Russia invaded from the West

matashowski

So in the present day, Russia appears unconquerable. Both Napoleon and Hitler have tried and failed to invade from the East, but what about an army invading from the west? I don't know enough about Russian topography, population, and so on to speculate. For arguments sake, lets say its a joint Anglo/American invasion that's departing from Alaska. Perhaps a second prong comes from Japan. Would the Russians, given enough time, try to fortify the coastline? Or would they retreat into the interior? Would it be easiest to let the invading armies in, have winter do its work, and engage them at the Urals after supplies and manpower are stretched across the continent?

Anyway, I'm just curious about youralls thoughts. If this happens in TL, I'd appreciate the link (although i do remember one of the first i read having America annex Kamchatka)
 

SlideAway

matashowski said:
So in the present day, Russia appears unconquerable. Both Napoleon and Hitler have tried and failed to invade from the East, but what about an army invading from the west? I don't know enough about Russian topography, population, and so on to speculate. For arguments sake, lets say its a joint Anglo/American invasion that's departing from Alaska. Perhaps a second prong comes from Japan. Would the Russians, given enough time, try to fortify the coastline? Or would they retreat into the interior? Would it be easiest to let the invading armies in, have winter do its work, and engage them at the Urals after supplies and manpower are stretched across the continent?

Anyway, I'm just curious about youralls thoughts. If this happens in TL, I'd appreciate the link (although i do remember one of the first i read having America annex Kamchatka)
Click to expand...

You mean east.
 

Undeadmuffin

I just want to remember you that the russian population and industrial base was always on the european and ural side, if you invade by the far east you will uselessly extand your own supply line will shortening the russian one without harming their industrial base.
They will have the trans-siberian to supply their troop will the allies will only have small port and bad road.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
I think you mean invaded WESTWARDS, ie in a Westerly direction, but of course that would have to come FROM the East.

The main problem is that you leave the entirety of Russia's industrial heartland safe in the far distance, and even if you can advance to Omsk, and the Urals you have conquered a lot of strategically meaningless territory and are only just about to start the real war

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

EternalCynic

The distance from the Pacific coast to Novosibirsk is 4000 km across desolate wasteland. That's the entire width of the Continental United States, without any local industrial base, local population, or any hospitable natural environment.
 

Forcon

I assume we're talking about this happening in the recent past-post 1991, that is.

Their was a book about this, called Arc Light, though Russia was invaded from both East and West. This was set in the late 1990's I believe.
It doesn't really matter which direction you ivade Russia from, you won't succeed. Russia is to big-the Russian army can simply conduct a fighting retreat until it manages to organise itself then counterattack when the invading powers have overstretched their supply lines. The Russian army isn't what it was in the 1980's, but it s still reasonably well equipped and well trained and they surely have a few tricks up their sleeves that we don't know about.
Russians have prooven that they are capable of losing 25 million people in the most destructive war the world has ever seen as yet, as well as losing a sizable portion of their infrastructure, and still driving halfway through Europe at the end of it.
Also the Russian navy and air force would sink a decent amount of those landing ships before they even get troops on the ground. The Russian navy and air force cannot match that of the USAF and RAF and possibly Japanese maritime and air forces combined, but it can still inflict enough casualties to prevent a landing, albeit at the cost of 70% of the Russian ships and aircraft.
Russian civilians would also be fighting as partisans, if not for the government, then for the country. Spetznaz teeams would be hittig the invaders supply lines and rear areas. Facing a foreign invasion , people mostly unite against the common enemy, like in China in WW2.
Again, if we're talking about the modern era, if they get desperate enough, then RVSN, long range aviation, and the Russian navy SSBN fleet will still exist.
 

Undeadmuffin

Well, i assumed it was around ww2 because during or after cold war russia could simply use tactical nuke to destroy any bridgehead.
 

Dunning Kruger

Didnt John Lehman or someone suggest, that in the event of a conventional war, the US invade the USSR from the east back in the 80's? It was a totally absurd idea but I seem to recall that idea getting passed around.
 

pattersonautobody

Forcon said:
I assume we're talking about this happening in the recent past-post 1991, that is.

Their was a book about this, called Arc Light, though Russia was invaded from both East and West. This was set in the late 1990's I believe.
It doesn't really matter which direction you ivade Russia from, you won't succeed. Russia is to big-the Russian army can simply conduct a fighting retreat until it manages to organise itself then counterattack when the invading powers have overstretched their supply lines. The Russian army isn't what it was in the 1980's, but it s still reasonably well equipped and well trained and they surely have a few tricks up their sleeves that we don't know about.
Russians have prooven that they are capable of losing 25 million people in the most destructive war the world has ever seen as yet, as well as losing a sizable portion of their infrastructure, and still driving halfway through Europe at the end of it.
Also the Russian navy and air force would sink a decent amount of those landing ships before they even get troops on the ground. The Russian navy and air force cannot match that of the USAF and RAF and possibly Japanese maritime and air forces combined, but it can still inflict enough casualties to prevent a landing, albeit at the cost of 70% of the Russian ships and aircraft.
Russian civilians would also be fighting as partisans, if not for the government, then for the country. Spetznaz teeams would be hittig the invaders supply lines and rear areas. Facing a foreign invasion , people mostly unite against the common enemy, like in China in WW2.
Again, if we're talking about the modern era, if they get desperate enough, then RVSN, long range aviation, and the Russian navy SSBN fleet will still exist.
Click to expand...

Can't China get it done with sheer numbers?
 

Carl Schwamberger

I'd recommend looking up descriptions of the "Dropshot" plans. those were started circa 1948-50 when the Berlin crisis of 1948 showed the clear possibility of war between the US and USSR. the short version is the US Joint Chiefs of Staff decided a ground attack from either the European west or the far east into Siberia would be more difficult than from the south. Dropshot was based on the idea of establishing a massive port/base structure centered on the coast of Iran and extending to Iraq and what later became Pakistan. From there a array of US & allied forces would advance north wards building railroads, highways, and advanced airbases. The object would be to occupy the trans Ural industrial cities, cut communications between European USSR and Siberia & the far east regions.

This advance would be supported by the use of atomic weapons against both industrial and military targets. Supporting operations would be conducted aganst both the Pacific coast of Siberia, and the littoral of Red occupied Europe. It was expected to take several years to accomplish this plan.
 

Redhand

Banned
I think an invasion from the North and South simultaneously might work. The force you describe would have naval supremacy and could seize Murmansk and Archangelesk and simply drive on St. Petersburg and Moscow from that direction while also marching northward from Ukraine to Moscow, with both forces driving everyone before them and destroying industry. Infrastructure in Russia is mostly East to West, so this can cut off a substantial part of Russia's industry. To the west, you simply hold a continuous front in Poland and the Baltics.
 

asnys

TO91320 said:
Didnt John Lehman or someone suggest, that in the event of a conventional war, the US invade the USSR from the east back in the 80's? It was a totally absurd idea but I seem to recall that idea getting passed around.
Click to expand...

I've heard that as well. The idea being, not to try to actually invade the rest of Russia across Siberia, but to seize, or at least threaten, Vladivostok and the other naval facilities there.
 

Forcon

pattersonautobody said:
Can't China get it done with sheer numbers?
Click to expand...

The Chinese army is powerful and numerically superior to Russia, but it can't fight when its logistics train runs to a halt. Russian forces woudl wear down the Chinese while conducting a fghting retreat, and the Chinese would ave to invade from their border, so they would outrun their logistics way before they reach Moscow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top