Soviet Far East assets (not including those arrayed against PRC) would be outmatched by our forces.
1. Seeing as the Soviets would use the forces they place in the SFE in case of a Chinese attack against any NATO incursions*, this statement is meaningless.
2. The Soviet Pacific Fleet in 1989 consisted of 122 submarines (77 of which were nuclear-powered), 77 major surface combatants (2 aviation cruisers, 11 missile cruisers, 8 destroyers, 11 frigates), and 100 small coastal combatants such as corvettes and AShM-armed fast attack boats. Backing up this naval force was over 1,200 tactical aircraft and more shore-based anti-ship and anti-air missile batteries then one should care too count. In comparison, the United States Pacific Fleet consists of 49 submarines, and 107 significant surface vessels. If you combine US carrier- and land-bassed aviation, the United States has less then 500 aircraft stationed throughout the entire Pacific Ocean. In quantitative terms, the US only has superiority in surface ships and even then it is not a remotely significant superiority.
*Again, in a NATO/Warsaw Pact conventional war, the Soviets are not going too attack China.
The Soviet Pacific fleet was strong, but no match for what the US could put into the region.
See above for a numerical comparison of Soviet and US Pacific Fleets. If the United States wishes too pull assets from the Atlantic, that's the Soviets gain.
As far the invasion is concerned, given that most Soviet forces in the Far East are dependent on a single long and highly vulnerable rail-line, the US supply to an invasion force would actually be more secure, and the US reinforcement too. Yes the Soviets may have large forces all over the Manchurian border, but these forces are essentially useless, if not a downright liability, once cut off.
The United States advance inland would be dependent on that same railroad for supply. Since the Soviet forces in the region would already be sufficient too eliminate anything short of a full-scale operation (which would suck away NATO resources needed for central europe) and could just contain a full-scale one until they are done taking Europe.
Also, US supply transports would be under constant anti-ship missile attack. What do you think happens too a cargo vessel carrying explosive ordnance when struck by an anti-ship missile?
Think of Normandy 44 if you want a comparison. The WAllies managed to bring in troops and supplies more quickly across the sea than the Germans who supposedly had all the roads and rail-lines.
Normandy is a terrible analogy. First: the Western Allies held air superiority at all times during the battle of Normandy, in the SFE this will not be true.
Second: In the era of anti-ship guided missiles, opposed amphibious assaults are just not done. A Normandy-style landing against a defended beach when the defenders have anti-ship missiles would be a catastrophe for the attacker. Anti-ship missiles can be launched from ships, small boats, mobile-ground launchers, and aircraft. Any US amphibious assault would have too be done far away from any defended beaches and thus far away from anything worthwhile... doubly so if they don't have air and/or naval supremacy.
On a additional note, the Red Army forces in the Soviet Far Eastern Strategic Direction consist of 42 motor-rifle and 7 tank divisions.
Last edited: