Destruction of Weapons.

[Legbreaker]

Ah, there's your problem! You're talking US soldiers!

In the rest of the world we have to make do with about a tenth that much.

[kato13]

Well there still will be empty trucks.

Dunnigan's "How to make war" has US and Soviet Division needing similar tonnage (about a maximum 40% variance) of material. It is not 10 to one. For both it ends up being in the range of 2000 tons per day.

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Combat vehicles, besides a few units retained for intel, SF units, etc, are almost sure to be destroyed as there is no guarenteed logistical support for them and the risk of them being recaptured by their original owners (with intact and hopefully effective supply train) tends to outweigh the benefits.

Yes, there is support. East Germany had its own modest arms industry and could undoubtedly keep former GDR units supplied with PACT ammo and probably spare parts. They manufactured their own AKM clone for Pete's sake!

There's way more historical precedents for keeping captured heavy gear than destroying it. If you're using the two Iraq wars as evidence for the assertion that captured enemy gear would be "almost sure to be destroyed", those are exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the Iraqi captured Iraqi stuff that was destroyed in place was either...

a.) Already damaged
b.) A piece of crap (i.e. Chinese APCs and copies of T-54/55s)
c.) Feared to be re-manned by Fedayeen fighters
d.) Shot up by coalition gunners keen to try out their big guns in action

A lot of Iraqi stuff was kept for intel purposes or to be used as OPFOR vehicles at the NTC or given over to the reconstructed Iraqi army. I've seen Soviet AFVs that I presume were nicked from the Iraqi army (in desert cammo) on flatbed truck trailers on the highway here in Tucson, AZ! Aside from those that were captured and exported to and used by Syria, there are hundreds of WWII German AFVs in Museums all over the U.S., UK, Russia, and elsewhere. And this from an army that was chronically understrength in armor.

In all of my reading, the only evidence of any kind of order to systematically destroy captured material, especially big-ticket items like AFVs, is when it was feared that an enemy counterattack could retake it.

If you can find evidence of a policy of destroying captured vehicles (aside from the standing order in the afore mentioned case of the Fedayeen scare), then I'll accept your assertion. On many levels, it makes no sense to destroy perfectly good PACT gear given the arguments already presented here by myself and others. Honestly, in the absense of hard evidence, it seems like you're arguing this point just to be contrarian.

[Legbreaker]

10 to 1 might be a little extreme in some cases, but it's certainly believable for the units I was in.
Most of the time we were foot mobile with only one 4 tonne truck, two 110 landrovers and two trailers assigned to a company of about 110 men. The Battalion motorpool had more vehicles, but only enough to transport one company at a time with a handful of vehicles left over. Fuel requirements therefore weren't anywhere near as high as in a mechanised or armoured unit.

Ammunition and food are the two main supply items for any infantry unit and I just can't see any one soldier needing more than about a hundred kilos total even in heavy combat. Rockets, mortars and other miscellaneous equipment might push requirements up to about 200kg, but this would leave the soliders in relative luxury.

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

All that is truely needed to keep fighting is bullets and food. Everything else is secondary.

[fightingflamingo]

there will definately be some empty trucks or at least space on some partially loaded trucks with space moving to the rear. IMO a key item being moved to the rear by both sides will be EPW, and at different stages the volume of EPW could be very heavy.
Damaged vehicles and large equipment being moved to the rear won't be moved by to the rear by supply vehicles so much as by wreckers or flatbed/tank transporters used to move replacement vehicles to assemble area's behind the main battle area.

in 1996 through 1997, these truck crews will be worked very hard, especially during periods of active nonattritional campaigning. The rate of consumable expenditure in heavy formations (Armor & Mechanized) will be particularly high, somewhat lower but still very high in motorized formations. In Europe there aren't that many true light infantry formations present (meaning those without organic wheeled transportation), but those present will still have high ammunition expenditure, even if their fuel expenditure is lower (they still have some organic vehicles).

I know the WP planned to put a substantial number of trucks from the civilian economy into military service during wartime to support their logistical needs. I do not know if NATO had similar plans, but it seems reasonable that they might use trucking drawn from the civilian economy under contract to move containerized supplies from the ports in Holland & Denmark, to Logistics Supply Bases in Germany where the supplies would be sorted, then picked up by tactical vehicles for transport to units in the battle area. These Logistics Supply Bases would move forward from Germany into the DDR, and possibly Western Poland as the Battle Area moves East in summer of 1997, then back as the WP regains lost ground in Poland. They should be early deep targets in the tactical nuclear exchange. The LSB's would service differenent classes of supply primarily, but will also be cross loaded with all classes of supply in various degree's. Once the tactical exchange begins, they break down and disperse as they inviting targets for tactical nukes, which will add ineffeciency to the logistics system even if the dispersed sites escape destruction. A further consideration would be the quality of the road networks in the DDR & Poland and their ability to sustain high volumes of heavy truck traffic. I've been to Poland a few times and I see the road network there impairing both the attacker and defender...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yes, there is support. East Germany had its own modest arms industry and could undoubtedly keep former GDR units supplied with PACT ammo and probably spare parts.

This I was unaware of. However, I would think that these factories would only be usable in the initial stages of the war. They may also have been subject to sabotage by Pact forces once the East German betrayal became known.

Why would they only be operation in the intial stages? Because to begin with they were on the front line, then later the front line was pushed back to these industrial areas during the 1997 counter offensive. From late 1997 onwards much of eastern Germany (and western Poland) was a warzone and if not on the front lines, very close to them and subject to raiding, etc.

What was or was not destroyed is something that is sure to vary from situaiton to situation. If a value was perceived then the items would be preserved. If they posed a potential hazard, then as in Iraq (example C), they'd be destroyed. In V1 there's a much highly likelyhood of salvage than in V2. It's up to the individual GM to decide how much, where, and when in my opinion.

All any of us can do is guess and hypothesize based on previous examples which don't really compare to a theorectical WWIII.

As far as saving equipment for the purpose of rebuilding a Polish army, I find that to be very low on the list of priorities. Poland may now be a part of Nato, but in T2K they were very much part of the WP. A large percentage of Poles living in western Poland speak German as a native language so I would think that volunteers from these regions would be intergrated into the German army rather than a whole new national force set up. Those from the eastern regions would more likely find themselves shipped of into internment camps than given a weapon and sent in to fight.

Yes, there would possibly be political considerations such as the West wanting to set up what would be effectively a puppet government with a small military force, but once the nukes flew, this idea would be as dead as the dodo - politics have no place on a nuclear battlefield. The propaganda value of such a move would be extremely limited once communications networks failed - little point in trying such a thing if those it's targeted at aren't able to receive the message.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by fightingflamingo

There will definately be some empty trucks or at least space on some partially loaded trucks with space moving to the rear. IMO a key item being moved to the rear by both sides will be EPW, and at different stages the volume of EPW could be very heavy.
Damaged vehicles and large equipment being moved to the rear won't be moved by to the rear by supply vehicles so much as by wreckers or flatbed/tank transporters used to move replacement vehicles to assemble area's behind the main battle area.

This is a VERY good point and ties in to the tank transporter thread http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1390
The average supply truck might be empty, but the vehicles capable of shifting the heavy loads aren't going to be all that available...

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kato13

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

I have the 3e. It indeed lists the Soviets as using more fuel and the US using more ammo. On p.473 it notes that Other Western armies tend to use even more ammo than the US.

[fightingflamingo]

Regarding an alternative NATO aligned Polish government, we should all keep in mind that the Polish Government in Exile, continued to hold cabinet meetings and was located in London throughout the Cold War, until their turned over their instruments of power (a copy of the original constitiution of the 2nd Polish Republic, among other things). That government could bee seen as a legitimate government by some people in Poland and garnish some support there since it maintained continuity with the pre WWII Polish government.

another thing to consider is that IMHO nuclear weapons (even tactical ones) are more political weapons than true military weapons considering all the implications of their use. An example of this is the political not neccisarily military need to respond warhead for warhead during the early part of the tactical exchange (although military needs should have played into the targeting).

[kato13]

Originally Posted by copeab

I have the 3e. It indeed lists the Soviets as using more fuel and the US using more ammo. On p.473 it notes that Other Western armies tend to use even more ammo than the US.

I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.

[fightingflamingo]

One thing to keep in mind is that US divisions at peactime strength are larger than Soviet divisions of the same type, so that plays into the consumption rates. Soviet divisions have more tubes, but the US divisions (at least the mechanized ones) have the Artillery support vehicles and throw more rounds down range faster per mission, so that may balance out... US division have more support vehicles, in addition to the combat vehicles, plus an aviation brigade in every division so it's a no brainer that the fuel consumption would be higher...

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by kato13

Well there still will be empty trucks.

Dunnigan's "How to make war" has US and Soviet Division needing similar tonnage (about a maximum 40% variance) of material. It is not 10 to one. For both it ends up being in the range of 2000 tons per day.

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

You have to remember this is no trucking company where they make more money to keep cargo hold loaded as they move. So yeah some will return to the rear supply dump empty, no big deal. Besides they use less fuel while empty too.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

10 to 1 might be a little extreme in some cases, but it's certainly believable for the units I was in.
Most of the time we were foot mobile with only one 4 tonne truck, two 110 landrovers and two trailers assigned to a company of about 110 men. The Battalion motorpool had more vehicles, but only enough to transport one company at a time with a handful of vehicles left over. Fuel requirements therefore weren't anywhere near as high as in a mechanised or armoured unit.

Ammunition and food are the two main supply items for any infantry unit and I just can't see any one soldier needing more than about a hundred kilos total even in heavy combat. Rockets, mortars and other miscellaneous equipment might push requirements up to about 200kg, but this would leave the soliders in relative luxury.

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

All that is truely needed to keep fighting is bullets and food. Everything else is secondary.

Well the Battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division were similar equipped. There were enough to motorized on company in a pinch, but we largely still foot mobile. Not all US combat units were Mechanized and Armor equip. Up until the conversion of what was left of the Light Infantry that were from the remains of the 6th ID and the 25th ID that were merged into the 25th Division which now has 3 Stryker Brigades and 1 Airborne Brigade were similar equipped.

Honestly the logistical units during both Iraqi wars were overtaxed and they were using numbers that were near what was quoted. The fighting that was speculated to have happen in Europe and even in Korea would push the limit. It is why so much equipment was pre-positioned throughout Europe. While after the initial invasion in 2003, the logistical had eased up a bit too. Lot of the rules and thinking is geared to Heavy Mechanized/Armor warfare.

I think we have case where people are trying to compare apples to oranges...

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

That 1000kg includes fuel, ammo, food and spares for a mechanized unit. For the US 60% is fuel 37% is ammo 1% is food and 2% are spares. Soviet Units flip flop fuel and ammo but are similar.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This I was unaware of. However, I would think that these factories would only be usable in the initial stages of the war. They may also have been subject to sabotage by Pact forces once the East German betrayal became known.

Why would they only be operation in the intial stages? Because to begin with they were on the front line, then later the front line was pushed back to these industrial areas during the 1997 counter offensive. From late 1997 onwards much of eastern Germany (and western Poland) was a warzone and if not on the front lines, very close to them and subject to raiding, etc.

What was or was not destroyed is something that is sure to vary from situaiton to situation. If a value was perceived then the items would be preserved. If they posed a potential hazard, then as in Iraq (example C), they'd be destroyed. In V1 there's a much highly likelyhood of salvage than in V2. It's up to the individual GM to decide how much, where, and when in my opinion.

All any of us can do is guess and hypothesize based on previous examples which don't really compare to a theorectical WWIII.

As far as saving equipment for the purpose of rebuilding a Polish army, I find that to be very low on the list of priorities. Poland may now be a part of Nato, but in T2K they were very much part of the WP. A large percentage of Poles living in western Poland speak German as a native language so I would think that volunteers from these regions would be intergrated into the German army rather than a whole new national force set up. Those from the eastern regions would more likely find themselves shipped of into internment camps than given a weapon and sent in to fight.

Yes, there would possibly be political considerations such as the West wanting to set up what would be effectively a puppet government with a small military force, but once the nukes flew, this idea would be as dead as the dodo - politics have no place on a nuclear battlefield. The propaganda value of such a move would be extremely limited once communications networks failed - little point in trying such a thing if those it's targeted at aren't able to receive the message.

Many Poles from western Poland one could point out they are ethnically Germans to begin with, since most of western Poland use to be part of Germany before the end of WWII.

As for the former NVA units. I suspect after a while, you will find West and East German Division exchanging Brigades. There would be two reasons for this.

1st off to help bring the new combined unified army command.

2nd off there are times when the wrong equipment is sent to the wrong unit. If you had units in the Division with a good mix of equipment, even if only certain units of the Division could use what they had in the division supply depot, at least the entire unit wouldn't be put out of the action. Next member of those who knew how to use the equipment could be sent to help bring members in other units that didn't know how to use it, to teach them how it works, even if the new unit were exactly sure how they worked entirely....

[fightingflamingo]

after WWII most of the ethnic Germans were deported from Pomerania & Silesia into the DDR and FRG by the Polish Peoples Republic, that is not to say all of them but the vast majority of them are gone. There was considerable support for the Polish Government in Exile however throughout the Cold War in Poland, although it maintained little relevancy.

On mixing brigades among NVA and Bundeswehr divisions, IMO this would not be done because of the strain it would place on logistics and maintenance units, since they start out as two seperate armies they have seperate logistical tails. IMHO they would continue to be fed by their prewar support formations, instead of mixing it up. At least for as long as that remains practical...

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by fightingflamingo

One thing to keep in mind is that US divisions at peactime strength are larger than Soviet divisions of the same type, so that plays into the consumption rates. Soviet divisions have more tubes, but the US divisions (at least the mechanized ones) have the Artillery support vehicles and throw more rounds down range faster per mission, so that may balance out... US division have more support vehicles, in addition to the combat vehicles, plus an aviation brigade in every division so it's a no brainer that the fuel consumption would be higher...

The Soviet Division was about two-thirds the size of their US counterpart. In the version one, the Soviet Divisions that had 8000 men would be almost staffed to prewar Cat B levels.

One of the many things the Soviets had planned on was to strip it population all vehicles. This was to make all Motorized Rifle Division indeed Motorized, as well as to help bring supplies to the front. Many of the Cat C and almost all Mobilized Only Motorized Rifle Division had only one Regiment worth of equipment that the TO&Es called for. The other two Regiments would get what ever they could liberate. These Regiments would be basically glorified motorized light infantry. Many of these units would be used for occupational duty if things went correctly.

Just some thoughts.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by fightingflamingo

after WWII most of the ethnic Germans were deported from Pomerania & Silesia into the DDR and FRG by the Polish Peoples Republic, that is not to say all of them but the vast majority of them are gone. There was considerable support for the Polish Government in Exile however throughout the Cold War in Poland, although it maintained little relevancy.

On mixing brigades among NVA and Bundeswehr divisions, IMO this would not be done because of the strain it would place on logistics and maintenance units, since they start out as two seperate armies they have seperate logistical tails. IMHO they would continue to be fed by their prewar support formations, instead of mixing it up. At least for as long as that remains practical...

You quite correct that many Germans were moved willingly or by force, but like there are parts east of Poland that would traditionally be Polish, and there are location are some still living in those regions that would consider their family Polish.

As for the mixing, you are right. For the first year this would not happen, but after 1997 it would be done as thing started to break down. One has to remember when the East and West Germany were reunited in real life, any one above the rank of Major was let go from the who served in the East German Army as soon as possible. I am sure the same think would happen after 1997 in the original time line. Lot of these people would of be been killed during the first couple weeks/months due to close quarters with their former Soviet Allies. I am sure West German High Command would be installed as replacements. As for swaps this would be done after sometime in 1998 and beyond. By then there divisions from both sides were integrated into each German Corps. With the way supply lines were becoming a trickle at best it would be a way for each Division to be somewhat self sufficient in using capture supplies. By this time too logistical speaking it would be nightmare, since you find units with equipment from all major allies intermix by the very nature of the way the war was conducted, and how units seem to be able to 'find' needed equipment laying around when no one is looking....

It is also another way with unit conducting marauder raids. I can see some old East German raiding old rival West German unit and vise versa. With how the Germany was united in the canon of version 1 it leaves so many issue that the creator weren't able to resolve on what would actually happen, they left it as both sides were at shotgun wedding and the West German Command was the groom, and everyone lived happily ever after. Just looking at it realistically.

[Abbott Shaull]

Another advantage of intermixing the German units after 1998 would be also that for the former East German units they are fighting for their Homeland.

Another reason for integrating the units too is to show each side that they were now working as one Army.

Just some thought.

[fightingflamingo]

V1 suggests or states that the reunification of German was planned by the higher level staff's of both the East & West German Armies. We have to remember the historical anomosity between Germans and the Slavic people isn't something that the Nazi's invented for WWII, and we have to remember that it went both ways. IMHO, the treatment of WP troops(and more specifically the NVA) by the SU as canon fodder in China, may have had a racial/ethnic tone at the command level which pushed the NVA command into the arms of the west.

other than that, I think that there is largely agreement...

[Legbreaker]

I tend to agree that there will be friction between East and West German units, especially in the early stages. Up until the unification occured, only a small number of officers knew something was even happening, so it'd be no suprise if many of the lower ranks, and a few in the higher, took exception and caused a bit of trouble. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine whole units defecting back to the Soviets (certainly make for an interesting story).

These defections might not have been widespread, but after several generations of propaganda on the part of their soviet "masters", ancient enmity might play less of a role than modern influences.

After a year or so of the war, these "defectors" might number less and less as they realise the west wasn't as evil as they were originally told.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by headquarters

I agree whole heartedly .
Soldiers on all levels mismanage or slack on maintenance and gear gets worn out faster . Here is a thought - how many rounds is a certain gun barrel projected to take before its worn out / scatters like a shotgun ? Both arty and small arms have this problem - a problem compounded by poor maintenance and lack of parts and or lubricants.

I remember the instructors at our Academy saying that our (A)G3 rifles were good for app 7500 rounds before initial accuracy was reduced.After app double /triple that the gun would be deemed ready for the melting ovens.

Now bear in mind that firing on the practice range is included- a rifle will not be able to take more than a few years before worn out .

You know it amazing that the M16A1 we used in Basic training were even worthy of sighting...

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I tend to agree that there will be friction between East and West German units, especially in the early stages. Up until the unification occured, only a small number of officers knew something was even happening, so it'd be no suprise if many of the lower ranks, and a few in the higher, took exception and caused a bit of trouble. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine whole units defecting back to the Soviets (certainly make for an interesting story).

These defections might not have been widespread, but after several generations of propaganda on the part of their soviet "masters", ancient enmity might play less of a role than modern influences.

After a year or so of the war, these "defectors" might number less and less as they realise the west wasn't as evil as they were originally told.

Yes, I do believe at the out set one would see certain units staying with the Pact. The thing is once the initial fighting happens, much like the US and UK Brigades that were based in Berlin, many of the East German units will be in the worse of the fighting. Even those units that didn't want to defect to the West, could be attacked out of hand by the Soviets just because other units of the East German had already acted hostile to Pact forces. I see any East German command and control assets that weren't destroyed before the US, UK, Canada and other allied unit came to the aid of the Germans, needing to be refit badly. Many of the East German Division would basically have to be rebuilt up and reorganized as well many West German Division.

At which time the NATO goes on the offensive in 1997, the Germans will be re-tasking Divisions with Brigades that were capable of taking on offensive abilities. I remember the 5th US Mechanized Division in the back story for the Black Madona module being attached to German Corps. The East German Divisions were at the start the war for all practical purposes organized similar to Soviet Division. I would think that the German High Command would of took time to re-organize the former East German Division more into line of those West regardless of the difference of equipment. Also the East German units would have to learn new tactics too.

One of the things that I always found lacking by GDW was the lack of back story of units of allies on both sides. I mean they did decent job with the Czeckaslavokia sort of, German sort of, Polish more so than the previous two, as well the US and Soviet Union. With the total lack of local Air Force(s) as well as the many security forces that may be encountered, and didn't mention much about Naval or River patrols much either. I know by 2000 many of these units were out of the picture, but they never fully explained how personnel was used.

Which is one of the reason why, some people go with the flow with canon while other work with what they believe would happen and throw everything else out.

Just some thoughts.

[Abbott Shaull]

As a matter of fact, I do remember reading somewhere in version 1. That not all East German units had defected to the West German. Some units were more active at the start, while other commanders simply choose to stay in their barracks, making their force sitting ducks, until the Soviet forced them to take action. I don't remember if this was in the Going Home module or in the original game set where I had read this.

Also I don't many of the Border Guard units would of defected to the West. These probably would of been the units the Soviet built up their German forces around. These forces were probably grounded out of existence as punishment for the bulk of the East German military defection to the West Germany.

One thing one has to remember the Soviets, didn't hold their Pact allies in high regard in how they would be re-equipped or brought up to strength. These units would get supplies, but as an after thought. They were to help pave the way so their units would have easier time. One just has to look at the Polish 7th(?) Marine Division and Polish 6th Airborne Division. Both of these units were very capable by all accounts in training. The Marine Division I believe was to be assigned to the Front that was to take Denmark, and as such was kept at near full strength. While the 6th due to action in the early 1980 where they didn't perform as they should during riots in and near Krakow where they reduced to little more than Brigade by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think it's worth stating that GDW didn't design Twilight to be about the units that survived WW3, it was about a small group of people (the player characters) surviving in the ruins of WW3. As such, there was no need for them to overly detail all the military units that survived because those units would have been either friendly, neutral or hostile to the PCs - they were part of the backdrop and not the main focus until the referee needed them to interact with the PCs. The PCs were always meant to be the main focus and the game was deliberately designed to give the players a fun world to game in.

[Legbreaker]

Well said Stainless.

But there is something fun about arguing back and forth on the bigger picture. :P

[jester]

I actualy wish there was more information on such units in the campaign. Why do you ask?

More detail on East German or Polish Paras and other ELITE units so we can throw some bad a$$ enemies at the PCS! I am a firm beleiver in keeping the PCs afraid and even developing some lasting enemies that make them afraid, but also seeking revenge when they encounter them.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.

Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive. A Soviet tank division has more tanks, and while on a per-tank basis the Abrams is more of a fuel hog, the defender can sit with his engines off for longer (in a grossly overgeneralized sense). I'm not quite sure why US formations would be less consumptive of ammuntion, though. The Soviets planned massive bombardments. It could be that it was assumed that US guns would stay in action more continuously than their Soviet counterparts, given the superior ability of the US logistical system to keep ammunition moving to the big guns. On the other hand, all that movement of large-caliber ammunition would burn fuel, wouldn't it?

Webstral

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive.

No, he breaks down fuel and ammo required for various situations (attack, defense, pursuit, etc) and I think in all cases the Soviets required more fuel and less ammo. A few pages before the table he notes that Soviet divisions tend to carry more fuel and ammo than NATO divisions since they expected more of a resupply problem.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

I am a firm beleiver in keeping the PCs afraid and even developing some lasting enemies that make them afraid, but also seeking revenge when they encounter them.

My all time favourite two sessions in my last T2K campaign were when Major Po and his original small band of hard core killers snuck into Lublin, planted their tac nuke and, as they withdrew, were pursued by a Spetznaz group which had been hunting them for several months. The level of suspense was awesome, not least due to the knowledge by both sides that had they engaged in a final, pitched battle it would be brutal and absolutely no quarter would be given.

In the end the deciding factor was about 2.5 kilometers. That was how much closer to the nuke blast the Spetznaz were when it went off. Also the Spetznaz were in the open while Po's group were hiding in a ditch.