AHC/WI: "Winter War" happens with Turkey?

For this scenario, I think it would be relevant to consider the Soviet-Turkish naval parity on the Black Sea and also the Soviet capability for amphibious operations there. Could the USSR 1) (handily) beat the Turkish fleet and 2) make a big enough landing on the Turkish coast for it to be relevant, to capture Istanbul, for example? My knowledge on the matter is very limited, so maybe someone has better information.
 
I agree i shouldn't have said its "a lot easier" or "a lot less" when comparing the two. The Caucasus is quite rough. Perhaps i'm mistaken.


For this scenario, I think it would be relevant to consider the Soviet-Turkish naval parity on the Black Sea and also the Soviet capability for amphibious operations there. Could the USSR 1) (handily) beat the Turkish fleet and 2) make a big enough landing on the Turkish coast for it to be relevant, to capture Istanbul, for example? My knowledge on the matter is very limited, so maybe someone has better information.

approx. 8 pages of discussion on the logistics on another forum, one of the more relevant posts:

"In general, the Turkish rail net, while relatively developed further west, is not designed to facilitate traffic to Turkey's eastern frontier. On the contrary, it seems designed to prevent traffic from her eastern frontier -- i.e., to hamper and slow a Russian invader as much as possible. An actual rail line runs across southern Turkey and then through French Syria to Mosul. East and north of that there is literally nothing at all except a few roads and tracks of uncertain quality.

Moreover, much of this is extremely rugged country. It would appear to be feasible to move large quantities of materiel from western Anatolia to as far as a line running Trebizond-Erzerum-Diyarbakir-Nusaybin. From there, though, it's another 200 km to the Russian frontier. A lot of engineering is going to have to happen if a major military effort is to be mounted across those 200 km."

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=207545&start=90

believe the Turks proved adept at playing all sides against one another also ...
 
approx. 8 pages of discussion on the logistics on another forum, one of the more relevant posts:

"In general, the Turkish rail net, while relatively developed further west, is not designed to facilitate traffic to Turkey's eastern frontier. On the contrary, it seems designed to prevent traffic from her eastern frontier -- i.e., to hamper and slow a Russian invader as much as possible. An actual rail line runs across southern Turkey and then through French Syria to Mosul. East and north of that there is literally nothing at all except a few roads and tracks of uncertain quality.

Moreover, much of this is extremely rugged country. It would appear to be feasible to move large quantities of materiel from western Anatolia to as far as a line running Trebizond-Erzerum-Diyarbakir-Nusaybin. From there, though, it's another 200 km to the Russian frontier. A lot of engineering is going to have to happen if a major military effort is to be mounted across those 200 km."

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=207545&start=90

believe the Turks proved adept at playing all sides against one another also ...

I was asking about the Soviet fleet and amphibious capability because I believe the Red Army would have trouble in Eastern Turkey, and making a landing or landings on the Turkish coast might be a way to break a possible deadlock. Istanbul (and the Straits) is the obvious prize. As it is, in terms of Finland I believe that if the Soviets managed to capture the Åland islands early in the game, Finland could have well fallen in the Winter War. In both Soviet conflicts against their neighbours in 1939-40, the naval component could potentially have a big impact on the war. The question is how realistic such operations would be. As it is, I understand the Soviet Black Sea fleet should be able to beat the Turkish fleet to open the way, but maybe someone would have better information about the make-up and readiness of the Turkish fleet in 1939.
 
Except the terrain which is, for different reasons, as difficult as the Finnish one if not worse (Sarikamish everyone?), we have to compare the two armies the Soviets would face. The Finnish Army is small (300 000 men) but decently equipped, very well trained and very well commanded with a excellent morale (by excellent morale, I mean "firm resolution"). The Turkish Army is bigger (one million men) but poorly equipped and poorly commanded: the AT defences are close to zero and their airforce, except some polish fighters, is largely obsolete (and their pilots are not the finnish ones) Inonu isn't Mannerheim in that regard. While Turkey would want to fight the Soviets to the bitter end, the traumatism of WW1 is still vivid and Eastern Anatolia is still underpopulated and partly devastated. Plus there are the Kurds who now HATE the Turks (the revolt of 1935-36 has been extremely violent) meaning the Soviets WILL have the support of the locals around Van. Secondly, the Soviet Army, even purged, has officers who have fought during ww1, they know that Eastern Anatolia is a difficult theater of war, they have generals who fought here or have wrote memoirs about it. Moreover, if the Soviets have limited war aims (like the borders of 1914 plus minor concessions), they won't fight too far from their logistical bases. But if Stalin wants to take Trabzon and Erzurum, that won't be possible because you cannot take these cities within 6 months. But everything east of that line is possible.
My guess, if the cautious stalin acts cautious, a limited war against Turkey will see Turkey defeated with less losses than OTL.
 
A limited victory over Turkey could be more trouble than its worth. Germany might seize or at least devastate Soviet oil production with the closer positioning and the opening a second front in the region an Axis Turkey could provide. If Turkey goes Axis.
 
I was asking about the Soviet fleet and amphibious capability because I believe the Red Army would have trouble in Eastern Turkey, and making a landing or landings on the Turkish coast might be a way to break a possible deadlock. Istanbul (and the Straits) is the obvious prize. As it is, in terms of Finland I believe that if the Soviets managed to capture the Åland islands early in the game, Finland could have well fallen in the Winter War. In both Soviet conflicts against their neighbours in 1939-40, the naval component could potentially have a big impact on the war. The question is how realistic such operations would be. As it is, I understand the Soviet Black Sea fleet should be able to beat the Turkish fleet to open the way, but maybe someone would have better information about the make-up and readiness of the Turkish fleet in 1939.

my understanding there were no coastal roads, at least able to support military operations.

do recall that when Bulgaria moved into Greece, Turkey started destroying bridges, etc. ... so I would assume any Soviet move towards Straits would be the scenario they are MOST prepared for?

a quick glance shows Turkey with 4 DDs and 6 Submarines so theoretically the Soviet Black Sea fleet should be able to shoulder past them with ease? but they have no history of landing troops anywhere to my knowledge? and the above equation leaves out any mining Turkish might do.
 
Top