Where would of the Soviet Offensive would have hit...

[Legbreaker]

After reading your post Web, I'm left wondering just what condition the Ukraine is in mid 2000. Could the Soviets afford to ignore what was apparently going on for another year, or could Ukrainan industry move quickly enough to effectively re-equip and supply "loyal" troops enough so that the Soviets would be unable to crish them? A lot appears to rest on this ability to recover quickly.

However, Poland as we know is the most heavily nuked region in the world - the Ukraine is right next door. Nato units were on Soviet soil when nukes were first used in the west, so it's not unreasonable to think a number of tactical warheads struck the Ukraine. Furthermore, as Nato were driven back in 1997, they became more than a little desperate. It is probable that transportation hubs, industry, etc were targeted by them, in addition to troop concentrations, in an attempt to disrupt and slow the westward juggernaut that was the Pact.

Therefore I imagine the Ukraine to be in a similar state as central and eastern Germany - not as bad as most of Poland, but not all that far behind either. This assessment leans me more towards the thought that crushing Ukrainan revolt could wait.

It is also possible that the 4th GTA could have been sitting on their fuel supply for months, suppressing revolution just by being there and ready for a rapid westward move. If this is the case though, it's unreasonable not to assume the black market in the area didn't see an increase in supply of petroleum fuels and the 4th's supplies dwindle from theft. Also, the longer those fuel stockpiles were there, the greater the risk knowledge of it's existance would reach unfriendly hands. I would therefore "cap" the time the 4th had this stockpile to just a few months with the first significant deliveries arriving early to mid spring (a much smaller and limited flow of a few dozen barrels a month may have been in place all along, just to keep the absolutely VITAL equipment running). This further reinforces the probability the 4th GTA were intended to head west in support of an offensive.

If the stockpile was delivered earlier and Nato (or anyone not CLOSELY aligned with the Soviets) heard about it, you can guarentee something would have been tried to destroy it. It may have been a strike by the last few operating and fueled aircraft, perhaps a missile or two, or maybe a very long range SF team, maybe even an Op by the DIA. Leaving such a valuable and seriously dangerous resource in the hands of the enemy would be potentially almost as bad as cutting your own throat. In my opinion, a hundred thousand litres of diesel fuel in the hands of an enemy army is more deadly than half a dozen deliverable nukes.

Even Soviet allies might have been sorely tempted to destroy the stockpile, after all, the Soviets have had a tendancy to brutally crush any of their client states showing even the slightest degree of independance. Elimination of the stockpile and making it look like it was Nato (or some other 3rd party) would go a long way towards securing one's own position...

[Legbreaker]

The Soviets have two armies on the front in west Poland/east Germany, plus a number of less reliable divisions. Looking north we have the entirety of what's left of the Polish military (less a handful of units, most of which have gone rogue). It is my believe that these two Soviet armies were intended to be the main assault force of their planned offensive with one attacking around the north of Berlin and the other around the south.

Nato jumped first however resulting in the planned Pact offensive never getting off the ground to any significant degree. Plans had to be rapidly adjusted from an offensive to counter offensive. The penetration of the Polish sector by the US 5th and 8th IDs meant that Pact commanders could no longer rely on the Poles to secure this area - they had to swing the northern arm of their planned offensive around and attack to the north and north west instead of the probable westerly axis they'd intended (at least in the opening stages).

It wasn't all bad though. The German III Army had effectively opened the door to the Soviets. They'd left their positions, strengthened and fortified over the previous year or two and were now exposed. One might even compare it to WWI - the intial stages of WWIII were mobile as in 1914, then as fuel ran out everyone dug in, just like in 1915-18. The III German Army's move can be equated with leaving the trenches and, although in the attack, exposing themselves (it's not an exact analogy but you get the idea).

The 4th GTA, even running on petroleum, is unlikely to have been immediately in fighting condition upon reaching the front. They would need at least several days to allow straggling units to catch up, reorganise, rest and carry out maintenance after their rapid move across Poland. The value of suprise while not eliminated, would be degraded and Nato commanders could begin redeploying reserves, or strengthen already strong bunkers, minefields and other defensive belts.

Admittedly the units already there preparing for the offensive would probably have rung a few alarm bells, however their increased activity could have been misinterpreted by Nato as a response to their own preparations. The arrival of the 4th GTA would have radically altered Nato plans and expectations.

[Slappy]

Wow. Clearly some great analysis here. I'll merely add my two cents to what has already been said.

I think it is easy to underestimate the tenuous position of the Soviet divisions in eastern Germany in 2k. While they are numerically superior to their NATO adversaries, it is not clear that they could make headway against prepared positions without heavy losses. They are at the far end of an increasingly insecure line of supply that runs all the way through the chaos of 2k Poland including increasingly mutinous divisions. A number of Polish units and at least two Soviet formations have recently gone rogue (I'm without my references, but one pulled out of SE Germany w/o orders and another near Warsaw declared for US Civgov (?!?) in addition to the 10thTD? mutinying east of Krakow). There is risk that front line divisions pull out of their own accord or simply tune out in place without adequate support from home.

In the cannon there is a notable lack of loyal formations in central Poland before the arrival of the 4thGTA. In fact it would be dificult to establish a reliable line of supply between Kiev and Minsk and Berlin with all the marauder and warlord activity going on.

In this context I think there could have been a middle road where the 4thGTA was pushing west, but not neccesarily with the goal of making additional territorial gains into Germany. Significant portions of that formation could be used to move into central Poland toward Warsaw and Lodz to shore up the situation in those areas, provide support to the Polish communist government in Lublin and still provide coverage against additional mutinies in Ukraine and Bielorussia. From there they provide a bridge between the remaining Soviet heartland and the true front outside of Berlin. Some formations may have been intended to push on into Germany, but likely with more local goals around consolidating territory under their control and spoiling NATO offensives.

In this context, the actions of the German 3rd Army force the soviets hand. As misguided as it may have been, the offensive of the 5thID did threaten to further isolate the divisions across the Oder and jeopardize the gains already made there. This required the full commitment of the 4thGTA to keep the lines of communication and supply open where a partial commitment might have have done the job and secured the area from local bandits and prevented additional defections.

This drew the army further West and committed it more than originally intended. This came at the cost of additional partisan fighting capability in the bread basket, but if it prevented additional mutinies and solidified Soviet gains in Germany it might have been worth the trade.

[Legbreaker]

I disagree that the 5th ID's offensive was misguided. It has to be remembered that the intention was that the bulk of the German III Army was to have followed along behind - the 5th ID did not act in isolation.

It also has to be considered that Nato command had at least a passing knowledge of the situation in central Poland, particularly in reference to the rogue Soviet units. Essentially, until the 4th GTA showed up there was nothing much more than a few speed bumps in the 5th ID's way.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It wasn't all bad though. The German III Army had effectively opened the door to the Soviets. They'd left their positions, strengthened and fortified over the previous year or two and were now exposed. One might even compare it to WWI - the intial stages of WWIII were mobile as in 1914, then as fuel ran out everyone dug in, just like in 1915-18. The III German Army's move can be equated with leaving the trenches and, although in the attack, exposing themselves (it's not an exact analogy but you get the idea).

I think your analogy is quite good.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

After reading your post Web, I'm left wondering just what condition the Ukraine is in mid 2000. Could the Soviets afford to ignore what was apparently going on for another year, or could Ukrainan industry move quickly enough to effectively re-equip and supply "loyal" troops enough so that the Soviets would be unable to crish them? A lot appears to rest on this ability to recover quickly.

However, Poland as we know is the most heavily nuked region in the world - the Ukraine is right next door. Nato units were on Soviet soil when nukes were first used in the west, so it's not unreasonable to think a number of tactical warheads struck the Ukraine. Furthermore, as Nato were driven back in 1997, they became more than a little desperate. It is probable that transportation hubs, industry, etc were targeted by them, in addition to troop concentrations, in an attempt to disrupt and slow the westward juggernaut that was the Pact.

Therefore I imagine the Ukraine to be in a similar state as central and eastern Germany - not as bad as most of Poland, but not all that far behind either. This assessment leans me more towards the thought that crushing Ukrainan revolt could wait.

We know from the published "USSR Hit List" that the major nuclear targets in the Ukraine include Kiev, Lvov, Mukachevo, Sevastopol, Nikolayev, Pervomaysk. The missile complex in Pervomaysk in south central Ukraine was hit by two one-megaton ground bursts, Sevastopol got a one-megger, as did the shipyards in Nikolayev west of the lower Dnepr. Lvov received three 200kt warheads, while Mukachevo was dealt a single 250kt warhead. Except for Pervomaysk, all of the major nuclear strikes on the Ukraine were airbursts.

Of course, the major nuclear strikes aren’t the whole story. As Legbreaker points out, during the tactical nuclear exchange there would have been much smaller weapons (10kt-25kt) used against communications hubs, airfields, supply dumps, command-and-control nodes, and other nuclear weapons and launch systems. It’s difficult to say how many would have been directed against targets in the western Ukraine. However, given the proximity of the Ukraine to Poland, it’s probably safe to say that several dozen might have been used over the course of the tactical exchange, along with, perhaps, chemical weapons. The Ukraine within one hundred miles of Poland might be in very tough shape.

Worse, prevailing winds will carry fallout from Europe across the Ukraine. How much fallout blows across the Ukraine will depend on how many ground bursts there were, since air bursts don’t tend to generate much fallout compared to ground bursts.

All in all, it appears that the western Ukraine is in pretty tough shape. How far east from the Polish border the beaten zone extends is hard to say. We should bear in mind, though, that the front did not stay at the Soviet border for very long. NATO probably would have attacked a combined arms army in the Lvov area with a strike package of tactical nuclear weapons in July, 1997. Whether a formation in the Zhitomir area would receive a strike package in another matter. I strongly doubt a package would have been deployed against an army in Kiev, as this might have been seen by the Soviets as crossing the line from tactical use against troops to use of tactical weapons against strategic targets. By the time the exchange escalated to a more strategic level, the front had moved west. Tactical nuclear weapons might have continued to be used, but the Pact targets would be in Poland or Czechoslovakia.

I can agree, then, that west of Rivne the place is pretty much like Poland. East of Zhitomir, though, there is still plenty of Ukraine that hasn’t been hit by strategic nukes and probably hasn’t been hit by tactical nukes. The level of fallout contamination is hard to estimate. Clearly, though, multiple parties consider the Ukraine worth fighting over. "USSR 2000" paints a picture of a turbulent but potentially resurgent Ukraine. It’s worth noting that in April, 2000 the leading Ukrainian rebels declare a new republic, which the neighboring Soviets consider too strong to tackle. (If so, this might “free” Fourth Guards Tank Army for action against the West.)

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It is also possible that the 4th GTA could have been sitting on their fuel supply for months, suppressing revolution just by being there and ready for a rapid westward move. If this is the case though, it's unreasonable not to assume the black market in the area didn't see an increase in supply of petroleum fuels and the 4th's supplies dwindle from theft. Also, the longer those fuel stockpiles were there, the greater the risk knowledge of it's existance would reach unfriendly hands. I would therefore "cap" the time the 4th had this stockpile to just a few months with the first significant deliveries arriving early to mid spring (a much smaller and limited flow of a few dozen barrels a month may have been in place all along, just to keep the absolutely VITAL equipment running). This further reinforces the probability the 4th GTA were intended to head west in support of an offensive.

It’s certainly possible that Fourth Guards Tank Army was in possession of their fuel stocks for a period of time. I agree that corruption and profiteering would have seen fuel siphoned off. I’m not sure I agree that the presence of the fuel or the possibility that NATO might get wind of the fuel possessed by Fourth Guards Tank Army necessitates the tank army being used for a westward offensive.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

If the stockpile was delivered earlier and Nato (or anyone not CLOSELY aligned with the Soviets) heard about it, you can guarentee something would have been tried to destroy it. It may have been a strike by the last few operating and fueled aircraft, perhaps a missile or two, or maybe a very long range SF team, maybe even an Op by the DIA. Leaving such a valuable and seriously dangerous resource in the hands of the enemy would be potentially almost as bad as cutting your own throat. In my opinion, a hundred thousand litres of diesel fuel in the hands of an enemy army is more deadly than half a dozen deliverable nukes.

I certainly agree that if NATO intelligence had become aware of the stockpile they would have liked to do something about it. But what? I find it unlikely that Fourth Guards Tank Army would not go to great lengths to protect their fuel by means of dispersal, camouflage, and sheltering. The idea that a small group of individuals, however highly motivated, would be able to tackle or even meaningfully diminish a stockpile of millions of gallons of fuel more valuable than gold is iffy at best. A one-megaton strike might not even do the trick if the fuel were dispersed and protected in covered revetments, though I’m sure NATO would have tried it. I can’t imagine what a handful of strike aircraft would have been able to accomplish that would have been meaningful. We must bear in mind that we’re not talking about disrupting the fuel supplies of a Soviet force moving in the open. Before it starts to move, Fourth Guards Tank Army has the advantage of using a variety of protective measures to safeguard the invaluable fuel resource.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Had the Soviets known much about German 3rd Army's offensive, I think it would have dealt with it more decisively. What canon describes seems more like a drunken brawl than a planned operation.

I liken what happened between U.S. 5th ID and the Soviet 4th GTA to two boxers, each throwing a blind left hook. When their fists collide, the boxer with more mass is left standing- in pain but still standing- while the other is left with a broken hand.

As I pointed out, the Soviets have two Guards Armies in Byelorussia that they can use as a strategic reserve to either...

respond to a major NATO offensive,

support a major Soviet offensive (already planned),

or respond to the insurrection in the Ukraine.

This frees up 4th GTD to focus on conducting offensive operations in Poland and/or Germany.

A lot of fights look like barroom brawls on the ground. No plan survives contact with reality. The Americans were taken by surprise by the rapid movement of Fourth Guards Tank Army. The Soviets simply didn’t do very well. As the Soviets repeatedly discovered in WWII, it’s all well and good to have a solid map plan. Getting the units to execute that plan reliably is a whole different kettle of fish. In Escape from Kalisz, someone points out that the leaders of Fourth Guards Tank Army had spent too much time chasing peasants in ox carts and didn’t understand how tough the Americans were.

As for other tank armies in Belarus, certainly the remaining concentration of armor has a value. But it’s the fuel in combination with the armor that is at the heart of the (friendly) debate over what was intended for Fourth Guards Tank Army. If the fuel goes west, then the remaining armor is no more mobile than Fourth Guards Tank Army would have been without receiving any fuel in the first place.

Overall, reading "USSR 2000" further compels me to believe that Fourth Guards Tank Army was used as it was intended: as a mobile counterstrike force. The disintegrating state of the Soviet Union from mid-1999 onwards makes the idea of a renewed offensive in Germany seem like folly. As I have said before, though, I’m not Russian. A Russian senior leader might have given action against Germany a priority I can’t imagine.

Webstral

[kato13]

I'm trying to look at this like a CIA/DIA analyst.

If the 4th GTA really has "Gasoline" then I think it was intended for an offensive, due to the fact that long term stability is an issue. If I was the 4th GTA commander and I had Diesel fuel I would have less of an "Use it or lose it" philosophy so I would be more comfortable as a strategic reserve.

Do we know anything about refinery(s) used? If refineries were an issue is low grade diesel more likely than gasoline?

What was the timeline for the fuel production? How long was the transport time? If it was gasoline is it nearing it's usable shelf life.

[Webstral]

I've always felt that gasoline was rather an unlikely choice of petroleum fuels for Fourth Guards Tank Army. Diesel makes much more sense--so much so that I've always believed the "gasoline" reference in Escape from Kalisz to be a misnomer or a catch-all term intended to refer to the kind of widespread liquid fossil fuels used in automobiles (including trucks and military vehicles) before the war. Gasoline is harder to make, more flammable, and has other drawbacks besides. I've been using the term to avoid being sidetracked into a discussion on petroleum refining, etc. I should have known you'd pay attention to the details, Kato.

Webstral

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I should have known you'd pay attention to the details, Kato.

When I have to draw conclusions from so few written words, it tends to make me over analyze them.

I agree Gasoline could very well have been a catch all. I wish they had only used is in common speech and quotes and not in GM briefings or summaries, that would make it much easier to accept the "catch all" defense. But when they wrote it I am sure they never expected that 26 years later someone would be parsing their words.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kato13

I'm trying to look at this like a CIA/DIA analyst.

If the 4th GTA really has "Gasoline" then I think it was intended for an offensive, due to the fact that long term stability is an issue. If I was the 4th GTA commander and I had Diesel fuel I would have less of an "Use it or lose it" philosophy so I would be more comfortable as a strategic reserve.

Do we know anything about refinery(s) used? If refineries were an issue is low grade diesel more likely than gasoline?

What was the timeline for the fuel production? How long was the transport time? If it was gasoline is it nearing it's usable shelf life.

I've always assumed its was diesel. I've made that asumption in previous posts on this topic. Its much easier to produce, has a longer shelf life and it seems obvious that was what the Russians were using.

[Raellus]

I'm of the same mind that "gasoline", as it was used by the scenario writers, was a catch-all term for fossil fuels (like folks that call all carbonated beverages "Coke"). If 4th GTA had some T-80s, perhaps some of the fuel was indeed gasoline, but being that the majority of Soviet vehicles (pre-TDM) ran on diesel, that's probably what it was.

I still think that "gasoline" is too valuable a resource to allocate to a mobile reserve strike force. It's a strategic resource and local counterattacks are either a tactical or operational level task. It seems to me that the regional, WTO-controlled cantonments could have brewed up plenty of methanol (or whatever) for such a contingency. The "gas" was a trump card and I imagine the Soviets had a bold, strategic level plan for its use.

I don't advocate a general offensive into Germany. Even though the Soviets had superior numbers in the Berlin region, as has been pointed out, the area had already suffered heavily from nuclear strikes and conventional fighting. It would, however, act as a good jumping-off point being as there are so few NATO units in the vicinity.

I agree that the Soviets, by 2000, were in a very tenuous position, considering the uprising in Ukraine and some of the other Soviet republics. They were starting to have serious problems just holding on to what they had. The only strategic benefit in a land grab during the summer of 2000 is that the lands seized (in Germany) could be used as a bargaining chip if and when negotiations between the warring parties began again.

I think the Soviets had a more limited offensive in mind- one that would hinder NATO's ability to threaten Soviet/WTO controlled territory in Poland. That would allow the Soviets to stabilize the situation in Poland, and deal with the various mutinies, without the threat of a major NATO offensive hanging over their heads.

An envelopment operation to trap and destroy German 3rd Army in northern Poland fits this bill quite nicely.

[Legbreaker]

Lets examine the Gasoline-Diesel question a little more closely for a moment.
My understanding is that the vast majority of combat vehicles possessed by the 4th GTA required diesel rather than the alternatives. Without aircraft (that we know of) the 4th GTA should not require aviation fuel, so, besides a limited amount of gasoline, diesel is likely to be the fuel the Army received.

One might even go further and say (depending on the number of vehicles unable to burn diesel) that only diesel was supplied - gasoline burning vehicles were required to run on locally produced and sourced (aka stolen - I can't see much "fair" trading taking place) alcohol. It is possible the individual Divisions could produce enough for the move and subsequent operations for just these few vehicles.

It may be that, as previously mentioned, "gasoline" has been used as a catchword to describe all petroleum based fuels and lubricants supplied to the 4th GTA. It certainly makes more sense to me for diesel to be the predominately supplied fuel as it is generally simpler to refine from petroleum than gasoline, and a trend away from gasoline powered military vehicles has been evident ever since the 1940's.

[kato13]

I don't think it is as clear as that given the designers feel that most soviet trucks must run on gas. (Paul has similar info).

The Soviet Vehicle Guide (1st Edition contemporary to the Escape info) has the following:

Cannot run on Diesel (G,A) or (G, AvG, A)
Zil 135
Ural 375
BRDM-1
BRDM-2
BRDM-3

Can Run on Both gas and Diesel (D, G, A)
UAZ-469

Multi Fuel
BMP-A
BMP-B
BMP-C

Diesel Only (D, A)
T-80
T-72
T-64
SAU-122
SAU-152
BTR-70
BTR-80
MTLB

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by kato13

I'm trying to look at this like a CIA/DIA analyst.

If the 4th GTA really has "Gasoline" then I think it was intended for an offensive, due to the fact that long term stability is an issue. If I was the 4th GTA commander and I had Diesel fuel I would have less of an "Use it or lose it" philosophy so I would be more comfortable as a strategic reserve.

Do we know anything about refinery(s) used? If refineries were an issue is low grade diesel more likely than gasoline?

What was the timeline for the fuel production? How long was the transport time? If it was gasoline is it nearing it's usable shelf life.

I think like many things that GDW did the use of Gasoline was overused for both Gas and Diesel at the same time when the writers wanted to simplify their point they were trying to get make. The only fuel they did make a clear distinction was "Av Gas" due to ground planes.

As for the fuel I am sure after things settle down one of the first steps the 38th Army and 3rd Guard Tank Army would of worked on in 1998. Stavka would want to make sure the Tank Armies they had in Western Soviet Union in would be a priority. To do so in a way in not broadcasting to everyone that you are doing such. Romanians wouldn't be too please of the Soviet helping themselves to their remaining fuel supplies. As 1998 wore into 1999 other 'Allies' wouldn't be to happy that they weren't getting a share either.

Also we have to remember that the supply network of this time wouldn't of been the best shape so supplying a month worth of fuel to the 4th GTA would take well over a year and good share of the what was being produced for the tankers to move to and from the locations where fuel was deposited for storage.

[Cdnwolf]

Ummm little problem .... The 4'th Guards Tank Army didn't exist..

From 1946 to 1957 the Army was named 4th Guards Mechanised Army. It was renamed 20th Guards Army in 1960,[3] and served for many years as part of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Ummm little problem .... The 4'th Guards Tank Army didn't exist..

The Soviets can't raise and name new units/HQs? Or redesignate old ones? How many new divisions did the Red Army create during WWII? How many divisions were granted the "Guards" honorific during the war? How many years had WWIII been going on for?

Not a problem at all.

[Abbott Shaull]

One has to remember that Belorus based armies had to deal with rebellions there and in the Baltics. I think by 2000 Stavka was more concern with keeping control of the territory of the Soviet Union, than it would be giving NATO a black eye that would leave the Soviet Union closer to a collapse that they were trying to prevent. Most of Eastern Europe was in such a state they wouldn't be of no threat to the Soviet Union for years to come. Much of the government that was left in these countries realized that Germany wasn't in much shape to do much to them.

I am always reminded of what Sgt Malarky character told his new Lt in "Band of Brothers" series in when they were nearly in Germany on the River with the troop on each side. "We both have roof over our head, I don't think anyone wants to do something stupid!" When the Lt inquired about the opposing force even though the unit supposedly only gotten there.

The reaction of many of the Soviet Union units on the line were according to their commanders in any condition to move against the 5th Mechanized Division, the XI Corps or the Third German Army. The reasons ranging from lack of parts to lack of fuel to lack of ammo. Of these the lack of parts and ammo can be believable due to supply lines not being secured. As for fuel well since sometime in 1998 or even early 1999 units would of started to distill fuel for 'local' use.

Many units would have more than enough to get moving. What they didn't want to do is end up like happen to the 5th Mechanized Division. Get so far and the stall out for time to distill more fuel. I am sure the 4th GTA had been moving forward methodically. To keep units so they didn't get to disperse. Especially after the 38th Tank Division had rebelled. They grouped enough where the other Divisional Commanders were able to keep control of their troops too.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Stavka would want to make sure the Tank Armies they had in Western Soviet Union in would be a priority.

Why?

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Romanians wouldn't be too please of the Soviet helping themselves to their remaining fuel supplies.

Like they have a choice. Romania declaring for the other side was the death of Romania as a country. There's no way the Soviets would take that lying down (and as can be seen by the Soviet presence in Romania, and virtual destruction by them of the Romanian military, they didn't).

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As 1998 wore into 1999 other 'Allies' wouldn't be to happy that they weren't getting a share either.

And again, like they had a choice in the matter.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Also we have to remember that the supply network of this time wouldn't of been the best shape so supplying a month worth of fuel to the 4th GTA would take well over a year and good share of the what was being produced for the tankers to move to and from the locations where fuel was deposited for storage.

The Black sea is basically the Soviets private bathtub. I'm fairly sure they'd be able to find a few small ships to carry a few hundred barrels of fuel up to Odessa so I completely disagree that it would take a full year. 3-6 months is a more reasonable estimate. From Odessa (or another nearby port) the trucks and carts of the 4th GTA should have been sufficent to manage. Yes, this would have taken fuel, but if we estimate 5% (a rediculously high percentage) of the supply was used in transport, there's still a huge amount left for the army as a whole.

As for "renaming" the 4th GTA, why can't the Army have earnt the title through the course of the war? Virtually every other Guards unit in the Soviet military earnt their title in WWII, a conflict which is comparable with WWIII in scale, duration and horror.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The Black sea is basically the Soviets private bathtub. I'm fairly sure they'd be able to find a few small ships to carry a few hundred barrels of fuel up to Odessa so I completely disagree that it would take a full year. 3-6 months is a more reasonable estimate. From Odessa (or another nearby port) the trucks and carts of the 4th GTA should have been sufficent to manage. Yes, this would have taken fuel, but if we estimate 5% (a rediculously high percentage) of the supply was used in transport, there's still a huge amount left for the army as a whole.

That's funny, I'd always assumed a lead time of around six months too. And around 5% of the fuel being used to transport it. These seem like reasonable figures to me.