POLAR WARFARE

>>32732942
Why would there be a large scale engagement in the middle of nowhere?

>>32732942
Cold

>>32732954
Some faggot country decides they want all of Antarctica to themselves.

>>32733005
Then they get bombed.

>>32732942
Cut off their supplies and wait for winter

>>32732942
WW2 just wouldn't happen. It would require fully mechanized forces to be viable, and WW2 actors couldn't keep up the logistics chain to keep that going in Antarctica.

Modern Day would be one of the best days for tankers since Easting - huge open plains, no cities or urban areas, often too cold to viably field infantry. Artillery is also far more important when theres no civilian populace to hide in.

Air Superiority is a huge deal, even more so than usual but how that actually turns out I have no idea. Can modern planes deal with that sort of cold on the ground? Can they keep up maintenance?
If they could put carriers wherever they want and had enough, they could potentially project over the entire continent, but if they're restricted to a certain side or certain waters then even the US' projection range can't cover the area.

Why would anyone bothering attacking the expeditionary force on the continent? All attacks would be directed to the homeland/logistics train of the aggressor

Just use your navy lmao.

Incidentally, if you don't have naval aviation, you can fuck right off.

That seems to be basically how the war would go. In order to actually live in Antarctica you need to have supplies shipped in.

File: Battle_of_Hoth.jpg (262KB, 1332x680px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1332x680px

>>32732942

Did you mean Arctic? No one gives a shit about South Pole

>>32732942
scientists are stupid multicam would stand out so bad there

>>32733517
Incidentally, if you don't have nuclear icebreakers, your navy can fuck right off.

>>32733748
The Arctic has none of the resources Antarctica has, and it is tiny. There's a reason none of the treaties signed about Antarctica give up claims.

If people are fighting around the North, its geopolitical and there wouldn't be fighting over the Arctic like the OP wants, just around it. Even then, only naval and air assets performing logistical interdiction for the actual battle on the mainland.

>>32732942
This is a good question, as I believe the militiarisation of Antarctica is going to ramp up over the next decade and onwards, despite it being illegal, but who the fuck follows International law these days anyway?
You have China already building a record number of "Scientific Research" bases, causing some alarm. Any claimants to Antarctica should start sending more military assets to Antarctica, start developing in depth and well planned military bases and outposts and should start looking into increasing and expanding logistical operations to Antarctica.
I think due to the stark and inhospitable nature of Antarctica, combat may start off as raids on stations and bases, with attacking forces safe from full retribution under the guise of anonymity. Would probably be SF paradise during this initial stage.
I don't know, what do you guys think? Obviously just an hypothesis, but I do think the importance of Antarctica will increase over the coming years as the wonders of what lies below Antarctica is realised and investigated.

>>32733517
>That seems to be basically how the war would go. In order to actually live in Antarctica you need to have supplies shipped in.
For a while, yeah