Red Dawn

Hey everybody, I had a question.
After all the movies and video games depicting the Soviet Union invading the continental United States, I am wondering if this was possible?
and if so, what year would it have been done?
 

PipBoy2999

Banned
I would have to say pretty much never. Soviet air and sea lift capability just were not up to the task.

After any kind of nuclear exchange, their ability to project power outside the Eurasian landmass would be limited far more so.

The fact that there are more guns in the US than citizens means that any Soviet experience in America would make Afghanistan seem like a nice place to vacation.
 
I'd say no, for the same reason there wouldn't be an American invasion of the Soviet Union. Nobody particularly likes seeing every strategically importance place in their country get it's own temporary sun. Unless you find a away to butterfly the nuclear arsenal of both countries actual invasions aren't going to take place.
 
Not possible, for reasons stated above.
The invasion of Normandie 1944 required thousands of ships and meticulous planning, for a body of water only 240 km wide. Imagine doing that across the Pacific...

Well it was technically possible to invade the US, to land soldiers aint that hard. But for the invasion to be successful you have to be able to stay there. Besides from defeating the defenders that means supplying... There is no way the Soviets could have supplied an invasion force across the Pacific ocean.

But the theme is cool, no doubt about that, I loved World in Conflict :)
 
Actually, the closest thing the Soviets can get to a successful invasion of the USA is if they turn up at Alaska. The Soviets will have a relatively easier time supplying their troops. Even if the Canadians allow American armour to move through their territory, the Americans are still going to have a hell of a time reinforcing their assets in Alaska.

Also, Alaska is rich in resources, so calling in nukes glass the place would be of little benefit to both the US and the Soviets. So there you have it, a non-nuke Soviet invasion of the USA.
 
The fact that there are more guns in the US than citizens means that any Soviet experience in America would make Afghanistan seem like a nice place to vacation.

I wonder how many of those gun toting patriots know how to live off the land.
 
Actually, the closest thing the Soviets can get to a successful invasion of the USA is if they turn up at Alaska. The Soviets will have a relatively easier time supplying their troops. Even if the Canadians allow American armour to move through their territory, the Americans are still going to have a hell of a time reinforcing their assets in Alaska.

Also, Alaska is rich in resources, so calling in nukes glass the place would be of little benefit to both the US and the Soviets. So there you have it, a non-nuke Soviet invasion of the USA.

No just no, but hell no. The USSR was more desperate to avoid "fishing" in North Pacific waters than anywhere else in the world. The correlation of forces against the Soviets were so fantastically imbalanced that it's the one place the Soviets could be easily repulsed with little loss. Unless you want to argue the DIA are asleep at the switch...

And even the USSR didn't have massive forces built up everywhere. Except for watching China, the Soviets wanted the Pacific as quiet as possible. The forces in the Soviet Far East were pretty much exclusively defensive, and against China.
 
If there's a nuclear exchange in which the Soviets come off relatively well and the US does not (think the Final War in the Draka novels), it might be doable.

Thing is, the Soviet navy wasn't so great, and even in a nuclear exchange they survive and we don't, it will take losses.
 
I wonder how many of those gun toting patriots know how to live off the land.

Admiral Yammamto viewed them as a deterrent enough, living off the land or not.

He said one could not invade the CONUS--"there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Of course, 1941 was a different era than, say, 1985 in terms of both military technology and the real-life skills of much of the American populace.
 
Admiral Yammamto viewed them as a deterrent enough, living off the land or not.

He said one could not invade the CONUS--"there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Of course, 1941 was a different era than, say, 1985 in terms of both military technology and the real-life skills of much of the American populace.
Also there is the fact that Yamamoto did not have Hind gunships. Those tend to make insurgencies much more difficult.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
I would have to say pretty much never. Soviet air and sea lift capability just were not up to the task.

After any kind of nuclear exchange, their ability to project power outside the Eurasian landmass would be limited far more so.

The fact that there are more guns in the US than citizens means that any Soviet experience in America would make Afghanistan seem like a nice place to vacation.
In the early 60's, Afghanistan was a nice place to vacation.
 

Blair152

Banned
Hey everybody, I had a question.
After all the movies and video games depicting the Soviet Union invading the continental United States, I am wondering if this was possible?
and if so, what year would it have been done?
I'm going to take a contrarian view here. The eastern tip of the Soviet Union,
now Russia, points like a finger to Alaska. The Japanese invaded the Aleutians in 1942. It took until May 1943 for us to retake Attu. Kiska didn't fall to American troops until July 1943. So given the notoriously bad weather
in the North Pacific, if the Soviet Union timed it right, ground troops could
march across the sea ice on the Arctic Ocean. This was the subject of the two-part NBC television movie World War III, which aired back in 1982, and
would be considered alternate history today. It's also the subject of my alternate history novel The Aleutians War.
 
Top