Re-supply - What is replaced?

[Major SNAFU_M]

Hi all,

Time for a 'relative-newbie' question:

What is possible to be re-supplied to a unit? Is it just basics, ammunition, etc? Or can vehicles, personnel, etc. also be resupplied?

I ask because on one of my play-through of St. Vith. I allowed the 318th to sit for 3 days straight out of curiosity on this issue and it never seemed to regain any personnel or major equipment over that time. I know that infantry units received replacements even while on the line, so this got me to thinking this over in terms of BftB.

[Arjuna]

Resupply does not include replacement of personnel and equipment. This is a feature on our wish list but it has not been implemented yet.

[wodin]

Replacements would be a great feature for the larger scenarios however I expect most replacements came into a coy when it was pulled out of the line.

Still once implemented we could have very long scenarios...even a few weeks!!

[rfrizz]

Replacements were tricky, and didn't tend to go in in the heat of combat, but they did on occasion.

According to two memoirs which were written by line riflemen, replacements would *sometimes* go straight to the front without ANY additional training. They didn't tend to live very long. Sometimes replacements got guidance from "old hands" (a private with three months on the line was an "old hand"*) and those "lucky" replacements who were assigned to an old hand did a LOT better as far as just surviving and even getting missions done.

BTW, the better of the two books, which I am about to finish, is _Visions from a Foxhole: A Rifleman in Patton's Ghost Corps_. You can get a used copy in decent shape on Amazon for US$6.00-US$9.00 or so. DAMN good book from a first-class writer.

ISBN-10: 0891418504
ISBN-13: 978-0891418504

Website: http://www.visionsfromafoxhole.com/ <--- The website kinda sucks, but the book is still good.

* Anyone with that much time in frequent combat really did have plenty of skills. An experienced one-stripe private with three months of heavy action on the line was as good as anyone else. Sergeants who were transferred from Supply or Aviation to the Infantry and insisted on keeping their ranks (bad move; everyone told them to drop the stripes) were given training by... these experienced privates!

[rfrizz]

I'd like to mention that I'm pretty sure current US Army doctrine calls for keeping units together. I think not (sure) that chewed-up units are pulled off the line. The replacements come in, and the unit is given time to "gel" before going back into combat. That is, the new folks and the old folks get to know each other and bond.

The old way made the vets not want to get to know the replacements because of the psychological defense of not wanting to be hurt by a close comrade being killed. This was TERRIBLE for morale and unit cohesion. Those poor replacements were isolated.

As I understand it, Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf were big players in this change because they saw the damage caused by the old system first-hand in Vietnam.

The British Army keeps units together for a long time, as do the Germans. Arjuna, what about the Australian Armed forces, and what do you think about it?

Back on BftB, I will ask this: for the short-term engagements in the game, were there any replacements? Look at the historical record to see if this was even a factor? If not, why sweat it?

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: rfrizz
Back on BftB, I will ask this: for the short-term engagements in the game, were there any replacements? Look at the historical record to see if this was even a factor? If not, why sweat it?

Replacements were pretty constant throughout the campaign in Europe for the US. There was only one dry spell nearing the end of the Normandy campaign when a lot of AAA units had to be cannibalized to take up the slack (planners hadn’t anticipated the massive grinding attrition), but that was quickly sorted out and up until Hurtgen forest, units were kept at reasonable strength levels with a constant flow of replacements.

I think I read an account that stated some divisions that landed on the beaches of Normandy had replaced their paper strength two or three times over by the time the Bulge rolled around. Hurtgen Forest was a pretty bad meat grinder for some of the divisions there, so some units were pulled out of the line and sent to the Ardennes for a longer than normal refit period. Normally units only needed a few days off the line to top up strength, but Hurtgen was a bloodbath.

I know the British were having real issues with manpower by late 1944, they had already streamlined their vital/non-vital industries and culled out most of the available manpower, so their replacement system was nowhere near as flush with men as the Americans. They had even begun to cannibalize actual combat formations in the field to create pools of manpower to top off other units. Even with the hardships they were suffering, they did manage to keep the units at the tip of the spear in decent shape… barely.

As to the situation at the battle for the Bulge, I’d say replacements were far greater than normal, as most units started that battle off with lots of their men away in the rear on leave. So there were tens of thousands of soldiers in the immediate rear areas available to be grabbed up and thrown into the line.

Lots of the small ad-hoc battlegroups thrown up into roadblock positions that slowed the Germans advance down for those first few critical days were made up with a lot of guys that had been trying to get back to their units on the now non-existent front line. They were added to the regular combat formations available at hand to beef them up and given names like Task Force Harper, Team Cherry, etc.

Jim

[wodin]

rfizz, as I have the book, good read. I have a few combat memoirs set on the Western front.