View Single Post
Old 05-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688

In all seriousness, the logistical situation could be used to explain the otherwise inexplicable pattern in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. The Soviets who have been cut off in Anchorage don't have the force of numbers one might think if they are out of ammunition, spare parts, fuel, etc. It doesn't take a lot of men with high-powered rifles to make passage through mountainous and forested areas too difficult to contemplate for an infantry-based force accustomed to fighting with AFV support. Again, the sheer distances involved in the Pacific Northwest might be the best defense the Allies have. The US forces at Fairbanks, limited though they are, probably have the enthusiastic support of the local population. The Soviets will have whatever support they can squeeze out of the locals. This makes a big difference.

After a certain time, the Soviets are going to be a lot more worried about securing enough food than about pressing an offensive for Mother Russia. Let's face it: Mother Russia hung them out to dry. It won't take long for the average rifleman to figure that out. Once that happens, morale will go into the toilet. Once that happens, it won't take much to put a stopper in any Soviet offensive action out of Anchorage cantonment. Although the ratio of forces might suggest, on the surface, total domination by the Soviets, I think there is a LOT more to the picture.

Reply With Quote