American invasion of the Soviet Union

[King of Scandinavia]

A bit misleading maybe, the clip title is US & Soviet Strategy in North Pacific (in 1987) in two parts, but the second part of the video highlights US military exercise in Aleutian Islands for possible amphibious assault against the Soviet Union in the event of conflict in Europe.

The first part is mainly about defense of Alaska, and Soviet air intrusions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/3ynzAr6ZkW4

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/soOSZ58AU-s


"...the new strategy has but one aim: to demonstrate to the Soviet Union, that any aggression against Western Europe will be met with the prospect of an invasion of Soviet soil itself, in the Pacific..."


"...offensive moves against the Soviet flanks will force them to divert resources from Central Europe..."

[Insane Tadpole]

Loving the shoulder pads at the end of the 2nd video.

Good videos by the way.

[Hellfish]

Yeah, this was a long-discussed strategy. The idea was to make the Soviets fight on two fronts and give NATO some bargaining chips if things went badly in Europe. It would have been pretty easily to isolate the Pacific Soviet Union from the rest of the country, and we'd have likely been able to achieve some local superiority over the Soviets.

This was, of course, all dependent on what the Chinese and North Koreans were going to do as well (would the Chinese attack the Soviets? Would the North attack the South?)

[TR1]

Yeah, this was a long-discussed strategy. The idea was to make the Soviets fight on two fronts and give NATO some bargaining chips if things went badly in Europe. It would have been pretty easily to isolate the Pacific Soviet Union from the rest of the country, and we'd have likely been able to achieve some local superiority over the Soviets.

This was, of course, all dependent on what the Chinese and North Koreans were going to do as well (would the Chinese attack the Soviets? Would the North attack the South?)
Really dont know that. Considerable forces were placed at the disposal of the Far East command, the pacific fleet had large assets (not least a large compliment of Tu-22Ms). As you said depends to a large scale on what else is going on in the region, with China, the Koreas, Japan, etc.

[MichaelF]

Yeah, getting into a mechanized fight with the Soviets, on their own turf (more or less negating our "Deep Battle" theory), in the Far East, would not have been the best use of our capability (remember, most of the Regular Army, and big chunks of the Guard and Reserve, are off fighting in Europe).

Likely, it would have been an Air/Sea game, with considerable use of intrusion forces (SF, Rangers, LRSU). The Soviets might have made a play for Alaska, if only to cut the Pipeline.

Sustained, High Intensity warfare in the Alaskan Artic/Far East would have required a huge buildup, on both sides, as well as specialized gear that just didn't exist (and, largely, still doesn't). Otherwise, you are limited to either standoff Naval/Air strikes, SOF intrusions, or Airborne/Amphib assaults on key cities (have to have someplace to shelter the troops and provide logistics hubs).

The old RPG Twilight 2000* discussed this (Soviet invasion of Alaska/PNW/BC, in the midst of WWIII) at a pretty realistic and detailed level. The conclusion (which appears to fit the facts) was that units on both sides would disintegrate when winter arrived (Alaska has little extra carrying capacity, even in peacetime), if not sooner (due to logistical strains).

You saw how much trouble we (the US Military, kings of logistics) had with logistical throughput (ability to move sufficient supplies forward to the units in contact, up a lengthy MSR) in Iraq. Imagine trying it in Alaska or the Far East, with the nearest** logistics hub 1000km away (Seattle), with no real MSR in between.

A US invasion of the Far East MR ends in a big Soviet win. The reverse is true for a Soviet invasion of Alaska.

*-Twilight2k had a bunch of Army War College alumni as consultants.

**- US Army Alaska (or whatever it's called this week) is infamous for not having much in the way of stockpiles. They have to ship it in as the units expend what's in their lockers.

[FelixA9]

Really dont know that. Considerable forces were placed at the disposal of the Far East command, the pacific fleet had large assets (not least a large compliment of Tu-22Ms). As you said depends to a large scale on what else is going on in the region, with China, the Koreas, Japan, etc.


Don't know how much you remember about the time period but Lehman with his 600-ship navy (almost achieved it) was pretty f--king agressive when it came to planning to take the fight to the USSR in it's own backyard. Not saying who would or wouldn't have won but Lehman's attitude was the USN would go it alone if it had to. (I imagine they figured the USAF would have it's hands full in Europe).

[Lokos]

but Lehman's attitude was the USN would go it alone if it had to. (I imagine they figured the USAF would have it's hands full in Europe).

Wouldn't they be somewhat tied up protecting the convoys headed for Europe?

Lokos

[FelixA9]

Wouldn't they be somewhat tied up protecting the convoys headed for Europe?

Lokos


The Atlantic Fleet yes. The Pacific fleet had carriers and quite a lot of ships of it's own. No question though, the biggest action would be in the North Atlantic. (Don't have the USN Pacific Forces order of battle from that time period handy. Just going from memory.)

[Hellfish]

Really dont know that. Considerable forces were placed at the disposal of the Far East command, the pacific fleet had large assets (not least a large compliment of Tu-22Ms). As you said depends to a large scale on what else is going on in the region, with China, the Koreas, Japan, etc.

You've very right. But with a single American aircraft bombing random chunks of the Trans-Siberian Railroad every day, we could effectively immobilize large numbers of Soviet troops, and isolate the areas we're going to attack. We had around 5 divisions (1st Marine, 3rd Marine, 6th Infantry, 7th Infantry, 25th Infantry) we could immediately deploy to Siberia if we wanted to, and another one in Korea, plus any mobilized reserve units, Japanese units or Canadian units we could get access to. That's a hell of an invasion force, especially if the Soviets are unable to reinforce their beach defenses.

That's best-case scenario for the US, of course, and could easily change with various political-military developments (Soviet spoiling attack into Alaska, nuclear weapon release, etc.)

[Hellfish]

Wouldn't they be somewhat tied up protecting the convoys headed for Europe?

Lokos

The Pacific Fleet would probably reinforce the Atlantic Fleet to an extent (mostly with ASW assets, I imagine) but by and large the CVBGs and SAGs of the Pacific Fleet would stay in the region - first to bottle up the Soviets in the Sea of Japan, to find and kill the Soviets subs at sea, and then to annihilate the Soviet Pacific Fleet. Once that was done (honestly, with three CVBGs plus the USAF and USMC units in Korea and Japan it could probably be done quickly, even with Soviet PVO providing air cover and naval aviation gunning for the carriers).

Once that's done, the Soviet Pacific Maritimes are pretty wide open to the US Marines. Especially if the Chinese are sabre rattling along the Amur.

[TR1]

Hmm, certainly possible. I tend to think however that the Soviet Pacific fleet would be able to take a large chunk out of US forces, or at least make approaching the coast a very unpleasant proposition. Anti-Shipping bomber numbers would likely be heavily reinforced...and of course with nuclear weapons, the effects would be deadly. I have no doubt nuclear warheads would be used on the first day of war, and that includes the pacific front.

IMO the marines would better be utilized in the main front of action, Europe, or somewhere nearby.

[Hellfish]

Hmm, certainly possible. I tend to think however that the Soviet Pacific fleet would be able to take a large chunk out of US forces, or at least make approaching the coast a very unpleasant proposition. Anti-Shipping bomber numbers would likely be heavily reinforced...and of course with nuclear weapons, the effects would be deadly. I have no doubt nuclear warheads would be used on the first day of war, and that includes the pacific front.

See, I'd suggest that a lot of those bombers would be out over the Atlantic either reinforcing the attacks against the convoys coming from the US/Canada or replacing the losses of the Northern Fleet's aviation assets. I don't think there was much to gain from Soviet bombers in the Pacific except naval interdiction (dangerous, expensive and probably not very effective) and coastal defense under fighter cover. There is also the nuclear deterrent, and ability to raid Japan/Korea at will (maybe even Alaska?) but raiding Japan and Korea would likely drag them into the war, where they initially might be neutral.

I really don't know that nukes would be used to start with. I think the Soviets could have won without using them, or at least they had a good chance to win without 'em.

If nukes were used, I'd be surprised if they were used tactically, to be honest. The most likely nuclear exchange I could see are counter force attacks - meaning missile silos, com centers, bomber bases, sub bases, on both sides while deliberately avoiding population centers when possible.

Also, the 2nd Marine Division was tasked to Europe - usually Norway or Denmark. They might also go to the Med, but probably stay out of Germany. Honestly, they wouldn't have done much good there. In Norway, against light Soviet forces (Airborne, Naval Infantry, arctic mechanized units) they would have been more effective, especially with the great defensive terrain there. In Germany, a Soviet division could overrun a Marine division pretty quickly, I imagine. Two-thirds of the '80s era Marine divisions were foot/truck/helicopter mobile, and the 1/3rd that wasn't was in giant AAVs, where were and are pretty useless against modern armor, nevermind the M60A1 tanks.

[MichaelF]

Likely, the balance of the USMC's FMF (-2nd MarDiv) would have been earmarked for the Middle East, if the Soviets tried a southern gun run towards the Gulf.

The 82nd and 101st (and probably the 9th ID HTTB) would likely have been deployed there, too.

The 10th Mountain was earmarked (at one point) for AFNORTH (Norway), but the other LID's would either be emergency reinforcements for 8th Army (ROK) or kept CONUS to shore up the Guard, unless things went very, very bad in CENTAG.

If there was an immediate prewar buildup of a few months, then the US Army almost doubles in size (with draftees, it could treble) when the Reserve and IRR/retirees are fully mobilized, plus 10 Guard divisions.

So, instead of 20 Divisions(-) available (plus 3 Marine Divisions) in the case of a "come-as-you-are", zero-notice conflict, we could have 40 Divisions (plus 4 Marine Divisions) at various levels of manning and TO&E (some Divisions were minus a Brigade, and some activated Guard units would be slightly undermanned and not have a full loadout).

A factor in figuring the Guard is that the current, extremely professional, Guard is a product of the RIF of '90-'92, where large numbers of Regular Officers and NCOs migrated into the Guard, as well as large amounts of 1st line gear being released from deactivated Regular units into the RC pool. So there would be a greater disparity in capability/talent/professionalism between the Guard and Regular units of 1985, than their 2008 counterparts, depending on the unit.

Most of the Guard units would be kept CONUS for a long time, serving as a security force and ironing out the bugs. If the War goes on long enough, or there are massive losses OCONUS, you might see them deployed Overseas.

[Hellfish]

Most of the Guard units would be kept CONUS for a long time, serving as a security force and ironing out the bugs. If the War goes on long enough, or there are massive losses OCONUS, you might see them deployed Overseas.

Don't forget about the round-out brigade concept with the Guard. Most active divisions until about '92 (IIRC) had only two brigades - their third brigade was supposed to be an ARNG round out brigade. The 256th Mech from Louisiana went to the 1st ID, I think, and the 155th Armored from Mississippi went to 2nd Armored Div.

Some Guard brigades - likely the "enhanced readiness" ones, would have been deployed if the war lasted longer than a month. Even during ODS, the 48th Mech from Georgia was getting ready to deploy, but the war ended with them still at their mob location.

Some division sized elements probably could have made it overseas within three months.

[lightfire]

ok, let's say we have landings on the soviet soil in the pacific area. Then what? Could soviets possiblly just give up some land? Those are vast lands there. Ok, you threaten them, but would it be possible, that soviets didn't take the bait? With those 4-5 divisions it wouldn't be easy to conquer whole Siberia. There are important centers, for sure. Kamtchatka with its missiles and subs, Sakhalin, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok's already too far away, that's not 1920 we're talking about. And what would americans do with land of chukchias?Magadan? Would that be concideredd a serious threat/second front?

[Hellfish]

ok, let's say we have landings on the soviet soil in the pacific area. Then what? Could soviets possiblly just give up some land? Those are vast lands there. Ok, you threaten them, but would it be possible, that soviets didn't take the bait? With those 4-5 divisions it wouldn't be easy to conquer whole Siberia. There are important centers, for sure. Kamtchatka with its missiles and subs, Sakhalin, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok's already too far away, that's not 1920 we're talking about. And what would americans do with land of chukchias?Magadan? Would that be concideredd a serious threat/second front?

Like I said, bargaining chips. If things go badly in Europe or there's a stalemate and negotiations begin, the fact that the US holds Soviet territory is a huge bargaining chip. Plus, there's the chance that resources allocated to Europe would get sent to the Far East. Those American light divisions wouldn't do much good in Europe, so why not use them where they can be useful?

[Sergei]

You've very right. But with a single American aircraft bombing random chunks of the Trans-Siberian Railroad every day, we could effectively immobilize large numbers of Soviet troops, and isolate the areas we're going to attack. We had around 5 divisions (1st Marine, 3rd Marine, 6th Infantry, 7th Infantry, 25th Infantry) we could immediately deploy to Siberia if we wanted to, and another one in Korea, plus any mobilized reserve units, Japanese units or Canadian units we could get access to. That's a hell of an invasion force, especially if the Soviets are unable to reinforce their beach defenses.

That's best-case scenario for the US, of course, and could easily change with various political-military developments (Soviet spoiling attack into Alaska, nuclear weapon release, etc.)

This is putting people in a slaughter. There are no big objectives to fight for in the siberia other than vast plains of frozen taiga. The disaster would be worse than for Germans in 1941 with legs, arms and noses frozen off.
And even if the initial attach succeeds, Russia is known for very good partizan activity, there is no way you can catch 50 000 + plus freedom fighters, germans had hard time doing it in Belarus woods, in Siberia you can hide a mechanised army in the woods and no one will see.
Imagine Iraq only much much worse, since practically every soviet male knows how to handle military equipment from AK to howitzers.

[FelixA9]

Hmm, certainly possible. I tend to think however that the Soviet Pacific fleet would be able to take a large chunk out of US forces, or at least make approaching the coast a very unpleasant proposition. Anti-Shipping bomber numbers would likely be heavily reinforced...and of course with nuclear weapons, the effects would be deadly. I have no doubt nuclear warheads would be used on the first day of war, and that includes the pacific front.


Keep in mind that would have meant nukes on both sides and the US had lots of TLAM-Ns back then.

[FelixA9]

Once that was done (honestly, with three CVBGs


You sure it was only three? ISTR the US having something like 15 CVBGs during that time period and am pretty sure it was something like 5 - 7 in the Pacific. 2 Midways, 4 Forrestals, 4 Kitty Hawks, Enterprise, 4 Nimitz.

[FelixA9]

This is putting people in a slaughter. There are no big objectives to fight for in the siberia other than vast plains of frozen taiga. The disaster would be worse than for Germans in 1941 with legs, arms and noses frozen off.
And even if the initial attach succeeds, Russia is known for very good partizan activity, there is no way you can catch 50 000 + plus freedom fighters, germans had hard time doing it in Belarus woods, in Siberia you can hide a mechanised army in the woods and no one will see.
Imagine Iraq only much much worse, since practically every soviet male knows how to handle military equipment from AK to howitzers.

Doubtful that the US would care as much about civies so they wouldn't have their hands tied behind their backs. LOTS of air to keep heads down.

[martinexsquaddie]

plus its the old communist state not exactly difficult to be more friendly buy off the powerful :)

[AlexMartin2]

most of the Soviet warships had 1/4 of all anti-ship missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. Today is no different, I think. So, IMO, any major engagement would lead to use of tactical nukes.
Probably, first day of full-scale war ends with use of hundreds of tactical, and in second day strategic nukes would be used. And the third day would be the last day of the war, and it ends with signing an armistice.

[MichaelF]

Any US invasion of the Far East is a Grand Strategic win for the Soviets. The US units deployed there aren't available to reinforce NATO, it draws warstocks that would be otherwise sent to NATO, and allows the Soviets to fight on their own turf, in an area that contains no critical hubs. If the Soviets win in Western Europe, it's worth the wrecking of the Far East.

[Hellfish]

You sure it was only three? ISTR the US having something like 15 CVBGs during that time period and am pretty sure it was something like 5 - 7 in the Pacific. 2 Midways, 4 Forrestals, 4 Kitty Hawks, Enterprise, 4 Nimitz.

Yeah, I said "even with just three" - I imagine one or two would be in refit when the war started, another one or two might be in the Indian Ocean or out on ASW duty, etc.

[angry cow]

Very interesting, thanks for posting. And thanks for those who have contributed, I came in here expecting strategic nuclear flaming, and got interesting tactical insight.

[Auzaider]

Very interesting, thanks for posting. And thanks for those who have contributed, I came in here expecting strategic nuclear flaming, and got interesting tactical insight.

x2 really great thread!

[maurice]

You've very right. But with a single American aircraft bombing random chunks of the Trans-Siberian Railroad every day, we could effectively immobilize large numbers of Soviet troops, and isolate the areas we're going to attack. We had around 5 divisions (1st Marine, 3rd Marine, 6th Infantry, 7th Infantry, 25th Infantry) we could immediately deploy to Siberia if we wanted to, and another one in Korea, plus any mobilized reserve units, Japanese units or Canadian units we could get access to. That's a hell of an invasion force, especially if the Soviets are unable to reinforce their beach defenses.

That's best-case scenario for the US, of course, and could easily change with various political-military developments (Soviet spoiling attack into Alaska, nuclear weapon release, etc.)

they could but the Berring strait has long since been completely covered by the sea

[LaoSexMachine]

they could but the Berring strait has long since been completely covered by the sea

Thank You, Captain Obvious.

[GIJOEJK]

WOW, the "new radar" system at the end of part 2 sounds just like HAARP.
http://www.alaska.net/~logjam/haarp_SLD006.GIF

[GIJOEJK]

Likely, the balance of the USMC's FMF (-2nd MarDiv) would have been earmarked for the Middle East, if the Soviets tried a southern gun run towards the Gulf.

The 82nd and 101st (and probably the 9th ID HTTB) would likely have been deployed there, too.

The 10th Mountain was earmarked (at one point) for AFNORTH (Norway), but the other LID's would either be emergency reinforcements for 8th Army (ROK) or kept CONUS to shore up the Guard, unless things went very, very bad in CENTAG.

If there was an immediate prewar buildup of a few months, then the US Army almost doubles in size (with draftees, it could treble) when the Reserve and IRR/retirees are fully mobilized, plus 10 Guard divisions.

So, instead of 20 Divisions(-) available (plus 3 Marine Divisions) in the case of a "come-as-you-are", zero-notice conflict, we could have 40 Divisions (plus 4 Marine Divisions) at various levels of manning and TO&E (some Divisions were minus a Brigade, and some activated Guard units would be slightly undermanned and not have a full loadout).

A factor in figuring the Guard is that the current, extremely professional, Guard is a product of the RIF of '90-'92, where large numbers of Regular Officers and NCOs migrated into the Guard, as well as large amounts of 1st line gear being released from deactivated Regular units into the RC pool. So there would be a greater disparity in capability/talent/professionalism between the Guard and Regular units of 1985, than their 2008 counterparts, depending on the unit.

Most of the Guard units would be kept CONUS for a long time, serving as a security force and ironing out the bugs. If the War goes on long enough, or there are massive losses OCONUS, you might see them deployed Overseas.

Why not (the Soviets) just pull back and let the US forces freeze?

[Satellite Weapon]

This was, of course, all dependent on what the Chinese and North Koreans were going to do as well (would the Chinese attack the Soviets? Would the North attack the South?)


There were many other players. India, Egypt and especially the former Yugoslavia were sympathetic to Russia. The 60s might have been a better decade because of the rift between U.S.S.R. and Red China

[MichaelF]

Why not (the Soviets) just pull back and let the US forces freeze?

Two (main) reasons:

1st, if they thought they could overrun the beach/airhead and annihilate the US forces outright. That's always favorable to letting the Other Guy (potentialy) run around unhindered.

2nd, there may be infastructure that mandates at least a good try at defending. Vladivostok (only year-round oceanic port), for instance. Not to mention the population centers.

Likely, the Far East forces would try for a fighting withdrawal (trading Space for Time), in order to buy time for Winter to set in. Since they own all the infrastructure (and would destroy what they couldn't defend), they can operate through the Winter much better than an invasion force could.

Remember, we are talking about US (and perhaps Canadian) forces operating at the ragged edge of our logistical projection capacity. The US Army was set up to fight a defensive conflict, in Europe, falling back on our own lines (iow, as we fall back, we get CLOSER to our supply centers, and the Enemy gets FARTHER from his).
Trying to fight a Mechanized war, in the Far East, with what supplies we can bring in by ship or air, is not something we'd enjoy. Ditto with the Marines, as they can't supply an MEF by ship (for very long at all), either.
Meanwhile, the Soviets have their Armor and Mech forces in place, but we're forced to bring in our heavy stuff in follow-on echelons (days....weeks...).

[Bongopete]

A bit late here to post...but what are the chances that China would sit this out? I think they would be the wild card. Russia involved in a two front war? The Americans involved in a two front war? I would bet China would throw its chips in and try and carve out one big honking piece of siberia for its minerals, opening a THIRD front. Eventually ending with the Russian and Americans spent and China on top.
Of course if nukes are used its an all new ballgame.