included theater discussion

[MBot]

Probably has a lot to do with "Red Storm Rising" :)

 

Yes, I suspect so too :) Clancy's trick to give the Soviets Iceland from the get-go of course throws any established allied war plans out of the window.

[CheckGear]

Frankly I don't quite understand the buzz about the GIUK Gap. The GIUK Gap was of strategic significance as anti-submarine barrier.

 

The Tomcat would have had to defeat the striking arm of Soviet naval aviation, Backfire and Badger missile carriers, as the CVBGs entered the Norwegian Sea. There, well within striking range from the Kola Peninsula, the big battle would have probably taken place. The GIUK Gap was actually the very edge of the Soviet sea denial area. So if you want to see the Tomcat in the mission it was designed for, modeling Iceland or parts of the UK would serve little purpose.

 

Anyone that is further interested in this topic, I can highly recommend this read on USN Maritime Strategy in the 1980s.

 

Also, historically speaking, U.S. carriers spent far more time in places like the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean than they ever did in the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap region.

[CheckGear]

Yes, I suspect so too :) Clancy's trick to give the Soviets Iceland from the get-go of course throws any established allied war plans out of the window.

 

I don't know if anybody sees it differently, but I based on what we know now, the idea that the Soviets could've executed a successful invasion of Iceland seems to be pure fantasy.

[Dudikoff]

I don't know if anybody sees it differently, but I based on what we know now, the idea that the Soviets could've executed a successful invasion of Iceland seems to be pure fantasy.

 

Your point being..? It was just a book, not a NATO contingency plan. The whole WWIII in the 70's / 80's idea is now technically pure fantasy, but it makes for an engaging read / scenarios compared to e.g. shooting down a few obsolete Libyan fighters.

[MBot]

Also, historically speaking, U.S. carriers spent far more time in places like the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean than they ever did in the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap region.

 

True, but this is due to the fact that historically there have been wars in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean while there hasn't been a war with the Soviet Union. Still the USN's primary concern was global war against the USSR.

 

From the mentioned USN Maritime Strategy, here is the proposed CVBG force allocation for 1984 for a global conventional war:

 

Total: 14

SLEP (not available for years): 1

Deployable: 13

 

Atlantic Fleet: 7

-Norwegian Sea: 3-4

-Mediterranean Sea: 2-3

-Overhaul (not available for weeks to months): 1

 

Pacific Fleet: 6

-Northwest Pacific: 4

-Indian Ocean: 1

-Overhaul (not available for weeks to months): 1

 

 

As for a Soviet invasion of Iceland, I think it would have been possible though quite unlikely. But for sure it was only feasible weeks into the war, after significant previous Soviet successes. Invasion (and subsequent supply) of Iceland would have required control of the Norwegian Sea, which in turn would have required control of Norway. Clancy's surprise commando assault on the other hand is unplausible, as it would have become isolated almost imediately. No ships or aircraft would have been able to reach Iceland with reinforcements and supplies with the presence of unattritted USN carriers, submarines and TACAIR in Norway.

[Dudikoff]

As for a Soviet invasion of Iceland, I think it would have been possible though quite unlikely. But for sure it was only feasible weeks into the war, after significant previous Soviet successes. Invasion (and subsequent supply) of Iceland would have required control of the Norwegian Sea, which in turn would have required control of Norway. Clancy's surprise commando assault on the other hand is unplausible, as it would have become isolated almost imediately. No ships or aircraft would have been able to reach Iceland with reinforcements and supplies with the presence of unattritted USN carriers, submarines and TACAIR in Norway.

 

But, if we're speaking in realistic terms, why would have the Soviet Union invaded Norway, let alone Iceland? All this fear of Soviet invasion of Europe was vastly exaggerated in the West as the Soviet Union was afraid of the invasion or more likely a first strike (especially by nuclear tipped cruise missiles) from the West and their offensive plans were more like counter attack contingency plans AFAIK (at least after Stalin).

 

For the sake of the argument, even if something like this did happen, the Soviet Air Force planes were a joke compared to the US ones. Their only somewhat capable fighters/interceptors were the newest generation like MiGs 29 and 31 and Su-27 (and perhaps the latest MiG-23 variants P/ML/MLA/MLD). MiG-31 was part of the PVO and thus purely a defensive asset against bombers and cruise missiles, MiG-29 had a very short range, small BVR load and poor radar and was thus also a defensive asset for the most part and its numbers were also somewhat limited (similar thing goes for those MiG-23's). The only somewhat offensive fighter asset, the Su-27 as a whole, was not deployed in large enough numbers till the very end of the Cold War (most of which was the P variant which was a PVO plane, so again, defensive) and its radar was also not tweaked and fixed till the end. The naval variant wasn't even deployed on their only carrier years after the war and it would have been a defensive asset protecting their SSBN bastion anyway.

 

Thus, even if they had invaded Norway because e.g. US placed something of strategic value there (which they wouldn't so as not to escalate the tensions and provoke a nuclear war) the SU deemed an existential threat, they would have had little to nothing of offensive fighter value to spare to reposition there (e.g. Su-27S which could escort the strike packages).

 

So, if you want interesting and demanding scenarios for the F-14, they can't be very "realistic" (which in itself is a vague term as the WWIII didn't happen) unless it's purely shooting down bombers and cruise missiles or obsolete Soviet planes (or even worse, but far more likely, their export variants). Personally, I find that rather boring and would welcome alternative history scenarios with boosted "Evil Empire" numbers and capabilities (as in e.g. Fleet Defender).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Dudikoff

[MBot]

But, realistically speaking, why would the Soviet Union invade Norway, let alone Iceland? All this fear of Soviet invasion of Europe was vastly exaggerated in the West.

 

True, as we know today, the Soviets never had the intention of military conquest of Europe. Their war plans against NATO were under the premise of a reaction or preemptive act against aggression (just like NATO). For some further eye-opening reading on this, I can very much recommend this roundtable discussion between former leading NATO and Warsaw Pact commanders by the Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich.

 

But we also know that Soviet war plans, should they be put into effect, were of offensive nature. This is easily explained by their expierience in WWII, which conviced them that when war is inevitable, you better be the one on the offensive. The strategic aim for the North-Western TVD was Norway to increase securtity of the homeland (which is almost always the primary concern of the Russians). NATO airbases in North Norway posed a serious threat to Soviet (strategic) installations on the Kole Peninsula, which the Soviets would have wanted neutralized in a war. Their own use of Norwegian airbases would in turn have allowed them to control the Norwegian Sea and therefore extend the security buffer protecting them from naval attacks aganst their homeland (carrier aircraft and cruise missile strikes).

 

A subsequent invasion of Iceland would have further fortrified the Norwegian Sea and extended the security buffer into the North Atlantic. Iceland would finaly allow to interdict Allied sea lines of communication between the USA and Europe with aircraft, which previously could only be achieved with submarines.

 

 

So, if you want interesting and demanding scenarios for the F-14, they can't be very realistic unless it's purely shooting down bombers and cruise missiles or export variants of obsolete Soviet planes. Personally, I find that boring and would welcome alternative history scenarios with boosted "evil" Soviet numbers and capabilities.

 

It is true that in the initial phase of a US-USSR war, Tomcats would be occupied with shooting down bombers and recon aircraft and would not meet any fighters (well perhaps in the Med). But in the second phase according to the Maritime Strategy, USN CVBG would bring the fight to the enemy and attack Soviet outposts (Aden, Cuba, Libya, Vietnam) and the homeland (Murmansk, Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk, Cimea). Then the Tomcat would have met all the fighters of the PVO. The third phase of the Maritime Strategy had then foreseen amphibious landings on the Soviet homeland, which surely would have triggered additional air combat with everything the USSR could muster.

[Dudikoff]

But we also know that Soviet war plans, should they be put into effect, were of offensive nature. This is easily explained by their expierience in WWII, which conviced them that when war is inevitable, you better be the one on the offensive. The strategic aim for the North-Western TVD was Norway to increase securtity of the homeland (which is almost always the primary concern of the Russians). NATO airbases in North Norway posed a serious threat to Soviet (strategic) installations on the Kole Peninsula, which the Soviets would have wanted neutralized in a war. Their own use of Norwegian airbases would in turn have allowed them to control the Norwegian Sea and therefore extend the security buffer protecting them from naval attacks aganst their homeland (carrier aircraft and cruise missile strikes).

 

Yes, I said they had counter attack contingency plans, but what would they risk placing in those Norwegian bases? Valuable PVO units? They had nothing else of long range and those bases would be very vulnerable to US strikes. Besides, making various contingency plans was all they had to do; doesn't mean that those plans were automatically feasible in any way.

 

A subsequent invasion of Iceland would have further fortrified the Norwegian Sea and extended the security buffer into the North Atlantic. Iceland would finaly allow to interdict Allied sea lines of communication between the USA and Europe with aircraft, which previously could only be achieved with submarines.

 

How exactly would they realistically invade Iceland? It seems pretty much impossible. They had no means to spare to escort let alone perform such a long range airborne invasion and their naval forces (which had like only 3 larger LST's and 14 medium ones in total) would have faired little chance of reaching it against US CVBG's, US and UK subs, US anti-ship cruise missiles from bombers, etc.

 

It is true that in the initial phase of a US-USSR war, Tomcats would be occupied with shooting down bombers and recon aircraft and would not meet any fighters (well perhaps in the Med). But in the second phase according to the Maritime Strategy, USN CVBG would bring the fight to the enemy and attack Soviet outposts (Aden, Cuba, Libya, Vietnam) and the homeland (Murmansk, Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk, Cimea). Then the Tomcat would have met all the fighters of the PVO. The third phase of the Maritime Strategy had then foreseen amphibious landings on the Soviet homeland, which surely would have triggered additional air combat with everything the USSR could muster.

 

Amphibious landings on the Soviet homeland? This also seems too far fetched to be taken seriously (but very welcome for the alternative history scenarios :) ).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Dudikoff

[MBot]

OK, but what would they place in those Norwegian bases? PVO units? They had nothing else and those bases would be very vulnerable to US strikes.

 

Yes PVO units for air cover and of course the recon, ASW and strike units of the Naval Aviation. You have to consider that if the occupation of Norway was a success, it would imply that NATO would have suffered a serious defeat and would be severly weakened in this theater. If NATO would still be strong, Norway would not have been lost in the first place.

 

 

How exactly would they realistically invade Iceland? It seems pretty much impossible. They had no means to spare to escort let alone perform such a long range airborne invasion and their naval forces would have faired little chance of reaching it against US CVBG's, US and UK subs, etc.

 

Again you have to consider that Iceland would (could) only have been attempted if those NATO assets would have destroyed in previous battles ("Battle of the Norwegian Sea"). I know this is improbable. This is actually the point I tried to make in previous posts.

 

 

Amphibious landings on the Soviet homeland? This also seems too far fetched to be taken seriously.

 

You don't have to tell me :) How would the Soviets not go nuclear in this case. But this was the official strategy by the US. You can read it up in the briefing of the Secretary of the Navy by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, which I have linked previously.

[Alicatt]

Probably has a lot to do with "Red Storm Rising" :)

It was this anecdote I was remembering from Tomcat Bye Bye Baby

 

We participated in an exercise in 1982 named Northern Wedding, where we had NATO forces acting as adversaries along with the harsh weather of the North Sea. There was the likelihood of some real adversaries pitching into the fight; the Soviets weren’t going to be happy with American carriers that close to their turf. The Admiral was counting on a robust Soviet reaction, since he was whipping up the most provocative defense posture ever attempted with the Tomcat; he surmised the Soviet Bears would expect to encounter Tomcats at 200 miles from the carrier, making it simple for them to pinpoint the American ships. The plan was to surprise the Russians by intercepting their Bears at the unheard-of distance of 1000 miles, under a mission code-named “Sly Fox.” The package, consisting of Prowlers and tankers with the Toms, would fly under EMCON and keep their radars off, letting the Prowler pinpoint the Bears. At the intercept the supporting aircraft stripped off to let the F-14s slide upside the Bears. They were caught totally off-guard by the unexpected appearance of the American jets. As the Toms camped on the wing, or tight by the rear gunner’s blister, the Bears searched in vain over the cloud cover, trying to hunt down the carrier in thousands of square miles of stormy seas and confusing radar contacts. Sly Fox birds worked under total EMCON – no talk, radar emissions, TACAN, or datalinks. Those Bears really had to labor to find the ship.

 

Parsons, Dave; Hall, George; Lawson, Bob (2011-07-10). Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Bye - Bye Baby...!: Images & Reminiscences From 35 Years of Active Service (Kindle Locations 1165-1175). Motorbooks International. Kindle Edition.

[Dudikoff]

Yes PVO units for air cover and of course the recon, ASW and strike units of the Naval Aviation. You have to consider that if the occupation of Norway was a success, it would imply that NATO would have suffered a serious defeat and would be severly weakened in this theater. If NATO would still be strong, Norway would not have been lost in the first place.

 

Are there actually any Soviet documents openly available documenting such plans? The Norway bases seem pretty exposed to US cruise missile strikes. Furthermore, the Soviet side could have opted to simply render those bases inoperative by various means at their disposal, but this is a highly hypothetical discussion since it would be very hard to keep the conflict from not escalating further once the tactical nukes get used. There were also conventional warheads for various tactical missiles, but I don't think those would have been effective enough.

 

Again you have to consider that Iceland would (could) only have been attempted if those NATO assets would have destroyed in previous battles ("Battle of the Norwegian Sea"). I know this is improbable. This is actually the point I tried to make in previous posts.

 

Is this really an all or nothing situation? The US could have decided to withdraw if suffering some heavy losses to some of their CVBG's and not waste them all there.

[MBot]

I do not have any original Soviet docs on the war plans for the North-Western strategic direction. But as far as I understand it, it is widely accepted that the Soviets would have started an offensive against Norway. It is pretty much the only thing to do in the theater and I have difficulties to imagine that they would not go into the offensive with NATO airbases sitting just 800 Km from the largest concentration of strategic assets in the USSR. Yes any captured Norwegian airbases would be suspectible to attack from the sea (carrier strikes and Tomahawks), but this is no different than the airbases on the Kola. So moving your defensive perimeter out, away from the homeland is exactly what they wanted to do.

 

I do think that the battle for Norway and the Norwegian Sea would have been the decisive battle of the northern flank. If the US would have abandoned the NATO member Norway, it would have send shockwaves through the alliance that could have lost them the war. Basically it would signal every NATO member to negoiate seperate peace with the USSR if under pressure. How much losses the US would have been willing to take in the defence of another nation is a question I cannot answer, but I think they would not have pulled back lightly.

[MBot]

To expand some more on the interesting Norway situation, the country actually had a very special relationship with NATO. The airbases that NATO built for the defence of North Norway (under the pressure of the USA, reluctantly by Norway itself), were the very reason for the USSR to attack it in case of war. Such airbases were a threat to the Kola that the Soviets simply could not ignore, at the same time they offered to possibility to capture and project their own air cover over the Norwegian Sea. I am going out on a limb here and say that would Norway have declared itself neutral, the Soviets would not have attacked it in case of war. But being part of the NATO, Norway always had to find a very delicate ballance between bolstering the alliances defense (and offense especially with regards to the US Maritime Strategy), and giving the USSR the reason to attack it in the first place. I have read some interesting period articles in the past regarding NATO's norther flank. I have to see if I can find those again.

[ESA_maligno]

LN said, the scenery may be used by the F14 ...., but also for the following models, which are supposed to be WWII aircraft ... I think it will be some area where carriers are required and some isolated airport; where they can simulate conflicts of the Cold War and WWII.

 

In addition one of the planes WWII* will be Japanese which focuses on the future map Pacific Ocean or the Indico.

 

:thumbup::thumbup:

[ESA_maligno]

And remember , LN said that one of the models began with F and had an L in its codename ....

 

The F4U- 5NL was the Corsair with a heater to operate in Korea because of the harsh winter , the coldest :

 

Halberstam , David ( 2007) , The Coldest Winter : America and the Korean War

 

This if it would be a good theater, with all aircraft that are already in DCSW

 

Edited May 13, 2015 by ESA_maligno

[Dudikoff]

I am going out on a limb here and say that would Norway have declared itself neutral, the Soviets would not have attacked it in case of war. But being part of the NATO, Norway always had to find a very delicate ballance between bolstering the alliances defense (and offense especially with regards to the US Maritime Strategy), and giving the USSR the reason to attack it in the first place. I have read some interesting period articles in the past regarding NATO's norther flank. I have to see if I can find those again.

 

Well, I'd agree since I've stated earlier that IMHO the Soviet side would probably attack them pretty much only if they felt threatened (e.g. if US actually started deploying some strategic assets there).

 

In the DCS terms, northern Norway (including Bodo), Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia with surrounding sea could make an interesting theater option for the F-14's and F/A-18C's (or even A-7's? :) ). It's rather sparsely populated to say the least so it could perhaps be relatively easy to model (depending on the terrain tools for DCS 2).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Dudikoff

[ESA_maligno]

This is a possibility for the Corsair in Korea :

 

 

 

But this would be best for the Corsair and his Japanese partner ( Raiden or Zero ):

 

 

 

With the ability to recreate great battles that really happened

[MBot]

In the DCS terms, northern Norway (including Bodo), Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia with surrounding sea could make an interesting theater option for the F-14's and F/A-18C's (or even A-7's? :) ). It's rather sparsely populated to say the least so it could perhaps be relatively easy to model (depending on the terrain tools for DCS 2).

 

We are absolutely on the same page :) This would be my most favorite map for DCS.

 

 

In addition, the map could extend 1000 km north and west into the open waters of the Barents and Norwegian Sea to provide the room for naval warfare. This map would not only provide the natural playground for carrier aviation and home fields for various Soviet types, the NATO airbases shown were also earmarked to be reinforced with a multitude of different NATO aircraft (for example USAF Eagles and certainly a lot of Marine Hornets). So this would be a great base map to support many different DCS modules.

 

But looking at the distances, this would still be a large map, especially compared to the tiny Hormuz map. I hope that eventually, someone is going to do this map. But currently I still expect LNS to do an easier cold and oceany Pacific islands chain.

Edited May 13, 2015 by MBot

[Toten]

And remember , LN said that one of the models began with F and had an L in its codename ....

 

The F4U- 5NL was the Corsair with a heater to operate in Korea because of the harsh winter , the coldest :

 

Halberstam , David ( 2007) , The Coldest Winter : America and the Korean War

 

This if it would be a good theater, with all aircraft that are already in DCSW

 

I was looking at the wall map at work and a Korean theater would be similar in size to the Caucus map we currently use. Seems logical, and matches many of the clues given already, including the Rising Sun flag.

[HairyPOOnuggets]

And remember , LN said that one of the models began with F and had an L in its codename ....

 

The F4U- 5NL was the Corsair with a heater to operate in Korea because of the harsh winter , the coldest :

 

Halberstam , David ( 2007) , The Coldest Winter : America and the Korean War

 

This if it would be a good theater, with all aircraft that are already in DCSW

 

I AM ALL for the F-14 Tom, but "IF" they release this ^, or ANY version of the Corsair, the Internet WILL BLOW UP again, and this will be the second hit over the west wall of the bleachers, for a 4 run homer.:megalol:

[Dudikoff]

We are absolutely on the same page :) This would be my most favorite map for DCS.

 

But looking at the distances, this would still be a large map, especially compared to the tiny Hormuz map. I hope that eventually, someone is going to do this map. But currently I still expect LNS to do an easier cold and oceany Pacific islands chain.

 

Yeah, it would be one of the better options for many reasons. One of which is certainly that it would be a much lower density conflict than in e.g. Central Europe which is definitely more suited for DCS and at the same time offer a number of scenario options for all of the modern planes currently available. Plus some very cool scenery to fly over :)

 

IIRC, EF-2000 came with a similar map, although I never really played it and Janes' F-18 was around Kola, too, but more to the north east (no Norway), IIRC.

 

It would be a huge map, but since it's mostly rough and repetitive terrain (means less textures needed to be made maybe), perhaps a lot of the work could be done automatically using the satellite maps and such, but it's just a naive expectation since I don't really know the process of building DCS 2 maps.

 

BTW, here's a potentially interesting analysis related to the theater at hand from the US perspective. It actually pretty much mirrors what you said regarding the Soviet plan for Norway.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a217547.pdf

Edited May 14, 2015 by Dudikoff

[CheckGear]

My take is that we have seen enough of the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape area. I wouldn't mind seeing it again at some point in the future, but, in the debut theater, I'd like to see something we haven't seen a lot of, something a bit more historically relevant.

[CheckGear]

Your point being..? It was just a book, not a NATO contingency plan. The whole WWIII in the 70's / 80's idea is now technically pure fantasy, but it makes for an engaging read / scenarios compared to e.g. shooting down a few obsolete Libyan fighters.

 

Personally, I find that rather boring and would welcome alternative history scenarios with boosted "Evil Empire" numbers and capabilities (as in e.g. Fleet Defender).

 

I always chuckle any time I read statements like these. The enemy is a lethal enemy, whether they're the "Evil Empire" "Unstoppable Juggernaut" USSR or a few obsolete Libyan fighters. Our fighter pilots are stressed every time they encounter a bogey in the skies. What makes combat "thrilling," if that's even an appropriate term, is that you can either emerge victorious or you can go down in flames. Who your adversary ultimately matters little when you get that up close and personal.

 

I understand the desire for alternative history scenarios. Personally, I'd rather have scenarios that are either based on actual events or are speculative scenarios that have an air of plausibility to them. With all the data we have available today, giving the enemy "steroids" ("Evil Empire" USSR) is so fantastic that it would detract greatly from the immersion factor, which is absolutely critical for a game, simulator in particular.

[Dudikoff]

I always chuckle any time I read statements like these. The enemy is a lethal enemy, whether they're the "Evil Empire" "Unstoppable Juggernaut" USSR or a few obsolete Libyan fighters. Our fighter pilots are stressed every time they encounter a bogey in the skies. What makes combat "thrilling," if that's even an appropriate term, is that you can either emerge victorious or you can go down in flames. Who your adversary ultimately matters little when you get that up close and personal.

 

So, to a US pilot it makes absolutely no difference in stress levels whether he's knowingly going up against e.g. a Soviet Su-27 (or to put it in your terms, it is somewhat likely that he might 'go down in flames') or a Libyan export MiG-23MS with poor short range missiles only (he will 'emerge victorious' unless he completely disregards everything he knows about his job and parks his jet's ass just in front of the Libyan pilot)? Respect. But what about an average sim pilot?

 

I understand the desire for alternative history scenarios. Personally, I'd rather have scenarios that are either based on actual events or are speculative scenarios that have an air of plausibility to them. With all the data we have available today, giving the enemy "steroids" ("Evil Empire" USSR) is so fantastic that it would detract greatly from the immersion factor, which is absolutely critical for a game, simulator in particular.

 

I don't really get where you're going with this. WWIII against SU didn't happen so as pointed out already all the scenarios related to it are technically alternate history. What was suggested here that didn't have an 'air of plausibility' in it?

 

My take is that we have seen enough of the North Atlantic/GIUK Gap/North Cape area. I wouldn't mind seeing it again at some point in the future, but, in the debut theater, I'd like to see something we haven't seen a lot of, something a bit more historically relevant.

 

I'm anxious to find out what would be this historically more relevant scenario for a Tomcat compared to the North Atlantic ones.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Dudikoff

[captain_dalan]

I AM ALL for the F-14 Tom, but "IF" they release this ^, or ANY version of the Corsair, the Internet WILL BLOW UP again, and this will be the second hit over the west wall of the bleachers, for a 4 run homer.:megalol:

 

An F4U as well?! :huh:

Please no..... if they did that, my weak heart could not take it! Not with an F-14 at the same time..... and if they added an F-8 in the mix, i think the universe just might implode! :helpsmilie:

 

:megalol: