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

[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.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

Division okay... but this is a whole army. And it wouldn't have earned the Guards designation - it would have just been the 20'th Tank Army.

But thats just my curiosity speaking...

AND I may be wrong too.... and apologize in advance if I am.

[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.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Targan

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.

Logistics Rule of thumb form Dunnigan's "How to make war"

"By truck one percent of the weight moved will be consumed as fuel for each 100 kilometers traveled."


Edit from Pitesti, Romania to Kalisz Poland is 914km as the crow flies. 1,276 km driving distance.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

The ability to move forces rapidly in response to a crisis cannot be overestimated. The fuel, combined with Fourth Guards Tank Army, represents the ability to intervene while a crisis is still evolving. I’m not saying that the idea of some sort of offensive action is out of the picture. I’m saying that offensive action is not the only explanation for the fuel set aside for Fourth Guards Tank Army or even the best. We should bear in mind that the whole army got its fourth point of contact handed to it by a single US division. You’d think a force that was going to go up against NATO on the attack might have been a bit better trained and be in possession of better leaders. The apparently low quality of the leadership is a bit easier to understand if Fourth Guards Tank Army is supposed to knock over marauders and rebels.

We also can’t assume that alcohol fuels are generously available. If they were, everyone would have plenty of mobility. Even organic wastes and wood have other uses (compost and heating fuel) that have a decided value. I agree that every formation will want to have an on-hand reserve of alcohol fuel for emergencies. I’m not convinced that said on-hand reserves are going to give any of the Pact formations in Poland the kind of sustained mobility that would obviate the need for an operational/strategic reserve of the sort represented by Fourth Guards Tank Army. Some movement certainly is possible, but local reserves using alcohol don’t possess a significant maneuver advantage over the attackers; a tank army with fossil fuel in its vehicles can outrun its NATO equivalent if the NATO forces are using alcohol. In effect, Fourth Guards Tank Army can use its superior mobility to get inside the decision cycle of its NATO counterparts, which will dramatically increase the combat power of the force. In effect, the fossil fuel (in theory) enables the Soviets to have a smaller theater reserve to achieve a desired effect on the battlefield. Freeing more troops for other duties is a good reason to invest the fossil fuel.

Of course, the value of getting inside the enemy’s decision cycle counts just as much on the offensive as on the counteroffensive.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

I’m certain somebody at the theater headquarters said almost exactly this. The logic is sound. I’d like to add a caveat, though. I think it’s quite likely that the Soviets had got wind of the upcoming NATO offensive and had decided that it would be easier to tackle the Germans and Americans in the open, rather than in their prepared positions. Legbreaker summed it up nicely. I think the Soviets intended to let the NATO troops begin their offensive, then bring in Fourth Guards Tank Army and Twenty-Second Cavalry Army to destroy the enemy in the field. If the NATO offensive never opened up, then perhaps the Pact would have launched a deliberate offensive meant to push NATO back across the Oder. On the other hand, a duke-it-out in confined quarters with a heavy NATO force might not have been seen as the best way to employ a highly mobile corps-sized formation.

Knocking out Third German Army seems like a more plausible goal than launching a general offensive into Germany. It’s hard to say what the theater-level thinkers knew about NATO’s plans and capabilities; at any rate, I believe it would have been more in line with the capabilities of the Western TVD at the time to wait for NATO to make its move or not make its move while keeping a mobile reserve intact for whatever contingency arose.

Webstral

[Webstral]

I do agree that the nomenclature issue regarding Fourth Guards Tank Army is, after five years of war, not as great as it would be if we were trying to compile a list of formations in 1995 or even 1997. It's possible that Fourth Guards Tank Army is an entirely new formation, albeit composed of pre-existing divisions.

Webstral

[Webstral]

Regarding fuel types, it might be possible that Fourth Guards Tank Army is running on both gasoline and diesel. The products aren't from exactly the same place in the distillation column, although the difference is not like propane and asphalt. If the trucks have to have gas, while the tanks have to have diesel, so be it. Either way, Ploesti ran for a month to provide Fourth Guards Tank Army with fossil fuel.

The Soviet trucks' use of gasoline is unexpected. US Army trucks run on diesel. Pretty much everything does, with notable exceptions like the M1. Diesel is a superior choice for engines that just run and run and run. This is why commercial trucks in the US use diesel. I'm more than a little surprised that the Soviet trucks are supposed to be using gasoline in gasoline engines, given that trucks are workhorses. There must be a factor in here that is outside my knowledge base.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I've had a quick look through the Soviet and Russian military vehicles and, as a rule of thumb, anything introduced after the early to mid 80's tends to run on diesel. This is especially true for AFVs and almost all tracked vehicles, regardless of age (except for the really old ones) are diesel.

As far as trucks go, globalsecurity.com has the following listed vehicles under "trucks"
■GAZ 2975 Tigr
■GAZ-3308 Sadko
■GAZ 3937 Vodnik
■Ural-4320
■Ural-5323
All of these are have diesel engines, however the GAZ-3308 Sadko may have either.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sia/ground.htm

[Webstral]

Legbreaker, thanks for doing the legwork.

Webstral

P.S. Kato, thanks for doing the legwork for your notes, as well.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by kato13

"By truck one percent of the weight moved will be consumed as fuel for each 100 kilometers traveled."

Edit from Pitesti, Romania to Kalisz Poland is 914km as the crow flies. 1,276 km driving distance.

I suggest that much of the transportation would be done using low tech options (as much as possible). Therefore, while trucks and trains may be faster, it is probable horse and ox drawn carts and wagons would provide the bulk of transportation from the refinery to the docks, and from Odessa (or wherever they land) to the component units of the 4th GTA.

If possible, wind power would be the preference for the sea leg. Even smallish vessels of 20-30 tonnes might be useful if able to be converted to sail or coal power. There's certainly no need to use a purpose built tanker for the job (although that would probably make the job quicker and easier) - just something capable of carrying fuel bladders or drums.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

If possible, wind power would be the preference for the sea leg. Even smallish vessels of 20-30 tonnes might be useful if able to be converted to sail or coal power. There's certainly no need to use a purpose built tanker for the job (although that would probably make the job quicker and easier) - just something capable of carrying fuel bladders or drums.

Hmmmm I am thinking the Danube River would be a great source for water transport... Up the Danube to Bratslavia and then only 200 km to Krakow area. Could have tie in with the Free City of Krakow module and how they got fuel for the helicopter in the first place.

As for converting... ummm aren't they carrying fuel to power the engines of these river crafts?

[Legbreaker]

The less fuel used during transportation, the more that's available for the tanks and other AFV's that really need it.

[Raellus]

@Everyone:

I think that "prepared positions" is a factor being overemphasized somewhat. The only heavily fortified positions one would likely encounter c. 2000 are the areas around major cantonments. There simply aren't adequate troop densities anywhere in Europe to construct and/or man anything like a continuous front with any sort of defense in depth. Although the WWI analogy works for the pace or the fighting and/or the nature of the fighting around major cantonments, it doesn't work across the board. Canon seems to back me up here. How could 5th ID or 8th ID advanced as far behind WTO largely unopposed if they had to fight through comprehensive, prepared defensive positions? This isn't Verdun or even Kursk. There appear to be significant undefended gaps between major troop concentrations, gaps that could be easily exploited by highly mobile forces.

@ CdnWolf

Naming units is pretty arbitrary stuff. There's no reason the Soviets couldn't have created a new Army-level HQ and named it 4th GTD. Heck, the Allies made up a whole army as part of the pre-D-Day "Fortitude" deception campaign. The Soviets used similar ploys as part of their Maskarovka (sic) deception operations in WWII. Masking unit compositions and movements is part of op-sec and deception.

As for using fuel to move fuel, horses or oxen could pull it and river craft can be converted to steam power (burning coal or wood) like the Wisla Krolowa in the POV module. Or, animal-drawn barges.

[Abbott Shaull]

One of the few points that seems to be over looked. If the the 4th GTA had been allotted one months of production. It still took resources to move said production to staging areas. With the level of amount of fuel that would be needed to move with the Army was staggering by the limited abilities of the transportation units to move. I am sure if the Third German and XI Corps had the option to run on fossil fuels for their planned offensive. It would still of been one of lot of stop and go movement due to waiting for the fuel to catch up to the front leading edge of their forces.

As for the what little fuel that many units had been able to distill. As has been pointed GDW had made it much simpler than it really is. Next you have to realize that for many of these units they had been using this for day to day operations and to help repel any raid and so on and so forth during this time too. Very few units had large excess, many units would want to leave their lot to fight an enemy, then have to find resource to make fuel for the return trip to their lot.

As for naming of the 4th GTA. It is fairly common in many countries to use titles of military forces that they have disbanded in the past. One of the many things that West has overlooked, was that in theory the Soviet Union would be able to double number of Division in days/weeks/months as the war progress. They were also known to combine units of lower readiness into the same base to deceive spying eyes on how many troops a based would be able to put into the field. Even some units that were reported to be up to 110% strength in Eastern Europe or more, were there as part of other units that once conflict started would be used independent unit or forward element of others units that were being moved up from the Soviet Union.

Much like Fort Hood with the having the III Corps, 2nd Armored Division, 1st Cavalry Division and other units at one time. Or even when it was the 4th Mechanized after the deactivation of the 2nd Armored Division. While the 2nd Armored Division neither Division was had their entire strength made up of Regular Army on base. Even after the 4th Mechanized was supposedly moved to Fort Hood, they still kept some units left at Fort Carson.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think that "prepared positions" is a factor being overemphasized somewhat. The only heavily fortified positions one would likely encounter c. 2000 are the areas around major cantonments. There simply aren't adequate troop densities anywhere in Europe to construct and/or man anything like a continuous front with any sort of defense in depth. Although the WWI analogy works for the pace or the fighting and/or the nature of the fighting around major cantonments, it doesn't work across the board. Canon seems to back me up here. How could 5th ID or 8th ID advanced as far behind WTO largely unopposed if they had to fight through comprehensive, prepared defensive positions? This isn't Verdun or even Kursk. There appear to be significant undefended gaps between major troop concentrations, gaps that could be easily exploited by highly mobile forces.

Very true. However, given the disintegration of command and control, plus logistics, striking into the enemy's "rear" isn't sufficient to destroy a force in 2000. Isolating a force in its cantonment defenses is an important step in its destruction, but one can't stop there. Each cantonment will be its own little fortress--a Krakow, to the best ability of the local commanders to make it so. Whatever reserves of food and fuel exist will be stored in a central location for security. Unless the attacker is content to besiege the defender, someone is going to have to go in and destroy the defender.

This isn't to say that a mobile strike force couldn't cause enormous problems. A small cantonment, or one caught off-guard, could be overwhelmed. A mobile strike force could act as cavalry raiders, destroying everything not defended to further weaken the enemy. Perhaps the defenders even could be lured out into a fight in the open, since a cantonment is quite likely to have strong inner defenses and weaker outer defenses covering the much larger agricultural spaces. However, the basis of blitzkrieg-style offensives is that fast-moving forces strike into the enemy's rear to knock out C3I and disrupt the flow of supplies to the forward units. In 2000, none of these things are working very well, so their further disruption won't have the debilitating effect they would have had in 1997. If Fourth Guards Tank Army wants to destroy Third German Army, the Soviets are going to have to come to grips with the NATO formations. On their own turf, the NATO formations are going to have the option of sitting tight in their own fortresses.

One way of exploiting the mobility of Fourth Guards Tank Army under these circumstances is to use the mobility of the force to isolate individual formations to some depth. Then foot-mobile formations can be brought up to either make the assault on the defended cantonments or simply keep the defenders from intervening in the developing battle. Fourth Guards Tank Army then can strike further into the enemy's territory, repeating the process until some development changes the dynamic.

The drawback of this approach is that additional Pact forces have to be committed in a follow-on role. Since the follow-on forces don't have the sustained mobility of Fourth Guards Tank Army, the penetration force can't go too deeply while maintaining contact with friendly forces. Perhaps this doesn't matter to CINC Western TVD. He may expect that NATO will commit some of its own forces from the interior; Fourth Guards Tank Army then engages in a corps-level meeting engagement with the less-mobile NATO forces moving east to reinforce the German border. The superior sustained mobility of Fourth Guards Tank Army (theoretically) enables the Soviets to decisively defeat NATO relief forces, thereby solidifying the stranglehold the Pact forces have over the isolated cantonments of Third German Army. Legbreaker, is this something like what you had in mind?

Of course, Fourth Guards Tank Army can be sent in to tackle individual cantonments. Control over the areas between the cantonments gives the Pact the initiative and the ability to concentrate its combat power. Nevertheless, this seems enormously wasteful of the mobility of the force. An anti-tank gun works just as well against a T-72 with diesel in its fuel tanks as a T-72 with alcohol in its gas tanks. Cargo trucks hauling supplies to a besieging force don't have as much work to do, but the sacrificed mobility and derived shock value renders the soft-skinned vehicles more vulnerable to action by light infantry raiders and artillery. Perhaps CINC Western TVD will view the trade-off as equitable. I'm not sure I would, but then I don't have facts and figures in front of me.

It seems to me that the real value of Fourth Guards Tank Army lies in its sustained mobility. The force is at its best when it can operate like a heavy cavalry force that breaks the enemy with a single massed charge (metaphorically speaking). The force can flow around NATO cantonments in Germany, but this is not likely to destroy the forces inside the cantonments. Better to take the enemy in the open, such as in central Poland. If flowing around the NATO cantonments enables Fourth Guards Tank Army to engage and defeat reinforcing NATO formations west of the "front" and east of the Elbe, then some sort of offensive action might be warranted. However, without a massive follow-on effort, Fourth Guards Tank Army might just find that the front closes behind it. It's one thing to run out of gas on turf that is at least nominally friendly. It's quite another thing to run out of gas far behind enemy lines, as 5th ID so poignantly illustrates.

In summary, while I see the point that NATO does not have a continuous front of prepared defenses, each formation is going to have created the best local defenses it can. If Krakow has been too tough a nut for the Pact to crack by the time the events of The Free City of Krakow are taking place, the combined cantonments of Third German Army must appear daunting indeed.

Webstral

[kato13]

I still feel there would be a significant portion of the fuel being perishable gasoline in the 4th GTAs fuel. In the game designers minds all soviet trucks used Gasoline. On Paul's site 25 of 40 Soviet trucks listed only run on Gasoline.

In my mind that makes rapid transport and use a priority.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

In summary, while I see the point that NATO does not have a continuous front of prepared defenses, each formation is going to have created the best local defenses it can. If Krakow has been too tough a nut for the Pact to crack by the time the events of The Free City of Krakow are taking place, the combined cantonments of Third German Army must appear daunting indeed.

So, let's put our two hypotheses together. Say the Soviets learned of the impending offensive by German 3rd Army. This would have drawn the NATO forces out of their strong cantonments and made them vulnerable to a more mobile force. Soviet 4th GTA was tasked with a counterstroke and given the fossil fuels to give it the mobility edge over its methanol-fueled adversary. Once the NATO forces started their push east, the 4th GTA would strike north into German 3rd Army's right flank from jumping off positions in the blasted zone (in effect a DMZ) around Berlin. Soviet Baltic Front would attempt to absord and slow the NATO forces with their abundant "cavalry" divisions and their one Polish TD and their two Polish MRDs, engaging and fixing them while Soviet 4th GTA tears through their flank and headed for the Baltic. The NATO forces would be caught out of their cantonments and more or less encircled while the Soviet forces in the rear could rampage through the undefended cantonment areas, destroying stockpiles of food a few of months before the onset of Winter. The effect on NATO in Poland would be devastating, both logistically and in terms of NATOs combat strength on the Baltic/Northern Front.

NATO struck earlier than expected and the Soviets were forced to react on the fly, leading to the "confused brawl" outside of Kalisz. This disrupted the planned Soviet counteroffensive and led to relatively undecisive fighting all along the front during the summer of 2000.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

So, let's put our two hypotheses together. Say the Soviets learned of the impending offensive by German 3rd Army. This would have drawn the NATO forces out of their strong cantonments and made them vulnerable to a more mobile force. Soviet 4th GTA was tasked with a counterstroke and given the fossil fuels to give it the mobility edge over its methanol-fueled adversary. Once the NATO forces started their push east, the 4th GTA would strike north into German 3rd Army's right flank from jumping off positions in the blasted zone (in effect a DMZ) around Berlin. Soviet Baltic Front would attempt to absord and slow the NATO forces with their abundant "cavalry" divisions and their one Polish TD and their two Polish MRDs, engaging and fixing them while Soviet 4th GTA tears through their flank and headed for the Baltic. The NATO forces would be caught out of their cantonments and more or less encircled while the Soviet forces in the rear could rampage through the undefended cantonment areas, destroying stockpiles of food a few of months before the onset of Winter. The effect on NATO in Poland would be devastating, both logistically and in terms of NATOs combat strength on the Baltic/Northern Front.

NATO struck earlier than expected and the Soviets were forced to react on the fly, leading to the "confused brawl" outside of Kalisz. This disrupted the planned Soviet counteroffensive and led to relatively undecisive fighting all along the front during the summer of 2000.

I like it. Also, the idea that CINC Western TVD is planning for summer action supports Kato's thesis that the gasoline requirements of some vehicles means that Fourth Guards Tank Army must go into action within a limited timeframe.

Also, we might be able to view the appearance of 5th ID around Lodz as an unanticipated development in the NATO offensive. Perhaps the Soviets believed the NATO attack would develop only along the Baltic coast. The appearance of a heavy division around Lodz had not figured into the plan (perhaps). The Soviets had done the legwork necessary to plan movements through the Kalisz area based on the assumption that a much smaller NATO covering force would be in place when Fourth Guards Tank Army moved through en route to the Oder to take XI Corps/Third German Army in flank. Perhaps is the important term.

Webstral

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Webstral

It seems to me that the real value of Fourth Guards Tank Army lies in its sustained mobility. The force is at its best when it can operate like a heavy cavalry force that breaks the enemy with a single massed charge (metaphorically speaking). The force can flow around NATO cantonments in Germany, but this is not likely to destroy the forces inside the cantonments. Better to take the enemy in the open, such as in central Poland. If flowing around the NATO cantonments enables Fourth Guards Tank Army to engage and defeat reinforcing NATO formations west of the "front" and east of the Elbe, then some sort of offensive action might be warranted. However, without a massive follow-on effort, Fourth Guards Tank Army might just find that the front closes behind it. It's one thing to run out of gas on turf that is at least nominally friendly. It's quite another thing to run out of gas far behind enemy lines, as 5th ID so poignantly illustrates.

Okay this is the answer that would make sense. The Fourth Guard Tank Army wasn't the primary force. They were probably one that was meant to open the door. Hold it open long enough until it was closed.

The Fourth Guards Tank Army was to inject itself into Germany and create an opening for a follow on force. Once they had done so, there was good chance that the both Armies would be cut off, in similar fashion that the US XI Corps and the US 8th Mechanized Divisions found themselves.

The Soviets used Cavalry formations up to Corps size level throughout WWII against the Germans with telling effect. Of course, depending on the seasons they would be more effective than others.

The Fourth GTA could set up new home away from home and base that the 22nd Cavalry Army could operate from deep inside Germany. I can see the 2 Polish Cavalry Division joining in these operations too even if they were unwilling.

One of the things with having two mobile Soviet Armies in the NATO rear, is for the Soviet to arrange where the US and UK both pull out of Germany. They may already have heard some of the plans for both countries to withdraw their troops and thinking this may help speed up things and to show Germany not to plan anything in the near future against them. This would give them breathing room to try to bring all areas of the Soviet Union back under control. Free up units they had in reserve position to move toward the Iran if need be. For the most part they still had control of much of Eastern Europe. It would take years any of the Pact Allies to be strong enough to cause the Soviet any concerns too.

One of the things with Romanian like Czech and Hungary were either part of Greater Germany or allies of Germany during WWII. Now there have been several theories why the Soviet had allowed the Romanian and let them do what they wanted. With a look at the military force that the Romanians were suppose to offer to the Pact Forces in the South-eastern Europe. Much like the Polish 6th Air Assault Division had been drastically down grade when they refuse to move against protesters and their loyalty to the Soviets came into question. The Romanians loyalty has always been question, Soviet Forces heading toward European Turkey and Greece would, if need be sweep the Romanians to the side. Much like Albania was allowed to do what they wanted. Both countries were very little consequences to the overall general scheme.

Just some thoughts.

[Legbreaker]

In the early 1980's when the game was first written, Romanian oil production was in the area of 240,000 barrels per year. Using this figure as a base (rather than the dramatically reduced production of the past 15-20 years which has dropped to just 96,460 barrels in 2006) and the information provided in canon, we can calculate that approximately 40,000 litres of petroleum fuels were supplied to the 4th GTA (240,000/12 months x 1%).
A T-72 (using Pauls stats) has a capacity of 1400 litres and range of 900km (Global security), each tank is likely to require a full load of fuel just to reach the start line. I don't have the 4th GTA stats with me, but working on the assumption that it contained 21 tanks, that's roughly 75% of the entire armies fuel.

That leaves just 10,000 litres - one large tanker truck - left for other vehicles, which undoubtably outnumber tanks by at least 10 to 1.

With that information, is there any way the 4th GTA could avoid needing vast stocks of alcohol?

Obviously these figures don't work all that well to get an army back on the move so how can we fix this? It's really fairly simple - double, or perhaps triple the production. In wartime we can safely assume production of all war suplies will increase, fuel being at the top of the list.
Also, I think it was the refining facilities which were damaged rather than the oil wells themselves, and diesel engines can, if necessary, run on good quality crude after little more than running it through a filter. It's possible that most of the "diesel" supplied is actually this strained and filtered oil which would thereby increase the total available fuel from 40,000 litres to shall we say, 35,000 litres gasoline, 5,000 litres avgas and lubricants and an essentially unlimited amount of diesel.

This approach means more than just four large trucks are required to shift the fuel from Romania to the Ukraine AND allows the 4th GTA to do more than barely turn over their engines.

Cantonments, in my view, are basically strongpoints surrounded by farmland and are occasionally positioned to either surround, or at least protect by proximity, valuable industrial facilities (which by RL standards may be little more than backyard operations).

While there may be anything up to 20-30 km between major cantonments, it is reasonable to assume these gaps will be heavily patrolled by both mobile units and standing patrols (essentially a plattoon or two dug in and watching over a crossroads, bridge or some other chokepoint). These patrols are obviously not going to stand up to a decent sized attack, but with artillery support from the main cantonment, might last long enough for reinforcements to arrive. At the very least they will give sufficent warning to the main unit that trouble is on the way.

Anywhere a unit has been stationary for more than a few hours will be fortified to some degree. To begin with this wil consist of little more than shellscrapes (the beginnings of fighting pits), and deployment of claymores and similar devices. As time goes on the defences will be improved to the limit of available resources. After a week in one place, it's quite possible that a substantial obstacle belt of wire and mines will surround the position, fighting pits will be complete to stage three (overhead cover and sleeping bays), and regular patrols are being sent out. After several months the position will be seriously impressive with anti tank ditches, dragons teeth and countless other improvements.

Commanders around the world HATE idle soldiers. If there's nothing to do that's related directly to survival, then the soldiers will be put to work on defences. I can recall having to have pits at stage two after 24 hours, sometimes less (same as stage 3 but without overhead cover), and sleeping more than four hours in a night was a luxury.

Alcohol produced by a unit will indeed be needed on a daily basis, but where a unit is generally stationary, and the heavy equipment isn't running, this consumption can be kept to a minimum. Horses, bicycles and human runners are likely to be used for most non-radio communications, with patrols out to around a 10km radius conducted on foot - further if out for several days. Longer range patrols may make use of light wheeled vehicles.
Supply units, while equipped with some trucks, are more likely to make use of horse or ox drawn carts and wagons while in cantonment. It is probable that vehicle use will also be minimised as much as possible to avoid unnecessary wear and tear on them - replacement parts aren't exactly growing on trees afterall...

So, while there will be some consumption of the produced fuel, a sizable percentage should be retained in storage.

While GDW did indeed make alcohol a lot more effective and simplier to produce than IRL, this is just a game. We have been presented with the T2K uiniverse fact that it works just the way the writers have said. We may not agree with it in real world terms, but I think we can accept and work with it.

While I'm still in the info gathering stage, I'm thinking the units that are already on the front lines will be committed to the initial stages of the attack. The expectation is they will be required to move no more than 50km from their starting postions.

Once these units have achieved a breakthrough somewhere along the front, the 4th GTA would then have been used to exploit it, pushing through the gap and driving another 100 km or so into Germany. At a point to be determined by command, the 4th GTA would turn either north, if the breakthrough had been north of Berlin, or south and push to link up with the Czechs and/or Italians.

This would hopefully result in a significant number of Nato units encircled. They could then be reduced and eliminated at leisure

The 4th GTA would possibly be followed by a slower Soviet formation running on alcohol. These units would be tasked with flank protection and to cover the back of the 4th GTA when they turned to encircle.

That's the plan though. The reality is likely to be much different, especially since we already know the 4th GTA stalled in central Poland.

What is more likely is that the northern flank of the initial assault force was retasked to simply driving north west and cutting off as much of the German III Army as it could. As it turns out this was the entirety of the US XI Corp. While the end result was not as spectacular as the original plan might have aimed for, the neutralisation of the XI is still a decent prize.

On first inspection, it appears that Nato only lost the US 5th ID while the Soviets lost much, much more - this is not the case. With US XI Corp cut off, half of the US military strength in Europe is gone - approximately 20% of all Nato forces. The Soviets on the other hand might be in disarray, but at least they're not behind enemy lines. With the withdrawal of most of the US forces, if the Soviets can pull themselves back together again (not likely), Nato are in a very tenuous position.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Also, we might be able to view the appearance of 5th ID around Lodz as an unanticipated development in the NATO offensive. Perhaps the Soviets believed the NATO attack would develop only along the Baltic coast. The appearance of a heavy division around Lodz had not figured into the plan (perhaps). The Soviets had done the legwork necessary to plan movements through the Kalisz area based on the assumption that a much smaller NATO covering force would be in place when Fourth Guards Tank Army moved through en route to the Oder to take XI Corps/Third German Army in flank. Perhaps is the important term.

This makes sense. 5th ID was likely expected to be much further north, closer to the Baltic. Perhaps the 5th ID was originally supposed to protect the right flank of the main body of XI Corps (50th AD, 8th ID, 116th ACR, & 2nd MarDiv) as it punched east. Perhaps the 5th's commander, saw an opportunity to exploit a perceived weakness to the south or perhaps he just kept pressing forward when he encountered little resistance. On the other hand, canon mentions that 5th ID is on a "raid" so this implies a deliberate, deep attack into the enemy's rear areas. Whatever the case, the Soviets weren't expecting them to be so far to the south in what was supposed to be "friendly" territory. This completely disrupted the deployment of 4th GTD. The 5th ID's heroic last stand more or less ruined the best laid plans of the Soviet staff at Reserve Front HQ.

[Abbott Shaull]

I think the US XI Corps and the 4th Guard Tank Army were part of offensive on both side to put large enemy formation into the other rear areas. I think the Soviet may of found out about the NATO plans just before they were to start their. They were held for until the NATO offensive was on the move. Once this started they started to move Northeast slow trying to keep as organized as possible.

Once it had appeared the Polish units were more or less collapsing and not putting up much resistance. The 22nd was set into movement also, it appears that both formation were to hit NATO forces in the flank as they made their run along the Baltic. The 5th Mechanized on the other hand, I have seen a couple theories. I think since they were one of the stronger forces of the Corps to start it was going to be used to confuse the Pact where the XI Corps objectives. Both the 5th and 8th after they broke through found so little resistance while the rest of the Corps was busy saving the 2nd Marine and keeping together so none of other units of the Corps were destroyed.

NATO plan was probably to bring the Soviet to negotiate and to get the Soviet and Pact out of Germany and set up a Free Poland before the US and UK pulled their troops back to their respective country.

Just some thoughts.

[Legbreaker]

The 5th also appear to have been focused fairly heavily on taking Lodz in the days before the 4th GTA showed up.
Anyone got any suggestions why this might be so?