So..what are you exactly saying? Yes, they could strike targets on the US mainland, if refueled in the air. But that never was their primary objective. Never. Bombing Europe and defending USSR shores from carriers was. In theory you can strike your enemy at any part of the globe with fighters capable of refueling. Doesn't mean that is the unit you'll use in your attack on the target 10000 km from your airfield.
So an aircraft that was designed specifically to defeat the 'best air defenses of any country' would be fairly worthless in a war with the country that possess those air defenses? Get a clue. Out of 850 sorties they shot down one aircraft. I would not call that having 'no problem'.
Then why was it designed with in-flight refueling capability at all? I repeat, it only became a 'eurostrategic' bomber after the in-flight refueling capability had to be removed.
Man, I'll repeat this again, then why fighters have in-flight refueling capability? Why long-range bombers have in-flight refueling capability? That increases their combat perfomance. That doesn't mean fighters are intended to strike a targer on the other side of a globe. Tu-22 could strike the US, doesn't mean they would be used that way. States were just too much worried about "not-so-impressive" bomber and it was decided to approve for removing of refueling probe. They can be re-installed the same way they were removed, so not a big deal. The funny thing is that it was "good" West to invade Korea first. Only then "Empire of Evilz" got involved. I doubt they would actually "revolt". Avaliable only in silly dreams. But yes, their perfomance would be pretty low. And that was pretty irrelevent. USSR by itself had enough firepower to steamroll NATO forces without USA reinforcements.
It would all depend on how successful the Soviets were at interdicting the North Atlantic. If they succeeded, we would lose; if they failed, they would lose.
OK, that's your story and you're sticking to it. Got it. We only 'invaded' Korea when it was liberated from the Japanese. If that's your idea of an invasion, what do you call your post-war presence in Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, etc, etc, etc?
Yep. You didn't expect me to blindly approve anything you say, did you? Seems you don't know about US involvement in Korean War. Which was a civil war, until you decided, that those red commie bustards shouldn't take all Korea. And how would you call that? "Supporting peace and democracy" or another BS desined to justify geopolitical goals? Establishing sattelite states. Problem?
Yea, this has gone about as I expected it would. Little but partisan bickering. I wish the OP had specified a timeframe, then we could have prevented this from being a free-for-all, with people mixing up equipment and other things from several decades and mashing it all together.
Well, I actually think it was pretty stupid for the Soviets to build up as much of their military as they did. I am Communist in the Stalinist sense, and even though I think the Soviet Union would have won ww3, it was not a smart move on their part. The Soviet Union chose to invest in the military while the U.S. invested in consumer products is about as nonpartisian view as you can get. The Cold War turned out to be an economic war, not a war of combat, and the U.S. prevailed. Communism and capitalism had nothing to do with it. Well, I was leaving that for debate on which timeframes you thought relevant, and if they even mattered at all. I don't think it mattered which timeframe was chosen, the result would be the same. I also wanted to have this topic in a broader sense, since most people are unaware (not neccessarily on this specific forum) of Soviet military strategy and technology compared to the West. I also wanted to see how people mashed up equipment from different time periods to detect any biases. A lot of common folk point out some amazing weapon we had and don't realize the Soviet Union usually had an equivalent counterpart to it.
I like imperialism. Just be honest about it, though. The Soviet Union could employ defense in depth tactics with the sattelite states, then the Soviet border was heavily defended all the way to Moscow. This seems better than the hold ground at all costs that West Germany could have employed under a major attack. I don't see the reason why the Soviet Union spent so much on their military if it was only going to be used for defense. I think it was an overreaction to past threats, plus Russia has always spent large amounts on their military so a cultural thing.
I don't know about that. I think if they succeeded, they would definitely win. If they failed, they would have a higher chance of losing, but would still probably win.
The Soviets only had 17 Blackjacks that were operational compared with 66 B-1s. You only need to look at the combat records of Cold War era fighter aircraft to see who is superior... United States F-16 Falcon 76-1-5 Gulf War (USA) 0-0-3 No-Fly Zones (USA) 2-0-0 Bosnia (USA) 4-0-1 Kosovo (USA) 1-0-1 Kosovo (Netherlands) 1-0-0 Kosovo (Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey) 0-0-0 Afghanistan (USA, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) 0-0-0 Iraq (USA) 0-0-0 Syrian border clashes 1979-1986 (Israel) 6-0-0 Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0 Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 44-0-0 Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 3-0-0 Intifada (2000-present) (Israel) 0-0-0 Soviet-Afghan War (Pakistan) 10-0-0 Border clashes (Pakistan) 1-0-0 Kargil War (Pakistan) 0-0-0 Northwest border wars (Pakistan) 0-0-0 Aegean Sea clashes (Turkey) 1-1-0 Venezuelan Coup 1992 (Venezuela) 3-0-0 F-15A/C/I/S Eagle 102-0-0 Gulf War (USA) 32-0-0 Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 2-0-0 Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 2-0-0 Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0 Kosovo (USA) 4-0-0 Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0 Iraq (USA) 0-0-0 Syrian border clashes 1979-1981 (Israel) 19-0-0 Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0 Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 38-0-0 Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 4-0-0 Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0 Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Saudi Arabia) 1-0-0 F-14 Tomcat 135-4-4 Vietnam (1975) (USA) 0-0-0 Gulf of Sidra (USA) (1980) 2-0-0 Lebanon 1983 (USA) 0-0-0 Gulf of Sidra (1986) 0-0-0 Gulf of Sidra (1989) 2-0-0 Gulf War (USA) 1-0-1 Iraq NFZs (USA) 0-0-0 Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0 Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0 Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0 Iraq (USA) 0-0-0 Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 130-4-4 F-4 Phantom 306-106-545 Vietnam War (US Navy) 40-7-66 Vietnam War (USMC) 3-1-74 Vietnam War (USAF) 108-33-337 Desert Storm (USAF) 0-0-1 NFZs (Turkey) 0-0-0 Soviet border clash 1976 (Iran) 1-0-0 Dhofar War (Iran) 0-0-1 Kurdish rebellion (Iran) 0-0-1 Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 68-29-33 Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Iran) 0-1-0 Kurdish Civil War (Iran) 0-0-1 War of Attrition (Israel) 26-3-5 Yom Kippur War (Israel) 55-28-22 Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Israel) 4-3-1 Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 1-1-1 Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-2 Now for Soviet aircraft...on next post.
Soviet fighters in combat.... MiG-21 240-501-[too little information for an accurate count of losses to ground fire] Vietnam War (North Vietnam) 78-95-0 Vietnam War (North Korea) 1-0-0 Vietnam War (USSR) 6-0-0 1967 border clashes (Syria) 0-7-0 Six-Day War (Egypt) 5-13- Six-Day War (Syria) 0-7- Six-Day War (Iraq) 0-1- War of Attrition (Syria) 7-56 War of Attrition (USSR) 0-5-0 War of Attrition (Egypt) 18-93 Yom Kippur War (Syria) 30-26 Yom Kippur War (Egypt) 26-65 Yom Kippur War (Iraq) 1-9 Egypt-Libya Border War (Egypt) 6-1 Soviet-Iranian border clashes (USSR) 1-0-0 Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 5-26 Lebanon War 1982 (Syria) 2-38 Turkish border violation 1986 (Syria) 1-0-0 Ogaden War (Somalia) 1-6 Angola Bush War (Angola) 1-3 Congo Civil War (Zaire) 0-0-0 Congo Civil War (Angola) 0-0-1 Uganda-Tanzania War (Uganda) 0-0-1 Uganda-Tanzania War (Tanzania) 0-0-1 Mozambique Civil War (Mozambique) 1-0-0 Sudanese Civil War (Sudan) 0-0-3 Somali Civil War (Somalia) 0-0-0 Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 0-3 Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 32-40 Gulf War (Iraq) 0-4-0 Indo-Pakistani War 1965 (India) 0-0- Indo-Pakistani War 1971 (India) 6-1- Kargil War (India) 0-0-1 Soviet-Afghan War (Afghanistan) 0-4 Atlantique Incident 1999 (India) 1-0-0 Afghan Civil War 1992-1996 (United Front) 4-0- Afghan Civil War 1992-1996 (Dostum-Gulbuddin Militia) 0-2- Abkhazian War (Georgia) 0-0-0 Nagorno-Karabakh War (Azerbaijan) 0-0-6 Nagorno-Karabakh War (Armenia) 0-0-1 1986 Cuban border incursion (Cuba) 1-0-0 Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0 Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 1-0-7 Croatian War (Croatia) 0-0-1 Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0 Kosovo (Serbia) 1-0-0 Balloon shootdown (Belarus) 1-0-0 1966 US China border violation 1-0-0 1963 US Czech border violation 1-0-0 Korean DMZ (North Korea) 1-0-0 Sa'dah Insurgency (Yemen) 0-0-1 MiG-23 25-102- too little information for an accurate count of losses to ground fire] Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 3-2-0 Lebanon War 1982 (Syria) 1-30- Israeli UAV shootdown 2002 (Syria) 1-0-0 Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 16-56 Gulf War (Iraq) 0-8-0 NFZs (Iraq) 0-1-0 Gulf of Sidra 1989 (Libya) 0-2-0 Egypt-Libya Border War (Libya) 0-2 Soviet-Afghan War (USSR) 0-3 Iran-Afghan border violations (USSR) 4-0-0 Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 0-1 Angola Bush War (Cuba) 0-0-0 MiG-25 8-8-1 War of Attrition 0-0-0 Yom Kippur War 0-0-0 Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Syria) 0-2-0 Iran-Iraq War (Iraq) 5-1-0 Syrian-Iraqi border violation (1986) (Iraq) 1-0-0 Soviet-Iranian border violations (1986-87) (USSR) 0-2-0 Gulf War (Iraq) 1-2-0 MiG-29 6-18-1 Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Syria) 0-2-0 Gulf War (Iraq) 0-5-0 Transnistra War (Moldova, Russia) 0-0-0 Brothers in Rescue incident (Cuba) 2-0-0 Slovenian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0 Croatian War (Yugoslavia) 0-0-0 Bosnia (Serbia) 0-0-0 Kosovo (Serbia) 0-6-0 Kargil War (India) 0-0-0 Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Eritrea) 3-5-0 Georgian border violation 2008 (Russia) 1-0-0 Darfur War (Sudan) 0-0-1 Su-27 6-0-2 Abkhazia War (Russia) 0-0-1 First Chechen War (Russia) 1-0-0 South Ossetia War (Russia) 0-0-0 Ethiopian-Eritrean War (Ethiopia) 5-0-0 Somali Civil War (Ethiopia) 0-0-0 Angolan Civil War (Angola) 0-0-1 NFZs (Iraq) 1-1-0 Nagorno-Karabakh War (Azerbaijan) 0-0-
These are combat records...not simulation, not exercises, combat... The United States and allies using U.S. aircraft have dominated in combat in the arena of fighter superiority...during the Cold War era Whoever controls the skies, wins the wars....
The year is 1985. After a tense year of cold war rhetoric, the Soviet Union decides to attack Western Europe. Insanely/sanely- both sides vow never to use Nukes or other WMD's and both sides wisely stick to it. Battle it out folks- this is the year- the forces should be known.
I read both Red Storm Rising and The Third World War while I was stationed in Germany in the 80's. Red Storm Rising barely brushed on the all important land war, so I found it a bit lacking. Given Clancy's background I guess that's understandable. Hackett's book was quite a bit better in that regard, although I found the win and subsequent break up of the Soviet Union entirely to pat an ending. The Soviet Union break up? Ridiculous!
Do you seriously think NATO was the aggressor pact? Every bit of war gaming I've seen during the Cold War era began with the Soviets pouring through the Fulda Gap. I don't recall a single one of a NATO invasion of the East. That is not how western units were trained in Europe during the Cold War.
That was a piece of poor knowlege. Totally 37 build/ at least 29 serial. Part of them were cut in pieces after USSR collapsed. The whole thing was funded by United States. Seems "superior" US airforce was worried about those inferior planes. Now, yes, only 16 are operational. Same for combat records.The only time super-duper-almighty US airforce met an enemy equal both in training, technology and numbers were Korea. According to Soviet data it resulted in 1106 victories and 335 MiG-15 lost. But yes, good luck trying to sell the same "superiority" story as "superior murican armor" in Iraq. Good kill ratio, no argue about that, but against who? Chineese T-54 copies and a few monkey-engeneered T-72? That looks exactly the same way as T-80 butchering Pershings would look like. I mean,seriously, what else did you expected? Didn't worked for ze Dgormans on Eastern front. Having air superiority till 1944 and still retreating. It is only good, when you do it. And yes, that was partly to being a bit paranoid after WW2, strong influence of the army and domination of heavy inustry in the economy. You think USSR doctrine stated that it wil be the agressor? No. And all military trainings and exercises started with "capitalist pigs" agression.
OK, if it is 1985, then there is little question I would give it to NATO. While the B1 was not "in service", we had around 20 that had been built by this time. We also had around 10-15 F117 attack aircraft. We had the M1 tanks, PATRIOT missiles, Ticonderoga Cruisers, and the BBs back in action. By 1985, the technological edge was shifting strongly onto the side if NATO. While the Warsaw Pact still had the advantage in numbers, the experts were watching this and realizing that in the war that NATO planned to wage, this was simply not enough. And most of this had to deal with end-game. For Warsaw to win, they had to occupy most of Europe, and also neutralize the UK as a threat. However, for NATO to win they only had to hold onto one major nation to provide a base to build up future forces for a counter-thrust. And while in the mid 1980's Warsaw would have almost certainly taken out Germany and part of France, I am aware of no war games that expected them to take out Western France, Italy and Greece. And that is where the response would have come from. While nobody seriously doubts that the Warsaw Pact could have overrun West Germany and most of France, it is the rest of Europe that was seen as the bigger problem.
The B-1 was designed as a low level penetration bomber with nuclear ordnance in mind...In the mid-80's I'm not sure how many were capable of carrying conventional bombs...however... The first operational A-10 squadron appeared in October of 1977...and by the mid 80's..the Warthog would have shredded Soviet armor.... .
The B1 always had the capability to carry conventional weapons, but not to the degree that it was by the 1990's when the conventional weapons upgrades were put in (which largely upgraded her from dropping dumb bombs to PGMs). Mostly it was restricted to large unguided bombs, roughly 2,000 lbs. But with the multiple upgrades in order to comply with the arms reduction treaties by reducing the numbers of nuclear bombers, this was given even more importance.
Even as a nuclear bomber, the B-1 shifted in its design from a high-fast penetrator to a low-level, low-observable,radar-based platform. If all it's going to be is bomb truck in this hypothetical mid-80's conventional war between two factions, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, the B-52 can carry the same ECM and is protected by the same fighter cover... I don't see any strategic advantage to the B-1 in a conventional war quite frankly. Like the A-10 tank killer, the B-1 was designed with the Cold War in mind, as a deterrent. Able to penetrate deeply into Soviet airspace and drop nuclear ordnance...used conventionally, with a loadout of dumb bombs as would be typical in the mid-1980's...I don't see the advantage.over a high flying B-52 protected by both ECM and fighters like the F-15 Eagle. F/A-18 Hornet, F-16 Falcon or F-14 Tomcat..the Eagle is a fighter by the way, which has never lost an air-to-air engagement. I don't think the Soviets could counter it, certainly not with what was available...between the Mig-29 and Su-27/30. The biggest threat is surface-to-air, and aircraft like the F-117 could be used in a SEAD role to take out enemy air defenses In terms of armor, the A-10 and AH-64 Apache would have had their way...on an open battlefield against vulnerable Soviet tank formations. Combine that with the M1 Abrams on the ground, and frankly there is little doubt in my mind, who would come out the victor. Not saying it wouldn't be bloody...of course..for both sides.
It is more maneuverable and responsive then the BUFF, so it could be used in a limited fashion in penetration missions. It's capabilities as a penetration bomber (nape of the earth navigation) could also be used for conventional bombing of critical targets behind enemy lines, like major logistics bases (specifically fuel depots) and C&C centers. I do not think the Lancers would be utilized as "bomb trucks" like the BUFFS would be, but they would definitely be more survivable for specific missions where fighter-bombers of the era could not carry enough ordinance, and our regular bombers would likely not survive the penetration to the target.
Using a golf analogy... It's like having say a 3-wood in the bag...you're going to use the Driver more, but when you need a 3-wood, it works better than a Driver. I can agree with that.
