The Pacific

[kato13]

DeaconR

The Pacific

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've heard a lot of heated and increasingly irritated debate about this subject, and I thought it would be good to find a more pleasant way of discussing it.

What I'd really like is for those who have an alternate view of what should have happened that (and I MUST emphasize the importance of this point) makes the game still playable by the Twilight2000 standard should post their views here. Let us know what you think could have happened. And then how could a good TW2000 game be played in the Pacific regions in accordance with what you imagine would happen in your campaign version?

I kind of like Webstral's ideas about the Winter War btw.


DeaconR





************
chico20854

To set the stage, the Soviet Pacific amphib fleet (in 1996, from the Naval War project) consisted of:

2 Ivan Rogov LPDs
5 Ropucha LSTs
5 Alligator LSTs
At least 4 Polnocny LSMs
At least 5 Pomorik large ACVs

Air cover potentially provided by the Varyag conventional carrier and 2 Kiev VSTOL carriers.

The v1 timeline states that Spetsnaz raids begin in June 97, before the war went nuclear, and in response to American deep penetration raids into Siberia. The Soviets main attack is launched by the 6th Air Assault division and 2 Arctic mechanized brigades. They drive the 1st Arctic Recon Bde out of the Aluetians to Anchorage, where the 2nd Bde is garrisoned. They are reinforced by remnants of the 10th Mtn Division (flown in from Norway) and the 47th ID, a National Guard division which relieved the 6th ID when it deployed to Norway the preivous year, forming the X Corps. X Corps is driven out of most of Alaska in July, over the Canadian border. In August 3 Motorized Rifle Divs land near and capture Juneau, while others land on the coast of BC. Total Soviet forces committed to the Alaskan sector are 1 tank division, 8 Motor Rifle Divisions, an air assault division, a Naval infantry bde and 2 Arctic mech bdes, supported by a transport hovercraft regiment, while X Corps has 2 infantry divisions and 2 separate brigades, plus Canadian forces.
In Spring 1998 a counteroffensive is launched which is fairly successful in driving the Soviets out. At Christmas 1998, Juneau is recaptured, helped by local partisans. The war winds down from there as both sides turn to survival...
(Check out the histories of the 10th, 47th and 104th US Infantry divisions, the 2 Arctic Bdes, and the Soviet 76th Tank, 7th, 14th, 41st, 62nd, 113th, 114th, 120th, 147th Motor Rifle Divisions, 6th Air Assault Division, 1st Naval Infantry Bde and the 2 Arctic Mech Bdes in the respective vehicle guides).

My thoughts:
I'm more from the school of "this is the canon we have to work with. Given what we know now, it doesn't seem like it's too reasonable. But let's figure out how this can work." It applies to the naval war in general. I'd speculated in the Soviet naval strategy document on some of the things that allowed the Soviet navy to do so well in the Naval war, trying to explain the Battle of the Norwegian Sea, for example.

As part of the naval war project, I'd like to go into more detail on how the Soviet offensive works. The US Pacific fleet is (as Law has pointed out) mighty, but it also has a huge area to cover. The Soviet Pacific fleet is also quite a force to be reckoned with, although it is oriented towards protecting its bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlosk and the missile subs in the Sea of Oshkoshk, along with Eastern Siberia in general. At the same time, it has sent essentially disposable units throughout the Pacific (all the way to Chile, off the Panama Canal, in Antarctic waters and especially in the Philippines and Indonesia) to disrupt NATO shipping and force the US navy to disperse to hunt them all down.

The USN, on the other hand, has to run convoys to Korea (to support the fighting there), China (to keep its ally in the war), Iran (to support Centcom), to Hawaii and Alaska (US States!), and worry about unescorted ships carrying vital economic materials, like computer chips for fire control radars from Taiwan, ore from Australia, oil coming back from the Persian Gulf, etc. On top of this, it has to devote carriers to wiping out the Soviet base in Vietnam, containing the main force of the Soviet Pacific fleet, giving air support to US forces in Korea (and their Chinese allies), reinforcing Japanese air defenses (and possibly supporting a landing in the Kuriles) and maybe attacking Soviet bases (and industry) in Eastern Siberia.

So both navies have their plates full. Some things that the Soviets did to knock back American naval power include mining, special forces attacks on supporting bases, deception, and careful coordination for combined arms attacks. Add to that some previously secret weapons (such as the 200-knot torpedo and a special anti-AWACS air-to-air missile).

(As an aside to Law, an Aegis cruiser, configured for a Cold War fight against the Soviets, doesn't have much anti-surface firepower. Most of those VLS cells are filled with SAMs to counter mass Soviet missile attacks rather than Tomahawks, leaving 8 Harpoons for anti-surface work. The harpoon is great for attacking missile boats or frigates, but a Kirov or Slava will need a lot more, while a SS-N-22 is no joke, with a heck of a lot bigger warhead. 8 Harpoons fit on a Pegasus hydrofoil, while 8 SS-N-22s fit on a Sovremmy class destroyer! For the anti-surface fight, the USN needs to commit a battleship group, several SSNs, or 2 or more carrier battle groups. For the 1986 ops against Libya, 3 CVBGs were used in the March anti-ship strikes, while El Dorado Canyon had 2 CVBGs plus F-111s out of England.)

With all that, I still don't see how the Soviets can pull it off. 11 Divisions is a huge force to support, even if a few of them are lighter forces (air assault, naval infantry). The distances are huge, the infrastructure sucks (no rail or road, everything must go by air or by sea). The Soviet merchant fleet and fishing fleet is large, but without air cover they'd be massacred. Likewise, an airlift is limited in the amount of supplies it can move, the distances and the few airbases in Eastern Siberia. The US has much the same problem of infrastructure and distances.

One idea that can help is the overcommitment of US forces worldwide. The US has high intensity operations going on in Norway, Poland, The Balkans, Turkey, Iran, Korea and Alsaka in June-July 1997. Casualties are high everywhere, equipment and supplies are being consumed at a huge rate, reserve stocks are almost gone and people and units are reaching exhaustion, just as prime campaign season is going. The Soviet bridgehead in Alaska, which is started with airborne division and is rapidly reinforced, would normally be wiped out, but the US just doesn't have anything other than the forces in place and 1 division from Norway to commit.

In the naval war, the opposing fleets have battled for 7 months. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe Matt Wiser has detailed a battle between the Nimitz group and the Varyag group. It's possible that many of the American carriers were unavailable to stop the invasion - through damage, destruction or just being in the South China Sea. Also, at this point their air wings could be run down, their losses compounding from long periods of operations and lack of replacement aircraft and pilots. Stocks of anti-ship missiles have been used up in previous strikes, and new production is allocated to the upcoming attack on the Kola peninsula. (for more on this idea, read the Naval war college's Global wargame reports from the 1980s, where the CVBGs in the med were essentially useless after a few weeks of operations)

The initial strike is done without Soviet shipping - it's done by air and hovercraft over the Bering strait. A series of amphibious assaults are done, but several of them (Juneau, British Columbia, Victoria Island) are essentially unopposed (if these areas were defended, they were defended lightly - few NATO forces to defend large areas). The amphibious assault gets by due to the US carriers' weakness: the Soviets use the bridgehead as bait to draw the carrier aircraft out, then ambush them with a few regiments of MiG-31s which get all but one E-2, savage the remaining attack aircraft and deplete the F-14 force to the point where they can only support a CAP. (The Soviets come to miss the Mig-31s a few months later as B-52s launch cruise missiles across the Arctic coastline, but Sauronski doesn't think this far ahead.) When the amphibous force is spotted, the US carrier force doesn't have enough missiles or aircraft to stop the assault (especially since the Soviets include 50 trawlers in the assault force, each carrying a single platoon. The US simply doesn't have enough aircraft or missiles to sink much of the fleet.)

So it's long winded, but some background and a few ideas to chew on. Fire away!


chico20854





************
thefusilier

Chico, thanks alot, and to Deacon for starting this. This is exactly what I mentioned the other day. Taking what we have from canon, understanding that it looks unrealistic, but make it work somehow.

I don't have much to offer myself. But with so many troops and such a long coastline to choose from, I can see the Soviets possibly landing at several areas even with a small number of troops such as a weak battalion. CFB Masset on Queen Charlotte Island is one location I can think of. The reason I figure, is just to swamp the area with occupation forces and limit the areas US forces can operate from. I think its harder for X Corps to attack multiple beach/air heads spread out over such a vast area. Also it takes time to unload ships and the smaller the port, the less shipping it can handle at a time. The Soviets would be very pressed to unload as quickly as possible before counter attacks (firstly by air and sea) begin. Multiple ports would speed this up.

Also, in a more strategic purpose, the more area that is occupied, is extra leverage in pushing the US and thus NATO to a ceasefire... Washington may begin to get more interested in removing a Soviet occupation from Alaska by force or cease fire agreement than continuing a bloody war in Europe.

I mentioned CFB Masset also because it is one of the 16 locations of the AN/FRD-10 high-frequency direction-finding arrays built by the United States and Canada during the 1960s and 1970s. These 16 stations, along with a number of Pusher HFDF arrays, comprised the US Naval Security Group's BULLSEYE HFDF net. Of course these could just be blown up, but why not also occupy the base and island, and dig in for reasons mentioned above. Also there is a runway there for airsupply and as a forward support airbase. Nome, Alaska also has a dock and airport which can be utilized for operations further out.

Let me know what you think on this and Chico I hope you have more. Naval operations such as this are something I am weak on.
__________________
The Fusilier


thefusilier





************
Law0369

Order Of Battle June 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pacific Northwest in T2k

ARMY

9th US Army
Bremerton Naval Base WA
Men 300

X Corps
Location Ft. Richardson AK.
Men 150

10th Infantry Division (MTN)
Location Ft Richardson
Men 1500
Vehicles 4 Lav-75, 8 M113A3, 4 M115A1
Arty 6 M119A1

1st Artic INF BGD
Location Ft. Wainwright AK
Men 500

2nd Artic INF BGD
Location Juneau AK
Men 450

VIII Corps
Location Ft Lewis WA
Men 200

47th Infantry Division
Location Ft Lewis WA
Men 6000
Vehicles 2 M691, 2 M741A6, 4 M728, 1 M577A1, 8 M113A3
Arty 18 M119A1

104th Infantry Division
Location Mountain Home AFB ID
Men 4500
Vehicles 1 M728, 1 Stingray, 1 M60A4, 1M1A2, 9M113


41st Separate Infantry Brigade
Location Camp Withycomb OR
Men 3000
Vehicles 0
Arty 18 M119A1



NAVY/COAST GUARD


13th Coast Guard District
Location Bremerton Naval Base

Flagship DD 931 Turner Joy
WAGB “Healy” 420Ft Ice Breaker

Region Oregon
Location Astoria
Ships Locations

Astoria
WLB 213 “Fir” 225Ft Seagoing Buoy Tender
WMEC 630 “Alert” 210Ft Medium Endurance Cutter

North Bend
WLB 277 “Cowslip” 180Ft Seagoing Buoy Tender

Bonneville Dam
WPB 1327 “Orcas” 110Ft Patrol Boat
PT 658
PT 659

Portland
SS 581 Blue Bell (refitting)


Region Washington
Location Bremerton
Ship Locations

Bremerton
WHCC 717 “Mellon” 378Ft High Endurance Cutter
WHCC 726 “Midget” 378Ft High Endurance Cutter
WPB 87352 “Sea lion” 87Ft Patrol Boat
WPB 87366 “Terrapin” 87Ft Patrol Boat


Region Alaska
Location Anchorage
Ship Locations

Anchorage
WMEC 623 “Steadfast” 210Ft Medium Endurance Cutter

Juneau
WPB 1344 "Cutty Hunk" 110Ft Patrol Boat

Marines
Location Camp Rilea OR
Men 650

This is the outline of the pacific northwest i have going by cannon will have bios on unit commanders and actions of units in a couple of days will also do the activites going on in each of the 4 states.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindnees ; But always have a plan to kill them


Law0369





************
Law0369

US Fleet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also have a DEC 1996 where the fleet is bio coming out and the locations of marine corps units. will deploy the marines a little off from cannon but will explain to start debate .
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindnees ; But always have a plan to kill them


Law0369





************
DeaconR

How about we add this to the Order of Battle too...this is the generally accepted canon from Challenge

Northern Command (Yukon Territory)
1/Canadian Scottish Regiment: 350 men (now broken up into numerous small bands and no longer accepting
orders).
2/Canadian Scottish Regiment: 250 men (now broken up into numerous small bands and no longer accepting
orders).

Pacific Command (British Columbia)
3/Canadian Scottish Regiment: 350 men (now broken up into numerous small bands and no longer accepting
orders).
1/Regina Rifle Regiment: 400 men (now broken up into numerous small bands and no longer accepting orders).
1/Rocky Mountain Rangers: 300 men (Kamloops).

However Law as an alternative since you have a couple of changes from canon there let's also have this one: (this also presents an idea of what would be available perhaps)

1st Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (Ladysmith, BC)

1st CMBG Headquarters & Signals Squadron (Ladysmith, BC)
Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) (Armored - Leopard C2) (Duncan, BC) (50 troops, 14 Leopard C2)
1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Mechanized Infantry – Grizzly) (Duncan, BC) (250 troops)
2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Mechanized Infantry - LAV III) (Port Alberni, BC) (200 troops)
3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Light Infantry) (Qualicum Beach, BC) (300 troops)
1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (M109A4 SPH, LG1 Mk II FH) (Ladysmith, BC) (150 troops, 4 M109A4 SPH)
1st Combat Engineer Regiment (Duncan, BC) (350 troops)
1st Service Battalion (Ladysmith, BC) (500 troops)
1st Field Ambulance (Ladysmith, BC) (400 personnel)
1st Military Police Platoon (Ladysmith, BC) (25 personnel)

39th Canadian Brigade Group (Reserve) (Nelson, British Columbia)
(note: this is a brigade that is more of a line of supply and communication unit than anything else. It is almost entirely made up of reserves and not all have answered the call to service, which more than casualties accounts for the low numbers)
British Columbia Dragoons (Reserve) (Armoured - Cougar) (Kelowna, British Columbia) (400 troops)
British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own) (Armoured Reconnaissance - Lynx) (Abbotsford, British Columbia) (300 troops)
Rocky Mountain Rangers (Reserve) (Light Infantry) (Prince Rupert, British Columbia) (250 troops)
Royal Westminster Regiment (Reserve) (Light Infantry) (New Westminster, British Columbia) (200 troops)
Seaforth Highlanders of Canada (Reserve) (Light Infantry) (Abbotsford, British Columbia) (150 troops)
Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary's) (Reserve) (Light Infantry) (Kamloops, British Columbia) (300 troops)
5th (British Columbia) Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery (Reserve) (105 FH) (Victoria, British Columbia) (120 troops)


DeaconR





************
DeaconR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Law0369

This is the outline of the pacific northwest i have going by cannon will have bios on unit commanders and actions of units in a couple of days will also do the activites going on in each of the 4 states.


Law: would it be possible for you to do BOTH? LIke present both a canon-friendly version and your own? If you'll notice I'm kind of starting to prepare the same thing above. So for instance while we both know in canon that Marine units are all deployed as far as we know in Europe, Middle East and Korea maybe you might have thought some would be sent to Alaska.

Chico: One concern I have is this: wouldn't the forces you're describing essentially be stranded in Alaska then? I mean, how do you keep supplying an entire Soviet Army--even as you said a lightly equipped one--in a place like that? Bear in mind I actually want to know how they could succeed. Isn't aviation fuel supposed to be low for everyone?

Fusilier: What you're suggesting certainly makes the reasoning behind such a campaign seem more clear.


DeaconR





************
Law0369

Law: would it be possible for you to do BOTH? LIke present both a canon-friendly version and your own? If you'll notice I'm kind of starting to prepare the same thing above. So for instance while we both know in canon that Marine units are all deployed as far as we know in Europe, Middle East and Korea maybe you might have thought some would be sent to Alaska.



What iam trying to do is to put out a cannon friendly as possable. i mean all the book says is "in this area is this unit". all iam going to do is flesh it out a little from what they would be looking like in june 2000. the navy is gone but coast guard and a meusum ship and sub are being refitted for service. going to give the units life with leaders what they are doing and so forth also what the states are doing how they eat,get power and so forth. have to go with cannon here even though i dont beleave it could happen i will make it happen per the book and make do.

my own version would be no forces in pac west and they would be in europe dead with the rest of the us army.

I have the navy one coming all major surface ships in battle groups and how they lived or died.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindnees ; But always have a plan to kill them


Law0369





************
chico20854

That's one of the problems I have... the Soviet force is so big that it requires a lot of logistical support, more than can be sustained by air and hovercraft, even if they have sufficient fuel (both are high-maintenance assets that are not very efficient fuel-wise). Eventually the USN can muster enough forces to maintain a maritime interdiction: if not carriers then USCG maritime patrol aircraft for spotting and gun-armed destroyers to do the intercept (and the older Sherman-class destroyers, with 2 or 3 5" guns would rip a formation of trawlers apart). Covert supply via submarine could help relieve the burden, but it wouldn't be anywhere near enough. And there isn't much population up there to try to live off of, and limited potential to grow food. Fuel will not be available - the pipeline sabotaged by retreating American forces.

So I can't see how the Soviets would maintain such a large force, even given the fact that Soviet logistics are much lighter than NATO standard (basically fuel and ammo only). Once the weather turns it may be easier to sneak supplies in. During WWII, the Japanese invaded Attu and Kiska (islands in the Aluetians) unopposed and had actually set up there for a while before the US knew. After some air attacks, the US formed an amphibious assault force, which invaded only to find that the Japanese had withdrawn, also without the US finding out. Now those islands are very remote, compared to Anchorage, and sensor technology much better, so it would be harder to pull off now and even then it has limited potential to support a two (Soviet) Army force.

Maybe we could assume that a large convoy got through to Anchorage, with several tankers full of fuel and a few large ships full of supplies and were sank pierside by American partisans. The ships are resting on the bottom pierside, the partisans were unable to destroy the ships, and they are being used basically as warehouses to sustain the Soviet forces. This only works partway, however... what happens when the supplies run out, why aren't the ships target #1, etc.

Per canon, the Soviet units in BC are stranded and several either change sides or go marauder, at a much higher rate than units in other theaters.

Fusulier, thanks for the strategic setting, putting the purpose into perspective.


chico20854





************
FightingFlamingo

hey for what it's worth... the initial Sov assault force in AK would most likely have been unapposed as Chico suggested, be it airborne or amphibious... there is just too much to defend in Alaska, with too low a troop density, to cover everything... that lets them get their beach/airhead... but then they are really screwed... from a resupply point of view, unless of course they send engineer units and build a railroad from Nome, to Anchorage, but I don't see the Sov's being able to pull that off in this (or any enviornment)... they are not the Germans (see railway engineer units on E Front reguaging efforts 41-42)...
__________________
Cold Blue Steel - the spirit of the bayonet


FightingFlamingo





************
Raellus

The timeline's a little fuzzy in my mind and it's only gotten fuzzier switching from v1 to v2.2 but, cannonically (did I just make up a word?), what are U.S. force deployments looking like when the Soviets invade Alaska?

Pro-Soviet factors:
Off the top of my head, the U.S. has significant forces (all branches except the USCG) deployed all over Europe, in Iran, and in Korea. Canada has some units (including all the "heavies", no?) in Europe as well. In addition, domestically, aren't American forces preoccupied with the Mexican army? With forces so thinly spread, the door (i.e. Alaska) would be wide open, as Chico and FF already pointed out.

Con-Soviet factors:
On the other had, wouldn't Soviet forces in the East be preoccupied with the remnants of the People's Army of China? Additionally, the U.S. Pacific fleet has always been stronger than the Soviet's. I'm sure U.S. naval elements supporting operations in the Korean theatre could deploy quickly to intercept a seaborne Soviet invasion fleet- if only to destroy subsequent and/or returning waves and interdict Soviet logistics (which are already difficult, to say the least).

Also, the Soviets have forces in Europe, Iran, Turkey, China. BUT, they have more raw manpower...

In WWII all forces (except for the U.S.) had significant difficulties fighting on multiple fronts. It can be done, but's it can be extremely difficult.
__________________
"This one goes to 11." -Nigel Tufnel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Raellus : 06-22-2006 at 06:41 PM. Reason: added content


Raellus





************
Matt Wiser

I'm still developing the full story of the death ride of the Yaryag CV and the Kirov-class BCGN Freunze at 1st Kamchatka. Though Chico has included a 2nd Kamchatka in which there was damage to carriers; I've listed Carl Vinson as damaged there (now moored at NAS Alameda)-needs new arrester gear and other work to make her flight deck operational, and Nimitz as the intact carrier on the West Coast. In the Naval thread on the new board, someone has reposted my work on the carriers, battleships, and the Des Moines-class heavy cruisers-I have Wisconsin at Hilo, HI with a 30X16 torpedo hole in her bow courtesy of a Victor-II, but if you want the Soviets to lose steam in Alaska, in that post I have her wiping out a convoy headed for Alaska....9 16" and a dozen 5" will definitely rip up freighters, RO-RO cargo ships, trawlers, etc...not to mention their escorts. She was torpedoed after destroying the convoy. Though personally, I don't think an Alaskan invasion was ever a serious contingency for the Soviets-lack of roads, shipping issues, limited air cover, including naval air, and base infrastructure that can easily be destroyed-which was the reason d' etre for First Kamchatka-to destroy or at least make unusable for several months the base infrastructure at Petropavalosk-Kamchatka, which, after the naval battle, Carrier Group 9 (Nimitz and her U.S/Japanese escorts) proceeded to do. Air attack, TLAM-Cs, subs laying mines, even naval gunfire on coastal installations, did the job. Remember: there's no road or rail access to the area, everything has to come by sea or air, and the shipping lanes to the area are easily interdicted; something Submarines Pacific and the JMSDF's sub force did very well. As for the bases across the Bering Strait-Anadyr, Provedenya, etc., well, B-52s with CALCM and subs with TLAM-C/D were assigned and executed that mission. There might have been an Alaskan invasion plan drawn up in Stalin's day, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered before or after the dictator's death.


Matt Wiser





************
Raellus

Have any of ya'll played the old HARPOON naval combat game? I had it for my MAC back in the late 8O's/early 90's. There was also a PnP/tabletop version of the game, I believe. Good game. I wonder if they still make it...

As a teenaged "admiral" commanding a Nimitz class carrier task force, I used to spend hours playing cat-and-mouse with a Kirov battle group (backed by waves of Backfire bombers). Thank god for the E-2C! Good times... Anyways...

Seems to me that you could actually fight out elements of some of these naval (including carrier and shore-based air) engagements and use the results as foundations for your alternate histories. Would add an element of chance...

That being said, your scenarios (Wiser/Chico) are pretty thorough and realistic as it is. Good stuff. Keep it coming.
__________________
"This one goes to 11." -Nigel Tufnel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Raellus : 06-23-2006 at 01:37 AM. Reason: added content


Raellus





************
ReHerakhte

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingFlamingo
hey for what it's worth... the initial Sov assault force in AK would most likely have been unapposed as Chico suggested, be it airborne or amphibious... there is just too much to defend in Alaska, with too low a troop density, to cover everything... that lets them get their beach/airhead... but then they are really screwed... from a resupply point of view, unless of course they send engineer units and build a railroad from Nome, to Anchorage, but I don't see the Sov's being able to pull that off in this (or any enviornment)... they are not the Germans (see railway engineer units on E Front reguaging efforts 41-42)...



From what I remember the Soviets maintained large units of pipeline and railway laying troops. Maybe they could be deployed to the Alaskan beachhead for the purpose. However, I have no idea of their quality but I'm guessing about average, the Sovs did have a tendency to put anyone not sufficiently "motivated" to be infantry etc. into a support service!

Cheers,
Kevin
__________________
It's not whether you win or lose...

It's whether I win.


ReHerakhte





************
Law0369

I MEF


Loacation of units is CENTCOM

1st MEF Headquarter’s Group
1st Intel BN
1st ANGLICO
9th Commincations Bn
1st Force Recon co
1st Radio Bn





1st Marine Division

Headquarters & Service Bn
D co 1st LAR
D co 3rd AAV Bn
D co 1st CEB
D co 1st Tank Bn
5/11 (arty)
1st Recon Bn

RCT 1
1st Marine Regiment HQ co
1/1
2/1
3/1
1/11 (arty)
A co 1st LAR Bn
A co 3rd AAV Bn
A co 1st CEB
A co 1st Tank Bn


RCT 5
5th Marine Regiment HQ co
1/5
2/5
3/5
2/11 (arty)
B co 1st LAR Bn
B co 3rd AAV Bn
B co 1st CEB
B co 1st Tank Bn


RCT 7
7th Marine Regiment HQ co
1/7
2/7
3/7
3/11 (arty)
C co 1st LAR Bn
C co 3rd AAV Bn
C co 1st CEB Bn
C co 1st Tank Bn








4th Marine Division
Headquartes & Service Bn
D co 4th LAR Bn
D co 4th AAV Bn
D co 4th CEB Bn
D co 4th Tank Bn
8th Tank BN
4th Recon BN
3rd Force Recon co
4th Force Recon co
TOW co




RCT 23
23rd Marine Regiment HQ co
1/23
2/23
3/23
1/14 (arty)
A co 4th Tank Bn
A co 4th CEB
A co AAV Bn
A co 4th LAR Bn


RCT 24
24th Marine Regiment HQ co
1/24
2/24
3/24
2/14 (arty)
B co 4th Tank Bn
B co 4th AAV Bn
B co 4th LAR Bn
B co 4th CEB



RCT 25
1/25
2/25
3/25
3/14 (arty)
C co 4th LAR Bn
C co 4th AAV Bn
C CO 4th Tank Bn
C co 4th CEB



1st Force Service Support Group
HQ co
1st Maintenance Bn
1st Supply Bn
7th Engineer Support Bn
1st Dental Bn
1st Medical Bn
1st Transportation Bn



4th Force Service Support Group
Headquarters & Service Bn
4th Maintenance Bn
6th Transportation Bn
4th Supply Bn
6th Communications Bn
4th Landing Support Bn
6th Engineer Support Bn
4th Medical Bn
4th Dental Bn
3rd Marine Aircraft Wing


Marine Aircraft Group 11
VMFA(AW) -121 (F/A18D)
VMFA(AW)-225 (F/A18D)
VMFA(AW)-242 (F/A18D)
VMFA(AW)-101 (F/A18D)
VMFA -232 (F/A18C)
VMFA-314 (F/A18C)
VMFA-323 (F/A18C)
VMFA-531 (F/A18C)
VMGR-352 (KC-130)
MALS-11

Marine Aircraft Group 13
VMA-211(AV8B)
VMA-214(AV8B)
VMA-311(AV8B)
VMA-513(AV8B)
MALS-13


Marine Aircraft Group 16
HMM-161(CH-46E)
HMM-163(CH-46E)
HMM-165(CH-46E)
HMM-166(CH-46E)
HMH-361(CH-53E)
HMH-462(CH-53E)
HMH-465(CH-53E)
HMH-466(CH-53E)
MALS-16

Marine Aircraft Group 39
HMLA-169 (UH-1N/AH-1W)
HMLA-267 (UH-1N/AH-1W)
HMLA-367 (UH-1N/AH-1W)
HMLA-369 (UH-1N/AH-1W)
HMLA-303 (UH-1N/AH-1W)
HMM-164 (CH-46E)
HMM-268 (CH-46E)
HMM-364 (CH-46E)
MALS-39


Marine Air Control Group 38
VMU-1 (RQ-2A)
MWCS-38
MTACS-38
MASS-3
3RD LAAD
MACS-1
MWHS-3

Marine Wing Support Group 37
MWSS-371
MWSS-372
MWSS-373
MWSS-374
MWSS-472



4TH Marine Aircraft Wing


Marine Aircraft Group 41
VMFA-112 (F/A-18A)
VMGR-234 (KC-130)
MALS-41



Marine Aircraft Group 42
VMFA-142 (F/A-18A)
HMLA-773 (UH-1N/AH-1W)
HMM-774(CH-46E)
HMLA-775(UH-1N/AH-1W)
MALS-42



Marine Aircraft Group 46
VMFA-134 (F/A18A)
VMF-401 (F5E)
HMM-764 (CH-46E)
HMH-769 (CH-53E)
MALS-46



Marine Aircraft Group 49
VMA-131 (AV8B)
HMH-772 (CH-53E)
VMFA-321(F/A-18A)
VMGR-452 (KC-130)
MALS-49

Marine Wing Support Group 47
MWSS-471
MWSS-472
MWSS-473

Marine Air Control Group 48
MTACS-48
MWCS-48
MACS-23
MACS-24
MASS-6
4TH LADD


These are the unit witch would have deployed in 1996 and 1997 to centcom.. 3rd mar div would never leave 3 mef trust me on this.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindnees ; But always have a plan to kill them


Law0369





************
chico20854

Raellus-

Harpoon is alive and well. A new PC version was just released last week, and the paper rules have been upgraded several times. I bought a copy of the paper rules to try to figure out some of this stuff, and I'm toying with the idea of getting the PC version. But it's really time consuming, the original idea was to try to game out some of these battles and get some reasonable resolution. They have a very active internet community (like us!) and I've learned a lot just by lurking over there.

The Mexican invasion comes later, after the TDM. At the time of the invasion, the Chinese are still fighting strong, giving the Sovs a run for their money, especially since their Pact allies have stopped sending support while the war rages across Poland. The Soviet forces that are committed to the follow-up attack are all low priority units - the 76th Tank is a Cat 2 unit equipped with T-55s, while the MRDs are all Cat III or Mobilization Only. (This may limit theor logistic demands if they aren't up to full strength. But they'll need huge masses of repair parts to maintain the old equipment...) So they're getting close to the bottom of the barrel forces-wise too.

Kevin-

I think the realistic possibility of laying rail and pipeline to support the Soviet effort is nil. The Soviet rail system ended at Sovetskaya Gavan, near Sakhalin, and is still only limited in capacity there. The BAM (Baikal-Amur Mainline) railroad was a "hero project" that received top priority from 1974 (after some sections were started in the 1930s) until declared complete in 1991, although work still continues today. The problems encountered building in permafrost were just incredible. To extend the rail line the rest of the way across Siberia and then across Alaska, several years into a war I think is just too impractical. And to not extend the rail lines in Siberia and rely on sea to get to Alaska doesn't make much sense either... you still have the interdiction problem.

Matt-

It was I who reposted your excellent work on the carriers and the Varyag's death ride on the other board. I basically used Second Kamchakta as the Pacific equivalent of the Battle of the Kola... NATO naval power needed time to recover and rebuild from the initial battles before moving in for the kill (plus distractions from the start of fighting in Korea in January 1997 and the Japanese reinvasion of the southern Kuriles). I have a feeling the deep penetration raids the US launched into Siberia from Alaska prior to the Soviet invasion had the mission of neutralizing Provideniya, Anadyr and various radar and EW facilities, making an attack on Alaska even more difficult for the Sovs to pull off. I like the BB ripping up the convoy... it's damage afterwards provides the opportunity for the next convoy to slip through. I can only see US maritime interdiction failing through some slip up on the US side or luck on the Soviet side... blowing a hole in the bow of a battleship, bad weather preventing patrol aircraft from taking off, US subs tied up elsewhere, etc. I might explain the JMSDF sub force being distracted by trying to close the Tsushima straits, supporting the Kurile op and closing (or penetrating) the other entrances to the Seas of Japan and Sea of Oshkosht... the Aluetians might be far off. And for the US attack on Kamchakta, I could see air defense installations and the naval base, especially the SSBN support areas, being top priority. The corvettes wouldn't be first priority, as would the large numbers of merchantmen and trawlers tied up in the commercial area of the harbor. (Of course the corvettes don't have the range to sail to Alaska and back, and the tankers to support them would be a likely priority target).

Good stuff, all!


chico20854





************
DeaconR

Here's a crazy thought I wanted to run by everyone. What if in fact we're all right, that the Soviets simply couldn't pull it off and in fact their invasion has nothing to do with the collapse of the American units as depicted in Howling Wilderness?

I don't know if this works, but I was thinking that maybe as Fighting Flamingo suggested they manage to actually get the drops and landings done, but then the Soviet forces find themselves cut off as their naval and air units are either destroyed or stranded without resources. Apart from the ones who managed to occupy some small area, the others collapse, are hunted down either by local partisans or by 1st Arctic Recon, 2nd Arctic Recon, 10th Mtn and the Canadian Army. Finito; campaign over.

However, maybe regardless of that lack of resources and infrastructure, collapse of lines of communication and supply are what in fact do in the allied units in the area. It seems to have happened in other parts of the world. It is an area difficult to move resources around in without some kind of infrastructure. Maybe we're thinking about the whole thing wrong.


DeaconR





************
Matt Wiser

Chico, you're forgetting one other thing: mines. One aspect of the strike on Petrapavalosk-Kamchatka was mining. Both air-dropped via A-6s and F/A-18s, and sub-laid as well. Kinda hard to stage an invasion out of a port that not only has had its infrastructure trashed by air and cruise missile attack, but the shipping channel has been throughly mined, and several ships that tried getting in or out became minesweepers (once). And there would be follow-up strikes with sea-launched cruise missiles and the minefields would be replenished by submarine. The port is unusable until the minefields are swept and the wrecks (not just the ones in the shipping channel) cleared. Since everything has to come by air or sea (and remember: the airfield has been TLAMed as well), by the time the damage is repaired to the point of usability, the nukes are flying and Petrapavlosk goes up in "instant sunshine."


Matt Wiser





************
TiggerCCW UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser
but the shipping channel has been throughly mined, and several ships that tried getting in or out became minesweepers (once).



Great line. Very descriptive