I never said you would have 100% of everything listed. Whatever unit you served with may lose gear regularly but all the Marine units I served with did not lose gear, you got in deep shit for that.
No offense, but did you serve with one during a 2-3 year long war without supply lines?
So many people here seem to be thinking back on their own service and making a straight 1 to 1 comparison of lost gear.
There really is no similar situation to this in the last... well, not since WWII that I can think of, where a sizeable military campaign has ground to a halt and been without supply lines for several years.
The closest I can think of is Stalingrad, but even then they still had airdrops.
It really is an unprecedented situation and many here are just not understanding that.
It's really very much unprecedented. Stalingrad isn't a good comparison, though. Air transport could only deliver a maximum of 105 tons per day out of 700 tons needed. And that is already a surprisingly low number compared to mechanized formations that would have played a role in the Twilight War (at least initially). The Wehrmacht was never a mechanized or even motorized force per se, so supply demands very a lot lower. However, when the last air field was lost to Soviet troops, the pocket was already collapsing and did so finally within a fortnight or so.
But Stalingrad was a defensive operation within a pocket for the Axis troops and the Soviets had no shortage of troops, material or supplies. This is radically different from the Twilight War, where - at least in the previous iterations - the Soviet forces were as much exhausted as NATO's. Also, neither Operation Reset nor the Soviet counter offensive suffer from entrapment, quite the opposite: Both sides were in cantonment and "living of the land". So, supply levels likely would have been much better than for the entrapped Axis forces at Stalingrad, probably more akin to the German forces hoarding supplies in advance of the offensive in the Ardennes (in the winter of 1944/45): so once the initially hoarded supplies had worn down and operational targets had not been taken, i. e. Allied supply depots, the offensive stalled terminally, as fuel demands vastly outgrew available supplies.
I think, if you want to take analogies from World War Two for the Twilight War, you would have to look into the reactions of Germany in 1944 to their catastrophic collapses: during Operation Bagration in the East and the pocket of Falaise in the West, most front line divisions of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS were smashed and the German answer were Volksgrenadier divisions. Those were - at best- second grade troops, but often rated even much lower, and equipped more like light infantry division. Emergency armament programs supplied these division with weapons of often dubious quality, especially in 1945, and the usage of captured enemy vehicles or obsolete material refurbished with equally dubious methods was not able to stop the haemorrhaging of combat power. Despite this, unfortunately, a full collapse of forces was avoided and the war prolonged for another ten months.
Of course, all of these analogies are quite anachronistic and it's questionable what would happen in a case where both warring parties are equally depleted. Maybe the Twilight War would look more like one of the brush wars of the Cold War era: lots of improvised weapon systems and very few mobile operations with technicals.