YaATW2KT: The Soviet's Aleutian Front

[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.