You are not making sense any longer.AbollonPolweder wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019 12:51But in the winter of 1941 the 2nd option fell away. Why? Because the border divisions were already strengthened. If in 38-39 border divisions were strengthened to 75-80% of war-time TOEs, then how much were they strengthened in 1941? Generals are conservative people. Why should they come up with new TOEs, for the numbers 75-80% were not taken by chance but were reasonable?
Sir, do you really have no opportunity to consult about a translation from Russian?
Thank you. That's how l read it too. Remember, 75% of the 1940 ShTat is over 14,000 troops.Art wrote: ↑06 Nov 2019 13:38This parts says that by the variant B border divisions would achieve 75-80% of the wartime strength after a partial mobilization, not that they had already had those 75-80% in a peacetime. In reality in 1938-39 only divisions in the Far East had this level of peacetime strength.
That does not surprise me.
So, the Heer writes down two full divisions at the border. However, since at least 12,000 troops were missing from them, the Heer get to face another fresh division of troops that they have already destroyed!
How so. My comment relates to the claim that, during 1938-40 timeframe, rifle divisions were as a rule populated to 75-80% of wartime ShTat. They were not. That would mean 14-15,000 troops. How many divisions had that many? A handful at most.
When the rifle division ShTat was revised in (April) 1941 to approx 14,500, the % automatically increases. However, 75% of 14,500 is 10,875. Looking at Isaev's work regarding KOVO, not one of the border divisions had that many. Perhaps the numbers were higher in the Baltic or Western Districts.