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]

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]

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]

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.phpt=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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....