Attack this state,You be the General!!

[Brother in Arms]

Hey everyone I have posted about starting a campaign that is based on exactly where I am currently living (Burlington VT) I idea for the campaign involves invasion of the U.S. by Canadian troops.

But I have some questions:

What are important objectives in modern warfare? I know that in modern war capturing land of no importance. Obviously military bases, power plants and things of that nature perhaps but what to do about population centers? I assume because VT is the first tear of states that it would have to attack. The attack would be swift and devastating and push southward and onto more valuable states. But they would have to subdue everyone so that they wouldn't have resistance from behind.

Here is some information about the Area. Burlington is VT's largest city by population 38,889 people (as of the year 2000 census) surrounding towns Essex 18,626, Colchester 16,986 Willinger 7,650 Shelburne 6,944, Winooski 6,561,. All touching Burlington, this is the most densely populated area in the entire state. Also the towns western border is Lake Champlain which borders 50% of the states entire length from north to south! Also Burlington is not even 50 miles directly south of the Canadian Border. I think it would be a definite objective of a modern military as it has two military sites nearby Camp Johnson which is an active base and training center in Colchester, And there is the Underhill Artillery range nearby in Underhill. More importantly VT Air National Guard fly's out of Burlington International Airport.

I think Burlington would be attacked first before Montpelier, despite the fact that its the capitol. It only has a population of 8,035! But its only 40 Miles south east of Burlington.

So basically I want to know how a modern military would attack the small state of Vermont from the north? What they would attack? What you think they would do? Ignore nukes and think totally conventionally for now. I picture sort of a blitzkrieg kind of move like the invasion of Poland but given modern tactics there maybe a more realistic tactical plan.

The next largest city is further south Rutland 17,292 and its nearer to the middle of the state only 66 miles south of Montpelier. I think Burlington, Montpelier and Rutland would be the MaJor city objectives.

At the bottom of the state are only a few larger towns by population, Bennington15,737, and Brattleboro 12,005 and they are 50 miles to the direct south of Rutland and are at the edge of the states southern border.

here is a map to give you a better idea of the lay of the Land.

http://renaissanceguy.files.wordpres...ap-vermont.jpg

Give me some Ideas because I need the Canadian military to act in a realistic way as one of my players is an ex-marine. And I can't have a modern 1st world military do anything dumb in a place that they should easily take over.

So tell me how what why where to Attack this state!

Brother in Arms

[Targan]

I see the Canadian forces' biggest problem being that of logistics. Resupply will be difficult after Canada has been nuked back to the stone age half an hour after the invasion starts.

[kcdusk]

Maybe Canadas first stage is to infiltrate "undercover" soldiers (i hesitate to use the word spies, but soldiers embeded in USA waiting for the first wave). They may be abl to disrupt television and radio telecasts, USA fuel supply, sabotage airports, sow confusion among civilians, block major highways ...

Maybe these pathfinders have a part to play. I dont know exactly which path Canada might take. But they might have this kind of disruption ahead of them making things easier.

[pmulcahy11b]

LTC Shimmick, my PMS in ROTC, said the objective of modern warfare that made the most sense to me: "The objective of warfare is to break your enemy's will to fight."

[Fusilier]

So... you are gaming with the Canadians as the bad guys eh? Not sure how to take this (joking).

What size is the ground force? Are you playing with the canon timeline and all that? What is their long term objective (besides wining... occupation? or just force elimination? etc)

This is kind of interesting... when I was in the Army we used to have mock enemy nations that were usually US state sized like Vermont.

[Brother in Arms]

The game is going to be a 2013 game but I currently don't have the cannon for that game I just know that the Canadians are Opfor.

I haven't really considered what there objective is other than that the US is weak and its there opportunity to cut off a piece of the pie. Gain more ground south of there border. Most of the border states in the eastern U.S. are not heavily defended and many of them have large amounts of undeveloped land I.E. Maine!
So I am going with occupation, as for force elimination they really have no one to contend with but the VT National Guard. And any civilian resistance groups. The idea is to eventually create a game that develops into an insurgency campaign against Canadian forces...

The Size of the Attacking force can be as big as it needs to be or as small. I was thinking Russia invading Georgia. I really don't think VT could put up much of a fight without the actual U.S military backing them up (and since they will be way to busy they wont have much help) and since Canada will be attacking many states just south of there border, VT's invasion force would likely be smaller than some of the other more high priority states but they are actually pushing threw to the south to attack and occupy more states. I do think the initial sudden nature of the attack that Burlington and Montpelier specifically would be a easy feather in there cap.

I was thinking of a greater three prong attack from the North....the eastern prong Maine, NH, VT and Center prong New York. Western Prong Pennyslvania. The overall idea is the Eastern Prong moves quickly through Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (which would be the most difficult due to its size) and put pressure on Mass ,Conn, and Southern New york.

Center Prong attacks New york directly and the western prong hits Pennsylvania drives east across it and swings the door shut and everyone from Pennsylvania and New Jersy north is now in Canada. They May be doing more attacks in the west but i'm only focusing on the war in the east. At this point...

KCdust thanks for the Idea and Paul I was thinking the same thing the Canadians are going to be doing some dastardly deeds for sure Because I need the players to hate them enough to not just surrender to them. They have to be sure of being killed or put in prison camp.

come on guys give more Ideas...

This will be my first real twilight campaign.
Brother in Arms

[Earthpig]

That east coast stuff is all fine and dandy, but about 10-12 years ago a Canadian war plan, derived during the depression era,came to light. It involved invading down the Red River valley area of Minnesota/North Dakota hooking east go to then north up the Miissippi/St Croix river valleys taking the Twin Cities and finally taking Duluth. and then to defend/hold it till the US gave in on whatever the Canadians wanted. This does have the advantage of not trying to cross the St Lawerence waterway....and seizing some of the grain belt, although from what I understand the grain production capabilities during that time line are greatly lessened from drought and Nuke winter.

[Adm.Lee]

"Land is not important." In T2k, it sure could, depending on what you can grow or mine or process with that land!

A few thoughts without looking at a map:
Are you considering anything amphibious across Lake Champlain? Take a look at the French-Canadian and British invasion operations in the 1700's. Of course, they used the lake for transportation because it was easier than moving overland. Modern roads change that a lot.

If you're a modern military, and especially a small one like Canada's, you certainly want to avoid getting bogged down in urban fighting, so avoid the cities when possible.

{Aside: when I was in ROTC in NW Pennsylvania years and years ago, our hypothetical OpFor in exercises was the Fort LeBouef Liberation Front, an insurgent "band of Canadian sympathizers." Ft. L. was a French post on Lake Erie back in the colonial days.}

From the Depression days: the US also had an anti-Canadian war plan, color-coded Crimson.

[Webstral]

One does have to ask what the Canadians are trying to accomplish, with what resources against what opposition, and under what conditions.


Webstral

[jester]

Yes, Web, you have to ask did they do a cost benefit analysis? Is it going to cost more than what they will gain? I mean the resources they would expend in the initial offensive would be tremendous, and do they have the men?

Couple that with can they hold their new positions in what would most certainly be a hostile region with a counter attack comming in the near future, so could they even hold any gains they would make?

And then the scenario was similiar to the reason the mexican forces invaded the US SW presumably to protect its nationals, whereas Canada does it to prevent American refugees from overwhelming them.

Why? Its colder up there thus it would take more.

So why would anyone even consider going up north? Besides, going North is like going "uphill." Going South is easier as you are going "downhill"

[Grimace]

Invading Vermont would have to simply be a brief stepping stone to something more important. The only semi-secure area for the Canadians to use as a defensive measure against counter-attack from other Guard units (New York and New Hampshire) is Lake Champlain. The bad news is that you have the largest population center along that lake as well (in the state). The eastern side of the state has a very long stretch of reseviors, but there's so many access points across them that there would be little way to secure that border.

Another slight plus is that the Americans don't have an "easy" north-south access route from the lower half of the state to the upper half of the state. If Canada was able to control/secure I-89, they could essentially cut the state in half.

The big problem is you'd probably need a division or two of troops to take the state. If Canada is throwing that much at Vermont, then they've got a lot less to throw at the other "prongs" of your invasion.

Plusses are: Vermont is small. Travel is quick. They can hit things really quickly if they move with a purpose.

As Moehoender suggested, take out the airfield and known locations of guard facilities. The sheer quantity of people in Burlington will make it so that trying to "take" the town would turn into a long, drawn out battle.

Hit Burlington, make the airfield unusable. Blow 4 bridges along Lake Champlain and you've effectively cut that portion of the state off from New York. Blockade Burlington on I-89. Move southeast to Montpelier and take the governor. Get him to call off the National Guard. Make him appeal to the other states that Vermont is "fine" if no one comes in. As long as no other forces go into the state, the Canadians won't start killing Americans.

On the eastern side of the state, you've got White River Junction that needs to be secured, as well as St. Johnsbury. If Canada doesn't do that, you'll have New Hampshire National Guard coming over in the relatively near future.

On the southern end of the state, you'll have big problems. The best north-south route is I-91. You'll end up with Massachusetts and New York national guard units moving up, as well as any guard units in southern Vermont that might be in Brattleboro (I'm not familiar with where various guard units are located in the state). So in that regard, White River Junction again becomes a pivotal choke point. That's where I-89 and I-91 meet. If Canada gets and holds that area, they cut the fastest way north-south and east-west.

Then, depending on where the forces of Canada go after quickly trying to subdue Vermont, they can launch out of the state. If New Hampshire is next, they have two avenues of quick strikes. If they want to hit Massachusetts next to completely try to cut off the upper east portion of the U.S., they can head south down I-91. Doing that, though will be rather harsh, as they'll have to fight through the southern part of Vermont than has now probably been reinforced with NY and MA National Guard units.

Canada would also have to send a force to deal with Rutland, as it seems to be a fairly major stepping stone for NY into Vermont. So secure that area with a Brigade or something, either at the same time as Canada is going for White River Junction or a little before. Put good units there, as you'll likely be fighting against a couple of state's NG units.

As far as what Canada would be going for, I could only guess. If they wanted territory, they'd probably want to "cut off" a portion of the U.S. Vermont/Massachusetts would do it, as would just taking New York. New York is probably one of the hardest to take that way, but it certainly gives a lot more area to Canada. VT/MA is easier to take, but yields less land, less resources, and leaves a likely sizable NY NG sitting right next door.

So it all depends on what Canada is going for. They're not going to get a lot of food resouce out of this area, and land might be worthwhile, but you'll end up with a lot of people hating your guts. So unless you plan on wiping out a bunch of Americans, you're not going to be populating this area anytime soon. So you're just left with quick natural resources you can take out of country fairly quickly, and various materials that are already in-state that you can secure.

[Brother in Arms]

This is great stuff you guys exactly what I was looking for.....also how could I forget White river Junction indeed a very important place.

I was thinking one target for the canadians would be century arms...the factory I used to work at. They produced about a thousand AK's day there and have thousands of rifles and rounds of ammunition already available that could be handed out to civilians in the time of the crisis. It would not be a hard place to break into or hold up if even just by smart criminals....a military force could easily capture it or more likely just blow it right off the map.

What about blow up montpelier as a show of military force? Just destroy the capitol completely there really is nothing good there worth taking.

I was also thinking what about not take the whole state down to Rutland.

Brother in Arms

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

This is great stuff you guys exactly what I was looking for.....also how could I forget White river Junction indeed a very important place.

Me too . I haven't been there in five years that must be why, but that's no excuse.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

What about blow up montpelier as a show of military force? Just destroy the capitol completely there really is nothing good there worth taking.

Even with suspending disbelief at the scenario, I'd say that would be out of the question. For that matter I'm still having difficulty thinking about suggestions as they would have to be very hard pressed to carry out the thing in the first place. But here goes some...

JTF would be sent in first for covert intelligence gathering, leadership elimination, and sabotage (they are our SAS/Delta equivalent).

The Canadian infantry takes pride in its foot patrolling capabilities. I'd image initial deep penetration by platoons and companies getting into far before the shooting begins to secure/raid targets like those mentioned.

We don't have any realistic vehicle replacement ability. What we have is basically all we get. Commanders would be taking this into consideration for their missions/tasks. On this point, looking at Afghanistan for example, we usually get all upset when 2 men lose their lives... I'd image minimizing casualties to be higher on the priority list than accomplishing the mission.

We don't have the manpower for complete urban occupation. They'd resort to controlled cordon&search operations, disarm/pacify it, then move on to the next neighborhood.

I would imagine Canada's biggest problem would be its reluctance to be a brutal opponent. I hesitate to use the word 'soft' to describe them. They won't bomb the hell out of anything except as a last resort. Limited amount of firepower and damage - use only what you need to get the mission done. While taking pains to ensure a low civilian casualty rate is a good thing, I'd image this might also be also a problem in dealing with guerrillas/insurgents. I mean on an exaggerated scale this would be similar to the ills the US is facing in Iraq. Course the flip side is when they are feeding you and trying not to kill you, you win over people.

Just some opinions.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Another slight plus is that the Americans don't have an "easy" north-south access route from the lower half of the state to the upper half of the state. If Canada was able to control/secure I-89, they could essentially cut the state in half.

Thanks, I couldn't remember the name of that interstate. I made a mistake between 89 and 95. Actually, I never paid full attention to the number I just know the way either from Montreal or from Boston.