Jump to content

3rd WW, battle for the Arctic (Cold war period)


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Perun said:

If they could send Su-27's from 10th PVO army to escort Backfires whay they wouldnt

Because they needed those Su-27s to protect the Rodina against nuclear bombers as well as the naval bases (remember they had most of their missile submarines there) and headquarters. They couldn't be thrown away like that

http://www.easternorbat.com/html/su-27_murmansk_80s_eng.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 762
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They didnt have that many Su-27's till the end of the cold war. They only started appearing in about 1982/83. They didnt really start appearing in numbers still the end of the decade. Have a look at WWW.WW2.DK and you can see what I mean.

Yes, PVO probably would have helped in that way, and in fact there was an increasing integration with PVO and the Air force that would certainly have allowed that to happen with Long Range Aviation Backfires. But I dont see the Su-15 doing much againt a carrier air group with 2 squadrons of Tomcats. Mig23? Well we saw what happened over the Gulf of Sidra.

What integration? the Air Forces of the Soviet Union where all separate entities, with different training and little coordination.

Naval Aviation and Long Range Aviation were quite close, sharing the same career path, which meant an emphasis on nuclear attack.

Frontal Air Forces concentrated on providing CAS, BAI and Air Defence for the Armies and where the ones that got better (but still mediocre) dogfight and air combat training. For example, the 16th Air Army fighter regiments neither trained nor coordinated with the East German Air Defence

PVO was concentrated on strategic air defence: fly from point A to B under direction of a controller to shoot down a enemy bomber (see how the intercept of KAL 007 happened), with no ACM because it wasn't needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Perun said:

I wouldnt compare Lybians with Soviets in any circumstances, they cant be comparable. 

In 1989. 10th PVO army had two Su-27 regiments and Su-27 is way better then F-14

Alright, look up 'Red Eagles' by Steve Davies. The USAF operated the Mig23 for over 10 years in the training role over the Nellis range complex. They knew it inside out. The pilots all hated the Mig23, it couldnt turn worth a damn and fell out of the sky even when being flown in parameters. They lost two pilots to it, a Red eagles guy who tried to dead stick it back after the engine warped in a high g manoeuvre (it had a tendency to do that on the early ones) and shred fan blades. The other was a USAF General who thought he didnt need to read the manual.

I wouldnt say it was no threat, I would say that as soon as it got into a furball, it was good as dead. A Mig-23 simply wasnt going to take on an F14. They proved that in numerous red flags, against F14's and F15's.Then there is Beka Valley and Iraq. At some point one has to stop blaming the failures on the training (when most of them were flying according to Soviet doctrine) and recognise, much of their kit really wasnt very good.

Ok, I would STRONGLY encourage you to invest in DCS and try that out. But even if you dont, you need to recognise the limitations of the Su27 against the radar system of the F14, not least you needed to range gate anyone you were locking up with the Su27, probably best achieved with advice of a GCI. Not altogether likely over the sea.  The airframe of the Su27 may indeed have been very 1980's, and slightly more advanced than the F14 (though the latter you distinctly underate). The radar was a generation behind, and that was despite the F14's radar system being a good 10-15 years older, dating from the F111B from the 1960's.

Lastly, the cherry on the cake was jamming. The USAF had a great advantage over Soviet aircraft radars in electronic warfare, and the reason is not far to find.

https://historyofyesterday.com/adolf-tolkachev-spy-5f85e000a063

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

What integration? the Air Forces of the Soviet Union where all separate entities, with different training and little coordination.

Naval Aviation and Long Range Aviation were quite close, sharing the same career path, which meant an emphasis on nuclear attack.

Frontal Air Forces concentrated on providing CAS, BAI and Air Defence for the Armies and where the ones that got better (but still mediocre) dogfight and air combat training. For example, the 16th Air Army fighter regiments neither trained nor coordinated with the East German Air Defence

PVO was concentrated on strategic air defence: fly from point A to B under direction of a controller to shoot down a enemy bomber (see how the intercept of KAL 007 happened), with no ACM because it wasn't needed.

They were a bit more fluid than that. I found a reference that suggests that by the early 1980's they were slating PVO aircraft to become part of Frontal Aviation, and that they were putting increased emphasis on the PVO being ground missile only. By the latter 1980's they were reversing that, but there was seemingly a lot of crossover in personnel. The Mig29 defector Zuyev talks about working with ex PVO pilots in VVS, and they were a pain in the bum because they all flew according to strict directives and wouldnt think for themselves.

Anyway, if you look up Baltic military district on the WW2.DK website, they clearly show several PVO units joining VVS in Baltic military district. Which with several Long range aviation Backfire and Badger regiments in Belarus, suggests to me  they were trying to come up with long range escorts for them.

Naval aviation? Perhaps not, but Ive a nagging feeling Ive read of tie ups between them and the PVO, but nothing I can verify right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Naval aviation? Perhaps not, but Ive a nagging feeling Ive read of tie ups between them and the PVO, but nothing I can verify right now.

Me to, all that I have is proposals and ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Alright, look up 'Red Eagles' by Steve Davies. The USAF operated the Mig23 for over 10 years in the training role over the Nellis range complex. They knew it inside out. The pilots all hated the Mig23, it couldnt turn worth a damn and fell out of the sky even when being flown in parameters. They lost two pilots to it, a Red eagles guy who tried to dead stick it back after the engine warped in a high g manoeuvre (it had a tendency to do that on the early ones) and shred fan blades. The other was a USAF General who thought he didnt need to read the manual.

I wouldnt say it was no threat, I would say that as soon as it got into a furball, it was good as dead. A Mig-23 simply wasnt going to take on an F14. They proved that in numerous red flags, against F14's and F15's.Then there is Beka Valley and Iraq. At some point one has to stop blaming the failures on the training (when most of them were flying according to Soviet doctrine) and recognise, much of their kit really wasnt very good.

Ok, I would STRONGLY encourage you to invest in DCS and try that out. But even if you dont, you need to recognise the limitations of the Su27 against the radar system of the F14, not least you needed to range gate anyone you were locking up with the Su27, probably best achieved with advice of a GCI. Not altogether likely over the sea.  The airframe of the Su27 may indeed have been very 1980's, and slightly more advanced than the F14 (though the latter you distinctly underate). The radar was a generation behind, and that was despite the F14's radar system being a good 10-15 years older, dating from the F111B from the 1960's.

Lastly, the cherry on the cake was jamming. The USAF had a great advantage over Soviet aircraft radars in electronic warfare, and the reason is not far to find.

https://historyofyesterday.com/adolf-tolkachev-spy-5f85e000a063

 

It is similiar to Soviet use of P-39 Aircobra, they didnt do well in RAF and USAAF but they did well in VVS becouse it was used acording to aircraft specifications. Same for MiG-23 in USAF use. 

Story of "western" weapon superiority is only a myth. It mainly depends on user. Good example of that is Arab-Israel wars and Vietnam war (for example MiG-21 vs F-4 combat often had diferent outcome in those two battlefronts).  Not to mention that US had export versions of MiGs and other weapons. 

 

Thats way I want to cellect all that data so I could make my own and as much realistic as posible scenario. 

Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Perun said:

It is similiar to Soviet use of P-39 Aircobra, they didnt do well in RAF and USAAF but they did well in VVS becouse it was used acording to aircraft specifications. Same for MiG-23 in USAF use. 

Story of "western" weapon superiority is only a myth. It mainly depends on user. Good example of that is Arab-Israel wars and Vietnam war (for example MiG-21 vs F-4 combat often had diferent outcome in those two battlefronts).  Not to mention that US had export versions of MiGs and other weapons. 

 

Thats way I want to cellect all that data so I could make my own and as much realistic as posible scenario. 

There is some in that, but the Red Eagles went all out to replicate the Soviet system, even using GCI. Yes, it worked ok as part of a combat element using various different aircraft. They had the Mig23 blow through the American formation (it couldnt do a lot else) and the Mig21s follow it would mix it up. That would probably work well over West Germany. It wouldnt work over the North Atlantic, not least for range issues.

Yeah well no disrespect, but on this point we will have to disagree. The Soviets built some competent aircraft, but largely to suit their own environment. You dont really see the same problem with Western Combat Aircraft which were, in my view at least, significantly more flexible. Not least in the Radar and weapons they carried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define universal. Also which western combat aircraft and in which period were "more universal"?

F-104? Well known lemon, and hardly universal.

F-5? MiG-21 equivalent in the role and most of capabilities. Probably best, but hardly much more "universal".

Early F-16 with only short range missiles, aka "Western Super MiG-21"? Another candidate for good, but again hardly more "universal".

F-4? Does that includes heavily gimped German ones with short range missiles only also?

Tornado fighter version, aka (barely) flying concrete block?

Maybe such widely popular and available stuff like Lightning?

Only one that was really good and really universal from a get-go was F-15.

Mirage III? Radar guided missile was a hot garbage, leaving it with only short range ones, so again, for all purposes not better than MiG-21/F-5.

Mirage F.1?

Both sides struggled with aircrafts trying to move boundaries of available technology and aircrafts often had significant issues that took years or decades to iron out. Most of the aircrafts, until early '80s were made with a specialist "role" they were supposed to fulfill, and attempts to use them in other roles was not the best thing.

Also, just saying F-16 is pointless, since difference between early A and later models is absolutely staggering. Same for MiG-23 - comparing export S or MS vs MLD is... foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Perun said:

...

Story of "western" weapon superiority is only a myth. It mainly depends on user. Good example of that is Arab-Israel wars and Vietnam war (for example MiG-21 vs F-4 combat often had diferent outcome in those two battlefronts).  Not to mention that US had export versions of MiGs and other weapons. 

...

It is not a myth. Afterall there is that soviet document giving points to different weapon systems from late 70s provided by CIA.

But this generalizaton on its own cannot be used to say that NATO had edge in deployed systems as comparison of actually deployed weaponry in different times and places had different results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 9:11 AM, Pavel Novak said:

Afterall there is that soviet document giving points to different weapon systems from late 70s provided by CIA.

Hello, Pavel, is there any link to that doc available?

BTW about Soviet/Western aircraft:

1. As could be seen over Angola, the MiG-23ML was way too much against SAADF Mirage F.1 

2. Also in the late 80s. the early F-16 (Block 15 OCU, which were the backbone of European NATO countries - Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) was not a match against those MiG-23MLD, not to mention MiG-29 (and those Norwegians were in fact an easy prey to Su-27s and MiG-31s the Soviets could send in to get an air superiority over Nordkapp)

3. When talking about F-5 you have to know, what version  - the "Freedom Fighter" F-5A (and its Canadian-built license version) was in fact an attack plane with visual range fighter capability - WITHOUT radar it was roughly comparable to early MiG-21 (F-13?); even MiG-21MF and even more MiG-21bis could easily outmatch it. And F-5As were still widely used in Turkey, Greece, Norway, Canada and even Netherlands (in fact in case of war almost entire air component of AMF would consist of F-5As - good to support ground troops, but with own air cover).

IMVHO in case of WW3 during latee 80s/early 90s the Soviets coukld pretty qquickly win the upper hand over the Northern Norway, wiping out the Norwegians unless they withdrew to the southern air bases, thus forcing the US to send in reinforcements (they planned to do so, most of which being ANG F-16As or F-4Es; yet they still would be in trouble). This, however, would strip the Central Front from reinforcements needed there... and not sending them couild mean the fail of Norwegian resistance or even a surrender...

Same applies to the Caucasus front - the Soviets modernised rapidly (due to "troublesome" area to the South - Iran, Iraq, etc.) both their ground forces and aviation (tactical and PVO), which was definitely more numerous and way much modern than anything the Turks could send - Soviet Su-27s, MiG-29s and MiG-23 with -25s, together with strike force of Su-24/Ms could pretty quickly crack the Turkish AF, thus forcing the US to send in even more reinforcements... which would even more strip the Central Front from reinforcements needed there... and not sending them couild mean the fail of Turkish resistance or even a surrender...

Such a scenario (even more dangerous to well known issues between Turkey and Greec, with Greece formally claaiming in the 80s that "there's no danger from the Northe [i.e. Bulgaria] but only from the East [i.e. Turkey]) could lead to a grim perspective, that either the US would send reinforcements to the flanks (which could, say, withhiold the resistance but not surely bring the balance to the NATO side - which could severely weaken the Central Front, or leave the flanks vulnerable - which could save the Central Front but could collapse the flanks and show the whole Alliance that the "defence insurance of NATO/US" was not for them...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot have a discussion of how well combat aircraft performed, without some discussion of how they were used. Yes, the Mig23MLD on the face of it looks deeply impressive. However, if you go to archive.org and do a search for Soviet Fighter pilot, you will find a document dated 1986 giving you chapter and verse on the Soviet fighter pilots ability to dogfight. The conclusion was they were so formulaic, they couldnt do it. And he gives a significant amount of evidence, going back to the 1950's, of Soviet attempts to clamp down on more individualistic tactics, for reasons Ill give later. Its simply not what they wanted fighter pilots to do.

In fact, you can read the Soviet defector Zuyev's book (He brought a Mig29 to Turkey just before the wall fell) and the conclusion was that in the very late 1980's, there was a recognition to get the best out the Mig29 and other manoeuvrable types, they had to foster this more individual style. And here is the problem. It was recognised that fostering a more individual style, may go against Soviet efforts to create  homogeneity, which was politically safer. And considering Zuyev, by his own description a pretty good Mig29 pilot, defected to the west, they might actually have had a point.

So you have an aircraft that is very good at BVR, vs one operating in the best radar controlled air defence system money could buy, with the best trained pilots money could buy, operating the most manoeuvrable combat aircraft money could buy. Look at places like North Vietnam, where they placed some well trained fighter pilots armed with considerably more manoeuvrable planes, against technical wonders like the F4 with pilots no longer trained in ACM. Well you saw what happened there. You also saw what happened over Beka valley.

Not that I think it would have made much difference. If the Soviet Airforces just kept NATO busy racking up cricket scores, it would be more than enough for the big tank parade through Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go, I found it for you. I got into this stuff whilst flying DCS, and its disappointing to find that this is the only open source English language document on Soviet Fighter Tactics that seems to be available.

https://archive.org/details/initiativeinsovi1094521923

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Darth Stalin said:

Hello, Pavel, is there any link to that doc available?

BTW about Soviet/Western aircraft:

1. As could be seen over Angola, the MiG-23ML was way too much against SAADF Mirage F.1 

2. Also in the late 80s. the early F-16 (Block 15 OCU, which were the backbone of European NATO countries - Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) was not a match against those MiG-23MLD, not to mention MiG-29 (and those Norwegians were in fact an easy prey to Su-27s and MiG-31s the Soviets could send in to get an air superiority over Nordkapp)

3. When talking about F-5 you have to know, what version  - the "Freedom Fighter" F-5A (and its Canadian-built license version) was in fact an attack plane with visual range fighter capability - WITHOUT radar it was roughly comparable to early MiG-21 (F-13?); even MiG-21MF and even more MiG-21bis could easily outmatch it. And F-5As were still widely used in Turkey, Greece, Norway, Canada and even Netherlands (in fact in case of war almost entire air component of AMF would consist of F-5As - good to support ground troops, but with own air cover).

IMVHO in case of WW3 during latee 80s/early 90s the Soviets coukld pretty qquickly win the upper hand over the Northern Norway, wiping out the Norwegians unless they withdrew to the southern air bases, thus forcing the US to send in reinforcements (they planned to do so, most of which being ANG F-16As or F-4Es; yet they still would be in trouble). This, however, would strip the Central Front from reinforcements needed there... and not sending them couild mean the fail of Norwegian resistance or even a surrender...

Same applies to the Caucasus front - the Soviets modernised rapidly (due to "troublesome" area to the South - Iran, Iraq, etc.) both their ground forces and aviation (tactical and PVO), which was definitely more numerous and way much modern than anything the Turks could send - Soviet Su-27s, MiG-29s and MiG-23 with -25s, together with strike force of Su-24/Ms could pretty quickly crack the Turkish AF, thus forcing the US to send in even more reinforcements... which would even more strip the Central Front from reinforcements needed there... and not sending them couild mean the fail of Turkish resistance or even a surrender...

Such a scenario (even more dangerous to well known issues between Turkey and Greec, with Greece formally claaiming in the 80s that "there's no danger from the Northe [i.e. Bulgaria] but only from the East [i.e. Turkey]) could lead to a grim perspective, that either the US would send reinforcements to the flanks (which could, say, withhiold the resistance but not surely bring the balance to the NATO side - which could severely weaken the Central Front, or leave the flanks vulnerable - which could save the Central Front but could collapse the flanks and show the whole Alliance that the "defence insurance of NATO/US" was not for them...

 

Here is that document: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1980-08-25.pdf

Technological superiority (research and industrial capacity) versus actual deployment in time and space are two different things. I generally do not like simple comparisons like MiG-29/Su-27 vs F-16/F-15 and then from this generalizing how air war over central front would end. For any proper research at first time and space need to be clearly defined then finding out what was there and how opponents planned to use that. But that is hard and time consuming so most of NATO vs Warsaw Pact comparisons are quite poor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even small North Vietnamese AF gave large problems to USAF, USN and USMC, although Vietnam had 50-100 pilots at all time, majority of time they got about 40-50 pilots.

Cuban MiG whiped the sky from SA Mirages.

Large majority of downed MiG's in Beka was older MiG-21 and bomber version of MiG-23 and that was an Israeli ambush not planned fight / battle for bouth sides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Perun said:

Even small North Vietnamese AF gave large problems to USAF, USN and USMC, although Vietnam had 50-100 pilots at all time, majority of time they got about 40-50 pilots.

Cuban MiG whiped the sky from SA Mirages.

Large majority of downed MiG's in Beka was older MiG-21 and bomber version of MiG-23 and that was an Israeli ambush not planned fight / battle for bouth sides

Yes, I strongly suspect because the North Vietnamese were trained in dogfighting tactics by guys whom had done it in North Korea only a decade and a half before, perhaps even WW2. But if you read the document above, there were regular purges of that experience from the VVS. They eventually went down the same road of 'The missile can defeat anything' as the Americans went through before Vietnam, which is why they started removing guns from aircraft like the Mig21.

The difference is, unlike the USAF and USN, they didnt recognise the lessons of Vietnam and really start picking it up again until the latter half of the 1980's. The capacity to use highly manoeuvrable aircraft like the Mig29 must be considered suspect because they did NOT have fighter tactics capable of using that kind of manoeuvreablity. And in fact, Brixmis noticed that after the first Mig29's were delivered to 16th Air Army in 1983 IIRC, they were initially flown with great gusto, before they were eventually flown without flair or inspiration. Presumably either because of accidents, or because the really skilled pilots had been posted back to the USSR.

The vast majority of warsaw pact aircraft, even in the early 1980's, were Mig21's. In fact I think even 16th Air Army still had a regiment or two even till the end, mainly as tactical nuclear bombers. Yes, there were a lot of Mig23's too, but that they built 5000 of them, and only seem to have converted 560 to MLD's, tells you how rare the most advanced variant was. Older versions turned like Farmer Browns cow and had no capable lookdown shootdown capability.

Ok, so the Israelis ambushed the Syrians. With our inventory of E-3's, NATO was fully capble of repeating the feat. After all, they did it every year at Red Flag.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stuart Galbraith:

"The difference is, unlike the USAF and USN, they didnt recognise the lessons of Vietnam and really start picking it up again until the latter half of the 1980's."

Not exactly - the Kavkaz program began in the 70s and was driven by the same idea as the US Top Gun program.

Here's an interesting info (2nd part of the whole text, but veery informative - in Russian, but FGoogle Translate can handle it!) about the Soviet "Kavkaz" program - the "Soviet Top Gun" center in Mary (1521st Center for Combat Employment - http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/division/schools/1521tsb.htm ) 

Here's the link:

https://military.wikireading.ru/hG7RBetjVZ

So it's not that "individual combat training was non-consistent with the Soviet doctrine and politics" - it was initially similar to the Western "missile dogmat". And the Kavkaz began around the time the Top Gun programhas started too. And had its rises and falls... but one can't just say "Soviet fighter pilots were supposed to have no initiative" - well, during WW2 they had learnt a lot about fighter combat (and had their own aces too) and knew it would be crucial to win.

Also more:

https://www.drive2.ru/b/498887184380592356/

An here seems to be the full text:

https://libbabr.com/?book=18552

 

Edited by Darth Stalin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here you go, I found it for you. I got into this stuff whilst flying DCS, and its disappointing to find that this is the only open source English language document on Soviet Fighter Tactics that seems to be available.

https://archive.org/details/initiativeinsovi1094521923

here, if you need a pdf: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA171772.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Perun said:

Even small North Vietnamese AF gave large problems to USAF, USN and USMC, although Vietnam had 50-100 pilots at all time, majority of time they got about 40-50 pilots.

Cuban MiG whiped the sky from SA Mirages.

Large majority of downed MiG's in Beka was older MiG-21 and bomber version of MiG-23 and that was an Israeli ambush not planned fight / battle for bouth sides

All of the above is incorrect:

1) Vietnam: The North Vietnamese correctly understood that they couldn't stop a US raid, so their aim was to wage an aerial guerrilla war using GCI to position their fighters for hit and run attacks, cause a few losses and survive. Problem with this is that the Soviets couldn't do that, as the US/Western aircraft could be armed with nuclear weapons, so they needed to stop any raid, something the NVA never achieved. The Soviets misread the lessons of Vietnam at the time and used the Vietnamese as an example for the Arabs, but the Arabs had the same problem as the Soviets, they couldn't fight under enemy air supremacy because there was no jungle to hide under.

The Vietnamese also used advisors from China and North Korea to improve their tactics, even though they weren't very useful, the Chinese being too rigid, and the NKs too arrogant to learn the lessons.

2) Angola: Hardly, the war in Angola was so low key as to be irrelevant. The Soviets couldn't care less and the South Africans were content to keep UNITA alive and not suffer losses. The few shot downs are anecdotal, despite the BS peddled out by both sides

3) The 1982 Lebanon war: The Syrians played into the hands of the Israelis by assuming that the SA-6 was a formidable weapons system with no counter, putting them on fixed positions which the Israelis mapped and then destroyed. Bereft of SAMs, the SyAF rose to the challenge only to find their comms jammed and being easily killed. Their equipment was the standard the Soviets used at the time, with some downgrading, so the vulnerabilities shown were present in the Soviet Air Force.

Finally, on Soviet training, one issue was the way pilots were trained, first going through flight school including basic, advance and type training and only learning tactics when assigned to their regiments, progressing through the squadrons to reach the category of sniper pilots. Problem with that is that standarisation is a paper work exercise, and tactics depend on the interest of the regimental commander rather than on a weapons school that uses the same standards for everyone. So yes, there was advanced training, but only for a handful of pilots, which probably are as good as any on the West, but represented only 30% (optimistically) of the pilot population.

Needless to say, tactical training wasn't provided to Soviet "clients", who complained bitterly about it and went to war completely unprepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Perun said:

I wouldnt compare other countries with WP states, especialy with Soviets. It wouldnt be the same results in central europe like it was in middle east or Vietnam. 

 

No, it wouldn't, which is why your comparison is not valid. But that doesn't mean the WP was in a better position than the Syrians in 1982. As of mid-85, the main frontline fighter of the VVS was the MiG-23 and the WP was the MiG-21. Reliance on ground based control was absolute due to the limitations of the avionics and the radios weren't frequency agile (meaning they could be jammed)

By then, the USAF had 13 F-15 squadrons available for deployment in Europe (+1 in Iceland, +3 in Okinawa and 1 in Alaska), supported by E-3s and EC-130s. 

So the WP may hold its own over friendly territory, provided jamming didn't kill their comms and radars, but they would be toast beyond the frontline and, at most, would have to rely on mass and a disregard for losses, to punch through a given sector.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I am researching October 1983 for my CMO orbat "scenario" I have found out that West German air units facing Czechoslovakia in southern Germany were in bad shape at this time. The 412L system for warning and guidance was dying and new GEADGE was not yet properly functioning. The only west german Tornado IDS unit was a training one in Erding but just in 1983 transferred to Jever to create JaboG 38. Close air support was provided by Alpha Jets but for over border strike were available only F-104G. Single local interceptor unit was JG 74 with F-4F.

To both defend and attack US assets were necessary but because GEADGE was not yet working reserve means of command and control had to be utilised from the start of the conflict.

Luftwaffe ability to wage conventional air war in 1983 was surprisingly bad. But it improved quickly when enough Tornado get in to service and AIM-9L become available in proper numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...