How to defend against amphibious landings and a rapid moving, highly mechanized army?

[Jonye]

*~*Disclaimer*~*
Hello, this is my first post here at defencetalk.com
*~*Disclaimer*~*

So the thought occurred to me - how could a particular nation-state/coalition defend against an aggressor using amphibious landings tactics and a rapid moving, highly mechanized army? (Differentiating between tanks and APCs if possible; and just putting this out there, I do not play 'World of Tanks' nor do I know much about mechanized military divisions)

I'm not sure how hostile the community might react to this but I'll go right out and say it. Specifically, I am picturing an arctic skirmish with Russian federal* forces invading the sovereign Canadian territory of Nunavut. Realistically, and in my honest Canadian opinion, the Canadian Arctic Rangers would not put up much of fight so let's even out the playing field by pitting the Russian offensive utilizing amphibious landing tactics and a rapid moving, highly mechanized force up against a defending North American federal* forces coalition (excluding Mexico).

*Note: I emphasis federal forces, therefore explicitly excluding PMCs in this scenario. I emphasis strictly fed forces so that an objective resource can be used in your personal calculations.
**Note: I tried putting in a couple links... alas! I cannot until my "post count must be 10 or greater", but I had globalfirepower [dot] com in mind for the objective resource.

Anyways, that's that. I'm just curious and was hoping that I could find the informed answer I'm looking for here at defencetalk.

-Jonye

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Your "arctic skirmish" would likely initiate an all out war in Europe.

Article 5 of the NATO Treaty
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

 

[Waylander]

Apart from the all out NATO-Russia war in which such an arctic invasion results, there are some possible actions.

It's a long drive to anything worthwhile for such an invasion force. So cut their lines of supply with naval assets. Bomb them by air (they habe no aircover anyway) and harass them with light (arctic) forces for the duration of their long march to whatever their objective is.

Concentrate heavy forces around their target area which should be there long before the invasion force and decimate the sorry force left after the march.

If they are just running around in nomansland with their "highly mobile" force cut their supply lines. Bomb them by air and crush them with hugely superior forces you have all them time you want to assemble.

What was the basis of this invasion idea again...?

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Welcome aboard Jonye,

As Waylander said,

RCAF to establish air superiority. Go on, buy a couple of Growlers to really screw up their command and control.
Harpoons and torpedoes (RCN and RCAF) to hit the ships before they get there.
Harpoons and torpedoes (TCN and TCF) to stop resupply ships.
Rangers for surveillance (this is their mission - not tank hunting or other miischief).
Special Forces to further degrade supplies, communications and morale.
Army can come and oversee the repatriation of personnel after the surrender.

Assuming that bad guys don't
maintain air and sea superiority
start using nuclear munitions
just plan on annexing parts of Nunavit

Have a great day.

 

[My2Cents]

Specifically, I am picturing an arctic skirmish with Russian federal* forces invading the sovereign Canadian territory of Nunavut.

Probably the worst place on the planet to provide logistics to, except, maybe, Antarctica. Access by sea is less than 2 months per year and you would have to go through US territorial to do so. And when you get there there are no roads or population centers. The total population is less than 40,000, and the largest city (in the southern area) is 6,700.

Frankly, the US and Canadian response to any mechanized force sent in there would probably be to wait a couple months for winter to set in then a mount a humanitarian rescue operation to save their sorry butts.

 

[John Fedup]

Probably the worst place on the planet to provide logistics to, except, maybe, Antarctica. Access by sea is less than 2 months per year and you would have to go through US territorial to do so. And when you get there there are no roads or population centers. The total population is less than 40,000, and the largest city (in the southern area) is 6,700.

Frankly, the US and Canadian response to any mechanized force sent in there would probably be to wait a couple months for winter to set in then a mount a humanitarian rescue operation to save their sorry butts.

Now I get it, our sorry SAR capability in the North is actually a defensive strategy to let these invaders freeze to death.

 

[bdique]

Russia has no serious ability to mount an amphib operation i.e. no LPDs, no LHAs etc. Note the plural. Remember why Russia is kicking a fuss about not having the Mistrals delivered to them? That's a loss of a major combat capability.

Even if they did have this capability, I'm not sure if their navy has the ability to escort the amphib troops safely i.e. unmolested by OPFOR submarines/aircraft. Also, I'm ruling out the possibility of a stealth approach since an amphib task force (destroyers, frigates, the amphib assault ships and a string of logistics supply vessels/troop transports) sailing one of the emptiest sea lanes in the world will probably be easily spotted and tracked.

Also, landing with a mechanised force would mean that the each amphib assault ship can carry only so many vehicles. To field a division sized force of IFVs and MBTs and other tracked support vehicles would require many amphib assault ships (Nunavut is huge, personally I don't think an army group-sized force is sufficient to begin with) thus complicating planning on so many levels. This may not be such an issue if Russian forces regularly practised such landings, but I don't see these exercises happening much.

Anyway if you want to land a mechanised force, you'd be better seizing a port, or something built up to allow quick offloading of your armoured units. Not sure if such facilities exist in Nunavut.

That's all the headache you need to plan for - and there's much more I've not covered. I don't think I'll need to elaborate on how to repel the land forces. In a nutshell, the defenders are spoilt for choice.

 

[pkcasimir]

*~*Disclaimer*~*
Hello, this is my first post here at defencetalk.com
*~*Disclaimer*~*

So the thought occurred to me - how could a particular nation-state/coalition defend against an aggressor using amphibious landings tactics and a rapid moving, highly mechanized army? (Differentiating between tanks and APCs if possible; and just putting this out there, I do not play 'World of Tanks' nor do I know much about mechanized military divisions)

I'm not sure how hostile the community might react to this but I'll go right out and say it. Specifically, I am picturing an arctic skirmish with Russian federal* forces invading the sovereign Canadian territory of Nunavut. Realistically, and in my honest Canadian opinion, the Canadian Arctic Rangers would not put up much of fight so let's even out the playing field by pitting the Russian offensive utilizing amphibious landing tactics and a rapid moving, highly mechanized force up against a defending North American federal* forces coalition (excluding Mexico).

*Note: I emphasis federal forces, therefore explicitly excluding PMCs in this scenario. I emphasis strictly fed forces so that an objective resource can be used in your personal calculations.
**Note: I tried putting in a couple links... alas! I cannot until my "post count must be 10 or greater", but I had globalfirepower [dot] com in mind for the objective resource.

Anyways, that's that. I'm just curious and was hoping that I could find the informed answer I'm looking for here at defencetalk.

-Jonye

This scenario is so far out there that it's difficult to conceive of any one more far out. Assuming Russia had the forces to mount this invasion ( Do you have any idea of the ships and logistics required to send a "highly mechanized army" into harm's way?) and some incompetent Russian commander authorized it., American satellite reconnaissance would immediately spot it, track it, prepare forces to respond to any threat, than annihilate it by sea and air before it can even mount an invasion.

 

[LondoBell]

Welcome aboard Jonye,

As Waylander said,

RCAF to establish air superiority. Go on, buy a couple of Growlers to really screw up their command and control.
Harpoons and torpedoes (RCN and RCAF) to hit the ships before they get there.
Harpoons and torpedoes (TCN and TCF) to stop resupply ships.
Rangers for surveillance (this is their mission - not tank hunting or other miischief).
Special Forces to further degrade supplies, communications and morale.
Army can come and oversee the repatriation of personnel after the surrender.

Assuming that bad guys don't
maintain air and sea superiority
start using nuclear munitions
just plan on annexing parts of Nunavit

Have a great day.

Um, I don't think using nuclear weapons is exactly the way to go. Also, given that Russia is rather on the low side for carriers, wouldn't they recognize that it would be foolhardy to initiate an amphibious invasion without air cover? The operating time of aircraft flying from Russia would be rather reduced.

Actually, does the U.S. have any kind of Naval capability in the arctic?

 

[Bluey 006]

*~*Disclaimer*~*
Hello, this is my first post here at defencetalk.com
*~*Disclaimer*~*

So the thought occurred to me - how could a particular nation-state/coalition defend against an aggressor using amphibious landings tactics and a rapid moving, highly mechanized army? (Differentiating between tanks and APCs if possible; and just putting this out there, I do not play 'World of Tanks' nor do I know much about mechanized military divisions)

I'm not sure how hostile the community might react to this but I'll go right out and say it. Specifically, I am picturing an arctic skirmish with Russian federal* forces invading the sovereign Canadian territory of Nunavut. Realistically, and in my honest Canadian opinion, the Canadian Arctic Rangers would not put up much of fight so let's even out the playing field by pitting the Russian offensive utilizing amphibious landing tactics and a rapid moving, highly mechanized force up against a defending North American federal* forces coalition (excluding Mexico).

*Note: I emphasis federal forces, therefore explicitly excluding PMCs in this scenario. I emphasis strictly fed forces so that an objective resource can be used in your personal calculations.
**Note: I tried putting in a couple links... alas! I cannot until my "post count must be 10 or greater", but I had globalfirepower [dot] com in mind for the objective resource.

Anyways, that's that. I'm just curious and was hoping that I could find the informed answer I'm looking for here at defencetalk.

-Jonye

Firstly, why would they attack Canada ( Nunavut)? If they did want to invade North America the likely point would be Alaska - they would simply cross the Bering Sea, a much smaller body of water to cross than trekking all through the inhospitable arctic .

Why attack Canada which will provoke a response from the US & NATO (also Canada is a peaceful country - that pisses few people off) , if the Russian's did want all out war with the West, attacking Europe and the US is likely a easier logistical challenge... (they are going to be their enemy anyway as soon as the first shot is fired)

Lets say for some reason they decided to attack across the Bering Sea , firstly they have to neutralize Elmendorf Air Force base and Eielson Air Force Base, and United States Army Alaska (USARAK) and any naval units in the area (at bare a minimum Virginia Attack submarines)

All this is no easy undertaking...

not to mention the fact that entire US war machine would be mobilized - B-2 bombers, ICBMs, SSBNs, the entire Pacific Fleet etc

NATO forces in Europe would also be on their flank , and other US forces in the Middle East...

A first strike from Russia would likely come in the form of a cyber attack, EMP , followed by special forces assaults / hybrid warfare attacks on allies and possibly a surgical nuclear strike (or alternative weapon of similar destructive power)

Harbors would be mined, infiltrators would conduct sabotage inside the borders, satellites taken out etc etc etc

 

[Feanor]

Russia doesn't have the amphibious assault capabilities, nor are Russian Arctic troops a serious threat in the near future. They will comprise of two brigade nominally, with 3 more having similar capabilities, but not being part of the Arctic Command formally, at least as far as I know. Given that Nunavut is not an island, and that Canada could use roads and rail to maneuver on the continent, they will have little difficulty in (with US help) concentrating necessary assets to deal with the nearly impossible, and certainly unsustainable Russian landing.

Though I'm not going to lie, the thread title made me think of this.

The 30th Turret Battery Or Fort Maxim Gorky-I | English Russia

A first strike from Russia would likely come in the form of a cyber attack, EMP , followed by special forces assaults / hybrid warfare attacks on allies and possibly a surgical nuclear strike (or alternative weapon of similar destructive power)

Harbors would be mined, infiltrators would conduct sabotage inside the borders, satellites taken out etc etc etc

Russia has far more limited capabilities in all those fields, save nuclear, then you give them credit for. This is a general direction of movement towards developing these capabilities, but we're far from it.

As is the Krona complex, Russia's closest ASAT program, has yet to reach the kinetic testing stage, so far they're just fiddling with the ground-based sensors. There are plans to return the MiG-31D to service, the carrier for the ASAT missiles, but at this point in time we'd need a new missile, and the MiG-31D itself would need serious upgrades. Not to mention the MiG-31 production line is closed, and a Duma-level inquiry into the possibility of re-opening it came up with a negative. They are working on a MiG-41, basically a new version of the MiG-25 platform, with the traditional Soviet approach of bigger/faster/stronger. I think that honestly we will see Russian ASAT testing in the 2025-2035 time frame. Past that point we may see serial systems that can strike individual satellites. It will be a long time indeed until Russia could potentially have a system that can disrupt US satellite constellations.

Of course there is also the purely ground-based solution, with a further development of the S-500 with more then upper-stratosphere capabilities, to full ASAT. Where that is, and what we can expect to see, remains to be seen. There's the OKR Lider for the new "destroyer" (actually nuclear cruiser) which is supposed to have ASAT capabilities. But that's at a similar timeframe, and for the lead ship. Serial vessels (again assuming the program continues) are even further off.

I hope this illustrates how far even one of the things you suggested are from reality.

 

[crest]

Russia doesn't have the amphibious assault capabilities, nor are Russian Arctic troops a serious threat in the near future. They will comprise of two brigade nominally, with 3 more having similar capabilities, but not being part of the Arctic Command formally, at least as far as I know. Given that Nunavut is not an island, and that Canada could use roads and rail to maneuver on the continent, they will have little difficulty in (with US help) concentrating necessary assets to deal with the nearly impossible, and certainly unsustainable Russian landing.

Though I'm not going to lie, the thread title made me think of this.

The 30th Turret Battery Or Fort Maxim Gorky-I | English Russia



Russia has far more limited capabilities in all those fields, save nuclear, then you give them credit for. This is a general direction of movement towards developing these capabilities, but we're far from it.

As is the Krona complex, Russia's closest ASAT program, has yet to reach the kinetic testing stage, so far they're just fiddling with the ground-based sensors. There are plans to return the MiG-31D to service, the carrier for the ASAT missiles, but at this point in time we'd need a new missile, and the MiG-31D itself would need serious upgrades. Not to mention the MiG-31 production line is closed, and a Duma-level inquiry into the possibility of re-opening it came up with a negative. They are working on a MiG-41, basically a new version of the MiG-25 platform, with the traditional Soviet approach of bigger/faster/stronger. I think that honestly we will see Russian ASAT testing in the 2025-2035 time frame. Past that point we may see serial systems that can strike individual satellites. It will be a long time indeed until Russia could potentially have a system that can disrupt US satellite constellations.

Of course there is also the purely ground-based solution, with a further development of the S-500 with more then upper-stratosphere capabilities, to full ASAT. Where that is, and what we can expect to see, remains to be seen. There's the OKR Lider for the new "destroyer" (actually nuclear cruiser) which is supposed to have ASAT capabilities. But that's at a similar timeframe, and for the lead ship. Serial vessels (again assuming the program continues) are even further off.

I hope this illustrates how far even one of the things you suggested are from reality.

always good posts by you fennor, my only real comment on this is in regards to your assumption of russias anti satellite capabilities


in a senerio such as this (war with nato) i could see them simply tossing enough crap in space to cause a cascade effect and knock out all satellites its well within there capabilities and in a conflict such as this it would hurt them a lot less then there enemies

heck if for whatever reason they did try and do something like this it would likely be there first move after all a blind america is about the only way they could get that "invasion fleet" to land safely let alone fight and resupply

 

[Feanor]

Just a note, it is possible that they keep working with the old MiG-31Ds returned to life (all 2 of them) and can conduct kinetic tests much sooner. This could accelerate the schedule for developing the missile, would not allow them to have an active and effective system until they have a new carrier for the missile.

Finally, they could find a way to modify existing MiG-31B variants to carry the ASAT missile, but it doesn't look like any work is proceeding in that direction. And both of the MiG-31Ds were prototypes, not ready for state trials.

 

[bdique]

Just a note, it is possible that they keep working with the old MiG-31Ds returned to life (all 2 of them) and can conduct kinetic tests much sooner. This could accelerate the schedule for developing the missile, would not allow them to have an active and effective system until they have a new carrier for the missile.

Finally, they could find a way to modify existing MiG-31B variants to carry the ASAT missile, but it doesn't look like any work is proceeding in that direction. And both of the MiG-31Ds were prototypes, not ready for state trials.

I'd think the VVS would rather focus their funding on other air assets and strategic capabilities rather than this one. This is one of those "nice to have", not a "need it now" type of capability development.

 

[Todjaeger]

always good posts by you fennor, my only real comment on this is in regards to your assumption of russias anti satellite capabilities


in a senerio such as this (war with nato) i could see them simply tossing enough crap in space to cause a cascade effect and knock out all satellites its well within there capabilities and in a conflict such as this it would hurt them a lot less then there enemies

heck if for whatever reason they did try and do something like this it would likely be there first move after all a blind america is about the only way they could get that "invasion fleet" to land safely let alone fight and resupply

You might want to double check just what some of satellite constellation orbits are, as well as just how many would need to be taken out. There are something like 1,265 still active satellites in orbit, with perhaps another 2,500 or so inactive. Of the ~528 US satellites, ~281 are gov't/milsats. For a GPS constellation, there are 27+ satellites, never mind spy or surveillance satellite constellations. Also, launching more stuff into LEO is feasible, but to get enough stuff to stop or eliminate satellites in MEO or HEO... I suspect the number of launches required would trigger alarm bells in NORAD, especially once the trajectories start getting computed.

 

[Bluey 006]

You might want to double check just what some of satellite constellation orbits are, as well as just how many would need to be taken out. There are something like 1,265 still active satellites in orbit, with perhaps another 2,500 or so inactive. Of the ~528 US satellites, ~281 are gov't/milsats. For a GPS constellation, there are 27+ satellites, never mind spy or surveillance satellite constellations. Also, launching more stuff into LEO is feasible, but to get enough stuff to stop or eliminate satellites in MEO or HEO... I suspect the number of launches required would trigger alarm bells in NORAD, especially once the trajectories start getting computed.

They already have

Object 2014-28E

Norad designation 39765

 

[Feanor]

You might want to double check just what some of satellite constellation orbits are, as well as just how many would need to be taken out. There are something like 1,265 still active satellites in orbit, with perhaps another 2,500 or so inactive. Of the ~528 US satellites, ~281 are gov't/milsats. For a GPS constellation, there are 27+ satellites, never mind spy or surveillance satellite constellations. Also, launching more stuff into LEO is feasible, but to get enough stuff to stop or eliminate satellites in MEO or HEO... I suspect the number of launches required would trigger alarm bells in NORAD, especially once the trajectories start getting computed.

Never mind the alarm bells, does Russia even have enough launch pads and rockets to launch a relevant number of objects into space all at the same or nearly same time? I doubt it. Look at their current launch tempo, and at active pads, and at times between launches on those pads.

I'd think the VVS would rather focus their funding on other air assets and strategic capabilities rather than this one. This is one of those "nice to have", not a "need it now" type of capability development.

They've definitely been allocating significant resources to this, so it's not a nice to have, it's a need it eventually project. However I think they're quite a ways away.

They already have

Object 2014-28E

Norad designation 39765

I wonder, most of the Russian military news sources have not mentioned this at all, either that or it was so low key that I missed it being mentioned. I have to wonder how reliable this is.

Although the Soviets were playing with space-space weapons a long time ago.

 

[Todjaeger]

They already have

Object 2014-28E

Norad designation 39765

And? NORAD keeps an eye on every launch, as well as tracking everything it can detect in orbit. While the capability the satellite has demonstrated is certainly interesting, one satellite would almost certainly be insufficient to inflict enough damage to a MILSAT constellation to render it ineffective.

I do not doubt that the Russian either have, or can develop an ASAT capability. The potential for a maneuvering satellite in orbit is certainly there in terms of ASAT capability, but more would IMO be required. The constellations themselves typically have something like three or four "extra" satellites for either emergency re-tasking, or to provide already orbiting replacements should an operational satellite suffer a failure. This in turn means that something like 5+ satellites in a particular constellation would need to be neutralized by some means before that specific constellation suffers a degradation in capability. To render the constellation ineffective would likely require considerably more "failures" to occur.

 

[Feanor]

And? NORAD keeps an eye on every launch, as well as tracking everything it can detect in orbit. While the capability the satellite has demonstrated is certainly interesting, one satellite would almost certainly be insufficient to inflict enough damage to a MILSAT constellation to render it ineffective.

I do not doubt that the Russian either have, or can develop an ASAT capability. The potential for a maneuvering satellite in orbit is certainly there in terms of ASAT capability, but more would IMO be required. The constellations themselves typically have something like three or four "extra" satellites for either emergency re-tasking, or to provide already orbiting replacements should an operational satellite suffer a failure. This in turn means that something like 5+ satellites in a particular constellation would need to be neutralized by some means before that specific constellation suffers a degradation in capability. To render the constellation ineffective would likely require considerably more "failures" to occur.

Exactly. That's the key issue. Taking out several satellites is insignificant. Russia needs to be able to take out at least double digits of the satellites to start making a dent. And that's quite a long ways away.

 

[Todjaeger]

Exactly. That's the key issue. Taking out several satellites is insignificant. Russia needs to be able to take out at least double digits of the satellites to start making a dent. And that's quite a long ways away.

Paticularly when you consider how quickly they would need to be taken out, to prevent or neutralize a US response.

I would imagine that protocols exist for a US position or response to 5 spy satellites going offline in a short span of time. I would also imagine that protocols exist for how the US would react to another nation deliberately knocking US spy satellites offline.