Summer 2000 [Poland] Offensive Revisited

[Raellus]

Part of the problem we face today is that the canon materials include unit information from both before and after the offensive without any real consistancy.

I agree with you on this point.

We also know the Tarawa was still floating in the initial stages of the offensive and a ship of it's status isn't likely to be sailing around unescorted. It could well be that the plan for the oil shale, processed or not, was to be carried by these ships. Unprocessed a simple cargo ship would suffice, processed and you'd need tanks (or lots and lots of barrels).

I still think that you are seriously underestimating the difficulty of extracting, shipping, and refining oil shale given the resources available in mid-2000.

Canon materials downplay the availablity of nukes. In fact I can recall only one warhead still in Soviet hands (Bears Den I think). Boomer also shows the great lengths the Soviets go to to recover he sub and especially it's handful of warheads.

I hadn't thought about it in these terms. If canon is asserting that the USSR only has access to a dozen or so nukes after the exchanges described in the source materials, then I think this is a serious error.

They had it. Just look at all the previous work I've done on the subject. It was the unexpected brutality of the Pact counteroffensive which smashed the plan into oblivion.

I too have done a correlation of forces in central Europe based entirely on canon and the Soviet/WTO forces outnumber NATO forces at something like 3 or 4 to 1 in manpower and 2 or 3 to 1 in MBTs.

If your interested, check out this map I've made. Unit strengths, per canon, are provided for each unit.

http://maps.google.com/maps/msmsid=206956330743072967253.00047b0881d4ef792073e&msa=0

Please note that I have not yet had a chance to map the Soviet/WTO units in Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Hungary.

Suppies come in, oil shale goes out. Same ships, different directions.

It's just not that simple. Not even close.

As already established, oil shale is difficult to process. Given the Ploesti fields and greater potential output (once they fixed the refineries), closer location of Ploesti to where the fuel is needed, and relative isolation of Estonia, it begins to make sense why the Soviets were not actively exploiting the resource. Nato also probably targeted this area heavily early in the war with airstrikes to destroy much of the industry and transportation - rebuilding was probably not a priority for the Soviets given the situation they faced elsewhere.

This is a valid argument.

And once again, the oil shale isn't likely to have been the main objective of the offensive - that was far more likely to have been putting pressure on the northern flank of the Pact units in Germany and Poland and giving the Pact commanders cause to withdraw or face encirclement.

Too many objectives can kill offensive operations. Once again, NATO would have to have the facilities to pump, transport, and refine the oil shale to make this sideshow worthwhile. They don't.

It's the US 5th ID's action which is described as a raid. They were just one small (no more than 5% by manpower) part of the overall offensive.

You are correct. I shouldn't extend this to cover the entire offensive.

One has to remember this wasn't a Divisional operation, or even just a Corps involved. You have to go bigger, much bigger. The offensive elements alone were an entire Army with the British Army and other formations tasked with support and to follow on after.

This action was HUGE and involved at least half of Nato's forces. Only in the south facing down towards the Italians, or up in Norway was the front quiet.

Where does it say this in canon This appears to be your own interpretation of the Summer 200o offensive.

[Legbreaker]

Where does it say this in canon This appears to be your own interpretation of the Summer 200o offensive.

It's scattered all around the place. You've got information saying specifically the offensive was by the German III Army, then there's also references in the Nato vehicle guide of British units (which were outside the III Army) being involved in the offensive.

Looking through everything, the only areas that don't have references are the south of Germany and up in the Nordic countries. Some references are just a line of text, but there is enough to form an overall picture of a general offensive.

It also needs to be remembered that the materials are written specifically as background for a small group of predominately US survivors of the destruction of the 5th ID. What's happening outside the immediate area is of little real importance to the game play and so has received minimal attention by the developers. We can see a great amount of detail has gone into the Kalisz area right down to individual unit commanders being named, while entire Divisions a few hundred kilometres away receive little more than manpower and tank numbers with (if we're lucky) perhaps 2-3 lines of background text. Fortunately for us, those 2-3 lines often hold vital clues to the overall picture - they mean nearly nothing when viewed in isolation, but when gathered together and viewed as a whole....

[Raellus]

It's scattered all around the place. You've got information saying specifically the offensive was by the German III Army, then there's also references in the Nato vehicle guide of British units (which were outside the III Army) being involved in the offensive.

Looking through everything, the only areas that don't have references are the south of Germany and up in the Nordic countries. Some references are just a line of text, but there is enough to form an overall picture of a general offensive.

It also needs to be remembered that the materials are written specifically as background for a small group of predominately US survivors of the destruction of the 5th ID. What's happening outside the immediate area is of little real importance to the game play and so has received minimal attention by the developers. We can see a great amount of detail has gone into the Kalisz area right down to individual unit commanders being named, while entire Divisions a few hundred kilometres away receive little more than manpower and tank numbers with (if we're lucky) perhaps 2-3 lines of background text. Fortunately for us, those 2-3 lines often hold vital clues to the overall picture - they mean nearly nothing when viewed in isolation, but when gathered together and viewed as a whole....

You've made some pretty liberal interpretations of canon to support your POV. I've just had a look and I don't see ANY references in the NATO Vehicle Guide (c. 1989) to UK units being involved in any offensive operations in the summer of 2000. Not a single one. In fact, the only units explicitly stated to have taken part in offensive operations in Poland in the summer of 2000 are those belonging to Third German Army (aside from U.S. XI Corps, that's just III German Corps, consisting of four divisions).

Haven't you slammed other folks here for presenting their own interpretation of events/OOBs and such as "canon" Seems like that's what you are doing here. Your assumption that other NATO units (besides those of Third German Army) participated in a general NATO offensive in the summer of 2000 is just that- an assumption, and one that appears to be unsupported by published canon. If you'd care to actually cite these references you keep alluding to, I'll be happy to retract this.

The beauty of T2K, though, is that in your T2KU, the III German Army summer offensive in the summer of 2000 can be part of a general NATO offensive across all of Poland, and one of its objectives can be the Lithuanian oil shale beds.

In my T2KU, the III German Army summer offensive is an operational spoiling attack against Soviet/WTO units in north and north-central Poland with the strategic aim of preparing the way, both militarily, diplomatically (w/ its allies), and politically (vis-a-vis MilGov vs. CivGov), for a planned withdrawal of American forces from Poland early the next year. I've ammended my interpretation to include that this withdrawal plan was accelerated due to XI Corp's defeat in June of 2000.

Just don't claim that your T2KU is any more canonical than mine. ; )

[Legbreaker]

Whoa!!!!
Slow down there!
Perhaps I've gotten my source book wrong.... I'm going off memory here.

There is a definite reference in at least one of the books, could be Going Home for all I know at the moment - will check later when I'm home. What I've written is based on canon, the specific references are just hard to find.

There's also references to Soviet units participating in actions in the Summer of 2000. They're not as solid as "assaulted enemy as part of wider operation", but they're there if you look.

What I've always said is that if your work is not canonical, then it should be declared as such. I know what I write is because I spend literally hours and days pouring over every last detail before I write up my findings. I also declare any extrapolation on that information and try to justify why and how I came to those conclusions which are always open to debate and discussion - if they weren't then I wouldn't post them.

All I ask, and have ever asked is that others do the same.

[Raellus]

What I've always said is that if your work is not canonical, then it should be declared as such. I know what I write is because I spend literally hours and days pouring over every last detail before I write up my findings. I also declare any extrapolation on that information and try to justify why and how I came to those conclusions which are always open to debate and discussion - if they weren't then I wouldn't post them.

As of yet you haven't cited any published canon explicitly supporting your main assertion (i.e. a wider NATO summer 2000 offensive), let alone this "extrapolated" idea that you've proposed about capturing Lithuanian oil shale beds.

I guess I should slow down, though, and give you a chance to get at your books.

[Targan]

Well, potential acrimony aside I think this is a fascinating and worthy topic of discussion. As canon never explicitly states the specific goals and objectives of NATO's 2000 summer offensive this will always be subject to individual interpretations.

This current discussion has been excellent food for thought for me. The timing of MilGov's decision to withdraw US forces from Germany and Poland would certainly influence my thoughts on what the objectives of the summer offensive might have been.

It's an intriguing question - was the decision to withdraw US forces a precursor to the summer offensive, or a result of it's failure

[Rainbow Six]

It could be more recent than that and be a shipment from the UK North Sea wells, but I can't see the UK sitting still for that much oil just "disappearing" from their custody. I believe most of that is piped out anyway.

You are correct in that belief. There are a number of different pipelines. Main ones come ashore at Grangemouth (canon nuclear strike), Hartlepool (not a canon nuclear stike), Flotta in the Orkneys (not a canon nuclear strike) and Sullom Voe in the Shetlands (also not a canon nuclear strike). Grangemouth and Hartlepool are both refineries, Sullom Voe and Flotta are not - they are just a storage facility, although Sullom Voe is visited by FPSO's (Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading - a vessel that can carry out a basic separation process); tankers also visit all of them. Obviously those sites not the target of nuclear strikes may have suffered some damage from conventional air attack / EMP etc, but in my opinion the UK should retain the capability to maintain some sort of oil production.

IIRC correctly the Omega fleet (or at least a portion thereof) made a stop off to pick up US personnel based in the UK. I'd suggest it's not outwith the realms of possibility that the oil that fuels the Omega fleet could have come from the UK (I am going from memory here but iirc the oil was unrefined). Perhaps the tanker was "abandoned" somewhere it would be found by the Americans / Germans (I can't recall who "found" it). Question is, what's in it for the British The only thing I can think of is any USAF hardware (including aircraft) in the UK, but in canon most of the US bases are not in areas controlled by HMG, which could well scupper the whole theory.

[Fusilier]

Well, potential acrimony aside I think this is a fascinating and worthy topic of discussion. As canon never explicitly states the specific goals and objectives of NATO's 2000 summer offensive this will always be subject to individual interpretations.

It does though Targan...

The objective of the offensive was to clear the Baltic coast of Soviet and Polish forces, thus gaining control of the plentiful Baltic fishing resources and Vistula River barge traffic.

This helps explain the 8th's goal of Kaliningrad (as well as their aim to link up with the Free Latvian Army).

[raketenjagdpanzer]

It does though Targan...

The objective of the offensive was to clear the Baltic coast of Soviet and Polish forces, thus gaining control of the plentiful Baltic fishing resources and Vistula River barge traffic.

This helps explain the 8th's goal of Kaliningrad (as well as their aim to link up with the Free Latvian Army).

Yeah, I always thought the getting the barge traffic and fishing grounds was pretty much stated flat out in the books.

[simonmark6]

The NATO offensive was the last throw of the dice for the Western Theatre. Given the materiel thrown into the fight, it is possible that the commanders had several objectives. The tendancy to have other operations piggy back off the main mission suggests that they were desperate to get as much as they could done in the time left. In my opinion, the offensive's objectives could have been any or all of the following:

1) An attempt to panic the Soviets into retreating by threatening to out flank them.
2) An attempt to control the Baltic and link up with the free Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, this would be a sensible suggestion as there would be little need for the Marines to land East of the Vistula if all the offensive hoped to do was secure a defensible line for Germany in the East, ie, the Vistula.
3) Shale oil might have been a useful secondary objective but sources state that the oil that was being pumped was too valuable for burning and was used for lubricating engines.
4) Securing the Vistula line for Germany in order to strengthen the country for the next round of fighting, possibly in about twenty years. This would seem a sensible objective, if an optimistic one, for the Germans as I can see them being more prosaic than wanting "Peace with Honour" and as they seemed to do the bulk of the fighting in the offensive they probably had a big say in the objectives.
5) Trying to crack the pro-Soviet Government and establish a pro-Western on in its place.
6) Finding our if the Black Madonna still exists.
7) Stealing Project Reset.

I don't think that there is any need to pin down the offensive to a single focus as you can feasibly put any spin on the reasons for the offensive, in fact, the more confusing the better in my opinion because it opens up so many story opportunities.

[Webstral]

I've attached an image of the most relevant page of Going Home for ease of reference.

I'm forced to take Legbreaker's interpretation of the language. While we don't have a timeframe given for the discovery of the all-important drifting oil tanker, we're told that following the failure of the Summer 2000 offensive by NATO and in anticipation of the harshness of the coming winter, SACEUR has decided to launch Operation Omega. In the strictest sense, I think the language supports Leg's assertion.

This much said, there's some wiggle room. The language suggests a cause-and-effect relationship between the failure of the offensive, the disintegration of the remaining forces, the anticipated vicissitudes of the coming winter, and SACEUR's decision. The thinking regarding the hoped-for outcome of the offensive could be a major factor. For instance, control over Baltic fishing is given as a goal of the offensive someplace I can't remember. Control over the Baltic fishing means food on the plates of NATO troops. A victory in mid-2000, combined with the promise of food throughout the winter, might well have put a rosier forecast on the integrity of NATO forces. A good trial lawyer, looking to establish reasonable doubt in the cause-and-effect relationship that supports Leg's case, might say that we don't really know what disposition SACEUR expected at the end of the offensive. We can say for certain that following a major defeat in the field and an untenable food/shelter situation in the coming winter came before SACEUR's decision to use the discovered oil to initiate Operation Omega in late 2000. We don't know that a major victory in the field and an improved food supply derived from controlling more Baltic fishing wouldn't have caused SACEUR to try to keep US forces in Europe for another year. I'm not throwing my support behind this interpretation at this point; I'm just acknowledging that there are interpretations of the language that might support such an interpretation, albeit with some mental contortions.

Edit: It appears my attachment didn't take. I'll have to sort it out or quote the material another way.

[Raellus]

@Simonmark6: I agree completely. A more open-ended scenario adds a lot more room for different storylines and roleplaying opportunities. My proposed rationale for the offensive is non-canonical. I was simply trying to add another alternative explanation for the offensive, one opening additional opportunities to the T2K GM.

@Fuse: Where can one find the reference to the Baltic fisheries I don't recall ever seeing any such reference and I'd like to take a look at it.

@Webstral: Once again, my proposal is non-canonical. I'm not asking anyone to accept it as canon, or even more properly canonical than another user-created scenario or rationale. If published canon contradicts what I've written- and it appears that it does- then my creation becomes apocrypha by default. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with constructive criticism.

@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 refering 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 addition, as far as I can tell, there is no reference in canon to the Lithuanian oil shales being a strategic objective of III German Army's offensive. When these two "extrapolations" were presented as being more properly canonical than what I'd proposed, I had to call B.S, especially considering some of the debates we've had here and Legbreaker's previously stated position on what should or should not be considered canon.

[Fusilier]

@Fuse: Where can one find the reference to the Baltic fisheries I don't recall ever seeing any such reference and I'd like to take a look at it.

I can't see the page number on my electronic copy here at work but it is located on the...

"Getting Started" page in the "Player's Briefing" section.

"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 of the offensive was to clear the Baltic coast of Polish and Soviet forces, thus gaining control of the plentiful Baltic fishing resources and the Vistula River barge traffic.

When the offensive finally got underway it was spearheaded by the U.S.11th Corps because the U.S. troops were less tied to their cantonments than were the Germans. You are members of the United States 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized), one of the component units of the 11th Corps.

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 Kaliningrad and a linkup with the Free Latvian Army, the5th Division (Mechanized) headed
southeast toward Lodz. Then everything started to come apart."

It's also located in the V1 book at the beginning (same info).

[Webstral]

Rae, as you know so well Im in no position to offer judgment of work that doesnt square perfectly with the established body of material. I think your idea could be made to square with the established body of material with a few caveats, such as having Operation Omega be Plan B or Plan C for the aftermath of the Summer 2000 offensive. I also cant fault you for being short-tempered over the canon/non-canon issue. Its been a source of tension ever since the DC Group left.

Simon, I also support your thinking about the multiplicity of missions. While this thinking doesnt make sense in the doctrinal AirLand Battle sense, times have changed a bit since the halcyon days of early 1997 and the planning stages of 1999. Desperation messes with thinking, and surely the post-Exchange world fosters desperation in everyone. Getting spares and equipment to Third German Army throughout 1999 must have been a herculean effort. Spare parts, ammunition, and other necessities no longer being manufactured or transported can only have come from another unit with that gear. Getting US formations in Europe to part with a portion of their lovingly horded stocks during 1999 would have only slightly easier than trying to fix the transmission of an M1 with dental tools and duct tape. A few MPs and other folks working for the highest level of command as they tried to requisition the stocks probably lost their lives. For many reasons, SACEUR probably would have felt enormous pressure to have the Summer 2000 offensive pay off big. The objectives probably took on a life of their own as all of players began putting their eggs into the basket.

Weve discussed the Soviet intent for Fourth Guards Tank Army before, but I cant help wondering again whether the Soviets intended any offensive action in 2000 using Fourth Guards Tank Army or whether the force was used exactly as it was intended to be used. A mobile force based in Belarus could be turned against NATO in Poland, rebels in the Ukraine, or even Polish troublemakers. One wonders to what degree the surviving Soviet leadership in 2000 was more concerned with holding what remained than with trying to change the balance vis--vis the Western Allies.

[Raellus]

We've discussed the Soviet intent for Fourth Guards Tank Army before, but I can't help wondering again whether the Soviets intended any offensive action in 2000 using Fourth Guards Tank Army or whether the force was used exactly as it was intended to be used. A mobile force based in Belarus could be turned against NATO in Poland, rebels in the Ukraine, or even Polish troublemakers. One wonders to what degree the surviving Soviet leadership in 2000 was more concerned with holding what remained than with trying to change the balance vis--vis the Western Allies.

It's not strictly canonical, but in my Task Force Inchon scenario, I have the Soviet 9th Guards Tank Army (Sov 1st GMRD -3000/18, Sov 3rd MRD -2000/10, & Sov 138rd MRD -4000/20) move out of Belarus (canon has them stationed quite close to the border with Poland) and towards U.S. XI Corps' spearheads around Gdansk. This would account nicely for the suspension of German III Army's offensive, and it still leaves Soviet 7th Guards Tank Army in Belarus (near the Ukranian border) for internal security duties.

http://maps.google.com/maps/msmsid=206956330743072967253.00047b0881d4ef792073e&msa=0&ll=54.393352,34.49707&spn=14.775092,53.525391&iwloc=00047b0b19fc718fdeaae