So, I thought this might be fun to ask 'dopers about. The basic setup is, for reasons unknown and beyond the scope of this discussion, Russia and Canada go to war. The US, again for reasons beyond the scope, remains totally neutral (in fact, there are no allies, but only the US remains neutral, i.e. won’t even trade with either side). Russia and Canada have, basically, what they have on hand or what they can buy and actually get transported to them internationally (with, again, the US being neutral so not selling anything to either for the duration). Some additional rules, I suppose. No nukes (which is good for Canada). And the conflict will end in 1 year. Victory for Russia would be the ability to conquer and hold Canadian territory for the duration of the conflict, with the more they take the higher their victory. Victory for Canada would, obviously, be based on how well they defended themselves, so could range from them completely holding off the Russian’s to total loss, but most likely something in-between.
It’s based on this video from one of the channels I enjoy. Since I’m fairly sure no one will actually watch the video, don’t worry about it…just give your thoughts on the question if you are interested in the topic. Depending on how (badly I’m sure) this thread goes, I’ll see about doing others like it since the channel in question does a lot of these fantasy battles and might be interesting to see how 'dopers assess the various scenarios and what they think would happen.
What Frodo said. Russian logistics suck (well, everyone’s logistics suck compared to the USA, but especially Russia’s). I’d be amazed if at the end of the year the Russians had a single battle-worthy battalion of soldiers south of the Arctic Circle. Does it count if they have some frozen Russian corpses nicely preserved on some of those Arctic Ocean islands?
That was my thought as well. And, frankly, even after the video it’s still what I think. The caveat is that Canada is a lot weaker than I thought they were. But…logistic, logistics, logistics. I don’t really think Russia could invade successfully. One thing I noticed in the video was that they weren’t taking into account that, if the US is really neutral, it would make it even more difficult for Russia to do some of the things they were talking about, without violating our sea and air space. And I think Russia would still have the issue of bottlenecks wrt attempting to move troops, ships or even fly planes from their main western bases, which, frankly, is where most of their best stuff is. It’s one thing to talk about neutral, but it’s another to talk about countries allowing Russia to traverse their territorial waters or air space to invade someone. I seriously doubt the Western European nations would allow it, and even if Russia tried to honor sea and air territory I’m guessing they would be constantly shadowed and harassed.
Myself, I think the best Russia could do is bomb the crap out of some Canadian installations with cruise missiles and the like, perhaps win some engagements against Canada’s smaller and far less capable fleet and probably against Canada’s air forces and that would be it. A draw is what I see, at least wrt territorial losses. I could see Canada coming out worse for wear wrt air craft and ship losses and infrastructure damage at a lower cost in Russian lives and equipment.
I answered before I watched the video, but now that I’ve watched it, I agree with what you said. Canada would probably come out of the far side of the year with their limited air and naval forces rather ravaged, but with, I suspect, minimal territorial losses.
The biggest hardship for Canada is not being able to purchase US military hardware. If that limitation were removed, and Canada were free to buy our stuff, I think they’d win in a romp.
By the terms of the OP I think Russia could technically “win” by capturing a slice of northern canada - possibly northeastern Yukon - that is in range of fighter cover. They have enough logistics and transport to carry out an initial invasion and it would be difficult to mobilize a counteroffensive due to the remoteness of the area. But unless the Russians want to extract tolls based on Northeast passage traffic, what have they won, really?* They might technically win due to the apathy of the Canadians to prioritize reclaiming the territory (although if I were a Canadian politician I’d support harassing them with non nuclear cruise missiles to remind them that they are not safe while I summon the cavalry to fight against what few divisions they can support.) Barring that, they might win due to the Canadian’s not being able to mount a counteroffensive within a year.
The populous part of Canada? No way. too far from Russian bases and too close to musterable reserves.
*And if they did that, I’d fight the hypothetical and say that that would turn a lot of countries against them.
XT, just as something to consider, my general impression of the SDMB is that there’s not a lot of knowledge of or interest in military topics among most of the members.
The truly far-fetched part is the idea of the US remaining neutral. And I’m not even talking about the implications of NATO. Given that they’ve had apoplectic hissy fits for nearly 60 years over a tiny island nation called Cuba because it’s too damned close, how would the US feel about 3000 miles of nearly unsecured open border with Russian-controlled territory?
In a word: Im-possible. Russia doesn’t have the logistics to take over the Tuscon Wal-Mart, much less another country on the other side of the pole.
A strict interpretation of the OP’s rules, however, would allow a Spetsnaz team to land somewhere in the northern Yukon and remain undetected for a year, then claiming victory because they controlled their campsite.
I’m skeptical of the video’s proposed strategy of attacking from the north. It’s kind of like suggesting attacking Moscow via Siberia. Sure, you’ll encounter less resistance when trying to establish a beachhead. And then what?
Just off the top of my head, if they want to magically remove American aid but say nothing of England is a bit strange. UK forces maintain a training facility with quite a few troops. I can’t see them staying out a good go.
All Canadian assets are taken right out of an order of battle, but dont really reflect if the Frigates are in work up, extension upgrades or even if they have manning. The Sub force, only has about two subs at best that work and not in refit or refurb. Air force assets would require a shit load of pilots to return to the forces to man the A/C , maintainers and other rates that the Air force probably needs.
The army, I can imagine they could turn out a couple of leg and mech infantry regiments to supplement the cadre forces in three months or so. However, no idea if we can arm those new soldiers from stocks or if we have to let a contract for infantry weapons and ammo and how long that’s going to take from a standing go. Add commo people, engineers , medical staff and thats probably going to mean a draft.
I’d say tube artillery is going to rule defense, but I think the video is wrong by saying that Russia would use WW2 kick in the door amphib invasion on either coast, but not both coasts at the same time. No special forces/ Airborne spearhead that takes Ottawa and decapitates parliament and the PM.
So nothing in that Vid was realistic enough to make me worried
I think you are missing the point, which isn’t that it’s supposed to be realistic or scary or make you worried. It’s supposed to just make you think. Basically, a lot of his videos feature unrealistic scenarios (he’s got one with the UK fighting France, for instance). They are sort of cage matches for countries. Basically, the rules are always that neither combatant can use nukes, if they have them, and no other countries are involved (unless it’s something like the EU against Russia or something like that).
Even with those rules, in this case, I think it’s unrealistic that Russia could successfully invade Canada, even though even in the video they only made marginal gains. More realistic (for certain views of that term) would be that Russia hurts Canada’s air force and navy and maybe hits a few of their bases with cruise missiles, and that’s about it. If we are going strictly by the real world (which is never any fun), Russia would never attack Canada conventionally, unless they were ready to shuffle off this mortal coil. Just like they would never attack the EU conventionally…or any other major power. It’s not something they could do and survive.
Even if the US remained neutral, other nations, I believe, would not. Like Europe will just look the other way? No chance!
And No Chance In Hell the US stays neutral if the Russians move on Yukon, 100% not feasible in my opinion.
They can barely keep their troops adequately supplied with basics, on manoeuvres in their own country, I’m not seeing how they’d manage in Canada’s far north, thousands of miles from the homeland!
But their biggest problem would be, I think, keeping their troops from instantly defecting. I’m pretty sure that’s how it would play out, to be honest.
I think you are missing the point, which isn’t that it’s supposed to be realistic or scary or make you worried. It’s supposed to just make you think. Basically, a lot of his videos feature unrealistic scenarios (he’s got one with the UK fighting France, for instance). They are sort of cage matches for countries. Basically, the rules are always that neither combatant can use nukes, if they have them, and no other countries are involved (unless it’s something like the EU against Russia or something like that).