YaATW2KT: The Soviet's Aleutian Front

[sglancy12]

The Soviet Invasion of Alaska (and Canada) in the original TW2K canon is one of my favorite aspects of the Twilight War.

Why? Mostly because it's one of the few spots you can get a real Red Dawn moment or two: The Red Army on US soil!

Is it very likely as proposed in the original material? Um... no. Pretty much impossible actually. In the cannon, the Sovs hit sometime in the summer of 1997, before the limited strategic nuclear exchange. This is a USSR that has been fighting the PRC for two years, the US for one year... and the Pacific fleet never had much sea-lift capacity to begin with. Hell, the Soviet Navy never had much sealift capacity anywhere.

More problems include: the unlikely idea that soviet airborne would seize the area around Seward and the Arctic Mechanize units would cross so much of the Alaskan wilderness to get to Fairbanks and Anchorage. I mean, there are no roads out there and the Reds would have to cross hundreds of miles of wilderness... which alternates between bug-infested swamp in the summer and frozen waste in the winter.

How are they supposed to manage that with a supply chain that starts somewhere down around Vladivostok? Not counting the too-narrow trans-Siberian railroad before even getting to Vladivostok, the rest of that supply chain would be by sea. There are no rail lines or roads connecting the settlements of the Soviet North-east. The US Fleet out in the Atlantic might be mauled, but the fleet in the pacific would have only been fighting the sov's small Pacific Fleet with the aid of the PRC navy and the Japanese Self Defense forces. The Soviet Pacific fleet would have been squashed and in no position to execute an invasion... even if the Sovs just piled as many men as possible onto merchant ships, the US Navy and Naval Aviation would have slaughtered them in the water before they could make landfall at Anchorage.

... not to mention that most of the units involved in the canon invasion are third and forth line troops... but perhaps that explains why so many defected to NATO or went marauder.

Anyways... I WANT the soviets to invade Alaska. Why? Because it's fun! I want "Ruskies" on my doorstep, dammit! I want some Red Dawn action! If such an invasion is impossible as written, how do we fix it? What events could likely take place that would render a Soviet Alaskan invasion less technically (and logistically) implausible?

Well, I've got two things in my Alternate Timeline that could make the invasion of Alaska (and British Columbia) more plausible.

1) The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are not at war... In fact, there is a Sino-Soviet alliance. This provides two benefits to the Soviet invader:

A) No Soviet Far Eastern divisions will be getting chewed up in the Manchurian meat-grinder. Plenty will be send into Central Asia, Iran and Europe, but this will still leave a great deal more Soviet hardware (and frontline troops) to throw at the problem of invading Alaska. More Soviet Divisions attacking means more heroic stands against incredible odds by US and Canadian forces.

B) The combined Sino-Soviet fleet is giving the US Pacific Fleet a hard time... not because the Chinese are storming the beaches of Oahu... but because large amounts of the US fleet is pinned down trying to keep South Korea from being blockaded AND because the Chinese are going all-out to take Taiwan. With the US Army tied down in Korea, the Persian Gulf and Europe, defending Taiwan falls to the US Navy. Overburdened with this Herculean task, perhaps attrition in the Pacific has led to a situation where, combined with a massive intelligence failure (which we in the US seem prone to now and again) a Soviet sea-borne invasion of the Alaskan coast could be achieved.

2) I've moved the Invasion of Alaska back until the winter after the Soviet Thanksgiving Day sneak attack. That way the US is reeling from the attack and the Soviets were ready for the US counter-attack. The window of vulnerability caused by the attacks might also give the Soviets a leg up on pulling off the invasion.

I know that this subject has been addressed before in other threads, but if you have already addressed this subject, could you please do so again, even if you just cut and past your earlier comments, or even comments by others that you think are most pertinent to the subject.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Targan]

We have had extensive discussions on this topic before. I grabbed this link from the thread map.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=178

[jester]

I posted my thoughts on a Soviet Sino alliance years ago, I'll dig it up. But in most of my campaigns where it is applicable I include it. I wrote up a campaign where the PCs are part of a drive into the Chinese mainland a token force to support the Taiwaneese who are also supporting a Free Chinese Army, as I put China in a Civil War where elelments of its society want to break free from Communism but the old guard wants to regain control, toss in some natual disaster which they have often enough, and economic disaster which can ferment alot of discord and some of their plans that uproot or disenfranchise the rural population and you can whip up a civil war fairly quickly, I have Taiwanese helping sew the seeds of discord of course and then making a drive to establish a foothold on the mainlaind and reclaim their homeland.

[Mohoender]

I think that you get the soviet supply line wrong. Of course the main supply bases are Vladivostok and Komsomolsk-na-Amure but you forget about Magadan.

In addition, the entire Kamchatka and most of the soviet area near Alaska was a military zone at the time, possibly allowing them an alternate supply line to start the invasion.

Yes the invasion is conducted by third line units but it is spearheaded by a small elite force of artic and naval units, perfectly suited for the job.

The soviets might have had prewar plans to invade Alaska.

Of course, I agree with what you say about the navy but IMO the russians are using mostly large air cushion vehicles and if these operate under winter condition they simply cannot be intercepted by the US Navy.

Another point comes from the fact that the allies underestimate the soviets. The attack is entirely unexpected and probably considered impossible: too few units are deployed to meet that threat. In addtion, they arrive late.

At last, I don't consider that the soviet were concerned with long term supply. This attack is to succeed or fail and the units would have to survive mostly on supplies found in the conquered area most like the Rundstedt offensive in the Ardennes (1944). Their only concern would be ammunitions.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I think that you get the soviet supply line wrong. Of course the main supply bases are Vladivostok and Komsomolsk-na-Amure but you forget about Magadan.

Okay, sure. Magadan is a fairly big city (90K inhabitants or so) on the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, and it has road links into central Yakustk area for exploitation of minerals, but it's got little in the way of military production. It's isolated from the rest of the USSR except by sea and air links. It's an island of civilization in the wilderness.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

In addition, the entire Kamchatka and most of the soviet area near Alaska was a military zone at the time, possibly allowing them an alternate supply line to start the invasion.

Weapons and supplies could be stockpiled there, but there is no military production facilities out there. There are no machine parts plants, no rail connections, no ammunition plants. The area couldn't support a military effort, but yes, there could be stockpiled supplies. In fact I think it might be amusing if the stockpiled supplies were left over from the 1950s or even earlier. That way some of the troops in the Mobilization Only divisions show up in Alaska are armed with T-34s, PPSh-41s, and maybe a Sturmovik or two.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Yes the invasion is conducted by third line units but it is spearheaded by a small elite force of arctic and naval units, perfectly suited for the job.

I suppose that holds up, and its not the elite forces that defect, surrender or turn marauder. But if I ditch the Sino-Soviet war I can add some well-equipped Catagory I MRDs into the mix. Or maybe an extra Air-Mobile or Naval Infantry Brigade?

Originally Posted by Mohoender

The soviets might have had prewar plans to invade Alaska.

I'm positive that they did. I mean, otherwise someone at the Red Army is totally slacking off. At some point wasn't there some plan of Stalin's in the late '40s or early '50s to invade across the Bering Sea? Something like 1/2 million men were supposed to be stationed in the Chukotski Peninsula? A plan like that sounds miserable for the men and bit naive of Stalin. Maybe their rusty old supplies, still left in storage from the Korean War era, are scrounged up and used for the Twilight War invasion?

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Of course, I agree with what you say about the navy but IMO the russians are using mostly large air cushion vehicles and if these operate under winter condition they simply cannot be intercepted by the US Navy.

Well, sure... if they are on the land or over ice, the US Navy cannot intercept... but at sea? Sure hovercraft are faster than most warships, but even one Coast Guard cutter with a 76mm deck guns would cause serious havoc if it encountered the invasion force. Not only that but hovercraft have the reputation of being easy to spot from the air. US military aviation would tear them to pieces unless the Soviets had a credible air cap... which is a whole other problem for the Aleutian Front.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Another point comes from the fact that the allies underestimate the soviets. The attack is entirely unexpected and probably considered impossible: too few units are deployed to meet that threat. In addtion, they arrive late.

I agree completely that the US is vulnerable to this sort of error. Gee, it's not like we didn't do it in 1941 and 2001.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

At last, I don't consider that the soviet were concerned with long term supply. This attack is to succeed or fail and the units would have to survive mostly on supplies found in the conquered area most like the Rundstedt offensive in the Ardennes (1944). Their only concern would be ammunitions.

I can imagine some Soviet planners (safe in a bunker under the Urals somewhere) deciding that the supply problems can be relieved by "local requisition." The reality is that the Soviet units would just about have to pick a place clean to keep moving, much like Sherman's army through Georgia in 1864... or more like a horde of army ants.

And considering how "gentle" the Red Army is at the best of times, I can't imagine their "inventory and requisition" activities among the Alaskan and Canadian locals are going to win them any friends. In fact, if I move the invasion back to the winter of 1997-1998, then much of the fuel and food the commandeer is going to result in locals starving and freezing during the winter. That's going to breed some very bitter, determined partisans... and when you consider how well armed Alaska is as a state... the Mujahedeen won't have nothing on Alaska's Sourdoughs.

So, do you have any other suggestions as to how the invasion's plausibility can be raised?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Matt Wiser]

None at all; the main objections are given in the thread that was from the previous board. While the Soviets may have had plans for an Alaska invasion, it's highly unlikely that those plans could've been implemented. Even if Stalin told his planners to draw up a plan for an invasion of Alaska, I'll bet they came up with one just to please the dictator and keep their asses out of a Gulag, even if the planners knew that any Soviet invasion of Alaska was practically impossible. Lack of basing infrastructure in the Soviet Far East (and those bases can be hit by carrier air), dependence on sea and air supply (which can be interdicted), few roads in Alaska, and U.S. Air and Naval power that would make the entire adventure a very bloody mess, and result in Soviet defeat. Even if some airborne and amphibious forces do get into Alaska successfully, without resupply of ammo and fuel, they're not going anywhere, and U.S. forces would eventually mop them up.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

None at all; the main objections are given in the thread that was from the previous board. While the Soviets may have had plans for an Alaska invasion, it's highly unlikely that those plans could've been implemented. Even if Stalin told his planners to draw up a plan for an invasion of Alaska, I'll bet they came up with one just to please the dictator and keep their asses out of a Gulag, even if the planners knew that any Soviet invasion of Alaska was practically impossible. Lack of basing infrastructure in the Soviet Far East (and those bases can be hit by carrier air), dependence on sea and air supply (which can be interdicted), few roads in Alaska, and U.S. Air and Naval power that would make the entire adventure a very bloody mess, and result in Soviet defeat. Even if some airborne and amphibious forces do get into Alaska successfully, without resupply of ammo and fuel, they're not going anywhere, and U.S. forces would eventually mop them up.

I have no real way to prove what I'm saying here (it would need extensive research and access to highly classify materials). But I think that the soviets had plans for military actions in remote Siberia since the early 1920's (all their major units were training there from time to time). In fact, the reason doesn't lay in a will to invade Alaska but it was motivated by a will to defend that access. Russia never invaded Alaska but US invaded Russia through Siberia. Operation were taking place in that region between 1919-1920 and the US and the Japanese progressed far in Russian territory. Ever after that, the soviets never neglected that area.

In addition, the West always underestimated the soviets supply capability there which is IMO insane. Just as a reminder, a large part of the Russian factories were transfered to Siberia in 1941 after the Nazi attack. That transfer took place in the worse of time and these factories were fully back in line only in a matter of month. Whatever your opinion on the USSR, this is outstanding and remain outstanding.

The Northern Sea Route was also always important. During WW2 it was very active and instrumental in soviet victory.

[Mohoender]

I agree with everything you are saying but as you said, the idea is mainly fun. Nevertheless, I still think that several of the difficulties can be overcome.

First, I always assume that the attack took place in winter in order to negate the naval threat. The other reason being the one you gave: the Soviet Pacific Fleet lay at the bottom of the sea.

Second, numerous teams could have been landed or shipped long before the attack to ease the troops progression.

I agree that Magadan is fairly remote but it's not only linked by road, it is also linked to the Transiberian.

I agree that these forces are cut from industrial centers but, by the time of the attack, most of these are gone anyway.

Stockpiles might not be that old because the soviet always had a tendency to maintain well equipped units in the far east regions. In addition, this has always been the trial area for new equipments. The first units to be equipped with BMP-3 and T-80 were located there.

At last I forgot about one supply line which proved to be very important in past war for Russia (WW2). It is also largely neglected by everyone else: it is the Northern Sea Route. We talked about it with Jester who ran an interesting campaign around this (saddly I had no time to play it). This was traveled already in the early 1900's and opened by the Russian as early as the 1930's. As a result, every small harbor on the northern soviet coast is designed to support convoys going that way. As a matter of fact, even to these days, Russia remains the only country with the capability to maintain that route open.

http://athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-nepass.htm

Even during the cold war, US had no real way to stop that traffic as it had too few icebreakers. The soviets, however, had about 10 nuclear icebreakers and several dozen regular ones. In addition, given the time of the supposed landing, they would not have to fear much from airstrike. With the failure of the NATO attack on Murmansk, this route will remain open and it is doubtful that NATO destroyed these small unimportant fishing ports.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Targan

We have had extensive discussions on this topic before. I grabbed this link from the thread map.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=178

Thanks. If anyone else can recommend a previous thread that would be pertinent to the discussion of the logistical and technical hurtles to getting the Soviets stuck into mainland Alaska.

Would anyone else find it useful if I were to just add a post filled with links to earlier discussions of this topic?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Targan]

Another previous thread.

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

[rcaf_777]

I have a couple of ideas of how the invasion of Canada including a pitch battle at Beaver Creek in the Yukon

[Grimace]

In order to affect an effective invasion of Alaska, the Soviets would have to have certain things happen in advance. A majority of the based forces in Fairbanks and Anchorage would have to be shipped overseas to some place. Without doing that, you've got entirely too much American forces in Alaska. They be able to completely stymie any invasion attempt. You know that addage that they chanted back during the D-Day amphibious invasion? "If the Allies get stopped on the beaches, the invasion fails." Well the same thing would apply to a Soviet invasion of Alaska.

Once certain things happened, and assuming the Soviets were desperate enough and desired to "save a nuke" and use men instead, they could invade. Key places they'd need to take out:

Fairbanks
Anchorage area (yes, the entire area, including the Matanuska valley)
Kodiak Island (at least the major Coast Guard station there)
isolate the Seward Peninsula
Valdez
Tok

Outside of Alaska, they'd need to take:
Whitehorse, Yukon Territories
Prince Rupert, British Columbia

Key choke points, for either side:
Whittier Highway coming out of Whittier and going into Anchorage. Can basically seal off the entire Seward Peninsula this way.

Highway 2 (The Al-Can) that runs from Beaver Creek, Yukon Territory to Tok, Alaska. (Yes, there's an even smaller junction a bit east of Tok called Tetlin Junction that also controls a very rough, dirt road called State Highway 5 that leads up to Chicken, Eagle, and across the border to Dawson, Yukon Territories and eventually Stewart Crossing, Yukon Territories. Take and hold these and you seal the main body of Alaska off by land.

Haines Junction - Whitehorse (both in Yukon Territories). They control the roads that lead out of Southeast Alaska. The rather meager forces in Southeast Alaska would have a beast of a time fighting their way out overland if those roads were taken and held by the Soviets.

Neutralize the airfields at Yakutat and Cordova. They're not military airfields, but they are large and were once WW2 military airfields. No real roads going out of those places to anywhere worthwhile in Alaska, but those airfields could be a very, very good staging point for American forces to get back into Alaska by air. If the Soviets can neutralize these areas, and keep them neutralized, they won't have to worry about them.

Prudhoe Bay. People seem to think if you take the pipeline you control the oil. Well, if Prudhoe Bay stops pumping the oil, the only thing you've got further down is an empty pipeline. Worthless. So if you're going in to get crude oil (not really going to be able to refine much of this at all in Alaska, no major refineries there), you'll need both Prudhoe Bay and key points along the Alaska Pipeline.

Control the Inside Passage. If you take Prince Rupert and can get the Inside Passage mined, you can cut off supplies to the entire Southeast Panhandle of Alaska. They go into starvation and lack of fuel and eventually surrender. Don't have to throw any military into that mess. Any Soviet forces venturing into Southeast Alaska is likely going to be chewed up...by a couple squads of Army Reservists and the wildlife/insect like/plant life.

Now getting all of this done in an expedient time is another task, and probably the most difficult. Gotta start in winter when the ground is hard. Doing it in summer is suicide. Get in, take the areas, set up defenses and hope that the Americas are foolish and attack in summer. (Which they won't, because the Alaska National Guard would tell them what to do with themselves if they were ordered to attack in summer).

So winter offenses only. Hunker down and defend in summer and scrounge, scrounge, forage and scrounge...because you'll need it. It would suck to be the Soviet forces stationed in Fairbanks. Ugh! Cold as you've probably never seen it.

Hopefully this helps a little.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

How are they supposed to manage that with a supply chain that starts somewhere down around Vladivostok? Not counting the too-narrow trans-Siberian railroad before even getting to Vladivostok, the rest of that supply chain would be by sea. There are no rail lines or roads connecting the settlements of the Soviet North-east. The US Fleet out in the Atlantic might be mauled, but the fleet in the pacific would have only been fighting the sov's small Pacific Fleet with the aid of the PRC navy and the Japanese Self Defense forces. The Soviet Pacific fleet would have been squashed and in no position to execute an invasion... even if the Sovs just piled as many men as possible onto merchant ships, the US Navy and Naval Aviation would have slaughtered them in the water before they could make landfall at Anchorage.

A Russian (or anybody's) invasion and occupation of the US by ground forces has always struck me as unrealistic for the same reason -- it's logistically impossible to pin down that much ground. (And the Russians would probably have to pin down Canada at the same time, to prevent its use as a staging base for the re-taking of the US.) For the same reason, a conventional invasion of Russia is impossible, as would be an invasion of China or India. If nothing else, the Iraq War has shown us that even smaller countries can prove to be difficult if not impossible to totally pin down.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

A Russian (or anybody's) invasion and occupation of the US by ground forces has always struck me as unrealistic for the same reason -- it's logistically impossible to pin down that much ground. (And the Russians would probably have to pin down Canada at the same time, to prevent its use as a staging base for the re-taking of the US.)

I agree completely that such an invasion would be unsuccessful in any strategic sense. The question is whether we can craft a way to plausibly get upwards of 12 Soviet Divisions landed in Anchorage, and Juneau, and end up with them spread out along the Can-Am highway and the coastal northwest between Whitehorse and Vancouver Island.

Or does the soviet deployment to isolated places like Queen Charlotte Island and Juneau just seem ridiculous?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing