Future War in the 1970-'80s

[Michael Emrys]

Continuing the discussion begun in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1177531#post1177531

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

If possible, could you tweak the new title so that people realize this is part two of a prior thread?

Vark,

This thread is a must read and even contains the SA-2 loss figures over NVN on page 2, broken down by aircraft type and date of loss. See Statistical Summary of Air Losses.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72288

Very good piece on organization and combat history of integrated NVN air defense system. Note particularly how effective the SA-2 was in early days and bear in mind that in Europe there would also be SA-4s, SA-6s (export models ate the IDF's lunch in 1973) and SA-8s as part of the defenses, covering high altitude to treetops, no SAM types of which we'd encountered in battle.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v067/67.1pribbenow.html

Early SAM history for NVN, including issues with tropical climate for the missiles.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zz_2tspdiYcC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=sa-2+sites+in+north+vietnam&source=bl&ots=ZmcvWUBEI-&sig=cn1aNjUDMCDxyFluVo4ERW_0h3A&hl=en&ei=fNZTS7WXFonosQOMlfTkBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=sa-2%20sites%20in%20north%20vietnam&f=false

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded that I've never see an explanation of how exactly that F117 stealth fighter was brought down over Bosnia March 27, 1999.

[mike_the_wino]

I am going to use this opportunity to once again call for a cross-generation combat game. ie, what could a squad of modern US Marines do against a company of SS troops? Or a division of Soviet consripts? How many Tigers could one Abrams hold off?

[Secondbrooks]

There was interesting note that Soviet model is stiff and works well when enemy behaves in ways that they like it would.

I dont' know are they somewhat exceptional in that. I've read that current US military suffers from it as pretty much all western militaries, because planning and executing are tied to place and time in pretty linear structure, tied to formal methods and such. I guess it's desission to be taken when preparing for large scale conventional fighting. I my self lack the ability to understand it even on my own language, so really can't tell more about it myself. Sure Soviets might suffer from their ideology on top of that. long times of peace might probably hurt Soviet system pretty badly as it seems to be pretty much Living in the Ivory Tower stuff.

Overall description about Soviet model is that their main strength is use of divisions. In tactical level they aren't that "smart" but some have said that the way divisions and above are lead makes them dangerous and unpredictable.

We had guys in Frunze studying commanding of forexample leading of motorized division in 60s or 70s, as far as i can tell after that it's common practice to send someone there. It is mostly theoretical studies ofcourse and different from NATO-studies with fact that guy sent there will study in their own small team composed of their own nationality when in NATO studying groups seems to be larger and composed of different nations. I've read book written by one guy (book which was almost to be banned from release by government) and it gives pretty competent picture of Soviet military in those levels, surely mostly based on theoretical studies and theoretic exercises which they took part of. Their main trade is that division's performance is up to it's commander, he has huge amount of "additional" responsibility, while lower levels has less. Forexample engineer works are totally up to him in division's area of responsibility. Loads of other things aswell but i don't recall which.

[Sivodsi]

I'm reminded that I've never see an explanation of how exactly that F117 stealth fighter was brought down over Bosnia March 27, 1999.

According to the Serbian commander :

"We used a little innovation to update our 1960s-vintage SAMs [sA-3] to detect the Nighthawk," Dani said. He declined to discuss specifics, saying the exact nature of the modification to the warhead's guidance system remains a military secret.

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge"

Edit to add: oh yeah, I remember an old article about cell phone masts being used to detect stealth tech.

After re-reading the article I noticed this little paragraph at the bottom:

According to military sources, a rough version of a similar system might have been used in Serbia to shoot down an American F117 stealth fighter 40 miles west of Belgrade during the Kosovo campaign. The Serbs fired several missiles into an area they suspected the stealth fighter was flying through.

Does anybody know if there is anything in this?

[Michael Emrys]

There was interesting note that Soviet model is stiff and works well when enemy behaves in ways that they like it would.

I dont' know are they somewhat exceptional in that. I've read that current US military suffers from it as pretty much all western militaries...

Yeah, on further reflection I am inclined to agree with you. It might not be quite as bad in the West as it is more a result of conservative leadership mentality at high levels rather than enforced doctrine, but the difference might not be as great as we are often told.

Warrior's Rage: The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting

by Douglas Macgregor, which I read last month, was an eye opener for me. Now I know more than I did about why VII Corps advanced so slowly during ODS.

Michael

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Short answer is stupid U.S. use of same flight route over and over (much like what led to the Linebacker II "mutiny" by B-52 crews, after which approaches, timing, etc., were varied, removing predictability from North Vietnamese SA-2 volley fire under optical guidance). F-117 was nailed by an SA-3 using its EO guidance mode. This supports that conclusion, though it characterizes it a bit differently. (Fair use)

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf1172.html

"US defense experts eventually concluded the shoot-down was the result of poor mission planning, which plotted the same flight path over enemy territory four times in a row, and left the stealth aircraft unprotected by electronic countermeasures aircraft. The Serbs figured out the pattern and shot it down more or less by "Mark 1 Eyeball". "

LOW BLOW radar, showing TV auxiliary tracker (Slovakian Air force installation, with Karat TV tracker visible just to the right (facing it) of the bottom corner of the rectangular antenna). Article proper is simply splendid.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-125-Neva.html

This argues local radar and system tweaks at the site made it possible, but I have no evidence supporting such claims.

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/11/secrets-of-1999-f-117-shootdown.html

Wiki agrees in part with what I'm saying (reusing same flight routing) but also seems to buy the field mod story and says kill was made in radar mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk

Pilot interview at Post 12 here and fascinating EO tracking mode bit at Post 19.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/25309/

Long article by heavy hitter Lambeth, with F-117 downing coverage beginning on page 3. This is the how to of operating an integrated air defense in a very high threat environment while incorporating the lessons of Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War and Desert Shield/Desert Storm/Desert Fox. The Serbs had savvy Iraqi advisers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICK/is_2_16/ai_90529723/?tag=content;col1

Secondbrooks,

Color me intrigued, as well as waiting for you to tell me the marvelous book you mention is in Finnish only.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Secondbrooks]

John Kettler: I dont' think there are English versions of it. Book's name is Gruppa Finlandija written by Pentti Syrjä, so you can try to find it.

I see it's name in some banned books lists (in english language) and don't understand why. It has remark: "(banning info not yet found)" behind it. It was to be banned, but by some miracle that didn't happen.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Russians are by no means the only ones to suffer from paralysis when an officer's not actively involved. In the Vietnam War GI account Guns Up!, the author describes how in the Au Shau Valley, ambushed GIs went to ground and flatly refused to move, all the while calling loudly for the lieutenant. The terrified men had to be rallied to get them to move, much less shoot back.

Am not familiar with the book you name, though I have done a fair amount of reading on 73 Easting.

Secondbrooks,

Saw that coming from a long way out! The book was banned/qua banned because of fear of upsetting Russian sensibilities, as seen in this long article comparing certain developments in Finalnd and Hungary. Page 34 in the HTML (Fair use)

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ibOwEz5HhxIJ:epa.oszk.hu/01300/01368/00004/pdf/04Nyys.pdf+gruppa+finlandija,+syrja&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"In Finland there are some delicate cases related to foreign relations,

when either the publisher refused to publish the book or later with-

drew it from the markets. Still in the mid-1980s publishing

Paasikivi’s diaries or general Syrjä’s book Gruppa Finlandija recalling

his experiences in the Soviet military academy caused debates in

political leadership. We cannot generalise the extent of Soviet con-

trol, but at least one case is known when the Soviet Ambassador

himself checked the supply of bookshops in Helsinki.68"

Sardaukar here provides a summary of what may've rubbed the Russian bear the wrong way. Am sure the GRU wasn't pleased by the revelations!

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=22557&st=0&p=497002entry497002

Apparently, so unhappy student exchanges were suspended for a time. (Fair use) of a rough translation!

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&u=http://www.erkkiaho.com/blog/%3Fcontent%3Ddetail%26id%3D437&ei=3mVUS4_aHoKqtgPk5f2DCA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBMQ7gEwBA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgruppa%2Bfinlandija,%2Bsyrja%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DjRs

"The second case was a Major General kohahduttava Pentti Edge Gruppa Finljandija a book written by his rank of colonel in the past years, the studies Frunzen military academy, which gave rise to the period that the student exchange was interrupted."

Was unaware the Frunze Academy ran national class groups, figuring the curriculum was the curriculum and in Russian at that. What always impressed me about Russian military pedagogy was the incredible depth of research underlying it. Used to marvel over the examples, such as determining the exact type of concrete used in one of the Mannerheim Line forts after shelling failed to penetrate it. How? By mounting a special raid to gather a sample for detailed analysis in Moscow!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Am not familiar with the book you name, though I have done a fair amount of reading on 73 Easting.

It's only been out a few months. I happened to see an ad for it in one of my magazines and looked it up on Amazon. The author was the Ops officer for a squadron of the 2nd. Cav during ODS and has very strong opinions on a number of subjects, some of which I find highly suspect. But I think he nailed the main subject of this book pretty square.

If you get a look at it, I'd be interested to hear how you think it shapes up in light of your other reading.

Michael

[Vark]

More links, yee gads i will have to take a holiday to read this stuff. I now have a new file with all the url's pasted in and will take a dip over the week. Amazing how much information is out there, but feel a bit overwhelmed. John, knew about the SA-2 PK's, don't also forget the kidnap of its radar array, by Israeli commandos and Super Frelon, helped limit its effectiveness.

John, you beat me to the theatres I was alluding to in my post to hcrof (sorry for being opaque, I should have made myself clear. Don't also forget for most AD systems shooting down a plane is a bonus, preventing damage to the protected target is a victory, that way a repeat strike has to be made and extra exposure means extra risk to the attackers. So if a Platoon of Shilka's and Gaskin/Gophers (did NATO deliberately pick belittling/harmless code names for Soviet equipment) did not shoot down one A-10, but prevented the average kill rate against the column they were protecting, they had done their job.

The 73 war showed the dangers of tackling an interated AD network and the 82 Bekaa takedown was a use of novel tactics and a stupid deployment, SA-8's have wheels for a reason. Also most of the Syrian SAM's were well-known to Israel so posed little threat, as evidenced by their loss rates. Having said that the USN ignored the Israelis and attacked in a conventional stream of aircraft, losing an A-6 in the process (I think another plane was lost as well). Similar story with the Sea Harrier in Bosnia, pilot`came around for a third pass, pilot floated down on a parachute, courtesy of a MANPADS.

Secondbrooks, this is the quernel of the argument regarding stereotypical deployments and tactics by the Soviets, it would be most unwise to assume your opponent will perform as expected. As Tzun Tzu realised, knowing your enemy, not knowing how you hope your enemy will be, is the key. Otherwise, you have just given your enemy a might stick, with which to beat you.

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Not trying to bury you in links, but I do provide summaries! Continuing on, what a slick raid that was--snaking a brand new P12 SPOON REST acquisition radar! Heads rolled over that one on the owning and providing sides. See Operation Rooster entry here for raid details.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-11189.html

Air defense functions: 1) intimidation, 2) force attack break off, 3) injure attacker badly enough he can't return to base (attrition kill, A-Kill) after attacking, 4) injure attacker badly enough plane isn't flyable after landing (prevent take-off, PTO Kill) and 5) destroy attacker. As for naming conventions, you might not think so, but plenty of those ASCC (NATO's Air Standards Coordinating Committee) designators gave me the willies, and by no means all of them were innocuous. ARCHER, GIANT and HAVOC spring to mind. Names are simply pulled from an alphabetized list according to the system being named: "A" for air-to-air missiles (AA-6 ACRID), "B" for bombers (Tu-22M BACKFIRE), "C" for transports (An-12 CUB), "F" for fighters (Su-27 FLANKER), "G" for ABMs & SAMs (SA-10 GRUMBLE), "H" for helos (MI-24 HIND), "K" for air-to-surface missiles (AS-4 KITCHEN), "M" for AWACS (Il-76M MAINSTAY).

I carefully researched the Bekaa SAM smash event when I was at Hughes and briefed it to my bosses. Since then, I've learned there were even more interesting things done, like firing Shrikes from a converted Sherman, air defense suppression and hard kill via long range artillery when planes weren't actually over the target, mass use of decoys, heavy standoff jamming, Syrian air defense net intrusion and so forth. Brilliant SEAD/DEAD op!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

I once talked to somebody on the commitee who named Chicom SSM's, he felt the nadir had been reached when they picked Seersucker for the Silkworm replacement!! Some of my favourite inappropriate/insulting names

MI-24 Hind. HIND!!! Thats a graceful deer, not a bloody great flying tank, nicknamed the

pike or hunchback, by the people who fly them.

Mig-15 Fagot. Hmm, enough said, you are either smearing the pilots sexuality or saying his

plane is a lump of wood waiting to be burned, actually thinking about the

last one quite appropriate.

Mig-21 Fishbed. Sleek interceptor, named after a what!!

Tu-22M Backfire. Graceful maritime bomber named after a mistake/mechanical deficiency

Mig-25 Foxbat. Superfast interceptor with two f***off engines and radar after a cuddly

furry Chiroptera

Talking of maskirovka, just how much ordnance would have targeted decoys? The air operation against Serbia, with far more complex weapon systems available to NATO, than in the eighties, and a far more benign operating environment failed to discriminate between targets (vintage Warpac) and a variety of sophisticated and crude decoys.

[Amedeo]

Speaking of Soviet SAMs bringing down B-52s over Hanoi or F-117s over Belgrade, now you can try it yourself!

Just download this free simulator: http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Regards,

Amedeo

[hcrof]

Well after reading a couple of those links my conclusion is that the NVA had plenty of SA-2 (a pretty respectible high altitute SAM for the time, albeit with reliability problems in the climate), a few SA-7 (a pretty useless MANPAD) and lots of AAA, only some of which was radar guided. These were coupled with a small number of respectible MiGs with good pilots.

While dangerous, the system had weaknesses at medium altitude and advances in countermeasures and tactics allowed the Americans to exploit this weakness by the end of the war to great success.

Would that be a correct assumption? And if so, how does that compare to the massive and well layered AD systems found in Europe in the '80s

[Wildman]

I am going to use this opportunity to once again call for a cross-generation combat game. ie, what could a squad of modern US Marines do against a company of SS troops? Or a division of Soviet consripts? How many Tigers could one Abrams hold off?

You know. Harry Turtledove has a series of books that explore this very question. Aliens land on earth in 1942 with roughly 2000 era technology...the Colonization series and a great read.

[Sgt Joch]

From what I have read the Air Defence Network around Hanoi was one of the best in the world in the late 60's/early 70's. The Soviets used North Vietnam as a testing ground for their technology. It was a dynamic conflict since the US and the Soviets kept developping new technology and tactics to keep ahead of the other side.

A really good book on the Air War over North Vietnam is "Clashes" by Marshal Michel. Google has an ebook version:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ueTIMHCmw6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=clashes+michel&source=bl&ots=bw81KQ4fb3&sig=9OkThvXNGq8YN026IuoSpQk8dlA&hl=en&ei=uetUS5VqlJe2B6e0wIwC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[jjhouston]

Speaking of duck hunting, does anybody have any links to info regarding USAF non-involvement with suppressing Egyptian ADA during the '73 war?

[jjhouston]

And oh, BTW, something for Vark and hcrof:

BAOR Threat Recognition Guide

[John Kettler]

Vark,

More scary names: SS-18 SATAN, SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK, SS-C-1b STYX. Concur re Chinese nicknames, but fortunately, didn't have to deal with them much, since they weren't major threats at the time. Besides, I had high weirdness like the SA-12's GRILL PAN (a device which I'd never heard of in any form before) radar! Am curious as to how you reconcile this with your argument.

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=261&linkid=2429&linkname=AT-4-Spigot-B-/-9M111*-Fagot-M

Maskirovka would be a really big deal, and the Russians wrote the book. Years ago, I tried to get an article published in Journal of Electronic Defense arguing that the NATO air campaign had been only marginally successful versus Serb armor, but the editor wouldn't listen and went with some name author. Who was wrong. NATO expended a lot of ordnance and got planes shot down attacking decoy targets and did little vs. Serb AFVs.

Amedeo,

Just got through warping brother George's mind with the The -Ology War

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v067/67.1pribbenow.html

so this may cause permanent sanity loss! Beauties like this come from laminated polystyrene masters he carves and files, and he's quite the wargamer, including air war stuff.

http://www.raidenminiatures.co.uk/resources/Crusader+1+Web.jpg

hcrof,

Yes, the North Vietnamese IADS lacked some important components, notably the SA-3, but it still took a terrible toll on U.S. aircraft. Europe would've been vastly worse. We used to plan low level flights at 200' AGL. Fly higher, and your jet got eaten by SAMs and AAA; fly lower, and the risk of ground clobber became terrifyingly real. Throw in jamming, double targeting of aircraft at unit boundaries, the tendency of ground troops to shoot at everything overhead, especially if already previously attacked, and it gets way too exciting.

Wildman,

I know of one such premised on slow interstellar travel, leading to an expedition designed to wipe out, say, Napoleonic forces, based on probe reports, only to arrive in the middle of 1943 in Russia. Oops!

Sgt Joch,

Don't know the book, but will look into it. Be sure to read The -Ology of War, above. Pretty sure you'll love it.

jjhouston,

Personnel, hardware, or both?

BFC,

Please give us such goodies as FAE, the AS-10 KAREN

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=263&linkid=2172&linkname=AS-10-KAREN-/-Kh-25- ,

AS-14 KEDGE

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=263&linkid=1682&linkname=AS-14b-Kedge-/-Kh-29L,

RBK Cluster Bombs

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2510&catid=345, and such, in addition to iron bombs, rockets and guns on CAS/Strike aircraft.

For real excitement, you could also include carpet bombing from the Tu-16 BADGER, which can carry even the monstrous FAB-9000 (as in kg) bomb

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d-f/3439664556/

Items like these would create all kinds of exciting options for the players and lots more for scenario designers.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Thomm]

... which can carry even the monstrous FAB-9000 (as in kg) bomb

I am sure the correct designation in this case would be bomba!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

BFC,

Here's the skinny on Soviet/Russian guided bombs. The main site is beyond incredible. Not kidding!

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-GBU.html

A tiny sample of what's to be had there, including a Russian HEL.

http://www.ausairpower.net/region.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[hcrof]

Thanks jjhouston, an interesting piece of history. I can't seem to download all of it though.

John - I suppose it would be fair to say then that noone knows how effective an air campaign would be. Just that it would be very costly for both sides!

[Sgt Joch]

It is hard to know how effective a current air campaign would be since so much depends on who is on the other side.

There is a RAND study which discusses various assumptions about how effective a 2020 air campaign could be.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

It deals mostly with the air-to-air aspect, but makes interesting observations about air power since ww2.