AHC: Soviet amphibious invasion of British Isles

[Deleted member 114175]

With a POD after 1945, what would have to change that would cause a Soviet amphibious invasion of Britain to be a possibility?

Is it more likely than Sealion?

 

[Arcavia]

Given the etymology of the term, a new, stronger phrase to alien space bats needs to be created to express the degrees of impossibility of this happening.

If hostilities are at all likely to break out, the UK is blockading the Skagerrak and the area around Murmansk, and the Far East fleet is too far away to be accounted for. The Black Sea fleet isn't getting past both the Bosporus and Gibraltar. Even if the Soviets completely invade and occupy France, they won't have the infrastructure or experience to ever match a rapidly expanding RN.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

If you have the US somehow ignore Europe to a degree not even the greatest isolationist would consider after WWII, and have the British nuclear program fail, then it could work. Nukes really do change the equation in a lot of ways, a USSR with a good deal of nukes versus a Britain with none and no help form the USSR could destroy the RN with nukes/airpower, smash any conventional forces with nukes and land troops in CBRN gear to mop up. Doesn't technically require ASBs, though the level of irrational behavior needed makes ASBs less SoD breaking

 

[LNSS]

Things get so bad in Britain in WW2 for one reason or the other (true neutral U.S), that a communist uprising overthrows the British government. The British Communists then invite the Red Army into the island. Some time later you have the Soviets opening a second front against the Nazis in France.

 

[Veiovis]

Given the etymology of the term, a new, stronger phrase to alien space bats needs to be created to express the degrees of impossibility of this happening.

If hostilities are at all likely to break out, the UK is blockading the Skagerrak and the area around Murmansk, and the Far East fleet is too far away to be accounted for. The Black Sea fleet isn't getting past both the Bosporus and Gibraltar. Even if the Soviets completely invade and occupy France, they won't have the infrastructure or experience to ever match a rapidly expanding RN.

In any such scenario the RN will be completly and utterly irrelevant towards the outcome of the war/invasion. If it stands without the US,soviet tactical nuclear weapons will pulverize any British resistance inside a day,and if the US stands with it,its the USN,USAF and most importantly US nukes which decide if Britain gets invaded or not.

 

[History Learner]

Nukes aren't a substitute for transport capacity.

 

[Veiovis]

Nukes aren't a substitute for transport capacity.

the amount of transport capacity needed scales with the level of resistance that needs to be overcome. nukes tend to reduce that by a lot.

 

[History Learner]

the amount of transport capacity needed scales with the level of resistance that needs to be overcome. nukes tend to reduce that by a lot.

It does not; it scales to the requirements needed to land and supply the force in question. Even if you face no opposition, the requirements to transport, land, and resupply an invasion force are utterly massive and could never be achieved by the Soviets.

 

[Veiovis]

It does not; it scales to the requirements needed to land and supply the force in question. Even if you face no opposition, the requirements to transport, land, and resupply an invasion force are utterly massive and could never be achieved by the Soviets.

...what? words have meanings,friend. If you face no opposition,you need one unarmed soldier,who could probably swim across the channel himself.

hyperbole,of course,because its impossible to completly eliminate opposition,but the core concept of "weak opposition-small invasionforce-small transport requirement" is basic logic.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Assuming that the Soviets aren't using nuclear weapons for fear of a nuclear response, I don't see how the Soviets can pull this off any more than Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser, or Hitler could.

 

[History Learner]

...what? words have meanings,friend. If you face no opposition,you need one unarmed soldier,who could probably swim across the channel himself. hyperbole,of course,because its impossible to completly eliminate opposition,but the core concept of "weak opposition-small invasionforce-small transport requirement" is basic logic.

Again, whether their is opposition or not is irrelevant to transport capacity. You could indeed face no opposition if you nuke the UK to pieces, but that still leaves the question of how you are going to get there. Further, the fact you've just destroyed the transportation network and probably irradiated significant portions of the countryside entails the need for massive amounts of Anti-Nuclear supplies as well as consistent supply of food. You also need to be bringing in ammo in case a resistance starts up or, at the very least, keep your troops trained for further use elsewhere.

 

[Alternator]

The only way this is happening is for the UK to be such an irradiated crater that the landing forces come across in radiation suits, but the problem there is that in a large-scale nuclear exchange, the USSR is just as much a smoldering crater.

I mean, I guess a couple survivors coming across in rowboats counts?

You need a PoD before WWII, because by that time there's no way the United States is going to abandon the British. The rest of Europe, maybe, but not Britain, not the fellows who helped stop Hitler and Hirohito.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

On paper, the Soviets have the required amphibious, transport, air, and ground forces by the mid-70's. The problem is how they are able to get into a position to do it. In theory, a successful ground invasion of Europe which develops so that there are few enough losses in those assets would put them in such a position to do it (particularly since such an invasion would likely wipe out most of the forces with which Britain and the US would otherwise use to defend the Isles against such a Soviet assault). In practice though, there's the not-so-little problem that, if nothing else, the French would go nuclear on the Soviets after they cross the Rhine which is rather incompatible with... well, basically the entire previous sentence.

 

[TonyA]

Soviet Union stronk, like bull! Make Sea-Lionski easy, no Svetlana!