From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
ORIGINAL: Bil H
If I had my way, supply depots supporting a Regiment/Brigade or higher would NEVER be allowed to move in the timeframe of a scenario. Those were not mobile installations and did not maneuver with the "maneuver" elements. Why would you want to move it into the midst of a firefight anyway (going off your screenshot above)?
That's a bit harsh, Bil.
In the kind of quite restricted size battles in BFTB, not having the supply bases to move at all might well be the case. There are very few scenarios where one really needs the support echelon to move along with the fighting troops (Race for Bastogne comes to my mind, you really want to move those supply bases past the rivers to maximize the throughput of supply to forward units).
Just think of a mobile engagement like von Schweppenburg's XXIV Panzer Korps dash across the Dnepr to Yeln'ya. That happened in a week, and covered over 150 kms. If the Germans hadn't take the divisional and regimental logistic echelons forward with them - say, leaving them "safe" west of the Dnepr, by the Shklov and Bykhov bridgeheads - they would have needed to defend their supply line, and the concentration of fighting troops that allowed the breakthrough, wouldn't have been possible at all.
Or in another more concrete example, consider the COTA scenarios where the Italians are attacking across the Epirus mountains. The distance between the start line of the Italians and the realistic Greek defence line is of about 20 kilometers, across terrible terrain. If one doesn't move the regimental supply echelon forward, the throughput of supply, over such long distances with non-motorized logistics, becomes a sad joke. It's all about being able to maximize the tempo of operations when on the offensive, and that's directly linked to the amount of supply per unit of time you can deliver.
Regarding this particular example, as Lieste says, this is quite an impossible situation. Let's remember that the 1st Airborne got divided into two major groups, one in Arnhem and another slightly north of Ooesterbrek. My reckoning of that is that Urquhart needed to defend his - precarious - logistic echelon, having to defend it from three different directions, so he had, inevitably, to devote a substantial amount of troops to setup an all-round defence north of Ooesterbek (here my memory might be failing).
What I see in the map is that black88g has sent all of the division towards Arnhem and the Oosterbek bridge, leaving behind his supply echelon (supported by a single company, which has been totally outmaneuvered and it's now cutoff as well). Here he's concentrated in the point of attack, and disregarded his supply bases (which aren't "fighting troops" at all). The only way to salvage this situation is to take away troops from Arnhem and clear the way for the supply bases. Those aren't combat troops you can expect to plan and deliver successfully an assault.
A more balanced plan which is what I usually do, is to move forward to Arnhem at max speed with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Para Bn's, leaving behind the airlanding Bde with the supply bases. This second force then is sent towards Oosterbek, a built-in zone, with plenty of roads and easy to defend. I never linger too long at Arnhem itself, since the dash is doomed to fail. It is not realistic to expect the three Para Bns to be able to contain what the Germans can throw at them. So the Para's, after gaining some precious time to get the defense of the division organized, fall back to Oosterbek as soon as that is achieved, distracting big German formations. And there I make The Stand. It's the most likely point XXX Corps can realistically reach, and it would be supporting the Poles, landing two days afterwards.
That was the only way I have been able to achieve a "win", that is, avoiding the historical total destruction of Urquhart command.
If one doesn't like to be "reduced" to be making sad faces like Sean Connery in a Bridge Too Far, what I suggest is to open ScenMaker and bring the damn LZ's closer to Arnhem :-)
< Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 3/8/2013 12:16:36 AM >