was a very believeable situation IMO.

There is an entry in the rumour tables in The Black Madonna module that one of the nuclear demolition charges laid by withdrawing NATO forces in Czestochowa in mid-July 1997 did not detonate, and it may have been recovered by others:

Originally Posted by Rumour P

"When NATO was occupying Czestochowa, they placed a pair of nuclear mines, but one of them didn't go off. It's probably still there, and worth a fortune in Krakow."

In my campaign such a device (a 10kt nuclear demolitions charge as described in The Black Madonna) ended up in the treasure cache collected under the Jasna Gora by Major Florian Filipowicz. I did some online research way back when and found some unclassified information about such devices used by US forces and even have a photo of the exterior casing of one.

One of Major Po's men at the time that they killed Filipowicz underneath the Jasna Gora was a US Army engineer trained to use nuclear demolition charges. Col Stark was more than happy to provide DIA assistance to Po to make the nuke useable again and to send Po on his way to destroy Lublin. In my campaign once Soviet Reserve Front HQ was nuked nearly all Soviet command coherance in Poland soon collapsed. That probably would have happened eventually anyway but the nuking sped the process up. That (naturally enough) took alot of pressure off German forces in eastern Germany and allowed Operation Omega to go ahead more smoothly than it would have done in canon.

[Abbott Shaull]

As I recall very few units of NATO OOB had converted to horse cavalry. I do believe that beside a few units such as Divisional Cavalry at Division level and odd Brigade/Armor Cavalry Regiment had been converted to operate as Horse Cavalry. I do remember that within the US 5th Mechanized Division that their Divisional Cavalry had been operating as horse cavalry for scouting purpose because there was limited understanding that being such during the current condition, were more mobile than if they had retain vehicles.

On the hand looking through several OOB, seems the Soviets and many of their Pact allies had stripped from several units from various levels from Army on down of equipment that was used to bring other units up on equipment. Then the remains of these units were made into horse cavalry when they received their replacement and horses.

One has to remember that even in WWII both Germany and the Soviets had Cavalry Divisions and the Soviet had used larger Cavalry formation against the Germans at time when many wouldn't of thought twice of using such formation due to their experiences on the Western Front during WWI which was the last time the US, UK and France had for all purposes fielded a Cavalry force. Even the way Polish Cavalry was decimated by the Germans in 1939 justified these opinions. Even the Germans weren't too convince of the worth of having horse cavalry unit.

Then forward scenes on the Eastern Front where German and their allies Panzer, Motorized/Panzergrenadier Divisions and Corps were stuck in the mud more or less during spring thaw and the Soviet unleashed their various Cavalry Corps upon the unsuspecting Germans. Same with winter when units had German Panzer/Panzergrenadier had grounded to halt since they were barely receiving enough fuel to keep their motors going. They didn't stop the engines much for fear of not being able to restart them due oil and fuel freezing. For the officers who were fighting on the Eastern Front seeing or hearing there was Soviet Cavalry operating nearby was enough to cause a panic during these times of year.

Now you are a German Division Command X, German Corps Commander Y, and German Army Command Z. The Offensive of 2000 starts know all to well there are various units of the Pact forces that have been converted to Cavalry. Due to their position you don't know what they are really capable of, but you remember what your father, uncles, maybe grandfather and such had told you about large Soviet Cavalry formation in WWII. Since the start of the war you haven't encounter and like many in NATO you downplay their usefulness. Many of the Polish Cavalry units you happen to know about aren't much larger than those formation on NATO side.

You along with NATO Supreme Command Q believe that you can sustain an Offensive and gain most of the outline objectives. This is with the beforehand knowledge that your offensive will go in spurts as Divisions would have to stop to brew fuel. You are hoping at best once a Division has to stop, the one right behind would be ready to leapfrog ahead. At worse case you have this happening at Brigade level which was happening with the 5th Mechanized Division and I suppose it probably what happen at with the 8th Mechanized. The unit that is stop is brewing fuel for it next jump forward, knowing that some may have to be given to the unit moving through their area as a helping hand to keep some forward movement. As this happening you have limited horse cavalry that are protecting your flanks and scouting ahead when you are forced to standstill, and when moving they protect the rear.

One of the things that comes as a shock is the Polish Cavalry seem to be more mobile and are attacking rear areas of the XI Corps and raiding the communication line of the units of the III German Corps. Suddenly units of the US XI Corps identify not one Soviet Army that was in the Soviet Union days before but two complete Armies. One the Soviet Fourth Guards Tank Army seems to have hit the 5th US Mechanized Division head-on blindly. While the other has been identified 22nd Soviet Cavalry Army, combined with reports that other Soviet had been report moving from Souther Poland and fearing being caught in pincer movement, the commanders decide to fall back to their start positions, remembering all too well what they use to hear about the Soviet Cavalry Corps and the destruction they would cause on German units in WWII.....

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As I recall very few units of NATO OOB had converted to horse cavalry.

One nice thing about having all the units databased

Cavalry units listed below.
Central Defense Group * Canada
Eastern Defense Group * Canada
Northwestern Defense Group * Canada
Southwestern Defense Group * Canada
Al Amarah Brigade * Iraq (French Allied)
Group Ar Ramadi * Iraq (US Allied)
Group Kirkuk * Iraq (US Allied)
104th Recon Battalion * Netherlands
102nd Recon Battalion * Netherlands
3rd Cavalry Division * Poland
17th Cavalry Division * Poland
12th Cavalry Division * Poland
19th Cavalry Division * Poland
2nd Cavalry Division (ex-2nd 'Warsaw' MRD) * Poland
13th Cavalry Division * Poland
1st Marine Commando Brigade *Turkey
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards * United Kingdom
The Queens' Royal Irish Hussars * United Kingdom
6th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards * United Kingdom
132nd Cavalry Division * USSR
152nd Motorized Rifle Division * USSR
43rd Cavalry Division * USSR
96th Cavalry Division * USSR
14th Tank Division (Cavalry) * USSR
89th Cavalry Division * USSR
127th Cavalry Division * USSR
9th Motorized Rifle Division (Cavalry) * USSR
20th Guards Cavalry Division * USSR
94th Cavalry Division * USSR

[Legbreaker]

It seems then that the Commonwealth nations (Canada and the UK) held most of the horse cavalry strength of Nato while the US and Germany stayed high tech as much as they could.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

For that matter, why is XI Corps pinned where it is? There are no Pact or even German units between them and Kiel.

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. It's pretty obvious on the map that I'm working on. There are no PACT units between XI Corps and the German border yet Going Home states that they can't move for some reason and that USAER has given up on them.

Perhaps, as you mentioned, the Soviets nuked a road hub to the west of XI Corps when the Soviet formations broke off their attack (the late summer PACT offensive mentioned in Going Home) or used chem/bio weapons to deny XI corps passage west. If, at the same time, XI fuel stores were spent and/or destroyed (maybe that airstrike or Spetznaz raid you mentioned), they could have been stranded there.

The proximity between XI Corps' cantonments and Pila, seat of the Polish Free Congress, suggests cooperation between the two.

Perhaps the XI Corps commander decided to stay put for some other reason. Perhaps he is ideologically opposed to pulling out of Europe. Perhaps he is of Polish ancestry or has a particularly well developed sense of honor. Perhaps it is a combination of several of the factors listed above.

It's an interesting situation and makes for an intriguing campaign setting c. the winter of 2000-2001.

[pmulcahy11b]

I agree. It sounds more like XI Corps is not pinned -- they just don't want to leave. Maybe they have a stake in the area's future. Maybe they just told their superiors that they were pinned.

[Abbott Shaull]

No if the UK units that were convert I believe would of been the recon role with in their parent unit. Much like the 4-12th Cavalry had been converted to horse cavalry for it mission within the 5th US Mechanized Division.

I think NATO realized the limitations of modern warfare with the lack of fuel. What they failed to realize is similar to what happen to the UK and France with how Armor fit into the new style of warfare.

It kinda like the American Civil War. During most of the war, the cavalry units of the Union Army was used for recon and guarding flanks and trains. They be used to form a skirmish line if need be. The Union Army did use their cavalry force as shock troops until late in the war. When it they had started to use them as such, they were busy as both shock troop and giving the Confederate Cavalry fits. Even though the US Cavalry still had mounted troops into WWII, many of these troop were on border protection along the US-Mexican Border. Which is ironic that the US Border Patrol in some location along the same border still mount patrols on horse back.

Even Iraqi were organized due to the fact they operate in marshy areas of Iraq.

The Canadian ones I am sure it was the same reason why the 1st Cavalry Division up until the start of WWII was still on horse back. There was large expanse of area to patrol. Horse Cavalry is more economically way to patrol the large areas.

Turkey Commando converted probably due to the fact that many of the areas is mountainous. Much like US Special Forces teams using horse during times in Afghanistan. It is means for them to be mobile and not let technology get them in trouble.

Last time the British had used large Cavalry formation was during WWI when the appalling losses dismounted the units and had them fight as Foot Infantry. As for the Germans, their Cavalry was used more in rear area security than front line troops. German has been one of those countries that embraced Panzer/Armor warfare over the old horse Cavalry and really never looked back. I am sure that the Germans would have their eyes open and would look into either raising some new Cavalry units or converting units they already and consolidating more AFVs, IFVs, and APCs to other units.

Ironically it was trench warfare and machine gun emplacement with in the trench network that killed horse cavalry in many military organization eyes. With the invention tanks, armor cars, ifv, apc, cfv, fast moving light trucks (ie jeep), motorcycles, along with helicopter have been used in many place instead of cavalry. Many of these vehicle were created to help fill one role or another that cavalry formation use to take in the military.

At the same time there are still parts of the world where horse cavalry has survived. Of course they aren't the all important shock troops that they once were before, but are effective in raiding and acting the eye and ears of the organization they work for.

What is more telling is the number of Polish and Soviet units have been converted to Cavalry. The Soviets went so far to convert one army to horse cavalry. Even the Cavalry forces of both had operated in WWII, the Polish ones were slaughter against the German Panzer. While the Soviet used their Corps size units during times when the Panzer/Panzergrenadier/Motorized units had been mired in mud or during major operation in conjecture with Tank and Mechanized Corps to exploits break-outs.

There were even some Czech units that had been converted to horse cavalry. I think in one of the module I read where Hungarian units was found somewhere in the modules in and around Poland, and they were I believe mounted. Greece and Yugoslavia regions area would be another location where some more use.

Thank you Kato for responding. I am sure there was ARC or two who had converted into Horse Cavalry but I can't find my copy of the US Army Vehicle Guide. For that fact the Soviet one is missing too..

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I agree. It sounds more like XI Corps is not pinned -- they just don't want to leave. Maybe they have a stake in the area's future. Maybe they just told their superiors that they were pinned.

Yep, that's what I am thinking. There isn't anyone out there, but III German Corps was "driven off" by the suddenly-mobile Polish and Soviet cavalry, there could be a hot crater in there, and the Fourth Guards Tank Army is out there somewhere, while the 5th & 8th Mech Divisions took off with the fuel reserve. Stettin is apparently a ghost town, so they may not want to go through there.

I like the Polish-ancestry angle, but even more I like the psychological breakdown possibility. At Origins War College a year or two ago, someone talked briefly on the phenomenon of commanders breaking down when they saw whole units wiped out. It happened very very rarely to the US in WW2 and Korea, but a lot more on the Eastern Front or to the Germans. The commenter thought that NATO armies hadn't done much to address that kind of psychological stress. I think that may be something to look at in the III German and XI US Corps commanders-- maybe that's why the Germans retreated northwest and the Americans sat down.

As for the Polish Free Congress getting more Polish forces to switch over, the now-permanent presence of the Americans should certainly have been a factor. Even more so if there is a senior American in the Corps who is of Polish ancestry, willing to settle down and make something in his(her) homeland.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Thank you Kato for responding. I am sure there was ARC or two who had converted into Horse Cavalry but I can't find my copy of the US Army Vehicle Guide. For that fact the Soviet one is missing too..

No problem.

I think my prerequisite was either manpower was all cavalry or it had the words "converted to cavalry" in the description. If you find any other units that did a 100% conversion let me know I will change their symbol in my database.

Here are all the units which have any "cavalry" listed under manpower

2/Royal Canadian Regiment * Canada
2/Ontario Regiment * Canada
Central Defense Group * Canada
2/Rocky Mountain Rangers * Canada
1/King's Own Calgary Regiment * Canada
1/Royal Winnipeg Rifles * Canada
Eastern Defense Group * Canada
Northwestern Defense Group * Canada
3/Toronto Regiment * Canada
1/Loyal Edmonton Regiment * Canada
1/Toronto Scottish Regiment * Canada
Southwestern Defense Group * Canada
Al Amarah Brigade * Iraq (French Allied)
Group Kirkuk * Iraq (US Allied)
Group Ar Ramadi * Iraq (US Allied)
104th Recon Battalion * Netherlands
102nd Recon Battalion * Netherlands
3rd Cavalry Division * Poland
17th Cavalry Division * Poland
12th Cavalry Division * Poland
19th Cavalry Division * Poland
2nd Cavalry Division (ex-2nd 'Warsaw' MRD)* Poland
13th Cavalry Division * Poland
The Queens' Royal Irish Hussars * United Kingdom
1/The Royal Hampshire Regiment * United Kingdom
6th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards * United Kingdom
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards * United Kingdom
132nd Cavalry Division * USSR
117th Guards Tank Division * USSR
135th Motorized Rifle Division * USSR
40th Motorized Rifle Division * USSR
43rd Cavalry Division * USSR
96th Cavalry Division * USSR
157th Motorized Rifle Division * USSR
51st Tank Division * USSR
154th Motorized Rifle Division * USSR
89th Cavalry Division * USSR
127th Cavalry Division * USSR
14th Tank Division (Cavalry) * USSR
9th Motorized Rifle Division (Cavalry) * USSR
24th Guards Motorized Rifle Division * USSR
20th Guards Cavalry Division * USSR
94th Cavalry Division * USSR
1st Panzergrenadier Division * West Germany