Re: Strategic Reserve.

[Janos Ero <erojr@spammail.cern.ch>]

David Bromage wrote:
> 
> Janos Ero wrote:

> > I am not sure this is true. (Well, I have no closer info about the Soviet
> > strategic planning). But they forced all East European allied countries
> > to buy from their 2000HP diesels (first as Class M62 in Hungary). These
> > were all normal gauge locos but they were also built in broad gauge
> > version with a regauging background.
> 
> That's all true, but if it ever came to war the lesson from WW2 is that
> transhipping takes time. The "railroad divisions" were supposed to be
> able to regauge track about as fast as the combat forces could capture territory.
> 
> "Weapons and tactics of the Soviet Army" by David Isby (Jane's, New
> Work, 1981) has a brief description of railroad divisions.

They might be true, but I don't believe this plans.

While the Red Army North Group had the task to occupie German territory, 
where there are tunnnels in limited numbers, the South Group had the
task to reach Italian territory. It was taken into account to make
a corridore through the neutral Yugoslavia and Austria. But all
possible routes include many many tunnels either in the Karst mountain
(Yugoslavia) or in the Alps (Austria). 

The other argument: in all East European countries from the '60s 
the sleepers (ties) were made of concrete on the mainlines. While
the German Todt Organization in the WW2 was properly trained and
tooled to drill new holes into the wooden sleepers and cut off 
the longer sleeper ends of the Soviet tracks, this is not as easy 
with concrete sleepers. They would have needed a HUGE reserve from 
sleepers to replace them as the front forwards. It seems to me
to keep the normal gauge tracks as a more obvious solution.

Janos Ero