Writefag here trying to write an Invasion USA scenario. Explain

>>35175270
We're going to need more info than that. Generally, they attack places that aren't buffered by mountains and on the far side of an ocean.

>>35175270
Nice try Kim Jong Un.

File: Final Firing Position.png (102KB, 1314x718px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1314x718px

>>35175306
Alright, I'm trying to write an invasion of Pennsylvania by Fed forces; I understand they can't go over the Alleghenies and they need bridges to cross the Susquehanna River, but beyond that I'm clueless.

Like, WHAT roads would they take to get where they need to get (like Fort Indiantown Gap and the big cities) and where the best places for the defenders would be to actually mount a defense.

>>35175316
Toplel

>>35175336
I ought to clarify; I understand a bit more than that but nowhere what I think I need to in order to write convincingly. For example, I understand that southeastern PA is more important strategically than western and northern PA because that's where we grow our food. Scranton is important because of the army ammunition plant and the coal in the area. Pittsburgh is important because of industry, Philly because of ocean access, Harrisburg is the capital, etc. etc.

But I feel like I'm missing a lot. I don't want to write enemy forces going after some target that is trivial irl compared to the next town over. It doesn't really help that the last time PA was threatened militarily was during the Gettysburg Campaign.

>>35175417
What is the objective of the war?

File: 1503108228246.png (122KB, 971x733px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 971x733px

>>35175451
So basically it's a near-future story where Pennsylvania gets a LOT more jingoistic- think those Pennsreich posters on /pol/ times ten- and starts openly defying Federal edicts; nullification and all that good stuff.

Eventually it hits a breaking point and the Feds decide to invade and get PA back in line. So basically it's a full military invasion of Pennsylvania. Objective is to crush Pennsylvania resistance- the National Guard, State Guard, and militias all side with PA's government instead of the Feds- and dissolve PA's state government. The plot of my story needs for Pennsylvania to win, but by a hairsbreadth.

I want to know how I should write the Fed's attack plan and PA's defense plan. There were defensive positions set up on the state border by both sides prior to the shooting war but those fell early on, and the Feds have a naval blockade of the Delaware Bay while PA has jack in naval strength.

(If this sounds an awful lot like Trent Reedy's Divided We Fall series but with PA instead of Idaho, I know that full well. It's just an exercise to improve my own writing, not something I want to publish or anything)

>>35175611
If I am doing the Feds OPLAN:
1) Air strikes on national guard depots and other known logistics facilities. (POL facilities, weapons storage centers, army ammo plant)

2) Air Strikes on infrastructure designed to isolate Penn forces from Federal axis of advance.
Example: Air strikes on I-79 and I-70 bridges east of Washington, while Federal forces advance up I-70 from Wheeling to Pittsburgh. This slows down State forces from being able to move from the area around Uniontown towards the Federal advance.
This allows the Federal forces to cut off those State forces along their advance and keep them from being reinforced.

The idea is that the Feds hit transportation bottlenecks everywhere except where the Feds plan to advance.

3) Use airmobile forces and special forces to seize those bottlenecks along the Federal forces axis of advance to protect them from destruction. If State forces concentrate forces at these areas to protect them, use air strikes to attrit them. Any concentration of forces plays into the hands of the Federal forces.

4) Primary objectives will be command and control nodes for the State forces. Headquarters areas will be seized by ground forces or hit by air strikes.

5) Once organized resistance has ceased, slow expand federal area of control. Corden areas, search them from militia forces, clear them, and move on.

If you want a good example of this type of operation, look at "The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost". It is the Soviet General Staff report on the Afghanistan War. The Federal forces will have a better shot at success than the Soviets because of the existence of actual infrastructure in the area, the lack of a culture/language gap, and the increased effectiveness of C3I.

>>35175611
Go away Lind, nobody liked this shit the first time you wrote it.

>>35175611
But there's no conceivable way the federal government would lose a state, a SINGLE state.
Especially Penn
This is a bad story OP, unless the fed is small because major states have already balkanized.
> CA/west coast
> Texas/south
> Populated areas of farm belt

>>35175744
This is good stuff. So, to link up their forces between Western and Eastern PA, they would bomb, say, I-80 and leave just I-70? And what would the State's OPLAN be?

>>35175773
Who is Lind?

>>35175834
PA doesn't have to "win" militarily, they just have to not get conquered by the Feds. My plan was to have them be just barely holding off the Feds and be in secret talks with the leaderships of other states. Eventually some other states enter the fray and the Feds back off Penn because they have more important concerns, like losing their ICBMs because Wyoming and Montana called quits on the Union.

>>35176082
>And what would the State's OPLAN be?
If they are smart, they would fight as an insurgency.

If they absolutely had to maintain some sort of conventional fighting force (for artistic needs) have the State forces blow the bridges over the Susquehanna River at Renovo, Hyner, Williamsport and Lock Haven, and over the Clarion River at Ridgeway and Johnsonburg. Bridges over the Allegheny in the North near Warren, Bradford and into New York would be hit as well.

The point of this is to isolate Cameron, Potter and Clinton counties from the major roads in the area. Any Federal forces that enter the area would be light, and might allow the State forces to obtain local conventional superiority.

Mortars would be a useful weapon for the State forces, as they are light, and can be made in small machine shops.

File: PA_national_guard.jpg (64KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x338px

>>35176559
What about the cities? Is there any chance of State forces holding onto Pittsburgh or Harrisburg if they dig in and play urban warfare right? I know Philly would be fucked by the Feds because it's vital to the war

>>35176714
Possibly, but if you are the state, whatever forces you have in the cities will be cut off. The feds would surround them, and clear them. It might take some time, but they will eventually clear them.

The only other option would be if the State believes that the Feds will want to take the urban areas intact. They could concentrate in the cities, and force a brutal conventional fight, counting on the bloodletting and attrition break the will of the Federal forces to fight.

The risk here is that after a few weeks of grinding brigades into platoons the Feds might decide to do whatever they need to to take the city and resort to fire support on a massive scale.

The downside of this is that it would likely destroy the city, and whatever they are hoping to capture, and will result in untold civilian casualties which may weaken Federal citizen support for the war.

The upside is that the Feds casualty rate will fall off a cliff while State forces would skyrocket.

File: battle_royale_by_panzerfire.jpg (157KB, 1280x823px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1280x823px

>>35176764
For storytelling purposes, that could actually work fantastically- the State forces that didn't go guerilla/to Northern PA put up a terrific conventional fight for Harrisburg, which forces the Feds to level big parts of the city. That spurs other states to take sympathy to PA's cause and secede.

>>35175270
the only way i could ever think of an attack on us mainland to be successful is if they invaded the northern midwest through canada. they'd put their forces in the region where half the missile silos are located. supposing it's a surprise attack, the response of any military ground troops are about 1000 miles away. with the exception of the 82nd with airborne capabilities, it'd take a week or two before any main defense could be established. that's the only way anyone could gain footing in america as far as i can tell.

File: Bp3flLAIMAA5wDq.jpg (52KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x398px

>>35176764
>>35176559
Also, can you think of anywhere else besides Cameron-Potter-Clinton Counties that State forces could gain local dominance and not have to resort to guerilla fighting? Maybe parts of the neighboring counties, like Forest and Elk?

>>35176919
Hard to see it. The lack of transportation network give the State forces the advantage.

>>35175270
>map
Does that mean the French were the first to invade Iraq?

>>35175611
That scenario is a non-starter, there is no way for the Feds to lose.

First stage of the conflict is information. Shaping the narrative and controlling who can say what. Here the US holds every advantage. It has access to virtually every media outlet in existence, it can lean on major social media outlets (Youtube, Facebook, Google ect) and most importantly it can effectively silence PA. Look at the information blackouts that happened in Turkey during its coup attempt, Iran's internet censorship during its unrest, Russia effectively downing Georgia's internet in 2008. The US has far, far more ability to crackdown on information then any of those actors.

Then comes the air campaign. This destroys communication nodes, shuts of electricity, cuts bridges, targets known leaders in a concentrated effort to reduce enemy C3I abilities. Further attacks destroys air, air defense. armor, artillery, weapons stockpiles and troop concentrations. The only somewhat survivable locations would be ones built or moved after the political split, everything else has a known location and is thus effectively dead. Even those assets would likely be lost, the USAF has a great deal of experience hunting down hidden targets by this point.

By the time the first ground force crosses the border PA forces would have no way to plead to the out side world, no coordinated command structure, no ability to move troops quickly, no ability to mass armor, air or artillery assets and no way to replace materiel losses. As a state leaving is a existential threat to the US (or at least the administration) the US would be willing to commit and lose far more resources in such a conflict then in a
ME war no one actually cares about. Without the ability to talk, move or fight there simply is no way for PA to win.

File: Second American Revolution Infrastructure.png (143KB, 1787x921px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1787x921px

>>35178774
High quality blackpill right there...

However, the Feds also don't want to completely obliterate PA the way they would some shitty ME nation because it wouldn't look good for them on TV, having a US state ravaged like that, so they do want it (relatively) intact.

My plan was for Pennsylvania to be just barely holding them off and near capitulation when several other states secede (upstate NY, western Maryland, and West Virginia included, which severely hinders the Fed's ability to project force into PA), which gets the Feds to back off a bit.

>>35178946
Cutting off communications leaves the state far more intact then a ground campaign. As for looking good on TV information control and surgical airstrikes look infinity better then a column of tanks. Doing a straight ground invasion would not only be ineffective but also look worse.

Again, how would PA leaders talk to the outside world? The internet would not be a viable option, your own image shows how vulnerable the physical infrastructure is, all of the major ISPs would still be under US jurisdiction and it would be trivial to have the major social media platforms censor content coming from PA. This is all stuff that has been done.

How would PA C3I function? Hitting known communication hubs is a trivial task. The USAF and CIA are extremely experienced at taking out mid level leadership. Again, this is all standard fare for any military operation conducted by a semi competent military, including civil operations.

How would they hide and move heavy assets? Tank plinking is the favorite pastime of the USAF and they are rather good at it.

If it was a state with massive resources like CA or a large nuclear force like WA or GA you might be able to make some narrative that works but PA has nothing.

File: ww3 now.png (214KB, 814x294px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 814x294px

>>35175611
Nothing like this would ever happen. The nazi militia group would just be targeted covertly by the FBI until it comes to a raid and arrests or deaths. This is terrible fantasy lol

>>35179387
Also
>NG siding with the state
For this to happen the conflict would have to be over something much more emotional than states right.

File: Tom and Second American Civil War Sim.png (580KB, 1446x1437px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1446x1437px

>>35179293
I've read a decent bit about spy tactics, so dead-drops at the more desolate parts of the borders would be used to communicate with other state leaders, plus secure radio (the Feds can't use a majority of the tactics described in the pic because it would fuck with them a lot worse)

As for C3I, the PA forces have secure comms, but the orders to them once they realize they're fighting way out of their weight are basically "hunker down and go guerilla." Big battles are common early on but then most PA forces abandon their tanks and go guerilla because they can't sustain that kind of fighting. It's not supposed to be a straight-up fight- mostly a guerilla war with some standing PA forces managing to hold out in the most rural parts of the state.

PA doesn't have nothing though; we have the third largest Army National Guard (and since it's "twenty minutes into the future" I'm writing it so we have a State Guard too), lots of fuel resources (coal, oil, and natural gas- basically Texas of the Northeast). Story wise it's also symbolic with the Keystone state thing going on- plus it's my home state, so it's just easier to write about a place you know.

>>35179387
Great contribution very productive comment.

>>35175336
look at a topographic map
hiways, roads, bridges, RR lines, harbors, ship-ports, airports

look at the important critical points
infrastructure

>>35179494
You cant run an media campaign with dead drops.

Radio is extremely limited in capability and can be jammed.

The entire PA National Guard is less then 20,000 men. That is not a force capable of holding off the US Army.

>>35179592
It's not a media campaign lad, it's them asking other states like West Virginia to help them out precisely because they can't hold off the US Army. I think we're getting away from my original question about the strategic geography of an attack tho

.>>35179561
Ty anon.

>>35179626
If you want support you need a media campaign. Otherwise your enemy is the one who gets to say what is happening.

The strategic geography is just an advance straight to the center of wherever the revolt is the strongest after an air campaign dismantles enemy C3I and heavy assets. Its crushing an insurrection, not fighting a war.

>>35179561
Also obviously as some else already stated, MOUNTAINS, and MOUNTAIN RANGES, so mountain passes are also key

File: 1491251448534.jpg (59KB, 640x580px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x580px

>>35179658
Is that why the Chechen and Vietnam Wars were over so quick?

>>35176082
>Who is Lind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Lind

He wrote a novel called "Victoria" than an Anon bought, summarized and made fun of, Mystery Science 3000 style.

>>35179740
>Chechen
Chechnya 1 there was no functioning Russian military. Chechnya 2 was a good example, relentless Federal advance to the insurrectionists stronghold and seizing it. Just without any of the actually effective air-power or intelligence that the US would have.

>Vietnam
Resistance was based in North Vietnam, not the South. Completely different scenario.

>>35179868
The point isn't that there's a direct comparison, it's that insurgencies have a good chance of success. Also
>no functioning Russian military
Dude they lost 5,000 guys

>>35179845
Oh cool, do you have a link to the mocking?

>>35179658
>>35179740
>>35179868
The closest analogue to a civil war in the United States isn't Chechnya or Vietnam, it's the Russian and Chinese civil wars.

There is no outside power with enough resources to decisively influence a conflict in the United States.

With a population in the hundreds of millions, it'll simply be too big.

The entire idea of front lines will become meaningless as insurgents roam through the countryside and the state lacks the resources to reassert control.

Complex technological systems like aviation and armor will become increasingly difficult to sustain at the normal levels due to the lack of any supply chains that are free of enemy interdiction.

Idea for the OP is check out Mike Venerbaugh's novel in progress "Absolved". ATF sticks it's dick in a meat grinder when they go after someone ready for them and it provokes Alabama into giving the feds the finger.

https://billstclair.com/absolved/

File: Second Civil War.png (77KB, 1103x654px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1103x654px

>>35179924
Good point, plus I was going to devote at least some of my story to how State forces specifically target Fed refueling trucks so they don't have to fight the tanks at all.

>>35175270

fuck off back to your mosque achmed

NUKE MECCA

File: 1485129828943.png (127KB, 1425x1258px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1425x1258px

>>35179960
Oooooo neat, but why are so many chapters missing?

>>35179967
Basically, if it's anything like it was in China, the cities will become decoupled from the countryside.

The government will be able to control the cities, because you can cover more population with less guys in a city.

In the countryside, the government simply won't have enough men with guns to hold everyone at gunpoint, and the widespread hunger will lead to refugee crises and banditry, and lead to de facto anarchy.

It's possible that normality will return to areas with high pro-government sympathy, as with the Alawite areas of Syria, but in most of the country, there will be no front lines; only concentrations of force.

File: 1482119611561.png (190KB, 1232x650px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1232x650px

>>35180100
Would you mind expanding on that last part, "concentrations of force"?

>>35180122
You'd expect military formations to take the form of roving bands, Red Dawn style.

The rebels especially would have to keep moving faster than the government can get enough intelligence and planning together to clear the area and kill all of them with superior firepower.

As there are little to no organized logistical systems left, armed forces will need to rely on the locals for food, men, and pretty much all of the basics of an armed campaign.

This is how Mao beat the much richer and better armed forces of Kai Shek, he was able to get all of the peasants on his side by deposing the local aristocracies, and then use his control of the countryside peasantry to starve out the cities.

In the US this would be more complicated, because a majority of the population lives in suburban areas.

File: bosnia.jpg (2MB, 1504x2964px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1504x2964px

>>35179960
>>35180050
Nvm I know why now :(

>>35180154
Okay that makes a lot more sense now. How would the suburbanites act different? A mix of city and rural?

File: Modern art masterpiece.png (62KB, 937x302px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 937x302px

>>35180154
Cont because I meandered off and forgot the important part.

In a conventional war, both sides will typically have relatively secure rear areas where their logistics and support base will be safe from ground attack.

When a state loses the support and control of the population, the enemy can attack anywhere that hasn't been carefully secured. You end up with areas where neither side can operate without fear of attack.

When a foreign power enters a country to fight an insurgency there, they have the luxury of bringing in supplies from a homeland that is untouched by insurgent attacks.

A state at war with its own people has no such luxury. The only resources they can reliably draw from are their few secure areas, or from friendly foreign powers.

An area of your state in which the population is actively attempting to overthrow the government will almost always be a net negative in terms of resources, which is why insurgencies are so intensely costly to defeat.

>>35180206
>A mix of city and rural?

Basically.

It would be harder to implement movement restrictions, rationing, and constant police surveillance in a suburb than in a city, but easier than in the countryside.

I imagine that a future government trying to secure the Sun Valley or DFW area would find it intensely painful to cover so many people over so much terrain.

File: dicks.png (731KB, 1510x1078px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1510x1078px

>>35180349
>>35180309
Thanks a bunch anon, these are really helpful

>>35180206
>Nvm I know why now :(

Hmm, didn't know Sipsey Street closed up shop.

>>35175270
try getting past colorado on I-70 and I-80. you can just apply explosives to some cliffs and stop roads for days. shit is tough past the rockies