You (as Russian leader) invade the United States

Joined Jan 2009
1,338 Posts | 140+
Seeing that Russia is so very close to Canada, the ships could make return trips.

Against the US + Canadian Navy, might be that you don't have any ships left...

I have to concur with the others that this seems like a no-hope scenario for the Russians. Victory in Europe? Possible. Victory over US, nope.

If the nukes are allowed, then we are in the Doomsday scenario. Everybody dies!

No, I suspect that the best bet would have been to encourage consumerism in America, make people overspend and sink into debt and poverty, make the rich richer, and then let the inevitable catch up with them... Mass unemployment, economic crises, anger...

... Wait a minute!

:p
 
Joined Nov 2007
7,628 Posts | 9+
Alba
It would be easy. Cut off the oil supplies. When the US can't get it's oil from the Middle East, it will go looking for for replacement sources elsewhere (elsewhere being Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. When these countries put the prices up, the US do9es what it usually does - invades.

When the UN Security Council resolution is vetoed (by the US) I offer them military support.

Game over.
 
Joined Dec 2009
7,829 Posts | 6+
Tennessee
Last edited:
Just thought I would post this to show folks something about what it looked like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lT_khtCiZQ

And sounded like. Here, the Confederate Army of Tennessee is driving the Yankees (Federal Troops) from the field in a magnificent manner.

This is a reenactment of the Battle of Perryville.
Here is a couple of the reenactor brigades a marching at Gettysberg...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGDv5INB-4
__________________
Why silly-... Russian invasion plans wouldn't stand a chance.

Civilians here... and just having fun!

and here

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5UFLoBlBA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71W_FFW_J0[/ame]
 
Joined Apr 2008
7,924 Posts | 29+
Hyperborea
1. Watch the movie Red Dawn

2. Train all the hot looking women in Russia as commandos, put their profiles on a mail order bride sites and let them marry fat old American men and move to America.

3. When about a million of them are there, stocked up on arms, put a coded message over the radio and they can take America from within.


There, Easy!
 
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
Russian boots on US soil would have been a mess. The amount of private arms in the states would have nullified any Soviet momentary advantage.
 
Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
I think my scenario of developing laser vision is the most realistic.
 
Joined Jun 2006
10,363 Posts | 32+
U.K.
I seem to remember doing something like this a few years ago in this forum only we looked at WW2 level technology. First according to the terms of the OP we’re looking at the height of the Cold War. To me that means 1960’s-1970’s. Things weren’t so high-tech then. Computers, sat-nav, spy satellites, etc. either didn’t exist or were in their infancy. Okay, just for fun, here is a possible Soviet invasion scenario.

Operation: “Endgame”

Objective: “You have been tasked with invading the United States and ending the war forever.”
Limitations: Unable to use nuclear weapons.
Assumption: Non American portions of NATO, SEATO will be, or have been, neutralised militarily or politically.
Resources: Soviet Air Force, Army and Naval units as required.
Enemy Resources: Remnants of U.S. Continental forces air and land forces when U.S. worldwide commitments to NATO/SEATO have been deducted. U.S. Navy.

Phase 1:
• Clandestine build up of Air assets in Cuba and in friendly South American regimes in range of swift air lift to Cuba on commencement of hostilities, in order to effectively challenge U.S. land based air power.
• Create/promote major conflict in SE Asia involving China, to focus American attention into the Pacific. Ideal result would be movement of U.S. Naval assets from Eastern to Western Seaboard, but not vital to operational success.
Phase 2:
• Clandestine mining of approaches to Panama, Suez Canals using either timed or remote controlled seabed mines.
• Clandestine location of SOSUS net in North Atlantic pending its destruction/sabotage.
• Movement of as many SSBN, SSN and SSB assets as is practicable without arousing undue suspicion, into the North Atlantic.
• Move SS Baltic fleet into North Sea to prevent /delay movement of U.S.Forces from Europe.
Phase 3:
• Activate mines in Canal approaches, clandestine mining of the Straits of Hormuz. Sabotage SOSUS net.
• Sortie Red Banner and Black Sea Fleets.
• Activate air assets warning order for lift to Cuba, activate Cuban bases.
• Movement of 3rd Shock Army from Eastern Europe to pre arranged embarkation points and transport across Atlantic using MORFLOT assets to Cuba.
• Surprise Air, SSN, SSBN, SSB strike against U.S. Continental Air and Naval assets and port/airbase facilities using mix of explosive and Chemical/Biological weapons. Aim: destruction or neutralisation.
• Red Banner and Black Sea fleets engage remaining U.S. Naval assets in Atlantic Western Seaboard to cover MORFLOT. Outright destruction desirable but not necessary for success of operation.
• Night Parachute assault to seize and hold key strategic locations in Texas.
• Air lift Airborne Divisions to consolidate positions gained by paratroops.
• Amphibious assault on Texas littoral by Marine Divisions, establish beachhead and link with Airborne Divisions if possible.
• Disembark 3rd Shock Army.

By attacking the Gulf of Mexico and the Texas littoral the initial aim is to seize or destroy U.S. Oil reserves and means of production. The next phase would be an assault on the Midwest to disrupt transcontinental communications. Major U.S. centres of population and production are concentrated on the West and East Coasts. Attacking through the middle will mean engaging the enemy in the areas most favourable to armoured/mechanised formations and the resultant disruption of fuel and food supplies will mean starvation in the cities and a breakdown of government/organisation.

The holding of territory is unimportant here, the objective is interdiction of food, fuel and other strategic supplies, so destroying farms/farmers and crops and trans-continental communications links are to be the priority.

Owing to the widespread civilian ownership of firearms, troops are not to differentiate between soldiers and civilians; all Americans are to be treated as combatants, regardless of age or gender.

It is expected that U.S. Society will break down in a week without food and fuel, American “individualism” will come to the fore in a scramble for survival. Meanwhile, without port facilities the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet effectiveness will deteriorate to the stage where it cannot effectively interdict movement across the Atlantic.

The mining/blocking of the Panama Canal will delay any redeployment of U.S. Assets from the Pacific for several weeks to allow either a greater build up of Soviet forces on the American mainland or the deployment of the surviving Soviet naval elements to intercept.

The Soviet Pacific fleet will be expected to delay such redeployment at any cost and is considered expendable for the purpose of this operation.

Not a perfect plan by any means, but I think there’s enough there to shake up some of the more complacent posters among you. :D
 
Joined Jan 2007
16,359 Posts | 31+
Nebraska
Belisarius,

Thank-you for your detailed treatment of the subject, and especially your "geographic" sensibility(it's where everything happens).

I suppose that under your scenario, the Russian's biggest concern would be their vulnerability to land-based air-power.
 
Joined Jun 2006
10,363 Posts | 32+
U.K.
Belisarius,

Thank-you for your detailed treatment of the subject, and especially your "geographic" sensibility(it's where everything happens).

I suppose that under your scenario, the Russian's biggest concern would be their vulnerability to land-based air-power.

Oh yes, hence using Cuba as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier". The Soviets wouldn't necessarily need to gain air supremacy, just contest it long enough for the ground troops to establish themselves. In the 1960's and 70's the S.U. were ahead in AAA weapons as the Israelis discovered in 1973, so once ashore the Soviet formations could hold off U.S. air power for a while. The big problem is getting them ashore and past the U.S.Navy.:)

Wasn't it you I discussed the original WW2 scenario with?
 
Joined Feb 2010
450 Posts | 2+
A riddle wrapped in an enigma.
Against the US + Canadian Navy, might be that you don't have any ships left...

I have to concur with the others that this seems like a no-hope scenario for the Russians. Victory in Europe? Possible. Victory over US, nope.

If the nukes are allowed, then we are in the Doomsday scenario. Everybody dies!

No, I suspect that the best bet would have been to encourage consumerism in America, make people overspend and sink into debt and poverty, make the rich richer, and then let the inevitable catch up with them... Mass unemployment, economic crises, anger...

... Wait a minute!

:p
The Canadian navy is a bad joke to be swept aside. Much like it's army.
 
Joined Nov 2007
7,628 Posts | 9+
Alba
......(elsewhere being Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. When these countries put the prices up, the US does what it usually does - invades...........Game over.

But the US navy would crush the soviet one. Game over (before it begins)
In the scenario I postulated, The US has invaded Canada and Mexico (by land) which is possible, but the invasion of Canada would bring in the Commonwealth on their side, the US invasion of Venezuela isn't land-based therefore you have naval, air army formations dedicated to it, but these naval forces have to sail past Mexico (and the hostile Commonwealth nations).

So you aren't fighting only the Soviet navy - you are taking on some of the worlds best deep water navies and your armies are fighting on at least 3 fronts (ask Hitler how inadvisable this is......).
 
Joined Jan 2008
19,014 Posts | 433+
N/A
Hitler was taking on an enemy with far greater economic capacity in britain + US + USSR, in the case of the US they would still be greater economically in the senario you present.
 
Joined Nov 2007
7,628 Posts | 9+
Alba
Celticguy;235451.....in the case of the US they would still be greater economically in the senario you present.[/quote said:
That's very doubtful. The US is far less economically viable than the EU (which would also have a stake in the matter). The Commonwealth, although made up of countries which are far smaller than the US, has s afr better mix of resources. Alaska is cut off and the pipelines are closed, the US is totally dependent on oil from the gulf states, which are interdicted and you can't keep the civilian populace supplied with automotive fuel.
 
Joined Dec 2009
10,107 Posts | 48+
Romania
I'd hire Ben Laden, and I'd provide to him unlimited financiar, inteligence, logistical and human resources support.
 
Joined Nov 2009
1,577 Posts | 7+
Texas
I'd hire Ben Laden, and I'd provide to him unlimited financiar, inteligence, logistical and human resources support.

Osama bin Laden (and Islamic extremists in general) wasn't exactly close friends with the Soviet Union.
 
Joined Aug 2008
718 Posts | 2+
...Second: ignite a coup in Canada and/or Mexico and convince America to let me send troops to deal with them, and set up Communist or Socialist governments there......

Monroe Doctrine. The war starts as soon as you try to move troops into either - regardless of whether the Mexican or Canadian 'puppet' goverment emerging from the coup 'invites' in Soviet troops. As for 'convincing' the Americans to let the Soviets send in troops, you may as well skip a step and 'convince' the Americans to allow you to move troops into the US itself, because the likelihood of success is about the same in either case.

If you're going to try something along those lines, you'll have to start further away and slowly work your way in - like Chile or Argentina. ;)

Regarding any 'invasion' scheme, the problem is that the Soviets need to get troops, reinforcements, supplies etc. in via air or sea, and they likely don't control either.
 
Joined Jul 2009
8,895 Posts | 15+
Bulgaria
Osama bin Laden (and Islamic extremists in general) wasn't exactly close friends with the Soviet Union.
Your right. They were with USA, but now they aren't close friends with USA too.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top