Alaska and the Soviet Invasion (T2k)

[Raellus]

I haven't even checked a map yet but HorseSoldier's outline of Soviet operational objectives and manouvers sounds very convincing.

I also like Web's suggestion that the U.S. decides to use Alaska as a quagmire of sorts into which the Soviets are encouraged to waste their strength. One could bottle of the Soviets indefinitely with minimal investments in military manpower and material. Canon seems to back this up. Then there's the Canadian military. As Web pointed out, this scenario only makes sense if Alaskan oil is no longer available to either side (likely due to a good nuking).

[Schone23666]

I know. I was just being sarcastic.

Yeah, I figured. No worries.

[ArmySGT.]

I see no reason why a Soviet Invasion would not be a success beyond the planners wildest hope and dreams.

They have Arctic Brigade that train in Siberia without roads. They have Company sized units of snow plows with blades or blowers. The Soviets really embraced Hover craft on a huge scale that would make ports irrelevant.

Soviet equipment was built for the brutal Russian winter. Alaska would be easy.

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/12/unique-soviet-snowmobiles.html

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/12/unique-soviet-snowmobiles.html

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2011/07/russian-nuclear-icebreakers-to-north.html

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/chew/chew.asp

http://militaryforces.ru/firearms-3-76.html

http://militaryforces.ru/firearms-3-75.html

[Legbreaker]

As Web pointed out, this scenario only makes sense if Alaskan oil is no longer available to either side (likely due to a good nuking).

Again that nuke timeline kicks into gear and makes that improbable. Soviets invaded in Summer, tactical nukes were only used from the 9th of July - mid summer. That makes it possible, but given an operation of this complexity so far from friendly shores is likely to take at least several months of planning and preparation...

I like the idea of the Soviets sending troops over as a) a PR coup (we've got troops on US soil!) and b) a way of tying up US and Canadian troops while committing relatively minimal and third rate (on the whole) troops which wouldn't really be missed elsewhere.

If they were able to capture oil and other resources in the process and ship them home, it would be a massive bonus, but I'm not convinced they would have been major factors in deciding to send troops in the first place.

[Fusilier]

Ahh memories... I remember this same topic was my very first question and post I ever made on the first/old twilight forum (the one before the last one) back in the freakin 90s.

I remember part of the discussion raised an idea that the invasion was never meant to be permanent (since it would be extremely hard to keep the units supplied). Invading would be easy, but maintaining the units in fighting shape for any real length of time would be difficult.

Rather, it was an attempt to gain leverage in potential/upcoming peace talks - in a "you leave Poland and we give you back Alaska" sort of deal. Like Leg mentioned, it was a PR move with the intent to hurt US morale... and help bring the west to the table to discuss a ceasefire with something to offer.

It was an idea to try to explain the rationality of conducting the invasion.

[HorseSoldier]

They have Arctic Brigade that train in Siberia without roads. They have Company sized units of snow plows with blades or blowers. The Soviets really embraced Hover craft on a huge scale that would make ports irrelevant.

Soviet equipment was built for the brutal Russian winter. Alaska would be easy.

Getting from Nome to Fairbanks -- even without a bit of resistance from the USAF/RCAF and ground forces -- would be a logistical feat close to being on par with the building of the ALCAN Highway in WW2, which (if memory serves me correctly, and it may not) was more expensive than the Manhattan Project.

Rugged equipment helps, but only so much, and the land is more rugged than the equipment. And I'd question how effective the Soviet Arctic Brigades really are at operating in roadless environments, since one of the major flaws with Soviet equipment has been inadequate logistical considerations for protracted campaigning. Even with plentiful hovercraft, covering 800+ kilometers with no infrastructure whatsoever and every bit of fuel, food, ammunition, etc. having to be hauled along a growing supply line is going to be a nightmare (and, as noted, that's without even considering enemy aircraft in the equation).

[ArmySGT.]

Look through the links I provided to the Soviet equipment. Did you notice the crawlers with 30 ton capacity.

Anyway. I think the Soviets would capture the coastal areas in summer to prepare for the winter campaign. Soviet equipment is built for the cold and the arctic terrain is far simpler to pass over after freezing.

Another thing to consider is that Soviet Units are forced to be self sufficient in many ways even in peace time at garrison. With bakeries, vegetable gardens, and livestock. There is no reason Soviet Commanders would not bring the farm along with them.

No I think the Soviet Logistical machine as grossly inefficient as it can be would outshine anything American or Canadian forces would be using.

Which primarily consists of a handful of BV 206s.

The Soviets by necessity had to supply units, radar stations, and listening posts. The soviets were still using many amphibious trucks since rivers are sometimes more passable than roads in the summer.

[HorseSoldier]

There is no reason Soviet Commanders would not bring the farm along with them.

If they come across at Nome, the main problem I'd see is that agriculture isn't feasible in that location due to permafrost. Even further south at Bethel the only local agriculture done there requires everything to be grown in raised containers, rather than in the soil.

Moving a major military force 800 kilometers through the Alaskan Bush is really no easy or modest undertaking at all, even in peacetime. And that's assuming nature is relatively benign and doesn't just kill some portion of your force in any number of ways, which nature in Alaska is prone to do (i.e. look at the losses both sides suffered during the Aleutian Campaign in WW2 -- storms and fog killed more than enemy action, and just the logistics of fighting on the island that was contested produced a casualty rate comparable to the worst campaigns in the Pacific, only most were environmental casualties rather than combat deaths/woundings).

[ArmySGT.]

If they come across at Nome, the main problem I'd see is that agriculture isn't feasible in that location due to permafrost. Even further south at Bethel the only local agriculture done there requires everything to be grown in raised containers, rather than in the soil.

Moving a major military force 800 kilometers through the Alaskan Bush is really no easy or modest undertaking at all, even in peacetime. And that's assuming nature is relatively benign and doesn't just kill some portion of your force in any number of ways, which nature in Alaska is prone to do (i.e. look at the losses both sides suffered during the Aleutian Campaign in WW2 -- storms and fog killed more than enemy action, and just the logistics of fighting on the island that was contested produced a casualty rate comparable to the worst campaigns in the Pacific, only most were environmental casualties rather than combat deaths/woundings).

The US and the Japanese are horrible examples. The US after transferred a unit destined for a Tropical theater to the Aleutians still equipped with tropical weight equipment. As for the Japanese their northern islands are cold and snow bound however these can be served by ports all around as they are comparatively small.

The Soviets have decades of experience doing it. You can drop all of Alaska three or four times in the Soviet Union just from the Ural Mountains to Kamchatka. Look at some satellite imagery of eastern soviet union. Your not going to find much roads.

Summer is a frenzy to repair, plant. and harvest. What is impassable in summer, becomes trouble free under 10 feet or 3 meters of snow and ice.

As for farming the Soviet diet isn't pissing around with tomatoes and strawberries. Turnips, potatoes, parsnips, etc root vegetables. Gardening is a fad in the States but it is a damn necessity in Russia, through in they pickle huge amounts of stuff.

The AlCan highway project is surprising in that it worked. With open cabbed, unheated equipment, that were without hydraulics.

[Legbreaker]

...would outshine anything American or Canadian forces would be using.

I have to agree in principle with that statement. We need to look at the situation not just from the high tech US perspective, but from that of the Soviets who are used to dealing with rough terrain, long distances and non-existant infrastructure. Not saying it would be easy, and I'm sure the troops on the ground would have a very difficult and unhappy time of it, but it is potentially do-able.

The key is absolutely supply by sea. Ships can carry more cargo, faster and further than trucks, and given the Soviet amphibious and aircushion capability a lack of port facilities isn't going to be a deal breaker. The big trick is to protect the cargo vessels which could be done fairly easily I think by stationing a couple of old subs in the area - the Nato fleets are shattered in early summer and those few warships left are probably too valuable protecting Nato convoys to risk being sunk by lurking subs during an attack on a Soviet convoy. We also know from Last Submarine that US submarines are virtually all gone and no longer a real consideration while the Soviets and their allies still have a few Whiskeys, Foxtrots and the like they could potentially draw upon.

Once the strategic nukes are used towards the end of 1997 the whole situation will change and I can see the Soviet units in Alaska being almost totally abandoned to their fate.

[ArmySGT.]

Once the strategic nukes are used towards the end of 1997 the whole situation will change and I can see the Soviet units in Alaska being almost totally abandoned to their fate.

What is their fate though Apart from spare parts and ammunition. It depends on the support units. Greenhouses south of the Chugach range with 20 hours of daylight per day grow staggering amounts.

If they successfully own the facilities at Valdez they might be sitting pretty good. Russian aircraft is designed for the cold and for dirt landing strips.

I can't say for certain but I don't think there are any refineries in Alaska, just facilities for crude.

The Soviets could be exploiting the fish canneries and factory ships depending on if the capture them whole. Canned Salmon, Comrade

The US Army is Greeley and Wainwright. The US Air Force is Elmendorf and some posts on the Aleutians and the DEW line watching Radar. With a scattering of US Coast Guard.

Ft. Lewis / McChord is Washington State, Ft Ord / Hunter Ligget is California/ and Shafter is Hawaii each dedicated to some other theater.

Really we would have to hope the Canadians came to the aid of the US if an invasion of Alaska. They would have the personal experience to operate in the arctic.

[Targan]

I can't say for certain but I don't think there are any refineries in Alaska, just facilities for crude.

Your answer is earlier in the thread, post #8:

Once you've got Tok out of the equation, and Anchorage occupied, Fairbanks is pretty much isolated by anything but aerial resupply. It would still have access to oil from the pipeline, unless it was cut north of the city, and there's a small refinery in the area that could keep X Corps plussed up on fuel, but everything else is pretty sketchy.

[Legbreaker]

I can't say for certain but I don't think there are any refineries in Alaska, just facilities for crude.

Alaska

• Kenai Refinery (Tesoro), Kenai 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
• Valdez Refinery (Petro Star), Valdez 50,000 bbl/d (7,900 m3/d)
• North Pole Refinery (Petro Star), North Pole 17,000 bbl/d (2,700 m3/d)
• Kuparuk Refinery (ConocoPhillips), Kuparuk 14,400 bbl/d (2,290 m3/d)
• North Pole Refinery (Flint Hills Resources), North Pole 210,000 bbl/d (33,000 m3/d)
• Prudhoe Bay Refinery (BP), Prudhoe Bay 12,500 bbl/d (1,990 m3/d)

[Targan]

Holy crap! An even more comprehensive answer!

[Legbreaker]

Holy crap! An even more comprehensive answer!

I blame Wikipedia.

Might need to do a little research into the capacities of those facilities circa 1997 though. It's been 14 years since "our" date and who knows what improvements those companies have made.