Summer 2000 [Poland] Offensive Revisited

[Fusilier]

I say keep it up and continue expanding on things Rae. I like it, and will probably adopt it as much as I can.

[B.T.]

Ray, I really like that map. To my mind, it is much more "user-friendly", than a lot of the maps in the basic game.
I do not own a lot of the original modules, therefore I'm very uncertain about "canon-material". What you've done, makes a lot of sense, from my personal point of view.

[Raellus]

@Fuse and B.T.: Thanks, guys. I appreciate the kudos.

@All: Here's a totally off-the-wall proposal for the reasons behind II German Army's summer offensive.

What if the Germans were trying to get rid of the Americans and so assigned U.S. XI Corps to spearhead the offensive knowing full well (or at least hoping) that they'd suffer heavy, morale-busting casualties? In effect, the Germans were using the Americans to do their dirty work hoping that this would lead to their withdrawal from Europe. Perhaps they had information suggesting that the factions in the American high command in Europe were considering a withdrawal back to CONUS. A defeat might precipitate this. Perhaps the Germans had a hand in "finding" the tanker that allowed OMEGA to proceed.

I got this idea from a line in a book that I'm rereading (Karl Marlantes' amazing novel of the Vietnam War, Matterhorn). In a way, the NVA sacrificed the VC during the Tet Offensive in '68. In a similar vein, the Red Army sacrificed the Warsaw partisans in '44. In both cases, an erstwhile ally was used to occupy an enemy force, soaking up crippling casualties in the process, in order to allow the main force to strike the killing blow on its own terms.

It's totally a stretch and I don't buy in myself, but I think it's an interesting idea to toy around with a little bit.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

What if the Germans were trying to get rid of the Americans and so assigned U.S. XI Corps to spearhead the offensive knowing full well (or at least hoping) that they'd suffer heavy, morale-busting casualties? In effect, the Germans were using the Americans to do their dirty work hoping that this would lead to their withdrawal from Europe. Perhaps they had information suggesting that the factions in the American high command in Europe were considering a withdrawal back to CONUS. A defeat might precipitate this. Perhaps the Germans had a hand in "finding" the tanker that allowed OMEGA to proceed.

An intriguing idea. I like it a lot.

[Adm.Lee]

That's certainly a rumor that could/should float around American campfires during and after the summer offensive.

Other NATO members might wonder about that, too.

[Odie]

this is kinda off topic but wanted to suggest a good source of maps. I use Google Earth quite a bit.With their tool bar you can add individual icons for players and enemy alike. Of course you have to use your imagination for the building interiors.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

@All: The reason I got a little fired up is that I bristle when people present their own material as being more canonical than others' when it is, in fact, completely unsupported by published canon. I'm referring specifically here to Legbreaker's assertions that III German Army's summer 2000 offensive is part of a much larger general NATO offensive taking place across most/all of Poland. There is simply no canonical basis for this. I've found no such references to a wider offensive in the original v1.0 timeline, any of the vehicle guides, or in the Going Home module. As of yet, Leg has not presented any proper references or citations of published canon to support his claims.

In the spring of the year 2000, the German 3rd Army launched its final offensive against Poland. It was postponed due to late rains—the soldiers were delayed in getting their fields planted. The objective was to clear the Baltic coast of Polish and Soviet forces and thus gain control of the plentiful Baltic fishing and the Vistula River barge traffic.
When the offensive finally got under way it was spearheaded by the U.S. Eleventh Corps, because the U.S. troops were less tied to their garrison areas than were the Germans. The initial drives were successful, with two U.S. divisions breaking loose and conducting deep penetration raids into the enemy rear area. While the 8th Division (Mechanized) headed for the port of Kaliliningrad and a link-up with the Free Latvian Army, the 5th Division
(Mechanized) headed southeast toward Lodz. Then, everything started to come apart.

This is from the V1 Players Manual.
Additionally, we have numerous references scattered throughout the books indicating units were involved in "every offensive of the war" - units which aren't even a part of the German III Army. Yes, this is vague, but does anyone really believe that no unit outside the German III Army would have taken any action during Spring/Summer of 2000? Doesn't it make sense for other formations to conduct probes, raids, holding actions, feints, etc to draw the Pact forces away from the area the Germans where moving into, and hold them there with at least the threat of action?
No unit, not even an entire Army, acts without orders from above either. Take 1944-45 for example - you had the Americans under Patton, and British commanded by Monty, both of which were following Eisenhowers directions. T2K is no different. The German III Army offensive simply could not have occurred without support from higher command and the units beside it.
If nothing else, who fills the void created by the departing Germans? Neighbouring units would have to redeploy accordingly.

So, while units outside the German III Army may not have been directly involved in the offensive elements of the operation, there's no doubt they had to contribute in some manner.

[Raellus]

Although your argument that no army operates in a vacuum is valid, the quote you posted mentions no units apart from those organic to III German Army. I guess you can interpret the references (or lack thereof) in canon however you like, but the fact remains that there are no direct references in canon to the involvement of any other NATO units (besides III German Army) in combat operations during the Summer 2000 offensive in northern Poland.

Anyway, the military situation in the summer of 2000 is not quite like the last year of WWII in the ETO. In 1944, Anglo-American armies in western Europe had some major supply issues until the approaches to Antwerp were cleared and secured, but nothing like the supply issues T2K armies would be having in early 2000. In fact the supply issue were so bad that Eisenhower had to pick and choose which advancing armies to supply and which armies to hold back because there simply wasn't enough fuel and ammo to go around in the late summer, early autumn of 1944. This caused all manner of friction between Montgommery, Patton, and Bradley, as Army commanders jockied for logistical backing. Eisenhower had to more or less temprarily abandon his broad-front offensive strategy because of supply issues. The sketchy supply situation led Eisenhower to agree to Montgomery's risky Arnhem operation, to the detriment of Patton, Bradley, and Devers' Armies. Market Garden's failure led to a lengthy pause in Allied offensive operations lasting more or less the rest of '44. In 2000, supply issues would be much worse than they were in 1944. A single Army offensive would have been a massive undertaking, and providing III German Army with logisitical support would most likely have meant depriving other nearby NATO armies of fuel and ammunition.

And there are plenty of examples of offensive operations carried out by single Armies, or even Corps (Operation Luttich, for one; Operation Konrad, for another) during WWII. To argue that when one Army takes to the field, it drags its neighbors along with it is simply not militarily vaild. Shifting to cover a neighboring Army's frontage is hardly cause to claim direct participation in offensive operations- at least not combat operations.