Soviet 746th Tank Regiment

[helbent4]

I recall something from an Ambrose book (Citizen Soldiers, IIRC) about the Battle of the Bulge that a former German officer related. He said (and this is not verbatim, mind you, but essentially) that they'd overrun an American supply depot and as they drove through it in his (captured) Jeep they started passing pallet after pallet of 105mm shells. Just 105s. He realized that this hastily abandoned dump of shells was bigger than the village he'd grown up in, and at that point he realized that the war was utterly lost.

RakJpz,

Man, if he was only figuring it out then, he was a slow learner! And/or hadn't been to the Eastern front, where the Russians used far more artillery in general, if not as well as the Americans/western allied forces.

Personally, I'm a believer when it comes to US (or other) artillery when it comes to wargames. My miniature wargame buddies and I did a few Bulge scenarios, and a couple of nail-biters were decided in the US's favour by a Foo in a jeep directing a well-supplied battery of 105mms.

As for Rae's point of a "circus" unit making use of captured German equipment, I've heard of wide-spread of small arms/side arms, not to mention some Kubelwagens and half-tracks (popular as armoured ambulances) but anything else would be difficult to maintain and supply, especially considering the mountains of your own supply. A captured Storch for observation, I could see, but an Me109 has pretty poor ground visibility and it would be almost suicide considering Allied air superiority. All possible in theory, however. This also may have also been a "training" unit of some kind.

Tony

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Personally, I'm a believer when it comes to US (or other) artillery when it comes to wargames. My miniature wargame buddies and I did a few Bulge scenarios, and a couple of nail-biters were decided in the US's favour by a Foo in a jeep directing a well-supplied battery of 105mms.

Indeed; the German attacks on Bastogne were almost entirely piecemeal after the siege was laid in. The US result was to use it's tiny handful of 105s and throw concentrations at the German spearheads, helping to drive them back. POW interviews and postwar document combing showed that the Germans thought they were facing units reinforced by a battalion strength artillery unit, rather than two or three guns that were being shuffled around by very adroit cannon-cockers.

Had the Nazis pushed hard from multiple directions, it'd have been much different.

[Raellus]

RakJpz,
As for Rae's point of a "circus" unit making use of captured German equipment, I've heard of wide-spread of small arms/side arms, not to mention some Kubelwagens and half-tracks (popular as armoured ambulances) but anything else would be difficult to maintain and supply, especially considering the mountains of your own supply. A captured Storch for observation, I could see, but an Me109 has pretty poor ground visibility and it would be almost suicide considering Allied air superiority. All possible in theory, however. This also may have also been a "training" unit of some kind.

I'm still looking for the reference (no luck so far). I think I read it in Max Hastings' Armageddon but I'm not seeing it. I posted about it before here (a couple of years ago) but I have no idea in which thread.

[dragoon500ly]

Indeed; the German attacks on Bastogne were almost entirely piecemeal after the siege was laid in. The US result was to use it's tiny handful of 105s and throw concentrations at the German spearheads, helping to drive them back. POW interviews and postwar document combing showed that the Germans thought they were facing units reinforced by a battalion strength artillery unit, rather than two or three guns that were being shuffled around by very adroit cannon-cockers.

Had the Nazis pushed hard from multiple directions, it'd have been much different.

Bastogne had a bit more than a handful of guns...CCR, 9th Armored and CCB, 10th Armored would field a battalion of M-7 HMC apiece, 101st Airborne would have three battalions of 75mm pack howitzers and a battalion of M-3 105mm howitzers, there were also three battalions of corps artillery (two battalions of 155mm howitzers and one of 4.5-inch guns)....so supporting two tank, two armored infantry, one tank destroyer, three glider infantry and nine parachute infantry battalions (17 combat battalions) are a total of nine battalions of artillery. This would be one of the largest concretrations of artillery on the southern shoulder of the Bulge until Third Army made its swing north.

[Abbott Shaull]

Bastogne had a bit more than a handful of guns...CCR, 9th Armored and CCB, 10th Armored would field a battalion of M-7 HMC apiece, 101st Airborne would have three battalions of 75mm pack howitzers and a battalion of M-3 105mm howitzers, there were also three battalions of corps artillery (two battalions of 155mm howitzers and one of 4.5-inch guns)....so supporting two tank, two armored infantry, one tank destroyer, three glider infantry and nine parachute infantry battalions (17 combat battalions) are a total of nine battalions of artillery. This would be one of the largest concretrations of artillery on the southern shoulder of the Bulge until Third Army made its swing north.

The only trouble is that most of the time ammo for these batteries was/were an issue after the battle started. There were times when they were down to two or three round per tube....

[dragoon500ly]

The only trouble is that most of the time ammo for these batteries was/were an issue after the battle started. There were times when they were down to two or three round per tube....

Bastogne was a corps headquarters location so they had several supply dumps to draw from, the initial fighting as the perimeter developed saw the use of a lot of artillery to blunt German attacks. After these inital attacks were stopped the decision was made to ration the artillery rounds as relief was uncertain. While supplies certainly ran short, whenever there was a major attack, there was still plenty of artillery to stop it.

When the aerial resupply drops started, about the only artillery ammunition that was dropped was 75mm pack howitzer, the heavy guns had barely adequate supplies to last until the breakthrough.

[HorseSoldier]

Getting back to the original post, I don't think it's too plausible as depicted. The Soviets are on the defensive for the beginning of the war, and so acquiring shot up or abandoned NATO armor wouldn't be a really common turn of events. By the time they're back on the offensive, nukes are flying and everything is getting very ragged in terms of higher organization being able to divert the resources necessary to pull in a regimental sized group of captured armor, spare parts to get it running again and keep it running, ammunition for main guns, etc.

With all the talk about precedents from WW2, it should be born in mind that there's a lot less US armor on the ground in the Twilight War than there was back then, and the Soviets in WW3 aren't the Germans in WW2 (or the Soviets in WW2 for that matter) and desperate for working kit in the same way.

Even with modern Soviet armor (T-72+) to generate a sustainable force you'd probably need to be capturing depots, not isolated battlefield mobility kills and abandoned hulls, and you'd need to capture the spares to go with them. The Israelis pulled this off by developing ties to spare parts supplies or replacing stuff with in house equipment during peace time. I don't recall any cases where they were stuffing their crews in captured tanks on the fly, even in '73 when everything was spiralling the drain pretty hard.

[helbent4]

Getting back to the original post, I don't think it's too plausible as depicted. The Soviets are on the defensive for the beginning of the war, and so acquiring shot up or abandoned NATO armor wouldn't be a really common turn of events. By the time they're back on the offensive, nukes are flying and everything is getting very ragged in terms of higher organization being able to divert the resources necessary to pull in a regimental sized group of captured armor, spare parts to get it running again and keep it running, ammunition for main guns, etc.

HS,

When the nukes (and chemicals) start flying during the Soviets counter-attack, these weapons themselves may allow for the capture of hundreds of intact tanks and even supply depots as they drive west. We can debate how ragged things are for the Soviets but they keep it together long enough to push NATO back past their start lines in many circumstances.

I think the Soviets would see the need by mid-war, and given favourable circumstances they may well attempt something like this. It wouldn't be done on the fly; as in WWII there would be a conventional system of support units trained to recover, salvage and repair the necessary components. Getting new spare parts would be a problem, so I think there would be serious attrition in the long term even if they could make do in some fashion.

Tony

[HorseSoldier]

I'm pretty skeptical that with all the training NATO devoted to chemical warfare, and how veteran crews on both sides would be by that stage in the war, that chemical weapons would contribute anything to helping account for hundreds of captured AFVs.

Nukes could result in abandoned equipment -- but it would be irradiated and more trouble than its worth, even in a casaulties don't matter sort of classically Soviet mindset. Not to mention that nukes would also be likely to destroy fire control, radios and assorted other essential components.

[Legbreaker]

I'm with HorseSoldier on this. While a few scattered AFVs are likely to have been captured and put to work, it seems EXTREMELY unlikely a unit of such vehicles could be put together.

[Rainbow Six]

Just a thought, which I don't think has come up on this so far (apologies if it has - this is a quick post from work, so I've only had a quick skim read just now).

There's been a fair amount of discussion about the Sovs capturing western AFV's from NATO forces, but what about the AFV's being captured from the Chinese

There's been several threads on this board and its predeccessors about possible western military sales to the PRC, particularly in the period 1995 / 96. Whilst it's unlikely that the Chinese would be offered brand new M1A1's or Chally 2's, what if they bought quantities of M60's, M1's, Leopard I's, Chieftains, etc Perhaps it's feasable that the Sovs managed to capture some of these tanks in China and shipped them west, where it was felt there was a greater need for them I suppose they could even have got some Scimitars and Foxes from the 6th UK Division.

Just a thought...

[helbent4]

I'm pretty skeptical that with all the training NATO devoted to chemical warfare, and how veteran crews on both sides would be by that stage in the war, that chemical weapons would contribute anything to helping account for hundreds of captured AFVs.

Nukes could result in abandoned equipment -- but it would be irradiated and more trouble than its worth, even in a casaulties don't matter sort of classically Soviet mindset. Not to mention that nukes would also be likely to destroy fire control, radios and assorted other essential components.

HS,

Regarding chemicals, I can't find where the BYB specifies when (or if) they are first used against NATO. Assuming this doesn't happen until theatre nuclear weapons are deployed, this happens months after NATO attacks. While US forces in the 1st US Gulf War did routinely wear chemical protection suits, this was for a period of weeks and not several months. I wonder how "sharp" that edge could be maintained under far heavier fighting for far longer.

Under the best of circumstances training reduces but doesn't eliminate casualties from chemical weapons. Some of the unluckier crews could be caught with their pants down, literally and figuratively speaking. Vehicles are not permanently irradiated by fallout except if they've been used to clean up Chernobyl.

More to the point, NATO was in pell-mell retreat. Equipment and especially supplies awaiting decontamination might well be abandoned in the retreat. The Soviets would easily be able to capture enough vehicles and stocks of parts and ammunition to equip at least a Battalion, if not an entire Tank Regiment.

James:

Why not make this a Motor Rifle Regiment I think the Soviets could scrape together a tank battalion for an MRR.

Tony

[Tackleberry]

During my time in Saudi Arabia, around 2000 I got chatting to the guys training the Saudi Army equipped with M1's and M2's. The price of oil was very low, this caused a shortage of cash with the Saudi military. They were reduced to 2 serviceable M1's and 3 M2's from a complete battalion. These guys had all of the manuals and tools with some ability to actually do the job as well, admittedly not a lot of ability.

I would have thought that even if the Soviets had captured some NATO kit they would struggle to keep it operational, Cheiftans, M60's, Leopard 1's maybe useable, but M1's, Chally1 or 2's and Leopard 2's would just be static pill boxes with greatly reduced aiming abilities. Probably using the coax as a ranging machine gun on the M1, the 7.62 machine guns on the Leopard 2 and Chally's could be used, but it wouldn't have been as good as the .50 on the M1.

[Legbreaker]

I can't see even M60's etc being given to the Chinese - older M48's, 105mm armed Centurions and the like yes, but nothing much newer.
Why Because of the obvious risk of the relatively unskilled Chinese (with western tanks) loosing them to the Soviets.

[Raellus]

As NATO forces pushed through Poland and moved closer to the Soviet border, I think that they would have been especially ready for a Soviet NBC attack. The Soviets are going to pull out all the stops to keep NATO off of its territory and NATO will be expecting that. Once a few chem attacks have been launched, and word gets out about how they affect the unprepared (or underprepared), vigilance and preparedness are both going to be extremely high from then on out.