Alaska and the Soviet Invasion (T2k)

[Schone23666]

I know it's probably been discussed on the forum before, but what are your feelings overall about how it was set up with the Soviet Invasion of Alaska in T2K canon? I'm not sure how it was handled with the T2k 2013 scenario...but looking at this part of the world, it makes me wonder at just how feasible this really was.

The Bering Strait has some of the most extreme weather conditions anywhere in the world, needless to say. Very short summers and the winters are hellish, not to mention the ocean and wind currents alone in that area are just bad. That most parts of Alaska are pretty remote IIRC. Few roads and the terrain itself doesn't lend it very well to mass armored deployments I believe, plus it's still a lot of land to cover before reaching any logistics or communications hubs, unless I'm wrong.

I would definitely buy though if the Soviets had launched air raids against the early warning network set up in the area though, along with inserting small Spetsnaz teams and saboteurs to play havoc with the pipeline, any military bases in the area, etc. There apparently were a lot of wierd stories of strange items being found left behind or washed up on shore in parts of Alaska that didn't look like it should have been there to begin with. Sometimes you had to take it with a grain of salt, but some made you wonder and it probably wouldnt' have been a surprise. There's an interesting story told here by one on the tank.net forums. The snippet follows the link:





http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=28644

"That being said, one of my above-mentioned friends from Alaska had in his possession a handful of Cyrillic-marked brass in both 7.62mm and 5.45mm, which he claimed to have found somewhere along the coast. He'd heard the distinctive sounds of automatic fire coming from the next inlet, and gone to take a quiet look at whoever was shooting. When he got there, he'd found a couple of different locations where the brass (actually, lacquered steel...) was, and picked it up. There was a mix of 7.62x54mm, 5.45x39mm, and some 7.62x39mm. He collected a fair sample of what he could find, and gave some of it to a friend in the Alaskan law enforcement community, and that was the last he ever heard of it. Nobody ever got back with him about it.

Why do I mention this? Simple. He showed me samples of this brass around 1986, long before surplus Soviet ammo was ever common in the US. Supposedly, this incident happened sometime in earlier in the 1980s--he was a little evasive as to which year. All the headstamps he showed me were from no later than 1980, however. Those 5.45x39mm cases were the first ones I ever saw, outside a book or magazine article. I still don't know what the hell to think about this incident, and the guy is long since dead of old age. I have no idea where he could have gotten those cases that allows for an explanation simpler than his "...demmed Russki's sneaking around Alaska..." one.

This was the era when the 5.45x39mm AK-74 was virtually unknown to the average westerner, and the cartridge sure as hell wasn't something you'd run into down at the local gunshop, either. He didn't even know what he had--the two types of 7.62mm cases he recognized, but the 5.45 wasn't something he even knew about. When I told him about it, he said it kinda made sense--the sounds he'd heard of firing reminded him of Vietnam, only there was a different sound to some of the shots that he didn't recognize. Which was actually what drew his attention--he thought he was having a flashback, or something. Going to investigate was kinda his way of "getting back on the horse", so to speak.

He also swore he saw a submarine periscope disappear as he came around the inlet's head...

To this day, this is one of those "WTF?" things I still can't explain. I can't rule out that he wasn't telling me a tall tale, but where the hell did those 5.45mmx39mm cases come from? They were still writing about the AK-74 and the ammo for it like it was some kinda super-secret big deal, and nobody in the US had the stuff, outside of the technical intelligence folks at Fort Devens and the guys at Soldier of Fortune. The SF battalion up at Fort Lewis didn't even have the stuff available to look at--the cartridge board with the Soviet-bloc rounds had a notecard in the place for the 5.45mm that described the ballistics as being "...similar to the US M193, but reportedly with greater wounding potential...". I just can't figure out where the hell some backwoods fisherman in Alaska could have come up with some cartridge cases, in order to put one over on me. "




Don't know what to make of that story, but assuming it was really Ivan himself, perhaps they came ashore, got spooked by something and opened fire, and figured "shit, we just compromised ourselves" and made a hurried fallback to whatever got them ashore in the first place. Assuming the story is true...

Anyway, just wanted to throw this out there and see if anyone wanted to comment about how feasible such a scenario with the Soviets invading Alaska might have been. Though I recall at least a few Russian nationalist nutjobs like Zirinovsky(?) always making talk about wanting to redraw the borders of the Russian empire's "traditional empire" which apparently includes Alaska. :eek:

[Webstral]

Many believe that the Soviet invasion of Alaska would have been nearly impossible from a logistical point of view. A lot of effort has been expended in an effort to explain how a Soviet incursion in Alaska on the scale given in the Soviet Vehicle Guide might be made to work. Personally, I'm content to go along with it because it adds an interesting dimension to the Twilight: 2000 story. One has to suspend a fair amount of disbelief, though.

[Schone23666]

Many believe that the Soviet invasion of Alaska would have been nearly impossible from a logistical point of view. A lot of effort has been expended in an effort to explain how a Soviet incursion in Alaska on the scale given in the Soviet Vehicle Guide might be made to work. Personally, I'm content to go along with it because it adds an interesting dimension to the Twilight: 2000 story. One has to suspend a fair amount of disbelief, though.

Oh, I've no problem with suspending some disbelief, you should see some of the stuff I write. :p

What materials are out there that expand on what happened and what went down with the Soviet invasion of Alaska? Is it safe to assume they got bogged down? Though with the potential oil and mineral supplies up in Alaska I can see it as still quite a prize in the T2k world, even if the state of most of the machinery used to extract said oil and minerals, much less refine them, may yet be in question.

[Legbreaker]

There's very little published material on the Alaska situation although there's at least one Challenge article which touches on it to some degree. Basically it's an open invitation to come up with ideas to explain what's in the various vehicle books, etc.

[Raellus]

Various tidbits in the v1.0 vehicle guides seem to suggest that the Soviet invasion of Alaska, although initially surprisingly successful, fell apart quickly, leaving pieces of a couple of Soviet divisions cut off and stranded in parts of Alaska, western Canada, and the Pacific Northwest.

I feel pretty much the same way about this scenario as Web. I'd love for someone to flesh out the scenario and make it more plausible.

[Legbreaker]

2.x uses the same unit histories as 1.0.

I feel pretty much the same way about this scenario as Web. I'd love for someone to flesh out the scenario and make it more plausible.

Taking what others have said about the distances and lack of infrastructure in the region, it seems to me the only way it could possibly work is after the US and Canadian naval forces have been removed from play. Transportation and supply lines would have to be primarily by sea and utilise whatever few merchant ships are still floating. Once you move away from the coast, both sides would start running into serious logistic problems.

Perhaps it's this reliance on seaborne logistics which proved the Soviet's undoing? Once the nukes fell and the ports were glowing (on both sides) it may have become almost impossible for supplies and reinforcementsto be brought in.

Can anyone tell us when the Soviet units first stepped foot on Alaskan soil?

[Webstral]

It seems that the Soviets first crossed the Bering Strait during the summer of 1997. I want to say July. US forces had been ranging onto the Soviet side until the nuclear exchange began. Then the Soviets pushed across the Strait while the weather was good, landing first in or around Nome and moving east and southeast.

An ugly thought: if the pipeline was out due to nuking, the US might have decided to turn the tables on the Soviet thinking. The Soviets (probably) invaded Alaska to divert American resources from other theaters. What if the American leadership decided to defend Alaska with just enough guys to keep several Soviet divisions and Soviet logistics diverted. A look at the numbers of Soviet troops in Alaska in July 2000 shows that the Soviets had a lot more uniformed personnel committed. If the oil could not be quickly made to flow again, then Alaska might have been seen as a bear trap that would cause the Soviets to divert resources that might otherwise go to another theater.

[HorseSoldier]

There are a couple crazy issues with the Soviet invasion of Alaska, mostly relating, I think, to the GDW authors not really grasping either the size of the AK/Yukon/British Columbia area or the difficulty in sustaining any sort of logistics across those distances given a very minimal road network.

The oddest thing is that from the unit histories, it sounds like the Soviets came directly across the strait and made their first landings at Nome, then proceeded overland to Fairbanks. I honestly just don't see how this works. There's no roads, and the distance and terrain are such that even if done in the dead of winter to rely on frozen rivers would have honestly most likely killed more Soviet AFVs from simple wear and tear attrition than X Corps and the Canadians ever did on the battlefield.

Various other subsequent manuevers are equally improbable (offensives down through Juneau and into Canadian territory, especially).

Perhaps it's this reliance on seaborne logistics which proved the Soviet's undoing? Once the nukes fell and the ports were glowing (on both sides) it may have become almost impossible for supplies and reinforcementsto be brought in.


A one megaton strike on Elmendorf AFB would most likely not only irradiate but cause extensive damage to the port of Anchorage, which seems to be the hub for Soviet forces remaining in Alaska circa 2000. The two are very close to one another, though the terrain the port sits in *might* protect it some from blast and overpressure from a nuke, depending on where exactly on Elmendorf it popped.

There's an alternate port at Whittier (built in secret during WW2), but no indication that any Soviet forces are anywhere near there, as it's about 100 km south east of Anchorage and the Soviet forces are mostly north of Anchorage up in the Mat-Su Valley (likely facing Sarah Palin's crack irregular militia or crack smoking irregular militia, depending on your politics ;)). And Whittier is on the far side of a 4 km long tunnel that any defenders could drop pretty effortlessly, and renders it pretty vulnerable to commando actions (cue daring group of PCs . . .).

Assuming the Soviets had pretty much free reign in the Pacific due to some serious misfortunes for the USN and other NATO/Allied naval forces, the likeliest invasion route would be to do an Inchon/Normandy gig at Anchorage with a feint at Valdez aimed at destroying the terminal end of the pipeline. Then you'd want to roll up the only two highways going up out of the Mat-Su Valley to launch pincers at X Corps in the Fairbanks/Ft Greely area. Getting the right wing to Glenallen and Tok would cut off anyone falling back from Valdez (Glenallen) and any vehicle traffic coming in from Canada (Tok).

Once you've got Tok out of the equation, and Anchorage occupied, Fairbanks is pretty much isolated by anything but aerial resupply. It would still have access to oil from the pipeline, unless it was cut north of the city, and there's a small refinery in the area that could keep X Corps plussed up on fuel, but everything else is pretty sketchy. If the .sovs can get up the road to the Greely area they can capture the only remotely significant agricultural area X Corps could be feeding itself and the civilian population from, and then it would probably be better to do more of a seige than an assault on Fairbanks.

[Mohoender]

What I'm going to write does work if the Soviets effectively land in Alaska with their small offensive spearheaded by arctic brigades.

First thing, recall that the entire Kamchatka Peninsula was, then, military ground and absolutely forbidden to all but soldiers. Then, USSR had a special body set up in 1932 only to run traffic through the artic. Since the soviet era, military installations and harbors up there had been dismantled and left to rot but they were substantial up to the early 1990's. If one place still holds some supplies it is it.

Oil might have been a problem but I would expect the Soviets to have planned a move similar to the one imagined by Von Rundstedt in the Ardennes fifty years before. Soviet units would be running low on gas with their first goal being to run for US oil supplies. Elmensdorf ASB had been targetted but that leaves the North Pole and Prudhoe Bay refineries intact with probable reserves. May be even growing ones since the pipeline might have been cut

Second, the best time for the Soviets to attack could be when the Ice is still there but getting thinner or slowly comming back. Strangelly I would expect early fall more than summer. The logical landing site for USSR could be Barrow and Prudhoe Bay (with its refinery), travelling through the Northern Seaway (a sea route they are about the only one to know by heart, they used extensively for decades and practiced for centuries) and invading Alaska from the arctic seaports of Pevek with a supply line going through Dikson and Tiksi. Then, and only then, would they push South toward Anchorage. However, when they arrive there, I doubt the northern refineries to be still intact.

USSR had 9 (may be 10) working nulcear icebreakers, as many conventional heavy duty ones and several dozens of smaller patrol icebreakers belonging to KGB under its border services. Most carried some types of weaponries or were design to carry them and all were powerfull enough to open the way for the remaining landing ships and cargo. Moreover, there is no reason to have all these ships destroyed as they should have been moved out of the main harbors to the major Soviet arctic seaports. Moreover, The NATO fleet has been shaterred around Murmansk and the Arctic remain Soviet almost exclusive territory.

Meanwhile, US and Canadian navies couldn't match (and I think they still can't do) the Soviet Arctic Fleet. Morevoer, with surviving US ships occupied further South, the way is quite cleared. In addition, the Soviets would use LCAC and probably a few Orlyonoks plus aircrafts to drop spearheading forces. Of course, I have not doubt that what is left of US-Canadian command has thought that it could happen but they can have underestimated the immediate threat and with the chaos following the exchange they might have lacked the ressources to answer immediately. However, when the Soviets reach Juneau they have gathered what was needed to stop Soviet progression. Again, outside of the few arctic and naval brigades, their troops are all composed of second and third line units.

At last, as soon as full summer comes with the sealane easily reached, I doubt that Soviet ships can maintain a regular flow of supplies or troops. When everything achieves to crumble, some icebreakers might still be there, most arctic seaports might still be functional but the Kremlin has ceased to have the material means and the authority to keep them running.

[Mohoender]

There are a couple crazy issues with the Soviet invasion of Alaska, mostly relating, I think, to the GDW authors not really grasping either the size of the AK/Yukon/British Columbia area or the difficulty in sustaining any sort of logistics across those distances given a very minimal road network.


I agree but this is still tiny if compared to the size of Russian Siberia. The Soviets have managed to supply the most remote parts of Siberia for years without roads. Moreover, they fail in both British Columbia and Yukon.

Nome could be an option but why when its easier to go to Prudhoe Bay? Going through the Chukchi Sea would be easier for the Soviets and more difficult to defend for US given their already overstretched lines of defense. Then, after taking Prudhoe Bay, you simply drive south and don't even care about Nome... You take Barrow to secure your supply line.

To supply all this, apart from their arctic fleet, they would probably using the river networks in Siberia itself and a large number of reindeer (the only number I have found was 1.5 million semi-domestic reindeer by 1999 after a ten years decline). I'm sure there will plenty of objections to this but damn, in a game that is planty of fun entertaining situation.

I would simply love to see a US Spec Ops born in Texas riding a reindeer its unit had capture from Soviet troops in Alaska.:D

[rcaf_777]

Forgot the Soveit Invassion how about a Canadian Invasion, Canada unhappy about the damage caused by what they see as US war they invade Alaska and cut the oil flow

[Schone23666]

Forgot the Soveit Invassion how about a Canadian Invasion, Canada unhappy about the damage caused by what they see as US war they invade Alaska and cut the oil flow

This makes me think of a favorite quote of mine from Otto Von Bismarck: "The Americans have conspired to be surrounded on two sides by weak neighbors, and on the other two sides....by FISH!" :p

That idea almost sounds amusing, LOL...but in all seriousness? Highly unlikely.

[Fusilier]

"The Americans have conspired to be surrounded on two sides by weak neighbors, and on the other two sides....by FISH!"

I don't get it.

[Schone23666]

I don't get it.

Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" who was the first Chancellor of the German Empire from 1871 to 1890, was commenting on how the United States of America is bordered on two sides by the Canadians and Mexicans, who were seen to be weak on the international stage, AT THAT TIME. The other two sides that border the United States are the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, obviously.

Bismarck was basically commenting (unless I'm wrong) that unlike Germany which had a series of neighbors to either dislike or worry about (France, Russia, Poland, the British Empire, the Balkans, etc. etc.) the Americans only really needed to worry about (if at all) the Canadians, the Mexicans, and lots of fish.

Bismarck was also quoted (though this may not be the exact phrasing) as saying, "The next great war in Europe will be over some damned silly thing in the Balkans". Turns out, unfortunately, he was right about that one.

[Fusilier]

I know. I was just being sarcastic.

[Raellus]

I haven't even checked a map yet but HorseSoldier's outline of Soviet operational objectives and manouvers sounds very convincing.

I also like Web's suggestion that the U.S. decides to use Alaska as a quagmire of sorts into which the Soviets are encouraged to waste their strength. One could bottle of the Soviets indefinitely with minimal investments in military manpower and material. Canon seems to back this up. Then there's the Canadian military. As Web pointed out, this scenario only makes sense if Alaskan oil is no longer available to either side (likely due to a good nuking).

[Schone23666]

I know. I was just being sarcastic.

Yeah, I figured. No worries. :p

[ArmySGT.]

I see no reason why a Soviet Invasion would not be a success beyond the planners wildest hope and dreams.

They have Arctic Brigade that train in Siberia without roads. They have Company sized units of snow plows with blades or blowers. The Soviets really embraced Hover craft on a huge scale that would make ports irrelevant.

Soviet equipment was built for the brutal Russian winter. Alaska would be easy.

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/12/unique-soviet-snowmobiles.html

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/12/unique-soviet-snowmobiles.html

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2011/07/russian-nuclear-icebreakers-to-north.html

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/chew/chew.asp

http://militaryforces.ru/firearms-3-76.html

http://militaryforces.ru/firearms-3-75.html

[Legbreaker]

As Web pointed out, this scenario only makes sense if Alaskan oil is no longer available to either side (likely due to a good nuking).

Again that nuke timeline kicks into gear and makes that improbable. Soviets invaded in Summer, tactical nukes were only used from the 9th of July - mid summer. That makes it possible, but given an operation of this complexity so far from friendly shores is likely to take at least several months of planning and preparation...

I like the idea of the Soviets sending troops over as a) a PR coup (we've got troops on US soil!) and b) a way of tying up US and Canadian troops while committing relatively minimal and third rate (on the whole) troops which wouldn't really be missed elsewhere.

If they were able to capture oil and other resources in the process and ship them home, it would be a massive bonus, but I'm not convinced they would have been major factors in deciding to send troops in the first place.

[Fusilier]

Ahh memories... I remember this same topic was my very first question and post I ever made on the first/old twilight forum (the one before the last one) back in the freakin 90s.

I remember part of the discussion raised an idea that the invasion was never meant to be permanent (since it would be extremely hard to keep the units supplied). Invading would be easy, but maintaining the units in fighting shape for any real length of time would be difficult.

Rather, it was an attempt to gain leverage in potential/upcoming peace talks - in a "you leave Poland and we give you back Alaska" sort of deal. Like Leg mentioned, it was a PR move with the intent to hurt US morale... and help bring the west to the table to discuss a ceasefire with something to offer.

It was an idea to try to explain the rationality of conducting the invasion.

[HorseSoldier]

They have Arctic Brigade that train in Siberia without roads. They have Company sized units of snow plows with blades or blowers. The Soviets really embraced Hover craft on a huge scale that would make ports irrelevant.

Soviet equipment was built for the brutal Russian winter. Alaska would be easy.

Getting from Nome to Fairbanks -- even without a bit of resistance from the USAF/RCAF and ground forces -- would be a logistical feat close to being on par with the building of the ALCAN Highway in WW2, which (if memory serves me correctly, and it may not) was more expensive than the Manhattan Project.

Rugged equipment helps, but only so much, and the land is more rugged than the equipment. And I'd question how effective the Soviet Arctic Brigades really are at operating in roadless environments, since one of the major flaws with Soviet equipment has been inadequate logistical considerations for protracted campaigning. Even with plentiful hovercraft, covering 800+ kilometers with no infrastructure whatsoever and every bit of fuel, food, ammunition, etc. having to be hauled along a growing supply line is going to be a nightmare (and, as noted, that's without even considering enemy aircraft in the equation).

[ArmySGT.]

Look through the links I provided to the Soviet equipment. Did you notice the crawlers with 30 ton capacity.

Anyway. I think the Soviets would capture the coastal areas in summer to prepare for the winter campaign. Soviet equipment is built for the cold and the arctic terrain is far simpler to pass over after freezing.

Another thing to consider is that Soviet Units are forced to be self sufficient in many ways even in peace time at garrison. With bakeries, vegetable gardens, and livestock. There is no reason Soviet Commanders would not bring the farm along with them.

No I think the Soviet Logistical machine as grossly inefficient as it can be would outshine anything American or Canadian forces would be using.

Which primarily consists of a handful of BV 206s.

The Soviets by necessity had to supply units, radar stations, and listening posts. The soviets were still using many amphibious trucks since rivers are sometimes more passable than roads in the summer.

[HorseSoldier]

There is no reason Soviet Commanders would not bring the farm along with them.


If they come across at Nome, the main problem I'd see is that agriculture isn't feasible in that location due to permafrost. Even further south at Bethel the only local agriculture done there requires everything to be grown in raised containers, rather than in the soil.

Moving a major military force 800 kilometers through the Alaskan Bush is really no easy or modest undertaking at all, even in peacetime. And that's assuming nature is relatively benign and doesn't just kill some portion of your force in any number of ways, which nature in Alaska is prone to do (i.e. look at the losses both sides suffered during the Aleutian Campaign in WW2 -- storms and fog killed more than enemy action, and just the logistics of fighting on the island that was contested produced a casualty rate comparable to the worst campaigns in the Pacific, only most were environmental casualties rather than combat deaths/woundings).

[ArmySGT.]

If they come across at Nome, the main problem I'd see is that agriculture isn't feasible in that location due to permafrost. Even further south at Bethel the only local agriculture done there requires everything to be grown in raised containers, rather than in the soil.

Moving a major military force 800 kilometers through the Alaskan Bush is really no easy or modest undertaking at all, even in peacetime. And that's assuming nature is relatively benign and doesn't just kill some portion of your force in any number of ways, which nature in Alaska is prone to do (i.e. look at the losses both sides suffered during the Aleutian Campaign in WW2 -- storms and fog killed more than enemy action, and just the logistics of fighting on the island that was contested produced a casualty rate comparable to the worst campaigns in the Pacific, only most were environmental casualties rather than combat deaths/woundings).

The US and the Japanese are horrible examples. The US after transferred a unit destined for a Tropical theater to the Aleutians still equipped with tropical weight equipment. As for the Japanese their northern islands are cold and snow bound however these can be served by ports all around as they are comparatively small.

The Soviets have decades of experience doing it. You can drop all of Alaska three or four times in the Soviet Union just from the Ural Mountains to Kamchatka. Look at some satellite imagery of eastern soviet union. Your not going to find much roads.

Summer is a frenzy to repair, plant. and harvest. What is impassable in summer, becomes trouble free under 10 feet or 3 meters of snow and ice.

As for farming the Soviet diet isn't pissing around with tomatoes and strawberries. Turnips, potatoes, parsnips, etc root vegetables. Gardening is a fad in the States but it is a damn necessity in Russia, through in they pickle huge amounts of stuff.

The AlCan highway project is surprising in that it worked. With open cabbed, unheated equipment, that were without hydraulics.

[Legbreaker]

...would outshine anything American or Canadian forces would be using.

I have to agree in principle with that statement. We need to look at the situation not just from the high tech US perspective, but from that of the Soviets who are used to dealing with rough terrain, long distances and non-existant infrastructure. Not saying it would be easy, and I'm sure the troops on the ground would have a very difficult and unhappy time of it, but it is potentially do-able.

The key is absolutely supply by sea. Ships can carry more cargo, faster and further than trucks, and given the Soviet amphibious and aircushion capability a lack of port facilities isn't going to be a deal breaker. The big trick is to protect the cargo vessels which could be done fairly easily I think by stationing a couple of old subs in the area - the Nato fleets are shattered in early summer and those few warships left are probably too valuable protecting Nato convoys to risk being sunk by lurking subs during an attack on a Soviet convoy. We also know from Last Submarine that US submarines are virtually all gone and no longer a real consideration while the Soviets and their allies still have a few Whiskeys, Foxtrots and the like they could potentially draw upon.

Once the strategic nukes are used towards the end of 1997 the whole situation will change and I can see the Soviet units in Alaska being almost totally abandoned to their fate.

[ArmySGT.]

Once the strategic nukes are used towards the end of 1997 the whole situation will change and I can see the Soviet units in Alaska being almost totally abandoned to their fate.

What is their fate though? Apart from spare parts and ammunition. It depends on the support units. Greenhouses south of the Chugach range with 20 hours of daylight per day grow staggering amounts.

If they successfully own the facilities at Valdez they might be sitting pretty good. Russian aircraft is designed for the cold and for dirt landing strips.

I can't say for certain but I don't think there are any refineries in Alaska, just facilities for crude.

The Soviets could be exploiting the fish canneries and factory ships depending on if the capture them whole. Canned Salmon, Comrade?

The US Army is Greeley and Wainwright. The US Air Force is Elmendorf and some posts on the Aleutians and the DEW line watching Radar. With a scattering of US Coast Guard.

Ft. Lewis / McChord is Washington State, Ft Ord / Hunter Ligget is California/ and Shafter is Hawaii each dedicated to some other theater.

Really we would have to hope the Canadians came to the aid of the US if an invasion of Alaska. They would have the personal experience to operate in the arctic.

[Targan]

I can't say for certain but I don't think there are any refineries in Alaska, just facilities for crude.

Your answer is earlier in the thread, post #8:

Once you've got Tok out of the equation, and Anchorage occupied, Fairbanks is pretty much isolated by anything but aerial resupply. It would still have access to oil from the pipeline, unless it was cut north of the city, and there's a small refinery in the area that could keep X Corps plussed up on fuel, but everything else is pretty sketchy.

[Legbreaker]

I can't say for certain but I don't think there are any refineries in Alaska, just facilities for crude.

Alaska
Kenai Refinery (Tesoro), Kenai 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
Valdez Refinery (Petro Star), Valdez 50,000 bbl/d (7,900 m3/d)
North Pole Refinery (Petro Star), North Pole 17,000 bbl/d (2,700 m3/d)
Kuparuk Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Kuparuk 14,400 bbl/d (2,290 m3/d)
North Pole Refinery (Flint Hills Resources), North Pole 210,000 bbl/d (33,000 m3/d)
Prudhoe Bay Refinery (BP), Prudhoe Bay 12,500 bbl/d (1,990 m3/d)

[Targan]

Holy crap! An even more comprehensive answer!

[Legbreaker]

Holy crap! An even more comprehensive answer!

I blame Wikipedia. :cool:

Might need to do a little research into the capacities of those facilities circa 1997 though. It's been 14 years since "our" date and who knows what improvements those companies have made.

[ArmySGT.]

Your answer is earlier in the thread, post #8:

Ah, thanks for that passed it over.

[ArmySGT.]

Watch these Australians guys. They may be planning something.

[HorseSoldier]

I've actually been working on and off on a sourcebook kind of write up for Alaska in T2K since moving up here, but still has a ways to go, and involves some departures from the canon troop dispositions and unit identities (mostly reflagging the 1st and 2nd Arctic Recon Brigades, AK ARNG).

Staying within the sort of improbable (to me, anyway) narrative of the invasion, I basically have the Soviets headquartered in the southern end of Anchorage, away from the nuke strike, with a strong garrison in the Mat-Su Valley (the prime agricultural area in the state) and a blocking force south of Anchorage part of the war to Whittier.

The Soviet strength is the agricultural zone they're sitting in, but they're very bad off for fuel and have pretty negligible sealift left after the attempt to go after Juneau and the SE Alaska panhandle.

The US forces are split -- during the battle for Anchorage, a portion of the US force was cut off and withdrew south out of the city into the Kenai Peninsula, while the bulk of X Corps are at Wainwright and Greely. The US is very tight on food, but pretty wealthy on fuel, with the refinery at North Pole running at fractional output and oil still coming down the pipeline in enough quantity that they're able to keep some aircraft flying and vehicles running on gas and diesel. They've also got a garrison holding the only functioning coal mine in the state, and one of the two National Guard brigades strung out on garrison duty patrolling the pipeline from Barrow to Fairbanks. Even with the airpower, though, they lack the combat power to push the Soviets out of south-central Alaska, and so it's pretty much a stand off circa 2000.

A Canadian brigade group is mostly on their side of the border with blocking forces keeping the Soviet division at Whitehorse cut off, and an understrength battalion at Tok keeping lines of communication open to X Corps.

Elsewhere in the state, there's a very broad no mans land between the Soviet and American zones. Pretty much any settlements that were on the road net have been abandoned by 2000 after being fought over a time or two since the invasion. Neither marauder bands nor surviving settlements near the road net are sizable.

Further out in the Bush, some communities are more or less intact, some have collapsed due to the loss of imports, disease, etc.

Kodiak was hit hard by .sov airstrikes and then largely ignored. There's a mostly USCG garrison there that's sided with CivGov, though that's pretty nominal, as the only regular contact they have with outsiders are Japanese merchantmen.

Whittier (the other port mentioned in previous post) is a fortified free community that has opted out of the war, and no has a small defense force made up of various deserters from both sides.

Valdez, terminal end of the pipeline, was severely during the Soviet drive towards Juneau, but survives as an isolated but nominally pro-MilGov community with a defense force consisting mostly of US stragglers and a couple hundred East German former POWs who are the last survivors of a group of about 2000 who escaped from a Soviet camp in Siberia, marched out to the sea, and then hijacked a Soviet merchantman. Their attempt to escape to allied America was semi-successful, with them winding up in Valdez after finding out Anchorage was in Soviet hands.

Juneau and the southeastern portion of the state is the worst hit part of the state in some ways -- by the time the Soviet offensive made it down into that area, it was faltering badly and the troops were more involved in looting survival essentials than fighting. A Typhoid epidemic didn't help things, and the area is very depopulated, with a few of the more isolated fishing communities hanging on, as well as some small scale pirates and maritime marauders. The only major population center is Haines, where another small Canadian force is holding the port and end of the Haines Highway, and have attracted a large refugee population.

The other big player on the scene are the Japanese, who have occupied the Cook Inlet oil and gas fields near Anchorage for their own domestic use. They've got a battalion of Japanese airborne troops, plus a force of American mercenaries recruited out of Korea. The Soviets don't have the assets to challenge their occupation, and the Japanese provide them some limited amounts of fuel to keep them happy. The Japanese are also the main thing keeping many of the more isolated communities on the coast elsewhere in the state up and running in some semblance of modernity, trading some of the limited production of manufactured goods still coming out of Japan for fish and marine mammal foodstuffs.

[Targan]

Nice summary HorseSoldier. I like your take on the state of things in Alaska.

[ArmySGT.]

Nice write up. Favors a southern sweep.

I favor the Northern sweep myself.

Soviets seize Nome. Making is a logistical bridge head.

Nome has an airfield currently. That airfield is large enough for an AN-12 Cub.

There is a small port. Soviet Merchant Vessels are also Soviet Merchant Marine vessels equipped with their own cranes that can move Soviet MBTs from Hold to Dock.

[ArmySGT.]

I feel a Northern Sweep sets up for a Soviet invasion of Alaska to a effect multiple Strategic purposes.

1) Opens a second Front drawing American support away from NATO operations in Europe.

2) Soviet Aviation assets can conduct operations against continental US and Canadian assets with half the transit time and greater payload.

3) Destruction or occupation of DEW line assets. Blinding US and Canadian Commands to operations over the North Pole Chukchi, Siberian, and the North sea.

4) Deny US forces and US domestic production of a quarter to one third of domestic oil production.

5) Morale and PR boost back home.

[LAW0306]

Thats a Nice write up Horse.

[Webstral]

Horse, I like that work, too. I had some very similar thoughts about why such a large Soviet force was apparently surrounded by much smaller US formations. The relative differences between food stocks and fuel adds a nice touch to the explanation. The East Germans are a nice touch, too. Without quibbling over any particular point, I think your overall concept is a good one. Thanks for stepping up to give this some attention. I’m struggling to get a Thunder Empire piece completed, so I can’t do anything with Alaska.

I did have a couple of thoughts about the Soviet operations in the state. It appears that Eleventh Soviet Army was landed in Alaska starting in July 1997 in an effort to capture Fairbanks and Anchorage. A separate force of about six divisions (14th MRD, 41st MRD, 62nd MRD, 114th MRD, 76th TD, and 120th MRD) was landed in southeastern Alaska and British Columbia starting in August in an effort to seize Juneau, Vancouver, and the Puget Sound. I won’t talk about the second force here other than to remark on its demise.

1st & 2nd Arctic Mechanized Brigades took part in the initial invasion of Alaska in July 1997. Both brigades took part in the capture of Fairbanks. Both brigades were turned south after capturing Fairbanks. 1AMB went to Anchorage, which was captured. 2AMB was part of an assault on Juneau. Both brigades ended up in Anchorage in 1998.

1st Naval Infantry Brigade was involved in the assault on Anchorage. We know the brigade was landed somewhere along the Cook Inlet and was mauled by US forces as the Americans withdrew.

7th MRD landed in Alaska in 1997 and participated in the capture of Anchorage.

113th MRD landed in Alaska in 1997 and participated in the operation against Fairbanks. The division withdrew to Anchorage after X US Corps counterattacked in 1998.

147th MRD landed in Alaska in 1997 and participated in the operation against Fairbanks. The division withdrew to Anchorage after X US Corps counterattacked in 1998.

6th Guards Air Assault Division also has a role in the initial invasion of Alaska.

What if the assault on Fairbanks did not begin at Nome? What if Nome was simply a jumping-off point for operations elsewhere? I note that the Yukon Delta is 150 miles or so south of Nome. What if Nome were seized for whatever facilities it possesses so that materiel could be staged for movement up the Yukon? Hoverborne troops could make quick assaults on or off the river and conduct operations in places American troops might not be able to go. The arctic brigades could range ahead, capturing barges and other shipping necessary to move two MRD upriver to the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers, thence up the Tanana to Fairbanks. If this happened, then we would have an explanation for the movement of the arctic brigades south to Anchorage by road. US forces could have held on at Fort Greely until March, when a counterattack against the two Soviet divisions remaining at Fairbanks drove them out.

[Targan]

Every now and again I remember all the work Kato has done compiling the thread map. Here are links to a couple of past discussions on Alaska:

The Alaskan Theatre of Operations and more:
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=178

US forces in Alaska:
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=747

YaATW2KT: The Soviet's Aleutian Front:
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1180

Sorry, forgotten how to change the link so it just shows the title. Looks messy, I know, but I'm at work so I shouldn't be doing this anyway!

The second link (US forces in Alaska) should be of particular interest as it contains some of the modified ORBATS developed by the DC Working Group.

[Legbreaker]

...I'm at work so I shouldn't be doing this anyway!

But isn't being pretty much the sole active mod a job in and of itself deserving of respect and gratitude if not actual cash payment? ;)

[rcaf_777]

Ok

Planning and Logistics aside what would be the need for a soviet invasion?

Keep troops in North States tried up so they can't be used in Mexico?

Oil? they could have just nuked it?

reclaim terrority?

Another point (Planning and Logistics)

If the soviets are going to wage war in Alaska, where are they going to land troops?

Resupply, how is it going to done, over sea by air?

Lines of Communcations? They are seperated by water from there major supply bases (Remember D-Day eventhing comes by boat or aircraft) and then how do you move stuff around trucks, long line of communcations (remember OIF when follow on forces were enaged by irrrgular formations)

Think about it the troops and other forces in Alaska know the ground, and Soviets don't, attacking troops who are ready for them and know the ground, you need a 3 to 1 ratio for an attack.

How much trouble do you think you can create if a forgien power invaded your back yard?

[Webstral]

Historically, one of the goals of the USSR was to break NATO’s solidarity. The Kremlin was delighted when de Gaulle broke with NATO. One of the chief Soviet goals was to separate the US from Europe. Looking back, we may think such a notion silly. However, one of the unspoken rules of the nuclear balance of power was that the US was going to have to be willing to put Chicago on the line to defend Munich from nuclear attack. Make the Americans think Munich wasn’t worth the price, and you’ve just driven a wedge between the US and Europe.

In the Twilight War, half of NATO dropped out in 1996. Presumably, France dropped out of the Atlantic Alliance, while Belgium, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal bailed on NATO. I’ve postulated that Soviet military action in February 1997 was designed to cause the Netherlands and Denmark to drop out. I propose that an attack against the Pacific Northwest would be intended to achieve a similar purpose.

Leg (I think) points out the long lead time involved in planning and assembling the men and materiel. Thus it is probably mere chance that has the Soviets land in Alaska and British Columbia after the tactical nuclear exchange begins but before the strategic exchange heats up. However, I’m sure the Soviets would have seen this as being to their advantage. With Red forces in Alaska and British Columbia and nukes flying the Europe and Asia, Canada might have been motivated to seek a separate peace. At the very least, the Canadians might have been motivated to redeploy their troops from Europe to the Pacific Northwest. By the same token, the US might have found herself unwilling to continue to support operations in Europe, the Middle East, and Korea until the situation in North America was resolved. Imagine the explosive reaction of American public opinion resulting from the presence of Soviet troops on American soil. From the Soviet standpoint, the loss of a dozen mostly second-rate divisions in the Pacific Northwest might easily be justified by more favorable results in Europe, the Gulf, or Korea as American logistical support and reinforcements flow to Alaska instead of overseas.

[ArmySGT.]

RCAF 777 I am going to use your post as my reply as it nicely prompts the ideas that have been rattling around my head like dice in a cup. No offense just segued nicely. Thanks.
Ok
Planning and Logistics aside what would be the need for a soviet invasion?
Keep troops in North States tried up so they can't be used in Mexico?
Oil? they could have just nuked it?
reclaim terrority?
Soviets were pioneers in Ice Breaker ships by necessity. Soviet Ice breaker squadrons could safely conduct Ivan Rogov class Landing ships to points along the Alaskan coast.

OIL. The Trans caucus ans Middle East oil fields are going to be to hotly contested to rely on, and taking Alaska secures an exploitable resource while damaging Allied supply.
Another point (Planning and Logistics)
If the soviets are going to wage war in Alaska, where are they going to land troops?
Resupply, how is it going to done, over sea by air? Nome, as like canon. Makes a centrally located Air head for tactical and strategic air operations. Supplied from Petropavlovsk and Vladivostok.
Prudhoe bay. Cuts off North America from up to one third of its supply crude oil. Soviet Icebreakers can convoy in Ivan Rogov class LSTs with material and troops year around, and bring guided missile ships for cover. While still being actively protected be the Soviet far eastern frontal aviation assets.
From Prudhoe bay the Soviet units can launch missions to seize the DEW line stations, to destroy or seize for their own purposes.
From Prudhoe Bay the Soviet units being better equipped to operate in the Arctic can drive south on the North Slope Haul Road and the repair road that parallels the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Soviet Engineer assets seizing the Pumping stations, and power plants along the way. Finally running into Fairbanks with an Assault on Ft. Wainwright and Eielson AFB.

Lines of Communcations? They are seperated by water from there major supply bases (Remember D-Day eventhing comes by boat or aircraft) and then how do you move stuff around trucks, long line of communcations (remember OIF when follow on forces were enaged by irrrgular formations)
Largely, so is Alaska. Albeit there is the ALCan Highway, most every thing moved into and out of Alaska is by ship. The Lines of Communications (LOC) for the Soviets will be shorter than for Americans and Canadians. The Soviet Navy can operate the full 12 months in the Arctic and Bering Seas due to the Nuclear powered Ice breaker fleet, and Ice breaker cargo ships. The Soviets can dominate the Bering sea with submarines and ASW warfare vessels supported by Surface warfare vessels and landbased Front Aviation assets. From those Landing ships the Pomorik class and other classes of hover craft can move supplies inland. Arctic tundra is just and good as water to move over for these machines. Any American forces in the area could be rapidly flanked and decimated by units supported by these machines in winter or summer.
Think about it the troops and other forces in Alaska know the ground, and Soviets don't, attacking troops who are ready for them and know the ground, you need a 3 to 1 ratio for an attack.
How much trouble do you think you can create if a forgien power invaded your back yard?
Soviets are all about meticulous preparation. While there is a higher preponderance of outdoors men in all of Alaska, the overall population is low, and would not be concentrated enough to be more than a nuisance to a Soviet Division. Soviets certainly believe in a scorched earth policy to deny havens to Partisans, they know Partisan operations very well.

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/AlaskaKamchatkaregion.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/KamchatkaRegion.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/AlaskaRegional.jpg

[rcaf_777]

The Canadian would better supplied locally than you think the Canadian Forces durring the cold always planed for Soviet Invasion of the North, the Speical Service Force was alsways intended to fight in Northern Canada should the Soviet attack, to this end Forward Operating Locations were built, the DEW sites were supplied and other shelters were placed in the North that would allow the Canadian and US Troops to fight

[Webstral]

Way OT:

Where's the plate boundary between North America and Asia? Looking at the images posted by ArmySGT, I'm reminded that North America and Asia are more solidly connected than North America and South America. Where is the plate boundary? North America and Asia are moving together, which implies that somewhere a mountain range is going up. Where is that?

[Ronin]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg

[Ronin]

Sorry, didnt realise how big the was!:eek:

[HorseSoldier]

Nome simply doesn't provide much an invader could need except a chance to say "we took something". I remain of the opinion that GDW didn't truly grasp the enormity of the region, its austerity, and the difficulty of trying to do anything major with the logistical limitations the terrain, minimal road net, and distances involved impose. As depicted the Soviets are basically setting themselves up to refight the Winter War in the forests of Finland, only this time with the notional Finns backed up by F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s.

[Legbreaker]

I remain of the opinion that GDW didn't truly grasp the enormity of the region, its austerity, and the difficulty of trying to do anything major with the logistical limitations the terrain, minimal road net, and distances involved impose.

No doubt that is correct, however what's to say the radically overstretched Soviet intelligence system wasn't in the same boat? With war being fought on almost all fronts, the best recce they would have been able to do may have been simply looking at maps and old aerial photos from before the war - basically the same sort of information GDW had access to when they were writing the game.

[HorseSoldier]

Nome simply doesn't provide much an invader could need except a chance to say "we took something". I remain of the opinion that GDW didn't truly grasp the enormity of the region, its austerity, and the difficulty of trying to do anything major with the logistical limitations the terrain, minimal road net, and distances involved impose. As depicted the Soviets are basically setting themselves up to refight the Winter War in the forests of Finland, only this time with the notional Finns backed up by F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s.

[Webstral]

Nome simply doesn't provide much an invader could need except a chance to say "we took something".

Perhaps that was the whole point. I don't think anybody here believes that the Soviets were trying to conquer the US by way of Alaska, just as no one believes Mexico was trying to conquer the US by invading in 1998. The Soviets had some other objective in mind. I've offered my interpretation, so I won't repeat it here. When the US didn't respond by pulling masses of troops out of Europe, the Middle East, or Korea, mission creep set in for the Soviets. They just kept pushing because the stop line was based on an American reaction, not a line on the map. Eventually, the invaders exhausted themselves, ran out of supplies, and ground to a halt. In the main body of Alaska, this meant withdrawing to Anchorage. Around Juneau, this meant turning coats or heading for the hinterland. In British Columbia, this meant turning warlord.

In a sense, the Soviet invasion of Alaska was a repeat of the invasion of China. The Soviets wanted a specific reaction, and when they didn't get it they were unable to prosecute the offensive to a satisfactory conclusion.

I do agree that GDW probably didn't grasp the Alaskan reality. Heck, I don't. Not really. But if any invader could grasp the realities of moving men and material across the trackless wastes of the North, it's the Soviets. True, they bungled Finland badly. Finland was a mistake of hubris, not genuine inability. Soviet troops in Siberia under Zhukov would have done much better had the Kremlin sent 200,000 of them to Finland.

[Legbreaker]

What Web said....

Here in Australia we have some seriously VAST distances between even marks on a map let alone anything of real note on the ground. Throw in the odd bit of rough terrain such as the Great Dividing Range which runs down the entire eastern coast of the country, or the HUGE deserts and there's some significant challenges to moving around. Even so, I still have difficulties grasping the Alaska situation (possibly due to maps around the poles being so out of whack normally).

The T2K situation can in no way be construed as a fully fledge invasion of North America. Given it was a strategic move with possibly political aims, it begins to make some sort of sense. Tactically it's ludicious.

[ArmySGT.]

Nome simply doesn't provide much an invader could need except a chance to say "we took something". Provides an Airhead with a supporting harbor and facilities. In the Bering sea which the US Navy woul d find difficult to contest only during the brief summer months. The Shallow crossing points between the Aleautian Islands multiply the effectiveness of a Soviet ASW effort. Combined with some surface warfare vessels and land based aircraft the Soviets can own the Bering Sea and all of the west and north coasts of Alaska.
Nome is centered on the west coast of Alaska with its Soviet counterpart Anadyr on the opposite shore. Roads depart north and south from Nome that while closed to civilians in winter now, the Soviets could open and run in all but the harshest storm. There are additional air fields north and south to move more assets over. The Airspace could be dominated by the Soviets along the west coast, north slope, most of the Aleutians by airbases and strips occupied on Alaskan soil.
I agree it not positioned best for a ground campaign but, once one starts Airborne and Logistical drops can go from there.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/AnadyrtoNome.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/NomeOverview.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/NomeHarboroverview.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/NomeHarborInnerside.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/TW2K/NomeAirfieldOverview.jpg

I remain of the opinion that GDW didn't truly grasp the enormity of the region, its austerity, and the difficulty of trying to do anything major with the logistical limitations the terrain, minimal road net, and distances involved impose. Which is all as you have stated, however it is 10% or 20% of the size of the Soviet Arctic. Issues the Soviets will have decades of practical and tested knowledge of dealing with.
Fighting in the Arctic will play right into the Soviets strengths. It will be just like home.
As depicted the Soviets are basically setting themselves up to refight the Winter War in the forests of Finland, only this time with the notional Finns backed up by F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. Not a fair comparison of the Soviets in the 1930s versus 2000. That’s like comparing Pershing’s punitive raid into Mexico to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Karelia forced the Soviets into a narrow frontage that is advantageous to the defender. The Red Army was still undergoing fundamental changes (voting on everything in ranks). Even the equipment was primitive by the standards of the time.

[RN7]

Could the Soviets pull off a succesfull invasion of Alaska? Well one way of looking at it would be to see what the US has in Alaska.

According to T2K the US has only three units in Alaska or across the Canadian border.

10th Infantry Division (Mountain)
1st Infantry Brigade (Arctic Recon)
2nd Infantry Brigade (Arctic Recon)

In real life other US forces where also in Alaska around or very near the time of the Twilight War accoring to what I could find.

US Army

6th Light Infantry Division (Fort Richardson) 1st Brigade (Fort Richardson)
2nd Brigade (Fort Wainwright)
6th Combat Aviation Brigade (Fort Wainwright)


Alaska Army National Guard

207th Infantry Group (Anchorage) 1-297th Infantry Battalion (Nome)
2-297th Infantry Battalion (Bethel)
3-297th Infantry Battalion (Kotzebue)
4-297th Infantry Battalion (Juneau)
5-297th Infantry Battalion (Anchorage)
1-207th Aviation Battalion ()

49th Missile Defence Battalion (Fort Greely)

Alaska State Defence Force

49th Readiness Brigade (Fort Richardson)

US Air Force

343rd Combined Wing (Eielson AFB)
18th TFS (A-10)
25th TASS (A-10)
11th TASS (A-10)

21st Tactical Fighter Wing (Elmendorf AFB) 43rd TFS (F-15A)
54th TFS (F-15A)

962nd AWACs: (Elmendorf AFB)
168th Air Refuelling Wing: Alaska ANG (Eielson AFB)
176th Wing: Alaska ANG (Elmendorf AFB)
210th Rescue Squadron: Alaska ANG (Kullis ANGB)

Military Bases in Alaska
Base Support Unit Kodiak: US Coast Guard
Big Mountain Air Force Station (1x 1,280m gravel): USAF
Casco Cove Coast Guard Station (1x 1,828m asphalt) Attu Island: US Coast Guard
Clear Air Force Station, Anderson: USAF
Fort Richardson (1x 1,273m asphalt), Anchorage: US Army
Fort Greely and Allen Army Airfield (1x 2,743m asphalt, 1x 1,864m asphalt, 1x 1,426m asphalt): US Army
Fort Wainwright and Ladd Army Airfield (1x 2,614m asphalt), Fairbanks: US Army
Eareckson Air Station (1x 3,048m asphalt/grooved), Shemya Island: USAF
Eielson Air Force Base (1x 4,429m concrete), Moose Creek: USAF
Elmendorf Air Base (1x 3,048m asphalt, 1x 2,288m asphalt), Anchorage: USAF
Kullis Air National Guard Base, Anchorage: Alaska National Guard
Naval Air Station Adak (1x 2,374m asphalt, 1x 2,318m asphalt), Adak Island: US Navy
Port Clarence Coast Guard Station (1x 1,372m asphalt): US Coast Guard

The navy has little or no presence in Alaska with the Coast Guard taking over much of its marine responsibility. The US Army and Alaskan forces are on the light side with no heavy armour, although the 6th Combat Aviation Brigade could give them some mobility and some anti-armour capability. Two USAF F-15 squadrons with AWACs are however a potent air defence capability, and three A-10 squadrons are very significant punch for such a remote location unless the US was actually expecting a Soviet invasion all along.

DEW Line and North Warning System Sites (NWS) in Alaska, NWT, Yukon
By the time of the Twilight War the DEW line had been decommissioned and replaced by the NWS. However many NWS stations were built on or near former DEW line stations.
Alaska
Barter Island, Flaxman Island, Lonely, Oliktok Point, Point Barrow, Wainwright
Northwest Territories
Bernard Harbour, Bray Island, Breevort Island, Broughton Island, Cambridge Bay, Cape Dyer, Cape Hooper, Cape McLoughlin, Cape Mercy, Cape Parry, Croker River, Dewar Lakes, Edinburgh Island, Gladman Point, Gloa Haven, Hall Beach, Harding River, Hat Island, Horton River, Jenny Lind Island, Keats Point, Lady Franklin Point, Lailor River, Liverpool Bay, Loks Island, Longstaff Bluff, Nicholson Peninsula, Pelly Bay, Resolution Island, Rowley Island, Shepherd Bay, Simson Lake, Storm Hills, Sturt Point, Tuktoyaktuk
Yukon
Komakuk Beach, Shingle Point, Stokes Point


To get a bridge head in Alaska the Soviets are going to have to take control of some of Alaska's air and sea ports to both land troops and equipment and keep them supplied.

Major seaport of Alaska
Port of Anchorage (Five docking berths at full seaway depth), Nome (Two docking berths at full seaway depth), Port Valdez (Oil terminal), Ketchikan (Ferry port), Juneau (Ferry port), Barrow, Kivilina, Nikiski, Prudhoe Bay. Either Anchorage or Nome have to be taken.

Major civilian airports of Alaska
Cold Bay Airport (1x 3,174m asphalt, 1x 1,291m asphalt) Aleutian Islands
Edward G. Pitka Sr. Airport (1x 2,209m asphalt/concrete, 1x 849m gravel) Galena
Fairbanks International Airport (1x 3,597m asphalt, 1x 1,981m asphalt, 1x 884m gravel, 1x 1,646m water) Fairbanks
Juneau International Airport (1x 2,578m asphalt, 1x 1,494m water) Juneau
Ted Stevens Anchorage international Airport (1x 3,531m asphalt, 1x 3,322m asphalt, 1x 3,231m asphalt) Anchorage

Other airports with asphalt and or concrete runways
Aniak (1x 1,829m asphalt), Annette Island (2,284m asphalt), Barrow (1x 1,981m asphalt), Bethel (1x 1,951m asphalt, 1x 567m gravel), Clear (1x 1,219m asphalt), Deadhorse (1x 1,981m asphalt), Gambell (1x 1,372m asphalt/concrete), Gulkana (1x 1,524m asphalt), Gustavus (1x2,049m asphalt, 1x 959m asphalt), Haines (1x 1,219m asphalt), Hoonah (1x 913m asphalt), Kake (1x 1,219m asphalt), Kenai (1x 2,309m asphalt, 1x 610m gravel), Ketchikan (1x 2,286m asphalt), King Salmon (1x 2,591m asphalt, 1,225m asphalt), Kotzbue (1x 1,798m asphalt, 1x 1,181m gravel),McGrath (1x 1,809m asphalt, 1x 524m asphalt), Nenana (1x 1,402m asphalt), Nome (1x 1,829m asphalt, 1x 1,700m asphalt), Palmer (1x 1,832m asphalt, 1x 1,102m asphalt, 1x 475m gravel), Petersburg (1x 1,829m asphalt), Point Hope (1x 1,219m asphalt), Red Dog Mine (1x 1,924m asphalt), Sitka (1x 1,981m asphalt), Skagway (1x 1,082m asphalt), Talkeetna (1x 1,067m asphalt), Tanacross (1x 1,554m asphalt, 1x 1,524m asphalt, Tok Junction (1x 765m asphalt), Unalakleet (1x 1,798m asphalt, 1x 579m asphalt), Wrangell (1x 1828m asphalt), Valdez (1x 1,981m asphalt), Yakutat (1x 2,261m asphalt, 1x 1,974m concrete)

Other airports
Akhiot (Kodiak Island), Akiak, Allakaket, Anvik, Arctic Village, Atqasuk, Bear Creek, Beluga, Big Lake Airport, Boswell Bay, Cape Sarichef (Aleutian Islands), Chevak, Chisana, Cordova, Council, Crooked Creek, Five Mile, Girdwood, Goose Bay, Granite Mountain, Grayling, Holy Cross, Hooper Bay, Icy Bay, Japonski Island, Kalskag, Karluk, Kasigluk, Kiana, King Cove, Kivalina, Kobuk, Koyukuk, Kwigillingok, Lake Hood, Larsen Bay, Manley Hot Springs, Manokotak, McCarthy, Minto, Nanwalek, Noorvik, Northway, Nyac, Old Harbour (Kodiak Island), Ouzinkie, Port Heiden, Russian Mission, Seldovia, Shaktoolik, Sheldon Point, Shungnak, Sitka, St. Michael, Stebbins, Ugnu-Kuparuk, Wales.

Chico did a good job at showing what the Soviet could throw at Alaska.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=747

[RN7]

I think the 6th Light Infantry Division was sent to Germany in T2K but some of its component units may still be in Alaska.

[Legbreaker]

So, many people here can't understand why the Soviets invaded Alaska....
Why would the American commanders think any differently and position any serious numbers of troops in the region?

The Soviets were well known to be heavily engaged on multiple fronts, and generally loosing on all of them in the first half of 1997. All available manpower was NEEDED to shore up those fronts.

The US (and Canadians) were engaged on multiple fronts, and still struggling to get all their units into play. Their focus was squarely on trouncing the Soviets as quickly as they possibly could.

It makes absolutely no sense at all for the US and Canadians to think a Soviet invasion was possible, let alone would be carried out, so therefore, there's no justification whatsoever for boosting the defending units in the Alaskan region.

Once the invasion actually occurred, nukes were being used all over the world, and especially in Europe, NATO was being pushed back under some very serious and almost overwhelming pressure. Every available unit was needed to stem the flow. Meanwhile in Alaska, the terrain may have been counted on to assist the few NATO units to hold back the Soviets. The resources simply were not available to do anything more than that, as to reduce troop levels elsewhere could have resulted in a complete collapse of that front.

Alaska is a sideshow, and a region which obviously had to be sacrificed by the US to avoid crushing defeat in more important theatres.

[Raellus]

Perhaps that was the whole point. I don't think anybody here believes that the Soviets were trying to conquer the US by way of Alaska, just as no one believes Mexico was trying to conquer the US by invading in 1998. The Soviets had some other objective in mind. I've offered my interpretation, so I won't repeat it here. When the US didn't respond by pulling masses of troops out of Europe, the Middle East, or Korea, mission creep set in for the Soviets. They just kept pushing because the stop line was based on an American reaction, not a line on the map. Eventually, the invaders exhausted themselves, ran out of supplies, and ground to a halt. In the main body of Alaska, this meant withdrawing to Anchorage. Around Juneau, this meant turning coats or heading for the hinterland. In British Columbia, this meant turning warlord.

This rationale makes the most sense to me. Soviet boots on American soil is a propaganda victory, if nothing more. If it could also divert American strength from the European theater, it's a double win. If American territory in Alaska could also be used as a bargaining chip in future armistice/peace negotiations, it's a triple win. It's a gamble, but someone in the Soviet leadership must have reckoned that the rewards were worth the risks (losing the units involved, weakening more critical fronts, the embarrasment of failure.) Audacity has won wars.

I'm not looking at the timeline, but does the Soviet invasion of Alaska precede, follow, or correspond with the NATO drive into Soviet territory? Perhaps the timing should be considered in the strategic picture.

[Legbreaker]

The invasion occurs just prior to the Soviet counterattack and the commencement of the use of nukes.
My guess is the Soviets had been planning to use nukes for some time and in an effort to maximise the disruption and chaos their opponents would experience, the insertion of Soviet troops into Alaska had to have been part of the overall strategic plan.

Nato are faced with the sudden nuking of their troops in the field, decimating their victorious (to date) armies and at the same time, the US are hit with an invasion at home. If you were the American leadership at this time, you'd be faced with some awful choices to make in very short order - do you react strongly in Alaska and remove the chance of US units in Europe receiving reinforcements and being wiped out, or do you give up the fight in more than a token manner in Alaska? I say the choice is fairly easy given that it's not JUST US troops on the line in Europe, but rather the fate of the entire Nato forces. You remove even part of the available military strength desperately retreating across Poland, and you end up with a rout which only stops at the French border (and perhaps not even then).

This isn't to say the US are THE main strength of Nato though - you take out nearly any of the other countries such as Britain and you've got the same result. What would happen though is those units barely able to escape the Soviet onslaught covered by "fresh" reinforcing units would instead have been overrun and destroyed.

[Webstral]

For the purposes of planning and executing an operation like invading Alaska from Siberia, the initiation of nuclear warfare and the invasion of Alaska are pretty much simultaneous. According to the Soviet Vehicle Guide [v1]the first Soviet units to land in Alaska land in July. The first use of nukes occurs on July 9, I believe. Leg may well be right in that the Soviets land in the first week of July. For all intents and purposes, though, the two events are concurrent. If the Soviets started planning and preparing for the invasion of Alaska before the nuclear balloon went up, so to speak, then we have to ask ourselves what the Soviets hoped to accomplish in a conventional war in Alaska.

It would take some nerve on the part of the President and the Joint Chiefs to ignore bellowing from Congress about throwing the Red menace off American soil. However, 1997 isn't an election year. Even the House of Reps would have another year of war before having to run again. Victory in Europe would obviate any Soviet successes in Alaska.

[Legbreaker]

I don't think it matters if the nukes and invasion occur in the same week. The same month would be more than enough to add to the general chaos.
Doesn't even really matter which came first - if the landing was first, then perhaps the US were already in the process of reassigning units for Alaska, but then the nukes hit. That right there could delay units hitting the field by a few days at least as their orders are changed in transit.
If the nukes came first, then a landing would only add to the general panic felt back at HQ. Already struggling to deal with the escalation and destruction of what a couple of days before were strong and victorious units, they're suddenly faced with having to deal with a whole new and totally unexpected front opening up at their back door.

All in all and no matter which way you look at it, it's a scary time to be in command. It's no wonder that a certain US president (Munson?) suffered a nervous breakdown a few months later (around Feb 98?).

[Grimace]

Wow, a discussion about Alaska and Twilight 2000 and I'm late to the party. Not sure how I missed this when it started. Oh well.

For what it's worth, I agree almost 100% with HorseSoldier on his assessment of Alaska (having lived there for 20 years, myself).

While I always liked the idea of an invasion of Alaska by Soviet forces, some of the directions they supposedly invade and locations they invaded, were just lunatic.

What a lot of people don't get about Alaska is that it doesn't have the infrastruture that other states or even other countries have. Sure, Alaska is "technology hot" in that they have internet and do a lot of things via satellite, cable, or wireless. But that's more due to necessity rather than advanced infrastruture. When you have a capital city that IS NOT connected to anywhere else by road (only access by sea or air to Juneau) you make up for that deficiency in other ways.

People can also use Google Earth to pull up pictures of things, but until you are actually there it's difficult to grasp the reality of the situation. I remember talking to someone in Montana a couple years ago who was planning on a trip to Alaska to go out into the boonies for a backpacking trip. They figured they'd just pop on to Highway 6, shoot up to Central in an hour, then take this "state route" to Beaver. He figured by flying into Fairbanks he could be at Beaver in a couple 2-3 hours. I had to break reality into his travel plans. What's listed as a "highway" in Alaska doesn't match a highway in the lower 48. What's listed as a "state route" in Alaska becomes a dirt road that's mostly muddy in summer and rutted and unplowed in winter, compared to state routes in the lower 48 that are kept in MUCH better shape.

And "taking Juneau" always made me laugh. Besides the "official" seat of government in Alaska, there's really no reason to go there. ALL of their food, fuel and supplies have to be shipped in by sea. Every bit of it! Only their power is supplied locally from a dam. You isolate the capital by sea and they'll give up without a fight.

As for the Soviets....yes, they are the best capable of even remotely performing this action. That is why I never discounted the idea and use it in my games. However, the splendid ability of the Soviets to move things through Siberia and across as the enormously vast areas of Asia sits squarely on their rail capacity. The Soviets (now Russians) have a very good network of rail and know how to use it. The problem is...when you get to Alaska, there's no rail anymore. So the Soviets will be out of their comfort zone. They certainly won't steamroll the rather pitiful Alaskan defenders and the Soviet supplies will dwindle severely.

Really, though, I enjoy reading these threads and it's good to see there's another person from Alaska that can do a bit more confirmation of what I've always said about the state.

(and yes, I hang my head in shame for not ever creating an Alaskan sourcebook)