German III Corps?

[Legbreaker]

Why are there US troops still in Iraq even though the US is apparently having "cash flow" issues?

Politics has to play a big part both there and in T2K.

More impportantly perhaps, at least on a day to day level, is the severe lack of available transportation to take them home again.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Politics has to play a big part both there and in T2K.

So true. After the US governmental scism both MilGov and CivGov continued to send troops to Europe despite those troops being desperately needed at home. That seems to me to have been mostly politically motivated (and perhaps a case of "one upmanship").

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Targan

So true. After the US governmental scism both MilGov and CivGov continued to send troops to Europe despite those troops being desperately needed at home. That seems to me to have been mostly politically motivated (and perhaps a case of "one upmanship").

It's so completely [expletive deleted] up that it rings true. I abhor the idea, therefore I love it.

Webstral

[Cdnwolf]

I meant the CANADIAN troops only...lol.

Okay heres something that I am curious about... what happened in Europe after the American troops came home?

I think I read something about it in one of the DC group papers but wasn't sure.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

I meant the CANADIAN troops only...lol.

Okay heres something that I am curious about... what happened in Europe after the American troops came home?

I think I read something about it in one of the DC group papers but wasn't sure.

Going Home module has some insight to this.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Going Home module has some insight to this.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?p=9184#post9184 should give you an idea or two.
Basically the Canadians, along with the rest of what's left of the XI Corp (less the 8th ID), are stuck. They're not technically behind enemy lines, but to withdraw back into Germany requires movement into and through Pact controlled areas.

[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.