Siege of Warsaw

[Raellus]

Thanks, Leg and Chico.

I was skimming through my v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide last night and several divisions are mentioned as either...

A.) having withdrawn from Warsaw or...
B.) having participated in every major offensive in Poland/Central Europe (emphasis added).

Both of these tags seem to imply participation in the encirclement and/or the siege itself. The former implies either direct partipation in the siege, at some stage, at least, while the latter is more open to interpretation.

The units mentioned are:

2nd armored (A)
8th Mech ID (A)
3rd ACR (A)
107th ACR (A)
116th ACR (A)

3rd armored (B)
1st Mech ID (B)
2nd ACR (B)
11th ACR (B)

It seems strange for so many ACRs to be involved. Perhaps they provided the spearheads during the encirclement and well as the main counterattacking/rearguard formations of the withdrawal. The relative dearth of infantry seems strange as well. Maybe the Germans provided the bulk of the assault infantry. I don't know. Chico's explanation makes more sense than the purely canonical sources do.

[Legbreaker]

I think that as long as you don't refer to units which have been previously established as elsewhere (the US 5th ID at Czestchowa for example), or having sat out that phase of the war (probably due to rebuilding from prior engagements), you probably can't go wrong.

It could be simply said that as units on the front line further east became tired, they were rotated back to what may have been basically garrison duty.

The high number of armoured units mentioned in the withdrawal makes a fair bit of sense to me. We know Warsaw was nuked to slow down the enemy and most modern IFVs possess some form of NBC protection.
Armoured units may also be a bit faster than infantry too, more able to set up ambushes and then run before the enemy built up too much strength. Yes, mechanised infantry can do the same, but they really need to dismount most of their manpower to be fully effective.
We also know from looking through the Soviet Vehicle Guide (and 2nd ed handbook) that it was a tank army spearheading the relief of Warsaw. NATO armour units seem like the better option than infantry to face them. This might also explain why the US 8th ID suffered so badly....

Quite likely a few straws being grasped at above, but can anyone come up with a better scenario?

[Jason Weiser]

To be honest, Legbreaker...there are a few factors you might be overlooking. The distinctions of "Infantry vs. Armor" designations were rather meaningless when it came to Division 86 Heavy divisions. They all had 10 battalions, all the Armored .vs Infantry designation meant was how the mix of those battalions worked itself out. And, both the M1 and M2 series had good NBC overpressure.

What may have mauled 8th ID was something more basic. I think that the Soviets probably threw upwards of a tank army, backed up by nuclear weapons at some of the US divisions, not to mention we at DC Working Group talked it out and we came to the conclusion that units in the field made lousy targets for battlefield nukes. What's better you ask? Unit CPs and LOG/POL dumps, but how much of that is in artillery range? Not saying nukes weren't used against troop units, but their greatest effect was probably when they were used against the rear areas of divisions and corps/armies in contact. In short, some divisions probably disintergrated under the weight of their rear areas being nuked to slag, no gas, bullets, beans or parts...not to mention the Soviets were probably willing to take the losses of a few battalions from NATO counterstrikes, if not entire divisions to sucessfully mass against NATO units dispersed in an anti-nuclear posture.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

To be honest, Legbreaker...there are a few factors you might be overlooking.

I'm sure there are. My previous post was really just a stab in the dark - there's simply not enough published material to say one way or the other what actually happened and why.
I do note though that once the Pact forces began moving forward again in late August 1997, there wouldn't be as great a need for them to use nukes as there was while Nato was advancing just a month or so before.

On the Nato side, it is stated they practised a "scorched earth policy" during their withdrawal, which was speeded up when the Italians and Czechs joined the offensive a week after Warsaw was relieved.

To me it doesn't really matter if the Divisions themselves were the targets or not - chances are they were going to be significantly effected just from hits on nearby cities.
I understand the prevailing weather patterns move west to east. Therefore it is likely (although not definate by any stretch of the imagination) that fallout would effect Pact forces more than Nato. Of course we know from Chernobyl that the fallout from the Ukraine can make it all the way west to Ireland, so.... :S

[Fusilier]

Referencing the UK Survivors Guide, it was the British I Corps. At least during the first few weeks.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Referencing the UK Survivors Guide, it was the British I Corps. At least during the first few weeks.

You know, that's the one book I hadn't looked in....
It's a goldmine of information!

It appears on close inspection that the bulk of the Corp (1st and 2nd Armoured Divisions - Chieftans & Challengers) were transfered to south Germany in July and were soon in combat against the Italians around Munich.
Expect to find Sultan TOCs, Fox armoured cars (actually phased out of service IRL a few years back), Spartan APCs, Scorpion and Scimitar light tanks amongst the remainder of the Corp (mostly recon units).

It was most definately I Corp who reached the city first (end of May) at which time they were ordered to attack and in mid June they begain the seige.

Quote:
"The Soviets fought with a determination not seen before, and they gained a reputation for mercilessness in their attempts to gain food from the civilian population. As July arrived, advanced elements of the Corps had reached the Vistula River, but the Soviets stopped them from taking the bridges."

Other units mentioned as taking part in the siege are 4th Armoured Division (Challengers, Chieftans, Sultans and Foxs) which is a component of II Corp, 6th Airmobile Brigade (BAOR, actually has functioning helicopters as of the 01JAN01), 28th Royal Engineer regiment (amphibious - FV-180s, M2 bridge/ferry, Chieftan AVRE) which arrived at Warsaw with the 4th Armoured.

Quote:
"On the 15th of September, the Soviet 7th Guards Tank Army broke through to Warsaw. First Corps began a fierce withdrawal action in a desperate attempt to stop the Soviets, but it was too heavily outnumbered and was pushed back. By the end of September, NATO began using tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets. The Soviets replied by using their own nuclear weapons."

I'm not suprised the British were mauled as the bulk of the I Corp was fighting the Italians at the time. It appears only two recon regiments, an engineer regiment and an Armoured Division was all that was available (besides the units mentioned in previous posts).

Elements of the II Corp (of which 4th armoured was a part) continued eastward with the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars (armoured recon) reaching Russian soil.

So, in summary, it appears it was the British who had the greatest role in the siege but evidence exists for the Germans to have at least lent artillery support. No evidence can be found supporting any other nationality being involved directly in the fighting although many units "suffered in the withdrawal". Therefore, I suggest the bulk of Nato equipment found in the area would be British in origin.

[simonmark6]

Another vehicle the party might encounter is the Alvis Stalwart, an amphibious capable truck designed to resupply British Forces in Germany without the need of bridges.

They'd been phased out by the mid-80s but many were moth balled.

Some might even survive to some extent as they could have foundered in the shallows of the Vistula and later been recovered by enterprising locals.