Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Skip this paragraph if you care not for fluff. Me and a friend are planning a 6mm Cold War campaign, him as the Russians invading Alaska in the late 1970s, me as the defenders. Our campaign revolves around the Russians' initial attacks against the Alaskan National Guard bases and strikes into built up areas etc. This is then followed by a counter-attack by land and sea from the US, with an army push across Alaska with a Marine amphibious flank attack.

So, I only need to know the general equipment of the units involved, i.e, what would have been available at the time of the campaign? The USMC would be equipped with LVTP-7s for an amphibious strike. On land, would the US Army have access to M60 Pattons at this point, or even Abrams? What sort of equipment would the National Guard have, M48s or M60s? Would M113s be available for the NG or not? Any thoughts and/or input would be appreciated

I would probably pik up a copy of Force on Force cold war gets hot.just for references.

No M1 Abrams till '81-'82.

National Guard could have had M48s or even M41s... Likely to have trucks, not M113s which would be reserved for Army units. Also the trucks were more suitable for National Guard as they travel better on roads.

Cold War Gets Hot looks very tempting, I may actually get round to buying it as I imagine it is quite useful for TOEs.

Looks like I will have to invest in some trucks and M48s then. No Abrams for me:(

 WhiteBishop wrote:
I may actually get round to buying it as I imagine it is quite useful for TOEs.

It is... I know as I wrote up most of them.

Using National Guard shoul.d allow you to get away with fielding all sorts of older mothballed equipment.

Big P wrote:

 WhiteBishop wrote:
I may actually get round to buying it as I imagine it is quite useful for TOEs.

It is... I know as I wrote up most of them.

Nice to know there's no bias on this thread A copy of it is heading my way after I feel I have recovered from the cost of BGK on my over burdened student bank account

Using National Guard shoul.d allow you to get away with fielding all sorts of older mothballed equipment.

So Pershings perhaps? Is the M4 Sherman a bit too far back? The tanks will generally be M48s and maybe a couple of M60s. We will see

 WhiteBishop wrote:
So Pershings perhaps? Is the M4 Sherman a bit too far back? The tanks will generally be M48s and maybe a couple of M60s. We will see

Who knows what they've got stashed in the back that still works but was never handed back when the upgrades were handed out. Stuff like OP or bulldozer Shermans and maybe some botch job de-turreted old tanks used as transports, gun limbers and improvised recovery vehicles.

At least in the level of personal equipment, they would propably be armed with WW2 "Vintage", like M1 Garand and carbine, LMG/GPMG would propably be trusted m1919 - might include BAR as well.

I havent seen many pictures of National Guard Shermans, the latest I can recall was New York National Guard with Sherman in training, taken around 1955 if I remember correctly - Cant recall which variant it was, but definetly not Easy eight.

With quick googling, few seed of information;

Several Oregon Army National Guard units during the 1970s and 1980s were equipped with the M60 tank, including the 3rd Squadron of the 116th Armored Cavalry Regiment in north eastern Oregon. During the 1980s, one of its crews received a gunnery award during Annual Training at Gowen Field near Boise, Idaho.

Source:http://oregon.salem-news.com/2011/11/oregon-national-guard-tank-moved-prineville-readiness-center/
So at least in Oregon there was more "modern" equipment available.

What comes into APCs, I dont see it impossible that some oldish M75s or M59s (or even M20!) would have found their way into the freezing warehouse complexes of alaska - I think that the tracked vehicle would be much better bet on such conditions than truck, especially in midwinter conditions. Thou the main part would propably be mounted on the trucks, or at least the "2nd.line" troops.

But in general; I wouldnt focus on the quality of the tanks so much - there might well been M60s available, but not in great numbers. Would propably apply on everything newer than M41

I found this which is has some good stuff

http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/chapter13.htm

172 Infantry Brigade was in Alaska at the time so your scenario can easily include some regulars. According to wikipedia, "It was again reorganized in 1978 to a structure that included one infantry battalion, one mechanized infantry battalion, and one tank battalion." In the late 70s these are 113s and M60s

I found this blob on the internet...

During 1974-1975, the Alaska Army National Guard developed a plan for an Infantry Group to better support the Army‘s mission requirements for training for mobilization. On 1 Oct 1976, the 38th Special Forces Company was reorganized and redesignated into the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 207th Infantry Group (Arctic Reconnaissance) by Permanent Orders 10-1. Its primary mission is to perform reconnaissance, surveillance and security in support of ARFOR in arctic and subarctic Alaska. The Group‘s subordinate units included the 1st and 2nd Scout Battalions, a
new 3rd Scout Battalion, created by splitting the 1st Battalion, and the 1898th Aviation Company. The reorganization of the 38th SF also formed an airborne detachment. A new 5th Scout Battalion, was organized from the 5th Squadron, 207th Cavalry Regiment, the 49th Maintenance Company, and part of the 910th Engineer Company.
from this
http://www.akguard.com/History_of_the_AKNG.pdf


I don't want to copy paste the whole thing but it looks like they had Sheridans and 113s. The their aviation had UH-1s and cobras It's near the end.

I've enjoyed reading the responses and I think the information is useful but after discussing it with my opponent, we feel an assault upon Anchorage, Alaska, would just not be feasible.

The lack of roads, dense terrain and the position of the defending US fleets make an assault not just difficult but nearly impossible. Supplies would have to be landed at Anchorage unless an artificial port is created and the only way an infantry force could bypass mountains would be with helicopters or paratroopers, the former would not have the range or nearby bases to refuel and the latter would be cut off. Therefore Alaska could in no way become a major attack point for a possible Soviet invasion, but rather an important diversionary attack to draw away potential troops. Then again, even this "second front" idea creates problems as it would be incredibly difficult to fight battles on a larger-than-skirmish scale due to the difficulty in moving supplies and troops forward for both sides.

The best "Alaskan Invasion" scenarios for the USSR were either an attack on the oil pipelines or controlling the islands in Bering Sea to begin ASW, allowing the USSR to control the north of the Pacific and have the potential to invade Alaska or even the western seaboard, giving them negotiating power at the end of the war. If anyone can offer any other views I would love to hear them

We are not ruling out the Alaska scenario, we may return to it at a later date but it is on hold for now. As it stands we are switching the theatre to Scandinavia and a NATO offensive/ counter-offensive in a push to Murmansk, Archangel and eventually Leningrad. There are fewer obtrusive mountains and there are more potential soldiers in the area. Again, thank you for all of your help

I figured you were just hand waving the naval/port situation. It's a pretty lame beach head, a couple thousand miles of harsh defensible terrain before you hit the soft squishy center of north america.

Steve wrote:
I figured you were just hand waving the naval/port situation. It's a pretty lame beach head, a couple thousand miles of harsh defensible terrain before you hit the soft squishy center of north america.

We are still considering the original beach head in Anchorage as a stand-alone game or a bigger scale campaign game (as in 15 or 20mm, not the planned 6mm) but yes, this was the reason we chose against it, mobile warfare would be nearly impossible without airbases and decent supply bases, and even then they are vulnerable to counter-attacks from either sides air assets. Put simply a sustained assault would be costly and unfeasible.

And even the soft squishy center would still be problematic. Reminds me of the quote everyone thinks Admiral Yamamoto said about there being "a rifle behind every blade of grass"