How would you liberate Washington DC? Military strategy on the Eastern Seaboard

[Avimimus]

Let's say that Washington was taken in a coup d'états and you had to liberate it...

It is the near future - so automated sensors, drones and artillery (including guided rounds) feature prominently. Part of your force is moving largely on foot. You start in the South-Eastern United States - perhaps South Carolina.

My question is - What military bases do you hope join your side? What path to Washington do you take? What choke points do you anticipate?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Let's say that Washington was taken in a coup d'états and you had to liberate it...

Why liberate? As opposed to simply trashing the joint.

 

[bobbymike]

Let's say that Washington was taken in a coup d'états and you had to liberate it...

Why liberate? As opposed to simply trashing the joint.

Yes and starting over guided by the Constitution. At this point America needs a 'Maximus' to come forward Seven Days in May anyone?

 

[AeroFranz]

Cut power to the city. It doesn't matter when. Peeps will freeze to death in winter or wish they were dead because of the humidity in the summer.

 

[Avimimus]

Be my guest - you can do whatever you want once you capture it - heck, even gather up all the Mcdonald's signs in the city to make a triumphal arch... but first we have to capture it!

Washington itself seems pretty simple - the Delaware wasn't meant to be crossed from the south - it acts as a barrier where troops are exposed to guided artillery. However, the southern slopes are relatively protected. Most of the fighting would be to the west in order to capture the ring-road and commandos could easily make a crossing a snake island. Anyone disagree?

In strategic terms it is possible to disrupt any reinforcements passing through the mountains and hills to the west. What I'm most curious about is the approach from the south (and what major military assets would play a role there) - I've only ever taken her from the North you see.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If you have the city surrounded, the coup would seem to have failed. If the city is surrounded, simply wait them out. It's not like there's a whole lot of effective agriculture going on in the city; they'll starve.

 

[sferrin]

Liberate Washington DC? I'd start by educating voters.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Liberate Washington DC? I'd start by educating voters.

Agreed.

Is not impressed.

 

[Avimimus]

If you have the city surrounded, the coup would seem to have failed. If the city is surrounded, simply wait them out. It's not like there's a whole lot of effective agriculture going on in the city; they'll starve.

Not a bad idea. Although an assault might be merited in order to quickly re-establish the authority of the government. What do you think?

 

[Avimimus]

Okay - here is the scenario: ;D

1. The Advance

The force starts out in the JEB at Norfolk. This gives them a march of a little over 330km to Washington (theoretically 10 days on foot - without significant rest or opposition)

Parallel roads make it hard to block an advance and north Fredericksburg is held by allied forces. As a result a push is made to Stafford with almost no resistance.

2. First line of defenders and encirclement

The primary choke point for the advance is Manassas (no surprise). An anchor is established at Bristow with Manassas encircled in a clockwise motion. A screening line of skirmisher units is established near Oakton.

With the initial defense at Manassas overcome, allied forces advance on the Capital Beltway - effectively encircling the city.

3. Within Washington

Within Washington, armoured units can effectively be used on the broad causeways of the downtown. After linking-up most resistance in the city comes to a halt.

At the same time light forces ford near the dam at Snake Island and begin contesting both shores of the Potomac. These light forces help secure political assets in the city - keeping those responsible for the coup d'état from escaping).

4. Supporting formations

Meanwhile a second line of advance has penetrated into the Great Valley Region, covering 450 km over fifteen days. They interfere with enemy reinforcement from the west.

This second force pushes a salient towards Chambersburg in order to cut off the enemy command at Thurmont and remove the possibility of a retreat through the area around Camp David.

A third force that is moving on Washington from the north east decides to support the allied effort and helps secure the Capital Beltway. After a few mopping up operations the government is secured.

Questions:

Does this sound plausible?

How do you think the USMC base at Quantico fits into this?

Any thoughts about the force starting out from the Joint Expeditionary Base in Norfolk? Do you think Monroe, Eustis and Lee are in close enough contact that they would pick the same side?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Not a bad idea. Although an assault might be merited in order to quickly re-establish the authority of the government. What do you think?

Probably work about as well as it did in Waco. So long as they are placidly freezing/staving/plaguing to death, let 'em. Presumably the city would be pretty much emptied out of innocent civilians; all that would be left are Enemy Forces and bureaucrats. Let 'em starve. Only go in if they start torching things of value like the Air & Space Museum. So long as they're fouling the IRS or Social Security buildings... who cares?

 

[kcran567]

It depends on what side you're on. The current regime of international bank cartels and money interests would bring in foreign troops maybe even UN troops to liberate their comrades and keep business as usual. If you are a patriot/constitutional group that favors a restored constitutional republic then you let all hell break loose, maybe some stolen or commandeered nukes go off and DC is allowed to die. After that, if there isn't domestic and international chaos we have a reboot.

 

[martinbayer]

Okay - here is the scenario: ;D

1. The Advance

The force starts out in the JEB at Norfolk. This gives them a march of a little over 330km to Washington (theoretically 10 days on foot - without significant rest or opposition)

Parallel roads make it hard to block an advance and north Fredericksburg is held by allied forces. As a result a push is made to Stafford with almost no resistance.

2. First line of defenders and encirclement

The primary choke point for the advance is Manassas (no surprise). An anchor is established at Bristow with Manassas encircled in a clockwise motion. A screening line of skirmisher units is established near Oakton.

With the initial defense at Manassas overcome, allied forces advance on the Capital Beltway - effectively encircling the city.

3. Within Washington

Within Washington, armoured units can effectively be used on the broad causeways of the downtown. After linking-up most resistance in the city comes to a halt.

At the same time light forces ford near the dam at Snake Island and begin contesting both shores of the Potomac. These light forces help secure political assets in the city - keeping those responsible for the coup d'état from escaping).

4. Supporting formations

Meanwhile a second line of advance has penetrated into the Great Valley Region, covering 450 km over fifteen days. They interfere with enemy reinforcement from the west.

This second force pushes a salient towards Chambersburg in order to cut off the enemy command at Thurmont and remove the possibility of a retreat through the area around Camp David.

A third force that is moving on Washington from the north east decides to support the allied effort and helps secure the Capital Beltway. After a few mopping up operations the government is secured.

Questions:

Does this sound plausible?

How do you think the USMC base at Quantico fits into this?

Any thoughts about the force starting out from the Joint Expeditionary Base in Norfolk? Do you think Monroe, Eustis and Lee are in close enough contact that they would pick the same side?

I'm an engineer and not a historian or arm chair general, but this sounds a lot like an 18th century military campaign to me. Neither side has or uses air support, or even ground transportation other than bipedal motion for troop movements? What is the rationale for the premise of the force moving largely on foot - are we talking Mad Max 2.0?

Martin

 

[Avimimus]

Hi Martin - you could say that this is the maximum time for an unopposed force.

One of the assumptions I'm working on is the proliferation of sensors and guided weapons. Modern conventional artillery is pushing 50 km ranges, rocket artillery and small UAVs can easily push that out to 200 km. As a result - keeping a force dispersed as it advances and minimizing the value of any specific target is important.

Allowing that time for dismounted movement gives infantry forces a chance to secure routes of advance ahead of the mechanised force. It also allows focusing transportation assets on ammunition and logistic support - rather than the infantry itself. I personally think it is neat to imagine baggage trains and PBIs (with their own guided weapons) coming to be a central part of military strategy by the 22nd century.

What I sketched above is also the main movement of troops - I'm assuming that small armoured formations may well engage each other before the main body of troops reaches the area. In fact, there may be a considerable amount of fluid movement and ambush teams trying to hamper the advance.

Let me know if you have any comments, questions or suggestions.

 

[Madoc]

I think you're still being to vague.

What size forces are you envisoning for each side? Equally equipped? Equal in number? Or does one side have superior numbers whilst the other has superior toys? Those are the things which would truly drive the strategy and tactics involved here.

If the defenders of the capitol have numbers on their side then the attackers would adopt a strategy of grinding down those numbers as painlessly as possible. Expect lots of anti-personnel artillery fire and the like.

If the defenders have the toys on their side then the attackers would have to close as quickly as possible to prevent their being so whittled down.

 

[martinbayer]

Avimimus,

why not have your forces get (at least close) to the theater for example in private cars and off road vehicles on a multitude of paths? I think speed, stealth and dispersion might get you farther quicker and provide more of an element of surprise. I'm also still puzzled by the premise of or rationale for the complete absence of crewed airborne assets on either side - what about airlift, paratroopers, close air support, attack helicopters, bombers...?

Martin

 

[Avimimus]

I think you're still being to vague.

What size forces are you envisoning for each side? Equally equipped? Equal in number? Or does one side have superior numbers whilst the other has superior toys? Those are the things which would truly drive the strategy and tactics involved here.

If the defenders of the capitol have numbers on their side then the attackers would adopt a strategy of grinding down those numbers as painlessly as possible. Expect lots of anti-personnel artillery fire and the like.

If the defenders have the toys on their side then the attackers would have to close as quickly as possible to prevent their being so whittled down.

The attackers are lead by a command team that is psychologically prepared for assisting 'regime change' or counter-insurgency work - not a stand up battle. The force consists of a number of elite units, supported by whatever forces could be found locally.

The defenders represent a more mixed force, including some special forces (flown in), standard army troops and some militia units. As time goes on more troops gradually pour into the capital as units declare for either side. The attacking force is somewhat outnumbered, but can gain a Pyrrhic victory if it moves fast enough to 'behead the beast' by symbolically seizing the government.

I realise I am still being vague - but it is a chaotic situation and neither side has clear information on who they will be fighting (or who will join their side) as they initially plan their advance.

Avimimus,

why not have your forces get (at least close) to the theater for example in private cars and off road vehicles on a multitude of paths? I think speed, stealth and dispersion might get you farther quicker and provide more of an element of surprise.

Exactly. Commandeered vehicles speed up the advance and military vehicles do exist - they just shouldn't be assumed as reliable assets once enemy units are within 150 km or so.

I'm also still puzzled by the premise of or rationale for the complete absence of crewed airborne assets on either side - what about airlift, paratroopers, close air support, attack helicopters, bombers...?

Martin

I realised I missed this!

The tactical air arm has its units deployed in overseas bases - so the only substantial airforce units in the United States mainland are part of the strategic air arm. Initially, when it looks like fighting could be avoided, the air-arm refuses to fire on American troops. Afterwords, many units are effectively disabled due to disagreements between the airforce bases and nearby army units as to which side to back. By about five days into the campaign air-strikes begin and increase in intensity. The primary focus is on establishing air-dominance in the region.

The weight is initially on the side of the defenders - but less than 25% of the SAA is active during this period. It isn't until the second week that the air-force joins the side of the attackers.

So - yes - the slow/dispersed advance is partly because of airstrikes (or their possibility).

 

[Avimimus]

So now that you have more details - how would you plan your advance? Did anyone actually grow up (or honeymoon) in the region?

 

[martinbayer]

The tactical air arm has its units deployed in overseas bases - so the only substantial airforce units in the United States mainland are part of the strategic air arm.

Not quite - see the list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Air_Force_aircraft_squadrons. In addition, you have plenty of airborne tactical assets, including F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, deployed in CONUS with the Air National Guard.

Martin