View Single Post
  #25  
Old 09-08-2011, 08:39 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
...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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote